# 6th edition improvements.



## turel2 (Mar 2, 2009)

What improvements would you like to see in the next edition of 40k?


----------



## brianizbrewtal (Jan 26, 2011)

uhhh how about a movie series, cartoon series, or anything visual that's not artwork or the sort  
movies, movies, movieeeeeeeeeees


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Anything with wounds that isn't mindless need to be able to hold objectives.

I haven't played any kill point matches (our group use custom scenarios) but I heard it's a shit system and has to go.

Also, area terrain back is a must.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

Sweeping advance needs to go, it is a disaster. Mech, i am sorry, but i want to go back to 4th ed where i was able to run two rhinos and a bunch of footslogging csm and berzerkers. I would also like to go back to victory points instead of kill points. At least let elites secure objectives, for christ's sake.


----------



## demonictalkin56 (Jan 30, 2011)

i would quite like wound allocation to go as 2bh it seems to slow up games unnecessarily


----------



## Arkanor (Jan 1, 2010)

demonictalkin56 said:


> i would quite like wound allocation to go as 2bh it seems to slow up games unnecessarily


Yeah crazy wound allocation "tricks" is unnecessary and annoying. It's by far the most annoying "gamey" part of 40k.

I also support Troops being the only scoring units, they're the backbone of the army, they don't have to suck (and really don't in most cases). We don't need even more min/maxed Elite/HS.


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Anything with wounds that isn't mindless need to be able to hold objectives.
> 
> I haven't played any kill point matches (our group use custom scenarios) but I heard it's a shit system and has to go.
> 
> Also, area terrain back is a must.


l don't really agree here. For example l don't think tanks should be able to hold objectives as transport can then hold points which makes mech even more crazy. on the other hand elites and some fast attack should be able to.

As with KP its fine and is one of the main weakness of Mech army's, due to them having in some case's 3x more then a foot slugga army. Removing that and just having objectives means foot slugga are no where near as good as mech. As someone else has said we if go back to VP l guess it would be ok but, from memory the main reason why they moved from VP to KP was to make it easier to count (sometimes VP was hard)



demonictalkin56 said:


> i would quite like wound allocation to go as 2bh it seems to slow up games unnecessarily


seems more of an issue with some armies more then other's. Still l find it fine and need's some more work.

as for what l want add more mission's and 2d6 not just 1d6 (that way there a large amount of diffident mission's) change transport a bit. Also change cover saves. (4+ from trees is silly)


----------



## Killystar Gul Dakka (Mar 20, 2011)

I'll second wound allocation as bad as i hate to admit it. It's a nasty loophole. 

Also, true line of sight can be cheezy in alot of situations "i can see the top of his head!!!" take that, with the fact that Battlewagons are barely bigger than a trukk (WTF!!!). 

And lastly, I'd like to see some kind of _squad consolidation_ option if your fleeing infantry are impeded by another squad/mob. I don't know about you guys, but if my platoon got blown up, and I ran into backup as I was running away, I'd be more likely to stay the other platoon as opposed to running through the woods by myself...just my twocents


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

sybarite said:


> l don't really agree here. For example l don't think tanks should be able to hold objectives as transport can then hold points which makes mech even more crazy. on the other hand elites and some fast attack should be able to.


"Anything with wounds" does not apply to vehicles - they don't have wounds.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

Keep Kill Points, Keep True Line of sight. Keep troops as the only scoring selection. Get rid of wound allocation shenanigans.

Give us at least six deployments and six missions.

Make the shooting phase more important than the assault phase.

If a transport explodes it should be _very bad_ for the passengers.


----------



## CardShark (Dec 20, 2010)

I'd like to see flyers brought in and it would make sense if you got both your normal save and your cover save instead of choosing one I mean if im in a forest then I should get two saves one for whether or not the bullet hit the tree and if it doesn't then i should get my normal save.


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

Azezel said:


> If a transport explodes it should be _very bad_ for the passengers.


well



> *Shooting*
> 
> *Attacker Group 1 vs Defender Group*
> 
> ...


for most IG its Very bad but for units like SM its nothing so some change might be nice. but l don't want to go back to 3rd were if you got a 7 or more on the destory the whole unit was wipe out with no save allowed (you need to have AP 1 etc to get it)


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

MCs not needing 50% to get a cover save.

basically have the FAQ fast vehicles question apply for the whole game turn ( the one where they move flat out and get immobilized they are instantly killed, including passengers) but they should get a cover save like 3/4+ even if they wouldnt get it now without smoke.

MCs shouldnt be as effective against walkers, or create an "assault" class walker that ignores a MCs 2d6 or they roll to see if they pen with 1d6 and if they cant roll another and it can only glance...something that lets walkers survive longer than 1 players turn of CC.

team game rules.


----------



## CardShark (Dec 20, 2010)

Fallen said:


> MCs not needing 50% to get a cover save.
> 
> basically have the FAQ fast vehicles question apply for the whole game turn ( the one where they move flat out and get immobilized they are instantly killed, including passengers) but they should get a cover save like 3/4+ even if they wouldnt get it now without smoke.
> 
> ...


I agree walkers should be a lot more affective against monstrous creatures


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

Azezel said:


> Keep Kill Points, Keep True Line of sight. Keep troops as the only scoring selection. Get rid of wound allocation shenanigans.
> Yeah, gotta agree with this.
> 
> Give us at least six deployments and six missions.
> ...





Fallen said:


> MCs not needing 50% to get a cover save.
> I' support this too.
> basically have the FAQ fast vehicles question apply for the whole game turn ( the one where they move flat out and get immobilized they are instantly killed, including passengers) but they should get a cover save like 3/4+ even if they wouldnt get it now without smoke.
> No. Nerfing 1 army that is far from stupidly OP is retarded just because you like this change. DE would cry if this was to be made.
> ...


These are some of the things I would like to see.
Actually, I would also like to see vehicles (at least tanks) being at greater risk when driving into terrain. Like needing 3+ to not get immobilised. But I doubt they'll do that seeing as tanks sell.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I too would like to see a greater variety of missions. I would also like ALL infantry to be able to hold objectives. 

Shooting needs to be beefing out because at the moment it is much easier to kill a unit in close combat than by shooting. Getting rid of sweeping advances would be good here since the number of times my SM captain is able to kill 18 necrons because they failed LD check in close combat is ridiculous. 

Another annoyance with me is that I want charging into buildings to be more dangerous than having I1 without 'nades. Perhaps allowing the enemy the option of firing all non heavy weapons before combat begins could be deadly. In a sense this would make sense since in modern warfare charging into terrain and close combat in general is normally a very bad idea. I would like this to be more replicated.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Azezel said:


> Keep Kill Points, Keep True Line of sight. Keep troops as the only scoring selection.


Did you just say the exact opposite of what I did purely to piss me off? Or is this a genuine opinion? If it is, I wonder what army you play to have this bias...

It's got to be something with few but elite units (your bias towards kill points) something with mostly short ranged weaponry (your bias towards true line of sight) and something that can field anti tank weapons in troops selections (your bias towards keeping troops the only scoring units)

EDIT: Oh whaddaya know! He plays Sisters of Battle I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED oh wait

Edit 2: This thread could have 2000 biased replies (including mine) but what GW needs to do is find the middle ground. Let's face it, the vast majority will have a skewed view on what would make good rules changes based on what would benefit them, even if they don't consciously think it. Hell, up until now I just threw out such an opinion (1st page) without mostly thinking of other armies. hat I do know is Kill Points is terrible for high unit count armies (Nids, Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, non-mech Guard and Orks) - True line of sight gets gradually harder to work with the longer range your weaponry is (Tau, Eldar... And lets face it, long range costs more in points and yet we get punished) - and scoring troops only punishes armies that can't field anti tank weapons in infantry squads (Tau and... Hey, just Tau  )


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Did you just say the exact opposite of what I did purely to piss me off? Or is this a genuine opinion? If it is, I wonder what army you play to have this bias...
> 
> It's got to be something with few but elite units (your bias towards kill points) something with mostly short ranged weaponry (your bias towards true line of sight) and something that can field anti tank weapons in troops selections (your bias towards keeping troops the only scoring units)
> 
> EDIT: Oh whaddaya know! He plays Sisters of Battle I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED oh wait


He's actually right on points one and three.

Kill points are necessary because transports are dirt cheap and oftentimes transport extremely cheap squads also. A great example is a Space Marine army with lots of 5 man squads in Razorbacks (Blood Angels are the biggest culprits here) - would you really be okay with only getting about 40-50VPs from destroying a Razorback?

True line of sight is the dumbest rule in the rulebook, so it can die in a fire as far as I'm concerned.

Troops being the only units (bar special rules) that can score is also really important because without it we go back to the days of people taking the absolute minimum number of Troops required to play the game and then spamming tons of more elite units. People bitch about spam enough as it is, I really doubt most people would like it if it became even easier to take multiples of the very powerful expensive units with no consequences.

EDIT: Also, I'd be careful about accusing people of being biased. You don't even really play 5th edition - if I remember correctly, you don't use Kill Points, don't play the Standard Missions and house rule a bunch of other things. That's not really 40k anymore, so I'd dare say that if anyone's opinions are overly influenced it'd be yours, not Azezel's.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

I see you missed my second edit.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> I see you missed my second edit.


You edited while I read another thread. My point stands.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

I don't think TLoS is a bad thing as such, it's how it is applied which seems to be the issue. I think they just need to clear up the terrain and cover save rules and then TLoS would work fine again as everyone's issues seem to be with how the rule interacts with the bad terrain rules. That said I find it hard to work out what issues people have with that rule as we've never really had any, perhaps someone can clarify beyond 'It's dumb'.

Kill points are needed as a balancing factor, when you look at Kill Points and Objective missions together as the set of 'how to win game' they work together well in a way which VP's do not.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Azezel said:


> Keep Kill Points, Keep True Line of sight. Keep troops as the only scoring selection. Get rid of wound allocation shenanigans.
> 
> Give us at least six deployments and six missions.
> 
> ...





Fallen said:


> MCs not needing 50% to get a cover save.
> 
> basically have the FAQ fast vehicles question apply for the whole game turn ( the one where they move flat out and get immobilized they are instantly killed, including passengers) but they should get a cover save like 3/4+ even if they wouldnt get it now without smoke.
> 
> ...


I agree with most of these.



Katie Drake said:


> True line of sight is the dumbest rule in the rulebook, so it can die in a fire as far as I'm concerned.


Could you explain why you don't like TLOS?
What would you change?
It makes sense to use the line of sight of the firing model to determine if it can see, and whether or not it's covered enough to get a cover save.

Seriously, I can't think of many things wrong with it, and it's mainly the "LOL MY FOOT IS COVERED!" scenario, what do you think should be changed?


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

While your point stands, it's the exact same point I'm making.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Aramoro said:


> That said I find it hard to work out what issues people have with that rule as we've never really had any, perhaps someone can clarify beyond 'It's dumb'.


I'll see if I can help. Some of the issues myself and my usual group have with true line of sight are as follows:

- It's incredibly hard to stay out of sight even behind larger terrain pieces. The opponent needs only to see someone's arm to be able to potentially kill the entire unit.
- It's quite imprecise. I think a more abstract system would be more beneficial in the long run.
- It can create disagreements. Alessio himself admitted this I think on BOLS. I don't have a link because... well, because BOLS is crap and I don't venture there often.
- It's time consuming to determine which of the defending player's models will get cover from each of the firing unit's models. Having to bend over and go "Okay, this Loota can see four of the five, this one can see three, this one four, this one two, this one can only see one, this one..." and so on is slower than it needs to be.

That's about all I can think of at the moment, I'm sure something else will strike me in a moment or two.



MetalHandkerchief said:


> While your point stands, it's the exact same point I'm making.


True enough. Didn't see it at first. I need to cut down on my random drinking, it's making me dumb. =/


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> - It's incredibly hard to stay out of sight even behind larger terrain pieces. The opponent needs only to see someone's arm to be able to potentially kill the entire unit. True enough, back in 4th ed only visible models could be killed, I think.
> - It's quite imprecise. I think a more abstract system would be more beneficial in the long run.
> - It can create disagreements. Alessio himself admitted this I think on BOLS. I don't have a link because... well, because BOLS is crap and I don't venture there often. This is an issue, probably the biggest.
> - It's time consuming to determine which of the defending player's models will get cover from each of the firing unit's models. Having to bend over and go "Okay, this Loota can see four of the five, this one can see three, this one four, this one two, this one can only see one, this one..." and so on is slower than it needs to be. I haven't actually ever come across a situation which takes more than 20-ish seconds to resolve.


In green, 10char.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

That does make more sense, now, you see we play with some big ass buildings and solid bits of terrain, then some smaller area terrain pieces so things tend to be out of sight or in terrain. We tend to follow 'If you can shoot me, I can shoot you policy'

How would you change the TLoS rules then, to something better? Personally I would like the return of the 2nd Ed rules but I don't see that happening.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Winterous said:


> In green, 10char.


As for your last point, you're correct. It's just annoying as hell when you need to take 20 seconds three times per turn for three or more turns when it's just not necessary. 4th edition's terrain/line of sight rules weren't perfect but I really feel that true line of sight was a step backward.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> As for your last point, you're correct. It's just annoying as hell when you need to take 20 seconds three times per turn for three or more turns when it's just not necessary. 4th edition's terrain/line of sight rules weren't perfect but I really feel that true line of sight was a step backward.


It could definitely use some improvement I'll admit, but I think that TLoS was a step forward rather than back, most of the time it quickens the pace in my experience.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Aramoro said:


> That does make more sense, now, you see we play with some big ass buildings and solid bits of terrain, then some smaller area terrain pieces so things tend to be out of sight or in terrain. We tend to follow 'If you can shoot me, I can shoot you policy'


We have larger terrain pieces too. It's just really annoying when you carefully place models where you're sure they can't be seen in the next turn only for your opponent to move and be able to see someone's finger (not literally) and shoot the unit you tried so hard to protect. It's even worse with vehicles.



> How would you change the TLoS rules then, to something better? Personally I would like the return of the 2nd Ed rules but I don't see that happening.


I'd nuke True Line of Sight entirely is how I'd change it. Go with a more abstract system where to determine line of sight players just eyeball a straight line between the center of a model's base to any part of the target model's base/hull. If there's any point of contention, pull out some string or use the side of a measuring tape to draw a physical line to the target's base. For terrain pieces that are mounted on bases have them block line of sight if the terrain's base makes it impossible to draw a firing line to the target. Assign size values to different terrain pieces (and have a list of suggested size values for different types of terrain since a lot of people aren't able to agree on such things on their own). Craters and barricades as size 2, large woods/forests and buildings as size 3 and so on... to me and my group, 4th edition's rules made a lot more sense, hence wanting to use a similar system.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

What do the Sizes of terrain pieces mean? I'm genuinely curious as drawing Line of Sight is one of a the hardest problem in a Wargame. I really like the 2nd Ed system where I shoot a model and it's saves are determined for it alone, and only it can die, you can can't stand your Multimelta in the open and gain a cover save from your mate hiding behind the wall, nor can he die.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Aramoro said:


> What do the Sizes of terrain pieces mean? I'm genuinely curious as drawing Line of Sight is one of a the hardest problem in a Wargame. I really like the 2nd Ed system where I shoot a model and it's saves are determined for it alone, and only it can die, you can can't stand your Multimelta in the open and gain a cover save from your mate hiding behind the wall, nor can he die.


Oh, right, sorry. Again, drinking, so not thinking as much. 

Terrain pieces and models are assigned size values in the rulebook. Like in 4th, swarms were size 1, infantry, jump infantry, bikes, jetbikes and so on were size 2 with vehicles and Monstrous Creatures as size 3. The reason for doing this is that a model can only be so large to claim cover from a terrain piece of a certain size. Tall grass could conceal Rippers easily enough, but wouldn't help a Genestealer or Warrior, whereas something huge like a Carnifex couldn't claim cover from some bushes.

Also, the issue with 2nd (and 3rd and 4th's) line of sight rules is that it was possible to engineer situations where you could pick off important enemy models by purposely limiting your own line of sight. I remember really pissing some people off by turning my Dreadnought in such a way that it could only draw a line of sight to an independent character with its lascannon and then picking him off (others did the same by "funneling" line of sight with transports).


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Blocking your own line of sight is tricky to engineer though, and avoidable to the player sucking it up. I like shooting the people you can see first as it prevents the more common cheesing of the rules done by hiding a couple of dudes to give you're whole unit cover saves. If I had my own way I would modify the system so that you always shot the closest visible models. The horde or orks charge towards you so you dig in an gun down the the front few to try and buy you time, you don't aimlessly shoot a few guys at the back.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Aramoro said:


> Blocking your own line of sight is tricky to engineer though, and avoidable to the player sucking it up. I like shooting the people you can see first as it prevents the more common cheesing of the rules done by hiding a couple of dudes to give you're whole unit cover saves. If I had my own way I would modify the system so that you always shot the closest visible models. The horde or orks charge towards you so you dig in an gun down the the front few to try and buy you time, you don't aimlessly shoot a few guys at the back.


It's really not that hard to do. I did it a _lot_ in 4th and probably won a fair few games that way. Granted, if your opponent knows enough to not put his most important models in the front then it's usually avoidable but even still it's a very 'gamey' thing to do and not at all how the designers intended the game to be played. As for removing the closest models, they had something like this in 4th where one could only remove models that were in range of the unit doing the shooting, but honestly so few people remembered to bother with the rule that it just wasn't worth keeping around. I think that in your example with the Orks that rewarding players who use tanks to block charges, set up further back in cover to force the Orks to take difficult terrain checks and so on is probably more what the writers are after and (at least to me) is more fun.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

There's always going to be a 'gamey' way round every method you implement, because people are dicks in their natural state. It's coming up with the least abusable/silly mechanic which I think killing models you can actually see/shoot is.


----------



## gally912 (Jan 31, 2009)

I'd like the 6E rulebook to include a directive for all next edition wishlisting to go to a single thread.


But seriously, I prefer the abstract los/cover rules. It allows for better proxy/varied terrain. Maybe I have a peice of terrain that only has 3 trees, but I want it to represent a full forest? etc


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

You make some interesting points about the TLoS Katie, but I think it still is the best system for most situations.
When vertical LoS comes into play it complicates things a bit, if everything was just horizontal that would work fine, but a short dude with a size 2 wall between him and a Carnifex, the Carnifex is still more than 50% obscured by this tiny wall due to the distance between them; it's not reasonable for an almost unseeable Carnifex to not get a Cover save from that wall just because it's small.
Also, when you aren't playing on just a flat board it can change it a lot too, if your Carnifex is in a slight dip in terrain, you might only be able to see the top of it over a size 2 wall.

I think that TLoS is the best system for most things, but it should be changed a bit to be less finicky.
Area Terrain would benefit from size ratings somewhat, allowing you to have tall grass varying to giant rocks, but it would be kinda hard to justify Area Terrain which could cover something like a Trygon.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Winterous said:


> the Carnifex is still more than 50% obscured by this tiny wall due to the distance between them;


This right here is it - it doesn't matter that on our imperfect not-entirely-accurate table that models are 50% covered or what have you. Terrain is there only to represent something a lot more complex. A base with three trees on it represents a thick group of trees with branches, leaves and so on all obscuring sight. The Carnifex model may be taller than those trees, but it's irrelevant because the trees would in "reality" obscure line of sight a lot more than they do on the tabletop.



> it's not reasonable for an almost unseeable Carnifex to not get a Cover save from that wall just because it's small.


It is if you detatch yourself from what your model terrain looks like and just use the terrain's base (if it has one) as your guide.



> Also, when you aren't playing on just a flat board it can change it a lot too, if your Carnifex is in a slight dip in terrain, you might only be able to see the top of it over a size 2 wall.


If you're standing on a size 2 terrain piece, add 1 to your size so you can see over things, just as an idea.



> Area Terrain would benefit from size ratings somewhat, allowing you to have tall grass varying to giant rocks, but it would be kinda hard to justify Area Terrain which could cover something like a Trygon.


I don't see the point in size ratings if true line of sight is still in effect.


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

I like the True Line of Sight rules. Its immersive, quick, and with the application of common sense, it works well. And i get to play around with a laser pointer, and thats cool!

Killpoints is good, troops being the only scoring units is good (if you have a problem with that, there's always various commanders that make specific elites/fast attack choices count as troops).

More missions would be nice, as would rules for team battles/scenarios.


----------



## Weapon (Mar 5, 2009)

I can tolerate the 'dumbing down' if they give us some more abilities like going to ground, running and outflanking etc.

I'd like to see overwatch make it's way back to the game in some form.


----------



## ohiocat110 (Sep 15, 2010)

1. Victory points. Kill points were poorly thought out and absolutely cripple certain army builds (looking at Tyranid Biovores/Spore Mines as just one). It doesn't even have to be super-detailed down to every individual unit. Maybe a 50% step and 100% step using the unit point value, with 50% for vehicles being immobile or weaponless. Then you actually get more credit for killing a 250 point Land Raider instead of a squad of 5 Termagants. 

2. Transports. Keep the vehicle damage table as is but actually punish people for being in an exploding box of fire and shrapnel when destroyed. Also, any penetrating hit should force saves against models inside in one way or another. And vehicles shouldn't be one-way psyker shields. Either let powers in to hit transported models or disallow psychic powers out of transports. 

3. True LOS. Should be replaced by overhead LOS. Slows down games and leads to too many arguments and judgement calls. Too susceptible to being "gamed" for advantage. The terrain modeling rules aren't specific enough to properly support TLOS, which is the real problem. Either fix terrain or fix LOS.

4. Wound allocation. Too many shenanigans and outright absurd results (like scoring more wounds by firing fewer weapons). You shouldn't be able to group wounds until every model in the unit has at least one.

5. Troops should stay as the only scoring. It would too radically unbalance games since all the codexes are based around it. Heck, having to take 2 Troops to score is the Space Wolves one and only weakness. There would be even more min/maxing than you see now if any infantry could score.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

ohiocat110 said:


> 1. Victory points. Kill points were poorly thought out and absolutely cripple certain army builds (looking at Tyranid Biovores/Spore Mines as just one). It doesn't even have to be super-detailed down to every individual unit. Maybe a 50% step and 100% step using the unit point value, with 50% for vehicles being immobile or weaponless. Then you actually get more credit for killing a 250 point Land Raider instead of a squad of 5 Termagants.


Pretty sure spore mines don't give up KPs anymore. Neither do Tau Drones unless the Tau player opts to detach them from the vehicle they come with. Now that the Daemonhunter Codex is gone (so dumb units like Daemonhosts aren't around in the same way) there aren't really any "free" Kill Points about in 40K anymore.



> 2. Transports. Keep the vehicle damage table as is but actually punish people for being in an exploding box of fire and shrapnel when destroyed. Also, any penetrating hit should force saves against models inside in one way or another. And vehicles shouldn't be one-way psyker shields. Either let powers in to hit transported models or disallow psychic powers out of transports.


I think forcing models to pass a Strength test or become Pinned after having their transport explode would be about all that's needed. Oh and if a unit wrecks a transport in close combat they should immediately become locked in assault with the occupants. Transports are a bit too good right now as units are immune to harm until the vehicle is actually destroyed and even then the consequences are negligible.



> 3. True LOS. Should be replaced by overhead LOS. Slows down games and leads to too many arguments and judgement calls. Too susceptible to being "gamed" for advantage. The terrain modeling rules aren't specific enough to properly support TLOS, which is the real problem. Either fix terrain or fix LOS.


:good:



> 4. Wound allocation. Too many shenanigans and outright absurd results (like scoring more wounds by firing fewer weapons). You shouldn't be able to group wounds until every model in the unit has at least one.


You can't allocate a second wound to any models in a unit until all models have had one allocated to them first.

I think that the lowest AP wounds should have to be allocated to models first, so if I cause four wounds with bolters and two with plasma guns my opponent has to allocate the plasma wounds to two different models rather than lumping them together onto one. I'm not sure how to get this to work in close combat as Initiative becomes an issue, though I suppose simply ruling that wounds that ignore armor saves must be allocated first would fix most problems.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

ohiocat110 said:


> 1. Victory points. Kill points were poorly thought out and absolutely cripple certain army builds (looking at Tyranid Biovores/Spore Mines as just one). It doesn't even have to be super-detailed down to every individual unit. Maybe a 50% step and 100% step using the unit point value, with 50% for vehicles being immobile or weaponless. Then you actually get more credit for killing a 250 point Land Raider instead of a squad of 5 Termagants.


Spore mines don't count as KP's so that's pretty irrelevant. Kill Point punish lists which excel at capturing objectives in a way which Victory Points does not. That is why Kill Points are good. 




> 2. Transports. Keep the vehicle damage table as is but actually punish people for being in an exploding box of fire and shrapnel when destroyed. Also, any penetrating hit should force saves against models inside in one way or another. And vehicles shouldn't be one-way psyker shields. Either let powers in to hit transported models or disallow psychic powers out of transports.


No more deathboxes. Being in a tank should not be more dangerous than standing in a hedgerow. Transports are too good right now and that needs to be addressed without making them worthless to get into. 



> 3. True LOS. Should be replaced by overhead LOS. Slows down games and leads to too many arguments and judgement calls. Too susceptible to being "gamed" for advantage. The terrain modeling rules aren't specific enough to properly support TLOS, which is the real problem. Either fix terrain or fix LOS.


Overhead LOS is just a gamey and just as bad, it's not the LOS rules which are really the problem, it's what you do once you've worked our what you can and cannot see. 



> 4. Wound allocation. Too many shenanigans and outright absurd results (like scoring more wounds by firing fewer weapons). You shouldn't be able to group wounds until every model in the unit has at least one.


That gives you the best possible result from wound allocation games anyway, at least make them work for it.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Did you just say the exact opposite of what I did purely to piss me off? Or is this a genuine opinion? If it is, I wonder what army you play to have this bias...
> 
> The army I play is right under that picture of Inspector Gadget. As you may be aware, sisters use a lot of Flamers (I know mine do) so I suppose there's a chance I'm biased - but then, I am also utterly dependant on my Rhinos, so I'm hardly benefiting from Kill Points...
> 
> ...


Kill Points offer a needed downside to MSU and Mech armies, which are powerful in this edition and need something to rain them in. And remember, 13 KP at 1'500 - I am one of the people being reined in.

and if I don't like it - well, I knew the risks when I made my army list and have the testicular fortitude to take the advantages of mech (more mobility) with the disadvantages (more KP)

KP also encourages your heroes to be, y'know, heroic. With VP you are encouraged to let that 200 point character hide at the back of the table all game lest he be killed by a lucky shot. With KP there's nothing stopping him from charging forward and kicking arses.


----------



## demonictalkin56 (Jan 30, 2011)

I would also like to use grenades offensively i.e. able to throw them either just before assault or instead of. 6" range or something


----------



## SlamHammer (Mar 28, 2011)

demonictalkin56 said:


> I would also like to use grenades offensively i.e. able to throw them either just before assault or instead of. 6" range or something


I could see this. 

You may have one model in the unit use a Grenade after assualts are declared. All Grenades are Assualt 1, 6" Range, Small Blast.
Frag Grenade: Str 4, AP6, No Penalty for Assualting Through Cover
Krak Grenade: Str 6, AP4
Melta Bombs: Str 8, AP1, 2d6 Pen vs Vehicles
Blind Grenades: Str 2, AP-, Attackers Lose Charge Bonus to Attack (May only be used when opponent declares an assualt)

And so on and so forth for each race. The points for each would change obviously, but that is the idea. Plus its opens up design space for special rules like Demolitions Expert (No scatter when using Grenades) or Explosive Reflexes (May throw Grenades back on a roll of 6+).


----------



## demonictalkin56 (Jan 30, 2011)

Love the idea of explosive reflexes so long as it didnt turn into marine reflexes enable a roll of 4+ lol


----------



## Kettu (Nov 20, 2007)

SlamHammer said:


> Assualt 1, 6" Range, Small Blast.
> Krak Grenade: Str 6, AP4
> Melta Bombs: Str 8, AP1, 2d6 Pen vs Vehicles


The problem with this is that Melta and Krak Grenades both have a very small blast radius.
Kraks implode thus only damaging what it was touching at point of detonation thus making it useless unless placed into position and Meltas must be attached to the target as almost all the thermal force is directed out the underside of the thing.
Whilst both of these would be more then capable of killing someone they become useless for such a purpose.


----------



## SlamHammer (Mar 28, 2011)

Kettu said:


> The problem with this is that Melta and Krak Grenades both have a very small blast radius.
> Kraks implode thus only damaging what it was touching at point of detonation thus making it useless unless placed into position and Meltas must be attached to the target as almost all the thermal force is directed out the underside of the thing.
> Whilst both of these would be more then capable of killing someone they become useless for such a purpose.


I was only trying to get a rule translation for the use of Grenades. We could come up with whatever fluff for it like "the whole squad is throwing them so they hit a larger area" or something along the lines. It's just a starting idea that I would leave to the professionals. 

@Demonic: I think that area could be explored, just like varing levels of FNP. So an Eldar unit might get a better bonus then a basic human, and a veteran unit may be able to do it on a 5+. It just opens up a lot of design space. Also another special rule could be Devestating Kamikaze (Grenades may be used in place of your normal attacks in Close Combat. They do not scatter).


----------



## Abomination (Jul 6, 2008)

It's interesting to see all the conflicted opinions and various ideas being thrown around. My impression from this thread is that whatever GW does alot of people are still going to be dissatisfied. Maybe they should look at including dual options so players can decided based upon what suits them. Giving players the choice of using Victory or Kill Points, TLOS or something different, for example.

I think the main thing GW needs to do with the rules is (regardless of what changes and alterations they make for better or worse) to ensure it is properly playtested, layed out in the book in a logical & precise manner and that the writing is as clear and accurate as possible. Alot of problems with 5e and the codices stems from inadequate writing and/or playtesting.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

ohiocat110 said:


> 2. Transports. Keep the vehicle damage table as is but actually punish people for being in an exploding box of fire and shrapnel when destroyed. Also, any penetrating hit should force saves against models inside in one way or another. And vehicles shouldn't be one-way psyker shields. Either let powers in to hit transported models or disallow psychic powers out of transports.





Katie Drake said:


> I think that the lowest AP wounds should have to be allocated to models first, so if I cause four wounds with bolters and two with plasma guns my opponent has to allocate the plasma wounds to two different models rather than lumping them together onto one. I'm not sure how to get this to work in close combat as Initiative becomes an issue, though I suppose simply ruling that wounds that ignore armor saves must be allocated first would fix most problems.


im sold on both of these ideas. makes plasma more effective and worth taking. and fixes the whole "shadow of the warp" thing.


----------



## Weapon (Mar 5, 2009)

Every model has it's own movement value.

Get rid of this unrealistic AP-value bullshit.

They should have done it like they do in Fantasy Battle, where the amount of strength downgrades the armour rating.


----------



## maomolin (May 4, 2008)

'Crew Shaken' needs to affect the crew. None of this garbage of unloading a unit then it can fire. If it reamins on the damage chart it should reflect a tank getting shaken, "May not move or shoot, passengers inside may not disembark or shoot."

Emergency disembark is lame, making conditions for surrounding a vehicle a moot issue. Inside-or-out rule for units in a vehicle. If you can fire out, you can be fired in (same with psychic effects)

Personally, I wouldn't mind switching AV to Wounds (roll results to-wound that match what is needed is a glance, rolling above is a pen). A lucky shot is a lucky shot, but by no means should a LR be just as likely to die as a rhino. Still have a damage chart to roll for each wound, but change it up a little bit. Apply 5th damage chart modifiers to the below chart. Vehicles gain 'Eternal Warrior' rule, makes sense.

1 - Crew Shaken (cannot shoot)
2 - Crew Stunned (cannot move/shoot/disembark/embark)
3 - Weapon Destroyed (as-is)
4 - Immobilized (as-is)
5 - Vehicle Wrecked (if its the last wound, apply as normal. Otherwise causes an extra wound with saves allowed)
6 - Vehicle Destroyed (If last wound, causes a S4 hit to all passengers and d6" surrounding models. Otherwise causes an extra wound with no saves allowed)
7 - Vehicle Explodes (If it is the last wound, any unit inside is removed from play and causes a S4 hit to d6" surrounding models. If it is not the last wound, vehicle is wrecked as per 'vehicle wrecked - last wound')

1-2 wound light vehicles, 2-3 wound transports, 5/6 wound LR/Monoliths, suddenly points match preformance. This fixes plasma weapon costs, as well as keeping str 6 very useful (Starcannons, Tau Plasma, Assault Cannon). Fast vehicles should be able to move 12" and still fire everything, even if at a reduced BS or some other balancing factor (this is influenced by having played with Tornados for all the years prior to this edition, and think Eldar/Dark Eldar/ Baal Pred should benefit as well).

Make artillery useful. Again just making it a multi-wound model, like IG heavy weapon teams or make it armor (10-11). Current state of affairs, D-Cannons and Zapp Guns are unheard of and are models that won't sell until they become a little more useful (and that'd make sense from a business perspective as useful models sell.)

Fearless should not be a backdraw, ditch No Retreat! No excessive wounds should be made, as no one scored those extra wounds...

True LOS is garbage, it encourages modelling for an advantage. I'm sorry, my catachan sniper doesn't crawl across the table 6" a turn when his standing body walks it (nor does my standing sniper ALWAYS stand to fire his rifle if there is cover nearby. Dynamic modeling / posing shouldn't be discouraged from a game revolving around models, but it also shouldn't be mandatory...

Combat needs overhauled. While it can be quick and decisive with its current rules no 5th ed codex is as capable of focusing on the assualt phase (with success) to the depth of the shooting phase. I was really let down by blood angels and Nids (so much vehicle suppression is need before you can hope to make it to combat). I pray BT get something more useful (like assault ramp rhinos) and not casted off into /another/ shooty marines army. 

On the note of codexes, lets cut back on all the power armor and FNP. I would think this would be a /good/ thing for gw. You want units to last longer, cheapen the unit and make 'em buy more.

Wound allocation is complete garbage. Pull grunts first, its clean its quick its simple (and fluff-wise keeps your sgts/heros a little more heroic). Pull a model if you can, applying Instant Death first. wow, that was realy short, sweet, and simple.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Weapon said:


> Get rid of this unrealistic AP-value bullshit.
> 
> They should have done it like they do in Fantasy Battle, where the amount of strength downgrades the armour rating.


Never heard of armor piercing rounds have you? Depleted uranium rounds? Explosive rounds?

An AP value on ammo is very realistic.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Wusword77 said:


> Never heard of armor piercing rounds have you? Depleted uranium rounds? Explosive rounds?
> 
> An AP value on ammo is very realistic.


Not when everything, including Khorne's cats and dogs have them, no.


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

Azezel said:


> Keep Kill Points, Keep True Line of sight. Keep troops as the only scoring selection. Get rid of wound allocation shenanigans.
> 
> Give us at least six deployments and six missions.
> 
> ...


Pretty much all this , I think an explosion should have an AP value at least...


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

maomolin said:


> 'Crew Shaken' needs to affect the crew. None of this garbage of unloading a unit then it can fire. If it reamins on the damage chart it should reflect a tank getting shaken, "May not move or shoot, passengers inside may not disembark or shoot."
> l agree l never understood how the crew got stun but not the people riding it...
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't mind switching AV to Wounds (roll results to-wound that match what is needed is a glance, rolling above is a pen). A lucky shot is a lucky shot, but by no means should a LR be just as likely to die as a rhino. Still have a damage chart to roll for each wound, but change it up a little bit. Apply 5th damage chart modifiers to the below chart. Vehicles gain 'Eternal Warrior' rule, makes sense.
> ...


overall some good idea's though l don't like most of them. with Transport l put the stats early on and IG on adv lose half there unit but SM lose very few. needs some way of making it even, like taking an Int test to see if there fast enough to get out of the tank before it blows up (l do understand this will be unfair for orks so change it for them).


----------



## Bhaal006 (Apr 11, 2010)

maomolin said:


> Emergency disembark is lame, making conditions for surrounding a vehicle a moot issue. Inside-or-out rule for units in a vehicle. If you can fire out, you can be fired in (same with psychic effects)


Why, I mean for open topped transports maybe but what is it about the rhino or chimera that makes you think you should be able to shoot into it.


----------



## maomolin (May 4, 2008)

Bhaal006 said:


> Why, I mean for open topped transports maybe but what is it about the rhino or chimera that makes you think you should be able to shoot into it.


If you pop out the hatch to fire / use psychic abilities, you should be able to be effected in return (see Shadows in the Warp, Doom, ect). 

Wounds for tanks is just an idea, heck give them structure points (same thing really). Just seems that there should be a reason to NOT have EVERYTHING in a transport and that there should be SOME calculated risk in choosing it. You did note that most adverse conditions only applied to the last wound? You think it is good and fair that a 250+ pt land raider dies just as easily as a rhino/chinera at 55pts and below? Figured that the wound system would allow transports to do their job to the degree it is suppossed to (as in you know unless its a lucky first shot, a rhino will take a beating a couple of times but not be shaken the ENTIRE game, whereas killing a predator or a LR would take a little work). Tweak with it, toy with it, you may find its quite comparable. 

My system is fairly clean and simple (and could still be even if tweaked). I am not alone on /similar/ thought processes: http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2011/05/40k-vehicles-math/

I know using real life is a bad example, but most transports in real life have the possibility of being a death-trap to pressure-triggered explosives, flame weaponry, and high-powered ballistics. Its not great, it is a calculated risk. Right now there is virtually no risk to putting units in transports, hence this mech era. Give me a reason to run a hybrid, please. Allow foot-armies to compete (and the rules for infantry are already a little forgiving, which leads to....altering the mech).

Power armor is enough, more than adequate really. do we really need every army the ability to FNP? Already half of the armies get to sit on 3+, which is very boring imho. Crons and Plague marines, fine. but really, why should everybody get FNP. The Incredibles said GW's current state of affairs well:

Syndrome: I'll sell my inventions so that *everyone* can have powers. *Everyone* can be super! And when everyone's super... 
[chuckles evilly] 
Syndrome: - no one will be.


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

that's fine maomolin but like l said, good idea but l don't see it as balance for all races. Sure tanks need some work but not l don't think they need a complete redo.

also, 
"please. Allow foot-armies to compete (and the rules for infantry are already a little forgiving, which leads to....altering the mech)."

the funny thing is my friend beats all mech army's every time with his foot when the mission is KP. He has 7 KP in 2000pts compare to the 15 or 16 the Mech has. But loess's most of his games when its hold the objective which is why l saying we need more different kind of mission's.


----------



## Bhaal006 (Apr 11, 2010)

maomolin said:


> If you pop out the hatch to fire / use psychic abilities, you should be able to be effected in return (see Shadows in the Warp, Doom, ect).
> 
> Wounds for tanks is just an idea, heck give them structure points (same thing really). Just seems that there should be a reason to NOT have EVERYTHING in a transport


Doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that the guys firing out the top hatch would want to take advantage of the protection provided by the transport and thus would not just hang out totally exposed so you could shoot at them but instead only pop out to engage targets of opportunity.

also there's a reason modern military's have mechanized, because it keeps your dudes alive longer and allows them to deploy and redeploy rapidly. I seriously can not think of a situation where I'd rather have my ass hanging out so it could get shot off.


----------



## Weapon (Mar 5, 2009)

Wusword77 said:


> Never heard of armor piercing rounds have you? Depleted uranium rounds? Explosive rounds?
> 
> An AP value on ammo is very realistic.


Not when that value is low and the strength is high.

And why can't a round that can pierce power armour, carapace armour, pretty much EVERY single type of non-2+ armour, not be capable of so much as a scratch on 2+ armour? It should degrade logically, but it doesn't.

This is very different from Fantasy Battle which has a system where the higher your strength is, the lower the armour value of whatever you're attacking. This makes sense. They also have power swords that cost about 50 points (Don't quote me on that) because of how useful they are. This would work well in 40k in my opinion, I distinctly remember someone whinging about how common power weapons are in armies, but how uncommon they are in the fluff.

The system is for piercing armour is stupid and should be replaced with Fantasy Battle's.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Weapon said:


> It should degrade logically, but it doesn't.


40K isn't logical. Honestly, I'm fine with the armor save system. I'm not really interested in emulating realism in my games of 40k.


----------



## Weapon (Mar 5, 2009)

No you aren't.


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

l agree l don't care at all for realism if it ruins my fun or makes the game un balance. for example a man hiding in the forest behind a tree gets a 4+ cover save. If say a Lemon Russ battle cannon shot at him even if the tree was made out of cement with steel binding the man on the other side is dead. however in this game he gets a 50/50 chance, sure its not realistic but it makes it even and fun and that's what a game is all about.


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

Weapon said:


> I distinctly remember someone whinging about how common power weapons are in armies, but how uncommon they are in the fluff.


I believe you'll find it was me 'whinging' about the amount of power weapons. And i'd like to point out that it was as part of a thread discussing the build of our armies, and that i don't use many, as i believe something thats supposed to be rare, should be. If another player decides his army was left a cutlery drawer full of power weapons by the Emperor/Horus/Gods/Conan the fucking Barbarian then thats their decision. 

Just don't say i'm fucking whinging because i decide to put some effort into making my army fluffy and themed.

And fyi, 1st and 2nd edition 40k DID have armour penalties for weapons, they changed it because having it got too bloody complicated. For example, a 2nd ed multimelta had a strength of 8, a damage of 2d12, a save modifier of -4 and a 2" blast area. But a heavy plasma gun on maximum power had a strength of 10, d10 damage, a save modifier of -6, a 1"blast and took 2 turns to recharge.

You know what, i'd rather stick with the strength X ap X system, that way i can finish a game the same day i started it.

*edit* 200th post. Shame it had to be a response to something insulting.


----------



## maomolin (May 4, 2008)

Bhaal006 said:


> Doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that the guys firing out the top hatch would want to take advantage of the protection provided by the transport and thus would not just hang out totally exposed so you could shoot at them but instead only pop out to engage targets of opportunity.
> 
> also there's a reason modern military's have mechanized, because it keeps your dudes alive longer and allows them to deploy and redeploy rapidly. I seriously can not think of a situation where I'd rather have my ass hanging out so it could get shot off.


This kinda goes back to modeling for the extra cover saves. Kinda sounds like you wouldn't be oppossed to the cover (protection) granted by the vehicle. A sheet of metal only helps so much to weaponry that cares not if it has to go around you (flames, fireballs, mindwar, shadows in the warp). 

Give you a statistic that was handed down to me while in the Army. Life expectancy of a infantryman in hostile fire enviroment is 8 seconds, a tanker is 6 (This is due to target priority, which we had in 4th and was removed...no complaint on that though really). The U.S. Army sends those who fail the ASVAB to Fort Knox Tanker School, just south of where I am from. This was given to me after I was processing HR medical claims (Formerly 75F, now its 42A) and was noticing far more 19D (calvary) 19E/K (Tankers) than 19B (Infantry) and had wondered if it was a specific incident or not.

Another, for a more lighter touch, fact is China is the last military to train on horseback (They have NBC gear for horses in case of a fallout.)

Though 4th had more gunlines, and I feel that making mobile forces was a positive move, I felt 4th had more variety. I could see a move to blend something between 4th and 5th vehicle damage rules.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

@Katie, you know, you're right.
Having it as realistic as reasonably possible ISN'T an important thing, so I should just stop worrying so much.
It leads to needing to classify a lot more about the gaming board, having sizes for everything, but that isn't that hard to manage; in most cases at least.
It could become a problem when you have things like a brick wall, not Area terrain, just a wall, which varies greatly in height due to being broken or whatever; how do you classify how high the various parts are?


----------



## Kettu (Nov 20, 2007)

SlamHammer said:


> I was only trying to get a rule translation for the use of Grenades. We could come up with whatever fluff for it like "the whole squad is throwing them so they hit a larger area" or something along the lines. It's just a starting idea that I would leave to the professionals.


I suppose a easier and cleaner method is if a unit was charged by someone with frag/plasma (There is Plasma grenades is there not?) then they take d3 or d6 S3 hits, armour saves allowed, and strike at I1.
Blind/flashbang/tangle etc... I1 and only hit on a six.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Winterous said:


> @Katie, you know, you're right.
> Having it as realistic as reasonably possible ISN'T an important thing, so I should just stop worrying so much.


Exactly.  Ease of play and enjoyment should come first and foremost. The less room there is for arguments the better.



> It leads to needing to classify a lot more about the gaming board, having sizes for everything, but that isn't that hard to manage; in most cases at least.


No, it's not hard at all so long as the rulebook takes steps to list as many terrain types as possible and give size suggestions for them. That way if players forget to talk about terrain sizes before the start of the game they can fall back on the rulebook.



> It could become a problem when you have things like a brick wall, not Area terrain, just a wall, which varies greatly in height due to being broken or whatever; how do you classify how high the various parts are?


You don't, you just assign a height to it and play with it. Example:

We have a high wall that is tall enough to hide a Dreadnought behind it. On one side of the wall there is battle damage and a large hole makes it possible for players to see models on the other side that are standing toward that end.

True Line of Sight: "Well I know you put your models there expecting to not be seen but I can see that Marine's shoulder pauldron because he's in a dynamic pose. I'm going to fire my battle cannon at that squad now."

The Marine player sadfaces.

Abstract Line of Sight: "What's the size of high walls again?"

"Three," his opponent responds.

"Okay," the Guard player says. "I'm going to fire my battle cannon at that Assault Squad in the woods."

I know which I'd prefer.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

the only issue i have about grenades is that if both sides have frag grenades, shouldnt they cancel each other out with the current system? i mean throwing a grenade while running is as hard/harder than reacting and throwing one.


----------



## Weapon (Mar 5, 2009)

Grokfog said:


> I believe you'll find it was me 'whinging' about the amount of power weapons. And i'd like to point out that it was as part of a thread discussing the build of our armies, and that i don't use many, as i believe something thats supposed to be rare, should be. If another player decides his army was left a cutlery drawer full of power weapons by the Emperor/Horus/Gods/Conan the fucking Barbarian then thats their decision.
> 
> Just don't say i'm fucking whinging because i decide to put some effort into making my army fluffy and themed.
> 
> ...


Oh...

Would you perhaps be...

Mad?

:biggrin:

200th post. Shame it had to be a response to something whinging.


----------



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

I would like to see in the new tau codex that suits can take two of the same weapon system

And for line of sight you should only be able to kill those that you can see/are in range/are under the template/blast


----------



## Weapon (Mar 5, 2009)

Jesus Christ, -23 rep?

I know you're new here, but they really went to town on you, didn't they?

+ rep


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

Weapon said:


> Oh...
> 
> Would you perhaps be...
> 
> ...


No, i have a certificate that specifically states that i'm not mad, and how many people have one of those?

Now go fist yourself.


----------



## Weapon (Mar 5, 2009)

Grokfog said:


> No, i have a certificate that specifically states that i'm not mad, and how many people have one of those?
> 
> Now go fist yourself.


For someone who has such a certificate that states that they are not mad, you seem awfully...

Mad.

You sure you ain't mad?

Just a bit?


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

guys chill no need to kill each other.

but l think Fallen has a good idea. l would like them to change some grenades as they seem pointless ATM. Also on game vs fluff there are a lot of issue's, Gray knights having few men but kitted out to the max and some "odd" fluff to go with them. (thank yo Matt Ward ) But as long as both side's have fun l don't mind what kind of weapon they use


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

Weapon said:


> For someone who has such a certificate that states that they are not mad, you seem awfully...
> 
> Mad.
> 
> ...


No, not mad. Just concerned that you seem to find an obsolete internet meme like "umad?" funny. Whats next, "peanut butter jelly time"? "i can haz cheezeburger?"?

Grow up son, I am Disappoint.


----------



## Weapon (Mar 5, 2009)

Grokfog said:


> No, not mad. Just concerned that you seem to find an obsolete internet meme like "umad?" funny. Whats next, "peanut butter jelly time"? "i can haz cheezeburger?"?
> 
> Grow up son, I am Disappoint.


You so mad, that this is now a Khorne thread.


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

Weapon said:


> You so mad, that this is now a Khorne thread.


Well, i do have a Khorne derived tattoo on the back of my neck, so it was perhaps inevitable.

Give up sunshine, we're only spoiling the thread for other people


----------



## Weapon (Mar 5, 2009)

Grokfog said:


> Well, i do have a Khorne derived tattoo on the back of my neck, so it was perhaps inevitable.
> 
> Give up sunshine, we're only spoiling the thread for other people


Okay, it did get a little out of hand for such a small remark.

And I wanted to throw in a 'U mad for the mad god?' too...

Damn it.

Anyway, I want kill team back.

In fact, a list:

More Interesting psychic powers (Has anyone seen what 5th ed. fantasy has with regards to magic? Freakin' comets come flying down to earth. Fists burn magically and raise strength, also doing extra damage to regenerative creatures. Walls of fire block off sections of the board.. it's just so awesome).

Kill teams.

NOT another tweaked version of 4th edition. I can still see this happening though.

The AP thing I mentioned.

...Less marine codexes and marines in general? I know it's asking a lot, but everyone who get's into the hobby immediately wants marines. Now power to them to play an army that they like, but it get's tiring hearing the same old thing for years. Just my opinion.


----------



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

Don't make me pull out the Chesire Cat's speech, guys.


I have one request of sixth edition- get rid of that damned Sweeping Advance. I don't care how 'realistic' it is- there is nothing fun about having a whole squad instantly removed from the board because your initiative is a standard of 2- Tau or Necrons, take your pick, I get the same shit for either force.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

i have no problem with "sweeping advance" but i think that it should be universal and be like fearless when you loose (if you lose an initiative check...perhaps by how much you lost by (I roll) is how many wounds you take?)

not simply i win since im marines and your orks.


----------



## Bhaal006 (Apr 11, 2010)

I hate 5th's scatter rule, I'd like to see something more Warmachine where the shot only scatters when I miss.


----------



## Arkanor (Jan 1, 2010)

Allow shooting into close combat at a reduced BS or increased cover save, possibly a combination of both.

Right now we're seeing stuff like armies avoiding anything non-mech because once it gets caught in assault it can't be shot, and will probably just attack something else next turn. It really hurts the lower durability armies that would prefer to be able to shoot, and you see Guard, Eldar, more or less anything with just vehicles on the front line, partly because they can't get locked in combat.


Shooting needs to be able to DO something besides just kill vehicles. I know assault armies have to have their place but blasting away with tons of guns at units that JUST DON'T DIE is so unsatisfying. I borrowed my friend's BA because I didn't have my stuff on hand. He ran his new Tau, at 750 pts he killed FOUR guys before I was in assault (no LR, just ASM, and no special char). It's a goddamn joke, you don't even need to be able to do anything, just MOVE FORWARD ROLL DICE. Makes any kind of tactics just seem useless.

Granted this is a little less of an issue in higher point games (where the "damage potential density" of shooty armies goes up), but still a big one nevertheless.


Right now all we're seeing is what appears to be faster and faster ways to get into assault. And assault is just _so devastating_ at the moment.


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

Actually i'm going to partly agree with Weapon, Killteam and more psychic powers would be good. Still not agreeing with the AP thing though. In smaller skirmish games it would be good, but anything at the 2k+ mark would just get bogged down with too much dice rolling and flicking through books to find weapon stats. You're right about the marines though, but there's nothing that can really be done about that.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Kill Team sucks. Look at the Tau codex. Which unit is has the words "SMALL SCALE RECONNAISSANCE OR SABOTAGE MISSIONS" written all over it? Yep, the Stealth Suit.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if that type of military operation didn't exist, neither would they.

But you know what? Stealth Suits are ILLEGAL in Kill Team. Because what? They fire 3 shots each. Yeah. Yeaaaah awesome game... I'm going to go over here and play a game that wasn't scribbled on a napkin at the GW new years party, k?


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Kill Team sucks. Look at the Tau codex. Which unit is has the words "SMALL SCALE RECONNAISSANCE OR SABOTAGE MISSIONS" written all over it? Yep, the Stealth Suit.
> 
> In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if that type of military operation didn't exist, neither would they.
> 
> But you know what? Stealth Suits are ILLEGAL in Kill Team. Because what? They fire 3 shots each. Yeah. Yeaaaah awesome game... I'm going to go over here and play a game that wasn't scribbled on a napkin at the GW new years party, k?


This is why the Kill Team rules in Battle Missions are better.


----------



## Azrell (Jul 16, 2010)

Id like to see cover reduce your chances to hit a target instead of giving another save. Or maybe just modify your armor save up or down. Or even say that you cant get an invul for cover beyond what your armor already is...

Reasons:
1. Whats cool about power armor if a naked dude in some tall grass can shrug off plazma cannon shots
2. Give a good reason to have highter BS scores, then just rerolls
3. Every thing on the table gets a cover save these days
4. would make it possible to shoot up a squad b4 it walks over and charges you
5. Terminators without SS would be ok to use again.

TLOS works, well enough. Buy a laser pointer. Cheap ones are like 5$.
I spend hours on my models, TLOS makes people look at them. Most people that play know when a model has been "modeled for advantage". A simple rule like no model may have its size reduced by more than 20% or whatever, would clear this up. Going back to a weird abstract, meta version of 40k is only going to make the game confusing. TLOS works because its simple, i can see it i can shoot it.


more Space marine specific, id like to see hard and fast armor rules set into the core book. 

Example: Termi armor has relentless, can swing large hth weapons at int, and can carry large ranged weapons. Power armor alows a 3+ save, can re roll on dangerous terrain, -2 str of flamers. Paper/no armor, 6+ save, cover only let you get a 5+ invul


id like to see more variation in weapons so melta isn't the default choice... like making it STR 4(8) 4 vs infantry 8 vs vehicles... plaz would be str6 but low ap... making them different options not just good better best. Also get rid of rapid fire, let everyone assault after shooting.

Move charging to the movement phase, you get to shoot your pistols on the way in but that's its. Get ride of assault phase all together you have Move/assaults and Resolution/shooting.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

I'd like to see initative order in the assault phase replaced by a charge bonus, where, unless the unit you're attacking has the counter-attack rule, you go first.

Initiative order is one of my biggest hates, both in 40k and in Warhammer fantasy (where it often makes little sense, as anyone who's ever sent Bretonnian Knights charging into an I4/5 infantry until will be able to tell you). Yes Space Marines are superhuman and Eldar are superquick, but if say 60 or so Orks are charging a squad of only 10 or 20, I don't care how super that squad is, they're still going to be a little stunned by the sheer momentum behind the Ork charge.

Apart from that I'd like to see KP/VPs replaced by a rule where if you've got three or four times more units surviving at the end of a game than your opponent, then you win. I really think this would help offset the advantage enjoyed by armies with a low number of KPs, whilst helping out horde armies who often fall foul of the VP rules.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Azrell said:


> Example: Termi armor has relentless, can swing large hth weapons at int, and can carry large ranged weapons. Power armor alows a 3+ save, can re roll on dangerous terrain, -2 str of flamers. Paper/no armor, 6+ save, cover only let you get a 5+ invul


Do you realise how much reference there would be?
That'd be a FUCKLOAD to memorise, completely counter-intuitive.


----------



## Weapon (Mar 5, 2009)

Azrell I agree with you entirely on reducing accuracy over giving another type of save. 

The only problem that it might make is the amount of protection a hiding unit would get...

Like, imagine shooting at terminators hiding in a forest.

You'd be lucky to even hit them in the first place, let alone wound them.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Not that any of this is ever going to happen:

but I'd like to see all codices written at the same time as the edition rules and contained in the rulebook, rather than have them as separate 'codices', with a staggered release.

Also play testing the codices for more than 5 minutes would be appreciated. 

Hiring someone to follow Matt Ward around and stop him from committing sins against humanity, aka: his fluff, would also be nice.


----------



## gally912 (Jan 31, 2009)

In regards to cover I'd just like to see it go to a 5+ base instead of 4+. Cover should not be better than most standard invulnerable saves.


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

ChaosRedCorsairLord said:


> Hiring someone to follow Matt Ward around and stop him from committing sins against humanity, aka: his fluff, would also be nice.


Much as i'd like to see this, i don't think it would make much difference. The fact is, Ward is just a retard without a clue. The man that should be holding his leash and ensuring his ramblings don't make it to print is the head of their intellectual property. I believe his name is Merret, either dave or alan. It is this man that has the final say on what constitutes the warhammer universes. It is this man that has taken leave of his senses and allowed such travesties.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Grokfog said:


> Much as i'd like to see this, i don't think it would make much difference. The fact is, Ward is just a retard without a clue. The man that should be holding his leash and ensuring his ramblings don't make it to print is the head of their intellectual property. I believe his name is Merret, either dave or alan. It is this man that has the final say on what constitutes the warhammer universes. It is this man that has taken leave of his senses and allowed such travesties.


There is a whole chain of command of failed individuals that are holding the blame:

The Fans (_Sorry, this wouldn't have happened if there was a monetary reason to cater to veterans_.) --> Ward (_And other unqualified writers_) --> The whole Games development team (_though I doubt many of them are happy either_) --> The editors. (_Because as of now they're a filter with holes in it_) --> The board of directors --> The holder of the I.P. --> Whoever invented money (deserves a death sentence but the guy is probably dead already)


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Grokfog said:


> Much as i'd like to see this, i don't think it would make much difference. The fact is, Ward is just a retard without a clue. The man that should be holding his leash and ensuring his ramblings don't make it to print is the head of their intellectual property. I believe his name is Merret, either dave or alan. It is this man that has the final say on what constitutes the warhammer universes. It is this man that has taken leave of his senses and allowed such travesties.


Matt Ward writes good rules, he just needs some fluff backup.


----------



## demonictalkin56 (Jan 30, 2011)

i second the idea of being able to shoot into combat although in terms of fluff i like the idea of making it army specific; i say this as i cant imagine that you could ever convince marines to fire on their brothers! Imperial Guard however.....they would be a lot happier (maybe going as far as only allowing a special character ie chenkov to do it?)

alternatively allowing shooting into combat only if there 2 or more enemies in the combat ie playing a 3 or more player free for all....the amount of times i have seen nids and orks ripping the shite out of each other and my basilisks have to sit and watch.....just depressing


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Aramoro said:


> Matt Ward writes good rules, he just needs some fluff backup.


Oh really. The absurd amount of errata needed on his Codice speak against. So does his 'magical invention' of fluff-centric units with no prior existence in the universe before he decides to make them and pass them off as if they _had always been there._



demonictalkin56 said:


> i second the idea of being able to shoot into combat although in terms of fluff i like the idea of making it army specific; i say this as i cant imagine that you could ever convince marines to fire on their brothers! Imperial Guard however.....they would be a lot happier (maybe going as far as only allowing a special character ie chenkov to do it?)


Tau would never, by your logic, do so. Needless to say it won't work, as Tau are the one army that needs to shoot their enemies more than the current status.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Oh really. The absurd amount of errata needed on his Codice speak against. So does his 'magical invention' of fluff-centric units with no prior existence in the universe before he decides to make them and pass them off as if they _had always been there._


The errata's needed are the fault of the Editor really, the core of the rules is sound. Fluff has nothing to do with the rules, I said his rules were good, not his fluff. Just because something hasn't existed before doesn't mean you can't insert it. That is a long established thing to do with GW, see the Necrons.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Aramoro said:


> The errata's needed are the fault of the Editor really, the core of the rules is sound. Fluff has nothing to do with the rules, I said his rules were good, not his fluff. Just because something hasn't existed before doesn't mean you can't insert it. That is a long established thing to do with GW, see the Necrons.


Something that hasn't existed before, _exactly._ Mat Ward is trying to tell us these abominations he's making have _always been there_.

And if it's the current editor team's faults, why was Phil Kelly's DE codex the most spotless codex in history?


----------



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

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Tau would never, by your logic, do so. Needless to say it won't work, as Tau are the one army that needs to shoot their enemies more than the current status.


Perhaps units with markerlights could fire on enemies locked in melee with a Tau unit, allowing other units to pin-point and shoot down enemy aggressors with the increased accuracy? That would be damn nifty instead of "Enemy is within six inches of your Tau and looks at them funny- the unit is automatically discarded from your army"


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

GW shouldn't have retconned Necrons into the 40K universe.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Something that hasn't existed before, _exactly._ Mat Ward is trying to tell us these abominations he's making have _always been there_.


What, like the Necrons? Retconning is a common thing in GW nothing to get your panties in a bunch about.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Aramoro said:


> What, like the Necrons? Retconning is a common thing in GW nothing to get your panties in a bunch about.


No, like the Storm Raven. Here is this mini Thunderhawk (that looks like a five year old's drawing in 3D I might add) that apparently had an instrumental part in campaigns that was yonks ago, shoehorned into a codex and a box after never seeing or hearing of it ever before.



C'Tan Chimera said:


> Perhaps units with markerlights could fire on enemies locked in melee with a Tau unit, allowing other units to pin-point and shoot down enemy aggressors with the increased accuracy? That would be damn nifty instead of "Enemy is within six inches of your Tau and looks at them funny- the unit is automatically discarded from your army"


That would be a great way to do it actually! 

By the way, your sig. It is much winsauce. +rep!


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> No, like the Storm Raven. Here is this mini Thunderhawk (that looks like a five year old's drawing in 3D I might add) that apparently had an instrumental part in campaigns that was yonks ago, after never seeing or hearing of it ever before.


So like Necrons then who the Eldar were created to fight and are their hated foe since the dawn of time, just that people forgot to tell them until 3rd Ed, oops.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

6th edition changes will have to look at fixing dependencies on Mech and Melta.

Streamlining armies into basically requiring on these 2 factors has made 5th a little bland.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Orochi said:


> 6th edition changes will have to look at fixing dependencies on Mech and Melta.
> 
> Streamlining armies into basically requiring on these 2 factors has made 5th a little bland.


Hmmm. 'Fixing'. That's a strong word. Let's look at the rule team's track record (though some have came and gone over the years) :

-3rd edition buffs cover saves to incredible levels, and the rest of the game becomes simplified. Suddenly a lot of players start relying on it. Over a long period of time, players have morphed into all heavily using it _despite complaints from all the veterans that it's too centric to battles._

-4th edition: GW ignored the vets, cover is still almighty. Also, the new game edition is now completely about assaults and ripping eachother's faces off - any other tactic is second rate.

-5th edition aka. "How many cars did you bring" edition. Game is now completely about mech spam and cowardly elite units with meltas huddled inside vehicles. Funny is it then, that assaults still reign supreme as the preferred way to resolve the death dealing, and nothing has been done about cover saves, but we now have exciting new ways to exploit cover, aka TLoS.

Yeah, fixing. They do that sooo often.


----------



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

^ This. I only got to start playing around 5th edition and I can't stand the fact that people are not willing to deviate from the Bumper Cars approach. A whole quarter of my Tau army's point cost comes from forced mandatory Devilfishes. It makes hosting anymore then one group of Pathfinders a total sinkhole! 

It turns into "How many meltas can you get in the enemy's face by turn 2" and who can field the most deep striking units. All I want in a sixth edition is a way that offers more leniency when it comes to going tactical. I enjoy getting creative with existing units, not spending boatloads just to keep up with the odds of the dice.

How about instead of fixing, we demolish and start from the ground up?


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

C'Tan Chimera said:


> How about instead of fixing, we demolish and start from the ground up?


I agree. The game is often fun as is, but it could be so much more.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

C'Tan Chimera said:


> How about instead of fixing, we demolish and start from the ground up?


Because 40k is mostly fine as is. Right now the game just leans more toward mobile meched up armies (which is not a bad thing).

You guys need to realize that no matter what, there will always be a tactic, codex or army type that dominates the game. It's simply how these sorts of games work. If it isn't mech, it'll be bikers or jump infantry, or flyers or something else. There will be a year or so period (usually less) where the best players tinker with various ideas and figure out what works best then they bring it to the community and the idea spreads from there until only the most stubborn or disinterested in competitive play with ignore it. We've seen this happen every edition since 3rd (I didn't play earlier than that so I can't comment on 2nd) and it isn't going to stop anytime soon.


----------



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

Weapon said:


> Jesus Christ, -23 rep?
> 
> I know you're new here, but they really went to town on you, didn't they?
> 
> + rep


If you would have said 'they really hit you with the book'-my bro literally did!


----------



## ohiocat110 (Sep 15, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> Because 40k is mostly fine as is. Right now the game just leans more toward mobile meched up armies (which is not a bad thing).
> 
> You guys need to realize that no matter what, there will always be a tactic, codex or army type that dominates the game.


Well said. Think about it. There's no way GW can adequately playtest and perfectly balance every new edition of 40K. With 16 codexes and maybe an average of a dozen likely army builds per codex (and three major scenario types) there are millions of possible army battle combinations. At the end of the day they're drawing on experience, probably many hundred in-house test games, and a lot of guesswork about the metagame.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

ohiocat110 said:


> Well said. Think about it. There's no way GW can adequately playtest and perfectly balance every new edition of 40K. With 16 codexes and maybe an average of a dozen likely army builds per codex (and three major scenario types) there are millions of possible army battle combinations. At the end of the day they're drawing on experience, probably many hundred in-house test games, and a lot of guesswork about the metagame.


Actually, they could if they'd hire on more people and actually took feedback from their playtesters. The whole staggered release Codex scheme is also a problem but I think everyone knows that that's not going anywhere anytime soon, so the other stuff will have to do.


----------



## Heretiker (Mar 10, 2010)

True line of sight should be really true - troopers/vehicles in the open should not benefit if the rest of their squad was in cover/out of sight. Hate that part so much it made me play Warmachine instead.

The shooter should be able to select which target group he aims at: targets in the open only or the whole mixed unit (which should benefit from cover if 50+% is in cover). That is a really common game mechanic, used in several other games and in earlier editions of 40k as well.

Further: unliving targets should not be able to be poisoned, its stupid that a wraithlord/daemon/what not can be poisoned. "Game balance" arguments are void, just balance it to suit.

In short: anything that is counter-intuitive/to far from reality to suit fiction should go.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Heretiker said:


> Further: unliving targets should not be able to be poisoned, its stupid that a wraithlord/daemon/what not can be poisoned. "Game balance" arguments are void, just balance it to suit.


Naw, just think of the poison as being acid or something instead. They mention something along these lines in the Necron Codex to explain why Necrons aren't immune to a whole host of things. It can apply equally to other entities.


----------



## Heretiker (Mar 10, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> Naw, just think of the poison as being acid or something instead. They mention something along these lines in the Necron Codex to explain why Necrons aren't immune to a whole host of things. It can apply equally to other entities.


Yup, I see what you mean, but its bull. Hellfire rounds for the heavy bolter carries corrosive stuff (at least in the old days). A tiny dart wont carry enough payload of acid to bring down anything bigger than a cat, however potent it might be. I understand that fluff can always be written to suit rules. But if the rules are bad any amount of fluff wont cover up the crap you know is behind it.

I second a move back to weapon-specific save modifiers and cover reducing to-hit chance, that is intuitive. Some say that it slows the game down, it doesnt. Ive played since 1ed and usually a game takes just as long now as it did back then at comparable points (it was making the army that took time, especially Chaos armies).


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

I'm with ya' Katie.

If GW treated their revisions and games releases the way video game companies did a lot of problems would be flushed out.

GW would spot many more problems if they offered out early rules to several thousand players, and got feedback on what worked, what didn't, and what worked too well. Or conversely if they managed updates in a central and easily accessible way.

And frankly, while the staggered codex release schedule isn't going anywhere, I think they should write a core for every list with each main edition release and dress it up when they release the codex. That way, the main part of the list is balanced both internally and externally at the outset of an edition even - if they eventually embellish it later.

Cheers,
Kreuger


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Heretiker said:


> Yup, I see what you mean, but its bull. Hellfire rounds for the heavy bolter carries corrosive stuff (at least in the old days). A tiny dart wont carry enough payload of acid to bring down anything bigger than a cat, however potent it might be. I understand that fluff can always be written to suit rules. But if the rules are bad any amount of fluff wont cover up the crap you know is behind it.


If the poison rule was crap I'd agree with you, but it's a very simple and intuitive mechanic. I think you're trying far too hard to make 40K realistic when there is nothing realistic about 40K. Hell, it's not even science fiction - it's science fantasy. You wouldn't expect Lord of the Rings to be realistic, would you?



Kreuger said:


> I'm with ya' Katie.
> 
> If GW treated their revisions and games releases the way video game companies did a lot of problems would be flushed out.
> 
> ...


Do you remember when GW released their early version of the 6th edition Beasts of Chaos in the Fantasy version of Chapter Approved contained in White Dwarf?

It was awesome. Suddenly, the entire planet knew the direction that Games Workshop intended to take the Beastmen. Suddenly, it was easy for everyone to give their input on what worked, what didn't, what they liked and what they didn't like. Sure, GW probably ignored an awful lot of the suggestions but what game company takes on board everything that its fans suggest? Imagine the mess that a game like Starcraft 2 would be if the fans had their way on every point (for those that don't play the game, imagine a mess). Games Workshop needs to take notes from other successful games companies and start implementing some sweeping changes.


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

Heretiker said:


> Yup, I see what you mean, but its bull. Hellfire rounds for the heavy bolter carries corrosive stuff (at least in the old days). A tiny dart wont carry enough payload of acid to bring down anything bigger than a cat, however potent it might be. I understand that fluff can always be written to suit rules. But if the rules are bad any amount of fluff wont cover up the crap you know is behind it.


well, *pulls out old 3rd ed SM codex* it written here they pick the ammo for the foe before going to battle. Poison for orks and Nids and acid vs necrons, but l do see your point about bad fluff. For example if they were ambush how would they have the right ammo on hand. 

what l am also going to say is "cover reducing to-hit chance" is ok but it makes template weapons way OP. l can see my leamon russ shooting in to a SM unit land a hit roll on the scatter dice and the whole unit dies on 2's.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> Actually, they could if they'd hire on more people and actually took feedback from their playtesters. The whole staggered release Codex scheme is also a problem but I think everyone knows that that's not going anywhere anytime soon, so the other stuff will have to do.


From expereince Playtesting has little effect on the power level creep and army balance. It's because as you say no matter what one thing will be better than others for whatever esoteric reason. With that being the case playtesters must balance everything against that thing when they do that it sort of leaves behind the other things which were not as good. So they don't increase the power level as such just increase everyone to same level which leaves behind old armies. 

40K as a game encourages degenerate strategies in amry composition and play style. Now i'm not saying that's a bad thing nor should it be taken as such it's just the style of the game. With that in mind it is almost impossible to iron out all of the really bad strategies. Somethings are always going to get frozen out because they cannot compete with x y or z and that will upset whoever plays x y or z.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Aramoro said:


> 40K as a game encourages degenerate strategies in amry composition and play style.


Question: What is a degenerate strategy?


----------



## clever handle (Dec 14, 2009)

My only concerns with TLOS (going back about 50 pages) are that anyone with a gun is as likely to shoot any one of the following targets:

a) a grot standing 5' away
b) a landraider idling 5' away
c) a grot standing 200' away
d) a landraider idling 200' away

Really?

and as Katie has mentioned - if you can see my pauldron you are able to kill my whole squad, or if only 1 cubic centimeter of my rhino is visible through a hole in the wall I still only get a 4+ save? Really?


----------



## Arkanor (Jan 1, 2010)

clever handle said:


> and as Katie has mentioned - if you can see my pauldron you are able to kill my whole squad, or if only 1 cubic centimeter of my rhino is visible through a hole in the wall I still only get a 4+ save? Really?


Also don't forget if 5 people in your unit are chilling in the woods, I for some reason can't kill the other 5 who are just hanging out in the open without them getting "cover".


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Arkanor said:


> Also don't forget if 5 people in your unit are chilling in the woods, I for some reason can't kill the other 5 who are just hanging out in the open without them getting "cover".


It's because in "reality" all the members of the squad are doing their best to remain as obscured as possible. It just doesn't work the other way around - no matter how fully hidden someone is, if the enemy can see their elbow then they can feel free to shoot it off with little in the way of penalty.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

I stopped reading when this thread became 2 camps, 1 fervently defending anything GW have ever done while being ignored, the other making jokes and quips on how broken it is as of now. I don't think either is helping....


----------



## Arkanor (Jan 1, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> It's because in "reality" all the members of the squad are doing their best to remain as obscured as possible. It just doesn't work the other way around - no matter how fully hidden someone is, if the enemy can see their elbow then they can feel free to shoot it off with little in the way of penalty.


But then everyone behind the guys in the open (who are presumably trying to "cover") get saves as well.

My problem with it is that it just leads to incredibly gamey shit sometimes, like a line of 20 Kroot (best example I guess) all just chilling (at max coherency with 10+ in the forest) just to form a "bullet shield". I don't think my troopers are going to give a shit whether they hit your intervening guys, as yours wouldn't mine.

The other way around is silly as hell too, "I can see your left hand so I can shoot your whole squad" makes no sense. TLOS and cover need to be revamped completely.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Arkanor said:


> My problem with it is that it just leads to incredibly gamey shit sometimes, like a line of 20 Kroot (best example I guess) all just chilling (at max coherency with 10+ in the forest) just to form a "bullet shield". I don't think my troopers are going to give a shit whether they hit your intervening guys, as yours wouldn't mine.


Meat shields need to be changed somewhat, probably by causing wounds to the unit granting the Cover save.
However, this would significantly shift the balance of the Tyranid codex.


----------



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

I actually think the majority of the fifth edition game mechanics are ok. 

There are three minor fixes that come to mind--

1. Let's get rid of kill points, shall we? They're retarded and make absolutely no sense. they make the statement that ten Space Marines equals ten Guardsmen. And from a value on the tabletop, fluff standpoint, and points cost, those are all false. Victory Points need to come back as the main win condition.

2. Raise Defensive Weapons on vehicles to S5. Heavy bolters being "main" weapons is nonsense.

3. Cover. Cover's great. I love lots of cover. Unfortunately, it's unwieldy. The only thing I really genuinely like about Warmachine is its line of sight system. Each base size has a "height" associated with it. You can have wild poses and whatnot, but a model occupies a "cylinder" the size of its base and up to a certain height depending on the base size. You can measure up from the edge of the base using your ruler, and if you can see the ruler, you can see the model. It eliminates modelling for advantage, and it lets you utilize cover more often, I think-- that stops you from going "I see your hand so I can shoot you." unless the hand is inside that cylinder. It's really the most minor of changes, I think... giving cover saves fairly liberally is good, I think, since troopers really would try to remain as obscured as possible in a firefight.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

The Son of Horus said:


> 1. Let's get rid of kill points, shall we? They're retarded and make absolutely no sense. they make the statement that ten Space Marines equals ten Guardsmen. And from a value on the tabletop, fluff standpoint, and points cost, those are all false. Victory Points need to come back as the main win condition.
> 
> 2. Raise Defensive Weapons on vehicles to S5. Heavy bolters being "main" weapons is nonsense.
> 
> 3. Cover. Cover's great. I love lots of cover. Unfortunately, it's unwieldy. The only thing I really genuinely like about Warmachine is its line of sight system. Each base size has a "height" associated with it. You can have wild poses and whatnot, but a model occupies a "cylinder" the size of its base and up to a certain height depending on the base size. You can measure up from the edge of the base using your ruler, and if you can see the ruler, you can see the model. It eliminates modelling for advantage, and it lets you utilize cover more often, I think-- that stops you from going "I see your hand so I can shoot you." unless the hand is inside that cylinder. It's really the most minor of changes, I think... giving cover saves fairly liberally is good, I think, since troopers really would try to remain as obscured as possible in a firefight.


1) I don't think getting rid of kill points is necessary, just changing them a little to better reflect a unit's value. Rather than: 

Unit = 1 KP

It should be something like:

Unit = [(pts cost) / 50] KPs ***

It solves the problem of victory points being too complicated for the small group of morons in the hobby, but isn't as stupidly dumbed down as the current KP system.


2) Couldn't agree more. 


3) The small group of people I occasionally play with have adopted the Warmachine volume mechanic. It just stops so much dickheadery from occurring and streamlines the game, which leads to less arguing and more fun.




*** (the 50 is just what I'd use if I was writing the rules. The value would also need to be rounded either up or down for simplicities sake)


----------



## Arkanor (Jan 1, 2010)

KP's at the same time help to keep Mech (and extreme firepower armies such as IG) from completely dominating. A mech setup usually has a lot more KP, which would not be reflected in the victory points metric.

Smaller armies with more expensive units get nailed harder by VP's, when usually they suffer from not benefiting much from cover or not being able to grab as many objectives.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Arkanor said:


> KP's at the same time help to keep Mech (and extreme firepower armies such as IG) from completely dominating. A mech setup usually has a lot more KP, which would not be reflected in the victory points metric.
> 
> Smaller armies with more expensive units get nailed harder by VP's, when usually they suffer from not benefiting much from cover or not being able to grab as many objectives.


Exactly, victory points just don't work as well in 5th edition, so they're a necessary evil in the end. I agree that they're terribly dumbed down and simple, but the alternative is an even more mech dominated environment than that that already exists and considering how loud some people bitch about it I'm sure that they'd rather live with kill points.


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

On the subject of this line of sight 'i can see your hand so i can shoot you', i suggest the following experiment. 
1. Take the person who believes they can shoot an exposed hand to an open space, and give them a soft object (a rubber ball is ideal).

2. Get a friend to crouch behind some form of cover, 25-30 metres away, with a hand exposed.

3. Tell the player to throw the object and hit the exposed hand.

4. Continue until they hit the hand or get annoyed.

Of course, this isn't a perfect example as the shooter would most likely have targeters etc, and at the first sign of any bullets whizzing past a hand, the defenders first instinct will be to pull it out of the way, but you get the idea


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

The Sullen One said:


> Question: What is a degenerate strategy?


Well for starters I will say 'degenerate' in this case is not a pejorative term. If you consider a totally balanced army, i.e. a mix of Tanks, Troops, Anti-tank, Anti-horde etc etc. That would require a mixed strategy to work correctly. But what we find in 40K is if we start to take something, it's more beneficial to take even more of it. This is more clearly seen in Mech, tanks are good and lots of tanks make all your other tanks even better. The more mech'ed up you are the better your list works and the narrower your strategy becomes. In essence your army strategy degenerates down to the fewest moving parts. 

Properly mixed lists just don't have the tool to deal with these really narrowly focused lists properly. It's one of the reasons Long Fangs are so good, they are versatile. 

Mech is just an example, it could be anything, All Jump Packs, All Bike whatever. 

Does that make sense?


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

The Son of Horus said:


> 1. Let's get rid of kill points, shall we? They're retarded and make absolutely no sense. they make the statement that ten Space Marines equals ten Guardsmen. And from a value on the tabletop, fluff standpoint, and points cost, those are all false. Victory Points need to come back as the main win condition.


Kill points are needed to balance out the other victory condition which is Objectives. The only bad thing about Space Wolves Razorspam is the number of kill points on it, I don't think we need a system which makes it even better.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

VPs are unbalanced and often distort the outcome of a game. I remember playing a Tau army with my Orks in an annhilation mission (as part of a one day tournament) and though I won 6-4, when we counted up the victory points I'd conceded more than I'd gained (668 lost to 636 won if you're interested).

Now anyone who's played Orks will know that during a game they'll take massive casualties, so much in fact that where VPs are concerned they lose automatically.

However KPs are just as suspect in my opinion. What you have, as Aramoro points out above, is a system which encourages players to take as few parts to an army as possible (something that can de done with any of the armies in 40k). You get to the situation where in a 1'500-1'750 game, armies tend to have a standard 10 KP limit, meaning that often the only way to be sure of winning is to table your opponent.

For example in a 1500 point game between my Chaos Marines and some Space Wolves (played on a table 3ft wide), I destroyed everything my opponent had apart from a Land Speeder which had suffered a weapon destroyed result, where as I had four units surviving the game. However we we counted up the KPs it was a draw because he'd only had 8 KPs to begin with compared to my 11.

Now in a situation like that I'd say victory should automatically go to the player with the most surviving units, especially if the units the loser has are damaged in some way. Kill points however say different, so while they shouldn't be scrapped, they should be downgraded (as VPs have been), so that they're only used when absolutely neccessary.


----------



## Heretiker (Mar 10, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> If the poison rule was crap I'd agree with you, but it's a very simple and intuitive mechanic. I think you're trying far too hard to make 40K realistic when there is nothing realistic about 40K. Hell, it's not even science fiction - it's science fantasy. You wouldn't expect Lord of the Rings to be realistic, would you?
> 
> (snip).


To some degree I do, and it is: the hobbits wield men-daggers as swords because they are big as swords to them for example among countless other examples. 

GW have created a "science fantasy" universe - but they have set it in a realm of possibilities we can mostly comprehend. There is magic, tech etc which ofc are totally out of bounds with our reality but at the same time the majority of things are not. Gravity still exist, night-time occurs, humans are there, stuff have a certain mass etc, etc. For my part i really want realism to all things possible and keep the unrealistic thing where they belong - magic, super-tech, demons, aliens etc. 

To me its just laziness, sloppiness and/or dumbness when things that could/should be treated realistic (and are treated realistic in other, often historical, game-systems) are intermingled with unrealism in a rulesset. I find that GW gravitates at dumbing down their systems (or cutting them lose entirely) instead of actually trying to make them better. This is a pity because i really like the fiction they created around it, at least I used to do.

But again its just me, and im a very infrequent player of 40k these days. I do really try to get back sometimes but usually end up chucking the things back in the cupboards pretty quickly due to rules/codex-issues. Me and many of my friends have moved on to other game-systems just because GW never seems to deliver better after the peak somewhere between 2-3 ed when there still was a soul in thier rules/fluff. Sure, stuff was OP back then as much as it is now but things were much characterful (no bland USR..) and it was a fun game. Back then the term Gready Workshop was unheard of.

Hmm.. feels like im starting to sound just like an nostalgic old fart, didnt think that would happen at my age :russianroulette:


----------



## ohiocat110 (Sep 15, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> Well for starters I will say 'degenerate' in this case is not a pejorative term. If you consider a totally balanced army, i.e. a mix of Tanks, Troops, Anti-tank, Anti-horde etc etc. That would require a mixed strategy to work correctly. But what we find in 40K is if we start to take something, it's more beneficial to take even more of it. This is more clearly seen in Mech, tanks are good and lots of tanks make all your other tanks even better. The more mech'ed up you are the better your list works and the narrower your strategy becomes. In essence your army strategy degenerates down to the fewest moving parts.


To simplify this, it means that "min/maxing" a list should have a min. High risk, high reward. Mix/maxed mech lists really have no drawback in 5th ed. 

The three broad army build types are mech, balanced, and horde. A neutral rules set would dictate either a relative equality, or a rock-paper-scissors relationship between those types. Clearly, those don't exist in 5th ed.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

I think 40K needs to drop both KP's and VP's and go with _just_ Objectives.


----------



## Durzod (Nov 24, 2009)

Got tired of reading all these so skipped to the end. Sorry if I'm repeating what's been said earlier, but I figure if it hadn't been raised in 5 pages, it wasn't going to be. If I;m wrong, I apologize.

My main complaint about TLOS is the mismatch between terrain and the heroic poses of GW's minis. I don't know about you, but when the bullets fly I'm gonna be hunkered down behind that fallen log, not waving my chainsword around while striking an impressive pose for the cameras. I don't care if I'm wearing Power armour. A golden BB is a golden BB. And nobody models terrain that is properly concealing. We all want to be able to fit our models there. This is a tabletop game, not a FPS video game. TLOS is just a backhanded insult to the players: You're too stupid to understand an abstract LOS rule, so we're not gonna write one (assuming we can).

As for Kill Points, I refuse to accept that the destruction of two ork trukks at the cost of a Land Raider can be called any kind of a victory. The people who complain that calculating VPs is so difficult have me confused. Didn't you have to calculate the points to create the army?

As to what I'd like to see: a return to being able to sweep into close combat. If you're gonna pack your troops so close together, you should pay the price. I really find it stupid to assault a unit HOPING that it holds until the opponent's turn so I don't get gutted by all the nearby units. I could see allowing the unit swept into to shoot at the assaulting unit, but not that Heavy Weapons squad across the table!


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

I think that Cover saves should be changed to be an EXTRA save, in addition to their Armour / Invulnerable save (which would remain a choice).
It makes sense, because then people with better armour still benefit from Cover, and also they aren't on par with lighter infantry in the same Cover (they do have better armour, after all, they should have better protection).

Obviously this would require a reduced 'normal' Cover save from 4+, things like forests would only be 5+, while buildings and big rocks would remain a 4+.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

That is a horrible idea Winterous. The ideal way of moving 40K forwards is to make the games faster, not slower. If it's an 'extra' save (which I admit is realistic) the actual save value has to go down to 5+ for buildings and 6+ for forests.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> That is a horrible idea Winterous. The ideal way of moving 40K forwards is to make the games faster, not slower. If it's an 'extra' save (which I admit is realistic) the actual save value has to go down to 5+ for buildings and 6+ for forests.


Forcing things to go to ground more often, fair point.
If you're trying not to get shot, you won't be doing much shooting yourself.


----------



## Arkanor (Jan 1, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> Well for starters I will say 'degenerate' in this case is not a pejorative term. If you consider a totally balanced army, i.e. a mix of Tanks, Troops, Anti-tank, Anti-horde etc etc. That would require a mixed strategy to work correctly. But what we find in 40K is if we start to take something, it's more beneficial to take even more of it. This is more clearly seen in Mech, tanks are good and lots of tanks make all your other tanks even better. The more mech'ed up you are the better your list works and the narrower your strategy becomes. In essence your army strategy degenerates down to the fewest moving parts.
> 
> Properly mixed lists just don't have the tool to deal with these really narrowly focused lists properly. It's one of the reasons Long Fangs are so good, they are versatile.
> 
> ...


This is not a phenomenon exclusive to 40k. Armies that do well are set up to do one thing exceedingly well, not a bunch of things half-assedly.

Combined-arms-assault is a good real-world military strategy, but this doesn't abstract well to games. Splitting your focus is going to cost you more and make your forces likely work less harmoniously.


In Starcraft (a generic example), if you have 3 siege tanks, you have 3 siege tanks. If you have 13 however, the alpha damage is overwhelming, and breaking that line is exponentially harder (and you can just back it up with Marines, saves a lot on tech cost and streamlines the army). Likewise in 40k, if you have 3 tanks, you have 3 targets. If you have 6-10, the "balanced" amount of anti-tank fire simply isn't enough.

Armies that do adopt this strategy however have to ensure that they're fighting the fight they were intended for. With mechanized armies (which have a fairly high ability to dictate the engagement) this is perhaps not as hard as it should be.


----------



## XYBAheart (Mar 31, 2011)

what about the ability to have infantry climb, crawl or tear their way into a vehicle, slaughter their crew as an assault with lowered stats, and leave the vehicle a battered husk, some vehicles like land raiders could be reclaimed at times, but not all (like dreadnoughts) and passengers of vehicles could help to fight back, it could add a new dimension to anti vehicle conflict.


----------



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

Cover saves capped at 5+, plus extra rules such as stealth, even for vehicles. 

No more wound-allocation shenanigans, indeed. 

Most flying units getting the Skilled Flyer rule. 

Toughness bonuses from bikes an icons count toward the ID treshold, like SW wolf cavalry. 

Transports should be a bit harder to glance/pen BUT cause worse effects upon the passengers if they are cracked. 

Invulnerable saves should be scaled down a bit.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Sephyr said:


> Cover saves capped at 5+, plus extra rules such as stealth, even for vehicles.


..You're kidding me right?
CAPPED at 5+?
5+ should be the 'standard' Cover save, but it should by no means be a limit.
5+ for things like forests, 4+ for rocks and ruins, 3+ for more solid things like metal barricades.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

I'd like to see Snipers improved. As it is, a bolter has a higher chance of wounding a Company Commander or Ethereal, and Hellfires are vastly better at everything Snipers want to do (Except glancing vehicles. Snipers suck at that, too, but they're still better than Hellfires. Strength 1 FTL.). I'd like to see Snipers have a bonus to hit and a Strength value (I think that having an equal chance of putting a bullet through the thick, armoured shell of a Trygon and getting through the ceremonial robes and fairly soft flesh of an Ethereal is ridiculous), or Poisoned 2+ against infantry. 

I'd think Rending should cause ID against Infantry, as being decapitated by a Genestealer or headshotted by a sniper rifle is fairly terminal. Stop giving out Eternal Warrior like it's going out of fashion, just having a good invulnerable is good enough (I fail to see how Marneus Calgar is completely unfazed by a Railgun to the face), although having a 'Look Out Sir!'-esque roll or just universally increased Invulnerable saves for characters (Rune Armour is 3+, Iron Halos are 3+, Cybork Body 4+ etc.) would be neccessary to keep characters alive once Eternal Warrior's gone.

Midnight


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

MidnightSun said:


> I'd like to see Snipers improved. As it is, a bolter has a higher chance of wounding a Company Commander or Ethereal, and Hellfires are vastly better at everything Snipers want to do (Except glancing vehicles. Snipers suck at that, too, but they're still better than Hellfires. Strength 1 FTL.). I'd like to see Snipers have a bonus to hit and a Strength value (I think that having an equal chance of putting a bullet through the thick, armoured shell of a Trygon and getting through the ceremonial robes and fairly soft flesh of an Ethereal is ridiculous), or Poisoned 2+ against infantry.


They do need some improvement, yes.
I think a sensible way to do it would be a couple of changes.

1. Either +1 to BS, or make all Sniper weapons Twin-Linked, because they are a very accurate weapon b nature, and the time taken to aim them lends a degree of precision.

2. Increased chance of Rending, perhaps make Sniper weapons wound on a 3+, and rend on a 5+.

3. They should be more effective against small guys than big guys, so perhaps making them Poisoned with a S value of 4 would be good, so you get that re-roll.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Arkanor said:


> This is not a phenomenon exclusive to 40k. Armies that do well are set up to do one thing exceedingly well, not a bunch of things half-assedly.


Indeed, my experience in Playtesting etc is not with 40K but the general parallels are easy to draw with my other games. 40K is not unique in it's balance problems, it's one of the many really. 

The game is too complex to balance, all you can do is nerf the super broken things.


----------



## Matheau (Nov 30, 2010)

Heretiker said:


> To me its just laziness, sloppiness and/or dumbness when things that could/should be treated realistic (and are treated realistic in other, often historical, game-systems) are intermingled with unrealism in a rulesset. I find that GW gravitates at dumbing down their systems (or cutting them lose entirely) instead of actually trying to make them better. This is a pity because i really like the fiction they created around it, at least I used to do.


Every game of this nature is unrealistic, its just people have seen the same unrealistic cliches over and over again that they start to believe they are true.



Heretiker said:


> Yup, I see what you mean, but its bull. Hellfire rounds for the heavy bolter carries corrosive stuff (at least in the old days). A tiny dart wont carry enough payload of acid to bring down anything bigger than a cat, however potent it might be. I understand that fluff can always be written to suit rules. But if the rules are bad any amount of fluff wont cover up the crap you know is behind it.


This is not how acid works if you are trying to make a "realistic" argument. What you are trying to cite is the "Hollywood Acid" trope, where most fiction treats acid in a ridiculously unrealistic manner.

The poison one was also a terrible example to cite for being "unrealistic." It's very unrealistic the same toxin would work equally well on completely unrelated species of creatures. What is realistic is that any group that heavily uses poisoned weapons has multiple different kinds of toxin and uses the one most appropriate to their current enemy. A Necron poison would be any substance that in someway reacts with their physiology in such a way as to incapacitate them. Unless you want to argue they are made of magic and conventional wisdom does not apply in any way, it really isn't a stretch that something does this, especially given that arguing against this being possible requires a level of knowledge of Necron physiology far beyond what is given.

Really efficient poisons do almost no physical damage, so the "Necron poison is acid" argument is somewhat invalid. Yes, it is realistic that human poison wouldn't work on a Necron. What is unrealistic is a race that specializes in poison would be stupid enough to try to use human poison on a Necron.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Matheau said:


> Really efficient poisons do almost no physical damage, so the "Necron poison is acid" argument is somewhat invalid.


Could also be some sort of EMP device.


----------



## gally912 (Jan 31, 2009)

Ya see, in this crazy game of 40k we play, most rules are an abstraction. "Poison" is a useful term for "something that wounds on a 4+, regardless of toughness". Use your imagination. 

I know, it's crazy.


----------



## Admiral_HACKbar (May 5, 2011)

Off topic I know, but what was before Wounds allocation? Could players directly target an individual model? In AT-43 you allocated wounds to closest to the shooter. And lost models that fell directly under templates.

I field Orks, every now and again I take the Shokk Attack Gun with a load of gretchin as an attached unit to the mek...it always seemed weird that I could keep loosing gretchin when the unit got hit. Is this the type of trick you refer too?


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Admiral_HACKbar said:


> Off topic I know, but what was before Wounds allocation? Could players directly target an individual model? In AT-43 you allocated wounds to closest to the shooter. And lost models that fell directly under templates.
> 
> I field Orks, every now and again I take the Shokk Attack Gun with a load of gretchin as an attached unit to the mek...it always seemed weird that I could keep loosing gretchin when the unit got hit. Is this the type of trick you refer too?


Basically you just rolled saves all together and removed whichever models you liked. The only exception was the Torrent of Fire and Torrent of Blows rules, which allowed the player causing wounds to his opponent's models to "call out" a single model to take a save - if the save was failed, that model took the wound and needed to be removed (unless it had multiple wounds of course).


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

Admiral_HACKbar said:


> Off topic I know, but what was before Wounds allocation?


that depends on what ed you are talking about but the previous one before wounds allocation was put in. Allowed the defending player to remove what he wants from the amount failed meaning the heavy weapon teams or lord was pick last for most things.

The most common "trick" l see for example, is stacking the ones that are not savable on to the one guy. Say you had three guys one who was normal, the Sgt, and a flamer. In the shooting phase you got hit by 3, Ap1 and 4, Ap-. What you can do is put all the Ap1 on the one guy and make the other two save as normal were in the old rules you had to remove 3 so it dose not matter who you pick. (no "tricks")

Edit: dam ninja


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

sybarite said:


> Edit: dam ninja


I'm not sure I really ninja'd you when I beat you by eight minutes.


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> I'm not sure I really ninja'd you when I beat you by eight minutes.


sorry for being a slow typer :cray:


----------



## XYBAheart (Mar 31, 2011)

Winterous said:


> Could also be some sort of EMP device.


two things, first, FORTY THOUSAND YEARS FROM NOW!!!! technology and science would have made massive advances, so some form of self reproductive acid that reacts with the air to make more of itself shouldn't be too out of reach, and second, necrons are technological, not biological, no poison would work, perhaps in its place, some kind of precision explosive, or armor peircing shell would be very effective against their bodies, also, if you look closely, all necron models besides tomb spyders and pariahs are exposed at the base of the spine, a destructive shot there would cause serious damage.

also, psionic rounds would no absolutely nothing, unless it was extremely powerful, (were talking emporor himself strength) and even then, only on the c'tan.

emp's, im not sure


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

XYBAheart said:


> also, psionic rounds would no absolutely nothing, unless it was extremely powerful, (were talking emporor himself strength) and even then, only on the c'tan.


Two questions.
1. Why not?
2. Who suggested those?


----------



## XYBAheart (Mar 31, 2011)

Winterous said:


> Two questions.
> 1. Why not?
> 2. Who suggested those?


1. necrons are completely psi inert, no psionic effect whatsoever, besides that pariahs are such monstrosities that psykers panic in their prescence, they were made to protect the c'tan from psykers.:angry:
2. I mentioned them to make sure no-one else suggested them, nip it in the bud.

another example of something being psi inert is that tau dont fall to chaos, they are aswell


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

XYBAheart said:


> 1. necrons are completely psi inert, no psionic effect whatsoever, besides that pariahs are such monstrosities that psykers panic in their prescence, they were made to protect the c'tan from psykers.:angry:
> 2. I mentioned them to make sure no-one else suggested them, nip it in the bud.
> 
> another example of something being psi inert is that tau dont fall to chaos, they are aswell


Oh, so by psionic rounds you mean some sort of psychic disruption?


----------



## XYBAheart (Mar 31, 2011)

yes... yes it is


----------



## Luisjoey (Dec 3, 2010)

5th edition is perfect!....

.... until 6th come.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

I remember that when 5th came out they said that one of the new features that would really be an advantage to Necrons is the ability to run... WTF! Necrons got totally screwed by 5th ed., we need 6th ed. asap.


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

Aramoro said:


> Well for starters I will say 'degenerate' in this case is not a pejorative term. If you consider a totally balanced army, i.e. a mix of Tanks, Troops, Anti-tank, Anti-horde etc etc. That would require a mixed strategy to work correctly. But what we find in 40K is if we start to take something, it's more beneficial to take even more of it. This is more clearly seen in Mech, tanks are good and lots of tanks make all your other tanks even better. The more mech'ed up you are the better your list works and the narrower your strategy becomes. In essence your army strategy degenerates down to the fewest moving parts.
> 
> Properly mixed lists just don't have the tool to deal with these really narrowly focused lists properly. It's one of the reasons Long Fangs are so good, they are versatile.
> 
> ...


Yes it does, but what you are referring to is called the Lanchester's Square Law, its a real life phenomenon, not a game balance issue.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

ItsPug said:


> Yes it does, but what you are referring to is called the Lanchester's Square Law, its a real life phenomenon, not a game balance issue.


It's not strictly Lanchester's Square Law but I know where you're coming from. It is an issue for game balance though as you need to determine how forces will degenerate in order to be able to balance the game.


----------



## Luisjoey (Dec 3, 2010)

darklove said:


> I remember that when 5th came out they said that one of the new features that would really be an advantage to Necrons is the ability to run... WTF! Necrons got totally screwed by 5th ed., we need 6th ed. asap.


OOOOK if they remove the running ability, that would be very annoying game, run is a possibility, run more than runing is marching. 

maybe back to the old way were everybody get a movement stat, and your necrons move and assault at 3". think if you would like that.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Luisjoey said:


> OOOOK if they remove the running ability, that would be very annoying game, run is a possibility, run more than runing is marching.
> 
> maybe back to the old way were everybody get a movement stat, and your necrons move and assault at 3". think if you would like that.


I'm not complaining about running; running is fine. But seriously, how does it help Necrons? No more or less than any other army - except that now every non-fleet CC army can close on the hopeless Necron Warriors at double speed. Necrons don't want to be anywhere near CC.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

darklove said:


> I'm not complaining about running; running is fine. But seriously, how does it help Necrons? No more or less than any other army - except that now every non-fleet CC army can close on the hopeless Necron Warriors at double speed. Necrons don't want to be anywhere near CC.


Well GW isn't going to go ahead and say that one of their armies gets screwed by the new edition.


----------



## XYBAheart (Mar 31, 2011)

Aramoro said:


> It's not strictly Lanchester's Square Law but I know where you're coming from. It is an issue for game balance though as you need to determine how forces will degenerate in order to be able to balance the game.


the force organisation chart would be designed to counter that woudln't it?

the awnsers no, transports ignore it, so razor backs and devilfishes can just wreak havoc,


one thing, wouldn't the concentration of an army expose its weakness more?

or would indrogenous units such as necron warriors impede this?

my idea: increase the points value of an army depending on how many of it are present.


----------

