Topic: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?

[Blackveil]

Ok, so if you were the one who got to write the 6th ed. rulebook, what would you change? aaaannnndddd....... .GO!

[Cortez]

Clarify emergency disembarkation and what happens to the units that are forced to do so 

Get rid of that stupid battle report in the back of the 5th ed one.

thats all i can think of at the moment.

[thebetter1]

Somewhat reduce cover.

Make plasma stronger.

Make melta weaker.

Get rid of kill points.

Include better missions in the main rulebook.

Make deploying in an area count as moving there.

Make a general rule making any model that must be placed on the table but cannot be destroyed.

Make ruins a bit less powerful (cover, harder to assault, vantage point, and resistance to blasts and templates is too much).

Slightly weaken transport vehicles to compensate for kill points.  Possibly weaken vehicles in general.  Maybe passengers could be shot at, although harder to kill.

New Force Organization system.  I propose making the chart smaller, but still maintaining a good number of compulsory selections, and then allowing the players to take as many as they want in their armies.  Also include something to weaken MSUs, which were also discouraged mainly by KP.

Make it easier to be out of LOS.  Maybe get rid of tLOS completely.

[Jester (Hadn't Changed His Profile Recently)]

1 page, saying to go back to 3rd edition, and then 299 pages to fix fluff.

[Cortez]

Second getting rid of KPs

Better missions and deployment (DOW faces my wrath)

@thebetter1: the only reason cover is resistant to blasts is the same as any other weapon shooting at the unit in cover - it might hit the wall, or become a ricochet, or they might avoid the blast/shot.

[Frowny]

I mostly like things as is...

The biggest one to change definitely is TLOS. No model game ever should be based on the premise that actually seeing something means anything. nobody is ever builds dense enough terrain to replicate real situations and no model is modeled to adequately account for, say, crouching behind a solid rock wall that you reasonably couldn't shoot through.

Slightly reduce cover- would make plasma useful again.

Transport price hike by about 5 pts across the board, although I guess this is more of a codex thing. When they are so affordable and useful as to be purchased with every squad that can (why do your lascannon devastators need a transport again?), you know the are imbalanced.

[mafty]

kinda early for this, 6th isnt going to be here for atleast 4 more years.

but ill play anyways, what i would change isnt major.

Mainly id change the missions, make night fighting more usefull (its only in DOW, come on). Kill points is a silly system.

Cover is a little to generious. there are some errata in the rulebook that the FAQ doesnt cover and should be clarified (emergency disembarking, CC bonuses for complex characters, etc). otherwise i kinda like it the way it is

I mostly like things as is...

The biggest one to change definitely is TLOS. No model game ever should be based on the premise that actually seeing something means anything. nobody is ever builds dense enough terrain to replicate real situations and no model is modeled to adequately account for, say, crouching behind a solid rock wall that you reasonably couldn't shoot through.

Slightly reduce cover- would make plasma useful again.

Transport price hike by about 5 pts across the board, although I guess this is more of a codex thing. When they are so affordable and useful as to be purchased with every squad that can (why do your lascannon devastators need a transport again?), you know the are imbalanced.

I definatly agree about TLOS, thats one of the worst parts of 5th, I dont like it at all. my TLOS is never the same as my opponents and it doesnt always work out.


I disagree and agree about vehicles, eldar transports are 90 points with 0 upgrades and become at minimum 100 with a basic gun. 100 points is not cheap to transport models

[Cortez]

The only problem about going back to the old terrain rules is that it is hard for people to get their heads around it if they're new to the game - hence introduction of TLOS.

Sorry, but how is cover generous?

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

I would alter the "only Troops can score" rule a little, as I think it has probably hurt more than it has helped. I would amend it to include Elites I think. Definitely not Heavy Support or Fast Attack, probably not HQ either. But I think Elites would help things, especially armies that got really hammered by that ruling like Eldar (and Tyranids a little, considering the nature of their Troops etc, although that may change soon). The main problem there of course is that Nobz become even more powerful...hmmm, tricky. But still, I'd prefer that to the current system, which is a bit flat and means that for some armies there's really no point in taking much besides Troops units, which is pretty dull.

I would also amend Kill Points. I like the principal behind it, but as it stands it's far too broad and leads to some lists gaining a much bigger advantage than others. I'm not entirely sure how I would implement that, possibly by having different FOC selections etc yield different numbers of Kill Points. I wouldn't scrap it completely, as I like the core idea, the implementation was just very poor.

I would bring back different "levels of mission" as I rather liked that, it brought a lot more complexity to the game. But I do like the idea of having games in which there are objectives to be secured avoid turning into a rush to kill a amphetamine parrotload of other guys, as it wipes out all tactical complexity from the game.

I would amend cover saves somewhat, I think ubiquitous 4+ cover saves is probably a little too good for armies like Orks, Imperial Guard, and Tyranids. They're cheap and disposable, being tough to kill on top of that is rather OTT. Maybe have the standard be 5+, but fairly easy to achieve.

I would like to have some way to eliminate the rather stupid wound allocation exploitation that goes on right now, but I honestly can't think of any decent way to go about it. Needs thought that...

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).

[Foalchu]

For Morale:
Pinning test for each time you are shot at, with any of the applicable modifiers:  -1 for taking wound(s), -1 if the weapons are pinning, -1 if you are in cover (more likely to duck if there's something to duck behind), -1 if the weapons are heavy.  If you take 25% casualties, then test to fall back, even if you were previously pinned.  Modifiers for this test include: -1 for each enemy unit within LOS and 18", -1 if under 50% strength and -1 if not in cover.

Then in assaults, Ld test for losing the assault.  Calculate assault winner based on wounds dealt, factor in outnumbering (+1 if you outnumber, +2 if 2:1, +3 if 3:1, etc.).  The losing side must take their leadership test with a negative modifier of how much they lost combat by

For Saves vs. Weapons:
Subtract 7 from the AP value of weapons to give the save modifier (AP 5 makes you take a save at -2 to your roll).  Cover would add to your save.  For example, 4+ cover would add 3 to your armor save, so a terminator would have a -1+ save, which could then be reduced by an AP 3 weapon to a 3+ save in total.


For Movement:
Different move and charge speeds for different races/type of infantry.  ie. terminators are slower than power armor which is slower than scout eq. armor which is slower than flak armor.  Also, running just flat doubles your movement, DT slows it by a certain number of inches.

For Vehicles:
Do away with the utter stupidity of CC always striking rear armor.  Make them able to fire more on the move (today's tanks can move faster than these things can and still fire accurately).  Also, if ramming is kept, it needs to be able to make capable of causing >S10 hits. 

EDIT/ Vehicle cover saves should go, but should be replaced with an increased chance of glancing rather than penetrating.  Basically you would get +1 to AV for each full 6" of movement over the first 6, and +1 for being partially obscured from the firer's LOS.  This AV change would not effect whether you could be dealt a damaging hit, but would make the odds of a glance higher than those of a pen.  For example, versus an AV 12 fast skimmer moving 24", a railgun would still glance on a 2+, but it would only pen on a 5+.  So you would still use AV to tell whether you had been hit with a damaging shot, but actually being hull down or moving fast would confer more realistic advantages.

Also, Blast weapons should maybe be able to damage troops in an open-topped transport. /END EDIT


For Missions: Bring back the old types and do away with the nonsense of only troops (and everyone else's special cases) being scoring units.

[Blackveil]

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

allow everything to be scoring except HQ and vehicles

[dragonclaw15]

Foalchu, a lot of those rules seem to be WFB-esque, which is interesting. I always thought that a lot of 40k's rules (standardized movement, no save-reducing weapons, etc) were as they were not because of fluff, but rather an attempt to make a simpler game, and if I recall the early editions of 40k did indeed include rules similar to the ones you suggest.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I would enjoy seeing a 40k ruleset, perhaps not quite second edition, but merely closer to WFB. Maybe 40k Advanced? (though this is of course impossible)

[Foalchu]

A lot of them are in fact based off of Warhammer Fantasy rules.  I would also enjoy seeing a more advanced form of Warhammer 40,000. 

That way the little kids that GW so dearly loves would still be able to play their simple version and some of the vets would get a game that being slightly more complex might be more enjoyable for them.

[Rakuall]

I guess what I am trying to say is that I would enjoy seeing a 40k ruleset, perhaps not quite second edition, but merely closer to WFB. Maybe 40k Advanced? (though this is of course impossible)

Why? for those who prefer the current rules, or those new to the game, stick with what GW has sold at ridiculous cost given to us. However, for those ready to take their games to the upper level, all pitch in and amend the rules, or write a "40k advanced: version one" ruleset.

[Foalchu]

Well, yes, you could stick to the current version.  This advanced version would hopefully be an optional thing.  The only reason why I would prefer for GW to produce it is that this would give a ruleset like this more validity than any homegrown rules would have.

[Ironclad]

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.

[*Striker*]

For Morale:
Pinning test for each time you are shot at, with any of the applicable modifiers:  -1 for taking wound(s), -1 if the weapons are pinning, -1 if you are in cover (more likely to duck if there's something to duck behind), -1 if the weapons are heavy.  If you take 25% casualties, then test to fall back, even if you were previously pinned.  Modifiers for this test include: -1 for each enemy unit within LOS and 18", -1 if under 50% strength and -1 if not in cover.

I like the idea of leadership being more important, but that list would be pretty extreme.  -1 whether or not your in cover huh?  Ratlings would destroy with that system.  Snipers are heavy, pinning, probably cause a wound, probably an enemy is in 18 inches, so you are looking at a -5 leadership right there.

Then in assaults, Ld test for losing the assault.  Calculate assault winner based on wounds dealt, factor in outnumbering (+1 if you outnumber, +2 if 2:1, +3 if 3:1, etc.).  The losing side must take their leadership test with a negative modifier of how much they lost combat by

Would like to see that as well.

For Saves vs. Weapons:
Subtract 7 from the AP value of weapons to give the save modifier (AP 5 makes you take a save at -2 to your roll).  Cover would add to your save.  For example, 4+ cover would add 3 to your armor save, so a terminator would have a -1+ save, which could then be reduced by an AP 3 weapon to a 3+ save in total.

Interesting idea but would require massive rebalancing of codexes for the discrepencies between MEQS and GEQS in that..

For Movement:
Different move and charge speeds for different races/type of infantry.  ie. terminators are slower than power armor which is slower than scout eq. armor which is slower than flak armor.  Also, running just flat doubles your movement, DT slows it by a certain number of inches.

Sounding more and more like fantasy, which is not necessarily a bad thing.  I doubt GW would add that "Complexity" to the game ever though.

For Vehicles:
Do away with the utter stupidity of CC always striking rear armor.  Make them able to fire more on the move (today's tanks can move faster than these things can and still fire accurately).  Also, if ramming is kept, it needs to be able to make capable of causing >S10 hits. 

Sound realistic, but that would require vehicles to cost reams more.  Close combat armies would stand no chance against vehicles that can just keep moving away from them while shooting.

[dragonclaw15]

Why? for those who prefer the current rules, or those new to the game, stick with what GW has sold at ridiculous cost given to us. However, for those ready to take their games to the upper level, all pitch in and amend the rules, or write a "40k advanced: version one" ruleset.

I don't mean impossible to make at all, I just meant that a GW-written version was highly unlikely. Also, morale tests every time a unit is shot at is kind of reminiscent of blast markers in epic. I'm not entirely sure (only skimmed the rules) but the short version of them is that units accumulated blast markers every time they were shot at, assaulted, etc. and then every time they had to make a leadership test they got penalties based on how many markers they had.

[The Black Dahlia Murder]

-LOS and woods. There is more stuff to hide behind in real life than just trees. There are shrubs and other stuff to hide behind in the woods. I like how it was in 4th.

-Snipers. At least give the model with the sniper rifle +1 BS.

-Scoring units. So ten new fresh Conscripts can hold a objective but not ten highly trained stormtroopers?

-Codex wise: Chaos Marines' veteran upgrades and daemonic gifts.

[Foalchu]

Well, the -1 for being out of cover is only in effect for the fall-back morale tests.  The -1 for being in cover would be for pinning tests.  The idea being that if you are in the open and taking fire, you are more likely to run to somewhere where you'd have cover, and if you're taking fire in cover, you'll be more likely to hunker down.

Also, snipers IRL are one of the best ways to pin people down, and in 40,00 they suck at this job.

Actually, a GEQ in 4+ cover against a S4 AP5 (bolter) weapon would still be getting a 4+ save.  If you're firing AP -, then he becomes more survivable, but as your weapons get more powerful, the odds of him dying increase.  Basically, this would make cover less of a poor man's invuln save.  It might require some rebalancing, but I imagine it wouldn't be as much as you might think, especially since all armies would be effected by this change in the same way.

By firing more on the move, I don't mean the speeds should be increased from what they are currently.  It's just that an MBT moving the equivalent of 36+ feet in the space of abut a minute and only being able to fire one gun is ridiculous.

Also, if you're trying to wave a sword at a tank to make it go away, you deserve to be crushed mercilessly beneath its treads/burned by its thrusters.  But also consider that you could with catch them in the sides or rear with faster moving assault elements (bikes, jump troops, cav).  And then you could try using your grenades/meltabombs.  Also, consider that if you stun a vehicle, it's not going to be moving away from you.


One other thing: I as well feel that the old area terrain rules should be reinstated.