What would you do to fix some weapons rules?

[Slasher956]

how about fipping it round?  instead of making melta better how about making plasma 'worse'

 

move the 'unmodified 1s over heat' to the standard profile

then for the overcharge make it unmodified 1 or 2s (return of the I hit you but I blow up at the same time!)

 

then counter balance that with it being a hit instead of a mortal wound if you roll that 1 (or 2)

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

how about fipping it round? instead of making melta better how about making plasma 'worse'

 

move the 'unmodified 1s over heat' to the standard profile

then for the overcharge make it unmodified 1 or 2s (return of the I hit you but I blow up at the same time!)

 

then counter balance that with it being a hit instead of a mortal wound if you roll that 1 (or 2)

This is s brilliant idea. It would nerf plasma by having a bit more of a risk to the firing model, although with less lethal consequences. Instead of outright losing the model, I take a wound, but I can make a saving throw, even applying the wespons AP value, like in previous efitions. Another option would be that you still only have a wound inflicted when you overcharge, on a roll og one, but if you do overcharge one turn, you can't fire at all the following turn. I believe there was a similar rule in 2nd, IIRC. Edited October 1, 2019 by Captain Smashy Pants

[MARK0SIAN]

Whilst I agree melta needs a vast improvement and plasma could do with a bit more risk, I think the chances of GW fundamentally changing the way plasma works (especially given they have entire units armed with it) are almost nil. Especially if that change is a really big nerf.

 

For melta, I’d like them to try a rule relating to the wounding. Something like ‘This weapon always wounds vehicles on 3+. If you are within half range you may reroll all failed wound rolls.’

[Panzer]

Making Plasma worse would not help the Melta vs Lascannon situation. 

 

Also making Plasma by default overheat on 1s again (as they used to do) and overheat on 2s when supercharging they'd be a terrible choice for any unit with lots of Plasma shots. Plasma Inceptors without a Captain nearby would be basically unplayable and even with a Captain they'd just kill themselves when supercharging due their ~4 shots per model.

[Slasher956]

Risk v reward on the plasma... if you want to overcharge a gun that blows up its should blow up occasionally*... it would also help return the differentiation between aeldari /tau plasma & that of the imperium.

 

Melta V Lascanon problem.... erm .... hay I play sisters so what problem

 

 

edit - ps I KNOW this is pointless wishlisting and none of it will happen.... 

 

 

 

*I find it funny when I overcharge a plasma pistol & kill the Sis. sup. only to bring her back in the next movement phase due to faith!!

Edited October 1, 2019 by Slasher956

[Panzer]

Risk v reward on the plasma... if you want to overcharge a gun that blows up its should blow up occasionally*... it would also help return the differentiation between aeldari /tau plasma & that of the imperium.

 

Melta V Lascanon problem.... erm .... hay I play sisters so what problem

 

 

edit - ps I KNOW this is pointless wishlisting and none of it will happen.... 

 

 

 

*I find it funny when I overcharge a plasma pistol & kill the Sis. sup. only to bring her back in the next movement phase due to faith!!

 

But that's what it already does.

You increase the risk and reward and it occasionaly blows up if you choose to supercharge it. By making it explode on 1s without supercharging and explode on 2s when supercharging you just put an additional risk on the mode that doesn't reward you using it while also increasing the supercharged mode from 'occasional explosions' to 'explosions pretty much everytime you use it'.

It's not so bad for a unit with just one or two Plasma weapons but for units like Hellblasters with 10 shots on 5 models, Inceptors with 12 shots on 3 models or Plasma Devastators with 10 shots on 5 models it's pretty devastating (heh).

[chapter master 454]

I think fundamentally the issue is that the new melta rule is completely different to what it was prior to 8th. Used to be when you got the melta trigger, it was near enough a sure fire wound against tanks (or to use the correct term, penetrating hit) but now it is now relegated to consistent damage (not enough more damage, just consistent).

 

I think a simple change would be such as doubling the strength of melta when at half range. Would let it effectively wound all tanks on 2+ (except a select few) which is the big issue is has now, not being able to wound targets easily when in "range".

Also...I personally would add a min damage stat to the gun when at half range as well. Min 3 damage.

[Karhedron]

I do believe shooting is a lot stronger than melee this edition, but the problem with melee, I feel lies with the core rules, rather than the weapons themselves. I don't know how to fix melee, I know it has to be done, just don't know how.

Agreed. The main problem is that having charged across the battlefield, braving all that enemy fire on the way in, a melee unit can then be left swinging in the wind if the opponent falls back from combat. This is something that is not going to be solved by weapon rules.

 

In previous editions, melee was too deadly as it could tie up units until they were ground down. Maybe something to make falling back uncertain, or risk taking extra hits.

[Slasher956]

ways to fix melee....

 

i) allow units to disembark after a vehicle has moved & charge

ii) allow units to charge after advancing

iii) give units that advance a -1 to being hit by ranged attacks

 

iv) leadership check to fallback, 

v)units to fall back D6", if they dont get 4+" away then the other unit can consolidate in to them again 

vi) -1 or -2 to hit units that where in combat at the start of the turn  (ie its easier to shoot the unit with pistols when your in combat with them than to fall back and allow another unit to shoot them)

vii) if a unit falls back then the opposition unit(s) gets an immediate round of combat against them (or at least 1 attack each)

[Panzer]

There are so many ways to buff melee. Many things that have been there in past editions already even. GW is just too shy about it. Probably because they fear the outcry of all the shooty lists getting overrun by melee lists suddenly.

 

To expand on the options Slasher956 listed:

viii) move the rolled distance after a failed charge

ix) hit modifier or cover for advancing units

x) adding a long range modifier for shooting

xi) fixing terrain rules

xii) reduce range of all the ranged weapons

xiii) reduce the number of shots of all the ranged weapons

xiv) reduce the BS of all units

xv) increase the points of all ranged weapons (instead of making melee units more expensive for all the special rules they need to stand a chance against shooty units...)

 

 

Yes, I'm aware that most of those things to 'fix melee' are nerfs to shooting. Imo the game would be much more enjoyable if units would live longer and shooting is in the end the main reason why they don't.

[MARK0SIAN]

ways to fix melee....

 

i) allow units to disembark after a vehicle has moved & charge

ii) allow units to charge after advancing

iii) give units that advance a -1 to being hit by ranged attacks

 

I quite like some of these ideas but I would tweak them a bit. The first one I would create a class of assault vehicles like there used to be which would allow units to disembark and charge after moving. I’d definitely give disembarking after moving to every transport but not charging.

 

As for advancing after charging, I think it’s a good idea but I would restrict it to infantry. The distance some of the bikes etc can move with advancing would see turn one charges all over the place and, personally, I’m of the opinion that no one should be in combat in turn one.

 

I’d also make it a choice. Units that advanced can either charge or shoot (with assault weapons) but not both.

 

As for point three I’m not so sure. Aggressors can advance without penalty already and then deliver some serious firepower whilst being quite tough. I don’t think they really warrant a -1 to hit on top of that.

[Grimdark_Garage]

In struggling to see the issue with melee?

 

Is it not just that its more difficult to get into combat than sitting back and shooting?

 

Considering that the charge phase is probably the most powerful in the game when used right, it seems fine to me.

 

I'm not a player who plays a combat army but have played a few and they all have some shenanigans to get in combat turn 1.

 

Regardless, everything would be improved by better terrain rules to nerf shooting

[MARK0SIAN]

In struggling to see the issue with melee?

 

Is it not just that its more difficult to get into combat than sitting back and shooting?

 

Considering that the charge phase is probably the most powerful in the game when used right, it seems fine to me.

 

I'm not a player who plays a combat army but have played a few and they all have some shenanigans to get in combat turn 1.

 

Regardless, everything would be improved by better terrain rules to nerf shooting

There’s no way the charge phase is more powerful than the shooting phase :)

 

Some melee armies do have turn one combat abilities but by no means all of them.

 

Aside from it being more difficult to get into melee, you have overwatch which is much more powerful now than it ever has been, especially against abilities that can buff it.

 

Then once in combat, the other unit can just leave on the next turn if you haven’t been able to wrap them and then you just get shot to pieces.

 

So there’s a few issues with melee armies, including the terrain rules you mentioned.

[Grimdark_Garage]

100% more stuff will die in the shooting phase, but used right, the charge and subsequent consolidation moves can mean VP's, better positioning and shut down your opponents shooting offensive for their turn.

 

A MEQ can move 6", charge 12", 3" pile in and 3" consolidate. Totalling 24" move. Huge!!

 

You've gotta be gamey though!

[MARK0SIAN]

100% more stuff will die in the shooting phase, but used right, the charge and subsequent consolidation moves can mean VP's, better positioning and shut down your opponents shooting offensive for their turn.

 

A MEQ can move 6", charge 12", 3" pile in and 3" consolidate. Totalling 24" move. Huge!!

 

You've gotta be gamey though!

Oh yeah, I’m not denying it’s a powerful phase but it doesn’t reach the heights of the shooting phase in terms of power for me :)

[Cryptix]

Am I the only who thinks that random number of shot weapons would be fine if damage carried over for them like mortal wounds/flail of corruption? It'd make weapons like battle cannons seriously deadly against hordes again.

[Panzer]

Am I the only who thinks that random number of shot weapons would be fine if damage carried over for them like mortal wounds/flail of corruption? It'd make weapons like battle cannons seriously deadly against hordes again.

No, that would turn things like Lascannons into true allrounder as opposed to be a dedicated anti-tank weapon.

[MARK0SIAN]

Am I the only who thinks that random number of shot weapons would be fine if damage carried over for them like mortal wounds/flail of corruption? It'd make weapons like battle cannons seriously deadly against hordes again.

I think it would make them a bit too good at deleting squads. Plus I don’t think I’d like the fact that I’d only been able to make one save for 3 or 4 guys instead of trying to make 3 or 4 saves. I.E. I failed one save against something and lost three or even 6 marines from it.

[Tyriks]

That kind of thing could work but it would have to be limited to some weapons, not all multi damage weapons. And as Markosian said youd have to let each model take whatever save they get.

[Cryptix]

I didn't say random number of damage, I said random number of shots. IE, Flamers, frag grenades, and the like. And when I meant wound overflow, I did mean that they should still be able to take saves, like with flails of corruption: using mortal wounds was a bad example. 

Edited October 1, 2019 by Cryptix

[The Unseen]

Melta should be 2d3 damage base, at half range make it +1 to wound and +d3 damage.

That'd actually make it better than overcharged plasma vs the big targets.

Wounding T7 on a 2+, T8 on a 3.

 

Flamers and similar weapons should do # of d3s as well rather than d6s, and gain a d3 per 5 models in the target, and get their old ignore cover rule back.

 

Do not for the love of the Emperor bring back templates.

Way to fiddly, even with a great opponent, and will just lead to the movement phase taking forever again

[Closet Skeleton]

I didn't say random number of damage, I said random number of shots. IE, Flamers, frag grenades, and the like. And when I meant wound overflow, I did mean that they should still be able to take saves, like with flails of corruption: using mortal wounds was a bad example. 

 

Flails of Corruption kill models without letting them take a save, that's what damage carry over does; kill two models when only one gets a save. The way around that would be a damage 1 weapon that deals multiple wounds per wound roll.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Closet Skeleton

[chapter master 454]

 

I didn't say random number of damage, I said random number of shots. IE, Flamers, frag grenades, and the like. And when I meant wound overflow, I did mean that they should still be able to take saves, like with flails of corruption: using mortal wounds was a bad example. 

 

Flails of Corruption kill models without letting them take a save, that's what damage carry over does; kill two models when only one gets a save. The way around that would be a damage 1 weapon that deals multiple wounds per wound roll.

 

 

...we are getting a little convoluted here.

 

He is saying that some weapons should allow their damage to spill over like mortal wounds do and by all accounts when you have FNP (Feel No Pain) rolls like death guard or the like, you very often take those all at once since they spill over anyway despite the fact "it kills another model without letting them save it".

 

However what he is saying is that any weapon with Random shots should have the bonus of allowing its damage to spill into other units, representing the rather broad application of the weapons destructive power (a "to whom it may concern" approach you could say). While it could seem odd for 1 armour save representing many dying may seem out of the ordinary but it just shows that the unit got hit hard (or possibly were knocked out by the blast, injured to being unable to fight and so on).

Again, it would only apply to random shot weapons which as it stands need help. I would certainly say that vindicators may be scary if they had this change as it stands now, not exactly worried too much about them.

[Helias_Tancred]

1. Vehicles heavy weapons are now all assault

2. There is a close combat overwatch when you leave close combat

3. Terminators re-roll armor save

4. d6 damage is now 2d3 damage

[Squike]

ways to fix melee....

 

i) allow units to disembark after a vehicle has moved & charge

ii) allow units to charge after advancing

iii) give units that advance a -1 to being hit by ranged attacks

 

iv) leadership check to fallback, 

v)units to fall back D6", if they dont get 4+" away then the other unit can consolidate in to them again 

vi) -1 or -2 to hit units that where in combat at the start of the turn  (ie its easier to shoot the unit with pistols when your in combat with them than to fall back and allow another unit to shoot them)

vii) if a unit falls back then the opposition unit(s) gets an immediate round of combat against them (or at least 1 attack each)

i) i like this one but I'm not sure if should be all transports or just some "assault" transports. Maybe make it an option like rhinos can have an "assault ramp" for x number of points.

ii) not such a fan of this would be too OP on some units like bikes as mentioned above.

iiI) not a fan of this either, i picture units advancing as them running madly in the open to get to there destination faster so they should be harder to hit than some one moving 6" "tactically"

 

iv) I like this one, although not sure if it should be an inverse leadership test or not, like you have to fail a leadership test to fall back not pass it. I can see a guard squad failing moral and running out from combat but not a battle hardened marine leaving combat where they are "fluff wise anyway" meant to be middle of the field shoot them up and then get stuck in units.

v) I like this as well it symbolizes the scramble to escape and the difficulty of disengaging when an Ork is trying to pound you to mush.

vi) not such a fan of this as again generally if your in combat your up and in the open (unless in cover in which case you would get a cover save to represent you were fighting in the ruins lets say)

vii) I'm not sure about this one, as it could then be suicide to fall back from something like berzerkers, maybe use the leadership test part to fall back and use the same failed leadership rules to remove casualty that died trying to disengage.

 

 

To expand on the options Slasher956 listed:

viii) move the rolled distance after a failed charge

ix) hit modifier or cover for advancing units

x) adding a long range modifier for shooting

xi) fixing terrain rules

xii) reduce range of all the ranged weapons

xiii) reduce the number of shots of all the ranged weapons

xiv) reduce the BS of all units

xv) increase the points of all ranged weapons (instead of making melee units more expensive for all the special rules they need to stand a chance against shooty units...)

 

 

Yes, I'm aware that most of those things to 'fix melee' are nerfs to shooting. Imo the game would be much more enjoyable if units would live longer and shooting is in the end the main reason why they don't.

 

viii) i think this should happen, Kill Team uses this I believe, would just have to make it so that if you failed to get within an inch of a charged target in the charge phase then the unit cannot activate in the fight phase unless heroically intervened.

ix) don't like as stated above advancing units should be seen as dashing across the open to reach there destination, not moving "tactically".

x)no because this has far greater effects than just helping charges and the fight phase, now units with -1 or -2 to hit already are even harder.

xi) I definitely think terrain rules need improving but not sure what I would do.

xii) again I think this has too much of an impact on the shooting phase.

xiii) see above and same for the other points below this.

 

 

 

I also think flamers should ignore cover, historically this is the main purpose of flame weapons, to take out units using bunkers and such because it negates the cover. 

Edited October 5, 2019 by Squike