The 40k solution.

[Blane]

Ok. So it has come to my attention that I am not the only one who is a little bit disgruntled with 40k recently. 4th had its problems, so we all looked forward to a little revamp in 5th. Of course, all they did make solutions that caused other problems.

So, 2 solutions present themselves:

1. Play 2nd edition again, which apparently was almost equivalent to fantasy in terms of rule accuracy. However, there is one unfortunate side effect to playing 2nd, and that is that squad options were different. ei: assault squads could ALL be equipped with unique gear like plasma pistols, hand flamers, power weapons(which weren't as good) etc. So we would have to use a lot of use as. As far as rulebooks are concerned, I have the regular ones, plus some can be found in PDF format.

2. Devise a 4.5 edition which incorporates the best aspects of 4th edition and 5th edition. The goal of the changes would be to make the game more interesting to play and more balanced(taking in consideration codex-specific rules). I have begun listing a few changes, pending approval by others.

So, I think what will happen is that Cowboy and I will play test 2nd edition since we have the rulebooks and each of our respective codexes from 2nd edition. I even have the sustained fire dice and the crazy templates that went away. Once this is done, we can determine if others would like it, if its feasible, etc. We can move from there.

Any thoughts?

[Cowboy]

I am all for playing second again, but I can imagine that for a lot of people, it's simply not going to work. I'd be up for looking into the rules to see how we could tweak them to make more sense.

[Cowboy]

Actually Blane, I was also thinking, in the case of some of our cover issues what if we brought back the idea of hiding. Say something like, you forgo shooting to hide, and it means if the majority of the squad is in cover and can't be seen, you can't shoot at them. this solves the issue of like, oh i can see that one model so now my whole squad will shoot at you, and your cover save doesn't matter. I think if we combine that with just not making everything a 4 up, we'd solve that aspect of the problem.

[stonebrow]

I'm out. I know 5th edition isn't very popular with the veterans of the store but I would still play it. I don't find its broken or unbalanced. Not really interested in playing an old version of the game. Thanks for the open invite though.

[Frank n Beanz]

I'd play 2nd ed simply cause I used to love it and would pick up the rules fast since in nearly memorized the d**n rules books as a kid. But how would you compensate for say Tau? Guess you had to make new rules for all thier weapons. And I'm surpised you wouldnt want to give the ol'space dwarves a go Brow I mean wouldnt be hard to convert dwarfs from fantasy, most of them have guns or crew massive cannons....

[Cowboy]

OK, I have another idea for 4.5 edition, or really just for fixing 5th. For cover saves, we change it so that most things grant a 5 plus cover save instead of a 4 plus. Obviously, some stuff would still be 4 up, but we can review it. We then change going to ground to be an option that you can do in place of either moving, or shooting. If you opt to go to ground instead of moving, you cannot run. This way, you can still get a 4 plus cover save, and without giving up an entire turn, but you have to give up something for it. You also have to decide in advance if you want it or not. we could possibly include something where you can do it after getting shot, if you haven't already, but then you do give up the next turn, I dunno, but i think it makes just roaming cover not quite as ridiculous.

We can fix the whole units give each other cover thing by either lowering the save(which sort of works) or saying units block line of sight. So something like, if a unit completely behind another unit, you can't see it to shoot at it. But you can still shoot at something that is off in the distance, or a unit that is half behind another unit.

The whole objective thing can be somewhat problematic too. I see a few fixes. One is that you say dedicated transports don't contest. It sort of works, but it gets weird with things like land raiders. I mean it's easy enough to say, they are equipped specifically to carry the troops, and so don't have score taking stuff, or whatever, but it's a bit odd. Blane and I tried a few time based options, and we didn't really see how well they worked, but it kinda doesn't stop the ties thing from happening a lot. So what I was thinking could be OK is that if a unit holding an objective is double or more the points of the contesting unit, they are considered to be holding it. This is calculated based on what is left in the units, so if you had a big f**koff 400 point unit, but it only has 2 models left, you calculate what those 2 are worth. So if it's two marines with bolters, they are worth 30 points (if it's new marines you can average it out. We all know the sergeant is worth an extra 15 and so on. I doubt the 2 or 3 points is ever really going to make a huge difference) This means you can't just come in with some tiny ass units, and then start to contest everything on the table.

Anyhoo, those are some fixes I've considered. To be honest the vast majority of problems really just stems form the codices not being balanced at all for 5th. But yeah for rules fixes lemme know what you think.

[stonebrow]

Everyone seemed to like 4th edition rules on capturing. Why don't you just use those instead. Only non-vehicles can capture and then add the double the opposing unit points to contest. The only exception to the non vehicle might be the land raider since it actually had rules about it being able to capture since it is so massive. The going to ground rules seem fine to me. If you decide to go to ground when shot you miss out on shooting and moving the following turn. Its a fair trade I find. If you want to lower the cover saves from 4+ all over the place to 5+ except for bunkers which will give 4+ thats fine, I'd even go so far as to say that would be great because thats one of the only things I find unbalanced in 5th. If we change just that I'm totally in for it. I would prefer us to stay with a little change or two like that instead of making up a million house rules and changing the entire 5th ed rules.

[Cowboy]

Well, in previous editions, it was only dedicated transports that didn't score. Vehicles did, and the Land Raider exception was that even when a Land Raider is dedicated it still scores. I think the only troops thing is fine, but contesting is really too easy.

As for the cover save thing, I wanted to make going to ground better, because some books rely on cover save. If you make it nutsty all over the place they'll get chewed up like crazy, unless they go to ground, at which point they can't do anything. I dunno. I'd like to test it, and see. I think it'd be cool, but I'm not totally sure.

[Blane]

The scenarios and condition for victory bother me in fifth. I liked it the way it was in fourth to be honest. Maybe a mix would be good. Like combining objectives for troops and victory points.

[Cowboy]

One of the big things that I do like about 5th though is that you can't just beat the tar out of the other guy. You have to try to win missions not just kill kill kill. I think it makes the game way more interesting that way, and if the points did matter for contesting, but not for killing, I think that would be good. I also like the no vehicle scoring thing. I feel like it was a good idea, but a little badly implemented.

[stonebrow]

The thing with victory conditions in the 5th ed missions is exactly that, just objectives for those missions. You guys are free to make up whatever mission you want. You liked the missions from 4th, then play the missions from 4th. Its no big deal. As for the scoring I think we should just use the anything can score except dedicated transports or only non vehicles can. Either or is fine. The going to ground I find to be perfect the way it is.