Ok, Orks being released just affects ork players, like me, but 7th edition is something that will affect all the 40K players, and here at 40K WarZone we would like to know your opinions and thoughts about it to, and why not, your "wishlist" for this 7th edition.
The only thing that seems clear so far is the release date; the 24th of May. Besides that, no one knows anything yet about what the new rules would be. Yeah, everyone is speculating with Escalation and Stronghold Assault being included in this rule book, but even that is a rumor.
Here at 40K WarZone we've been talking about it, and all of us had different, and even opposite opinions of what we would like. Here are my thoughts:
- Avoid or modify the "Look out sir!" rule. I mean, I can't see 7 soldiers jumping in front of their commander to stop bullets at lightning speed. Sure if they can react to get in the way 7 times, the commander has time to move out of the way too... I would say to change that rule to a 4+ generic roll, discriminating Warlord or Sergeants the same way.
- Shooting modifiers like in Fantasy, but not all of them. I mean, applying the same modifiers would completely nerf some armies. But something like "If the target is more than half of their full total range, the BS gets reduced by 1". I think it's a rule that would make complete sense as it's not the same aiming something in your face than something 200m away (or call it 28" away).
- Overwatch, in my opinion, should be -2 BS, not everyone gets their BS reduced to 1. This might be a little bit OP, but not a huge difference as most armies are BS3 or BS4.
- Improvements to Close Combat and Assault phase. Trying to find a way to balance the game between Close Combat and Shooting is the key. Maybe the ability to overrun into another combat like in Fantasy or something like that would work. What is clear is that the melee phase needs an improvement, that way we will see more Nids and Orks players in the table top, and way more different strategies than just shoot the shit out of each other until someone dies. The fact that you can be 3" away and fail a charge rolling snake eyes makes no sense to me. Maybe charging rolls should be 2d6+2"or something like that, and 3d6 for bikes, jetbikes, jump packs, etc.
- Improvements to cover saves for both vehicles and regular units. I mean improve the rules, not the saves themself, cause right now they can be very confusing and abusive in some cases.
- Armor value for vehicles? I mean, doesn't make sense to me that a regular space marine gets a 3+ armor save from a bolter, but a rhino in the rear armor, that is a tank, doesn't. I know it sounds OP but makes sense that a tank would have a 4+ armor. After all, a bloody Quad Gun has a 3+ armor!
- Nerf Necrons. All around. Mindshackle scarabs are bullshit. At least you should be allowed to strike back!
- Improvement of Monstrous Creatures, at least in movement. Most of the time they get shot to death before having the chance to do anything. I used Skarbrand a million times and was able to engage in combat just once... 225 points wasted? Probably. But I will always remember the game that he engaged...hehe.
- MC -1 to their cover save. They're huge after all....
Spicerack:
"Not much will change. Some minor rewording, some rules shifting and maybe the inclusion of escalation and stronghold. But not much else. I will play with what I'm given. I wish things like 2++ rerollable saves couldn't happen, but by the same token then I couldn't have my blob. So I'll deal with it"
Cyphus:
"Assault from outflank, decrease in power or availability of ignores cover. Don't expect either to happen, but hey- it's a wish list."
CrAzY424:
"- Leadership tests if a unit is destroyed close to you.
- All barrage weapons give -1 to pinning tests.
-Anything that is multiple barrage gives -2
- Fast vehicles gain +1 S for tank shock
- Area terrain can't be used by MCs
- MCs are -2 to the enemy fear check
- Any enemy units withing 12" of a MC is -1 Ld unless they have ATSKNF or fearless"
TommyH
"I guess just more combat elements such as consolidating into another combat"
So now, what is your wish list guys?
Ruby
ID for S8 weapons and up (on a 6 to wound). I dont care if you're a wraighknight/carnifex/riptide. Missile to the face should ruin your day.
ReplyDeleteFor "Look Out Sir" - how about an initiative test instead of a generic 4+/2+? I can imagine 7 eldar being able to jump in front of their leader at lightning speed. But 7 necron warriors? An Initiative test would be more fluffy
ReplyDeleteIn one sentence you say "Improve MCs" in the next you say "-1 to MC cover saves" but I see your point.
ReplyDeleteMy main issue is with Swooping FMCs being able to claim area terrain as a cover save but I suppose it applies to MCs too.
I am big on improving assault. Assaulting from outflank would be fantastic. Also, one shou;d be able to assaule from a stationary vehicle. I hate that I can't assault out of a rhino that has been immobilized for 2 turns. What were the troops doing in there? They should be ready to charge! If I could assault from a rhino, I might actually used possessed.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there really needs to be some turn 1 balance. At least allow for the player going second to pop any an all smoke launchers, and maybe have psykers pop off blessings. After all, its not like they weren't prepared for the battle going in! I couldnt understand if the popping smoke/blessing thing I suggested would be nullified if the player going second seizes initiative, preventing the other player from doing these things. Whatever it takes, balance the first turn of the game!
Finally, please make a walker at LEAST as durable as a monstrous creature. If I have a freaking huge defiler, it should not auto lose in close combat to a wraithlord. The combat should, at the very minimum, be competitive in such a way that any party can win. Maybe giving certain walkers instant death in CC would do it (only SOME walkers, not smaller ones like dreadnoughts. A defiler is freakin' huge so something around that size maybe should have ID close combat attacks. Considering that monstrous creatures "sort of" hae instant deat attachs against walkers using a smash attack against AV 12 armour. I mean a walker has NO CHANCE against that,
Sorry I rushed the last paragraph.
DeleteEdit:
Considering that monstrous creatures "sort of" have instant death attacks against walkers using a smash attack against AV 12 armour. I mean a walker has NO CHANCE against that. Then a walker has to get through something like 4-6 wounds, while a MC can just smash attack once and the walker explodes. PLEASE FIX THIS GW!
I just realized. What if they alter the "daemon" special rule? Even just a little? It would literally affect an entire codex, plus part of another.
ReplyDeleteAnother example, what if they actually made the warpflame USER good? Like, what if it stacked with how every many hits or wounds you did against a unit? I.E., a unit of tzeentch CSM with icon of flame cause 7 wounds, then add 7D3 more S4 wounds. It would make the icon of flame (for tzeentch units) one of the best things in the game (maybe even OP).
I am only bringing this up as an example because any "tiny" change they make to a USR could have a huge impact on the game, for better or worse. I hope GW is very careful about how they change/word any USR changes that might exist.
Make walker close combat weapons do d3 wounds, they can just squeeze chaplains in their claws or tear large chunks from MCs
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I would like changed is the rules for blast weapons, wounds should only be allocated to models under the templates, and not as per normal firing.
ReplyDelete