News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?  (Read 18445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mafty

  • BANNED
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
  • Country: 00
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #20 on: December 7, 2009, 10:47:44 PM »
Fearless!  I should not have to take extra wounds and die because my chaplain is fearless.  That almost defeats the point.  I agree with chuckles about the scoring units, I want variety in my army with all the nice and plentiful selections. 

And please if marines are smart enough to combat squad each 5 man unit should be able to ride in the rhino at the same time that way I can drop 5 guys off to hold an objective and take the other 5 where they are needed.

You should be able to pay for at least one extra smoke launcher so that you have more than one turn to possibly get a save.

ahh i know the fearless pain. Ive lost my avatar and wraithlord in combat because of failed fearless saves. sucks losing combat, then having to take more wounds because my MC are fearless, and then dieing to those wounds

Offline NewHeretic

  • Same Heretic, New God | Ork Boy
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4402
  • Country: us
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #21 on: December 7, 2009, 10:55:40 PM »
Here is my suggestion for 6th Ed. improvement to the basic rules.  ;D

Best way to improve [6th] Edition.

Seriously, I think Pinning rules need to be improved somewhat as those weapons are pretty much worthless now.  A simple negative modifier to the Pinning Test for each Pinning weapon that scores an unsaved Wound on a unit would be good enough.

I also think that Defensive Weapons on vehicles should be classed as Strength 5 and lower rather than 4 and lower.

NewHeretic
Good advice from Joshua:

Choose you this day
Whom you will serve...
As for me and my house,
We will serve the Lord.

NewHeretic, forum policeman.

Offline ~Iron Captain Softy~

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 990
  • Country: us
  • The Flesh is Weak!
  • Armies: Ghost Knights
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #22 on: December 8, 2009, 05:03:42 AM »
Foalchu, I like the looks of trying out the WFB rules in 40k, looks like it would make the game much more interesting. One thing I would have to disagree about is the pinning issue. As a Marine, and especially after going through AIT, the idea of getting pinned is representing the fired upon unit immediately taking cover to try to find the threat. With an unsupressed weapon like a lasgun or a boltgun, there's lots of noise, an identifiable direction where the shots are coming from, so you can react accordingly, take cover, return fire, flank the threat, or bug out, as the situation calls. Having a buddy suddenly taken down by a shot that came from nowhere is a very unsettling situation, one which requires locating the assailant first. The Pinning rules attempt to simulate this experience on the Table Top, but as you have mentioned, it is not perfect. An unknown assailant or an unsettling weapon is ample incentive to find the nearest cover, rethink the situation, and plan a course of action. Hence, having every weapon be pinning doesn't make sense. Any trained military force knows how to react to weapons fire, and it is definitely not to sit down and go shell-shocked. Being afraid for one's life and running away is already covered by the morale tests. Pinning tests should only be infilcted by stealthy weapons, sniper weapons, and highly unusual and unsettling weapons. A loud weapon fired at a marine patrol does not make the marines think about hunkering down and planning a course of action. It's all hard-wired and instinctual to marines: Locate the threat, take cover, and return fire. It's only when this instinctual process is interrupted that we have to take some time to figure things out.
Quote
They've got us surrounded? That simplifies the problem.
-General Lewis "Chesty" Puller, USMC

Offline Lonewolf

  • Cthulhu cultist, The Final Solution | Swarmlord | Staff Soap Spotter
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4558
  • Country: de
  • Murdering armies since 2003 - retired since 2012
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #23 on: December 8, 2009, 05:46:22 AM »
What i dont really like in 5th edition:

- KP system (bring back VP)

- The ability to give cover to your own troops by placing other units in front of them (maybe for each succesfull coversave the screening unit should get the hit)

- The whole only troops can score thing

- Wound allocation system (ever tried to kill a unit of 7 nobs, each with a different outfit?)

- Bring back the old glancing hit table, as it is now verhicles are just too hard to destroy, maybe get rid of the AP1 rule for this

- get rid of emergency disembarkation... as it is now it almost a useless efford to destroy a transport if it is close to your lines already as the squad inside still survives even if all exists are blocked and if they are not, the squad can happily shoot and assault you in its turn, while probably getting a nice coversave from the wreckage, and no it practically never happens that the unit gets pinned as basically everything is either fearless, atsknf, or has high ld. Just bring back autopinning after tranporter destruction and all is well.


No problem, I'll give you a 100% increase in pay effective immediately and retroactive to 1999.

Offline Blackveil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 900
  • Country: us
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #24 on: December 8, 2009, 06:19:46 AM »
yes, a thing in the rulebook like "basic rules" and then "advanced rules" would be nice. the latter used for tournaments.
2011 Grim Open GT Best General

Offline Sheepz

  • Marshal: The beatings will continue until discipline improves!
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7157
  • Country: 00
  • Getting away with murder.
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #25 on: December 8, 2009, 07:15:55 AM »
Ok, so if you were the one who got to write the 6th ed. rulebook, what would you change? aaaannnndddd....... .GO!

I would issue a formal apology for Dark Eldar, and a complete retraction of all Dark Eldar related pictures and or background material, say that they have closed off the webway, and then deny they ever existed.

Quote
Get rid of No Retreat: makes being fearless almost a drawback

Surely getting stabbed in the face by something that's butchered your entire unit *is* a drawback? I mean, being fearless doesn't make you impervious to axes or anything.

Offline Lorizael

  • GW Shill: Infinity Circuit: Synergistic Spotter of Numpties
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6784
  • Country: 00
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #26 on: December 8, 2009, 07:43:07 AM »
Fearless rules are fine as they are. You lose a combat but you're brave (stupid?) enough not to fall back: so you take extra hits from the enemy that is busy beating your unit to crap. Sounds fine to me.

Pinning needs a boost I agree with: Hits need to confer a negative leadership modifier.

I'm very much against an "advanced" rule set. 40K has become nice and streamlined over the years and is currently in a very good place (bar typos, bad wording etc). There is no need to make it more complicated again.
Having 2 rulesets for one game would get confusing in pick-up game situations or generally any game played.
And as a 17 year vet, I find the current rule set perfectly enjoyable thanks. People seem to confuse a simple, streamlined rule set with being childish or lacking in tactics. This just isn't true.

I like the idea of KP but it hasn't been implemented very well I don't think. Much prefer the VP system.

I agree with the only Troops to capture not being very good. I'm not sure how to deal with it exactly though. Maybe we just need codexes to have more troop options?

Changed "infer" to "confer" because I'm really anal

~Chuckles
« Last Edit: December 8, 2009, 08:10:43 AM by Chuckles »

Offline Brutoni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
  • Doom... Doom.... Doooooooom
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #27 on: December 8, 2009, 08:18:46 AM »
Concise and Streamlined systems are not simple, that is a by product of the skill in which that system has been written. This has become very clear since I started writing my dissertation. We all have a limited time to understand and read things, having to spend 200 hours to learn a system against 30 hours will generally result in the other system having more problems. These problems arise because the more data you throw at someone the less they will comprehend it.

Very complex rules are not the way to go, simple streamlined rules that are easy for all ages to understand works well... The real challenge is making those rules easy to add things onto so that more Veteran players can make a game more interesting by adding/changing things to suit them WHILE retaining the core rule set and thus having minimal effect on the balance. THAT is a very hard thing to accomplish, especially when you have word count/book size to take into account.

Another beef I have, is with people going "reduce cover... those guardsmen kill me... it's not fair... boo who!". Lets get one thing straight here, shrapnel, bits of cover flying off are the real killers in warfare. Always have been, always will be so far as I can tell. The reason for this is quite simple... A brick wall stops bullets, it absorbs a considerable amount of energy from a bullet, explosion. It makes assaulting a position to get into hand to hand a really really stupid idea because you have to climb over the wall... while you do that you will be stabbed, shot and have grenades thrown at you.

Cover should be powerful, you SHOULD have to look at a board and analyse the fire corridors, areas in which troops can advance under cover, areas in which vehicles can advance in the open and not be ambushed from cover.... Cover providing a flat 5+ save is rubbish, cover saves more than 33% of soldiers especially when all soldiers are trained to use it.

Finally, Space marines don't lose out from cover... now they have a 3+ save against small arms fire... oh and a 4+ save against plasma, lascannons etcetc... They are also tougher and so harder to wound... OH and things like Cover ignoring Artillery, Flamers, Template weapons... all tend to have AP4 maximum, very few have AP3.... Hmm so Space Marines in that case seem very formidable troops compared to the guardsmen.

Perhaps it's because people take too many Plasma, melta weapons? Personally I have no problems with my troops, they are regularly equipped with things like flamers/ missile launchers because of their versatility... High rates of fire work well too. Finally dedicated units attack heavy armour and that is their sole task...

So in short, this rant has established one thing... reducing cover is a sure way to make space marine lovers happy but will annoy all else... Making the rules more complex just for complexities sake is an awful suggestion.. Games Workshop has taken a step in the right direction.. Simple but effective rules. They just need some work on implementing that difficult progress.

As for what I want?

I like troops being scoring, however I would change the FOC to resemble something like Warhammers.... Space marine tactical squads are not much more common that assault and devastator squads.. Companies go into battle with them regularly so in my opinion they should work like troops... Other Codexes could benefit from this... Imperial guard could be allowed one squad of tanks as a "Core choice..." or just the regular leman russ battle tank squadron counting as "core" to represent how often they are used... This in turn gives the Imperial guard player the feeling of being the Imperium's hammer because it's tanks are scoring units.

Kill points need to go, the penalty of taking MSU over big squads should be balanced in the game system, not be external objective factors.

Leadership needs to be expanded into 3 categories. Suppressed, Pinned, Falling Back. Pinning and Falling back as is... Suppressed maybe allowing the squad to act in just 1 of the 3 phases. Leadership needs to be lowered by a point or 2 across the board. Thus making leaders more important and blindly throwing your army into a wall of fire a stupid idea.

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #28 on: December 8, 2009, 08:28:51 AM »
Cover should be powerful, you SHOULD have to look at a board and analyse the fire corridors, areas in which troops can advance under cover, areas in which vehicles can advance in the open and not be ambushed from cover.... Cover providing a flat 5+ save is rubbish, cover saves more than 33% of soldiers especially when all soldiers are trained to use it.

You're applying real life concerns to 40K. The trouble is that the game system we've got is such a massively long way from realism that it would look utterly different if you were to try and make it more realistic. Cover providing a flat 4+ save makes armies like Orks and Imperial Guard, which are written on the basis of most of their models being disposable, suddenly vastly overpowered by comparison to Space Marines and other "elite" armies like Eldar. Imperial Guard pay a very small number of points for their units. If those very cheap units suddenly become hard to kill by shooting, then they get a much bigger boost than Space Marines do, because they are already paying a large amount for their survivability.

You're also conflating "alter cover saves" with "complexify the rules set". The two issues are completely seperate.

And finally...

Quote
So in short, this rant has established one thing...

No it hasn't. Your rant has established nothing. It has posited a couple of things and claimed that those two things are one, but it hasn't established anything. Not all of us agree with your assessment of cover saves.
The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

Offline adielubbe

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
  • 40k online new-user
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #29 on: December 8, 2009, 08:35:48 AM »
Lorizael has it correct.

I think simplar is better, just listen to Einstein:

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction."

I do agree that pinning and emergency disembarkation needs to be reviewed.

One idea i have is:
Devastators/long fangs/havoks etc. Should be Troops choices, but the heavy weapons should be very expensive -as i feel they should really by able to capture objectives.

DOW deployment needs to be reviewed.

And there are too many cover saves available.

Don't bring in 'plus this, minus that' modifiers, keep it simple.

Offline Guildmage Aech

  • FLAMER: Ego Bigger than his Common Sense Centre | 40KO's Care Bear of Spite | Dolphin Death Dealer | 40K Oracle
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10663
  • Country: gb
  • Personal text
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #30 on: December 8, 2009, 08:55:25 AM »
I would alter the system for cover too, I liked having different terrain give different saves. It made buildings higher value positions than shrubs to hold against enemies. It added an element of tactics to the board.

I also think that using TLOS on area terrain defies logic, yes people where playing terrain wrongly in most their games by making everything into area terrain when it shouldn't always have been. So I'd bring back an element of that. Cover saves for shooting though units is reasonable enough, its always been a difficulty to work out exactly how much people should be able to shoot though a unit at further enemies.
3rd edition didn't allow it at all resulting in retarded things like squads of guardians with linked arms being a one way window for dark reapers to shoot though. 4th asked only for a test, and 5th makes for a halfway house. A simple tweak suggesting that a unit cannot gain cover saves from a unit it itself provides cover to would eliminate the sillyness with checkerboard behavior but its more theoretical as I've never actually seen anyone try that on a tabletop.

One thing I don't like is how all frag grenades became plasmagrenades and just ignore cover completely for initiative values. Ok, the init 10/1/last/first whatever system wasn't quite perfect but it worked pretty well. And most the time it meant that units in cover got to have their hits in even when attacked by higher iniative enemies.

Wound allocation needs some altering, it works reasonably well until you get units where every model is mildly different (ork nob squads as exibit A). Its the same system as used in epic where it works fine simply because you almost never encouter that problem.
Perhaps cutting it back to only care about different statlines instead of equipment would work..

Transports are a bit too gentle nowdays, perhaps making an emergency disembark should auto pin the unit for their next turn.

I quite like KPs as it encourages people to field models together instead of compartmentalising them to gain advantage from the targetting rules and VPs. Never really felt its a big deal really. A bit of fixing needs doing here and there like in the Tau book and their poor devilfish but its not impossible.

Similarly I like people being forced to field troops, a move like that cut away sillyness like the Eldar flying circus in one fell swoop. Overal 5th edition is a good set of rules, a bit of tweaking might be nice but I expect that come 6th everything will swing too far the other way!
Rules Expert 2007 | Kijayle Commemorative Award for Acid Wit 2008 | Most Notoriously Valuable Rules Expert 2009 | Most Notorious 2014

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #31 on: December 8, 2009, 09:03:17 AM »
Wound allocation needs some altering, it works reasonably well until you get units where every model is mildly different (ork nob squads as exibit A). Its the same system as used in epic where it works fine simply because you almost never encouter that problem.
Perhaps cutting it back to only care about different statlines instead of equipment would work..

I would say change it so that different "named" models in the unit are affected. It seems fairly clear that the intention of the rule was to prevent Powerfist Sergeants and the like from hiding in a unit and always being the last to die, so changing it so that a model with a different name, e.g. Sergeant in a squad of Space Marines, Painboy in a squad of Nobz etc etc would cover the right bases but prevent silliness like Nobz mobz.

I agree that checkerboarding needs to go, it's the most blatant bit of rules exploitation I can think of in 5th Edition and it's daft.

The trouble with Troops only scoring is that a) there are armies like Eldar who don't have terribly impressive Troops choices, which kind of screws them a bit, and b) quite a few armies end up being incredibly dull because there's no decent reason to take anything but Troops (why would you ever take Dominions in a Sisters list? It's hard to justify taking Devastators in a SM list either), which leads to the game losing a lot of its depth. I think it's nice forcing people to rely on their Troops more (less min-maxing), but not to the exclusion of all else. We're basically on a hysteresis curve here. I think finding a middle ground would be the best way to go.
The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

Offline Brutoni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
  • Doom... Doom.... Doooooooom
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #32 on: December 8, 2009, 09:08:33 AM »
Cover should be powerful, you SHOULD have to look at a board and analyse the fire corridors, areas in which troops can advance under cover, areas in which vehicles can advance in the open and not be ambushed from cover.... Cover providing a flat 5+ save is rubbish, cover saves more than 33% of soldiers especially when all soldiers are trained to use it.

You're applying real life concerns to 40K. The trouble is that the game system we've got is such a massively long way from realism that it would look utterly different if you were to try and make it more realistic. Cover providing a flat 4+ save makes armies like Orks and Imperial Guard, which are written on the basis of most of their models being disposable, suddenly vastly overpowered by comparison to Space Marines and other "elite" armies like Eldar. Imperial Guard pay a very small number of points for their units. If those very cheap units suddenly become hard to kill by shooting, then they get a much bigger boost than Space Marines do, because they are already paying a large amount for their survivability.

You're also conflating "alter cover saves" with "complexify the rules set". The two issues are completely seperate.

And finally...

Quote
So in short, this rant has established one thing...

No it hasn't. Your rant has established nothing. It has posited a couple of things and claimed that those two things are one, but it hasn't established anything. Not all of us agree with your assessment of cover saves.

Sorry, the end of my post was a little pompous! Even more worrying is that I seem to have failed to make people realise I was talking about two different subjects. 1 that complex rules are not the way forward in my opinion. 2 that cover doesn't need to be reduced like people say it does.

I play Marines and have no real problems with cover... in fact usually the cover free boards are more problematic. Mainly because a board with cover will provide those guardsmen more saves... but it will also restrict their agility, and pyschologically most players will hug the cover. I'm sorry but guardsmen out of cover will never win against marines are going to be slaughtered if the Marines even play it remotely right.

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #33 on: December 8, 2009, 09:13:58 AM »
Sorry, the end of my post was a little pompous! Even more worrying is that I seem to have failed to make people realise I was talking about two different subjects. 1 that complex rules are not the way forward in my opinion. 2 that cover doesn't need to be reduced like people say it does.

I play Marines and have no real problems with cover... in fact usually the cover free boards are more problematic. Mainly because a board with cover will provide those guardsmen more saves... but it will also restrict their agility, and pyschologically most players will hug the cover. I'm sorry but guardsmen out of cover will never win against marines are going to be slaughtered if the Marines even play it remotely right.

No worries, I came down a little harshly on you there myself if I'm honest.

The idea of guardsmen having their "agility" restricted made me chuckle though (oh irony, what would I do without you?). Guard lists come in two distinct flavours these days. Flavour The First is affectionately known as the SAFH or Shooty Army From Hell, and consists of a big fat static element dedicated to raining firepower death on the enemy from afar, with a few mobile elements for securing or contesting objectives. Flavour Number The Two is a standard mechanised list. Neither of these lists rely on agility in a way that is terribly affected by cover. The simple truth of the matter is that Guard don't really lose anything from making use of cover, and gain a huge amount from it. Right now, that gives them a pretty huge advantage
« Last Edit: December 8, 2009, 12:36:33 PM by Chuckles »
The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

Offline knotdragon

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 128
  • I seeeeeee you...
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #34 on: December 8, 2009, 09:40:08 AM »


You should be able to pay for at least one extra smoke launcher so that you have more than one turn to possibly get a save.

Why?  Should I be allowed two holo-fields?  Or maybe two spirit stones?  You are correct about fearless but by your argument on smoke there's no reason at all why rhinos etc. shouldn't be allowed to be wreathed in smoke for the entire battle. 
The future does not exist until it has been

Offline Brutoni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
  • Doom... Doom.... Doooooooom
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #35 on: December 8, 2009, 10:03:54 AM »

Sorry, the end of my post was a little pompous! Even more worrying is that I seem to have failed to make people realise I was talking about two different subjects. 1 that complex rules are not the way forward in my opinion. 2 that cover doesn't need to be reduced like people say it does.

I play Marines and have no real problems with cover... in fact usually the cover free boards are more problematic. Mainly because a board with cover will provide those guardsmen more saves... but it will also restrict their agility, and pyschologically most players will hug the cover. I'm sorry but guardsmen out of cover will never win against marines are going to be slaughtered if the Marines even play it remotely right.

No worries, I came down a little harshly on you there myself if I'm honest.

The idea of guardsmen having their "agility" restricted made me chuckle though (oh irony, what would I do without you?). Guard lists come in two distinct flavours these days. Flavour The First is affectionately known as the SAFH or Shooty Army From Hell, and consists of a big fat static element dedicated to raining firepower death on the enemy from afar, with a few mobile elements for securing or contesting objectives. Flavour Number The Two is a standard mechanised list. Neither of these lists rely on agility in a way that is terribly affected by cover. The simple truth of the matter is that Guard don't really lose anything from making use of cover, and gain a huge amount from it. Right now, that gives them a pretty huge advantage
[/quote]


Something has just sprung to mind. I was flicking through the rule book and noticed just how much cover is 4+... Things like Tank traps, Crates and what not. Another thing sprung to mind was how often my opponents at the local games workshop breeze over how many troops are in the squad after 50%. Which is quite important because the rule book suggests downgrading the level of cover if 50% of the squad is only just in cover.

You see in the small group of friends that I play the game with (Including all my brothers and my partner) we have changed cover from the rulebook. Tank traps, Crates etc all had cover dropped to 5+. Other changes where implemented as well. So I suppose that really the 5th edition view on cover is a little silly in how everything provides 4+.

So yeah, I'm going to have to eat my words and say the cover system does need to be changed. However I'm not saying a universal reduction...

Ruins should remain as powerful as ever.. Remember moving around in them requires a difficult terrain test. I also say this because a ruin is definitely a strategic and tactical asset on a battlefield and as pointed out above assaulting troops behind brick walls, with elevated positions, in a straight charge is just a silly silly idea. No war game, no matter how simple should encourage such 1-Dimensional tactics.

What fortifications are should be clarified. Going to ground behind them should provide a considerable bonus such as the one given by the Ageis Defence lines in planet strike.

Finally moving through cover should slow you down more than it does at the moment... The number of dice rolled for moving through a wood should be less than for moving through a muddy, flooded field. There are after all more places for the enemy to hide in a wood so the squad is going to move slower, not to mention the terrain being more dense.

Frag Grenages and Plasma grenades need to change... There is no way, from a fluff point of view that Frag Grenades are going to be as effective as Plasma grenades in clearing cover.

So I'll revise my opinion on cover, it needs to be changed. However I still believe cover should be a big part of any war game. Utilising it well should give your army rewards. As it is too many armies line up and charge while this is partly because of the size of the tables used it is also because charging into cover is so easy. So perhaps while the saves should be reduced in some places, changed in others... Charging into cover should be a more perilous option... Attackers should suffer more than just -1 Initiative. Perhaps Initiative should be halved (rounding up) when assaulting cover, or attacks should be lost... Maybe cover allows the enemy squad a chance to fire it's weapons before the assault takes place? I don't know...


Offline sonsoftaurus

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 190
    • Sons of Taurus
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #36 on: December 8, 2009, 10:16:17 AM »
I think Fearless is OK - taking some extra wounds (which you get saves against) vs. being run down and completely destroyed is often a good trade off.  I would however alter No Retreat a bit so that multiple Fearless/etc. units that lose don't all get hit with the full effect (3 squads, lose by 2, take 6 wounds total).

Agree that extra modifiers to the combat resolution are needed, especially for outnumbering.  This would also help with the problems large but relatively fragile mobs of Orks/Gaunts have with No Retreat.

One thing I would like to see down the road is to flesh out saves a bit more.  Right now everything that isn't armor or cover gets lumped into "invulnerable", whether it's a force field, super dodging/parrying, a psychic effect, etc.  I'd split saves into Armor, Cover, Field (things like KFF, Rosarius), Dodge (Wyches, Ragnar IIRC).  AP ignores appropriate Armor, flamers and some other weapons can ignore Cover, some weapons like C'tan phase swords can ignore Field, templates/blasts ignore Dodge.  Still just take the best one available, but if kept under tight control maybe allow Dodge saves to be taken then Armor or Field. 

Offline Shadows Revenge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 749
  • Country: 00
  • The All Knowing
  • Armies: Dark Eldar, Raven Guard
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #37 on: December 8, 2009, 10:27:39 AM »
personally I would like the idea of having both troops and elites as scoring units. I dont see why an armies more advance troops cant hold down an objective they have just relinquished from the enemy (and the BRB's description is a complete amphetamine parrot about they have other stuff to worry about, what is more important, killing or winning?)

TLOS needs some working, I like the concept, but I think it should be maybe covering half of the model (so you can say they dropped behind or crouched)

with that change, I think cover saves should be lowered as well, I like the idea of a 5+, not tough to get through, but can still provide some annoyance, and then you have GTG which will give you a 4+ :P

Fearless is ok, but I think No Retreat! should be on IC and MC only, as I cant see a mob being beaten to death as they pile-in (although it could be said they were trampled)

KPs are stupid, as said before. Maybe something inbetween KP and VP should be looked into

All in all I like the stream-lined 40k, its just GW needs to pull their thumbs out of their asses and actually do the fans some service, not put a constant drain on our wallets.

Offline Lonewolf

  • Cthulhu cultist, The Final Solution | Swarmlord | Staff Soap Spotter
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4558
  • Country: de
  • Murdering armies since 2003 - retired since 2012
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #38 on: December 8, 2009, 11:20:51 AM »
Similarly I like people being forced to field troops, a move like that cut away sillyness like the Eldar flying circus in one fell swoop.

Actually the Eldar flying circus (i think you are talking about skimmer armies?) became pretty much the only viable Eldar build in competitive enviourments, as Eldar troops are dead meat without a transport. I can honestly say that in the tournies i have visited or organized since 5th ed., the only Eldar lists that worked well, where those that spammed serpents, falcons and prisms.


No problem, I'll give you a 100% increase in pay effective immediately and retroactive to 1999.

Offline Killing Time

  • Infinity Circuit | I put out on the first date | Tarrin's Sullied Cunning Stunt Double
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3691
  • Country: wales
  • Brevior saltare cum deformibus mulieribus est vita
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #39 on: December 8, 2009, 11:39:39 AM »
Actually the Eldar flying circus (i think you are talking about skimmer armies?
The flying circus is specifically 3 falcons full of harlequins....
(harlequins=clowns=circus)

.....which died the death in 5th

Dizzy

 


Powered by EzPortal