Have your say on Warhammer 40K 6th Edition!
September 30, 2011 by warzan
With the 6th edition of Warhammer 40K on the horizon (most likely next summer, followed by a new starter set in September, in time for Games Day 2012) I haven’t been able to stop myself wondering what changes I would make to the game.
We have it on good authority that there are a number of Games Workshop’s finest who enjoy Beasts of War… in fact… you may be one and you may be reading this now!
Which is why we are taking the opportunity to discuss changes you the beasts of war community would make to the next edition of Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition.
What we've heard so far (all unconfirmed) is that they are going to take 40K in the direction of Warhammer 8th Ed, and basically make a slightly less competitive game, almost all the sources we've spoke to have said that GW is not very taken with the tournament/competitive style and believes that its detracting from the fun of the game (and it is a game after all!).
We've been told to expect a pretty detailed overhaul of rules for buildings etc too. And that its possible that a 'one book to rule them all' could replace apocalypse and other supplements.
But hey, this is not about what we have heard, this is about what you think!!!
If you have thoughts on the direction Warhammer 6th editon should take, then this is your chance to get your message out there.
So join the discussion and let’s see if we can make a difference, each of the BoW crew will be adding their thoughts and ideas below as well so get stuck in!
Get rid of Force Organisation In fact, stuff your forces chart up your @SS. OK I’ve said it, I want to ditch the force organisation as one of the core rules for 40K, I think they are great for competitive tournaments, but I want to have the freedom to field all kinds of army lists as well as play against them. If I want 6 Landraiders … that’s cool, if you want 10 Drop Pods … hey that’s cool too. GW started to go down this route with 40K Apocalypse but I feel that Apocalypse was a wasted opportunity (not… Read more »
Force Organisation needs to stay, IMO. It’s an important factor to balance armies. Otherwise, you’d just get stupid spam armies of the same unit, because its the best option in the codex… which would just be daft. FO gives the right layout for how an army would be, you have the troops moving in, backed up by the big guns and the faster aspects. Having 8 land Raiders in a 2000pt army, and nothing else, would be, frankly, stupid. Against Orks, it would be plain unfair… as long as you kept moving them, there would be very little way of… Read more »
I see your points, and agree with many of them but not all of us “spam” things because they are powerful. Speaking purely for myself – I tend to have a very niche taste : if it has legs and walks, I will not like it aesthetically, and to me I only want to buy models I like the look of, I like stuff that is amorphous, floaty and lovecraftian ect. I am not a competitive gamer and I even enjoy losing (going down with a last stand is fun to me). I only like non-humanoid aliens, so I don’t… Read more »
Enough would ‘Spam’ things to make it less fun.
Keep FO.
The Auld Grump
Right suggestions for 6th edition well a house rule i have found quite fun to use has been that a model gets any save it is allowed. This came about after using logic why would a models armour say well you’ve just gotten through/passed that cover there im not gonna bother doing anything or by joe you’ve just beaten my forcefield but this bunker im sat in isn’t going to do anything. So a model should be allowed every save it can get be it armour, cover or invulnerable. Now i can hear people shout out now that some models… Read more »
The only thing about that is the realistic element. You already have a system of random in the rolling to hit and wound. If its a highly armour piercing round, the terminator doesnt get his save!
warzan wrote: “I want a game that at its heart is asking me to have battles that are wrapped in a story before the first die is cast. Stories of being out numbered or where I took down a division of tanks with a few bands of men.” I know what you mean and I think story driven campaigns or custom scenarios are very cool and a lot of fun. warzan wrote: “What I’m thinking of is a change in the gaming environment, one that challenges all players to try different styles and gets everyone involved… […]” I understand what… Read more »
If you like custom scenarios, try this: First, I wanna say, it’s impossible for the “defending” army to win, they will eventually all die. Ok, what you do is, the defending army consists of 1000 points and deploys 12″ from the centre of the table. The attacking army writes multiple army lists. Starting at 50 points, then 100, then 200, then 250, then 350, etc. Each list has to contain everything in the previous list, so basically, you just add either 50 or 100 points on each time, alternating. Up to 400 points, all you’re allowed is troops, after that… Read more »
I completely agree, The only problem that I can see with this is when you get that one guy at the local club who brings his cheesiest most competitive list to every game. (which is never any fun for anybody… except maybe him obviously) So I was thinking, perhaps in lieu of the Force Org. They should implement a cost per unit change the more of a certain unit you bring along. Basically if I want to field an entire regiment of tanks. To balance it the first 3 tanks would be at base cost, the next 3 would cost… Read more »
Well, wishlisting wise: It’d be nice to see a ‘Tesco Exclusive’ style edition aimed at getting more people into the hobby, with a different army set to the main edition.
It’d also be nice to see ‘not space marines’ in the next set; this makes some commercial sense, as Space Marines are the cheapest things to get second hand. (That’s assuming the second hand market noticeably affects profits.)
Fluffwise: move the plot on another few years (more peril for mankind, more I say.)
What I personally would love to see is a roll off to see who goes first in combat. each player takes a D6, rolls and compares the result with the model with the highest iniative in their squad. Whoever gets the highest result goes first. That way its not such a certain thing that you’ll get to strike first based solely on the stat line. If they have it an iniative roll off at the end of the combat, surely they can have one at the beginning. Also I’m not fond of the rule that charging models get an additional… Read more »
I really enjoy premeasuring distances in whfb, makes the game more tactical, plus let’s face it in the 40th millennium everyone would have range finders as part of their kit.
I think pre-measuring range only works when it’s coupled with certain limitations. Remember that while you can measure distances in fb, you cannot charge or shoot in any direction you please.
what about certain wargear that lets you pre-measure instead? like targeters (i think, been a while since i used that codex) back in the daemon hunters codex did. i think that would be better.
@bloodhunter – that works for me.
The biggest flaw I’ve seen in Warhammer during the last couple of editions
RELEASE THE UPDATED CODICES, YOU MORONS!
That said, I think they should simply make a basic army list update and have it as a free download or included in the book, like it was back in 3rd. I’m not asking for a complete codex, Im just asking that a whole team doesn’t become completely worthless for several years. Also, keep Dan Abnett away from any game content, we all know how it ends.
Cheers
Actually, I have no idea how things end when Dan Abnett isn’t kept away from game content…
What happens?
Hopefully we won’t see the likes of the 5th edition Imperial Guard codex again.
Actually, I’m not sure how much Abnett was involved in that, it’s just been one of these in-the-know-jokes floating around.
Calling the people behind one of the most popular wargames out there ‘ MORONS’ isn’t the best way to get their attention. I agree, however, with your points of releasing free supplements to codices so they don’t become out-dated.
I too have no idea what happens when Dan Abnett creates game content?
Are you implying that GW listens to us?
Well, yes, since BOW stated that in the description.
Actually, they say that some GW employees might possibly be reading this thread. It says nothing about wether that is in an official capacity or in their spare time and it surely doesn’t say they will listen to us.
Having a “base” list in the rulebook for each race makes lots of sense to me. Then codices could be released that add in additional units when ready, but still allow people to play with just the rulebook and models.
Errm, calling people ‘moron’s’ isn’t going to help get product out to us.
I’m confident that I’m speaking the mind of a good share of GW’s customers with that statement and I will stand up for it.
If any GW official wishes to discuss what word will better describe those who think that it’s a good idea to have half the teams’ codices based on one or even two editions old rules, then I’m here. If not, then i will respectfully reserve the right to call them a whole bunch of less flattering, but well earned, words.
If they can’t keep up with the codices then perhaps they shouldn’t release a new edition so often.
I think the way they did close combat in 2nd edition was the best ridiculously complicated yes, but definitely gave the best feel that this was 2 people trying to bash each others faces in, rather than your turn my turn approach, it was however very complicated, but a stream lined easy to understand way I think would make close combat a lot more realistic
I just hope they dont make is “easy” at they did with WFB.
I would love to see an alternating unit activation: instead of the first person moving, shooting and assaulting with ALL of their units, and then the second person (what’s left of them) doing all of theirs, I’d like to see the first person having to choose ONE unit to activate, and then the second player would get to activate one. I think it would make players think a lot more, and not make that initial roll to see who goes first so all important.
There are games like that you know.
Absolutely. Actually, most miniatures games seem to work that way these days. I assume it’s because it works well and makes more sense. 🙂
Or because WH is so big that you have to make something different to even have a chance to sell it.
That would also change the very nature of the game. They way i see it, there are a limited number of ways to handle the basic tactical challenge. WH has alternating full turns, as do Warmachine. In WH you then go through the phases of the turn whereas in Warmachine you go through each unit until the last one. In Infinity, as I’ve heard, you alternate between players like you describe. These three ways of handling player turns pose very different tactical challenges and changing this in Warhammer would make it a very different game, one might even say it… Read more »
I have to disagree that changing the activation rules would make the game no longer 40k. In my opinion, it’s the storyline and art and models and the like that make 40k different than any other game out there. I would suspect that there’d be some initial trauma due to a fundamental change as I’ve described, but it’d still be Ultramarines punching Orks in the face, and I think that’s the more important part.
While you are correct that the hobby surrounding the game is a bigger part than the game itself, i feel that you are missing the fact that the game is central to everything around it. Obviously it would still be 40k, it was a figure of speech. What I’m saying is that changing such a fundamental part of the game would make it a completely new game rather than a new edition and it would most likely cause a split between those who wanted the game to remain what is was, with improvements over time obviously, and those who prefer… Read more »
I understand what you’re saying, but I must still respectfully disagree. It would be a more drastic change than the change from 4th to 5th of course, but I think that GW’s past actions have put them into a position that they’ll need to make some drastic changes to get out of. I know changing IGO/UGO would certainly make me want to play their game more, and probably some other games a bit less than I do currently. I don’t want to lay down a blanket “EVOLVE OR DIE” because I don’t believe it’s that dire, but they do need… Read more »
Really though, changing to a unit-by-unit turn system isn’t a considerably big change, not compared with past ones such as 2nd into 3rd ed. 40K, where the new rulebook HAD to contain every army list for any of the armies to remain playable with the new rules.
I’m a big fan of simultaneous turns; games like Battletech and Call to Arms. That way first turn isn’t an absolute game decider for shooty armies like Tau and Guard, and better represents two forces moving in to attack each other.
My guard army took twenty lasguns to kill one marine, or one plasma gun to kill a marine of the same points as the marine. It’s a balanced game for the ‘recent’ cidices. I feel for the Eldar though.
Interesting idea, but what if the two sides don’t have the same number of units? Does the side with the most units then activate all theirs to end the turn?
If so, the new meta game would be based around MSUs very quickly (Not necessarily a bad thing…).
The way Battletech does it:
If I have 2x more unmoved units than you, I move 2x the units per activation.
So if I have 9 units and you have 5:
Activation 1: We both move 1.
Activation 2(8 – 4): I move 2, you move 1.
Activation 3 (6-3):I move 2, you move 1.
Activation 4 (4-2): I move 2, you move 1
Activation 5 (2-1): I move 2, you move 1, turn is over.
so if my army of deamon hunters which has efefctively 2 units goes up against a horde army of say 10-15 units i’d move one unit for half his army?
A delay or hold rule would allow small forces to react when it suits them
2 units vs 15 would be bad, Stalin says “Quantity has a quality of its own”
Not sure how well this would work when you can get some big differences in unit numbers. But I agree they need to change the “who goes now” setup. Once you roll at the start everything is set in stone. You need to have some randomness at the start of each turn. I don’t play fantasy so don’t know how that works but LOTR uses a die roll at the start of each turn to decide who goes first that turn. Also would it hurt to alternate each major step, I move then you, I shoot then you, I assault… Read more »
Why not employ the unit’s initiative to determine game setup and usage during the turns -i.e. an ork unit of initiative 2 would have to set up before a guardsman unit? The guardsman unit would also be activated before the ork unit. This would give a new dimension to the I stat and the game mechanic. Food for thought
Better buildings sounds like a good start. The ‘cover save’ stopping 6 lascannons, 4 missiles and a conversion beamer is ludicrous in some games.
I wouldn’t be opposed to some type of ‘overwatch’ or I based reaction system, unless it is needlessly complicated.
Remove the ‘modeling and painting section’.
5th is batter than 4th and certainly 3rd in my opinion, please don’t take up old rules that stunk the first time.
I like the Infinity (IIRC) idea of weapon range covering the entire game board (apart from flamers of course!) with modifiers affecting accuracy as range increases A way to break the you go – I go pattern would be great but I have to admit that I have no idea how that would work Overwatch please Do NOT increase simplicity at the cost of losing detail – If I spend large amounts of money buying an army and large amounts of time painting the army and months tweaking army lists the bloody game better not be over in 30 minutes… Read more »
This seems like a good idea. I don’t know how feasible it is for GW, but I presume they have the current starter molds laying about collecting dust. I think it would make sense to produce a small number of the older starter sprues, like say the current SM and Orks, and then produce one or two new starter sprues for the new set. Eventually they could build up quite a collection of them, and then set about replacing one every new edition, and rotate in a couple of the old ones to give people additional choice in what army… Read more »
So they’re arguing that Wh40k would make more fun if it becomes less competative in nature? oO Can’t really follow them there tbh, it’s like saying chess would be more fun with less figures
Anyway, I too would like to see the melee mechanics revamped. Imho, the melee hit chart needs either a complete overhaul or should be dropped entirely for something similar to the shooting mechanics. Models with high WS don’t seem to get that much of an advantage against less capable enemies, just the kind of combat I would expect them to excel in
Forgot to say :-
NO LANDSCAPE FORMAT RULEBOOKS – They are an abomination …
Oh and get the suits to make sure the flaming books don’t disintegrate 20 minutes after buying them
What format do you want? Square? Why? Or landscpe but the other way?
Rectangular rule books are fine. Better to be able to buy the small format rulebook as well.
There are three things i would like to see change. 1) Change the igo/ugo system, have the players moving one unit each, alternatively, ( we have a joke at our club, on the first turn someone always says “Lets roll the dice to see who wins ” when rolling for initiative on turn one.) 2) Allow units to break off from combat. (The game is to combat orientated [instead of shooting] because of this.) 3) Bring back overwatch. Firing at moving units (Though do it the way its done in AT-43, a unit that is contacted in a charge does… Read more »
Breaking off from combat sounds interesting, especially since combat units can usually move faster than standard troops. It would give units with move and fire weapons a chance to retreat and fend them off, while dedicated heavy weapons would only be able to flee in the hopes of other units covering their escape.
Some units can already break off from a fight, those with the Hit & Run special rule. The reason most units can’t Hit & Run, or just run away voluntarily, is that shooting would be the be all and end all of the game. Locking an enemy unit in combat prevents it shooting, that is the advantage of doing so. While trying to get into combat your unit risks being shot, and either whittled down or destroyed in the process. If enemies you assault could just take a step back and unload their guns on you (especially in the case… Read more »
I think taking away the competitiveness is a huge mistake, and I speak as someone who only plays with a group of friends for fun, dont even understand the ‘must wiin’ concept at all, and have never , ever, seen a tournament. The point that gets missed when people go on about the tournament scene is a simple one. I can play any ruleset and have fun in my non competitive world, finecast and costs aside, there is little they can do to alienate me. The converse isnt true though, take away the competitive angle and you stop the tournament… Read more »
There are definite signs of power creep in each new codex which come out. Although his makes for a way to constantly have people buy the latest models, I find it irritating from a gamers perspective. Anything new that comes out should be balanced against anything else that is currently on the market. Definite changes to the game need to be made. It is hard to keep interested in a game when you have to wait for your opponent to do everything the want with all of their miniatures, even more so against horde armies like orcs and tyranids. An… Read more »
I disagree most strongly. Sure, each of the codices have strong builds, but those builds can be countered by other strong builds. If two different 5th ed armies both tailored their list to beat the opposing army, then they would have a hard game on their hands. If it was two lists aimed at beating all comers, then they would also have a decent game. The problem is when: 1) One list is tailored to beat the other but not vice versa (eg. competitive vs. fluffy) 2) One Codex is so new that the appropriate counter hasn’t been found yet.… Read more »
I would like to see a condensed version of the rulebook, aswell as the big huge book. I remember when i first got a rulebook for 40k i nearly cried when i saw the book. Also just make it far more easier for beginners to get in and i nice cheap starter set.
Most of all, GW FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE RELEASE A CODEX CHAOS LEGIONS!! i want my legion specific rules back! Oh and chief chaplian Asomdia for the Dark Angels.
Slight correction:
I think by ‘Asomdia’ you mean Asmodai. I also believe Sapphon is the current Grand Master of Chaplains.
NO MORE KILL POINTS
And don’t make it a limited edition ….. 😉
DEATH TO IGOUGO!!! That’s what drove me from the game…
I agree, it makes the game less fluid in strategy and it makes so much downtime for the other player when it’s your turn, especially when moving IG or ‘nids.
Totally! Armies don’t move in waves. I want to be constantly engaged in a game. Not have “walls” of miniatures run into each other…
i would like to see bonus’ for beening close like point blank within a certain distance you can re-role.
would also maybe like to see bonus’ for charging like up and down hill. aswell as maybe something along the lines of counter-charging where the opponent meets you in the middle
2nd edition had something similar, There was a list of things that affected combat resolution as long as your arm, stuff like fighting someone off from behind a fortification or occupying higher ground.
What I want: 1. New Vehicle Armour system. Why is it that sometimes my Chimera withstands 20 Lasergun shots, only to be killed by one Autocannon shot in the next game? This is not only unrealistic (ok, ok, lets not talk about this…) but very frustrating. My suggestion: Something similar as to Warmachine. 2. Go back to the old – x saving throw modifier. AP is crap. With AP it makes absolutely no sense to shoot rockets at Terminators. And therefore you have less tactical options. Say a rocket launcher had – 2 safe modifier, then you would have more… Read more »
i like number 3. perhaps they could go for closest model because i find it strange how me shooting a bolt-gun at a horde of 30 orks and the bolt goes all the way through the horde and only manages to hit the rearrest model so if they make it that the dead model has to be from either the front or second rank only might be good
serrin, you’re quite right in what you say. A chum pointed out that self same issue. Sometimes tanks are nigh on invulnerable, other times they fall over to a frag grenade. I’d make damage cumulative, so the higher up the chart you go the more likely you are to blow up. Putting it all down to one roll half of which are pretty much lethal is jolly unfair.
Excuse me but I’d just like to add the current vehicle armour system is realistic: a tank in real life won’t just go “Boom” if you toss an RPG at it. There’s a lot of luck factors involved.
That being said, I agree AP should be some sort of modifier. I hate the fact I have to look at AP to decide if a gun is worth bringing. I don’t want lasguns to be able to affect tanks, but I’d be really thankfull if a grenade launcher krak grenade had a chance at stunning a transport.
Tournaments are great!! you need competitive players and all round players, its a game for everyone not just players who want to have fun.
I hope its not too warhammer style because thats why I don’t play it lol.
I reckon good tweaks would be useful in the next edition AS IT WOULD SAVE RE-LEARNING THE RULES AGAIN, I def agree with more building rules, overwatch is something I miss. outflank rule is ridiculous, deep strike is awesome and funny. I would like them to bring back the BS modifiers for shooting (like -2 for only seeing their heads)
A few mates of mine have been playing for about 20 odd years… never set foot ina tournament, to much stress in everyones lives already :/
Competititve players are important I agree, yet its the fun fluffy gamers that use the real tactics, and that make it exciting and unpredictable in some cases.
Sorry, I like the “I go you go”. I like the “your move. creep” element. I think this really depends what kind of game you’re after. I liked overwatch and was sad that went away, oddly enough though.
What I don’t like about I go, You go, is that the team that gets 1st turn gets a guaranteed amount of damage dealt with no ensured return fire. Simultaneous shooting phases make more sense.
The cover system has got to go. Instead go with a -1 to hit or something. I am sick of my ultra accurate guys getting nullified on a 4+.
The cover system is weird, I’ll admit. When I think about the concept of “You’re in cover, but your armor save is better than the cover save, so it doesn’t matter: roll for armor save” it just doesn’t make sense to me. The cover is between your opponent and your armor, so that roll should occur first no matter what.
By that logic, you should always take all saves you are eligible for. Actually, since there are two pieces of cover between you and the shooter, you should take two cover saves and then a regular armor save. _That_ doesn’t make sense. What does make sense is having to choose the best out of all the ones you are eligible for.
That said, i also think the cover system must be remade, it’s just ridiculous that a pack of Long Fangs in a building have better armor than a tank.
I swear (and it’s been a long time since I’ve read it, so I may be wrong) that’s the way the LotR skirmish game worked. If there were three pieces of cover for example, than your cover save was ‘more powerful’ for lack of a better term (a +2 modifier, perhaps?), or you got a re-roll or something. I think that makes total sense. I don’t see why a unit should be able to fire through three open windows and over a stone wall (in an obviously extreme case) and have that shot be as easy as a shot over… Read more »
Cover on cover might be a bit complicated for 40k since there could be a lot of stuff in the way in a regular city fight. A slightly more realistic and line of sight-based approach to shooting and cover saves would be the natural evolution to 5th editions changes in those areas. However, i would prefer them to be kept on a fairly basic level as i’ve come to learn that actually crouching down to see what a model sees is a very tedious business. I our gaming group we usually do a mix of 4th and 5th where we… Read more »
Why is that so ridiculous though? I think you should be able to get more than one save (FNP is obvious exception) If there is intervening terrain, you would only take one save. Not for both pieces. But that’s the way it used to be, armour and invulnerable. You got to take both. Marneus Calgar was so much harder to kill back then…. ah, the glory days. 🙂
Simple, it’s a bitch to work out and takes a lot of time. If you want realistic, join the army.
I don’t remember it taking that long in 3rd edition…. I have a 3+ save and a 4++ save. I think we could handle it, it’s gotta take less time than the current wound allocation system… freaking biker nobz.
All of this is moot of course, I really think 40k became unplayable for me, due to power/codex creep and the ever increasing army size. I hope in the next edition they make it more playable at lower pt lvls…. but I can’t see that happening.
It’s not possible to reply once the depth is so big so this one is for you garwjenk. I can’t remember that you ever got to take more than two saves in 3rd and how often did that happen, really? 3rd is too long ago and i actually sold my 3rd ed rule book a few weeks ago so i can’t look up all the details. What is suggested is that 40k lacks realism and that saves should be taken in the order they occur. Even if we limit each category to one save max we could be looking at… Read more »
My post had nothing to do with realism, I just don’t like the mechanic of cover saves. I think they should be done away with altogether, and instead go with a modifier system. So, I guess I wasn’t suggesting more than 2 saves. I just liked it when I got my armour save and an invulnerable save. It made my characters harder to kill and more fun to play. Nor am I suggesting that 2 wrongs make a right, I was just pointing out that some rules (wound allocation) are significantly more cumbersome than figuring out 2 or 3 dice… Read more »
@garwjenk
But you do realize that you just can’t get that extra die for free? Everything must be balanced and so in practice you would get an extra die to throw in return for giving everyone just slightly better weapons or something.
The rules have to be fluent and easy, not a orgy in die throwing just for the sake of it.
Oh yeah, of course I realize you can’t just throw it in. That would be silly. I was just saying I wasn’t satisfied with the current system.
Or as ‘bastion breacher’ s10, big blast AP1 template getting nullified because of a bush.
lol, awesome
A flamer is template, a blast is not. Just for future clarity. While i understand your objection i would like to do the math on this. A bush would obviously be a 6+ save, so it would statistically cancel out 1/6 of the wounds. And S10 would wound on 2+ so that would be 1/6 that isn’t wounded in the first place. Given that this is a big blast you either shot it at a single enemy model or you missed by such a major distance that you only managed to hit a single model. In the first case it’s… Read more »
1. Change to vehicle armor/damage rules to make vehicles more vulnerable. Perhaps revamp the AV system to make them like monstrous creatures or something Each vehicle should have it’s own system damage chart as well. 2. This should be an infantry game first. Vehicle presence is getting ridiculous! I really think that all elite infantry should have invulnerable saves. Even in open ground, an elite infantry unit will find cover/concealment. You’d be surprised what a well-trained grunt can do given few minutes, a shovel, and motivation. Horde-type infantry wouldn’t get this. 3. Allow pre-measuring. 4. Allow assaulted units a leadership… Read more »
I´ve been around the wh40k hobby for about 15 years now and found myself more and more often looking for alternatives for wh40k due to some drastically old fahsioned core rules… I hoppe for these changes to keep me with the system and not moving on to another game as infinitv/ dust. 1. Get rid of I-go-you-go. Activate a squad, perform its actions. Opponent activates a squad, … 2. Break up fixed turn sequence. No more movement then shooting then assaults. Why not shoot, move in which order you see fitting for your army/ situation on the battlefield? 3. Introduce… Read more »
I’m one of those who has abandoned the 40K game, mostly because it was not fun. I’ve only played in 5th Ed, so I can’t compare it to any other version. The i go, you go seems really lame. Also, I think deployment needs work too, although scenarios can change, modify, and enhance this. Sometimes though, deployment takes forever. Shooting needs to change too. Many of you have stated this, and I agree. if you have different guns with different ranges, you should be able to shoot at different targets. It makes no sense that I have to choose whether… Read more »