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.

Just look at the unit type bonuses.

Tank Pros: Usually, though not always, immune to small arms fire. Has pseudo-relentless for one gun if it moves slowly enough. Is fast if it doesn't need to shoot. Can tank shock to get through enemy units if it doesn't want to shoot.

Tank cons: has to worry about armour facings or is no longer immune to enemy fire. Has limited arcs of fire on its guns. Cannot defend itself in CC. Cannot overwatch. Risks being killed in a single shot by most enemy AT weapons. Risks being unable to move in a single shot by every enemy AT weapon. Risks losing a gun in a single shot by every enemy AT weapon. Risks being rendered useless for a turn in a single shot by every enemy AT weapon. Has no innate save.

Monstrous creature pros: Is Relentless, period. Can fire two guns even if it moves. Has no arc of fire on its guns. Cannot be killed or rendered useless by common enemy weapons in one shot. Can defend itself in close combat. Cannot be immobilized by terrain. Usually has an innate save.

Monstrous creature cons: Slow and not completely immune to small arms fire.

There is a reason the best tank in the game ignores most of the weaknesses, while the best MCs in the game merely have to emphasize its strengths.

"not completely immune to small arms fire. "

But is functionally immune. Wounding on 6's sucks.

Martel732 wrote:
"not completely immune to small arms fire. "

But is functionally immune. Wounding on 6's sucks.

Yes lol.

Martel732 wrote:
The flyrant has better guns than any BA unit.

Indeed. A flyrant has the speed to put those short ranged guns to full use. Flyrants are a strong unit.


Compare though, a heavy venom cannon carnifex to a lascannon pred.
Both are long ranged anti-vehicle choices. Both cost 140 points.
Fex gets a single 36" S9 AP4 blast.
Pred gets three 48" S9 AP2 shots, one of which is twin-linked.
Fex is tougher and can fight in CC. Pred is better armed, and faster if it wants to move.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I disagree with removing allies simply because I disagree with removing options, period. Also, I run Word Bearers with Daemon support and do not want to go through another period of CSM where my only Daemon choices are "lesser Daemon" and "greater Daemon."
Patch offenders rather than removing them outright.

The main OP question what to change to balance 40k.
My assumption is to have "balance" the points must reflect the capability of the model / unit in question.

You must have a means of limiting the interaction or application of "perks", if you noticed, many deathstars depend on models from another codex to buff them with a power either by it's special rule or a psychic power or a 'formation" performing a similar result.

You cannot achieve a balance if there is no limitation or cost to these interactions.
So to disagree with removing options is problematic, so patching "offenders" is the preferred?

How about a 20% points cost penalty for allied units outside of your core codex choice?
AND/OR that an HQ and 2 troop choices are required before you can add elite / fast / heavy units.

The real goal is that we want to simulate confrontations in the 40k universe and we want the matchup rules to be fair enough to allow a close match no matter how godlike the space marines appear.

Big Three Rules:
1) Thou shalt not be allowed to apply special rules or psychic powers to allies outside of that model's codex this also includes using their "rides".
2) Thou shalt always have core troop choices outnumber special units.
3) Thou shalt always to strive to build rules around the "squad" until the time model count is low enough it can be a skirmish game then individual models can have emphasis.

Arson Fire wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The flyrant has better guns than any BA unit.

Indeed. A flyrant has the speed to put those short ranged guns to full use. Flyrants are a strong unit.


Compare though, a heavy venom cannon carnifex to a lascannon pred.
Both are long ranged anti-vehicle choices. Both cost 140 points.
Fex gets a single 36" S9 AP4 blast.
Pred gets three 48" S9 AP2 shots, one of which is twin-linked.
Fex is tougher and can fight in CC. Pred is better armed, and faster if it wants to move.

The pred is a lot slower after it immobilizes itself. And it has a lot less firepower from a single "shaken" result. That's the problem. The carifex just isn't "tougher". It's MUCH tougher.

Talizvar:
1) You can still get crazy power combos "in faction" as well. You don't need multiple factions for a Cabalstar, among other deathstar builds. This simply widens the gap between armies that have a larger toolbox, versus armies that were supposedly made for allying into other armies due to being a one-trick pony.
2) This only widens the gap between armies with good cores versus those with a bad core tax.
3) Say what now?

Patching universally-offending rules does more to address game problems than focusing on cross-faction combos first. A rerollable 2++ will be just as frustrating no matter how many factions your army has.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Talizvar:
1) You can still get crazy power combos "in faction" as well. You don't need multiple factions for a Cabalstar, among other deathstar builds. This simply widens the gap between armies that have a larger toolbox, versus armies that were supposedly made for allying into other armies due to being a one-trick pony.
2) This only widens the gap between armies with good cores versus those with a bad core tax.
3) Say what now?
Patching universally-offending rules does more to address game problems than focusing on cross-faction combos first. A rerollable 2++ will be just as frustrating no matter how many factions your army has.

It will still boil down to appropriate cost for capability.
A means of "rock-paper-scissors" can add some interesting element to the game for balancing capability and weakness to that cost.
Yes, core units that are a "deal" in points can be problematic: thinking of certain skimmer bikes with large guns on them...
For my "Rule #3" 40k has skirmish rules applied to large scale warfare model count which makes it bog.
Just looking at "One page 40k" at the moment as an example.
Trying to think how such fundamental changes still provide the same "feel" as 40k.