# Start Thinking about 6th Edition



## morfangdakka (Dec 31, 2006)

With GW releasing the 8th version for fantasy there is a good chance that GW has probably started working on the 6th version for 40K for a release date in late 2012 or 2013. So of course I want to know what will GW probably do to 40K and what would we as gamers like them to do with the game?

Anything stick out as likely changes the GW will do or you want them to do?


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

It'll either be a continuation of 5th with some tweaks (a la 3rd-4th Ed changes) or they're going to massively shift the dynamic a la 8th Fantasy. Given the (from what I can see on the internet) approximately 70% approval rate for the latest version of Fantasy, it would be a bit of a risk on their part, but possible.

I wish I could say they were going to move away from Mech being the only viable archetype, but I think it makes them too much money for them to ever change that again. Shame, really.

If there's one thing I would like to see, it would be the removal of powerfist sniping of characters in combat, it really ruins what ought to be climactic battles.

"Lucius the Eternal, who can never truly die, having fought his way through enemies for over 10,000 years, charges out of his personal Land Raider with his Bodyguard of handpicked Terminator bodyguards into a depleted squad of Tactical Marines... and gets punched in the face by some random Sergeant and promptly falls over and has to be carried off-field by a medic." 25pt Upgrade > Special Character. Not fun, not narrative, not interesting.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

I can't think of anything I really want them to change for 6th edition. The current edition is very good, I could only see them tweaking the rules rather then a full overhaul.

I'm more concerned with how the codexs will change in 6th edition rather then the actual 6th edition itself.


----------



## Master WootWoot (Oct 17, 2010)

Maybe the next starter set will be SM vs Necrons?


----------



## warsmith7752 (Sep 12, 2009)

Maybe they could lower prices.... Dreaming aside, I would really like to see things more balanced in terms of army favouritism by Gw, because don't you just hate it when you are rolling a gk or necron force and you open up your white dwarf to see these all to familiar words, SPESS MUHRINES.

Although I personally collect Sm so I don't mind them getting updated but I'm speakin on behalf of my gk and other neglected army collecting friends.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Bring back save modifers for weapons that don't quite deserve to be power weapons, but need a little something to make them preferable to close combat weapons. Similar to fantasy, Str 4 = -1 save, Str 5 = -2 save etc.

Every Codex should have a few scenarios for that race on it, like 2nd ed. Tyranids with 'The Trap', 'Terrorise' and 'Tyranid Attack'. Bring back Annihilate, Dawn Raid, High Ground, Assassins/Witch Hunt, Guerilla War and Capture and Control/Seize Ground!

Midnight


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Main change I hope they keep is the True line of sight rules.

My only main wish is to bring back victory points in place of kill points. Bringing alternate scenarios apart from seize ground and anhiliation battles would be good like 3rd ed when there were secondary objectives like in Blitz you had to get to the second line over no mans land.

Other wishlisting opportunities is not to release marine codexes inbetween xenos races. It gets really boring, there is not too much difference between many of them and we all know there are more xenos than imperialist forces out there.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

They will change 1 or 2 minor things, reprint the rulebook, tell everyone the old one is worthless and out of date, and charge $200 for the new one.

5th is actually a decent edition.
Yes, it still has flaws, but its better than the past 2 editions.
There is nothing that is significantly broken, and if they keep pumping out FAQ's more reguarly then it could become a good rules set.

But sadly, that doesn't make money for GW.
Even if the rules were absolutely PERFECT, they would still change them.
Change = Money.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

KingOfCheese said:


> They will change 1 or 2 minor things, reprint the rulebook, tell everyone the old one is worthless and out of date, and charge $200 for the new one.
> 
> 5th is actually a decent edition.
> Yes, it still has flaws, but its better than the past 2 editions.
> ...


I prefer 3rd to 5th.
It's like comparing Master of Puppets to Load.
Sure, it's still Metallica, kinda, but...


----------



## comrade (Jun 30, 2008)

Drop Kill points,

Bring back Victory points.


----------



## ohiocat110 (Sep 15, 2010)

Victory points or something instead of kill points. Kill points make no sense and cripple perfectly good builds for a lot of armies. 

Also anything that allows for easier cracking of armor being a Nid player. :wink:


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

Let something other than troops hold objectives. To me it makes no sense that a militia unit is capable of controlling an objective, whilst a group of elite, professional soldiers cannot. I wouldn't go so far as to make everything scoring, perhaps just infantry? Or troops + infantry?


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

I think a wider variety of missions is needed. Victory points arent gone though. The rules are still in the book, you can still agree to play with them with a friend. 

Maybe make tanks a little easier to kill with normal weapons, and tone down melta in some way. 

Do something about true LoS. The 4th edition system was more enjoyable, it just made the game easier to play, and toned shooting down. Ive had people able to see 1/40th or so of the hull of a falcon, 4+ cover, when the shot is practically impossible. I play loganwing, I know what not being able to hide from ranged weapons has done to the game.


----------



## Coffeemug (Jan 4, 2008)

5th is .....ok at best. Not sure if I agree that assault type units need MORE cover, BUT do agree that true los has more flaws than benifits. Its to objective to the person and seems to start more arguments than it resolves. 

I would like to see Size come back into play- at least for cover and buildings. I do like how area terrane works in 5th. 

Tanks need to come down slightly in power- or guns need to be able to do more damage, add in more modifiers like AP3 +1 AP2 +2 AP1+ 3 - i duno.


Get rid of No Retreat wounds-Fearless is a curse 

KP are fine- it's 1/3 of the games you play. If you only play KP style games I would say that you have to narow of a focus on the game, and it forces you to build a more balanced force. 

Troops as scoring-Not sure about this, it falls under the same kind of thing as the KP argument. 

Heck just revamp the whole game. Screw the norm make all infantry able to move shoot run and assault and kick and screem.

Make tanks unkillable hulks of doom shooting 3000 shots per turn. Heck lets remove turns and just make it a free for all dice chucking fest. 

thats what I want


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Coffeemug said:


> Tanks need to come down slightly in power- or guns need to be able to do more damage, add in more modifiers like AP3 +1 AP2 +2 AP1+ 3 - i dunno.


Perfect, lets make razorspam and missile spam ever more effective. I always thought it would be fun to completely bone over IG.

Really though, I don't think the rules need a major reworking, just a few minor tweaks.


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

I don't want a new edition... just new codeci.

I like 5th.

I'd otherwise say drop objectives and make it only Kill Points.


----------



## Cowlicker16 (Dec 7, 2010)

The only big thing I want to see is assaulting from deep strike, it is practically useless to bring things in close to the enemy knowing that they get to shoot at you before you can get to them.

other then that I like this edition


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

That is the risk of deep strike! It is direct but you do spend a turn staying still.

That is a stupid proposal allowing assaulting deep strikers.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

ROT said:


> I don't want a new edition... just new codeci.
> 
> I like 5th.
> 
> I'd otherwise say drop objectives and make it only Kill Points.


I agree with ROT here (except the KP part, I really cant say I like KP).
5th is the edition Ive liked best since 2nd by far. I wish, hope and believe that they actually will release a codex for each army again. Its about bloody time. Even more so when they actually make them good again (both with content, models and rules)


----------



## shadowzarch (Mar 16, 2010)

get rid of KP please...for the love of god.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Stephen_Newman said:


> That is the risk of deep strike! It is direct but you do spend a turn staying still.
> 
> That is a stupid proposal allowing assaulting deep strikers.


The problem is you have a lot of units that can deep strike, but it's useless to do it as the units can't assault. Assault Marines spring to mind, whats the point of DS'ing them when they land and can't do shit?

Deep striking doesn't offer to much utility at the moment and needs to be looked at.


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

I don't see why people hate KP.

Annihilation games are so much more fun than objective games.

Sitting on an objective for 5 turns is fucking boring. Get rid of that shit asap, it's supposed to be a war. I well and truly think Objectives ruin warhammer.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

it's amazing how much whining there is about killpoints, when it is a simple matter of balancing your army inste4ad of taking "deathstar" unots.

I think that rules like overwatch should be reintroduced, deepstrike needs tweaking to make it more useful to assault units, and GW's general mindset towards pointcosts needs adjusting.

Take the ba codex for example, a hand flamer should either be 5 points more than a flamer and the same strength and ap, or the same cost with the reduced strength and worse ap, but to knock it down and raise the point cost is absurd. the pistol it replaces has a higher strength and better ap, that should be factored in. throughout the game there are little things like that that seem like they didn't consider that by both charging an increased cost for a piece of wargear/usr and having a downside to the wargear/usr, they are effectively adding points to a unit that the unit isn't worth.

Another bit I would like to see is the x/y toughness granted by wargear/chaos marks. just give the model the extra point, balance isn't served by giving them a partial point of extra toughness, especially when the game has gained a bit more poisoned weapons, such as splinter weapons, sniper weapons and vehicles like the bane wolf, all of which the extra point of toughness you pay a premium for are negated, so at least allow it to prevent instant death/allow fnp.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

ROT said:


> I don't see why people hate KP.


Nor do I. Kill points are fair because you have to destroy an entire unit to get a point. Victory points on the other hand distort the outcome of a game, and penalise armies like my footslogging Orks where there are a lot of large units.

For instance in an annihilation game against Tau I won 6-4 on Kill points, yet he took 668 victory points to my 636. So if the outcome of the game had been on victory points alone my opponent would have won despite being the worst player, simply because his army had smaller, cheaper units than mine.

That said, I don't think 6th edition will be out till 2014/2015 at the earliest, simply because 5th edition has been a major revision and GW will keep it in service far longer than was the case with 4th.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

I'm sure there'd be others if I thought about it more, but here's two off the top of my head... 


*1.)* *Kill points*, as it is anyway, needs to go. Killing my 30+ point ork trukk is equal to killing a 250+ point land raider??? What? :threaten: Who at GW thought _*that*_ was a good idea? On the other hand, I'm not sure I want VP's back either. In a game that already takes a while to play I never really enjoyed taking time to calculate things at the end just to figure out who was the winner. It'd be nice if GW could come up with a happy medium between these two systems. 


*2.)* *True line of sight.* I know I speak _*heresy*_ when I say this... but I'm in the right place to do this right?  Honestly though... I don't like this rule. I'd prefer something less ambiguous. Nothing irks me more than having to break out the old laser pointer to settle a dispute. It's like when I played war with sticks as a kid. "Bang, I got you." "No you didn't!" "Yes I did!!" Etc. IMO, the ambiguous nature of this rule breeds to many arguments (i.e. my line of sight is a _little_ different that your sight).

I know, I know... if there's a disagreement the BBB says to downgrade the cover save by 1 and call it good, but this still leaves the game open to arguments. I hate games that come down to that one key moment where your opponent is arguing that 50% of his vehicle is covered when you can see it's clearly not. I know GW is like, "just don't argue guys, have fun, get along, and play nicely" but unless they can find a way to mind control everyone who plays this game, there's _going_ to be disagreements. It's just the world we live in.

I'd like to see GW continue to strive for a system that doesn't leave _*any*_ or _*very little*_ room for argument. The game is already like that in many, many ways. For example, no one argues over the strength of a lascannon, or the armor save of a space marine, or if a certain weapon allows a model to take an armor save, or how many inches that dreadnought can run this turn, etc. Those aspects of the system are closed and not open for interpretation. Creating a game system like this is not only enjoyable because of all the intense combat action, but because it's as argument free as possible. 

I know creating a system like this is not easy, but as long as GW's going to continue creating and releasing new editions to make money (they are a business after all), I would hope they continued working hard at this. It's not enough, IMO, to just tell everyone to play nice.


----------



## jesse (Sep 29, 2008)

I think the deep strike rules need to be expanded upon.
youre telling me that if my X unit falls out of the sky at a unidentifiable velocity, and slams into a squad of ripper swarms, then my unit is destroyed but the ripppers suffer no damage what so ever?

lame


----------



## Desecai (Nov 10, 2010)

I'd like to see at least one objective mission where you tally points at the end of each turn for holding objectives, that way you can't just rush them at the end of the game and win.


----------



## Flindo (Oct 30, 2010)

Id really like them to make a magic phase and to flesh out magic more, because as of right now it is too basic.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Uber Ork said:


> I'm sure there'd be others if I thought about it more, but here's two off the top of my head...
> 
> 
> *1.)* *Kill points*, as it is anyway, needs to go. Killing my 30+ point ork trukk is equal to killing a 250+ point land raider??? What? :threaten: Who at GW thought _*that*_ was a good idea? On the other hand, I'm not sure I want VP's back either. In a game that already takes a while to play I never really enjoyed taking time to calculate things at the end just to figure out who was the winner. It'd be nice if GW could come up with a happy medium between these two systems.


The only real happy medium would be giving a kill point for every hundred points or so that you take out, with stuff under 100 points giving one kill point anyway, so the Land Raider would net you two to the Trukk's one. Beyond that I don't think there is one. Victory points simply don't reflect the outcome of a game accurately enough.




Uber Ork said:


> *2.)* *True line of sight.* I know I speak _*heresy*_ when I say this... but I'm in the right place to do this right?  Honestly though... I don't like this rule. I'd prefer something less ambiguous. Nothing irks me more than having to break out the old laser pointer to settle a dispute. It's like when I played war with sticks as a kid. "Bang, I got you." "No you didn't!" "Yes I did!!" Etc. IMO, the ambiguous nature of this rule breeds to many arguments (i.e. my line of sight is a _little_ different that your sight).
> 
> I know, I know... if there's a disagreement the BBB says to downgrade the cover save by 1 and call it good, but this still leaves the game open to arguments. I hate games that come down to that one key moment where your opponent is arguing that 50% of his vehicle is covered when you can see it's clearly not. I know GW is like, "just don't argue guys, have fun, get along, and play nicely" but unless they can find a way to mind control everyone who plays this game, there's _going_ to be disagreements. It's just the world we live in.
> 
> ...


The best way to deal with someone like that is to call in third-party adjuication. Either that or call the guy on it, get him to come round to your side and look. If he's still insisting it's in cover when it isn't then seriously I wouldn't play him again.


----------



## FlowAndEbb (Dec 25, 2010)

For the KP dispute, why don't we just use the real point cost of the unit killed? You wouldn't count the points per model until the entire unit is destroyed. That way you're really earning 250+ points for killing a 250+ point unit. Sure it'd take a bit more time to calculate but I think that'd be the best way.


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

FlowAndEbb said:


> For the KP dispute, why don't we just use the real point cost of the unit killed? You wouldn't count the points per model until the entire unit is destroyed. That way you're really earning 250+ points for killing a 250+ point unit. Sure it'd take a bit more time to calculate but I think that'd be the best way.


We did that for years. It's called Victory Points. It's how fantasy works, and half the time we call it a draw because we can't be arsed figuring out who won. I prefer kill points to victory points; it's just easier, but I reckon the best change to the victory point system would be to make dedicated transports not count as a KP in themselves, and maybe have a sliding scale for VPs based on the cost of the unit. Although this may have the same inherent problems of VPs.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Kill point are fair, so they should be the standard system.

For anyone who's going to say what if their list doesn't have too many kill points, I can safely say that if they've only got six or seven kill points then their army will be so small that they'll struggle to win games.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Or just filled out with max numbers of people in units. Bet you didn't think of that?

Actually pushing in the KP direction may allow people to STOP TAKING TRANSPORTS!


----------



## Nave Senrag (Jul 8, 2010)

Personally, I'd prefer a combination of KPs and VPs. Something based on the actual value of the unit. That way a Space Marine tactical squad is worth more than my squad of guard, but less than say, a Necron monolith. Even a system as basic as a scale of 1-5 would be nice. It would make the game more complex, but it would be interesting to also have points awarded based on the value of the unit when it was killed. That way, the space marine squad would be worth 3 while my guard squad would be 1, and the Monolith 5. But while my squad was on an objective, it would be worth 3.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Stephen_Newman said:


> Or just filled out with max numbers of people in units. Bet you didn't think of that?
> 
> Actually pushing in the KP direction may allow people to STOP TAKING TRANSPORTS!


Trust me, four more Chaos Marines and an extra Obliterator wouldn't have made a great difference in the games I'm thinking of.

As for KPs allowing people to STOP TAKING TRANSPORTS, great!


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

In KP, aren't transports worth a kill point? That's how I play.

So some douche taking his entire army in metal boxes (I know a guy whose entire army starts out like that) possibly suffers the backfire of getting hit by, let's say, a railgun (buh-BAYUM), losing the transport and the guys inside it.

That way, there's a toss up. Like there should be. Everything should have a risk outside of point costs.

*Edit: woo, post 200 *


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

By way of VP, I'd quite like it if it had the system of 1-100pts unit worth 1pt if you destroy it, 0 if you bring it to half strength, 101-200pts unit worth 2pts if you destroy it, 1 if you bring it to half strength etc.

Midnight


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

That could work, but it'd be kinda complicated for the younger players.


----------



## Capt.Al'rahhem (Jan 24, 2009)

Alsojames said:


> That could work, but it'd be kinda complicated for the younger players.


If they can't figure that out, or VP for that matter, how do they add up an army list or understand the rules at all.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

:goodpost:

Midnight


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Half-strength points are stoopids.

I hate the game, I hope 6e radically changes ALL the rules, and makes it impossible to Rules Lawyer, or use the exact same list as ANY other player in the world!!

I hope all players die! And get replaced by people I like!

...

No, wait. I mean - this is the best the game has ever been, only minor cosmetic changes necessary (such as - If an IC has a Dedicated Transport, then they can be joined by a unit, not only the other way around.)


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

The Sullen One said:


> Kill point are fair, so they should be the standard system.


I see that you are a snakebite, but try to see this from an evil sunz perspective. 


I've played with basically the same force since 3 edition when codex armageddon first came out. I've always loved the idea of orks zipping around at breakneck speed to get into the thick of it. 

I've played my list for all those years mainly cause I love to play it fluff wise -- think mad max road warrior/beyond thunder dome and think the bad guys on all those rusty vehicles and you got what I picture every time I take to the table top.  The list consists of 5 units of boyz, 1 of nobs, 6 trukks, 9 buggies (taking up 3 FA slots), and 2 HQ's that ride with the boyz.

That gives me a total of 17 kill points (6 for the boyz & nobz, 6 for the trukks, 3 for the buggies, & 2 for the HQ's). 

I don't play the list cause it's super competitive (although I do alright with it), but because I enjoy it... that is... until 5th edition and kill points. 


In theory armies are supposed to be equal based on points cost. My 2,000 points should be equal to my opponents 2,000 points. However, if he's only got 10 KP on the table, our armies are "equal," but he's got 7 less KP's on the table! Take into account that 9 of my KP's are AV10 open topped vehicles and tell me how KP's "are fair?"


Again... as I said earlier. Killing a 250+ land raider should not be equal to killing a 30+ point trukk, yet that's exactly what it is in a KP mission. So it is with that, I feel KP's are not fair and need to go (at least as they currently are written).


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Value of unit and KPs worth:

1-100: 1KP
101-200: 2KP
201-300: 3KP
301-400: 4KP

etc etc

On the plus side: The effort put into killing 10 TH/SS is now proportional to the reward.

On the downside it penalises fragile but expensive units slightly. Maybe try playing the above system in a game or two and see how it works out?


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

I consider KPs as a system to be fair.

Also, they are written into the SW Codex - they are not going anywhere.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I do not. I played a game recently where I fielded a 12 kill point army compared to his 7 points.

Despite the fact he had only 2 scouts left by the end I lost because he claimed 8 kill points off me. That is hardly fair since he was left with practically nothing.

There needs to be a balance here before every list turns into horde armies of big numbers of fearless guys.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Stephen_Newman said:


> I do not. I played a game recently where I fielded a 12 kill point army compared to his 7 points.
> 
> Despite the fact he had only 2 scouts left by the end I lost because he claimed 8 kill points off me. That is hardly fair since he was left with practically nothing.
> 
> There needs to be a balance here before every list turns into horde armies of big numbers of fearless guys.


How many points did you play?

And only one army is capable of that, Orks. Orks are hardly the best army in 40k, being, as they are, worse than over half the others.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I play Eldar. Factor in those wave serpents and the points soon click.

I was playing 1500 points.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Stephen_Newman said:


> I play Eldar. Factor in those wave serpents and the points soon click.
> 
> I was playing 1500 points.


Sure, but Wave Serpents aren't easy KPs at the best of times, and Eldar suck at 1500 points, especially against 5e Codexes. :wink:


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Uber Ork said:


> That gives me a total of 17 kill points (6 for the boyz & nobz, 6 for the trukks, 3 for the buggies, & 2 for the HQ's).
> 
> I don't play the list cause it's super competitive (although I do alright with it), but because I enjoy it... that is... until 5th edition and kill points.


Time to adapt. It can be annoying, but it's necessary when there's an edition change unless you want to deal with these exact sort of problems.



> Again... as I said earlier. Killing a 250+ land raider should not be equal to killing a 30+ point trukk, yet that's exactly what it is in a KP mission. So it is with that, I feel KP's are not fair and need to go (at least as they currently are written).


Naw, problem is that the fluff list of "everybody in Trukks" doesn't work well in 5th. Balanced lists get you screwed minimally.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

Kill points are fair - and I speak as someone who plays an entirely mechanised AV11 army.

My 1'500 point list has 13 KP - more than those Eldar. And if I ever start to piss and moan about that fact, I fully expect someone to point out that it's my choice.

Fielding an all-mechanised army gives me a concrete advantage on the table.
It also gives me a concrete disadvantage - 13 kill points.

I know both of these things and I accept them.

Moreover, while (say) Five Stormtroopers and one Land Raider are not equally valuable, it doesn't matter because Kill Points represent _oppertunity cost_ and are not tallied until the end of the match.

If on turn one, you loose a Land Raider and your enemy looses a squad of five Stormtroopers - you've both lost one KP - however, that is irrelevant on turn one. What does matter is that you, having lost a Land Raider, are materially worse off for the remainder of the game, and therefore less likely to take additional Kill Points.


In addition - Kill Points encourage you to use your grand units to lead from the front. It's more heroic and more fun. VP make it much more tempting to leave your 300 point deathstar cowering in the back field lest it be destroyed. That's hardly in-genre.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

Balanced lists are balanced. Therfore you don't have any glaring weaknesses, but no outstanding strengths, either.

minimal screwedness.

However, I think people these days (I'm looking at the kiddies) are too cowardly/not good enough strategists yet, so they take an assload of transports because they don't know how to use cover.

And, unfortunately, most of the people at my LGS are young (roughly 60-70%) and use this tactic. There is, however, one guy who I think is 11 or 12 who tank shocks the crap out of me then drops his troops off...smart. But nobody else does that.

COWARDS IN THEIR METAL BOXES PEE MEE OFF


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Speed freak orks just suck, anyway you slice it.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Alsojames said:


> Balanced lists are balanced. Therfore you don't have any glaring weaknesses, but no outstanding strengths, either.
> 
> minimal screwedness.


Awesome post! I love it so mu--



> However, I think people these days (I'm looking at the kiddies) are too cowardly/not good enough strategists yet, so they take an assload of transports because they don't know how to use cover.


Yes, because staying inside a transport where you literally can't be shot is a worse idea than standing behind cover where you can still potentially be shot.



> And, unfortunately, most of the people at my LGS are young (roughly 60-70%) and use this tactic.


Good kids. :victory:



> COWARDS IN THEIR METAL BOXES PEE MEE OFF


PLAYERS THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND TACTICS PEE ME OFF.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

It sounds like you like my post XD

Also, transports can explode. Transports which can be used on other things.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Alsojames said:


> It sounds like you like my post XD
> 
> Also, transports can explode. Transports which can be used on other things.


One Strength 4 hit on each model embarked in the transport is often a whole lot less devastating than being exposed to a turn of fire from the enemy army. I know what I'd pick.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

...Touche, miss Drake.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

I think this is very relevant


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

Yesh. Blame 5th Edition.

Honestly, though, I liked the way 4th edition tanks blew up. I liked 2 charts better than 1 chart and a -2 modifier if you glance.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> One Strength 4 hit on each model embarked in the transport is often a whole lot less devastating than being exposed to a turn of fire from the enemy army. I know what I'd pick.


Ooh! Ooh!

I know what I would like to see changed in 6e. Being inside a tank that explodes should be *BAD NEWS*.

Possibly some manner of chart to roll on, with a six being total annihilation for everyone inside.


----------



## AresXero (Dec 6, 2008)

The main things I would change are true line of sight, just causes more problems than it solves and I would go back to the negative leadership modifiers from shooting, 5th ed has got far too assault heavy in my opinion. And yes I play blood angels so I know I'm countering my own army, but I really think that this edition is won/lost in the assualt phase.


----------



## Auretious Taak (May 27, 2010)

Alsojames said:


> Balanced lists are balanced. Therfore you don't have any glaring weaknesses, but no outstanding strengths, either.


Man talk about playing boring armies. True generals take stupid lists with more weaknesses then strengths and still win at least 50% of their games. 



> However, I think people these days (I'm looking at the kiddies) are too cowardly/not good enough strategists yet, so they take an assload of transports because they don't know how to use cover.


Ummm have you heard of BOARD CONTROL?

What about MOBILE COVER?

What about INCREASED SURVIVABILITY?

What about MOBILITY = MR FOOT MAN WITH NO CONCEPT OF ADVCANCED STRATEGIC PLAY REACTING TO ME AND ME ONLY AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND BECAUSE HE CAN'T KEEP UP WITH ME AND INDEED HAS FAILED TO GRASP THE CONCEPTS OF BASIC WARFARE.

FORCE MULTIPLIERS.

REDUNDANCY.

MOBILITY.

SUPPRESSION.

CONTROL OF THE BATTLEFIELD.



> And, unfortunately, most of the people at my LGS are young (roughly 60-70%) and use this tactic.


So...the old people really do go senile in their old age?



> There is, however, one guy who I think is 11 or 12 who tank shocks the crap out of me then drops his troops off...smart.


You just like beating him.



> But nobody else does that.


Hence why you keep losing to them and seem to think that bitching to people who know how to play and indeed are laughing at your incompetent nerd raging self are going to actually sugar coat the truth for you. Well no. That's not how it works.

LEARN TO PLAY OR BE PREPARED TO HAVE PEOPLE TELL IT AS IT IS AS I'VE JUST DONE!



> COWARDS IN THEIR METAL BOXES PEE MEE OFF


I CAN CAPSLOCK TOO AND I BELIEVE IT'S CERAMITE NOT METAL!!!

ALSO LEARN TO SPELL ME CORRECTLY.

FOOLS WHO THINK THEY KNOW IT ALL THEN BAG OUT KIDS WHO ARE BARELY OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE THEIR NUTS FALL BECAUSE THEY PLAY INTELLIGENTLY AND THESE FOOLS WHO COMPLAIN DON'T, PISS ME OFF!!!

Ahem.

I blame Katie. And Fester. It's Festers fault, no really.

Auretious Taak.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

I agree, true line of sight is pure shit.

I also agree, blame katie and fester


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

Azezel said:


> Ooh! Ooh!
> 
> I know what I would like to see changed in 6e. Being inside a tank that explodes should be *BAD NEWS*.
> 
> Possibly some manner of chart to roll on, with a six being total annihilation for everyone inside.


 
YES. OH GAWD YES.

I think it's strange how a bunch of lightly armored Guardsmen can survive their transport asploding from a Railgun shot. ODDITY.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> I agree, true line of sight is pure shit.
> 
> I also agree, blame katie and fester


Yeah, it is. I actually preferred the abstract way it was done in 4th. Children didn't understand, but children don't understand much and probably shouldn't be playing anyway.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Back in yonder times it was pretty bad with the transports. Tank got a penetrating hit you hopped out and took a pinning check. Tank exploded and your unit was basically fucked. I like the current system. A guard tank exploding still likely means both a pinning and moral check. This system balances out. Besides, make transports shitty and then horde armies become prevalent. So you get people complaining about how the $400 they spent on rhinos was wasted, and more of what is a seriously shitty archetype everywhere.


----------



## Auretious Taak (May 27, 2010)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> Besides, make transports shitty and then horde armies become prevalent. So you get people complaining about how the $400 they spent on rhinos was wasted, and more of what is a seriously shitty archetype everywhere.


Yeah but then I can bring back my foot marine horde...90 marines at 1500pts, it was, truely epic. Heck, have run a space wolf one recently and it just makes peoples minds explode massed GH Melta and maxed LF Missile spam and thena cart load of bolter fire and then scouts with an MG and then combi-melta WG in each unit, tri melta+Bolters in GH units woot. Combat is a bit crap but plenty more bodies where that came from and not crappy gaunt/gaurd fodder either. 

Cheers,

Auretious Taak.

P.S. Summing my previous post up, If you get clubbed like a baby seal, don't go bitching to the interwebz about it and highlight why you get clubbed and how you hate it but are too stupid to actually go out and do something about it and analyse the losses and what you are doing wrong to actually improve your game. If massed transports takes no skill and is so boring and noobish, why are you still losing to those style lists?


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

I think I can summarize the issue:

GW cannot make a system that can strike a 'perfect' balance. There will always be at least ONE issue with the system. The system is systematically corrupted.

/thread.

EDIT: Taak, I beat that guy with the tank shock tactic. 4 times. In a row. I lost the first 2 games.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Alsojames said:


> I think I can summarize the issue:
> 
> GW cannot make a system that can strike a 'perfect' balance. There will always be at least ONE issue with the system. The system is systematically corrupted.


And because perfection is impossible, it's necessary to adapt to each ruleset as it comes out. Failure to do so results in getting screwed.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

I think we've got it. /Thread.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

True line of sight is just fine as-is.

If you can see it, you can shoot it. If you can see less than half of it, it gets a cover save. How easy is that?

I read the old system, it didn't make a lick of sense, and it favoured armies with good armour saves (or more accurately, it unfairly penalised armies with poor armour saves).


----------



## Auretious Taak (May 27, 2010)

Alsojames said:


> EDIT: Taak, I beat that guy with the tank shock tactic. 4 times. In a row. I lost the first 2 games.


So...you beat this one guy 2 out of 3 games...and now you are supposedly awesome as a player?

Nope.

Doesn't work that way, especially when you DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW BLOODY GOOD MOBILE ARMIES ARE AND HOW DAMNED GOOD BOARD CONTROL IS.

MOVEMENT BLOCKING.

There's some homework for you, go learn about how movement blocking will make you start winning more and more games against EVERYONE not just the locals to your area, as in everyone worldwide.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)




----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

Auretious Taak said:


> So...you beat this one guy 2 out of 3 games...and now you are supposedly awesome as a player?
> 
> Nope.
> 
> ...


 
Did I SAY I was an awesome player?

Nope.

I just said I beat him 2/3 games because you assumed I was losing. I just said I beat the guy.

Stop assuming stuff -_____-

EDIT: Haterade, those things make me lol.


----------



## Auretious Taak (May 27, 2010)

@Alsojames, lets jump back to page 6 then:



Alsojames said:


> Balanced lists are balanced. Therfore you don't have any glaring weaknesses, but no outstanding strengths, either.
> 
> minimal screwedness.
> 
> ...


Learn to play and stop calling good players cowards for handing your arse on a platter you baby seal you!


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> Yeah, it is. I actually preferred the abstract way it was done in 4th. Children didn't understand, but children don't understand much and probably shouldn't be playing anyway.


True statement here.
TLoS is too easily manipulated by ass-hats who put waaay too much ego into the game.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

Okay Taak. I'll spell it out:

1. That player tank shocked the crap out of me, which is being rephrased to *tank shocking was his principal tactic.* Once I figured out how to counter it, he could not come up with a counter to that.

2. Just because a tactic pisses me off doesn't mean I don't know how to play the game. I didn't win 4 games against this one guy (which weren't the only games I've won in my 4 year Warhammer career) by winging it on the rules.


3. I never claimed to be an awesome player for beating this guy. It was simply he could not come up with a counter to my counter to his tank shock.


----------



## Auretious Taak (May 27, 2010)

Alsojames said:


> Okay Taak. I'll spell it out:


Nah I'll spell it out in your own words paraphrased:

I HATE PEOPLE WHO KNOW HOW TO USED MASSED TRANSPORTS PROPERLY OR EVEN SEMI PROPERLY BECAUSE THEY'VE READ MORE WIDELY THEN ME AND KNOW HOW TO BUILD AT LEAST A SEMI COMPETITIVE LIST. THEY ARE COWARDS. COWARDS WHO HIDFE IN THEIR METAL BAWKS'S WHICH I CAN'T HURT. I LIKE THE GUY WHO TANK SHOCKED ME THEN HOPPED OUT AFTERWARDS. HE WAS SMART. I COULD BEAT HIM. THE OTHER KIDDIES I HATE CAUSE 60-70% OF THEM ARE YOUNG YOUNG, AND PLAY WITH MASSED TRANSPORTS AND I CAN'T BEAT THEM OTHERWISE I WOULDN'T BE BITCHING RIGHT NOW AS A CLUBBED SEAL DOES.



> 1. That player tank shocked the crap out of me, which is being rephrased to *tank shocking was his principal tactic.* Once I figured out how to counter it, he could not come up with a counter to that.


Didn't you say he was really young, he has alot to learn still. Also, are you playing tank shock right? The only people which can react witha death or glory attack against tank shocks are the people/models moved directly over the line of the tank shock. So if he tank shocks over you and the tanbk shock doesn't go through any of your anti-tank weapons like melta or whatever you run, you can't use them, only the guys that can't hurt him, but you take all the negatives of tank shocking still, and if he angles things right, he can eliminate your heavy weapons support fire by splitting units up as well. Does he play BA's? If so, tank shocking armoured spearheads can be done very nicely there. Just donm't jump out of your mobile bunker and bam, awesome sauce.



> 2. Just because a tactic pisses me off doesn't mean I don't know how to play the game.


Sure, but you bitched hard, and then called a bunch of young kids cowards because they play a superior and indeed strong 5th edition list base, whether or not they know how to use those lists is another matter, but youc alled them cowards with no strategic sense when really it's the opposite. Bash kiddies to their faces next time instead of on the interwebz mr tough guy.



> I didn't win 4 games against this one guy (which weren't the only games I've won in my 4 year Warhammer career) by winging it on the rules.


Didn't say you didn't did I.




> 3. I never claimed to be an awesome player for beating this guy. It was simply he could not come up with a counter to my counter to his tank shock.


So why all the bitching about mobile armies and massed transports and LITTLE KIDDIES BEING COWARDS FOR PLAYING A BETTER GAME THEN YOU?

Man, cheers for the excuse to capslock in thread alot. Always awesome fun.

Toodley Pips,

Auretious Taak.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

His tank shocking ruined the layout of my army. Completely screwed up my orientation and caused my heavy weapon units to not be able to shoot. Also put some guys in shooting range/assault position.

jeezus, is there no getting to this guy?


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

LMAO - Can I join in?

5e is the best version yet. Period.

TLOS is actually pretty good, and, as said in the BRB always been used to some extent in the game, get over it. Maybe the Cover system could do with a little work, and LoS/arc of fire some clarification, but the SYSTEM is fine.

As for vehicles, wise up.

The ONLY problem is an easy fix - make Immob'd and/or Wep Dest results also inflict Stunned.

BAM! Makes EA better, makes Squadrons balanced.

Any other issues? Probably because you suck.


----------



## Auretious Taak (May 27, 2010)

TheKingElessar said:


> LMAO - Can I join in?
> 
> Any other issues? Probably because you suck.


You had to take it into the gutter didn't you TKE? Man...


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

Knowing GW they will begin to think of ways to make he rules slightly shitty so we will buy 7th edition. But the main improvments I'd like to see are rules that make melta spam less of a viable choice. more movement on the 40k timeline were now at 40,999 move on GW! I would personally make some changes on shooting like only being able to shoot models you can see, if you can see one model, shoot it. Thats almost an extension on the tlos rule. I would also like to see mech disappear I have to pay something like £30 something when I buy a troop choice for my chaos marines. Other than that here isnt much I can see them having to change if I'm honest...


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

I can only See 6th because of three things that would be great to see...

-Codex Eldar, 2011\2012
-Something to make IG less annoying
-Codex Thousand sons! (OR a chaos codex that is not crap on a stick for theme)


----------



## Amoeba Bait (May 31, 2010)

What are your opinions on Frag Grenades? Nowadays, every basic unit comes with them, making assaulting cover completly pointless. I think that in 6th ed, Grenades should be re-done.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Amoeba Bait said:


> What are your opinions on Frag Grenades? Nowadays, every basic unit comes with them, making assaulting cover completly pointless. I think that in 6th ed, Grenades should be re-done.


Not all basic units have them. A lot don't, in fact. Only really well-equipped units tend to have them basic with a few exceptions. And then there are the elite units that don't have them at all (Aspect Warriors anyone?). I think grenades are fine as is.


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> Not all basic units have them. A lot don't, in fact. Only really well-equipped units tend to have them basic with a few exceptions. And then there are the elite units that don't have them at all (Aspect Warriors anyone?). I think grenades are fine as is.


But it would be fun to be able to throw them at groups! (Why fire my str 4 gun when i can throw a str 2 small blast???)


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

Amoeba Bait said:


> What are your opinions on Frag Grenades? Nowadays, every basic unit comes with them, making assaulting cover completly pointless. I think that in 6th ed, Grenades should be re-done.


I think grenades should come with an ability to actually be able to throw them into the enemy instead of shooting, and be resolved with a blast result. Seems silly to me that over 38000 years grenades have been changed so that you cant throw them directly at the enemy, only in "tactical" situations.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Witch King of Angmar said:


> But it would be fun to be able to throw them at groups! (Why fire my str 4 gun when i can throw a str 2 small blast???)


Because S2 is fucking useless?


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

Katie Drake said:


> Because S2 is fucking useless?


This

Also he fact the grenade strength tables could have some relevance in this, what's he point in it being s2 against enemy infantry and s4+ against tanks??


----------



## AresXero (Dec 6, 2008)

I remember being able to throw grenades in 2nd ed that was fun, especially with the awesomeness that was the vortex grenade :laugh:


----------



## Cyleune (Nov 10, 2010)

Throwing grenades would be fun, I was surprised to find that you couldn't (started playing in 5th ed).

TLoS are great in my opinion, but I could see why people would want them changed. Maybe add in save modifiers, like if you can see 1/3 or less its a 3+ cover, 1/2 is 4+ 2/3 or more a 5+? Instead of a marines foot being not-visible and getting a 4+ save against a BL...

Oh that reminds me, why is it that a railgun shot can be stopped dead in it's tracks by a brick building???? Maybe add in a shrapnel rule. Say the strength of the shrapnel is half the strength of the weapon (rounded down) and it spreads 1D6 + 8 in the complete opposite direction that the shot is coming, and has an AP equal to double that of the regular weapon (AP2 would become AP4) or something.

Actually that kind of rules out TLoS doesn't it, since people would just spam Lascannons through buildings, but oh yeah, thats right, this IS the 41st millenium right? And they haven't invented x-ray or thermal imaging? Come on, even we today have that on tanks...

But you can't use this rule to fire through an entire building, maybe say, just walls or rocks or something, and in the case of 2 walls (i.e. a ruin) the second wall again reduces the shrapnel (assuming it reaches) by the same rules (rounding down).



Next, on Metal Boxes.

WTF

Have you EVER heard in history (post 1915) of an army consisting of all foot-infantry EVER winning a battle against one that has tanks? NO! Because it doesn't work like that! The whole point of "Metal Boxes" is to A provide security and B Firepower. If you don't like it buy missle launchers!


Which brings me to my next point, why is a squad of space marines able to completely compromise my Leman Russ using only their bolters? I can't see some guy's normal gun able to penetrate a tanks armor, and why the Imperium elected to use a tank design that could be compromised by some guy wielding a pistol. Maybe make it so that you need a weapon of at least S6 to be able to glance/pen. armor, and then maybe add in AV15 vehicles (I'm sorry but AV14 is pretty useless vs things like Meltas and Lances).

2 vehicle damage tables would be good, maybe one for glances and another for pens.? Because I don't get how a GLANCE (which by definition is to strike a surface obliquely and go off at an angle) can somehow immobilise my big bad haulking LR. 

Also, a table for infantry inside would be good too, after all your vehicle IS exploding, no?



Well, uh, I think thats all I can thing of right now...


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

I've won against a tank army with an infantry army. True story XD


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

The problem with rules mentioned above, shrapnel and stuff is that they add too much complexity. It would be fine if 40k was a squad level game with 15 guys or so a team. But with armies of 70+ models frequently fielded you cant have such complexity. Also, if I read your shrapnel idea right, a railgun could make a 14 inch radius S5 Ap2 blast from shooting a wall.

Also 40k is not realistic. When you come up with a historical precedent for fighting demonic armies from another dimension then we can talk about realism in warfare.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

Okay, scifi setting aside, we'd like some realism. I just find it strange that a bunch of guys who shoot flashlights for a living can survive getting their tank asploded.

Same with Orks. they wear T-shirts. And they can survive a truck (sorry, Trukk) exploding.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Because it just says the Trukk explodes, not when. What if it get hit with a missile which does not explode on impact? What if the weapon attack simply cuts a fuel line and causes a slow burn, giving the crew enough time to evac?


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

...Touche. I think Krak missiles penetrate before they explode (ahem) so they're good for taking out armor.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

I think you are forgetting both how lethal everything is on the 40k table top. And the massive disconnect between fluff and game play. I remember reading somewhere a lasgun shot does the damage of a .50 cal round. Most all guns in 40k are very effective by modern standards. The difference being things are also very heavily armored. 

And, like its been said gameplay>realism. Take call of duty 4, the best CoD game. I can get shot 2-3 times from most guns, and run behind a wall, let my health recharge, and im good to go. I can got shot in the leg from a machine gun and SPRINT to cover. I know its not realistic, but how boring would the gameplay really be if you died horribly anytime a weapon opened fire on you?


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> The problem with rules mentioned above, shrapnel and stuff is that they add too much complexity. It would be fine if 40k was a squad level game with 15 guys or so a team. But with armies of 70+ models frequently fielded you cant have such complexity. Also, if I read your shrapnel idea right, a railgun could make a 14 inch radius S5 Ap2 blast from shooting a wall.


Potentially, Shrapnel wouldn't be _that _complex to write in as a rule, because shrapnel doesn't go too far, in fact with a Frag grenade, it's the frag that causes the damage... So, for a simple frag grenade it would literally be the blast template. 

Krak, yeah, might get more complicated, however, it could be made into a simplified rule, for instance, keeping the blast template but having an improved strength of the weapon. The same will then apply to Melta Bombs.

All other types of grenades will come under this, apart from the grenades like EMP or Photon Grenades would then need to have their own rules, but keeping the blast idea. For instance, Photon Grenades could have the blast rule, but rolling to see if they can shoot next turn or if they're disorientated (perhaps rolling 1 or 6 to see?). 

They're just ideas


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Shrapnel rules would, in any form, be clunky and unwieldy, IMO.

I would honestly *hate* to see the game become more skirmish oriented.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

TheKingElessar said:


> Shrapnel rules would, in any form, be clunky and unwieldy, IMO.
> 
> I would honestly *hate* to see the game become more skirmish oriented.


Yeah, I second this. I had an idea for how grenades could be implemented as thrown weapons. It'd work something like this:

"Any unit that contains at least one model equipped with assault grenades may have one model may throw one in the shooting phase as if using a ranged weapon with the following profile:

Range: 12" Strength: 3 AP:6 Assault 1, Blast."

It's not super duper OMG effective but would please a lot of people who'd love to be able to throw grenades.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

It would also solve the problem of how long your shooting phase would take if a squad of 20 men threw a small blast template each.

If you want to add shrapnel, just make it a house rule that you can shoot buildings. Everything is AV12 apart from bunkers etc which are AV14. Ignore anything that isn't Wrecked or Explodes. That represents the building either falling down on the spot, or the lascannon/battle cannon/whatever hitting an ammunition store, fuel tank, or otherwise just exploding because it's an explosive weapon. Anyone in the building suffers the usual effects.

Of course you may need to put more terrain on the the table to compensate for half of it being destroyed...


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

We use that houserule at my LGS, except all buildings are AV14, so everyone's not just asploding buildings everywhere. It actually works quite well.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

...That isn't a HOUSE rule. Rules for shooting Buildings are in the BRB. Page 77, off the top of my head. *Checks* My bad, 78 is the rules for shooting them. 77 starts the section.

KD - For me, it'd have to be large Blast, for a minimum of 5 'shooting' models. I'd also only give it a 6" range...maybe double S actually would be fairer - but I can't imagine an Ork can throw one less than a Marine, and Eldar ones would fly better and be easier to throw.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Eldar use lawn darts with a bomb attached for super accuracy.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

TheKingElessar said:


> ...That isn't a HOUSE rule. Rules for shooting Buildings are in the BRB. Page 77, off the top of my head. *Checks* My bad, 78 is the rules for shooting them. 77 starts the section.


...Oh...woops.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

I'd work out grenades to be S 5 AP -, small blast, range 8", assault 1 per squad.


----------



## Nave Senrag (Jul 8, 2010)

Vrykolas2k said:


> I'd work out grenades to be S 5 AP -, small blast, range 8", assault 1 per squad.


Why one grenade per squad? They should all throw their grenades. It would make more sense in that situation if you made grenades available to only one person in the squad, perhaps the sergeant.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

Nave Senrag said:


> Why one grenade per squad? They should all throw their grenades. It would make more sense in that situation if you made grenades available to only one person in the squad, perhaps the sergeant.


Because no-one wants to roll for scatter twenty times.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Azezel said:


> Because no-one wants to roll for scatter twenty times.


This.

The thinking behind the idea of one grenade toss per unit is ease and speed of play.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

If I had 20 S:5AP:- small blasts I really wouldn't mid doing 20 of them.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

gen.ahab said:


> If I had 20 S:5AP:- small blasts I really wouldn't mid doing 20 of them.


Your opponent might, though. 40K is a game involving two players. It's not fun for your opponent if you're working out twenty scattering templates every turn.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> Your opponent might, though. 40K is a game involving two players. It's not fun for your opponent if you're working out twenty scattering templates every turn.


What do I care? WCS is he quits and I win by default. Best case is that I destroy his squad. Either way, I end up happy. :laugh: I kid though, that post, and this one, were meant to be sarcastic.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Nave Senrag said:


> Why one grenade per squad? They should all throw their grenades. It would make more sense in that situation if you made grenades available to only one person in the squad, perhaps the sergeant.


The rest of the squad's giving cover-fire.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Look, if a whole squad of Swooping Hawks Bombing you is one large Blast, stop being silly and thinking a single grenade would warrant any Blast Marker at all.

Whole squads or bust.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

TheKingElessar said:


> 5e is the best version yet. Period.
> 
> TLOS is actually pretty good, and, as said in the BRB always been used to some extent in the game, get over it. Maybe the Cover system could do with a little work, and LoS/arc of fire some clarification, but the SYSTEM is fine.
> 
> ...


Agree.

Id put it on the level as 2nd (which probably still is my favourite edition, its either that or 5th), though 5th ed codices are a lot more even then 2nd ed codices and that helps up a damn lot for sure.

Id gladly see the cover system only granting 4++ for standing in area terrains like a ruin or something. Fireing through units should stay at 5++. This would mean that the armour value of units would play a bigger role. 4+ save today is mostly points in the sea since you get 4++ everywhere anyways.



TheKingElessar said:


> ...but I can't imagine an Ork can throw one less than a Marine, and Eldar ones would fly better and be easier to throw.


This however I can never agree with. An Ork is a silly green walking mushroom with a violent mind. A Space Marine jumps 10 meters casually from standing still.
If grenade throwing was to re-enter the game it should be based on the unit throwing it. Preferably with a table that tells that race X throws Y inch. Ie Ratlings 2 inch, good luck :laugh:

Id gladly skip it though to keep the game going smoothly.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

TheKingElessar said:


> Look, if a whole squad of Swooping Hawks Bombing you is one large Blast, stop being silly and thinking a single grenade would warrant any Blast Marker at all.
> 
> Whole squads or bust.


 
The effective kill zone of an m67 frag grenade has a radius of 5m and one can expect casualties at up to 15m. That isn't a blast how, exactly?


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Because Fragmentation Grenades aren't used in such a manner. There's a fairly decent chance of being within a couple of meters of such a grenade, and coming off with a few scratches. The effects of said Grenades are mainly used in buildings where there is increased ricochet's, rebounding blast waves, and increased tumbling from slivers, in addition to the often fixed pressure causing disorientation, deafening, and particularly in the darkness, a quick high intensity flash can cause more than simple wounding.

Also, it's current training to show that you rarely stack up, even when it comes to corners etc, due to that.

Hence, perhaps giving attackers an addition single attack at S3 AP6, hitting on a 5+ (stops Ork Hordes launching a potential 150 Attacks in a single phase), which may only be used if they make an assault move Could be balanced? Or perhaps rolling a 1 means that they fumble, or mistime it, and walk into the blast, and resolve the hit against themselves?

Alternatively, a grenade has particular effects according to the Race.

For example - IG Infantry could have AI Grenades - S3 AP6, while Veterans could get greater versions - perhaps filling the inside with a better explosive, etc. giving them increased Strength? Space Marines could perhaps use even greater forms, actually making them Blast Weapons?

One thing I'd like to see, Rapid Fire Weapons can switch between one of two versions:

Heavy 2, and Assault 1, same range, strength and AP. Combined with new Grenade rules, they're more balanced.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Vaz said:


> Because Fragmentation Grenades aren't used in such a manner. There's a fairly decent chance of being within a couple of meters of such a grenade, and coming off with a few scratches. The effects of said Grenades are mainly used in buildings where there is increased ricochet's, rebounding blast waves, and increased tumbling from slivers, in addition to the often fixed pressure causing disorientation, deafening, and particularly in the darkness, a quick high intensity flash can cause more than simple wounding.


Thats irrelevant. The effective kill radius of a modern frag(M67) is still 5m.


----------



## Cyleune (Nov 10, 2010)

How about if the squad could throw up to 1 grenade/model w/out that model shooting, and the range of said thrown grenade would be twice the models strength? Make the grenades themselves dependent on the type. For example, defensive ones could be assault 1 large blast (in reality history shows that frag grenades [defensive] are meant to fragmentate and scatter over a wide area, while offensive grenades [such as concussion] are meant to stun the defender) so offensive grenades could be assault 1 small blast, but any to wound roll of 6 disables the defender in the following assault phase (if the people throwing the grenade don't assault and nobody else, this is ignored, but if they are assaulted by a different squad it still applies), also grenades should be barrage to represent the squad lobbing them over walls and such.


Oh btw TKE I don't want to see the game be more skirmish oriented either, hell read my sig  I wish melee combat would take a lesser impact, contrary to how cool some of it is.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Toy Soldiers =/= Real Life.

A Lasgun is incredible in fluff, but it's S3, AP-. Bolters kill Marines in fluff, but not so easily in game.

Similarly, an IRL Frag would do nothing to Spess Mehreens. They could catch them with their eyeballs and wouldn't blink when they went off.


----------



## Lucian Kain (Jul 19, 2010)

OK The ideas so far -Grenades
-Infintry table for destroyed armour
(new) -Charge reaction,Stand and Shoot
-Rapid fire weapons = heavy2 assault1
-Assault from deepstrike(whitch becomes viable after
"stand and shoot")
Grenades
ledership test,S5 ap- assault 1, large blast(per squad), pinning,range 6+D6

Infintry Table for destroyed armour
vehical destroyed=D3: -1 Fuel tanks rupture, troops hit with a heavy flamer
-2 Munitions detonate, troops hit with krack rockets
-3 Vehical anilhilated, troops destroyed,S4 ap-large blast
Charge reaction stand and shoot
-Troops+Vehicals can take a ledership test and fire from rapid fire, assault and heavy weapons (Not ordanance,one weapon per Vehical per charge) 

Charge reaction grenades???

Some of these ideas start to birth a true "assault" fase instead of shooting and CC...what do you think-what ballances would have to be put in place to make these work


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Who said Charge Reactions? I smell trolling...


----------



## Cyleune (Nov 10, 2010)

I think hes referring to my "stun" option, but I'm not sure, I'm hopelessly confuzzled on this thread...


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

I think my loganwing should be able to do an older fantasy style stand and shoot in addition to their counter attack


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> I think my loganwing should be able to do an older fantasy style stand and shoot in addition to their counter attack


I think my WTL should just get the "fuck off, I win" special rule.


----------



## leinad-yor (Apr 14, 2008)

What I think would be good is that dedicated transports no longer give kill points only units that can take a slot in the FoC should give KP's, so any vehicle that can be bought on it's own without infantry in the codex will give a KP. This would mean even if a squad can take a landraider as a dedicated transport that landraider would still give a KP as it can be taken on it's own.

Units that are dedicated assault squads should have the the ability to assault the turn they DS but gear like teleport homers should also be modified to only work on a 4+ or 5+ so they are not a guaranteed way to get your super killy squad into an assault on the turn they arrive.

That's all I can think of for now...

Lein


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

leinad-yor said:


> What I think would be good is that dedicated transports no longer give kill points only units that can take a slot in the FoC should give KP's, so any vehicle that can be bought on it's own without infantry in the codex will give a KP. This would mean even if a squad can take a landraider as a dedicated transport that landraider would still give a KP as it can be taken on it's own.
> 
> Units that are dedicated assault squads should have the the ability to assault the turn they DS but gear like teleport homers should also be modified to only work on a 4+ or 5+ so they are not a guaranteed way to get your super killy squad into an assault on the turn they arrive.
> 
> ...


Blood Angel Land Raiders would not then be a Kill Point. Nor Honour Guard. Nor Corbulo. Broken, IMHO.


----------



## leinad-yor (Apr 14, 2008)

Well I'm not that familiar with that Codex yet are they not able to take them as a heavy choice?

Lein


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

The only rule change I am sure about is that Monstrous Creatures will lose 'move through cover'.

Reason is that the Dark Eldar Talos was listed as having 'Move Through Cover' and is a monstrous creature, and this is redundant for 5th edition. Likely, this means that 6th edition will remove this default from monstrous creatures and the Talos given it because it is also a 'skimmer' yet not listed as one.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

No, indeed. They only exist as Dedicated Transports.


----------



## LordofFenris (Mar 10, 2010)

Everyone's touched on what I want to say, but I'll say it anyway!

1. I HATE OBJECTIVES

Its forces me to take Tactical Squads.....I hate Tactical Squads. Thats the only reason I hate objectives. Either ditch them, or allow Infantry from your Elites sections also be allowed to be scoring units. Notice I said Infantry. No one wants to see an objective being held by an Ironclad....not fun. Neither is being forced to take a Troops choice you hate, and yes I don't like scouts either. At least Blood Angels lets you use Assault Troops....

2. They need to tweak line of sight. For those of you who don't play SM, a Predator is small in comparison to most in the world of tanks. Its a Rhino with a turret. Someone argued with me because they could see my Preds Autocannon, they could fire a Krak Missile at it.....Seriously? If they put the rules back, that wouldn't even have been a viable argument.

3. Drop Pods need to be fixed. I've been on both ends of receiving a drop pod firing squad and giving one. It makes no sense. Drop Pods need to be Assault vehicles. They are immobile, and pretty much useless once landed.

Truly though, 5th just needs a few tweaks. If GW wants to make $$$ so badly, make the tweaks, put the "mini" codex for the armies back in the main book so people can get a taste of the stats for an army they may want to play, and put it out as 5 2.0. Or hell I'll even be a blind sheep....call it 6th and I'll buy that too.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> The only rule change I am sure about is that Monstrous Creatures will lose 'move through cover'.
> 
> Reason is that the Dark Eldar Talos was listed as having 'Move Through Cover' and is a monstrous creature, and this is redundant for 5th edition. Likely, this means that 6th edition will remove this default from monstrous creatures and the Talos given it because it is also a 'skimmer' yet not listed as one.


This could be a case of the design team not knowing the rules enough/wanting to be extra clear (which almost always renders the opposite result).
MCs should have move through cover, everything else is bollocks. They should also ignore diff terrain when flying into it like 3d ed greater daemons did.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

LordofFenris said:


> Everyone's touched on what I want to say, but I'll say it anyway!
> 
> 1. I HATE OBJECTIVES
> 
> ...


We already have 'a few tweaks' in the FAQ released a couple months back.
Copying even just the 5e Codexes lists into the BRB would be expensive, nevermind the rest of the work to add new units etc to the others.

Drop Pods are fine - they would be broken as Assault Vehicles.

Tactical Squads are solid and reliable, not sure what your issue is. How do you equip them? (PROTIP - If it includes a Power Fist, you're doing it wrong)
They are also THE most iconic Space Marine unit. Bit confused as to why you would play them if you hate their backbone?

The opponent was WRONG if they say they are allowed to shoot you in the weapon - that is clearly in the LoS exceptions. If they see the TURRET though, of COURSE they can shoot you. Just like in real life.

If a Predator was the same size category as a Rhino it would be prevented from shooting over it - clearly BS.


----------



## Scathainn (Feb 21, 2010)

TheKingElessar said:


> (PROTIP - If it includes a Power Fist, you're doing it wrong)


I am by no means a top-tier C:SM player but Power Fists in my squads have served me quite well. Why do you say this, perchance?

Edit: Also, I read your blog and saw the entry you did for Dave Taylor's Steel Legion contest. I entered as well, but we took very different approaches...ah well. Best of luck!


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Scathainn said:


> I am by no means a top-tier C:SM player but Power Fists in my squads have served me quite well. Why do you say this, perchance?
> 
> Edit: Also, I read your blog and saw the entry you did for Dave Taylor's Steel Legion contest. I entered as well, but we took very different approaches...ah well. Best of luck!


Good luck to you too! I'd like to see your entry, as I love army lists, especially themed ones! 

As for Fists - Tactical Marines come in 2 flavours - 10-man, or 5-man.
5-man units, the Fist will die before striking if shot first/charged by anything half-decent in CC. 10-man, you are possibly Combat Squadded (see 5-man :wink or, if not - you are going to get tied into the combat. Okay, a Fist gives you a CHANCE against a Dread - but not really against an MC, because they can't be killed by a lucky hit. Also, you have 2A, hitting on 4+ generally, and glancing average Dreads (AV12) on a 4. Odds are against you doing anything.

The proliferation of the Rifleman Dread means that fewer (non-BA) Dreads are committed to CC anyway - and if your Tacticals DO get stuck, you want to lose Combat and use Combat Tactics to flee, regroup, and shoot it with Melta.

Furthermore - if a unit of 5 is in a Razorback, that Razor will be Las/Plas, or TL Las (99% of the time) - meaning it shouldn't be close enough for them to be getting charged, even if the enemy pops the Transport easily.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

TheKingElessar said:


> Tactical Squads are solid and reliable, not sure what your issue is. How do you equip them? (PROTIP - If it includes a Power Fist, you're doing it wrong)


Odds might be against you doing anything, but most SM and CSM armies that I've seen use Powerfists on their sergeants/champions.

As an Ork player, using Powerklaws seems a no-brainer, with Big Choppas best reserved for Nob squads and Warbosses (though only if you've a PK Warboss already in the list).

Anyhow what about non-SM armies? Kans are common in a fair number of Ork Horde lists after all.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

gen.ahab said:


> Thats irrelevant. The effective kill radius of a modern frag(M67) is still 5m.


Fine, you want to be a dick about it?

Modern Rifles have effective accurate fire at 300metres (I can get an 8inch grouping with 30 shots at that range), and effective platoon fire at 600metres, with a maximum range around 1200m. This is represented in game by Rapid Fire. This is 24". The average model is about an Inch tall, give or take. That's 2 Metres. 24" then equals about 50 Metres, give or take.

It's game. You want to play shit accurately, give up Warhammer and play Arma2 Realism Mods.



Also - you forgot this, Lucian Kane. New suggested rules for Rapid Fire.

Heavy 2, and Assault 1, same range, strength and AP. Combined with new Grenade rules, they're more balanced.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

The Sullen One said:


> Odds might be against you doing anything, but most SM and CSM armies that I've seen use Powerfists on their sergeants/champions.
> 
> As an Ork player, using Powerklaws seems a no-brainer, with Big Choppas best reserved for Nob squads and Warbosses (though only if you've a PK Warboss already in the list).
> 
> Anyhow what about non-SM armies? Kans are common in a fair number of Ork Horde lists after all.


Orks are Fearless, or don't regroup. If you're actually stuck in combat, may as well kill a handful...plus, Klaws are one of the few anti-tank options in the Ork book.

If you're going to be stuck in the combat, like Orks or Cult Troops, you need to minimise Fearless wounds you suffer by killing a couple. You never know, you might get lucky. 

That said, my most recent Ork list dispenses with Klaws, as they are the only reason to take Nobs - effectively making them the most expensive Fists around. (Okay, Striking Scorpion and CSM Fists are equivalent/more...)

Marine players that use Fists generally haven't figured out that those 3 Fists are practically another Predator instead - or a Land Speeder. 

It's all about trimming useless upgrades, until there are no 'maybe' upgrades, and therefore no wasted points.

Unless your opponent is better than you, or you have terrible dice, Tacticals should be avoiding fights they won't win - making Fists a useless expense.

It also hurts players to buy CC upgrades in that that typically affects their subconscious feeling as to how good a unit is in combat. Tacticals should only charge T3 non-PW enemies, or Orks, or other Marines that don't have Def Grenades, VERY generally speaking.

Any other case, they should run away and shoot.


----------



## Scathainn (Feb 21, 2010)

Elessar: I'll PM you my Steel Legion contest list when I get the chance later today.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

@Thekingelessar

Orks are only fearless over a certain number, and while they often leg it after they've broken, they do occasionally regroup.

Pedantic correcting aside, I'll agree that Tactical squads should stay out of combat. However with a fist on your sergeant your opponent would still have to kill all the other marines first, unless of course you were going up against charging Berserkers.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

I think any foot slogging units should be able to take and hold objectives (not walkers/ vehicles) and that is a sentiment shared by 100% of my local player base, so we actually amended these rules in my city and anyone who want to play with the 5th ed. "must be troops" idiocy can go :ireful2::angry::ireful2::angry::smoke: themselves.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

The Sullen One said:


> @Thekingelessar
> 
> Orks are only fearless over a certain number, and while they often leg it after they've broken, they do occasionally regroup.
> 
> Pedantic correcting aside, I'll agree that Tactical squads should stay out of combat. However with a fist on your sergeant your opponent would still have to kill all the other marines first, unless of course you were going up against charging Berserkers.


TSO - I have over 12000 points of Orks, and have played them in every edition since 2e.  I KNOW the rules. If a Mob starts the game Fearless, and loses it, there is a VERY small chance they will be _allowed _to try and regroup.

While you are of course right they have to kill 9 other Marines first (or 4) this is hardly difficult. Especially for 4.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

You know there is one rule change I would propose which would reduce the number of mech armies which are the current trend and slightly unreal. 

Dont allow passengers to fire from a vehicle. None of this open the top hatch and fire the melta gun shinanigans. You will need to get out and risk return fire if you want to take out that tank. Makes a proper risk reward feature to attacking vehicles.

I would support foot troops being able to capture objectives, but one point only quickly mentioned which would also be good, would be points per turn for the length of time you hold an objective. Holding it for 5 turns should be worht more than rushing to it in the last turn to capture it.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

humakt said:


> You know there is one rule change I would propose which would reduce the number of mech armies which are the current trend and slightly unreal.
> 
> Dont allow passengers to fire from a vehicle. None of this open the top hatch and fire the melta gun shinanigans. You will need to get out and risk return fire if you want to take out that tank. Makes a proper risk reward feature to attacking vehicles.
> 
> I would support foot troops being able to capture objectives, but one point only quickly mentioned which would also be good, would be points per turn for the length of time you hold an objective. Holding it for 5 turns should be worht more than rushing to it in the last turn to capture it.


What do you mean 'unreal'? Unrealistic? Have you seen modern warfare when it isn't against guerrillas?

Hell, have you seen Black Hawk Down? People fire out from inside transports, because they get chewed up otherwise.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

TheKingElessar said:


> What do you mean 'unreal'? Unrealistic? Have you seen modern warfare when it isn't against guerrillas?
> 
> Hell, have you seen Black Hawk Down? People fire out from inside transports, because they get chewed up otherwise.


Not sure what black hawk down has to do with realism, and that is not a depiction of armoured warfare unless the somalis had sneaked in some heavy armour. Fighting light infantry in a IFV or APC seems sensible right up to the point you get hit by an RPG.

Infantry fighting vehicals are not designed for infantry to fight in, but to rapidly deploy from. Infantry deploy from these vehicle to engage other infantry formation. Its a tanks job to fight another tank. Its true that correctly equiped infantry units can engage armour, but they are not the ideal unit as this wil either loose mobility or range.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Im sure that realistic warfare applies when shooting demons with fucking laser cannons


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

humakt said:


> Not sure what black hawk down has to do with realism, and that is not a depiction of armoured warfare unless the somalis had sneaked in some heavy armour. Fighting light infantry in a IFV or APC seems sensible right up to the point you get hit by an RPG.
> 
> Infantry fighting vehicals are not designed for infantry to fight in, but to rapidly deploy from. Infantry deploy from these vehicle to engage other infantry formation. Its a tanks job to fight another tank. Its true that correctly equiped infantry units can engage armour, but they are not the ideal unit as this wil either loose mobility or range.


Exactly - foot units have no mobility. 

This makes it pretty unlikely they would be that useful in the future, and on battlefields hundreds of miles across.

That and the fact that most vehicles in 40k are anti-personnel, rather than tank hunters.

Anyway, it's a tank's job to kill infantry, it is a HELICOPTER's job to kill tanks.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> Time to adapt. It can be annoying, but it's necessary when there's an edition change unless you want to deal with these exact sort of problems.


Fair enough. And indeed I have adapted tactically...

-- I uncharacteristically pull back ork units from combat to save them from being wiped out (i.e. move that last buggy flat out and hide it behind a hill to keep it from being killed. Pull a mob of orks that have been de-trukked and taken a fair amount of casualties back -- move+run behind cover so as not to loose a KP to my opponent, etc.). Not very fluffy for Orks, as they haven't broken yet and you know orks... they love a fight, but still I've adapted.





Azezel said:


> Kill points are fair - and I speak as someone who plays an entirely mechanised AV11 army.
> 
> My 1'500 point list has 13 KP - more than those Eldar. And if I ever start to @#!*% and moan about that fact, I fully expect someone to point out that it's my choice.
> 
> ...


First let me say thank you for being explaining why you think KP's are fair, and you make some good points.

One, it is my choice to field the army I do, and two, it has both advantages and disadvantages.

I agree with you on both those points, however... I still respectfully disagree with you about KP's.  


It seems the consensus throughout this thread is that people against KP's are just whining and are too lazy to adapt their tactics or to change their armies.

I propose, for me anyway, nothing could be farther from the truth. I only loose (maybe) 1 in 20 games and have routinely placed in the top 3 of the last several tournaments I've been able to play in, etc. I have no reason to whine.

I don't like KP's, but not because of a whiny "it's not fair," I loose games because I lack a grasp on tactics and blame my losses on KP's. Far from it. I don't like KP's because they're *inconsistent*, *illogical*, and *not a fair representation of unit worth*.


*Azezel*, you say...


Azezel said:


> Moreover, while (say) Five Stormtroopers and one Land Raider are not equally valuable, it doesn't matter because Kill Points represent _oppertunity cost_ and are not tallied until the end of the match.
> 
> If on turn one, you loose a Land Raider and your enemy looses a squad of five Stormtroopers - you've both lost one KP - however, that is irrelevant on turn one. What does matter is that you, having lost a Land Raider, are materially worse off for the remainder of the game, and therefore less likely to take additional Kill Points.


I say that GW already has a system for determining _opportunity cost_. It's called the points values for units.

KP's are oddly inconsistent, and therefore illogical, with that already well established system. 

40K has been based, since it's inception, on a points value system for determining a unit's value and the opportunity it will give you on the table top. The opportunity cost is factored this way first and foremost.

It is what allows us to play reasonably fair games. GW isn't perfect at this, but they're pretty darn close at having the points right for most units. When wrong (like with the SM whirlwind of 4th ed or the terminators of 3rd) they usually correct it in the next codex. The whirlwind saw a slight increase in points for the 5th ed codex, and terminators stayed at the same points cost but got a much needed boost in 4th ed with the addition of a 5+ invulnerable save. 

It is the points value system that even allows us to set and play evenly matched games. In theory your 1,500 point force should have the same _opportunity_ for victory as my 1,500 point force. It then comes down to chance (dice) and our generalship (tactics) to determine the winner. 

This points system determining _Opportunity Cost_ Is also why marine PF's cost more for IC's than for vet. sergeants. IC's have a better WS, more attacks, and access to that can keep the PF in the fight longer (i.e. iron halo could allow the PF to keep in the fight after getting hit by a ST10 AP2 blast where as a regular vet. sergeant may not, etc.). All that translates into increased _opportunity_ on the table top and therefore why we see the increased _Opportunity Cost_ for a IC to have a PF (i.e. why it costs more points to equip a IC with a PF than a vet. serg.).

So...

I't isn't KP's that determines _Opportunity Cost_ in 40K... it's point values. 

This is why I don't like KP's. Because they don't reflect _Opportunity Cost_ fairly, equitably, and correctly, I think it's a poor system the GW needs to ditch (at least as currently written) in 6th ed.

According to the *already well established* points value system a Land Raider is = to 250+ points and an Ork trukk is worth 35+ points. According to KP's they're worth exactly the same.

KP's run counter to a points system that's been in effect (in some form) since the beginning of 40K. Therefore KP's are inconsistent to the system GW already has in place, illogical because they run counter to that system (i.e. LR -vs- trukk), and do not fairly/accurately represent _Opportunity Cost_ (something the points value system already does).


The truth is, GW developed KP's in their continued effort to streamline and simplify 40K. While it did simplify things significantly over victory points, they came up with a system that needs more tweaking to make it right.

It's as I said earlier...


Uber Ork said:


> *1.)* *Kill points*, as it is anyway, needs to go.


Not saying they need to go all together, just need to go as they are currently. Keep tweaking GW. Simplicity is good. Keep working on a system that fits better with the _Oppotunity Cost_ system you already have in place.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

TheKingElessar said:


> Exactly - foot units have no mobility.
> 
> This makes it pretty unlikely they would be that useful in the future, and on battlefields hundreds of miles across.
> 
> ...


Yeah yeah, but helicopters blow up anything on the ground 

But still I think my rule would add more depth to the game than driving around in a tin can with half the unit doing nothing. I was thinking about it a bit further and open topped vehicals could have a new rule.

Yes all the passengers can fire as they can now, but hits on the vehicle with templates affect the passengers as if hit inside a building. I did think you could say blast markers as well, but this makes frag missiles against ork and dark eldar vehicles too powerful.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

@humakt - It would be interesting, no doubt, but I think it would favour high T Sv models far too much - eg, SMs.
EDIT: Sorry, that was too short an analysis. The rule you propose would be a balancing factor, to an extent - however the ability to use Flamers on same O-T vehicles would be rather too powerful, IMO. Scouting Baals, etc. 
It would also see a need for greater volumes of Assault vehicles - why both to get out if you can't charge too?
Also, the Razorback would definitively thrash the Rhino for usefulness - as is they're roughly even, but if you haven't the Fire Point for Rhino bunkers, then stay inside and use the Razor Turret...

@Uber Ork - I like that, but it's based on a false premise. It isn't really points that define Opportunity Cost, but the limiting factor of the FoC. Points are a factor, yes, but the ability to only have 6 Troops (for Orks and SW) or only 3 Elites (Orks, Eldar, Nids, Daemons, Tau, SW) 3 Heavy (IG, Eldar, CSM, Necrons, SM, Orks, DE) or 3 Fast (Necrons, Tau, Orks, SM, BA) and 2 HQ (Eldar, Nids, Orks, DE, BA) is really the way to impose limiting factors on an army (list.)

That said, it's an unfair basis for comparison when you mix Editions - YES, it's what we have to do when playing, because we have no choice, only a couple 5e books exist...but look at SW as an example.

Lone Wolves aren't a KP.

Do you REALLY think Gretchin will be next Ork book? Trukks? Big Gunz, maybe?

I'm Homebrewing Chaos rules - you may have seen me pimp them a lot as that subforum gets little traffic by comparison, and my rules have seen few responses (FYI, Internet, even 'Not bad!' with no actual critical feedback would be nice!) ...point is, my Cultist rules see them able to Score but never surrender a KP - this is a mechanic that is proven by Lone Wolves, and likely to be used by GW again.

Give them a chance to redo your book, and I would bet Orks would be fine under the KP system, despite bursting FoCs at the seams.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

How can Lone Wolves score?


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Vaz said:


> How can Lone Wolves score?


...the KP part applies to LW, obviously not the rest.unish:


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Vaz said:


> How can Lone Wolves score?


Nope, they're Elites.


----------



## Disciple_of_Ezekiel (May 23, 2010)

I really hope it doesn't effects the Apoc rules to much as I just spent a a few bucks getting both Apoc and Apoc Reloaded. I felt the burn once when I got back from Iraq last year and decided to get into Fantasy, bought the 7th edition book just to find out a couple months later they released the new 8th edition.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

TheKingElessar said:


> @Uber Ork - I like that, but it's based on a false premise. It isn't really points that define Opportunity Cost, but the limiting factor of the FoC. Points are a factor, yes, but the ability to only have 6 Troops (for Orks and SW) or only 3 Elites (Orks, Eldar, Nids, Daemons, Tau, SW) 3 Heavy (IG, Eldar, CSM, Necrons, SM, Orks, DE) or 3 Fast (Necrons, Tau, Orks, SM, BA) and 2 HQ (Eldar, Nids, Orks, DE, BA) is really the way to impose limiting factors on an army (list.)


Yes, I see what you're saying, and I agree that the FOC is a key component to keeping the game balanced, however, I don't think it has anything to do with determining a specific units opportunity value.

For example... FOC like KP's, has a one for one value. For instance, each player can have 2 HQ choices. Those 2 HQ choices = 2 KP's. However, that says nothing of their game worth, a.k.a. opportunity cost.

Example: Chaos Daemon list -vs- Ork list. Both players max out on 2 HQ choices. CD player takes 2 Bloodthirsters. Ork player takes 2 Warbosses. CD player pays 500+ points for his 2 HQ's. Ork player pays 230+ points for theirs. 

FOC definitely balances the game (makes it so you can't take 8 Bloodthirsters!), but point values determine a units value on the table top. If the FOC determined a units worth on the table top (it's opportunity cost) then each player should be able to face off with just their HQ's and things should be fairly equal. As we all know... this face off would *not* be equal. 

There is no way a warboss has the same opportunity value on the table top and that is precisely why they do not have the same _opportunity cost._

According to KP's: Bloodthirster and ork warobss are equal
According to FOC: Bloodthirster and ork warboss are equal
According to points values: Bloodthirster and ork warboss are *not* equal

We all play the game, and we all know which system better reflects a units value (a.k.a. "opportunity cost") on the table top...





TheKingElessar said:


> That said, it's an unfair basis for comparison when you mix Editions - YES, it's what we have to do when playing, because we have no choice, only a couple 5e books exist...but look at SW as an example.
> 
> Lone Wolves aren't a KP.


Good point. It really annoys me that GW no longer is willing to to issue errata to fix things, but makes us wait until the next codex. They could have fixed Necrons eons ago just by issuing two lines of errata. (1) Make Necrons are fearless, and (2) Make Necron Gauss-Flayers have +1 on the vehicle damage chart. 





TheKingElessar said:


> Do you REALLY think Gretchin will be next Ork book? Trukks? Big Gunz, maybe?


I don't know. Hard to say. This speaks to the frustration I have with GW about errata again however. They could easily fix KP's by offering errata about KP's. One way would be to write errata for each codex (an excellent idea -- that the current GW powers that be say they refuse to do), or wait until each codex is re-written (GW's current plan -- but super lame because armies will be at a disadvantage for a long time until their codex re-write), or to tweak KP's in 6th ed. (my advice, as it will fix the most the fastest).





TheKingElessar said:


> Give them a chance to redo your book, and I would bet Orks would be fine under the KP system, despite bursting FoCs at the seams.


Problem is many armies have to wait many, many years before a re-write. For example...

40K editions are as follows...
Rogue Trader (1987)
Second Edition (1993)
Third Edition (1998)
Fourth Edition (2004)
Fifth Edition (2008)

Last two ork codex's are as follows...
Codex Orks 2nd ed. (1994)
Codex Orks 3rd ed. (1999)
Codex Orks 4th ed. (2007)


The years spacing in between 40K editions is 6, 5, 6, and 4 years.

The years spacing in between Ork codex's is 5 and 8 years. 

The increased time frame in between codex's can be easily explained by GW needing to support more races and game systems now than it did before. 

That means in most cases a race would have to wait way longer for the problem to be fixed via codex's than to have the problem fixed via the next 40K edition change. This is why I hope KP's are fixed in 6th ed.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

According to Bindi Baji, after the WH are redone there will be a move to release new Codexes more quickly.

I *guess* the plan is to have all books get a 5e book before 6e comes out, finances permitting. If you put WFB figures in there (83, 84, 87, 92, 96, 2000, 2006, 2010) and WotR (2009) we can see all three systems ahve been redone in the last three years, and, in the last decade (plus this week of 2011...) we have already had 6 Editions of the three games...(actually, if we count LotR as well as WotR, we have had 10) - The point being, we are due a couple years respite.

With any luck, this is their view.

As for Opportunity Cost...I feel this is just not the correct erm, it doesn't realte to what you describe.

Opportunity Cost is when you cannot take something because of taking something else - Taking 3 Dreadnoughts means no Terminators, for instance.

What you are talking about would perhaps be better termed 'Elimination Cost' (with a more expensive unit having greater Elimination Cost) as that relates to the lost opportunity for damage without being confusing in relation to the common list building term.


----------



## turel2 (Mar 2, 2009)

Tanks need to be toned down a bit. There needs to be a better balance between hordes and Heavy Vehicles.

Fluffwise this game is meant to be about heroic battles, not sitting in tanks waiting for someone to make the wrong move.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

turel2 said:


> Tanks need to be toned down a bit. There needs to be a better balance between hordes and Heavy Vehicles.
> 
> Fluffwise this game is meant to be about heroic battles, not sitting in tanks waiting for someone to make the wrong move.


I disagree. I think that tends to MAKE heroic battles.

YMMV.

In reality, a horde of Infantry can't beat a tank, and this shouldn't be the case with future tanks either.


----------



## turel2 (Mar 2, 2009)

TheKingElessar said:


> I disagree. I think that tends to MAKE heroic battles.
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> In reality, a horde of Infantry can't beat a tank, and this shouldn't be the case with future tanks either.


But in reality there would be mine fields too.

The infantry should have to support the tank and the tank supports the infantry.

but thats too complex for a game lol.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

TheKingElessar said:


> In reality, a horde of Infantry can't beat a tank, and this shouldn't be the case with future tanks either.


That would depend upon terrain, armament, timing, and numbers. A touch of luck couldn't hurt either.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

It really would depend on how the infantry are equipped. A horde of dudes with a few anti tank weapons would be hell for tanks to fight in urban terrain. 

I would like to see vehicles weakened a little. they sucked too much in 4th, and are too hard to kill in 5th.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

TheKingElessar said:


> According to Bindi Baji, after the WH are redone there will be a move to release new Codexes more quickly.
> 
> I *guess* the plan is to have all books get a 5e book before 6e comes out, finances permitting. If you put WFB figures in there (83, 84, 87, 92, 96, 2000, 2006, 2010) and WotR (2009) we can see all three systems ahve been redone in the last three years, and, in the last decade (plus this week of 2011...) we have already had 6 Editions of the three games...(actually, if we count LotR as well as WotR, we have had 10) - The point being, we are due a couple years respite.
> 
> With any luck, this is their view.


That's what I was meaning when I said


> The increased time frame in between codex's can be easily explained by GW needing to support more races and game systems now than it did before.


It's not that GW has been lazy, far from it. They've been cranking stuff out like crazy. It's just that with more races and games to support the time it takes to update each 40K race is longer. Take the time in between DE codex's as an example. Some races get more attention like SM's, etc. but others have will have to wait a long time to get their codex redone.

All I was asking is for GW to take the quickest road possible to address the KP issue. If that's by getting all 15 races (if they combine Witchhunters and Daemonhunters like I've heard they might then 14 races) fixed as you say they did with Space Wolves, before they put out 6th ed then that's cool with me. 

It seems more likely to me however, that 6th ed will come out before they finish fixing all 14-15 races like they did with SW's. 

All I was saying was "GW take the fastest rout." If that's Codex fixes, cool. If it's a 6th ed fix, cool. If you would ever love us so much as to bring back errata fixes, even cooler! :so_happy:






TheKingElessar said:


> As for Opportunity Cost...I feel this is just not the correct erm, it doesn't realte to what you describe.
> 
> Opportunity Cost is when you cannot take something because of taking something else - Taking 3 Dreadnoughts means no Terminators, for instance.
> 
> What you are talking about would perhaps be better termed 'Elimination Cost' (with a more expensive unit having greater Elimination Cost) as that relates to the lost opportunity for damage without being confusing in relation to the common list building term.


Yes it appears we are using the same phrase to describe different elements to the game. For me it comes down to the meaning of the words before we use them to describe elements of 40K.

Opportunity is a word used to describe potential, a chance or prospect to do something, usually used in a positive light. "I have the opportunity to do _______ today." 

When used in the phrase "opportunity cost" it refers to the "benefit, profit, or value of something that must be given up to acquire or achieve something else." 

It's a phrase used in the business world used to describe the cost you must pay to achieve a greater opportunity. To see a full definition you can go here http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/opportunity-cost.html 


On the table top it would be used to describe the cost (in points) that must be given up to acquire potential success in game. The game value of a Bloodthirster (i.e. it's potential as a tool to help you achieve/acquire victory) is way greater than a Warboss's. Therefore it's "opportunity cost" (or the investment you make in it, or "give up") is higher (thus it costing 250+ points to the warboss's 115+ points).


The FOC is in place to help with balance but does nothing to dictate a specific units opportunity cost. For this logically to be the case, each FOC equivalent unit in each army (i.e. each armies HQ choices for example) would all need to be 100% equal, and give you the exact same potential (or opportunity) to acquire victory. That's just simply not the case. As discussed earlier the Bloodthirster gives you way more "opportunity" to acquire victory than a Warboss. 

The FOC's roll is, as we've both said, balance... but in a different sense than points values. Each army has it's bread and butter section of the FOC. For Tyranids it's Elites, for Daemons it's HQ's & Heavy Support, for Orks it's Troops, HQs, + another depending on your style of play. ...It's those sections of the FOC that in almost every list out there are maxed out or heavily used.

On the flip side, there's also those sections where you hardly see anyone take FOC selections from. For example, I don't think I've seen a CD army (at least in my observation -- I'm sure someone takes them) with a one single FA choice. Why? Cause generally speaking CD FA choices blow. 


In 40K the FOC does 2 main things.

(1) It keeps things balanced, and (2) it keeps things (somewhat) realistic. 

It keeps things balanced by not allowing 8 Bloodthirsters to be taken! That's what Apocalypse is for. :laugh: 

And

It keeps things somewhat realistic as the bulk of any real army is troops with other elements in support (Elite, FA, Heavy Support), led by a small command contingent (HQ). It makes no sense to have one troop unit and 7 HQ's in the real world, and thus in the FOC keeps things that way in the 40K world. 

It is for this very reason that the FOC was suspended in Apocalypse and *not* points values. 

Even in Apocalypse you still need to keep things fair. They took the brakes off of reality (8 Bloodthirsters, or 8 Khorne Lords, or whatever... bring it on!), and they talked in the design articles for the game that they felt the larger points cost would negate the loss of balance the FOC brought to the game... but they they kept points values. Why is that? They kept them to keep things balanced so that each side had equal opportunity for victory. 

In other words, they kept real indicators of oppotunity cost in place. 

This way if you want to take An'ggrath the Unbound for nearly 900 points, be my guest. He offers a *ton* opportunity to destroy your enemies in the 41st millennium... well... he offers nearly 900 points worth of opportunity to be exact. However, I can choose to take a fist load... or more likely several fist loads, of models for the same amount of points. If I don't have that many points in my army, I can have access to extra strategic assets which are designed like points values, to provide opportunity to acquire/achieve victory (i.e. for every X amount of points I am short, I can take X amount of strategic assets).

The idea is that through points values GW has given us both an equal opportunity to achieve/acquire victory. We've paid (or given up) the cost in points to "purchase" those units (which for games of 40K is equal), and now it comes down to generalship (tactics) and the sometimes sheer randomness of life's events (dice). 



Again... while KP's line up with the FOC, they do not line up with GW's system to determine opportunity cost (points values).


----------

