Zagman's Balance Errata: Codex: Space Marine, Codex: Blood Angels and Codex Grey Knights *SW/DA Soon

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Zagman**

Welcome ladies and gentleman, boys and girls, children of all ages.

This is the Codex: Space Marine Balance Errata, a part of the larger 40k Balance Errata. The goal of these Balance Errata is to create a more balanced and varied 40k and can be applied to their respective codex.

Also, to anyone looking at these Balance Errata the goal was to use the lightest hand as possible using points as the primary mechanism of change. Using weapon profile changes as well as Unit Composition more sparingly. Altering model stats even more sparingly, and lastly rewriting or adding new rules only when absolutely necessary.

Note that these changes are replacements unless notates as additions or removals.

Codex: Space Marine

Spoiler:

Change Log:

Spoiler:

Codex: Blood Angels

Spoiler:

Change Log:

Spoiler:

Codex: Grey Knights

Spoiler:

Change Log:

Spoiler:

Ok, there is my first draft of the Codex: Space Marine Balance Erata. Questions, concerns, bellyaches?? Some aspects of C:SM have been toned down via general rules, mainly the new Allies Rules which make old Centstar basically impossible, or much weaker. Sure, you can still run a more expensive Tigerius, Beatstick Chapter Master, Cent unit, but it has fewer shots and will cost a bit more and without as much Phychic Support it is less potent.

The most important question, would you rather play with the unmodified C:SM or C:SM after the Balance Errata?

5-26-15 Added the first draft of Codex: Blood Angels
5-26-15

**Brennonjw**

before I comment, are these added or removed, or the base of what the mode becomes?

**Zagman**

Brennonjw wrote:
before I comment, are these added or removed, or the base of what the mode becomes?

The default is replacement, they replace whatever was there, usually the cost, occasionally a statistic or weapon profile. The only time something is removed is when something is specifically said to be removed, otherwise everything else is left unchanged.

**DoomShakaLaka**

Why did you increase Tigerius' points he was fine IMO.

I've noticed a few things that I like:
For instance cheaper pistols and combi-weapons, but you still didn't let terminators take 2 heavy weapons per 5 models which has been a concern for them for awhile.

Info fact, 2 special/heavy per5 should be adopted by most units(like tacs) codex wide.

I like alot of this though: Good job

**koooaei**

Don't you want to rework relics? Namely, shield eternal.

**Zagman**

DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Why did you increase Tigerius' points he was fine IMO.

I've noticed a few things that I like:
For instance cheaper pistols and combi-weapons, but you still didn't let terminators take 2 heavy weapons per 5 models which has been a concern for them for awhile.

Info fact, 2 special/heavy per5 should be adopted by most units(like tacs) codex wide.

I like alot of this though: Good job

Thank you, with these changes the Codex should be much more internally balanced, and balanced around a "desirable" spot. There really shouldn't be anything that is broken, or extremely unbalanced compared to the rest of the Codex. Ideally, there should not be a much wider array of options that are around the same power level, fewer default choices in each slot, fewer default upgrades, etc.

Tigerius, 165pts. Basically 120pts of a ML3 Psyker of which C:SM does not have access to, then you have to pay for his extra wound, his ability to reroll his Psychic Power selection, Reroll his Psychic Tests, and Reroll Reserves both successful and failed. I believe that is easily 65pts of utility brought to an army. There is a reason people are so apt to select him over a regular librarian, he brings so much utility to a list and his greatly assured chance of getting a specific Psychic power cannot be underestimated.

Now, I'm not familiar enough with most of the special characters to know if they need a points adjustment or not, but I'm confident that Tigerius is still a good value at 185pts.

No, I did not give Terminators 2 Specials per five man, but did give them a very significant drop in points, and cheaper special weapons.

5 Terminators, 1xFist, 4xPowerSword, and Assault Cannon is now only 170pts compared to the old 220pts for 5 Terminators, 4xFist, 1xPS, and Assault Cannon. Maybe it isn't enough, but it is a significant improvement for Terminators and one we'll see replicated on other TA units across other Codices. If it proved to be too little, it could always be added at a later time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

koooaei wrote:
Don't you want to rework shield eternal?

I did increase it's cost by 5pts, I considered 10pts. There was also a 5pt increase in points for the SMBike, so the Captain America Biker is 10pts more expensive, and with the changes to Grav any squad he is accompanying is less effective.

How would you have suggested I rework the Shield Eternal? I calculated it as 40pts for Eternal Warrior, 15pts for a Storm sheild, which is the kind of pricing that tracks well enough.

Are you looking for a directed Nerf at the Shield Eternal, Bike, Thunderhammer, Artificer Armor Chapter Master or Captain? Hard to do as you can go Storm Shield, Artificer Armor, Thunderhammer, Bike for a very reasonable cost and its nearly as good.

**Traditio**

I generally agree with the reduction of combiweapon costs, but the way that you currently have them still don't make sense. Why should a combimelta cost 10 points? That's as much as a meltagun. Why should a combiflamer cost 5 points? That's as much as a flamer.

The better solution is to make combiweapons cost one half, rounded up to the nearest point, of what the actual weapon costs. Thus, 3 points for a combiflamer, 5 points for a combimelta and 8 points for a combiplasma.

**Zagman**

Traditio wrote:
I generally agree with the reduction of combiweapon costs, but the way that you currently have them still don't make sense. Why should a combimelta cost 10 points? That's as much as a meltagun. Why should a combiflamer cost 5 points? That's as much as a flamer.

The better solution is to make combiweapons cost one half, rounded up to the nearest point, of what the actual weapon costs. Thus, 3 points for a combiflamer, 5 points for a combimelta and 8 points for a combiplasma.

I wanted to reduce their costs, but not in a way that proved overpowering for units like aster guard. Usually it's the first shot with a Melta or Flamer that does the most damage and this is a way to get in that single shot. They're they bring overwhelming force, when you need it, option and that premium is the points differential.

How many times does a Melta usually fire? 1-2 times per game, when it counts, that's why IMO. And it isn't like people didn't find the costs acceptable before.

I actually buffed Legion of the Damned, dropped their cost by 1ppm, 5pts cheaper Plasma Gun, and 5pts cheaper Power Weapon in like with the other changes.

**Traditio**

Zagman wrote:I wanted to reduce their costs, but not in a way that proved overpowering for units like aster guard. Usually it's the first shot with a Melta or Flamer that does the most damage and this is a way to get in that single shot. They're they bring overwhelming force, when you need it, option and that premium is the points differential.

How many times does a Melta usually fire? 1-2 times per game, when it counts, that's why IMO. And it isn't like people didn't find the costs acceptable before.

This amounts to 32 points for a sternguard with a combimelta that he can shoot once. It's worthy of note that the previous space marines codex (5th edition?) priced all sternguard combiweapons at 5 points. You might say that 5 points is too cheap, but I still say that there's no way that one should have to pay full price for a weapon that he gets to use once. Maybe 8 points instead?

I actually buffed Legion of the Damned, dropped their cost by 1ppm, 5pts cheaper Plasma Gun, and 5pts cheaper Power Weapon in like with the other changes.

I realized that afterwards.

**Zagman**

Traditio wrote:
Zagman wrote:I wanted to reduce their costs, but not in a way that proved overpowering for units like aster guard. Usually it's the first shot with a Melta or Flamer that does the most damage and this is a way to get in that single shot. They're they bring overwhelming force, when you need it, option and that premium is the points differential.

How many times does a Melta usually fire? 1-2 times per game, when it counts, that's why IMO. And it isn't like people didn't find the costs acceptable before.

This amounts to 32 points for a sternguard with a combimelta that he can shoot once. It's worthy of note that the previous space marines codex (5th edition?) priced all sternguard combiweapons at 5 points. You might say that 5 points is too cheap, but I still say that there's no way that one should have to pay full price for a weapon that he gets to use once. Maybe 8 points instead?

I actually buffed Legion of the Damned, dropped their cost by 1ppm, 5pts cheaper Plasma Gun, and 5pts cheaper Power Weapon in like with the other changes.

I realized that afterwards.

I'm not terrible opposed to it... 3pt combiflamer, 5pt combiplasma, 5pt combimelta, 8pt combigrav...

I'm definitely keeping it in mind and very well may add those changes. I remember the old sternguard with combimelta as and how much they hurt, haha! If it wasn't for Sternguard I would have adopted that pricing before, I actually considered it...

What about a up to half the Sternguard can swap for a combi?? That seems reasonable.

**DoomShakaLaka**

I think devastators' should be able to take up to 4 heavy OR specials.

**Zagman**

DoomShakaLaka wrote:
I think devastators' should be able to take up to 4 heavy OR specials.

Interesting, could you elaborate on why? I feel that Devastators are meant for heavy weapons and giving them access to special weapons will encroach on the roles of other units.

They did get a cheaper veteran sergeant and cheaper Heavy Weapons.

**DoomShakaLaka**

Typically heavy weapons/ specials are interchangeable I believe.

It provides an alternative to loading up on sternguard specials and lets you use their SIU more fully.

Also it gives a wider variety of roles for devastors to fill.

**Zagman**

DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Typically heavy weapons/ specials are interchangeable I believe.

It provides an alternative to loading up on sternguard specials and lets you use their SIU more fully.

Also it gives a wider variety of roles for devastors to fill.

The problem is they aren't quite, four Specials would be quite a bit more powerful than four Heavies. Even Vanguard Vets get only 2 Soevials or Heavies.

Giving Devs four Specials or Heavies would create an internal balance problem.

**DoomShakaLaka**

Ok how about 2 specials or 4 heavies?

Also sternguard lose the ability to take special/heavy.

**Zagman**

DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Ok how about 2 specials or 4 heavies?

Also sternguard lose the ability to take special/heavy.

It was Sternguard, not Vanguard Vets that can take two.

I'm not sold on trying to give Special Weapons to Devastators, but it did give me the idea to make Tacticals that number 10 strong two specials OR two heavy weapons giving Tactical Squads a boost in flexibility and allowing Tacticals to fill he role you are looking for.

Edit: Added

Tactical Marines
If the squad numbers ten models, two Space Marines may choose from either the Special Weapons or the Heavy Weapons List.

**DoomShakaLaka**

It was Sternguard, not Vanguard Vets that can take two.

That's what I said...

**Zagman**

DoomShakaLaka wrote:
It was Sternguard, not Vanguard Vets that can take two.

That's what I said...

I know, I just reiterated it because I was mistaken.

**koooaei**

So, you get Honor guard - veterans 2+ armor and power weapons for 20 pt a piece? Basically, 2 pt over VV for power weapons and 2+ armor?

Calgar doesn't need a pt drop as he's allready good.

I also think you underprice heavy weapons. HB for 5 pt is too cheap. I'd like to see it become Salvo 2/3. Will add to variety and it'll find a place in tac squads even for 10 pts. And HB marines look cool.

Think you're underpricing weapons. combi-plasma should cost 10 pt as it is. So is plasma pistol. +1 attack and a s7 ap2 shot is well worth 10 pt on combat characters. Completely agree with combi-flamers and grav weaponry. But lazcannons for 15 pt and ML for 15 is way too cheap.

Centurion assault squad needs something more going on for them rather than a simple price drop.

**DoomShakaLaka**

I pretty much disagree completely with you kooaei.

The Heavy Bolter is overpriced and almost never sees use on space marine infantry because of that. Also lascannons and missile launchers are currently overpriced as well( especially on non-relentless models).

I will agree that maybe the plasma pistol should be 10 points as less than that seems too cheap.

**Zagman**

koooaei wrote:
So, you get Honor guard - veterans 2+ armor and power weapons for 20 pt a piece? Basically, 2 pt over VV for power weapons and 2+ armor?

Calgar doesn't need a pt drop as he's allready good.

I also think you underprice heavy weapons. HB for 5 pt is too cheap. I'd like to see it become Salvo 2/3. Will add to variety and it'll find a place in tac squads even for 10 pts. And HB marines look cool.

Think you're underpricing weapons. combi-plasma should cost 10 pt as it is. So is plasma pistol. +1 attack and a s7 ap2 shot is well worth 10 pt on combat characters. Completely agree with combi-flamers and grav weaponry. But lazcannons for 15 pt and ML for 15 is way too cheap.

Centurion assault squad needs something more going on for them rather than a simple price drop.

Honor guard are the same cost, the base cost for three has dropped five pts for the Chapter Champion as per my other modifications. Some of their upgrades got cheaper as well. 25pts a piece, not 20. Not to mention the Chapter Master Tax.

Calgary is a foots logging Eternal a Warrior beat stick with some fun special rules. He also locks your Chapter Tactics down.

Bolster to Heavy Bolter for 5pts is just fine for Infactry. When was the last time you saw Devs of the table with the old Heavy Weapon Prices? And a single shot Lascannon just doesn't pack that much punch. And it's on a nonrelentless platform that is pretty flimsy. I didn't wasn't to change the rules too much when a simple points adjustment would have done it, Salvo would have been a good option as wel. Missile Launcher with Skyfire 15pts is dead on, the ML is a terrible weapon, it isn't good at much of anything, now it's cheaper and has more utility and could actually see use on the table. ML needed a massive points drop for two editions now.

Combi weapons are one shot, and Plasma Gets hot which is why it's prices where a Meltagun is and the reliable, now assault, Gravgun is 15pts.

Assault Centurions needed a points drop, and they did need more going for them, their ride got cheaper as well. You can now put 3 Assault Centurions in a Land a raider for 65pts less than before... Not that you would have both them and the Land a Raider cost too much.

**Zagman**

5-19-15 Replaced

Terminator Assault Squad: 150pts, 30pts/model
Any Model may Replace Lightning Claws for a Thunderhammer and a Stormshield: 10pts/model

**Martel732**

Overall, I like what you have here. I think there are some inescapable problems, so I won't be so harsh.

Assault marines are still bad. No, I don't have any bright ideas with the corner GW has painted them into. But this dovetails into... BA.

BA are an assault list with a poor model count that relies on armor saves in a game full of AP 2 and wound spam. Oh, and they have to be the ones to get off an assault or they are basically just chumpo marines. Intimidated yet?

I don't want to have a reflex reaction of proposing a bunch of nonsense here, and so I have surprisingly few ideas of what to do when the entire GAME is slanted against what your list is supposed to be able to do.

Before I forget though, I think Stormravens are overcosted at 200 pts.

Maybe I'll think of some BA stuff here eventually. But as I said, the entire game is pretty much geared against them now.

**Zagman**

Martel732 wrote:
Overall, I like what you have here. I think there are some inescapable problems, so I won't be so harsh.

Assault marines are still bad. No, I don't have any bright ideas with the corner GW has painted them into. But this dovetails into... BA.

BA are an assault list with a poor model count that relies on armor saves in a game full of AP 2 and wound spam. Oh, and they have to be the ones to get off an assault or they are basically just chumpo marines. Intimidated yet?

I don't want to have a reflex reaction of proposing a bunch of nonsense here, and so I have surprisingly few ideas of what to do when the entire GAME is slanted against what your list is supposed to be able to do.

Before I forget though, I think Stormravens are overcosted at 200 pts.

Maybe I'll think of some BA stuff here eventually. But as I said, the entire game is pretty much geared against them now.

What do you feel are inescapable problems? Or are the problems just difficult to appropriately cost?

Assault Marines got better, 3pts for Jump Pack and swap Bolter for CCW. That's pretty standard and fair compared to a Tactical marine. What they did get is a cheaper Seargent, Cheaper Plasma Weapons(Will be 10pt Melta and 10pts Plasma Gun for BA), and cheaper upgrades for the Sergeant.

That seems like a significant improvement, especially when you consider the worst offenders of other Codices are getting toned down.

I'm thinking BA needs to be costed for the simialr units with SM. Unique units reciieve similar balancing. Furious Charge really isn't worth Chapter tactics, so BA needs some kind of smallish boost to compensate. I was thinking something like the old Descent of angels, 1d6" Scatter for Jump Infantry, maybe even Drop Pods too. Maybe a free 3" move upon landing from Deep Strike for Jump Packs, just enough that lets them spread out from Blasts and still shoot.

IMO the Stormraven is costed appropriately. Compared to the other Flyers it has similar and usually much firepower, but is AV12. AV12 on a Flyer with Melta resistance is pretty hard to come by, especially with Transport capacity.

Thanks or the feedback, keep it coming.

Let me ask you this, would you rather field this Errated Dex over stock? If yes, then its moving the right direction. Then take a look at the other Errated Dexes, expecially those that you face and compare the changes I made there as well, are any of these inescapable problems being addressed or lessened. We don't need perfect, just much better.

**casvalremdeikun**

For BA, give them back their Scouting Baal Predators. It is the only way to make it worth its points. Also, Flamestorm Cannons (both the Redeemer and Baal Pred variants) should be Torrent.

EDIT: Honestly, I think BA should have access to the Stormtalon, Land Speeder Storm, and the Hunter/Stalker. The Hunter or Stalker would be pretty cool to see with Overcharged Engines.

**Zagman**

casvalremdeikun wrote:
For BA, give them back their Scouting Baal Predators. It is the only way to make it worth its points. Also, Flamestorm Cannons (both the Redeemer and Baal Pred variants) should be Torrent.

EDIT: Honestly, I think BA should have access to the Stormtalon, Land Speeder Storm, and the Hunter/Stalker. The Hunter or Stalker would be pretty cool to see with Overcharged Engines.

Baal Preds definitely need to be addressed, that is for sure. Flame storm Cannons definitely could be Torrent... May need to think on that. BA probably should have access to all of that, but I'm not looking to add any new units to the Codices.

I think once a working a Errata for both Adam and BA is up, those questions can be addressed again.

**Bharring**

Flamestorm + Torrent + Scout is probably a bit too much combined.

For BA, if other variants get Heavy Flamers, Furious Charge might not be enough. Perhaps we should go through what they get (per Zagmans)? Off the top of my head
-FC
-Infernus Pistols
-Hand Flamers
-Specials on assault Squads
-Some Fast vehicles

Some nice stuff, sure. Perhaps add a d3" move upon Deep Striking via Jetpacks (Not a run)? Would make it easier to bring a lot of their ASM options to bear.

Reducing scatter by d6 for all deep strikers might be a bit much. Perhaps only on JPs, but I think it'd be better to not monkey with DS rules.

I don't think they need anything amazing on top of the above compared to Vanilla, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed.

**Martel732**

"-FC
-Infernus Pistols
-Hand Flamers
-Specials on assault Squads
-Some Fast vehicles "

Really? Compared to grav cents, Tiggy, TFCs, and Stormtalons?

And everyone wants to give BA deep strike shenanigans when I haven't even tried deep striking since 5th? Because it sucks?

"Assault Marines got better, 3pts for Jump Pack and swap Bolter for CCW. That's pretty standard and fair compared to a Tactical marine. What they did get is a cheaper Seargent, Cheaper Plasma Weapons(Will be 10pt Melta and 10pts Plasma Gun for BA), and cheaper upgrades for the Sergeant. "

None of that makes them better at assaulting. Which is in their name. Marines need fewer boltguns, not more. Because they are not really very good.

"That seems like a significant improvement, especially when you consider the worst offenders of other Codices are getting toned down. "

Probably not enough, but we'll see. You don't understand the fail of assault-based marines until you try to use them. Total fail. On every conceivable level.

"IMO the Stormraven is costed appropriately. Compared to the other Flyers it has similar and usually much firepower, but is AV12. AV12 on a Flyer with Melta resistance is pretty hard to come by, especially with Transport capacity. "

It starts in reserve. Strike one. Its transport capacity is useless because of the crash rules. Strike two. Its firepower/pt is actually rather low. Strike three. AP1/2 nerf in 7th ed: Strike 4. At its current cost, I would never use this thing, ever. Its only real use was shooting down helldrakes with low AP weapons in 6th, but it can't even do that anymore. Garbage.

I say the problems with BA are inescapable because they are marines trying to assault people in a game where low AP, high ROF is very common. Furthermore, once the survivors get to range, all the opponent needs to do is assault the BA to take away all their bonuses. It's frankly pretty pathetic. How do you appropriately costed a concept that just fails in the context of the core rule set?

For this to be a truly balancing errata, you need to make BA and DA not perma-second class citizens in the realm of meqs. Which they still are, as far as I can tell from this errata.

"Reducing scatter by d6 for all deep strikers might be a bit much. "

Why do you hate the BA? A bit much? This is a crap ability, because DS is crap. Everyone forgets that the next step after DS is getting savaged by your opponent.

"I don't think they need anything amazing on top of the above compared to Vanilla"

Go read the codex again. The BA are the reverse of amazing.

**Zagman**

Bharring wrote:Flamestorm + Torrent + Scout is probably a bit too much combined.

For BA, if other variants get Heavy Flamers, Furious Charge might not be enough. Perhaps we should go through what they get (per Zagmans)? Off the top of my head
-FC
-Infernus Pistols
-Hand Flamers
-Specials on assault Squads
-Some Fast vehicles

Some nice stuff, sure. Perhaps add a d3" move upon Deep Striking via Jetpacks (Not a run)? Would make it easier to bring a lot of their ASM options to bear.

Reducing scatter by d6 for all deep strikers might be a bit much. Perhaps only on JPs, but I think it'd be better to not monkey with DS rules.

I don't think they need anything amazing on top of the above compared to Vanilla, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed.

I agree, Fast + Torrent +Scout is way too much.

That is basically what they get in addition to their specialty units.

I was thinking a 3" move following Deepstrike would alleviate some issues and allow them to be more competent when they arrive, shoot or die to a single blast is painful.

A 3d6 remove the highest for Deepstrike would be ok. We can't go too crazy here. Furious Charge by itself isn't quite enough.

I'm thinking a small move after DS for Jump Packs seems fitting, don't know about both, probably too much.

Martel732 wrote:"-FC
-Infernus Pistols
-Hand Flamers
-Specials on assault Squads
-Some Fast vehicles "

Really? Compared to grav cents, Tiggy, TFCs, and Stormtalons?

And everyone wants to give BA deep strike shenanigans when I have even tried deep striking since 5th? Because it sucks?

"Assault Marines got better, 3pts for Jump Pack and swap Bolter for CCW. That's pretty standard and fair compared to a Tactical marine. What they did get is a cheaper Seargent, Cheaper Plasma Weapons(Will be 10pt Melta and 10pts Plasma Gun for BA), and cheaper upgrades for the Sergeant. "

None of that makes them better at assaulting. Which is in their name.

"IMO the Stormraven is costed appropriately. Compared to the other Flyers it has similar and usually much firepower, but is AV12. AV12 on a Flyer with Melta resistance is pretty hard to come by, especially with Transport capacity. "

It starts in reserve. Strike one. Its transport capacity is useless because of the crash rules. Strike two. Its firepower/pt is actually rather low. Strike three. AP1/2 nerf in 7th ed: Strike 4. At its current cost, I would never use this thing, ever. Its only real use was shooting down helldrakes with low AP weapons, but it can't even do that anymore.

I say the problems with BA are inescapable because they are marines trying to assault people in a game where low AP, high ROF is very common. Furthermore, once the survivors get to range, all the opponent needs to do is assault the BA to take away all their bonuses. It's frankly pretty pathetic. How do you appropriately costed a concept that just fails in the context of the core rule set?

For this to be a truly balancing errata, you need to make BA and DA not perma-second class citizens in the realm of meqs. Which they still are, as far as I can tell from this errata.

"Really? Compared to grav cents, Tiggy, TFCs, and Stormtalons? "

And Grav Cents aren't as good now, Tiggy is more expensive. And no Pods for Grav Cents, this will have gone a long way towards making them less ridiculous. Gotta keep everything in context, footslogging Grav Cents aren't that great, especially with the CentStar pretty much broken now.

TFCs and Stormtalons are great. You did forget to list all of the other units BA do get.

You seem to be missing the part that I haven't completed the BA Errata yet, this just contains the SM Errata. I will be going through the BA dex as well and they'll get all the changes in SM, plus others in line to what is in here for SM. So all BA special stuff will be addressed. When looking at BA only look at what is shared, and then realize that they will be getting a Errata specific to them, just like SW will, and just like GK will. This is only the SM one.

Assault marines are more mobile and have twice the number of base attacks as Tacticals, that is why they are assault. They are not a specialst assault unit, but a unit that is competent in Assualt and capable of carrying special weapons and fulfilling a variety of roles. Cheaper upgrades for Seargents does help as well. With Furious Charge they are a good assault unit, but are not a Specialist assault unit.

We are going to Disagree on the Storm Raven, it is pretty appropriately costed compared to other Flyers. AV12 is huge, and it does have quite a bit of firepower for its class. Its transport capacity is not worthless, just risky.

And in the context of the other Errata a lot of what you are talking about is alleviated. And do not forget this is not the BA Errata, just the SM one. BA will get their own, it will just share a thread with SM and I wanted to nail down the SM changes before I balance BA in relation to SM. Yes, when they get assaulted they lose their bonus, which is why I'm saying they need one more small to moderate buff in addition to their unique options.

I hear what you are saying, and I'm saying let me actually Errata BA first, right now I would like suggetions for BA and a critique of the changes to SM, as those changes will be used to balance BA. BA is not finished, their Errata is not done. What is done is the common elements between BA and SM.

Martel, please stop being hostile and breath, I am fully aware of the problems facing BA, what I want is feedback on the shared SM elements and suggestions for BA. Do not think this is all that BA gets. Do not forget BA does have a bunch of unique units to balance.

DS is risky, part of your complaint is due to the unbalanced elements in other lists, all of which is being addressed. It won't be perfect, but i'll be a whole hell of a lot better than what we have. DS can be used effectively. I do not hate BA.

**Martel732**

I wasn't referring to you with that, but rather, Bharring's comments.

DS is risky, but with no real pay off. That's why I never do it without a drop pod.

Sorry for being hostile, but Bharring's non-chalant attitude of everything being fine in BA land is really grating. Especially from an Eldar player. Who basically flop themselves onto the board with whatever units and win against BA.