# What would you like to see in 6th ed?



## VX485 (Feb 17, 2011)

Having been reading a few threads, 6th ed has come up in a few times. Now i know its a long while away but what would you like to see changed?

Personally - Reduce the amount of cover saves/effectiveness of cover saves (nearly everything gets a 4+ save) Leadership checks needing to be taken more often, pinning tests etc.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

As an ork i don't want to see leadership become more important, we fail enough checks as it is and it gimps our ability to field smaller elite units. 

The biggest thing i would change would be a halt being put on the special character reliance syndrome. It's the only real thing that nags at me and i hate it. Special characters used to be optional and GW used to only allow them in larger games. I'm not saying ban them in small games but i would like to see indipendant characters have a little bit more flexability with wargear then they currently have. It should be possible to field a specific army without relying on the inclusion of a special charactor or their counts as.
Salamanders with no He'stan for example. 
Overall i'd like more variety in many of the codecies, several of the books only allow for one or two competative lists and each one seems to have at least one unit that is trash despite having cool background. Eg: Pyrovores, Flash gits, Lictors,

A more regimented update system to deal with these flaws as soon as they arrive rather than just saying, codex finished and moving on with the next one. Computer games release patches to update errors in their game. Why can't Games workshop?


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Remove all the SC unlocks a specific FoC. Make FoC's different for different armies and allow HQ upgrades to effects your FoC but not just SC.


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

As much is I wish they would go back to no Special Characters without permission, it's never going to happen.
They are expensive "Must Haves" for many armies, in monetary terms, which is why I suspect Games Workshop introduced the no permission neccessary ruling. 
It's got to have boosted their sales by a very large margin.

As for True Line Of Sight, I think it works in most instances with the exception of woods.
Okay, you can see me through one piece of woods terrain and I get a cover save.
But shooting through multiple pieces of woods terrain with no adjustment to the Cover Save is plain wrong. In this instance it should be either an additional +1 to the Save for each piece of terrain after the first, or a straight "you can't see through multiple woods".


----------



## C'Tan Chimera (Aug 16, 2008)

Get that Sweeping Advance bull out of my game.


----------



## Geist (Mar 9, 2010)

Change plentiful 4+ saves to plentiful 5+ saves. I mean, really, we're talking about 40k here, where most weapons can completely disintegrate most forms of matter, why would a few thin trees stop anything?

Also, customizable unit leaders and commanders(instead of special characters). I think it would be awesome if I could give my Company Commander tactical genius and call him Creed if I wanted to, or give my Veteran Sergeant feel no pain and relentless and a Heavy Bolter and call him Harker instead of having Special Characters who are unchangeable.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

I would just like to see the rules better clarified and written. 5th is very well done in my mind and doesn't need any drastic changes. 

I would like to see a policy shift at GW for more tournaments, done in a swiss style with no soft scores, so we can get some legit errata and FAQS posted. Doing it every couple of months would allow for frequent updates that the game does need from time to time.


----------



## TheSpore (Oct 15, 2009)

I agree with the cover save crap> I remember when vehicles didnt get $h!t when they got attacked. 

Bring back the old massacre sweeping advance rules when they dropped this it really hamperded those CC armies. Stp flippin penelizing feaarless units. Fearrless doesn't mean we take double wounds it means WE DO NOT TAKE MORALE TESTS. I get so tired of losing whole units just becaus ethey have take extra wounds when combat is done for that turn no one is striking and it makes no sense at all.

Oh one last things change the kill point system and kill matt ward!


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Geist said:


> Change plentiful 4+ saves to plentiful 5+ saves. I mean, really, we're talking about 40k here, where most weapons can completely disintegrate most forms of matter, why would a few thin trees stop anything?


I think your underestimating the power of Wood !


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

Allow us to tailor units such as Space Marine captains into more individual characters by allowing us to give them certain rules or buffs of some sort for a given points cost. Would add more individuality to be able to do such things.


----------



## StalkerZero (Oct 3, 2010)

These are the ideas we've been kicking around in our gaming group.

1. Rework the WS To Hit. It's a little too awkward.
2. Cover saves are too abundant in 4+ levels. Makes invunerable saves so much less important.
3. Vehicles should be less random to take out completely and cost more. Reliance on vehicles closes down so much of the game.


----------



## TheSpore (Oct 15, 2009)

StalkerZero said:


> These are the ideas we've been kicking around in our gaming group.
> 
> 1. Rework the WS To Hit. It's a little too awkward.
> 2. Cover saves are too abundant in 4+ levels. Makes invunerable saves so much less important.
> 3. Vehicles should be less random to take out completely and cost more. Reliance on vehicles closes down so much of the game.


I agree the WS to hit chart is odd. No matter you WS most the time your either gonna have to roll a 3 or a 4.


----------



## Scathainn (Feb 21, 2010)

All units that aren't tanks or beasts are scoring (unless described otherwise).


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I would like some of the following:

1. Less cover saves.

2. Reclarifying of TloS. It is a brilliant idea but too many people are abusing it. If i can only see 4 of your men then how on Earth did 6 die?!?! Also make casualties taken from those models seen to stop everyone jumping in front of the heavy weapon guy. If you leave him exposed expect him to die!

3. Less reliance on mech.

4. Less reliance on "unique" characters. They are not very unique when one of these clowns is practically taken in nearly every frickin army!

5. To counter point 4 give special rules options to general HQ choices but at a points cost.

6. I want gunlines to be effective again!

7. Change Kill points back to victory points. It made more sense.

8. Introduce a little mission variety like was in the 3rd ed rulebook.

9. Lastly I want any type of infantry to capture objectives. i find it retarded my terminators cannot capture objectives when there is no real reason as to why they cannot.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

I have 2 questions in response to some of the answers in this thread.



Stephen_Newman said:


> I would like some of the following:
> 
> 4. Less reliance on "unique" characters. They are not very unique when one of these clowns is practically taken in nearly every frickin army!
> 
> 5. To counter point 4 give special rules options to general HQ choices but at a points cost.


We see alot of people talking about this. If GW made special rules into simply a point cost how would you model it? Then comes the issue of how the rules would work and how they would be balanced. 

Finally, whats the difference of taking a SC and just having a SM captain with the same rule set? You can pick his wargear?



> 9. Lastly I want any type of infantry to capture objectives. i find it retarded my terminators cannot capture objectives when there is no real reason as to why they cannot.


The question here is why would you take any troop choices when Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy support can hold an objective. Can you also imagine the problem of taking an objective thats held by something like carnifex or a trygon?


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> We see alot of people talking about this. If GW made special rules into simply a point cost how would you model it? Then comes the issue of how the rules would work and how they would be balanced.


Why would you need to alter the model to represent such special rules? Does Wazdakka have something modelled on him that clearly shows he can take bikes as troops? Balancing it would be the tricky part but no more tricky then balancing the rules for a SC in the first place. 



> Finally, whats the difference of taking a SC and just having a SM captain with the same rule set? You can pick his wargear?


It's a amatter of perspective here. For example i created and cultivted a character in my chaos army during 3rd edition. A chaos lord called Kai Ma who was always equipped with lightning claws and Termi armour. The idea was that Kai was a head tech marine from before the heresy and his model represented this, he has a servo arm mounted over his shoulder for example.

In third and 3.5th ed codecies he was cool. He could take on most comers in close combat and give a good acount, even against special characters. Some people claim this prooves that the rules were broken here but at 230points i only ever took him to trully massive games. As would be expected from the overlord of a vaste army. in current edition half of his rules options are lost unless i want to count him as Abbadon or Typhus (the only other spec chars in termi armour), his points are lowered massively but it means the lieutenants of his army can now beat him in combat in one on one matches which was never the case before. 

Why because i refuse to take pre made characters should i be gimped in larger scale games? I can't hope to create a character which could come against Logan Grimnar in a fight and win it's just not possible any more without using the other spec chars. And i don't want those greedy glory hogs anywhere near my already established storyline. 




> The question here is why would you take any troop choices when Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy support can hold an objective. Can you also imagine the problem of taking an objective thats held by something like carnifex or a trygon?


Because you are required to by the FOC and because most basic troops units have a reasonably balanced usage anyway. Can you imagine how few models an ork army which sunk all its points in elites and HS would be? You are always gonna need somone to fill the gap a little.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

There is also the small problem that Trygons are MC, not infantry.

Going back to the SC debate I just think GW is ruining the uniqueness of each SC but having the whole wanna be liscence as well as giving them the tasty special rules that I would rather see on other choices. And no having the same SC in different colours does not do it for me either.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Aramoro said:


> Remove all the SC unlocks a specific FoC. Make FoC's different for different armies and allow HQ upgrades to effects your FoC but not just SC.


Best idea in the whole thread, especially if it meant Orks could take even more troops.



Geist said:


> Change plentiful 4+ saves to plentiful 5+ saves.


Why is it that everyone seems to hate the 4+ cover saves? While I'm sure that anyone who gets a 3+ armour save as standard doesn't tend to worry about it, the 4+ cover save is something we Ork players need in order to have a good game.



Wusword77 said:


> I would like to see a policy shift at GW for more tournaments, done in a swiss style with no soft scores, so we can get some legit errata and FAQS posted. Doing it every couple of months would allow for frequent updates that the game does need from time to time.


Definitely a good idea, especially where Throne of skulls is concerned.



TheSpore said:


> Bring back the old massacre sweeping advance rules when they dropped this it really hamperded those CC armies. Stp flippin penelizing feaarless units. Fearrless doesn't mean we take double wounds it means WE DO NOT TAKE MORALE TESTS. I get so tired of losing whole units just becaus ethey have take extra wounds when combat is done for that turn no one is striking and it makes no sense at all.
> 
> Oh one last things change the kill point system and kill matt ward!


Great ideas, apart from the last one. Suggesting killing someone is never a good idea, even on the internet.


----------



## Grimskul25 (Feb 17, 2009)

Change the defensive weapons on vehicles back to S5, currently the new def. weapons of S4 gimps a lot of the vehicles like IG's LR variants w/heavy bolters, Trukks, Devilfishes, etc. 

One of the gripes I have is on psychic powers. It's extremely unbalanced that psychic capabilities of each race is completely based upon the codex and whether or not you have a special rule in which you can defend yourself in some way against psychic powers. Give every race's psyker (and something else for Tau to compensate, unless they get a new psychic alien auxiliary in the new book) a type of base psychic defense capability which allows them so nullify or at least hinder the amount of damage other enemy psykers do. So let's say you got a psychic power off, the enemy psyker can try to counter it by both players rolling a D6, whoever gets the higher one then rolls a D6 on a chart that says how effectively the psychic power was blocked or how much got through the defense. This way its not completely down to psychic hoods and runes of warding in terms of who wins and who doesn't. As a result, they should errata hoods (and maybe the runes) to instead raise the D6 roll off by 1, or something else similar. If there is a tie in the roll off, well.....flip a coin?

The last thing I don't like is how some shooty armies who can't rely on sheer numbers/mass volume of shots like guard are at a disadvantage from melee armies. Undeniably there is more pros being in combat for most races vs. shooting. Therefore to boost up shooting maybe give units who are about to be assaulted a stand and shoot reaction like in fantasy, so you can at least damage or deter certain assault units. This way a lone Khorne Berserker won't just waltz into a maxed out Fire Warrior squad kill 2-3 guys with none of the warriors able to kill him and subsequently get wiped out.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Grimskul25 said:


> The last thing I don't like is how some shooty armies who can't rely on sheer numbers/mass volume of shots like guard are at a disadvantage from melee armies. Undeniably there is more pros being in combat for most races vs. shooting. Therefore to boost up shooting maybe give units who are about to be assaulted a stand and shoot reaction like in fantasy, so you can at least damage or deter certain assault units. This way a lone Khorne Berserker won't just waltz into a maxed out Fire Warrior squad kill 2-3 guys with none of the warriors able to kill him and subsequently get wiped out.


I take it this would be dependent on taking a leadership test, with a -modifier based on casualties? Having experienced Stand & Shoot in fantasy (on the receiving end) I'm not a fan as it really disadvantages any army that relies on melee.


----------



## Grimskul25 (Feb 17, 2009)

The Sullen One said:


> I take it this would be dependent on taking a leadership test, with a -modifier based on casualties? Having experienced Stand & Shoot in fantasy (on the receiving end) I'm not a fan as it really disadvantages any army that relies on melee.


Yeah, something to balance out the amount of dakka shot out by the unit, especially depending what weapons they have. To make sure it doesn't go too out of hand, make it that only weapons of S5 or lower are able to shoot on the Stand and Shoot reaction (so pistols, normal basic shooty weapons rather than melta guns and lascannons :shok: ) since the others are too unwieldy in such close quarters presumably. Should they only be one shot each? Or would they stay to the amount of shots usually allowed like Bolters=2 shots since its in rapid fire range, HB has 3 shots in its profile etc. Maybe also add in only models w/in 6" or 8" of the assaulting models may shoot, but that gets a little convulted after that.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> Why would you need to alter the model to represent such special rules? Does Wazdakka have something modelled on him that clearly shows he can take bikes as troops? Balancing it would be the tricky part but no more tricky then balancing the rules for a SC in the first place.


How about the fact that he is a HQ choice that is riding a bike? If an SM captain rides a bike he can take bikes as troops, but what would you do for an HQ like Vulkan?



> Why because i refuse to take pre made characters should i be gimped in larger scale games? I can't hope to create a character which could come against Logan Grimnar in a fight and win it's just not possible any more without using the other spec chars. And i don't want those greedy glory hogs anywhere near my already established storyline.


How are you gimped in larger games if you don't take a SC? There are plenty of good builds where you do not need to take a SC.

Finally, you can build a character that can win against SC like Grimnar, depending on the book, but you shouldn't be able to build a character where it is a guarantee that you would beat the biggest SC from another codex. Were that the case there would be no reason to take SCs ever, as opposed to now where they are a viable option. I'd rather have SCs as they currently are, a viable option, rather then 4th ed and before where they were a waste of points.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Grimskul25 said:


> Yeah, something to balance out the amount of dakka shot out by the unit, especially depending what weapons they have. To make sure it doesn't go too out of hand, make it that only weapons of S5 or lower are able to shoot on the Stand and Shoot reaction (so pistols, normal basic shooty weapons rather than melta guns and lascannons :shok: ) since the others are too unwieldy in such close quarters presumably. Should they only be one shot each? Or would they stay to the amount of shots usually allowed like Bolters=2 shots since its in rapid fire range, HB has 3 shots in its profile etc. Maybe also add in only models w/in 6" or 8" of the assaulting models may shoot, but that gets a little convulted after that.


or we can realise that this is the 41st millennium, and close combat isn't supposed to be king. also a simple way to balance the stand and shoot reaction is to have it be an either/or, either you can stand and shoot, or you can fight in the first round of combat, but not both.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

I'd like to see something more done about Morale.

Maybe basic inclusions of things like 'Inspiring acts' and 'Morale ailments'.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Orochi said:


> I'd like to see something more done about Morale.
> 
> Maybe basic inclusions of things like 'Inspiring acts' and 'Morale ailments'.


Yeah I agree. Morale seems to play a very small role in the game when compared to fantasy and LotR. It's a little disappointing.

Melta needs a nerf. 
Plasma weapons need to cost less. 
Cover needs a rework. 
Transport vehicles need to cost more. 
Combat vehicles need to be more than stationary pillboxes.
Matt Ward needs to be murdered.
More missions are needed.
And as said before, morale/Ld needs to play a bigger part in the game.

If all that happened I'd be a happy chappy...... Actually I'd probably still bitch about the prices.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> How about the fact that he is a HQ choice that is riding a bike? If an SM captain rides a bike he can take bikes as troops, but what would you do for an HQ like Vulkan?


So you're saying that a HQ choice riding a bike will always allow you to take some bikers as troops? Cause otherwise it's a very poor representation of a special rule. And here was me thinking that his bike actually represented the fact that he could move at a different speed to infantry. 

despite my poor example this actually reinforces my point. vulkan has nothing specifically modelled on him to represent his special abilities so why should a homebrew SC require something modelled on him to represent that he has special rules? 

Yes the Vulcan model has salamanders heraldry on him but that doesn't mean that all models with a salamander logo automatically improve flame weapons etc.

The point i'm trying to make is that special characters tend to have 2 types of special rule, ones that refer to their wargear which tend to be represented on the models and ones that are part of their personality. 

For example Marbo from the IG codex. He has 2 special wargear rules for his ripper pistol and envenomed blade. His other 2 special rules are not represented on the model. 
Loner means he takes no orders and He's behind you increases his infiltration abilities. 

Either method is a viable representation and you aren't expected to model a broken commes unit at his feet to represent his special rules. 

The same could quite clearly be applied for IC. If there is a special rule that can be applied through the use of wargear then model it on, but why when SC don't have every one of their own rules repped on the model shoudl IC be expected to. 

You don't have to model something on every space marine to apply the And they shall know no fear rule. It's just part of their personality and training. 



> but you shouldn't be able to build a character where it is a guarantee that you would beat the biggest SC from another codex. Were that the case there would be no reason to take SCs ever, as opposed to now where they are a viable option.


Why not? If i'm willing to spend more points then the SC is worth and spend time converting the various bits of wargear onto a model to represent him, why should i not be able to field something more powerful than the superboys? I'm not saying make the options cheap and cheerful i'm just saying make them more interesting. Heck my CSm army had no fewer than 4 commanders depending on how big the game is and i only ever brought out Kai for large scale 3000+ games. In smaller games i always fielded smaller points commanders who were more cost effective. Kai was great but once i had paid for his chosen and landraider transport he was a massive points sink. I'd only consider taking him in games of Apocalypse now. 

I don't want the minimum points limit for SC reimposed, i feel that if people want to play with specific characters rather than creating their own then they should be allowed to. The thing is i just can't get past seeing SC as IC that have already been built for you. Just unbox em and wack them on the table. No thought for storyline or background necisary. If done right a more in depth character creation system should be able to be used to recreate the existing special characters anyway. And in a hobby where customisation is a core facet of the appeal it seems somewhat backwards to say. 
"Nope, unless you buy this one specific guy you cannot field a competative salamanders list." Are we to believe that every single action by the salamanders is led by Vulcan? Do they suddenly forget how to use thunderhammers properly when he isn't around? Why can i not create a termi armoured salamander captain without all of the marines forgetting how to use their flamers?


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> So you're saying that a HQ choice riding a bike will always allow you to take some bikers as troops? Cause otherwise it's a very poor representation of a special rule. And here was me thinking that his bike actually represented the fact that he could move at a different speed to infantry.


Yeah, if you're playing Space Marines and you see a captain on a bike, you know that the other player has the option to take bikes as a troop choice. You can give the Captain any wargear you want, but he is still able to take bikes as troops because his captain is on a bike.



> despite my poor example this actually reinforces my point. vulkan has nothing specifically modelled on him to represent his special abilities so why should a homebrew SC require something modelled on him to represent that he has special rules?
> 
> Yes the Vulcan model has salamanders heraldry on him but that doesn't mean that all models with a salamander logo automatically improve flame weapons etc.


No, the salamanders heraldry doesn't mean that all flamers, meltas, and thunderhammers are improved. But you know a model is using Vulkans rules when it has a cape, a flamer attached in an abnormal way, and is using a 2 handed melee weapon. You take away the standard equipment that would come on a special character to impose special rules and the other player has no identifiers to show special rules.



> The point i'm trying to make is that special characters tend to have 2 types of special rule, ones that refer to their wargear which tend to be represented on the models and ones that are part of their personality.
> 
> For example Marbo from the IG codex. He has 2 special wargear rules for his ripper pistol and envenomed blade. His other 2 special rules are not represented on the model.
> Loner means he takes no orders and He's behind you increases his infiltration abilities.
> ...


They have 2 types of rules, but they go hand in hand. You're able to identify the SC due to the specific wargear that they carry. I know if you're playing Calgar because you put a termie model with 2 powerfists on the table. If you placed a captain on the table with a chainsword and bolt pistol then mid game started saying "I'll let this unit fail it's moral check but this unit will pass it" and didn't roll any dice I'd start to question what gives you the rule to do that.



> You don't have to model something on every space marine to apply the And they shall know no fear rule. It's just part of their personality and training.


No, they are modeled to have it because they are Space Marines. It's a universal rule applied to all units that are space marines. It actually proves my point in that you KNOW they have ATSKNF because they are Space Marines. With nothing that will identify special rules on characters, rules like WYSIWYG are pointless.



> Why not? If i'm willing to spend more points then the SC is worth and spend time converting the various bits of wargear onto a model to represent him, why should i not be able to field something more powerful than the superboys? I'm not saying make the options cheap and cheerful i'm just saying make them more interesting. Heck my CSm army had no fewer than 4 commanders depending on how big the game is and i only ever brought out Kai for large scale 3000+ games. In smaller games i always fielded smaller points commanders who were more cost effective. Kai was great but once i had paid for his chosen and landraider transport he was a massive points sink. I'd only consider taking him in games of Apocalypse now.
> 
> I don't want the minimum points limit for SC reimposed, i feel that if people want to play with specific characters rather than creating their own then they should be allowed to. The thing is i just can't get past seeing SC as IC that have already been built for you. Just unbox em and wack them on the table. No thought for storyline or background necisary. If done right a more in depth character creation system should be able to be used to recreate the existing special characters anyway. And in a hobby where customisation is a core facet of the appeal it seems somewhat backwards to say.
> "Nope, unless you buy this one specific guy you cannot field a competative salamanders list." Are we to believe that every single action by the salamanders is led by Vulcan? Do they suddenly forget how to use thunderhammers properly when he isn't around? Why can i not create a termi armoured salamander captain without all of the marines forgetting how to use their flamers?


Customization is a good thing but sometimes it is not, specifically when your talking about pickup games and tournaments. The ability to look across the table and see a specific unit that I know gives certain rules makes the game run much smoother, rather then having to ask what rules your HQ gives and if they're legal with his wargear and such.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

I've seen that modelling question bouncing around and to that I say this:
If it's not in your army list, you don't have it.

Also, that stand and shoot thing like in fantasy sounds like a good idea. I don't know how trained soldiers (even the Eldar's Guardian militia) could just stand in one spot and go 'ooh look, Orks with big axes! I'm jsut gonna stand here and let them charge me!'

Complete BS.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> Customization is a good thing but sometimes it is not, specifically when your talking about pickup games and tournaments. The ability to look across the table and see a specific unit that I know gives certain rules makes the game run much smoother, rather then having to ask what rules your HQ gives and if they're legal with his wargear and such.


Which is why in other posts i suggested adding these customisation rules to an add on in a similar veign as Apocalypse. That way there are specific official rules for such characters but they can be specifically excluded from Tournies and only used in games where both players have agreed on their use. 
That's how SC's used to be run but even then they had the rules for useing such models. The lack of rules for customisation means that without homegorwn rules these characters simply don;t exist any more. This might sit fine with the tourney crowd but for those of us who no longer visit GW because they don't want to fight calgar over and over again in many different guises it would add an official rules backbone that could be applied even in friendly matches. 
If i went into a GW store and was able to ask for a game using the IC upgrade special rules, then an opponent would know what he was letting himself into. He could still decline but at least this way there is an official rule set that he would be able to look into and with a glance at my army list see what i've given my commander.


----------



## wombat_tree (Nov 30, 2008)

Wusword77 said:


> But you know a model is using Vulkans rules when it has a cape, a flamer attached in an abnormal way, and is using a 2 handed melee weapon.


No, that just means you've got a model with a cape, a flamer and a two handed melee weapon. If I give my Chaos Terminator Lord a combi-flamer and a Daemon Weapon does that make him Vulkan?



Wusword77 said:


> They have 2 types of rules, but they go hand in hand. You're able to identify the SC due to the specific wargear that they carry. I know if you're playing Calgar because you put a termie model with 2 powerfists on the table. If you placed a captain on the table with a chainsword and bolt pistol then mid game started saying "I'll let this unit fail it's moral check but this unit will pass it" and didn't roll any dice I'd start to question what gives you the rule to do that.


It's very, very simple. Before the game you either look at your opponent's army list or you have him or her explain what units have what upgrades. These are both things that happen anyway, so you're not exactly changing much.



Wusword77 said:


> No, they are modeled to have it because they are Space Marines. It's a universal rule applied to all units that are space marines. It actually proves my point in that you KNOW they have ATSKNF because they are Space Marines. With nothing that will identify special rules on characters, rules like WYSIWYG are pointless.


So what, do you model all of your psychic powers? I have a Chaos Sorcerer, do you think that you can tell what powers it has just by looking at it?


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

Truly, there's not a lot in the core rules that needs to be changed. The way the game has gone in 5th Edition is largely a reflection of the codecies, I think, and the 80's style mega ultra power creep. Now, a lot of folks are going to disagree with me on this point, and that's fine-- I don't want to derail the thread debating it-- but each 40k release appears to not have been playtested. While they actually have been, the playtesting seems more designed to sell product (which is legit, GW is a business) than create a balanced game. It almost feels like they've taken development in a direction to directly compete with Warmachine/Hordes-- the Grey Knights codex feels very Warmachine-y to me, with each unit having its own specific abilities and special rules that don't necessarily conform to what the rest of the army can do, but creates a whole with a lot of in-game synergy. 

With that in mind, I'd like to see a return to the late 3rd/4th edition Codecies in terms of style and development. You could bring named characters, but they weren't a staple of the army. You could build dozens of viable (in a competitive sense) armies out of a single Codex. You had an armoury to draw from, so you could equip characters how you wanted to equip them, and not be limited by an entry's options for the sake of simplicity. I feel like there was more emphasis on playing the game in those books, and less about winning the game in them, if that makes sense. 

As for things that I'd change in the core mechanics of 40k, though... really just a couple minor points.

I'd bring back the glancing hits table, and raise the strength of defensive weapons on vehicles to S5. It's a little silly that a heavy bolter isn't a defensive weapon on a tank, I think. That would help bring more movement with actual non-transport tanks into the game, I think-- right now, actual fighting vehicles seem very pillbox-y. 

I'd also shitcan Kill Points faster than you can say "derp." They don't make any sense in any way you choose to look at it. From a points standpoint, Kill Points make the argument that one squad of Guardsmen equals one squad of Terminators. In game terms, that's obviously not true, and mathematically (i.e, from a points standpoint), it's not true-- 50 does not equal 200. I know math can be hard, but...come on, guys... 

That means bringing back Victory Points. And not doing it in the "simplified" way they did it in 8th Edition Fantasy where it's all or nothing. If more than half the squad is remaining, you don't score points for it. If half or less of the squad is remaining, you get half points for it. If you wipe out the squad, you get full points for it. The same applies to multi-wound models-- not wounded, no points; wounded but not dead, half points; dead, full points. Vehicles that are destroyed are worth full points; immobilized gets you half; and anything else is no points. The argument for kill points over victory points was that it's easier math. But you added up your army list's points values, right? Victory points are also basic addition. In fact, Victory Points are even in the main rulebook still. They're just hidden away. They need to be the primary win condition, not Kill Points.

On a somewhat related note to changing back to Victory Points, I'd like to see the missions revisited. There really are just two missions in the main rulebook-- kill points or objectives; and they have variable deployment. Missions are stupid easy to create, but nobody does it... Battle Missions solves 90% of the blandness problem, I think, but it's still not perfect. Simple guidelines and ways to encourage people to make their own missions in the book would be great. Even throwing in some general strategic assets in line with Planetstrike, Cities of Death, and Apocalypse could be good.


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

WYSIWYG, now there's an idea...

I'd like to see non-WYSIWYG armies handicapped points wise.
How could I have an objection to you fielding a non-WYSIWYG army if as a result of you making that decision you were only allowed to spend 90% of your total army points allowance?

e.g.
"All these Long Fangs have got Missile Launchers, but I don't have enough. Can this Lascannon and Heavy Bolter count as them?"
"Yes. No problem. So, that'll be me starting with 1,500 points and you 1,350 points."

You'll soon see gamers writing Army Lists that accurately reflect the models that they own.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Here's a list of what I'd like to see in 6th ed:

No Invulnerable saves greater than 4+.
No stupid rules like fearless that can penalise units.
No more 'codex gap' or 'codex creep' or whatever the hell it's called. I want every army not just to be able to beat any other army, but to be perceived as that.
No more ultra-competitive lists for armies. I want every unit to be as good a choice as any other (probably pissing into the wind on that one).

As far as the game mechanics are concerned, fifth is great, a bit mech-heavy perhaps, but otherwise it's a great edition, so beyond this I'd change only those things listed above.


----------



## VX485 (Feb 17, 2011)

I'm finding myself agreeing with alot of you, but i think when it comes to GW play testing their game there is only so much they can do, a handfull of play testers compared to the millions of players across the world


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

VX485 said:


> I'm finding myself agreeing with alot of you, but i think when it comes to GW play testing their game there is only so much they can do, a handfull of play testers compared to the millions of players across the world


They should hire Beta testers before release to feed back issues and inbalances to the dev team.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> They should hire Beta testers before release to feed back issues and inbalances to the dev team.


That leads to budget issues that we will pay for. I think that there are a lot of good things with the current edition, but it can be improved. I agree with the defensive weapons, as very few vehicles have s4 weapons that put out enough firepower to really defend the vehicle from assaulting infantry. I like the current table where penetrating and glancing hits are on the same table, it makes tanks into tanks, where before, tanks were just upgunned cars. 

I can't agree with removing invulnerable saves better than 4+ or removing kill points, as both sound like a compliant based more on a failure to adapt than a real problem.

I would like rules to mitigate some of the issues with kill points, along the lines of some characters allowing extra units to count as scoring units. i think that it would enhance the flavor of armies like imperial guard and orks if certain units only gave half of the kill points or none at all, depending on their relative value to the overall force. Ofr example with orks, boyz give 1/2 per unit, and grots give none, since there are more where those came from.
on the other side of the coin, the more unique/rare units, such as sanguinary guard, maybe have them give up extra.

I would also like charge reactions, based on those in fantasy.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

I want OUT with kill points. Bring in Victory points. Here's why:



> IMO, this is placing a handicap on smaller armies like Marines, CSM nad GK. Horde armies (especially big units of shootas) can force a LOT of saves on a tiny little unit of GK or Tactical marines. Too many times have I seen and played games where an absurdly large (I'm talking biggest unit of gaunts you can possibly muster) shooting at my 10-man squad of tactical marines and causing like 12+ wounds. A turn. And that's only 1 unit.
> 
> 
> With Kill points, you have to kill off the entire unit to get the point. With the gianthumungousabsurd unit I just told you about above (and I'm being serious here, big effin' unit of gaunts) would take forever to kill. On average, roughly 3-5 guys are killed a turn, out of a unit of roughly 20. That means it would take about 4 turns ON AVERAGE to kill that ONE UNIT and get ONE KILL POINT.
> ...


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Keep kill points, just make the number of kill points a unit is worth is equal to: 

it's points cost/100, rounded to the nearest whole (or something along those lines)

Now you have the dumbed down kill point system for those retards that GW doesn't want to scare away with simple maths, and you have a system that roughly matches a unit's tactical value.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

Or victory points, where every model killed gives the killing player points equal to how many points that model cost. 

That way a 5-man unit of termies isn't equal in points (win-condition wise) to a 10-man squad of expendable guardsmen.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

> With Kill points, you have to kill off the entire unit to get the point. With the gianthumungousabsurd unit I just told you about above (and I'm being serious here, big effin' unit of gaunts) would take forever to kill. On average, roughly 3-5 guys are killed a turn, out of a unit of roughly 20. That means it would take about 4 turns ON AVERAGE to kill that ONE UNIT and get ONE KILL POINT.


That just says that you're a bad player, to be honest. If you can only kill 3-5 Gaunts per turn you're using the wrong tool to do it. Every list ought to have anti-horde, anti-MEQ and anti-vehicle. Against the right counter unit, Land Raiders, Terminators and huge units of horde can be dealt with quickly and efficiently by something a fraction of their cost.

I don't see why people keep bitching about Fearless having a drawback. You are better at one thing (not running away from shooting or being pinned) but are worse at others (*losing* combats which says to me that you're doing something wrong in the first place). That sounds like a fair trade to me, in fact Fearless is so prevalent it seems to have rendered Pinning more or less useless - the only time I see it happens is with an unlucky morale check after disembarking an exploded vehicle.

Stand and shoot works in Fantasy for two reasons - to hit modifiers, and the fact that all missile troops are universally terrible in combat. In 40k there are plenty of units who are excellent and both shooting and combat (imagine going up against an IG blob squad of 40 men with multiple plasma guns/pistols and 7 hidden power weapons, for example). There is also the whole "facing" issue which means you can circumvent it a lot of the time. I don't think anyone wants to see hit modifiers or facings brought back to 40k...


----------



## StalkerZero (Oct 3, 2010)

Sethis said:


> I don't see why people keep bitching about Fearless having a drawback. You are better at one thing (not running away from shooting or being pinned) but are worse at others (*losing* combats which says to me that you're doing something wrong in the first place). That sounds like a fair trade to me, in fact Fearless is so prevalent it seems to have rendered Pinning more or less useless - the only time I see it happens is with an unlucky morale check after disembarking an exploded vehicle.


You're one of those posters who I always just tend to agree with but I never really liked the design of fearless. Until I read it the way you put it. 

I really think for 6th GW need to decide: do they want morale to be important to the game or not? Right now I can't tell.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

wombat_tree said:


> No, that just means you've got a model with a cape, a flamer and a two handed melee weapon. If I give my Chaos Terminator Lord a combi-flamer and a Daemon Weapon does that make him Vulkan?


No because you're playing Chaos Space marines, though that should be obvious. A regular SM captain or Chapter Master can't use a flamer unless it's a combi-flamer so if one has a Flamer equipped, with a 2 handed weapon and a cape it's a safe bet it's using Vulkans Rules.



> It's very, very simple. Before the game you either look at your opponent's army list or you have him or her explain what units have what upgrades. These are both things that happen anyway, so you're not exactly changing much.


But it's also simple if I don't HAVE to ask. Thats the whole reason we have WYSIWYG. It's also nice if I see a SM captain with a Plasma Pistol and Power Sword I can simply ask, "Is that model counting as Sicarius or a regular capitan?" as opposed to going "Let me look over your army list and see exactly what upgrades the unit has then check the codex to make sure they are all legal."



> So what, do you model all of your psychic powers? I have a Chaos Sorcerer, do you think that you can tell what powers it has just by looking at it?


No but if all I need to be concerned about asking is 2-4 psychic powers on a single model, I'm ok with that. I'd rather not have to comb over an army list to find out what should be there for me to see.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Wusword, what do you think about the "Doctrine" style of codex that used to exist - notably for Marines and Imperial Guard. I don't know if you played with/against them at all.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

I want to see a £20 rulebook. I'm not going to pay £50 for it, I thought that £18.99 for Simon Scarrow's 'The Legion' was steep and that had more (and significantly higher quality) content in it than any two 40k rulebooks fused together. On a side note, I see that if you were hoping to get a cheap rulebook GW has been real nice and put the price of AoBR up by £16 this year. What lovely fellows.

Apart from that, make everything more killy. Bolters should be getting a one-hit kill on almost all Orks. With two hits a turn. But there should be two hundred Orks on the field against about 20 SM. (Obviously reflect this in the price of the models) Make tanks rarer, promote Spearhead and make people play that if they want loads of tanks. Make everything customisable and everything in the Codices viable for a winning army. Look on the Forums to see what the general opinion of the fans is and then bring out 'patches' in WD and on their website.

Midnight


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

The only way I think feasibly you could place in a stand and shoot style reaction for units would be if being assaulted through cover. This could replace the initiative penalty and represents the defenders getting a last volley off before getting surrounded. It is also more familiar to modern warfare where even charging into enemy held ruins chainsaws revving would be tantamount to suicide. Obviously having assault grenades like frag grenades negates this.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Sethis said:


> Wusword, what do you think about the "Doctrine" style of codex that used to exist - notably for Marines and Imperial Guard. I don't know if you played with/against them at all.


Never played against them, what edition were they from? I have or can get books from every edition.


----------



## Justindkates (Apr 30, 2010)

I don't know how to do it, but tanks need to do more than sit and be bunkers with 5 man tac squads in them.


----------



## StalkerZero (Oct 3, 2010)

Justindkates said:


> I don't know how to do it, but tanks need to do more than sit and be bunkers with 5 man tac squads in them.


I haven't played long. But I read like five 40k forums (way too often :biggrin and I really hope the design of transports in 5th edition was a way to sell a back stock of vehicles and that we see them jump up in cost and a bit in usefulness in 6th.

That way GW wins big. We all bought our 1-10 transports for our armies and if they made them cost more in 6th we'd have to rush out to buy more real units to play again!


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Here's some IG ones from the last codex:

Drop Troops: Gives option to DS a unit (can be bought multiple times) of infantry or Sentinels.

Grenadiers: Lets you take lots of Carapace armoured units

Mechanized: Speaks for itself, each unit gets a Chimera.

SKILLS AND DRILLS:

Die-Hards: Stubborn USR basically, for selected squads.

Iron Discipline: No -1 on Ld for losing more than 50% of the squad, and can rally below half strength.

Independent Commissars: Let Commissars join units instead of having to be taken with the Command Squad.

Close Order Drill: +1 Initiative and Ld if the squad is entirely within base to base of itself. I.e. you set up a firing line and gain benefits in combat.

Hardened Fighters: +1 WS. Costs points per unit.

Light Infantry: Gives Infiltrate, Move Through Cover and allows you to take a Sniper Rifle instead of Heavy Weapon.

Sharpshooters: Reroll 1s to hit.

Xeno-Fighters: Preferred Enemy vs a specific enemy, and your models MUST be modelled appropriately e.g. having lots of dead orks on your bases means you must have PE vs Orks and not, say, Eldar.

Veterans: Allows more veteran squads.

SPECIAL EQUIPMENT:

Chem-inhaler: Never fall back from shooting.

Cameleoline: Stealth USR

Carpace Armor: What it says on the tin.

Cyber-Enhancement: 6+ Inv for squad

Warrior Weapons: Trade Lasgun for CCW and Laspistol

You paid points for each one (some were free) on a unit by unit basis, and you were allowed 5 maximum. Some units could not buy certain doctrines, and some doctrines restricted which units you could or could not include in your army.

Space Marines had similar things called Chapter Traits, except instead of paying points, they had to choose Drawbacks as well as Traits, so if you wanted (hypothetically speaking, because I can't remember them all) Furious Charge and Rending across the entire army, you would have to have Rage as well - which is a significant penalty (especially pre-mech).

It was during a time where I stopped playing the game for a while, so I can't really comment on how it affected the game, but I know there were a lot of Doctrines/TRaits that were ALWAYS taken because they were just better, and some that were never taken because they sucked. I feel that if they balanced them a little better so that they were all viable, it would make a really nice way to modify your army without having to include special character X. For example if I wanted to play White Scars then I take a Trait that says "Bikes count as troops" but I have to choose a drawback like "You lose a Heavy Support slot" or "You can't take Devastators" or something.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> That leads to budget issues that we will pay for. I think that there are a lot of good things with the current edition, but it can be improved. I agree with the defensive weapons, as very few vehicles have s4 weapons that put out enough firepower to really defend the vehicle from assaulting infantry. I like the current table where penetrating and glancing hits are on the same table, it makes tanks into tanks, where before, tanks were just upgunned cars.


I'm not going to make a scathing, seething list of vehement rage and undeniable fury, but instead make several key points.
Cover is stupid. Make it 5+. If there is a reasonable amount, make it 4+
Mech armies are stupid and overused. Make transports HORRENDOUS. This fits in line with each edition forcing users to remake the super competitive army. Seriously, if the total d6+s roll exceeds the damage needed to pen the vehicle have the rest of the damage kill dudes riding in it.
Make SC not mandatory to play the game(I liked my custom-made chaos lords tyvm)


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

LordWaffles said:


> I'm not going to make a scathing, seething list of vehement rage and undeniable fury, but instead make several key points.
> Cover is stupid. Make it 5+. If there is a reasonable amount, make it 4+
> Mech armies are stupid and overused. Make transports HORRENDOUS. This fits in line with each edition forcing users to remake the super competitive army. Seriously, if the total d6+s roll exceeds the damage needed to pen the vehicle have the rest of the damage kill dudes riding in it.
> Make SC not mandatory to play the game(I liked my custom-made chaos lords tyvm)


 cover is fine, there are many many ways to eliminate it's benefits. 
I think the current table is the best so far, since you can't kill tanks as easily with a lucky shot, this makes them more worthwhile.
I agree though, the penalties for being inside a burning wreck need to be higher, 3+ to take a wound with only invulnerable saves allowed. 
In the real world, it is uncommon for troops to manage to escape from a burning wreck, due to the shck of the impact from the attack, the burning fuel and ammunition, and the difficulty of exiting a cramped compartment filled with smoke.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Sethis said:


> It was during a time where I stopped playing the game for a while, so I can't really comment on how it affected the game, but I know there were a lot of Doctrines/TRaits that were ALWAYS taken because they were just better, and some that were never taken because they sucked. I feel that if they balanced them a little better so that they were all viable, it would make a really nice way to modify your army without having to include special character X. For example if I wanted to play White Scars then I take a Trait that says "Bikes count as troops" but I have to choose a drawback like "You lose a Heavy Support slot" or "You can't take Devastators" or something.


I remember the trait system, though I never used it. There were a few problems with that system, mainly that most advantages far out weighed the drawbacks. Like taking a trait that gives the option of paying for tank hunters on all tac and dev squads and you can take a draw back of not taking allies. Not much of a draw back.

With the IG things, as long as the models are WYSIWYG I would have no problem with the additional rules, as long as there were a few of them.

For example, I have a buddy that plays CSM (red corsairs) and none of his models are done to show devotion to any chaos god, yet his guys use Icons and marks that benefit him the most for a match. He adjusts for points but I can't look at his units and say "those are Khorne units," and it annoys the hell out of me.

Thats why I have a similar problem to being able to give Army altering rules to a random model.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> That leads to budget issues that we will pay for.


Well, in that case, they should do like every other game in the world and get fans to beta test it for free.

Yes, we are dumb enough to provide free labor to games workshop if they asked.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> cover is fine, there are many many ways to eliminate it's benefits.
> I think the current table is the best so far, since you can't kill tanks as easily with a lucky shot, this makes them more worthwhile.
> I agree though, the penalties for being inside a burning wreck need to be higher, 3+ to take a wound with only invulnerable saves allowed.
> In the real world, it is uncommon for troops to manage to escape from a burning wreck, due to the shck of the impact from the attack, the burning fuel and ammunition, and the difficulty of exiting a cramped compartment filled with smoke.


I agree with this notion. If should be a 3 str wound to each if they vehicle is wrecked and a 4 str no armor save if the vehicle explodes. They can make it a 5 str for fast moving skimmers and then they can take out the ridiculous rule about fast moving vehicles crashing.


Here's the changes I would be looking for.

- Most cover is 5+, ruins only are 4+, fortification is 3+
- No more fast moving vehicles wrecking and completely killing occupants. 
- If you HQ has a set of gear, elites/fastattack with that gear are troops (bike, jetpack, aspect warrior, etc. some limitations will apply)
- Only 2 heavy support slots.
- transport death hurts the troops more than it does now.
- Glancing hits only suffer -1 instead of -2 (yeah, I know, I have crons).
- Make fearless way better, make subborn alittle worse.
- I'd like to see frag and defensive grenades grant bonus wounds instead of what they do now.
- I'd like to see krak grenades be more effective.
- I'd like to see hit on 5 on fast moving vehicles instead of hit on 6 and they have to move at least 12 inches
- Vehicles should have to move more than 6 inches to get the hit on 4+ advantage. No more tweeking the tank and getting a save.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Game is more or less fine as its is. I say this knowing that any major change at this point would invalidate some many armies it wouldn't even be funny. 5= 4.5 rulebook, they wouldn't even bother rewriting the book for 1-3 tweaks, and as such I fear what possible changes they could have in mind.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Eleven said:


> Here's the changes I would be looking for.
> 
> - Most cover is 5+, ruins only are 4+, fortification is 3+
> - No more fast moving vehicles wrecking and completely killing occupants.
> ...


To be honest these ideas would ruin the game.

Cover, as I have said before, is easily negated.

Fast vehicles should kill the occupants when it crashes, if it is going at a high rate of speed, it represents the "speeding into the side of a mountain" effect that a catastrophic failure at that rete of speed causes combined with the lightweight construction of the vehicle.

Limiting how many heavy support slots there can be has two problems: the first being that it opena the door to restricting oter slots that people find annoying, and the second it tat it restricts the types of build that can be made.
As you said, you gain a massive benefit from glancing hits only reducing the die roll by 1 this also returns tanks to the previous state of being cars with cuns.

Fearless doesn't need improving, the "no retreat" just needs to be removed. stubborn is also fine.

If frag and defensive grenades did what you propose then it would shift the game to where elite armies would be useless, as it massively benefits armies like guard and orks, where they have large numbers of cheap models. Granting them the ability to cause extra wounds that bypass the to hit and to wound roll is insane.

Krak grenades are effective enough, they are used against the rear armor, which is usually 10-11, making them more effective means that tanks revert to being too fragile to be useful.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Son of mortarion said:


> Fast vehicles should kill the occupants when it crashes, if it is going at a high rate of speed, it represents the "speeding into the side of a mountain" effect that a catastrophic failure at that rete of speed causes combined with the lightweight construction of the vehicle.


Fast moving vehicles do not kill occupants under current rules unless during a ram attempt in the owning players turn or immobilising itself on difficult terrain. Please read the FAQ.



Son of mortarion said:


> Fearless doesn't need improving, the "no retreat" just needs to be removed.


Why?


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

in the next rule book i would like to see a double center page spread advert for www.bitsandkits.com, but i imagine like many of the other suggestions in this thread its not gonna happen


----------



## StalkerZero (Oct 3, 2010)

bitsandkits said:


> in the next rule book i would like to see a double center page spread advert for www.bitsandkits.com, but i imagine like many of the other suggestions in this thread its not gonna happen


Everyone has a price. Even GW. Maybe hit them at the printers. Slip them a few grand and tada printer error now caused your ad to be in every rulebook that is supposed to ship in just a few weeks.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Sethis said:


> Fast moving vehicles do not kill occupants under current rules unless during a ram attempt in the owning players turn or immobilising itself on difficult terrain. Please read the FAQ.


I didn't say that it did, but that it should.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> Cover, as I have said before, is easily negated.
> 
> Cover is not easily negated if you are playing against a good opponent. If I am playing against a child, then I will easily negate his cover. If I am playing against an opponent with an intellect on par with myself, it will be easy for him (or her) to get cover saves at 4+ value pretty much all the time.
> 
> ...


,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Negating cover is not a matter of intellect, it is a matter of either saturating the target, or using weapons that ignore cover.

Your solution to "nerf mech" nerfs all vehicles, not just transports. making the use of transports riskier is a better solution because it fixes what is broken without affecting what is not.

You think that paying 10 points for a guard squad to cause wounds that automaticaly hit and wound, regardless of relative ws or strength vs toughness is balanced? Or that it is better than negating the bonus attack for charging?
 If we look at your idea as being one wound per grenade, and the current cost is 1 point, then even if elite armies were to pay an extra point for the grenades they still gain less. This is because units like sanguinary guard max out at five models versus an imperial guard infantry squad, with ten, the elite force then is able to cause 5 wounds plus the ten potential wounds likely to average out to 3 more wounds, the guard squad has 10 guaranteed wounds, plus an additional 10 potential, averaged out to1-2 additional. This means that the elite force will cause around 8 to the guardsmen causing around 11. How is this balanced?


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Eleven said:


> Realism doesn't matter. The rules currently allow for a tank to explode so that no pieces of the tank remains and all the passengers will likely survive. I'm talking about fair play.
> 
> So basically you are saying that fearless needs to be buffed? Also, when I say that someone is subborn, I think that they are being a slight annoiance. I don't think that they stay regardless of casualties. Stubborn should be a slighter effect. Under current rules, i'd rather be stubborn than FEARLESS, which is silly.


So Realism doesn't matter, but you want Stubborn changed based on the real world definition? :scratchhead:

I'm not following that logic.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Anyone think of the fact that real foot armies that where designed for 5th would rape all other armies if they reduced the strength of mech? Not to mention anyone bitching about skimmers needing to be stronger ihas probably not lived through the idiocy of 4th edd flying circus (Never forget). Further more it is very apparent that many of the replies to this thread had very specific suggestions in mind that benefit only some of armies out there. (Going on human nature 50+% want changes do to a lack of success with their army of choice or want a tactical edge not currently in the game.)

However I find some of the suggestions are well though out, and address real concerns such as the sever over abundance of 4+ cover ect.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Wusword77 said:


> So Realism doesn't matter, but you want Stubborn changed based on the real world definition? :scratchhead:
> 
> I'm not following that logic.


that's a funny thing to hone in on. Realism doesn't matter in terms of making the table top game reflect real life combat. Realism should matter in terms of words meaning what they are supposed to mean.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> You think that paying 10 points for a guard squad to cause wounds that automaticaly hit and wound, regardless of relative ws or strength vs toughness is balanced? Or that it is better than negating the bonus attack for charging?


I never said that they would be auto hit and auto wound.

I think that grenades should be killing things, not effecting how fast you can attack, or how fast your enemy can attack.

The way that the rules work now are weird. Imagine if instead of killing models, a leman russ battle cannon vastly reduced the target's morale save. That would feel strange right?




LukeValantine said:


> Anyone think of the fact that real foot armies that where designed for 5th would rape all other armies if they reduced the strength of mech?


The only real foot armies designed for 5th are daemons and nids and I feel that mech could be weakened and these armies would still not be OP.


----------



## Cowlicker16 (Dec 7, 2010)

Let me shoot into close combat that has my own people...there are armies out there with the mindset of not caring if they hit their own guys


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Eleven said:


> I never said that they would be auto hit and auto wound.
> 
> I think that grenades should be killing things, not effecting how fast you can attack, or how fast your enemy can attack.
> 
> ...


You used the vague " caused wounds" And they do accurately represent the vast majority of grenades and how they are used. The german "potato masher" was only able to kill if it landed at the victim's feet, usually it only stunned. 

If you want them as a ranged option, fine, I kinda like taking them to somewhere near what they did in 2e, but i think it should be an either use the grenades or fire other weapons, and only for frag grenades. Defensive grenades, by their nature are unlikely to cause harm, so much as cause discomfort/stun the enemy. 

The leman russ isn't a good example because it is a weapon that causes harm directly, as opposed to a smoke grenade, or a flash bang device.

I agree, I dont think that making mech riskier would make foot armies so powerful that there would be a massive shift. I think that it is a matter of balancing them so that both build types are viable.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Son of mortarion said:


> I didn't say that it did, but that it should.


Sorry, that's me interpreting your post i.e. if someone proposes a change to the current rule, and you say "I disagree with this change" then I would assume that you support the way the rule currently works unless you specified otherwise. Since a lot of people still think immobilising flat out fast vehicles kills all passengers I thought I'd clarify.

Still waiting to hear why you think "No retreat" should be removed - my argument would be to leave it alone, but make pinning/morale checks from shooting more important. As it stands, you take 1 Ld 9 test per turn and something like 90% of the time you don't care. If dropping a squad below 50% caused a -1 penalty on the check, or Pinning was always done at -1 (Ord Barrage at -2) then you would see a much more marked difference between Stubborn and Fearless.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

I was also clarifying, I did not intend to come off as being combative, and apologise if I did.

having been an armor crewman, i think that using vehcles as moving walls, staying in the ride instead of exiting when in range to engage the enemy and such should be discouraged, as armored vehicles have a nasty habit of being full of fuel and ammunition. I think that the way to make it riskier is a fixed to wound roll when the vehicle explodes, with no armor save if the models hit are inside the vehicle. by keeping the cirrent damage chart, the vehicles won't be a total death trap, but using them will have risks.

It penalises those with fearless, and as you have pointed out, morale checks are unlikely to matter, which makes the positives of fearless  versus a unit without either mean little. most units with fearless cost more, meaning that you are paying to be penalised. I also don't believe that a unit should be it with wounds automatically because they were already hit.

I agree that there should be penalties to morale, but think that with no retreat, stubborn would still be better.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Son of mortarion said:


> I agree that there should be penalties to morale, but think that with no retreat, stubborn would still be better.


It would depend on the situation - which is the ideal in my mind. If all Ord Barrages hit with a -2 penalty and even Sniper Rifles inflicted a -1 with another -1 for being below half strength, you would NEED Fearless in order to reliably advance without being pinned or breaking. This makes Fearless much better than it currently is without invalidating Stubborn because a Stubborn Ld 9/10 check isn't all that different to auto-passing when you're in melee.

Keep No Retreat and cause morale to actually play a role in the game, and we would quickly find that both have their place - Stubborn as a "We tarpit in combat" mechanic and Fearless as "We never get impeded by shooting, and keep going until we die" mechanic. Both have worth, and both function well enough without changing them.


----------



## VX485 (Feb 17, 2011)

Sethis said:


> Fast moving vehicles do not kill occupants under current rules unless during a ram attempt in the owning players turn or immobilising itself on difficult terrain. Please read the FAQ.


Im just reading the official update to the BRB from the GW website and it says on page 5 of the PDF, a transport vehicle that is destroyed in the same turn that it moved flat out will have all embarked modles are removed as casualities.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Unless otherwise specified, all instances of the word "Turn" refer to _player_ turn, not _game_ turn. Obviously the vehicle did not move flat out in that player turn, so the occupants disembark as normal.


----------

