40k 6th Edition

[Melissia]

True I suppose. But it would suck if they did something stupid like retcon Sororitas armor so that it's worse than Astartes armor (it's been stated to be equal to Astartes armor for around five editions now, including rogue trader). And things like that are what I'd hate if they changed it to a D10 system.

[Lord Azaghul]

While d10 is probably more accurate of a fluff perspective: I think it would slow the game way down. Imagine rolling 40 dice in a CC and haveing to scan for all your 4's 5's 6's 7's 8's 9's 10's. Not to mention the power and comparison levels would be a nightmare untill all books were moved over to the system. I also think it would be a bit more of hassle to acquire a nice block of evenly color d10's to match my army paint scheme! I'm also not convinced that d/10 would be that much of a service -the game would still probably suffer the same issues it does now.

Weapons skill chart: nah that aint no thing! Any better then a 3+ in most cases and cc becomes far to harsh - it already recieved a signifant boost this ed.

[Xas]

5th is good.

all we need now is a PS/CoD like book that adds balanced missions and a lot of them and we are set.

maybe modify tankshoking a bit.

maybe modify the WS chart a bit. along the lines of: if you are equal both hit on 4+. if you are one better you hit on 3+, they on 4+. if you are 2 points better you hit on 3+ and they on 5+, if you are 3 points better you hit on 2+ and they on 5+. if you are 4 or more points better its 2+/6+.


this would really make the WS stat more important.

additionally things that have double strenght should auto wound and not only on 2+.

beeing more numberous should grant a plain +1 bonus to combat res (like fantasy).


the game itself should be kept as is (whoever thinks about d10 must have forgetten about orks. a d10 takes about 4 times as much space as a d6 in a dice box so good luck carrying 50~ around!)

[Lerra]

I'm definitely glad that fearless has penalties if they lose close combat. Most fearless units shouldn't really be losing close combat in the first place anyway.

I think Fearless works well most of the time (in 1v1 games) but it really breaks down in 2v2s or team Apoc games.

I was playing Deathwing allied with Imperial Guard versus Space Wolves and Tyranids. Ragnar Blackmane and his 15 Blood Claws charged into my ally's 55-man IG infantry squad. Both sides stuck in combat the first round. The next turn, my fearless terminators charged and joined the assault. Ragnar and friends killed ~30 Guardsmen that round (Saga of the Warrior Born is amazing versus hordes). My terminators killed all of the surviving Blood Claws and knocked Ragnar down to 1 wound. I lost combat by 20 and took 20 fearless wounds, even though my Deathwing didn't take a single wound from combat and nearly wiped out their opponents >_< The silly guardsmen made me lose most of the squad to fearless. I should have just let them die!

Things I'd love to see in the next edition (or even in a 5th ed supplement book):

Many more standard missions - 6 deployment types, 12 mission types at least
A variety of multiplayer missions
A tested set of multiplayer rules - can allies enter each others' transports? Can Independent Characters join units owned by an ally? What about army-wide buffs? etc.
A set of skirmish missions for games at <800 points

[Melissia]

So rather than make fearless overpowered, how about having that particular rule only apply it to your own forces in team battles, rather than all friendly forces? *shrug* Having Fearless become Stubborn in close combat would be stupidly overpowered given the current points costs IMO...

[Lord Azaghul]

So rather than make fearless overpowered, how about having that particular rule only apply it to your own forces in team battles, rather than all friendly forces? *shrug* Having Fearless become Stubborn in close combat would be stupidly overpowered given the current points costs IMO...

There's no reason you can't do that in your own games. Just make a nice little house rule for team battles.

edit: additional thought.

Auto wounding: this should not happen. Auto things make the game not for the other player - there should always be a chance of failure.

[mstingray]

I agree with the modifiers for the shooting and think they should change it to something like:
-1 for losing more than half your unit in one turn
-1 for getting shot at (not necessarily wounds)
-1 for taking at least a wound from ordnance. (you're going to get scared if the guy next to you blows up)

Just a thought, a unit should be able to provide suppressing fire, something along the lines of the unit taking half its shots (rounding down) but the unit getting shot at counts as being in cover for purposes of moving.

[doublek666]

5th edition has streamlined the game, made less argumments, and the game has expanded in exciting ways. There are some legitmate concerns and perhaps some tweaks might help. But are the suggestions here to help the game or the armies and situations some individuals believe would help them win. Use house rules if you want.

6th edition will be a huge event, "The Return of the Emperor", a worldwide expansion and event, writing the course of history and dictating the next evolution of the game. There will be Primarchs. newly re-discovered vehicles and weapons, new scenarios, missions and battles, new characters and units for eatch army, a big supplement , like APOCALYPSE. This will be in about 6 years from now. There won't be much of a rules change, and despite some grand arguments, 40k will always be a D6 based game. I think there will be more space ships/fighters and bombers as time goes on.

[DarkLink]

So rather than make fearless overpowered, how about having that particular rule only apply it to your own forces in team battles, rather than all friendly forces? *shrug* Having Fearless become Stubborn in close combat would be stupidly overpowered given the current points costs IMO...

The real problem with fearless is that currently, No Retreat is a bigger drawback than almost all the benefits of being Fearless in the first place.

I play some allied sisters, and I can only remember failing one or two Leadership tests (with stubborn Ld 9), like, ever. And yet sisters suffer absolutely no drawbacks to failing combat, but passing their leadership.

I think that No Retreat should work like this: the fearless unit takes a leadership tests like everyone else. If it is passed, they're ok. If they fail, due to modifiers or whatever, they stay in combat but take no retreat wounds.

Otherwise, Fearless needs a buff in other parts of the game to make up for the severe drawback of No Retreat. If only shooting were more brutal, and actually let you pin or for force units to fall back regularly, without the aid of units like the Psyker Battle Squad. Then Fearless would be great.

[Dark_Templar]

CSM haven't been the main army of chaos since the Horus Heresy, just like loyalist SMs haven't been the main army of the Imperium since the Horus Heresy. CSMs are so far from being the main army of chaos that it's almost laughable that someone would suggest that.

Well, you could always have a Chaos supplement to the C:SM, since I highly doubt that the various tainted marines hand back their munitions before going to the dark side.