Wednesday, 23 November 2011

6th Ed Wishlisting


  1. Vehicles are mostly fine. Only thing I dislike is infantry can outrun vehicles once they start their turn within 12". This does seem a tad odd. Also the damage chart is inconsistent and somewhat harsh on the vehicle. Every single result cripples the vehicle on some way which is fine, if a little too punishing, considering how easy it is to get a roll on the chart. For the shooter it's kinda weird. 1 and 2 are better than 3 by a fair margin and probably better than 4.

    More varied missions, k thanks

  2. i want:

    - less 4+ cover saves

    - more than just troops claiming objectives - right now if an objective has ten terminators on it, it isn't secure, even if the only other thing left on the board is a single grot (who by the way CAN secure that objective)

    -get rid of the stupid rule that says that if a single model in a troops choice is alive, it can claim and contest. As per my example above, it's stupid how it works now. that grot runs up to an objective with ten GK Terminators on it (a troops choice) last turn of the game and somehow that objective isn't secure any more. they should say that if squad goes below quarter strength, it can't contest or claim any more any more

    - models need to take more damage from wrecked and exploded vehicles, right now transports are effectively a bubble protecting a squad for a turn, with virtually no ill effects if it dies. they should make it a serious choice as to whether to choose to footslog it or risk buying transports. This will also give players more incentive to protect their transports to avoid harming the cargo when they blow up

    - heavier vehicles like the monolith and land raider should have a form of structure points - it's ridiculously easy to one-shot these things atm. i'm not saying make them impossible to one shot, just a lot harder

    - defensive weapons need to go back up to strength 5, to include stuff like heavy bilters, big shootas, etc, which aren't exactly difficult to fire from a vehicle mounted position. All assault weapons should fall under this category too

    - defensive weapons should be able to be fired at different targets to main weaponry - they're designed for close defence and peeling infantry off that are mobbing the vehicle, which is often at odds with the vehicles primary role

    - they need to introduce minor/ secondary missions, which go alongside objectives, kill points etc. Stuff like assassinate the enemy hq for an extra couple of kill points, don't let the enemy reach your deployments zone, etc. It gets so boring playing the same missions over and over

    - talking of kill points, stagger what kill points units are worth - killing Abaddon should not carry the same weight in terms of victory as killing a guardsman squad.

    maybe something like the following:

    kill a named character - 4 kill points

    kill a HQ - 3 kill points

    Kill a vehicle with armour rating of at least 39 (add up the facings, counts sides just once - equivalent of a 13/13/13 vehicle) 3 kill points

    Kill a vehicle with armour rating of at least 33 (add up the facings, counts sides just once - equivalent of a 11/11/11 vehicle) 2 kill points

    Kill a vehicle with armour rating of at less than 33 - 1 kill point

    kill elite infantry unit (ie. takes up an elites choice) - 2 kill points

    kill infantry unit - 1 kill point

    that way, your victory is weighed in how much damage you do to the stuff that matters, while also adding a dimension to army building where you can choose to deny kill points by making an army of mooks, or a super killy elite force which runs the risk of giving away a lot of kill points if it goes wrong

    - Have some way to consolidate into another combat, even if there's some kind of test for it. I refuse to believe that a squad of combat specialists charging into the heart of Imperial Guard lines kill ten men then stand around waiting to be shot by the other 80 men plus tank support. They should find a way to make it so that there's a chance to overun into a nearby enemy squad, but also a chance of failing or faltering and risk getting shot. then players have to make a choice whether the risks of assault would outweigh the benefits or not (which might answer your wish for the game to be more about tactical manuvouring)

    i've got loads more, but then again i preferred 4th edition. My ideal sixth edition would be a blend of 4th and 5th, i think, as both editions had great ideas, but also massive problems too, which i feel could be resolved by the melding of the two

  3. 4+ saves are fine but they shouldn't be higher than that.

    Any infantry should be able to hold objectives not just Troops choices.

    I never want to see consolidating into another unit after combat ever again. GW bring that back and I well just stop playing entirely. It was a stupid rule and only benefited close combat armies. 40K needs to step away from CC being so dominate.

  4. Otherwise I am open to your suggestions.

  5. it's far too easy to get a 4+ cover save atm. 5+ and 6+ should be far more common. Also i think certain high strength weapon or high ap should modify cover saves downwards.

    i'm not saying make consolidation in combat a guaranteed thing, just make so there's a chance of it happening. It's stupid now that a unit of assault marines who win a combat with another guardsman squad an inch away just sit there and let themselves get shot.
    An alternative would be to make the enemy take a leadership check for shooting a unit if there's a friendly unit close by ( maybe within 2-3 inches), to represent their worries about hitting their own men.

    The thing is about 40k is that it isn't meant to be a combat simulator, but a way of playing out part of the crazy, messed up world of the 41st millennium, where half the races out there would prefer to run up and slap or stab you in the face rather than rely on tactics.

    I mean, the Orks are basically space barbarians, nids are space locusts and many factions of other races actively worship the art of close combat (khorne beserkers, death cultists, deamons that want to rip out your soul, etc). The only way to face such horrors is to play them at their own game, which means close combat.

    If you don't like the amount of close combat in the game, find an opponent who feels likewise and make two very shooty armies.

    For me, close combat is what makes 40k what it is

  6. Cover saves are needed and 4+ is fine IMO. Any less and they wouldn't be worth taking them. I do admit that sometimes it is amazing that the 41st millennium seems to have immensely resistant privet hedges!

    I would be ok with a consolidate into another unit if the assaulted unit got a charge reaction like in fantasy (both regular assaults and consolidating into). At least then the defending unit has a chance to drop the attacks coming in.

    Close combat in 40K is far too strong. It's a huge disadvantage for non-CC armies. Even vanilla marines suffer seriously in assault because they don't get the attacks back (talking lack of CCW here). Shooty armies don't work anymore. Just look at Tau at present. Their new codex needs to include some decent CC units to compensate.

  7. Cover saves should be something a bit less reliable, instead of 'this hedge is going to save me from a tank shell precisely half the time, as will this patch of long grass that happens to obscure 51% of my body'. I liked how cover worked in 4th edition, where only the very heaviest of cover would give a model a 4 up or 3 up cover save

    Also, they should get rid of the 4+ cover save for shooting through other models, or at least bring in a rule where if you make the save with it, those models will get hit as well. Atm it's a case of somehow the missile which would pulverise the squad you're shooting at has no effect if it happens to hit your own or other enemy models because you're shooting through them (which is what the 4+ represents in this case)

    Close Combat will always be a huge part of 40k, simply because of the scale it's on. in 40k, the armies are so close to each other at the start of the game (in real-world terms, not tabletop terms) that that kind of engagement is more or less inevitable. (Don't forget that a 40k game represents the climax of a bigger battle, most of which would've been fought at far longer range)

    On a bigger board manuvouring and shooting would make sense, but on a standard 4x4 or 6x4 board, there just isn't the room for it.

    If you look at apocalypse games (at least the ones i've been in), you'll see that it is decided by shooting and getting the right firepower to the right place - because they've got the room for that kind of thing

    If you want a game that mainly relies on shooting play epic, where the scale's right for it. On the scale of a 40k game, it's either short range firefights or close combat, which suitably represents the kind of engagement the game is meant to show

    I do agree that vanilla marines should be able to hold their own in close combat a bit better though. Tau are also rumoured to be getting vastly upgraded firepower. I hope they don't put too many uber cc units in there, as that would take away from the whole idea of the Tau

  8. I agree about the cover saves with what you are saying there. Ruins and buildings should offer 4+. Woods and such should be 5+ and fences/hedges should be 6+.

    CC can be a part of the game but right now it is too damn good for certain armies. It shouldn't be the be all and end all for the game. I've played Epic in the past and it didn't do it for me. Too much the other way. As for Apocalypse I loath that format. Games take too long and people walk away bored because of it.