Topic: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?

[Guildmage Aech]

The flying circus is specifically 3 falcons full of harlequins....
(harlequins=clowns=circus)

Yep, and they're in hovertanks, ergo flying circus. This is different to simply Mech Eldar, primarly because of changing harliquins for things like more than bare minium troops.

[Boss_Bannednutz]

I would amend the vehicle damage table a bit in an attempt to make vehicles slightly easier to kill than they are, but less than they were before. I would also get rid of vehicle cover saves, it's just daft, and again forces certain list types to become prevalent (I'm looking at you Big Mek with KFF in EVERY ORK MECH LIST).

Like the orks don't have crappy enough vehicle armor as it is...

[Lonewolf]

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

Ah thanks for the correction 

Did people really field such armies? I always prefered to put some fire dragons into my falcons, as small quin squads did not work too well in my experience. But i agree that the change in rending and wound allocation was basically the end for quin heavy armies.

[Killing Time]

Did people really field such armies?

Did you ever see a 4th Ed list by Lazarus?

Dizzy

[dalaran1991]

Blast rule are retarded. Orks have the same chance to hit right on target as SM. I say we still roll to hit, and only roll for scatter if he shot miss. In that case the template always scatter. Remember that the scatter dice's hit face has an arrow as well for such purposes. Then apply the usual rule for reducing scatter. All models touched by template are hit.

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

I would amend the vehicle damage table a bit in an attempt to make vehicles slightly easier to kill than they are, but less than they were before. I would also get rid of vehicle cover saves, it's just daft, and again forces certain list types to become prevalent (I'm looking at you Big Mek with KFF in EVERY ORK MECH LIST).

Like the orks don't have crappy enough vehicle armor as it is...

They're supposed to though. That's the trade-off they get for being fast and able to disgorge assault-happy Orks into the middle of the enemy.

[NewHeretic]

Blast rule are retarded. Orks have the same chance to hit right on target as SM. I say we still roll to hit, and only roll for scatter if he shot miss. In that case the template always scatter. Remember that the scatter dice's hit face has an arrow as well for such purposes. Then apply the usual rule for reducing scatter. All models touched by template are hit.

Actually, because of the reduction to scatter caused by the shooter's BS, Orks don't hit as often as Space Marines.  However, I think your suggested change would be a good one, none-the-less.

As for making tanks easier to destroy, which a few people have mentioned, I think that is a horrible idea.  Tanks are finally worth taking now.  In 4th Ed. they were not cost-efficient because it was much easier to destroy a single 200-point tank than to destroy a 200-point infantry unit.  I think the change that needs to be made is regarding Lascannons.  They went from the best anti-tank gun in the game to one of the worst.  They work fine against Monstrous Creatures, but need a small boost versus vehicles.  As it is, they are just barely better than Missile Launchers and cost many times more in points.

NewHeretic

[Lonewolf]

Did people really field such armies?

Did you ever see a 4th Ed list by Lazarus?

Dizzy

Hmm you have a point i guess 

[Foalchu]

To ~Sun Captain Radiant~:  So, here is the question then:  Are you not more likely to take cover from heavier fire, or if one of your squad-mates is wounded, or if you're in a place where you could more easily take cover?  This is how I see pinning, the squad is taking cover, not necessarily because they are afraid or "shell-shocked."  This fits into what you had said about threats that you even know the point of origin for.  You yourself said that you might take cover, return fire or fall back, depending on the situation.  And would you not be more likely to take cover from a tank than from an HMG than from an assault rifle firing at you?

Also, to the people saying that adding in Fantasy-esque modifiers and rules would make 40,000 too complex, Fantasy is really not that complex.  Also, these modifiers are very easy to calculate, seeing as they only involve simple addition and subtraction.

[Farceseer Syranaul]

As for the cover rules.  People don't seem to remember that a cover save can be 'challenged', and hence reduced by 1.  That alone would help some players.  Then again the tournament players will still gripe about being penalized by sportsman scores.

As for only Troops scoring.  I really don't have a big problem with it, and I play Eldar.  Then again I don't play in registered tournaments.  Personally, such a discrepency should be fixed in the codex.  Or better yet, in an annual update of all codices.

Sniper weapons do need help.  I prefer the simple -1 for every unsaved wound.  Maybe tack in the 'beyond the first wound' clause.

Perhaps combine kill points with objectives.  For instance if you have more kill points, but lose by objectives then its a draw.  Draws mean you refer to the victory points in the back of the 5th edition book.

There is only one difference between frag and plasma grenades I would like to see.  Make plasma strength 5 against vehicles.

I like the assaults against vehicles automatically hit the rear arc.  However, strength 3 or less models without grenades should also have a chance to glance on a penetration roll of 6.  Perhaps allow units to fire non heavy weapons at rear arcs while in assault with vehicles.  However, this is said without really thinking about it.  So, I am prepared to eat these words.

I wouldn't mind seeing some other system in the missions section for effects like night fighting.  I didn't really like the way 4th edition had it.  For example, for every mission roll a D3.  The result indicates either nothing, sunrise, or sunset.  "Escalation" (the Dawn of War way) could also be done in a similar way.  Perhaps a table of events/effects that you roll on to randomly determine the number of events that either happen or are rolled for.  I am probably making it harder than it has to be.

My idea for wound allocation is: "For every time a unit takes a enough wounds equal to the number of models.  The player wounding said unit may force a model to roll it's saves separately.  And yes a model may have more than 1 wound assigned in this way."

I also thought of the idea that out numbering forces should have a bonus to their moral (sp?) checks in assault.

[Cortexburn]

I would write up a supplementary errata book that was downloadable for those that invested in 4th only to have 5th hop on up. I'm done throwing my money away on a new edition unless it's a bunch of major changes.

I'd rather they hold off on a new edition.

[Spirit of Kurnous]

things I would change:
save mods instead of AP
cover giving to hit mods instead of stupid invun saves.
move stats

[Blackveil]

i agree with the "save mods" as well. however, i think there still should be some weapons that ignore armor all together.

Another thing is flamers vs. vehicles. i think they should get some kind of bonus, as they can ignite fuel tanks/set fire to the inside through vision slits/etc.

[~Iron Captain Softy~]

To ~Sun Captain Radiant~:  So, here is the question then:  Are you not more likely to take cover from heavier fire, or if one of your squad-mates is wounded, or if you're in a place where you could more easily take cover?  This is how I see pinning, the squad is taking cover, not necessarily because they are afraid or "shell-shocked."  This fits into what you had said about threats that you even know the point of origin for.  You yourself said that you might take cover, return fire or fall back, depending on the situation.  And would you not be more likely to take cover from a tank than from an HMG than from an assault rifle firing at you?

Take cover, yes. Get pinned and do absolutely nothing while you regain your senses because you got the bejesus scared out of you? Not unless you're some wet-behind-the-ear slick sleeve private. Pinning as a rule makes the squad go into special ed for a turn, which is a deer-in-the-headlights kind of deal. Tanks, we are trained to deal with. Machine gun fire and small arms fire, we are trained to deal with. Even Sniper fire we are trained to deal with, although it's not as easy as take cover and shoot back and flank. Weapons with the tinge of the unknown and the unsettling are definitely able to pin without difficulty. As a squad, we'll take cover and shoot back. Use our LAWs, call in air support, whatever it takes to take down the emergent threat. So Pinning from every weapon? No. Military training encompasses SOP for dealing with all the different weapons that don't have pinning. Improved Pinning for the weapons that do? Yeah. Right now, it's too easy to pass pinning checks. Sniper rifles should be very good at pinning, as it's a scary weapon to be on the business side of. Machine Gun fire is scary in a different way, as it is intimidating, but ultimately easy to pinpoint and wipe out.

[Lorizael]

things I would change:
save mods instead of AP
cover giving to hit mods instead of stupid invun saves.
move stats

This is just a huge move back to 2nd edition. There's no need to complicate what is a stream-lined game with adding all these modifiers in.
I can agree maybe with different move stats. Maybe.

[~Iron Captain Softy~]

things I would change:
save mods instead of AP
cover giving to hit mods instead of stupid invun saves.
move stats

This is just a huge move back to 2nd edition. There's no need to complicate what is a stream-lined game with adding all these modifiers in.
I can agree maybe with different move stats. Maybe.

On the contrary, these mod things make a whole lot more sense than the current save system. Seeing less of the target means I have a smaller chance to hit, as I have a smaller target I have to center my shots on. Streamlined is fine, but not when it doesn't fit reality checks. Yes, it's a game, but I like having games that make sense. Besides, if we really can't do addition or subtraction, maybe it's time to add more funding to the education system >.>

[Spirit of Kurnous]

actually save mods and cover mods are more streamlined.
having cover mods means one less dice roll per side due to no cover saves.
also would mean having a BS of 6 or higher actually has some point, do you really think that someone that is that good a shot will hit the trees 50% of the time or the same amount as someone who is BS 1 or 2?

[Foalchu]

When you are in the process of taking cover, you are not firing back.  I don't share your interpretation that being pinned "makes a squad go into special ed for a turn."  other wise, there would be no choice to go to ground.  This is basically taking cover from damaging weapons.

You really wouldn't fail any large amount of pinning tests unless of course you had taken wounds(s) or were under fire from snipers or artillery.  Without negative modifiers, even a standard guard squad has about a 1/6 chance of failing a pinning test.  When you combine this with various abilities granting additional leadership or rerolls, then you end up with leadership being very unimportant except in a very few cases.

This is why I would suggest the increase in pinning.

[The Exile]

Models that have already made an armor save should get to take a cover save.  5th edition would be nearly perfect then.

[Foalchu]

Already made their save?  Are you sure?  I would think it would be if they failed their save.

Of course, this would mean that plague marines in cover would get in effect 3 saves, so I relly think this is a bad idea