Traditio you don't understand game theory at all. I understand you want tanks to be better but this not the way.

I agree with Martel. These are ideas coming from a good place of mind but lacking any technical skill or real understanding of actual game mechanics and their interactions.

Your #1 on that list should be Formations. Restricting viable player options while handing out free rules is highly destructive to the entire game experience and in particular to the flexibility that building an army you enjoy and playing some games should be.

Space Marines were not considered over powered until their most recent dex came out and they were handed a handful of formations and "decurions" that shoved them towards the top tier.

If Marines only had a CAD to work with would you feel so upset about many of these units?

Some units are broken. Eldar have a book with quite a few standouts at this point. Relentless is not the reason they are bad. Bikes are meant to be mobile. Making it so they cannot use their mobility and their firepower cripples the unit. You are not fixing Eldar bikes, your breaking them.

Again, these things you are targeting are not fixing core elements of the game that impact the whole experience. Your targeting specific units by finding similar, but not necessarily the same, features amongst them and trying to knock them back.

Core game mechanics are things like movement, the way assault works, shooting, all the ways in which 2 units interact with each other.

Special rules are exceptions to those mechanics. The game has much bigger core problems then any handful of special rules can fix.

I guarantee i could write a badass d10 system that makes 90% happy. But grad school sucks.

1) Absoulutly not, this would render many units completely worthless, IE terminators, cents, and bikes from the space marine list, it would cripple the units to worthlessness.

Your arguments about bikes being more favorable then vehicles is honestly laughable. bikes are weak, get something that ignores cover, congratulations, you just killed the bike. The reason for no one taking tanks anymore is because armor in general is weak, not because of relentless, its because HP are a stupid system that allow for vehicles to be glanced to death by small arms fire. Relentless is far from the problem.

2) Again no, salvo is fine, honestly i dont like it simple because of more freaking rules.

3) I have no opinion one way or the other

4) again see point one, reroll to hit from twin linked it what makes a large potion of weapons even worth anything. Removeing this would again, cripple units to pure worthlessness.

5) Im not against 5th ed pycic powers.

To be brash, most of your arugments have been, Its dumb i dont like it, which is not very good

Martel732 wrote:
I guarantee i could write a badass d10 system that makes 90% happy. But grad school sucks.

I think you and I have gone over this one many a times, I agree, but, we gotta work in the bounds we are given lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I disagree with most of this. You are not generally changing "core" rules. Just special rules. And your doing it targetting specific units. This wont fix the game, it will just place all the bs in another place.

They're special rules in the core rulebook.

At any rate, can you think of an OP space marine combo if those rules were changed or removed?

Can you think of anything that's underpowered that would be hit too hard?

Can you think of anything OP that would become more OP?

I sure can, lions blade strike force is still going to be OP

1850 points, over 400 points of free razor backs with heavy bolters, everything gets objective secure, and fires over watch at full BS.

Raven wing army with dark shrouds, TL plasma guns and have a 2+ rerollable jink out in the open.

These "core rules" Fix nothing and are just nit picked.

I vote for D + E

D. This poll is bad and you should feel bad. (look at all posts above)
E. Traditio shouldn't make any polls , ever again (no really , please stop with it )

Traditio - in each of your threads you cherry pick a rule as a "holy grail of balancing 40K", but time after time you fail to realise, that everything you wish to change this way just shifts the relative power levels and restores no overall balance at all!

When you have such a complex ruleset (in terms of sheer volume of unit/rules interactions) you cannot simply change one parameter and expect the entire game to be "better" - it will just be broken in a different way. The main problem with 40K is that it is a game with trivial winning conditions (especially in Eternal War missions) and almost total freedom of army building - so you can always "game the game". Try to picture a chess competition, when every player can bring any pieces he wishes as long as he has one piece apointed as the king. If you ban queens, then rooks or bishops or knights will dominate and overal ballance of such game will not improve... And if you keep banning each new most OP bull gak this way, then chess become checkers...

If you really want to attempt to balance 40K for tournament/pick-up play, you should try to invent a scenario/tournament format, that counters as many army-building problems as possible and then impose army construction restrictions for all of the problems you couldn't counter this way. And then reason as many players as you can to use this format as a standard for their games. Any other approach is destined to fail with current size of 40K, as it is currently a sandbox ruleset and not a tournament ready game really...

 Backspacehacker wrote:
1) Absoulutly not, this would render many units completely worthless, IE terminators, cents, and bikes from the space marine list, it would cripple the units to worthlessness.

False.

1.Terminators would barely even be affected. Stormbolters are assault weapons. It would make the cyclone missile launcher and assault cannon upgrades less viable, but I don't see this as problematic.

2. With respect to centurions: see my comments about obliterators. It would remove the possibility of grav centurion cheese, but again, that's the point of the nerf.

3. Most bikes wouldn't even be affected. The only bikes that would be affected are: 1. bike squads that are primarily "for" melee" but you still equipped with non-assault, non-pistol weapons for some reason and 2. bike squads that are equipped with heavy and salvo weapons...and 2 is the exact point of the nerf.

So really, all you're saying is: "BUT I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE BIKER CHEESE ANY MORE!"

To which I reply: "Yes. That's the point."

Legions of the damned, I will admit, would be adversely affected as a side effect of this. To the point of uselessness...?

bikes are weak, get something that ignores cover, congratulations, you just killed the bike.

Which is why Dark Eldar bikes, ork bikes and Chaos space marine bikers with melta guns would be sooooo affected by the nerf I've proposed.

I sure can, lions blade strike force is still going to be OP

1850 points, over 400 points of free razor backs with heavy bolters, everything gets objective secure, and fires over watch at full BS.

Raven wing army with dark shrouds, TL plasma guns and have a 2+ rerollable jink out in the open.

These "core rules" Fix nothing and are just nit picked.

Formations are codex specific problems, not a BRB problem.

That said, the ravenwing army would be ignificantly nerfed:

Those plasma guns would be hitting on 2s and would NOT be rerolling 1s. And you'd get your 2+ jink saves...but you are still failing on 1s with no opportunity to reroll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RE Twin-Linked:

Under my proposal, twin-link would add +1 to BS. This is a nerf, but I wouldn't call it worthless.

 Traditio wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
1) Absoulutly not, this would render many units completely worthless, IE terminators, cents, and bikes from the space marine list, it would cripple the units to worthlessness.

False.

1.Terminators would barely even be affected. Stormbolters are assault weapons. It would make the cyclone missile launcher and assault cannon upgrades less viable, but I don't see this as problematic.

2. With respect to centurions: see my comments about obliterators. It would remove the possibility of grav centurion cheese, but again, that's the point of the nerf.

3. Most bikes wouldn't even be affected. The only bikes that would be affected are: 1. bike squads that are primarily "for" melee" but you still equipped with non-assault, non-pistol weapons for some reason and 2. bike squads that are equipped with heavy and salvo weapons...and 2 is the exact point of the nerf.

So really, all you're saying is: "BUT I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE BIKER CHEESE ANY MORE!"

To which I reply: "Yes. That's the point."

Legions of the damned, I will admit, would be adversely affected as a side effect of this. To the point of uselessness...?

bikes are weak, get something that ignores cover, congratulations, you just killed the bike.

Which is why Dark Eldar bikes, ork bikes and Chaos space marine bikers with melta guns would be sooooo affected by the nerf I've proposed.

I sure can, lions blade strike force is still going to be OP

1850 points, over 400 points of free razor backs with heavy bolters, everything gets objective secure, and fires over watch at full BS.

Raven wing army with dark shrouds, TL plasma guns and have a 2+ rerollable jink out in the open.

These "core rules" Fix nothing and are just nit picked.

Formations are codex specific problems, not a BRB problem.

That said, the ravenwing army would be ignificantly nerfed:

Those plasma guns would be hitting on 2s and would NOT be rerolling 1s. And you'd get your 2+ jink saves...but you are still failing on 1s with no opportunity to reroll.

Let me tell you why you are wrong,

It would make ALL their heavy weapons useless, plasma is a heavy, flamer is also a heavy, so there goes that. Additionally the reason the relentless rule is there is because of the later half, which from how you are arguing i bet you have not even read.

So in that case ill tell you it, the relentless rule also lets you assault after firing a heavy, salvo or ordinance weapon. So that would make terminators gimped since i would have this nice assault cannon i would not even be able to use because the only way to make terminators up for their points is to get them in combat so no one would ever buy heavy weapons upgrades.

Centurions in general are a bad model and dont fit in thats my opinion so we can leave that at that.

Grav itself inherently does not have a problem, other then AP 2. the reason it rocks vehicles is because of HP and re-rolling to wound with a grav amp.


AND FURTHER MORE! to show your total lack of knowledge for the rules and the sheer ARROGANCE you have. You cant charge after firing a solvo weapon at all, because not only do you loose the ability to fire at full salvo, you loose the ability the charge AND your range is reduce by half when shooting! so YES that would nerf bikes that run grav weapons, and it would nerf bikes that use rapid fire because you cant charge after rapid firing UNLESS you have relentless. So dont say bikes are for melee if you dont even realize rapid fire prevents you from charging.

Legion of the damned dont even use relentless, they use slow and purposeful which, guess what, is what cents use, you are arguing over units you dont even know the rules for.

Again, you are wrong with ravenwing because you are arguing about models you have no idea how they work. They hit on 3s, and you dont get to jink a gets hot my man. Not to mention raven wing already get a 2+ rerollable if they have a dark shroud near them.

So far lets see what you have gotten wrong

Lack of general knowledge of the game
not knowing how solvo works
not knowing that relentless lets you charge after fireing heavy weapons, which if you take that away from terminators you gimp them to uslessness
Not knowing that cents and legion of the damned dont even use relentless they use Slow and purposful
Not knowing basic understanding of gets hot.
Not realizing that space marine bikes have rapid fire and that doing so removes the ability to charge.

So overall you are just someone wining on a Dakka form about how Devs blasted you off the board because they used slow and purposeful, and as a result you come onto this board crying and bitching when you clearly know nothing about the rules you are asking to remove, or the effect it would have on the units that have them.

With that, i would humbly request a mod lock this thread as i can guarantee you this will not result is any grounds being made simply on the fact the OP has shown know knowledge of the rules he is asking to change.

So how does one handle BS over 5? Such as an Imperial Fists Captain? (Who, under your changes, would have BS 6 when firing bolters.)

 JNAProductions wrote:
So how does one handle BS over 5? Such as an Imperial Fists Captain? (Who, under your changes, would have BS 6 when firing bolters.)

I would not even ask the OP honestly. Post above explains why

He does not understand what he is asking to remove or how it would effect the entire game.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So how does one handle BS over 5? Such as an Imperial Fists Captain? (Who, under your changes, would have BS 6 when firing bolters.)

Wouldn't exist. Modifier would be capped out at BS 5.

And really, does Pedro Kantor really need the ability to reroll 1s?

 Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So how does one handle BS over 5? Such as an Imperial Fists Captain? (Who, under your changes, would have BS 6 when firing bolters.)

Wouldn't exist. Modifier would be capped out at BS 5.

And really, does Pedro Kantor really need the ability to reroll 1s?

Seeing as thats the whole Iron hands and successor chapters gimick, yeah.

Backspacehacker wrote:Let me tell you why you are wrong,

It would make ALL their heavy weapons useless, plasma is a heavy

Plasma cannons are heavy weapons. Plasma guns are rapidfire weapons. The only difference it would make to ravenwing bikes is that they wouldn't be able to fire plasma guns and then charge afterwards.

flamer is also a heavy

Flamers are all assault weapons. Paradoxically, even heavy flamers are assault weapons.

So in that case ill tell you it, the relentless rule also lets you assault after firing a heavy, salvo or ordinance weapon. So that would make terminators gimped since i would have this nice assault cannon i would not even be able to use because the only way to make terminators up for their points is to get them in combat so no one would ever buy heavy weapons upgrades.

Again, terminators are normally equipped with stormbolters. Yes, you wouldn't be able to charge if you fire a cyclone missile launcher or an assault cannon, but I'm not sure that this would make terminators "worthless." Ultimately, you're paying for the 2+ armor, the 5+ invuln and those sweet, sweet power fists.

Centurions in general are a bad model and dont fit in thats my opinion so we can leave that at that.

It all depends what you're going for. They have a better armor save and a greater number of wounds than devastators, and they have the splitfire special rule.

If you want greater durability and the ability to hit more targets, then you go centurions.

Grav itself inherently does not have a problem

Many people will disagree with you.

so YES that would nerf bikes that run grav weapons

I've already admitted this. In fact, that was the point of the neft.

and it would nerf bikes that use rapid fire because you cant charge after rapid firing UNLESS you have relentless.

Why would you want to? Besides, even if you want to, why should you be able to? It's not like tactical marines can rapidfire and then charge.

Legion of the damned dont even use relentless, they use slow and purposeful which, guess what, is what cents use, you are arguing over units you dont even know the rules for.

Slow and purposeful = relentless + differences. When I say that relentless needs to die, I also mean that slow and purposeful needs to die.

Again, you are wrong with ravenwing because you are arguing about models you have no idea how they work. They hit on 3s, and you dont get to jink a gets hot my man. Not to mention raven wing already get a 2+ rerollable if they have a dark shroud near them.

I'm afraid that you are misunderstanding me. you are claiming that ravenwing have plasma guns that they can reroll. Great. If we adopt my proposals, the reroll would be changed to +1 BS. BS 4 = 3s to hit. +1 BS = 2s to hit.

If we replace rerollables with a stat mod which caps out at a result of 2+, then no, ravenwing wouldn't get a 2+ rerollable. They'd just get a 2+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backspacehacker wrote:Seeing as thats the whole Iron hands and successor chapters gimick, yeah.

Then maybe they need a different gimick.

So what about Assassins? Or Bloodthirsters? Or Skitarii? And how come Twin-Linked (reroll EVERYTHING) is exactly the same as reroll ones? Wouldn't that make the Benediction of Omniscience exactly the same at any unit level?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So what about Assassins? Or Bloodthirsters? Or Skitarii? And how come Twin-Linked (reroll EVERYTHING) is exactly the same as reroll ones? Wouldn't that make the Benediction of Omniscience exactly the same at any unit level?

I'm cool with all of that. I mean, some rules may need to be rewritten, and some points may need to be readjusted.

But really?

Rerolls are bull gak. Period.

LOL maybe a chapter whos whole thing is shooting bolters needs to be changed because you dont like it?! give me a break kid.

Slow and purposeful is not the same as relentless.

You cant run, or fire over watch if you are slow and purposeful

They are different rules.

Relentless is there for a reason, its mean to represent fast attack or models that are lumbering war machines.

Again, if you remove the option for terminators to charge by removing relentless you completely gimp them.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about, these changes fix nothing and only add problems.

This is by far one of the stupidest suggestions to come across this form in a long time, and i have see some one suggest space furry lynx before.

Your only counter points here are, "well why?"

And it still does not excuse the fact you are trying to argue for rules you have no idea what they do or how it will vastly effect it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So what about Assassins? Or Bloodthirsters? Or Skitarii? And how come Twin-Linked (reroll EVERYTHING) is exactly the same as reroll ones? Wouldn't that make the Benediction of Omniscience exactly the same at any unit level?

I'm cool with all of that. I mean, some rules may need to be rewritten, and some points may need to be readjusted.

But really?

Rerolls are bull gak. Period.

So we are just now picking and choosing which models get the nerf, just the models that you are fighting and looseing to all the time right?

Rerolls are not crap they have been in this game since i have been playing and that was back in 5th ed and NO ONE complains about it.

Backspacehacker wrote:Slow and purposeful is not the same as relentless.

Well let me be clear: when I say that relentless needs to die, I also mean that SnP needs to die. S othere.

again, if you remove the option for terminators to charge by removing relentless you completely gimp them.

Again, only if you equip them with assault cannons or cyclone missile launchers. If you equip them with stormbolters and a heavy flamer, they can charge just fine.

 Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:Slow and purposeful is not the same as relentless.

Well let me be clear: when I say that relentless needs to die, I also mean that SnP needs to die. S othere.

again, if you remove the option for terminators to charge by removing relentless you completely gimp them.

Again, only if you equip them with assault cannons or cyclone missile launchers. If you equip them with stormbolters and a heavy flamer, they can charge just fine.

Or giving them a plasma cannon that will also nerf them, you can just sit there and say well ill make half of their heavy weapons obsolete and its all fine.

Bolters are already weak ass weapons.

All you have done this thread is act like your point is right, and clearly every one in here is wrong when no one is agreeing with you.

To me and everyone in here you just sound like some kid who lost to space marines and now think everyone should change. Its not going to happen man im sorry, your ideas are bad, they unbalance the game, nerf far more units they you actually understand.

I mean come, you cant really sit here and tell me the, "When i meant nerf relentless that also means SnP nees to do, so there," does not sound pompus and arrogant kid you did not even know the diffrence until i had to point it out to you, let alone the fact the unit you are complaining about does not even have relentless, or how salvo or rapid fire work.

Do you even know the difference between the two? relentless and SnP

Backspacehacker wrote:Or giving them a plasma cannon that will also nerf them, you can just sit there and say well ill make half of their heavy weapons obsolete and its all fine.

So far as I'm aware, no bike can take a plasma cannon. If you concern is centurions, then plasma cannons have a 36 inch range. That's long enough for relentless/snP not to matter.

To me and everyone in here you just sound like some kid

If your profile is correct, I'm actually older than you.

they unbalance the game, nerf far more units they you actually understand.

They would cut the cheese in the game. I fully understand, however, that if your army relies on gimmicks and cheese, you might strongly disagree with what I'm saying.

 Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:Or giving them a plasma cannon that will also nerf them, you can just sit there and say well ill make half of their heavy weapons obsolete and its all fine.

So far as I'm aware, no bike can take a plasma cannon. If you concern is centurions, then plasma cannons have a 36 inch range. That's long enough for relentless/snP not to matter.

To me and everyone in here you just sound like some kid

If your profile is correct, I'm actually older than you.

they unbalance the game, nerf far more units they you actually understand.

They would cut the cheese in the game. I fully understand, however, that if your army relies on gimmicks and cheese, you might strongly disagree with what I'm saying.

Plasma cannon on the terminators, so with terminators 3 of their 4 weapons are worthless to take since they wont be able to charge in the same turn.

Age does not guarantee wisdom, and the way you are acting is like a child thinking your ideas are clearly the right ones when everyone here has told you other wise.

And it would not effect Cheese because it does not even begin to address cheese armies. and 80% of the people who voted in this thread seem to agree, and i would bet dollars to doughnuts that 1 of those 2 votes for effecting the balance is your own.

Backspacehacker wrote:Plasma cannon on the terminators, so with terminators 3 of their 4 weapons are worthless to take since they wont be able to charge in the same turn.

Easy: you want plasma cannons? Put them on a tactical or devastator squad. You want terminators? Don't use a plasma cannon.

 Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:Plasma cannon on the terminators, so with terminators 3 of their 4 weapons are worthless to take since they wont be able to charge in the same turn.

Easy: you want plasma cannons? Put them on a tactical or devastator squad. You want terminators? Don't use a plasma cannon.

Dont take an iconic weapon for a unit that has had it for ever.

The best part is, terminators are considered one of the weakest units in the codex and you wanna make them worse lol. Real good balancing there.

You have no idea what you are going on about.

Relentless as a rule is fine, it is hardly the cause of problems.

IF you want to address the actual problems in the game right now, try addressing the issue of MC vastly over shadowing vehicles, HP being one of the worst things put into the game in its current state, the ease of access to AP 2 across the board.

THOSE are the things that actually are the problems right now, not bike, not terminators, not even relentless like you think it is.

Also nice job in side stepping the fact i call you on your nit picking and adjusting of your own arguments as you actually learn what the rules are as i tell them to you. XD

 Traditio wrote:
But consider this: if obliterators don't have relentless, chaos space marine predators start to look more attractive, don't they?

Not really, as if the Predator moves it would be snap firing heavy/ordnance weapons due to no longer having Relentless.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
But consider this: if obliterators don't have relentless, chaos space marine predators start to look more attractive, don't they?

Not really, as if the Predator moves it would be snap firing heavy/ordnance weapons due to no longer having Relentless.

Under my proposal, vehicles and MCs retain their ability to fire at normal BS while on the go.

I'd agree with Martell, use d10's. And then do away with loads of special rules that have to be put in place to diferentiate one unit from another.

 Traditio wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
But consider this: if obliterators don't have relentless, chaos space marine predators start to look more attractive, don't they?

Not really, as if the Predator moves it would be snap firing heavy/ordnance weapons due to no longer having Relentless.

Under my proposal, vehicles and MCs retain their ability to fire at normal BS while on the go.

So a Riptide becomes a 500 pt model. No thanks.

The cheese does not come from relentless, slow and purposeful, and the other things you are pointing at.

Terminators are currently not worth their points. They are weak units. You want to nerf them farther and say you are eliminating the cheese.

Bikes are strong, but they are strong because the assault phase is exploitable and has powerful effects like sweeping advances and unit immunity by sitting locked in combat and being unable to be shot. The entire assault phase needs to be addressed, not making units that should thrive in assault unable to get there if you decide to equip them half way decently.

As has been stated repeatedly. You just don't understand the actual consequences of your proposal. It won't fix any of the problems you will just make a bunch of units trash units while shifting the op issues onto other units.

Vehicles still wont be taken as often. They function fundamentally different from the rest of the game for some reason and they can all be glanced to death regardless.

What you don't understand is that people who want to exploit the game will. They work within the confines of the systems presented to find the most efficient way to be the best and break the other guy. They always have. They always will. Not only will cheese still exist because cheese often just exists, it will continue t exist because you haven't actually addressed it.

 Lance845 wrote:
The cheese does not come from relentless, slow and purposeful, and the other things you are pointing at.

Terminators are currently not worth their points. They are weak units. You want to nerf them farther and say you are eliminating the cheese.

Bikes are strong, but they are strong because the assault phase is exploitable and has powerful effects like sweeping advances and unit immunity by sitting locked in combat and being unable to be shot. The entire assault phase needs to be addressed, not making units that should thrive in assault unable to get there if you decide to equip them half way decently.

As has been stated repeatedly. You just don't understand the actual consequences of your proposal. It won't fix any of the problems you will just make a bunch of units trash units while shifting the op issues onto other units.

Vehicles still wont be taken as often. They function fundamentally different from the rest of the game for some reason and they can all be glanced to death regardless.

All of this, terminators are already weak as hell.

Ill try to explain why bike armies are OP

So i run a ravenwing command squad with 6 bikes total and apoth, champion, banner, and an HQ. 7 bikes in total, and along with a dark shroud.

On a turn, i can move, shoot my plasma talons, charge in, be immune to over watch, resolve my assault. then on my opponents turn, after his assault is done, rules as written say at the end of any assault i can do a hit and run, i then can auto leave combat because of the banner, right back into my dark shroud, my turn again, i can do the exact same thing.

Relentless does not effect that. You charges do not effect that. It would only nerf already weak units.

If you want to actually address cheese in the game, address the following, The OP rules with formations, the amount of cheap D and AP2 on the field along with its ease of access, and the elephant in the room which is the vast overshadowing of vehicles by MC and the atrocity that is HP

Proposals 2, 3, and 5 are probably a good idea but aren't particularly concrete, I can't discuss whether they'd fix anything or make things worse without specific proposals. #1 and #4 are tangential to any actual problems. The examples cited under #1 are problems with the cost/availability/power of the gun, not with firing it on the move. Rerolls are a speed-of-play thing that have gotten handed out too generously; they aren't an inherently bad idea, and aren't a problem from a balance perspective until rerollable 2+ starts to crop up.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Proposals 2, 3, and 5 are probably a good idea but aren't particularly concrete, I can't discuss whether they'd fix anything or make things worse without specific proposals. #1 and #4 are tangential to any actual problems. The examples cited under #1 are problems with the cost/availability/power of the gun, not with firing it on the move. Rerolls are a speed-of-play thing that have gotten handed out too generously; they aren't an inherently bad idea, and aren't a problem from a balance perspective until rerollable 2+ starts to crop up.

I can agree with this, i really want to see powers go back to old 5th ed status, so much nicer.

I dont think salvo has a problem inherently, i think they should have just made it heavy x/y and say if you move you fire x stay still y and still fire snap if moving.

To be honest, this sounds like the entire system going back to 5th edition. That said, I don't think these ideas are as bad as some people think!

#1: Moving & Shooting
What I think most people aren't understanding is that the game has perhaps swung the pendulum too far. Back in the ancient past of 3rd edition, you had really heavy opportunity costs for moving and shooting. You could stand still and shoot great, or you could move and be completely boned on shooting. This isn't a bad thing per se, it's just that there was a high opportunity cost to moving or shooting. You would either do one effectively, and rarely both. Go figure, close combat was strong because you'd often move AND assault, meaning that the opportunity cost for moving was less for them. I remember that as 4th and 5th editions rolled through we were given more and more ways to move and shoot. This lessened the opportunity cost. Now, when you moved, you could still shoot pretty effectively!

But now, you can move and shoot with nearly no penalty. The only things that suffer a penalty are Heavy Weapons, but as pointed out, Relentless covers this. I think Tradito identified the right problem, but his solution just reverts things to an old problem. Generally speaking, moving should reduce your effectiveness, but not outright destroy it. I think a simple "-1 BS when you move and shoot" across the board would be good, regardless of whether or not you have Relentless. In other words, whether you can or can't shoot is based off your weapon type, and how well you shoot is based on your movement. However, I'd agree that bikes moving so far and still being able to shoot heavy weapons better than vehicles is kind of ridiculous, and I would like to see Relentless be taken away from bikes. Their speed, bonus toughness, and the ability to Jink is good enough.

#2: Salvo
I do not think this needs to be removed. Salvo as it currently exists shares a lot in common with the core concepts of what Rapid Fire used to be. Stand still and shoot great, move and don't do so well. Again, I think the problem with Salvo is that it's on just so many Relentless platforms. I wouldn't mind seeing Salvo be unaffected by Relentless, such that its profile changes due to movement whether or not its platform has any other special rules.

#3: Invisibility
I don't mind it so much when you make it such that units attacking an Invisible target are WS1 and BS1 instead of snap shots or 6's to hit. At least then flamers and blasts can target it, and it'll be 5's in close combat.

#4: Rerolls
I think the changes above help enough that rerolls don't need to be touched. Again, the main problem isn't rerolls in and of themselves, it's all the other stuff that the rerolls can apply to. 2+ Inv rerollable is just something that shouldn't be possible, or at least not possible on super-fast and very killy stuff. Rerolls themselves, however, are a lot of fun!

#5: Psychic Powers
This is too big to just gut, even though I'd love to see it happen.

MCs are already too good. These changes make them too much gooderer. And that's a technical term.

Fast and relentless needs to be more expensive, slow and relentless needs to be cheaper. That's the bottom line.

 Yarium wrote:
To be honest, this sounds like the entire system going back to 5th edition. That said, I don't think these ideas are as bad as some people think!

#1: Moving & Shooting
What I think most people aren't understanding is that the game has perhaps swung the pendulum too far. Back in the ancient past of 3rd edition, you had really heavy opportunity costs for moving and shooting. You could stand still and shoot great, or you could move and be completely boned on shooting. This isn't a bad thing per se, it's just that there was a high opportunity cost to moving or shooting. You would either do one effectively, and rarely both. Go figure, close combat was strong because you'd often move AND assault, meaning that the opportunity cost for moving was less for them. I remember that as 4th and 5th editions rolled through we were given more and more ways to move and shoot. This lessened the opportunity cost. Now, when you moved, you could still shoot pretty effectively!

But now, you can move and shoot with nearly no penalty. The only things that suffer a penalty are Heavy Weapons, but as pointed out, Relentless covers this. I think Tradito identified the right problem, but his solution just reverts things to an old problem. Generally speaking, moving should reduce your effectiveness, but not outright destroy it. I think a simple "-1 BS when you move and shoot" across the board would be good, regardless of whether or not you have Relentless. In other words, whether you can or can't shoot is based off your weapon type, and how well you shoot is based on your movement. However, I'd agree that bikes moving so far and still being able to shoot heavy weapons better than vehicles is kind of ridiculous, and I would like to see Relentless be taken away from bikes. Their speed, bonus toughness, and the ability to Jink is good enough.

#2: Salvo
I do not think this needs to be removed. Salvo as it currently exists shares a lot in common with the core concepts of what Rapid Fire used to be. Stand still and shoot great, move and don't do so well. Again, I think the problem with Salvo is that it's on just so many Relentless platforms. I wouldn't mind seeing Salvo be unaffected by Relentless, such that its profile changes due to movement whether or not its platform has any other special rules.

#3: Invisibility
I don't mind it so much when you make it such that units attacking an Invisible target are WS1 and BS1 instead of snap shots or 6's to hit. At least then flamers and blasts can target it, and it'll be 5's in close combat.

#4: Rerolls
I think the changes above help enough that rerolls don't need to be touched. Again, the main problem isn't rerolls in and of themselves, it's all the other stuff that the rerolls can apply to. 2+ Inv rerollable is just something that shouldn't be possible, or at least not possible on super-fast and very killy stuff. Rerolls themselves, however, are a lot of fun!

#5: Psychic Powers
This is too big to just gut, even though I'd love to see it happen.

I can agree with some of these points and what you are suggesting is far more comparable, but again, the issue with removing relentless is the latter half of the rule everyone always forgets about, that is assaulting after fireing salvo, heavy, or ordnance weapons.

This is no reason a bike should loose the ability to charge for firing a salvo or heavy weapon, its a fast attack unit, removing its ability to shoot and charge is nonsensical.

HOWEVER! the idea of reducing your BS by one on heavy, salvo or ordnance weapons is not the worst thing in the world, but with that said, its honestly a nerf to something that does not actually need a nerf. Again, terminators would suffer already being one of the worst units in the codex made even worse. Bikes would suffer from not being able to assault, i will agree they should not be able to fire heavy weapons as good as a vehicle can, but then again, the only heavy weapons they have access to would be the heavy bolter, and multi melta which can only be taken on an attack bike, which again, is not comparable to vehicle type weapons.

The whole point of bikes is to be fast attack and get up in your face with hit and runs, the draw back to them, they are low wound count, and an ignore cover weapon destroys them, special issue ammunition comes to mind, it shreds bike armies.

So if you really want to nerf relentless for what ever reason, your suggestion seems the most comparable, but there is still the issue that this does not actually address any of the issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
MCs are already too good. These changes make them too much gooderer. And that's a technical term.

Fast and relentless needs to be more expensive, slow and relentless needs to be cheaper. That's the bottom line.

Pretty well put, but again, i think it needs to be stressed, the later half of the relentless rule seems to be forgotten, its not just about moving and shooting, its about charging as well.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
So if you really want to nerf relentless for what ever reason, your suggestion seems the most comparable, but there is still the issue that this does not actually address any of the issues.

The point about Relentless allowing bikes to move, shoot, and assault isn't a bad point to make! All things considered, I think I'd be fine with that change. Like I said, it's about opportunity cost. Do you want bikes to have the invisible ability to not be affected by opportunity costs? I think the idea of bikes having to choose between shooting or charging while moving is possibly a really great one. Actually, if anything, you could change Skilled Rider to do something other than "auto-pass difficult terrain checks" and turn it into "does not suffer -1 BS when moving". Personally, I always considered it ridiculous that every White Scar biker could drive vertically up a building with no ill effects because they were all so skilled

 Yarium wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
So if you really want to nerf relentless for what ever reason, your suggestion seems the most comparable, but there is still the issue that this does not actually address any of the issues.

The point about Relentless allowing bikes to move, shoot, and assault isn't a bad point to make! All things considered, I think I'd be fine with that change. Like I said, it's about opportunity cost. Do you want bikes to have the invisible ability to not be affected by opportunity costs? I think the idea of bikes having to choose between shooting or charging while moving is possibly a really great one. Actually, if anything, you could change Skilled Rider to do something other than "auto-pass difficult terrain checks" and turn it into "does not suffer -1 BS when moving". Personally, I always considered it ridiculous that every White Scar biker could drive vertically up a building with no ill effects because they were all so skilled

You know waht a change i would be totally fine with is this.

Bikes can fire their bike mounted weapons as if standing still and still cahrge, but if they fire a hand weapon, IE a Grav or a plasma gun like that, they suffer form this draw back of not being able to charge. But if its their bike mounted weapon they should be able to charge.

I mean think about it, you are pointing your bike at the enemy to charge at them with your weapons facing them, why would you not shoot them.

 Backspacehacker wrote:


You know waht a change i would be totally fine with is this.

Bikes can fire their bike mounted weapons as if standing still and still cahrge, but if they fire a hand weapon, IE a Grav or a plasma gun like that, they suffer form this draw back of not being able to charge. But if its their bike mounted weapon they should be able to charge.

I mean think about it, you are pointing your bike at the enemy to charge at them with your weapons facing them, why would you not shoot them.

I'd be fine with a change like that too!

 Yarium wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:


You know waht a change i would be totally fine with is this.

Bikes can fire their bike mounted weapons as if standing still and still cahrge, but if they fire a hand weapon, IE a Grav or a plasma gun like that, they suffer form this draw back of not being able to charge. But if its their bike mounted weapon they should be able to charge.

I mean think about it, you are pointing your bike at the enemy to charge at them with your weapons facing them, why would you not shoot them.

I'd be fine with a change like that too!

Look at that! Agreement reached! Now would this allow bikes to fire salvo weapons as if standing still? but loose the ability to charge, or treat it as moving

Maybe. But I'm hesitant to weaken assault in any way in 7th ed. That's why I'm still going with a rewrite.

Well, for this I'd say look at my other responses again. Make it so that Salvo always cares whether or not you moved for rate of fire. Combined with the proposed change to bikes, if it's mounted on the bike that means they can move, shoot (at the reduced rate & BS), and charge, but if it's hand-held (which is what I believe they are), they would not be able to charge.

 Yarium wrote:
Well, for this I'd say look at my other responses again. Make it so that Salvo always cares whether or not you moved for rate of fire. Combined with the proposed change to bikes, if it's mounted on the bike that means they can move, shoot (at the reduced rate & BS), and charge, but if it's hand-held (which is what I believe they are), they would not be able to charge.

I disagree. Grav guns are already very weak compared to grav cannons. Grav bikers are one of the few effective units in the whole BA codex. Maybe they should cost more, but you have to increase scatbikes first for sure.

Martel732 wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Well, for this I'd say look at my other responses again. Make it so that Salvo always cares whether or not you moved for rate of fire. Combined with the proposed change to bikes, if it's mounted on the bike that means they can move, shoot (at the reduced rate & BS), and charge, but if it's hand-held (which is what I believe they are), they would not be able to charge.

I disagree. Grav guns are already very weak compared to grav cannons. Grav bikers are one of the few effective units in the whole BA codex. Maybe they should cost more, but you have to increase scatbikes first for sure.

I will agree, grav gun when compaired to grav cannon is not that great, its mostly due to the grav amp.

And then there are units like Wulfen and demons that straight up laugh at grav. The problems in 40K are varied and actually mostly subtle.

Yarium wrote:#1: Moving & Shooting
What I think most people aren't understanding is that the game has perhaps swung the pendulum too far. Back in the ancient past of 3rd edition, you had really heavy opportunity costs for moving and shooting. You could stand still and shoot great, or you could move and be completely boned on shooting. This isn't a bad thing per se, it's just that there was a high opportunity cost to moving or shooting. You would either do one effectively, and rarely both. Go figure, close combat was strong because you'd often move AND assault, meaning that the opportunity cost for moving was less for them. I remember that as 4th and 5th editions rolled through we were given more and more ways to move and shoot. This lessened the opportunity cost. Now, when you moved, you could still shoot pretty effectively!

But now, you can move and shoot with nearly no penalty. The only things that suffer a penalty are Heavy Weapons, but as pointed out, Relentless covers this. I think Tradito identified the right problem, but his solution just reverts things to an old problem. Generally speaking, moving should reduce your effectiveness, but not outright destroy it. I think a simple "-1 BS when you move and shoot" across the board would be good, regardless of whether or not you have Relentless. In other words, whether you can or can't shoot is based off your weapon type, and how well you shoot is based on your movement. However, I'd agree that bikes moving so far and still being able to shoot heavy weapons better than vehicles is kind of ridiculous, and I would like to see Relentless be taken away from bikes. Their speed, bonus toughness, and the ability to Jink is good enough.

I disagree with at least some of what you are saying here. Several points:

1. The Warhammer 40k ruleset needs to be more simple, not more complicated. There's already enough rules. If anything, people should be rejoicing at my suggestion of "no more relentless or slow and purposeful," since this would simplify the game.

2. I've read the 4th ed ruleset. I don't think that moving and shooting at full BS, in general, is particularly imbalancing. A space marine captain moving 6 inches and then firing a boltgun at full BS does not imbalance the game. You know what does cry of cheese? A space marine chapter master moving 12 inches and then firing an ordnance, barrage weapon. Or an eldar windrider moving 12 inches and then firing a heavy weapon at full BS.

Seriously, if we got rid of relentless and slow and purposeful, sure, some of the weaker units would take something of a hit (seriously, just how important is it to a terminator squad that you fire your missile launcher at full BS? That's what devastator marines and devastator centurions are for). But it would also get rid of a ton of cheese in the game.

People will bring up the fact that bikes are fast attacks, and that means that they should be able to move, shoot and charge in the same turn.

My answer? Well, if they're fast attacks, they shouldn't be equipped with heavy weapons. And fact is, chaos space marine raptors are fast attacks, but they can't double tap plasma guns and then charge. They don't have relentless. You know what they can do? Move 12 inches in the movement phase. You know what a bike can do? Move 12 inches in the movement phase. You don't need to ignore the rules and layer on the gouda for your bikes to work as fast attacks.

I do not think this needs to be removed. Salvo as it currently exists shares a lot in common with the core concepts of what Rapid Fire used to be. Stand still and shoot great, move and don't do so well. Again, I think the problem with Salvo is that it's on just so many Relentless platforms. I wouldn't mind seeing Salvo be unaffected by Relentless, such that its profile changes due to movement whether or not its platform has any other special rules.

There's literally no reason for salvo to exist other than power creep. There is no salvo weapon that could not suitably be replaced with one of the other weapons profiles.

I don't mind it so much when you make it such that units attacking an Invisible target are WS1 and BS1 instead of snap shots or 6's to hit. At least then flamers and blasts can target it, and it'll be 5's in close combat.

Invisibility is commonly admitted to be the most broken psychic power in the game. Remove invisibility altogether, and you get rid of cheese. You should check out the 5th edition space marine psychic power list in the space marine codex of that edition. You'll be amazed at the sheer degree to which psychic shenanigans have escalated since then.

I think the changes above help enough that rerolls don't need to be touched. Again, the main problem isn't rerolls in and of themselves, it's all the other stuff that the rerolls can apply to. 2+ Inv rerollable is just something that shouldn't be possible, or at least not possible on super-fast and very killy stuff. Rerolls themselves, however, are a lot of fun!

Rerolls are most certainly not fun. Who has fun simply because he's rolling dice? That's such a bizarre standard of having fun. "I'm rolling dice! WHEEEEE!"

At the very least, replacing rerolls with a +1 stat mod would give you close enough to the same results, but without the extra hassle. Compare 12 BS 4 TL twin linked devourer shots to 12 BS 5 devourer shots without twin-linked. Or compare 10 BS 4 bolter shots which reroll 1s to 10 BS 5 bolter shots.

If it has absolutely no other benefit, it would speed up the game.

But in addition to this, it would cut down on cheese. Ravenwing bikes would die when they roll 1s, plasma guns would get hot and 2+ rerollables would disappear.

This is too big to just gut, even though I'd love to see it happen.

Do you remember anyone complaining about psychic powers in 5th edition?

You think people should be rejoicing and yet they are not. That should tell you something.

The game is bloated with rules. They need condensing not just wholesale cutting. And even if it did cutting 2 does not create balance it just starts crippling specific units willy nilly.

Anyway, I'm now done with this thread. OP isn't up for discussion. I would never use any of these suggestions.

 Lance845 wrote:
You think people should be rejoicing and yet they are not. That should tell you something.

The game is bloated with rules. They need condensing not just wholesale cutting. And even if it did cutting 2 does not create balance it just starts crippling specific units willy nilly.

People have yet to name an actual unit that would actually become worthless if these rules were implemented.

Saying "But terminators couldn't fire a plasma cannon on the move" or "Terminators cant fire missile launchers at full BS on the move" is not showing that terminators would be "crippled."

Again, that's not what terminators are for. They are not a heavy support option. And you wouldn't even be prevented from using heavy weapons anyway. Deploy your terminators in ruins, shoot that one heavy weapon per turn, and enjoy your 2+, 5++, 4+++ for the duration of the game. I mean, I wouldn't recommend it. I'd recommend either centurions or devastators if that's what you want to do, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Seriously:

Name an actual unit that would become worthless if salvo or relentless stopped existing. Not weaker. "Crippled." Point to a single unit.

The only one that even comes to mind is legion of the damned, but I wouldn't say that they'd be crippled. They'd still have excellent deep strike abilities, ignore cover on everything and 3++ invulns for not too expensive a points cost.

I mean, if someone runs an army that relies on cheese like the stuff I mentioned in the OP, I can see why he'd be screaming bloody murder

Otherwise? I just don't see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Lance, don't you play Tyrranids?

How would you even be affected by any of this? Even if you run TL devourers, the rerolls thing wouldn't be that big of a change.

It doesn't matter if you see it or not.

Bikers aren't cheese traditio. That's the issue i have with your proposals.

I am happy to respond to your one question directed at me.

I would be effected by this because I don't play games in a bubble, and as someone who understands game design, I can see how the changes you propose would effect the way games I play in would play out.

I don't want enemies to be effected by these changes.

I don't want GS cults I might ally with to be effected by these changes.

I don't want the game to exist in a state that is at least as broken as it is now, but this time different, because you lack the forethought to understand what your changes do while also lacking the ability to listen to what the people you have proposed these rules to have been saying to you for 2 pages.

For instance, it has been stated repeatedly that Terminators are already over costed and relatively bad units. Your changes make them categorically worse. But you "don't see it", and probably wont see it.

You are blind to criticism of your ideas. Something more destructive then your suggestions.

Martel732 wrote:
It doesn't matter if you see it or not.

Bikers aren't cheese traditio. That's the issue i have with your proposals.

They're considered an auto take by space marines players precisely because of the fact that they are relentless platforms that you can put things like grav on.

That's one of the reasons why even non-white scars, non-dark angels players will use their fair share of bikes. Assault marines with jump packs? Not so much.

For a measly 7 points, those bikers get +1 toughness, relentless, jink and vastly improved movement capabilities.

In practice, that means that you can move 12 inches and fire 3 grav gun shots per model at 18 inch range at full BS.

Can tanks do this? No.

But bikes can!

Because that totally makes sense. Because that's totally fair. And that's definitely not cheese. #Sarcasm.

 Traditio wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
You think people should be rejoicing and yet they are not. That should tell you something.

The game is bloated with rules. They need condensing not just wholesale cutting. And even if it did cutting 2 does not create balance it just starts crippling specific units willy nilly.

People have yet to name an actual unit that would actually become worthless if these rules were implemented.

Saying "But terminators couldn't fire a plasma cannon on the move" or "Terminators cant fire missile launchers at full BS on the move" is not showing that terminators would be "crippled."

Again, that's not what terminators are for. They are not a heavy support option. And you wouldn't even be prevented from using heavy weapons anyway. Deploy your terminators in ruins, shoot that one heavy weapon per turn, and enjoy your 2+, 5++, 4+++ for the duration of the game. I mean, I wouldn't recommend it. I'd recommend either centurions or devastators if that's what you want to do, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Seriously:

Name an actual unit that would become worthless if salvo or relentless stopped existing. Not weaker. "Crippled." Point to a single unit.

The only one that even comes to mind is legion of the damned, but I wouldn't say that they'd be crippled. They'd still have excellent deep strike abilities, ignore cover on everything and 3++ invulns for not too expensive a points cost.

I mean, if someone runs an army that relies on cheese like the stuff I mentioned in the OP, I can see why he'd be screaming bloody murder

Otherwise? I just don't see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Lance, don't you play Tyrranids?

How would you even be affected by any of this? Even if you run TL devourers, the rerolls thing wouldn't be that big of a change.

Bikes would be crippled as i have already pointed out many times, the later half of relentless allows them to assault after firing weapons, at rapid fire, so you then gut their shooting if they want to assault.

WHICH YOU EVEN SAID! bikes are melee, so why cripple them by not allowing them to shoot weapons pointed at the damn enemy as they charge in.

Terminators, because if you honestly think a 200 point unit of 5 wounds, with SB, and not being able to make use of a heavy weapon and their power fists in the same turn is balanced you have no concept of the word.

Thats just form the space marine arsenal.

no one in this thread has even yet to agree with you on relentless. Sorry, but you are wrong.

 Traditio wrote:
...People have yet to name an actual unit that would actually become worthless if these rules were implemented...

The issue is much less that it'd cripple any specific unit and more that it's tangential to any actual problem. (Deleting Relentless wholesale would unfairly limit Marine/Chaos Bikes, Attack Bikes, Obliterators, most Terminators, Stealthsuits, XV-9 suits, and Skyweavers, but the only things I can find that it'd actually cripple are Thallax, Corsair jetpack units, Legion jetbikes, and Shadow Spectres (all Forge World units, and except for the Legion jetbikes all Jet Pack units)).

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It doesn't matter if you see it or not.

Bikers aren't cheese traditio. That's the issue i have with your proposals.

They're considered an auto take by space marines players precisely because of the fact that they are relentless platforms that you can put things like grav on.

That's one of the reasons why even non-white scars, non-dark angels players will use their fair share of bikes. Assault marines with jump packs? Not so much.

For a measly 7 points, those bikers get +1 toughness, relentless, jink and vastly improved movement capabilities.

In practice, that means that you can move 12 inches and fire 3 grav gun shots per model at 18 inch range at full BS.

Can tanks do this? No.

But bikes can!

Because that totally makes sense. Because that's totally fair. And that's definitely not cheese. #Sarcasm.

And also come with only 3 wounds for a base unit, T5, not that scare friend, and if you ignore cover they are gimped.

They are no an "Auto take" like you think they are, again chalked up to your lack of experience in the game, because im going to go with what is the gladious strike force for 500 bob.

There are only 2 armies that benifit from bike, ravenwing and white scares which their whole thing is bikes, and again, if you take anything that ignores cover you make them cringe, vindicator formation a pie plate of death that ignores cover and insta deaths them, a 300 point formation that can counter a 1850 army gg.

All this you pointed out is not an issue with bikes, its an issue with vehicles in the 7th ed are garbage to take, thats why no one takes them. HP are a stupid idea and the community collectively agrees on this.

Backspacehacker wrote:Bikes would be crippled as i have already pointed out many times

"Bikes would become weaker" =/= "Bikes would be crippled.

the later half of relentless allows them to assault after firing weapons, at rapid fire, so you then gut their shooting if they want to assault.

As I've already pointed out, this would not affect the vast majority of bikes in the game. This wouldn't even affect Eldar Windriders substantially, since they generally aren't used to charge. This would literally only affect space marine bikes, and even then, unless your bike squad is accompanied by Chapter Master Smashfether, how often are you going to be charging with them anyway?

At any rate, again, the fact that they wouldn't be able to charge after using non-assault, non-pistol weapons wouldn't "cripple" space marine bikes. You know what else can't charge after using those kinds of weapons? Everything else in the game that doesn't have relentless and equivalents, INCLUDING OTHER FAST ATTACK OPTIONS IN OTHER CODICES!

No. You're not worried about bikes becoming crippled. You just don't want to give up your unfair advantages.

WHICH YOU EVEN SAID! bikes are melee, so why cripple them by not allowing them to shoot weapons pointed at the damn enemy as they charge in.

If space marine bikes are made for charging, then maybe they should have assault weapons and pistols.

Terminators, because if you honestly think a 200 point unit of 5 wounds, with SB, and not being able to make use of a heavy weapon and their power fists in the same turn is balanced you have no concept of the word.

List building is part of the game. If you want to charge with terminators, and relentless doesn't exist, then you shouldn't equip them with heavy weapons, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER UNIT OPTION IN THE GAME WITHOUT RELENTLESS. It's that simple.

 Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:Bikes would be crippled as i have already pointed out many times

"Bikes would become weaker" =/= "Bikes would be crippled.

the later half of relentless allows them to assault after firing weapons, at rapid fire, so you then gut their shooting if they want to assault.

As I've already pointed out, this would not affect the vast majority of bikes in the game. This wouldn't even affect Eldar Windriders substantially, since they generally aren't used to charge. This would literally only affect space marine bikes, and even then, unless your bike squad is accompanied by Chapter Master Smashfether, how often are you going to be charging with them anyway?

At any rate, again, the fact that they wouldn't be able to charge after using non-assault, non-pistol weapons wouldn't "cripple" space marine bikes. You know what else can't charge after using those kinds of weapons? Everything else in the game that doesn't have relentless and equivalents, INCLUDING OTHER FAST ATTACK OPTIONS IN OTHER CODICES!

No. You're not worried about bikes becoming crippled. You just don't want to give up your unfair advantages.

Point of order. Deathwatch and Chaos Bikes do want to charge, you'd be unfairly restricting them just to take a swat at Codex bikers.

Windriders are unaffected unless they've got scatter lasers since their other options are Assault, but Skyweavers would take a completely unfair hit from this since one of the primary sources of anti-armour in the Harlequin book is their 24"-range Heavy 1 Haywire weapon.

 Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:Bikes would be crippled as i have already pointed out many times

"Bikes would become weaker" =/= "Bikes would be crippled.

the later half of relentless allows them to assault after firing weapons, at rapid fire, so you then gut their shooting if they want to assault.

As I've already pointed out, this would not affect the vast majority of bikes in the game. This wouldn't even affect Eldar Windriders substantially, since they generally aren't used to charge. This would literally only affect space marine bikes, and even then, unless your bike squad is accompanied by Chapter Master Smashfether, how often are you going to be charging with them anyway?

At any rate, again, the fact that they wouldn't be able to charge after using non-assault, non-pistol weapons wouldn't "cripple" space marine bikes. You know what else can't charge after using those kinds of weapons? Everything else in the game that doesn't have relentless and equivalents, INCLUDING OTHER FAST ATTACK OPTIONS IN OTHER CODICES!

No. You're not worried about bikes becoming crippled. You just don't want to give up your unfair advantages.

WHICH YOU EVEN SAID! bikes are melee, so why cripple them by not allowing them to shoot weapons pointed at the damn enemy as they charge in.

If you want to charge so much, then equip your bikes with assault weapons and pistols.

Terminators, because if you honestly think a 200 point unit of 5 wounds, with SB, and not being able to make use of a heavy weapon and their power fists in the same turn is balanced you have no concept of the word.

List building is part of the game. If you want to charge with terminators, and relentless doesn't exist, then you shouldn't equip them with heavy weapons, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER UNIT OPTION IN THE GAME WITHOUT RELENTLESS. It's that simple.

How often do you charge with a bike? ummmm any chance you get? Yes i would like to charge your squad of troops and tie them up while my units advance up the field thank you.

We have 2 pages of telling you why you are wrong, and you still dont want to believe it because you are to ignorant to see it.

I would equip them with assault weapons if their defualt weapon was not none assault weapon, IE Twin linked bolters.

I cant tell at this point if you are actually trolling, because if you are god damn i am impressed, because no one can be this thick to see they are just flat out wrong.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:Bikes would be crippled as i have already pointed out many times

"Bikes would become weaker" =/= "Bikes would be crippled.

the later half of relentless allows them to assault after firing weapons, at rapid fire, so you then gut their shooting if they want to assault.

As I've already pointed out, this would not affect the vast majority of bikes in the game. This wouldn't even affect Eldar Windriders substantially, since they generally aren't used to charge. This would literally only affect space marine bikes, and even then, unless your bike squad is accompanied by Chapter Master Smashfether, how often are you going to be charging with them anyway?

At any rate, again, the fact that they wouldn't be able to charge after using non-assault, non-pistol weapons wouldn't "cripple" space marine bikes. You know what else can't charge after using those kinds of weapons? Everything else in the game that doesn't have relentless and equivalents, INCLUDING OTHER FAST ATTACK OPTIONS IN OTHER CODICES!

No. You're not worried about bikes becoming crippled. You just don't want to give up your unfair advantages.

Point of order. Deathwatch and Chaos Bikes do want to charge, you'd be unfairly restricting them just to take a swat at Codex bikers.

Windriders are unaffected unless they've got scatter lasers since their other options are Assault, but Skyweavers would take a completely unfair hit from this since one of the primary sources of anti-armour in the Harlequin book is their 24"-range Heavy 1 Haywire weapon.

Oh god if we could please reduce the reasons for taking even MORE scatter lasers that would be cool.

Another great example of how OP has no idea what his changes would effect.

 Traditio wrote:

Terminators, because if you honestly think a 200 point unit of 5 wounds, with SB, and not being able to make use of a heavy weapon and their power fists in the same turn is balanced you have no concept of the word.

List building is part of the game. If you want to charge with terminators, and relentless doesn't exist, then you shouldn't equip them with heavy weapons, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER UNIT OPTION IN THE GAME WITHOUT RELENTLESS. It's that simple.

Then give me a way to take a Terminator squad that doesn't have to pay for power fists. And/or fix the *bleep*ing psycannon, taking Relentless away moves it from 'generally unhelpful except on Terminators' to just 'generally unhelpful'.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Terminators, because if you honestly think a 200 point unit of 5 wounds, with SB, and not being able to make use of a heavy weapon and their power fists in the same turn is balanced you have no concept of the word.

List building is part of the game. If you want to charge with terminators, and relentless doesn't exist, then you shouldn't equip them with heavy weapons, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER UNIT OPTION IN THE GAME WITHOUT RELENTLESS. It's that simple.

Then give me a way to take a Terminator squad that doesn't have to pay for power fists. And/or fix the *bleep*ing psycannon, taking Relentless away moves it from 'generally unhelpful except on Terminators' to just 'generally unhelpful'.

This, I run a deathwing army, one of the weakest armies out there right now, if we could not remove relentless and make them pure garbage that would also be great.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
...Oh god if we could please reduce the reasons for taking even MORE scatter lasers that would be cool.

Another great example of how OP has no idea what his changes would effect.

It's actually a reason to take shuriken cannons over scatter lasers, since you'd be able to move-shoot-move with them and you wouldn't be able to with scatter lasers. It's the only positive change I've found that'd result from this.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
...Oh god if we could please reduce the reasons for taking even MORE scatter lasers that would be cool.

Another great example of how OP has no idea what his changes would effect.

It's actually a reason to take shuriken cannons over scatter lasers, since you'd be able to move-shoot-move with them and you wouldn't be able to with scatter lasers. It's the only positive change I've found that'd result from this.

Ugh, still not great but that a whole other issue with the eldar dex and what not.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
...This, I run a deathwing army, one of the weakest armies out there right now, if we could not remove relentless and make them pure garbage that would also be great.

I'd personally love it if my Grey Knights Codex didn't get reduced from "Codex: Dreadknights (and a few other things)" to "Codex: Dreadknights". I haven't finished building a non-terrible-looking alternative model yet.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
...This, I run a deathwing army, one of the weakest armies out there right now, if we could not remove relentless and make them pure garbage that would also be great.

I'd personally love it if my Grey Knights Codex didn't get reduced from "Codex: Dreadknights (and a few other things)" to "Codex: Dreadknights". I haven't finished building a non-terrible-looking alternative model yet.

Right!? honestly i would kill for DW to be on par with paladins at least wound wise. The dread knight is such an ugly unit to, i feel for you in that aspect.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
...Oh god if we could please reduce the reasons for taking even MORE scatter lasers that would be cool.

Another great example of how OP has no idea what his changes would effect.

It's actually a reason to take shuriken cannons over scatter lasers, since you'd be able to move-shoot-move with them and you wouldn't be able to with scatter lasers. It's the only positive change I've found that'd result from this.

Ugh, still not great but that a whole other issue with the eldar dex and what not.

And changing "any Windrider may take a scatter laser or shuriken cannon for +10pts" to "one Windrider per three models in the squad may take a scatter laser or shuriken cannon for +10pts" is a much easier fix that doesn't screw over anyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
...This, I run a deathwing army, one of the weakest armies out there right now, if we could not remove relentless and make them pure garbage that would also be great.

I'd personally love it if my Grey Knights Codex didn't get reduced from "Codex: Dreadknights (and a few other things)" to "Codex: Dreadknights". I haven't finished building a non-terrible-looking alternative model yet.

Right!? honestly i would kill for DW to be on par with paladins at least wound wise. The dread knight is such an ugly unit to, i feel for you in that aspect.

You probably don't want to pay 55ppm for a model that can't get a Storm Shield and has to pay an extra 10pts for a power fist. Two wounds isn't all it's cracked up to be on T4 models with a 5++.

@ Traditio: Actually Skyweavers would become unplayable as they are fragile Jetbikes (for their cost), armed with heavy weapons, who live and die by their movement. Plus this so called "best evar rulez change" would make their pricing combat upgrade worthless.

Currently their main uses are twofold: 1) a source of long ranged anti-tank in an army mostly lacking it; and 2) a source of fast assault with good weapons in an army that otherwise would lack the speed outside of their transport vehicle. No relentless means the expensive Haywire upgrade is worthless and the CC upgrade will never be taken, removing the 2 things this unit is good at and reducing them to a terribly expensive way to get Shuriken Cannons when you could instead take the Transport Vehicle for cheaper to do the exact same thing + transport your squishy troupes.

Fortunately the shuriken cannon is Assault 3, so Skyweavers wouldn't become completely useless (just mostly useless).

To change the core rules to arrive a good enough game balance, you need to cover the core game play with the core rules.This is where 40k fails at the first hurdle.

Change actual core rules so all combat is resolved using 2 resolution methods with about twenty special rules, (reserved for actual for special abilities,) like good war games.

Rather than keep the totally inadequate WHFB based rules with seven resolution methods and over eighty special rules.

Although I disagree that changing to a D10 is necessary.(I would prefer to fully utilize all the values of a D6 first.)

Sorting out the primary resoluiton methods to deliver proportional results should be a priority in any core rules changes.

Of the top of my head, the list of things that would become severely nerfed, or join the likes of Mutilators & Pyrovores.

1. T'au battlesuits with plasma guns equipped, including Farsight himself. Yeah, they're WS2 for the most part, but charging a vindicator with 1 hull left with your S5 relentless jet infantry after ripping off a HP or 2 to finish it of.

2. SM bikes. Biggest "abuser" of relentless. But you do pay extra for that ability. Plus, those attack bikes would be Mutilator Pals if they lost relentless.

3. GK terminators. Currently the book's only reliable way to kill anything with an AV or T>5.

4. Death company. Not as obvious, but being able to give your only real good unit in the BA book a PF/Bolter is nice. The boys in red/black need all the help they can get.

5. Obliterators. The ability to shift your firing position and still dakka at full, either to back away from a tarpit or get a better firing position on their chosen target. No relentless takes most of the wind out of one of the last reason to play CSM.

6. Chaos terminators. They have no way outside of a combi to fire and charge without relentless without taking hilariously over costed heavy weapons

7. Heavy destroyers. Who takes them now anyway? Who would if they couldn't shoot-n-scoot effectively?

8. Tomb Blades: an the tax unit whose only real benefit are the blasts. Which are heavy.

9. Ravenwing. An assault focused army of bikes that pays a premium for what it does. Yes, they're good at what they do, but without relentless they lose most of their bite.

May not seem like many, but again, that's 9 I came up with in a few minutes. I'm sure there are others that have already been mentioned. Many of these are popular units, or really the last decent units in a given codex. We all know grav spam is obnoxious. We all know scatterbikes are OPAF. We all know HP was a stupid hamfisted fix to 5e parking lots. Removing relentless just makes more units worse, and those who doubt care [including scatterbikes!] Will keep doing their thing.

Flow chart if TLDR.
HP added > most vehicles nerfed into oblivion > MC golden age > SM needed a hard counter > grav is the only heavy/special you care about > grav is Salvo so get relentless/S&P > Traditio logic "RELENTLESS OP REMOVE FROM GAME ANYONE WHO DISAGREES IS WRONG"

Edit: autocorrect derps

So let us create a list of everything that gets hurt by removing Relentless and SaP, shall we?
1. Codex Terminators have literally no purpose now and Assault ones remain the only ones to take. You made a unit worse than it already was. Blood Angels go in this category.
2. Deathwing can't use a rule that's built around them (TL on Deep Strike and then running), and they're already more expensive than the unit you ruined!
3. Space Wolf Terminators now can't make use of their heavy weapons OR Combi Weapons!
4. Chaos Terminators suffer the same as Space Wolves but on a worse level.
5. Obliterators literally lose their purpose.
6. Centurions literally lose their purpose.
7. Skitarii suffer, but mostly Rangers, who already had it rough trying to compete with the other choice.
8. Dark reapers become worse.
9. Chaos Bikers suffer supremely. Now they can't take Plasma if they want to charge, which isn't fair.
10. It takes a huge chunk off the bonus for the Decurion, in which it isn't even broken on Warriors, Immortals, and Deathmarks.
11. I don't remember if the Gauss Cannons are listed as Assault or Heavy. If they're Heavy, you destroyed Destroyers.
12. Rubric Marines lose the ability to charge, making them even worse.
13. The Harlequin Jet bikes are equipped with heavy weapons I'm pretty sure.
14. Now Chapter Masters can't call down a Bombardment, which nobody cares about.

So what exactly did you fix?
1. Bikers can't charge after using Grav Guns?
2. Windriders take Shurkien Cannons instead?
3. Mutilators now run?

Did you even think when you came up with that fix? Honestly? This thread is the result of a parent telling their kid they're special and can't do any wrong.

You guys are trying very hard, but it's probably futile.

 Traditio wrote:
This is something that I've been thinking about. It seems to me that if a few core rules were changed, the game would become much more balanced, since most shenanigans seem to revolve around abusing/exploiting a few of the more broken ones. I expect to receive a lot of flakk for this posting, since many of you probably exploit these things. But I think that other people will agree with me that if these changes occurred, the game would become much more balanced.

1. Relentless needs to disappear as a rule. The only things in the game that shouldn't be adversely affected by movement are monstrous creature and vehicles. If this happens, all of a sudden, some of the most broken things in the game disappear. Why? Because some of the most broken things in the game involve combining strong weapons that are adversely affected by movement with...you guessed it...relentless platforms. Chief examples:

A. Grav centurions
B. Eldar jetbikes with scatter lasers.
C. Space marine bikes with grav guns.
D. Space marine chapter masters on bikes or in terminator armor (read: "orbital strike on the move").

The flipside to this is that vehicles would begin to look much more attractive. If your codex's only viable mobile heavy weapons platform is a tank, then guess what's going to look pretty darned good?

As it is, bikes actually compete with tanks as mobile weapons platforms. If anything, they sometimes outshine them. An eldar jetbike can move 12 and then shoot accurately. A tank can only move 6 and then shoot accurately. In my view, that's just ridiculous.

2. Salvo needs to be removed from the game. It's only ever really used in combination with relentless platforms to become an assault weapon/heavy weapon on steroids. Granted, this is mitigated if relentless is removed from the game. But the simple fact is that salvo, as a rule, steps on the toes of rapidfire weapons. It's a stupid rule. It needs to die.

3. Invisibility needs to die in a fire.

4. Rerollable anything needs to die in a fire. Rerollables should be replaced with stat modifiers. Example: instead of the bolter drill allowing rerolls of 1s, just replace that with +1 BS (to a maximum of BS 5). Simple. Easy. And you should always fail on 1s. Period.

5. Not only does random psychic powers need to die in a fire, but we should go back to the way that 5th edition did it. Each psyker has a particular set of codex-specific powers that they can take, and they must choose from that list. Furthermore, those codex-specific powers MUST be resolved in lieu of shooting in the shooting phase.

Say that this is a horrible change, but the simple fact is this: whatever else people may have complained about in 5th edition, I don't see anyone complaining about OP 5th ed. psychic shenanigans.

I'm jumping in late here. For starters, people might be a bit more receptive to your ideas if you phrased your responses a bit more politely, Traditio. You're coming across as very antagonistic.

Suggestions 3 and 5 I can agree with. The rest, I disagree with. I'll try to address these in order of wordiness.

Suggestion 4: What exactly is the problem with rerolls? It's a fairly simple way to play with the math of a given roll. Specific combinations present problematic rerolls (rerollable 2+ invuls, for instance), but I feel that those problematic combos should be addressed individually rather than tossing out a flexible mechanic that most people don't seem to disagree with for the most part. Some rerolls (usually those tied to psychic powers) can be more powerful than others, but that's largely fixed by your suggestion to go back to 5th edition style psychic powers. What specifically do you dislike about rerolls in general? I feel that this suggestion, and several others, are cases of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Suggestion 2: I could see an argument for rapid fire simply being rolled into salvo, but I don't think anything is wrong with salvo itself. Salvo is, in my eyes, actually kind of an interesting mechanic! It presents you with an interesting trade-off between holding still and shooting better or moving around and shooting worse. It makes for an interesting decision, and I don't see any inherent problem with it. Maybe we should get rid of rapid fire instead? Or just keep both since neither rule is especially complicated? I can't help but feel that this is an extension of your dislike for several relentless units.

Suggestion 1: Others have pointed out many of the problems with this suggestion, and I've found your responses to those problems unsatisfactory. As others have pointed out, units like terminators, a unit that is considered very bad in today's games, even worse. When presented with this problem, you responded by saying that they should simply stop taking iconic weapons that are neither overpowered nor contradictory to their fluff. Similarly, obliterators, despite being taken for their firepower and and durability, become somewhat less appealing if they have to spend the entire game standing still and can't fire after deepstriking. Reading through the thread, I can't help but feel that you're being defensive about the fact that people have found fault with a rules proposal that you're fond of. You can downplay the fact that it makes bad units worse, but you are, in fact, making bad units worse unnecessarily.

It seems like your main goal in removing relentless is to nerf bike units. Which is fair to a point. Scatbikes are too good. Certain marine bike armies are annoyingly good. But if your real goal is to nerf bikes, why not simply make suggestions that only nerf bikes rather than hurting units (like terminators and oblits) who don't need to be nerfed right now? Would you agree that terminators and oblits don't need to be nerfed? Would you agree that it's reasonable for a terminator to shoot an assault cannon and assault in the same turn? If so, why not consider some alternatives that nerf the real problem units without hurting others?

For instance, you could restrict eldar jetbikes to 1 heavy weapon per 3 bikes like in previous books (this puts their firepower-to-points ratio roughly on par with vypers)? And perhaps space marine bikers could reasonably suffer a slight points hike? So they'd still be able to shoot guns while on the move and charge in afterwards, but they'd also be fewer in number. Considering that bikes got several bonuses in recent years (easy access to skilled rider, Jink, and Hammer of Wrath), I don't feel that a small points increase would be uncalled for. It would simply render bike armies few in number but possessed of enough durability, mobility, and fire power to make up for those small numbers.

I think a lot of the debate around your proposals boil down to this: You're trying to fix specific problems by making broad changes that have unwanted consequences for other units. When presented with the fact that your changes would hurt other units, you try to dismiss the problems by saying things like, "Oh, that makes terminators worse/punishes them for taking certain options? Well just don't use those options then. My changes are worth punishing underperforming units further."

Martel732 wrote:
You guys are trying very hard, but it's probably futile.

True, but with how wrong OP is and how arrogant he is acting in the face of all this, we really need to drive the point home that his ideas are bad and he should feel bad.

Again D10 system as we have talked about before would fix most of the issues, but again confines of the dice we are limited to.

Ok, I'm going to address the other points, but I think I have a solution to the relentless problem.

What if instead of deleting relentless, it instead read as follows:

"Any model with the relentless special rule may both shoot and charge in the same turn. Furthermore, any model with the relentless special rule may fire up to 1 heavy weapon at full BS if it has moved no more than half of its maximum movement distance in the movement phase. This rule does not affect salvo or ordnance weapons."

Then we could apply relentless to MCs, vehicles, etc., and get rid of the complicated vehicle shooting rules, except to add that vehicles and MCs may indeed use the rule to fire one ordnance weapons at full BS, as an exception, if they've moved 6 inches or less in the movement phase.

What if we just left it alone and started with a few points adjustments first?

The vehicle shooting rules are not complicated. They are, however, not very favorable to vehicles.

Martel732 wrote:
What if we just left it alone and started with a few points adjustments first?

The vehicle shooting rules are not complicated. They are, however, not very favorable to vehicles.

My proposal would actually be a significant buff to vehicles. That means that a rhino could move 12 and shoot its storm bolter at full BS, but an eldar jetbike could move no further than 6 inches and shoot scatter lasers at full BS. It would also get rid of chapter master shenanigans. It would also nerf MCs and completely gut grav shenanigans.

That's not the way to buff vehicles.

Marines need a way to be heroic, and currently, bikes are one big way.

Grav is not a "shenanigan".


Even grav cannons are fair without invisibility and skyhammer.

 Traditio wrote:
Ok, I'm going to address the other points, but I think I have a solution to the relentless problem.

What if instead of deleting relentless, it instead read as follows:

"Any model with the relentless special rule may both shoot and charge in the same turn. Furthermore, any model with the relentless special rule may fire up to 1 heavy weapon at full BS if it has moved no more than half of its maximum movement distance in the movement phase. This rule does not affect salvo or ordnance weapons."

Then we could apply relentless to MCs, vehicles, etc., and get rid of the complicated vehicle shooting rules, except to add that vehicles and MCs may indeed use the rule to fire one ordnance weapons at full BS, as an exception, if they've moved 6 inches or less in the movement phase.

So now terminators move 3 inches and shoot at 12, and bikes move 6 inches
Cents can now only move 3 inches and shoot at half range as well

Congradulation you made slow units even slower and shittier range.

You have also made it so the entire point of a fast attack unit is the same speed as a normal unit shooting at better range as well.

If you could just stop making suggestions that would be great, relentless does not need to be changed.

 Traditio wrote:
Ok, I'm going to address the other points, but I think I have a solution to the relentless problem.

What if instead of deleting relentless, it instead read as follows:

"Any model with the relentless special rule may both shoot and charge in the same turn. Furthermore, any model with the relentless special rule may fire up to 1 heavy weapon at full BS if it has moved no more than half of its maximum movement distance in the movement phase. This rule does not affect salvo or ordnance weapons."

Then we could apply relentless to MCs, vehicles, etc., and get rid of the complicated vehicle shooting rules, except to add that vehicles and MCs may indeed use the rule to fire one ordnance weapons at full BS, as an exception, if they've moved 6 inches or less in the movement phase.

I'm afraid this doesn't really work either. As has been pointed out, this means things like terminators would now move 3" a turn which is hardly better than holding still. My wraith lords are slow enough as is without being punished for firing their weapons. :(

What is the specific goal of your changes to relentless? If you want to nerf bikes, let's talk about nerfing bikes (or simply raising their points) in a way that doesn't hurt other units. If you want to buff vehicles and simplify their rules, let's have a conversation about that. I still feel that trying to mess around with relentless is an indirect way of accomplishing what you're probably really going for.

Wyldhunt wrote:
What is the specific goal of your changes to relentless? If you want to nerf bikes, let's talk about nerfing bikes (or simply raising their points) in a way that doesn't hurt other units. If you want to buff vehicles and simplify their rules, let's have a conversation about that. I still feel that trying to mess around with relentless is an indirect way of accomplishing what you're probably really going for.

Alternatively, if you want to remove Relentless from certain units, let's talk about removing them from certain units.

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What if we just left it alone and started with a few points adjustments first?

The vehicle shooting rules are not complicated. They are, however, not very favorable to vehicles.

My proposal would actually be a significant buff to vehicles. That means that a rhino could move 12 and shoot its storm bolter at full BS, but an eldar jetbike could move no further than 6 inches and shoot scatter lasers at full BS. It would also get rid of chapter master shenanigans. It would also nerf MCs and completely gut grav shenanigans.

Vehicle rules need to be burned down and redone from scratch.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What if we just left it alone and started with a few points adjustments first?

The vehicle shooting rules are not complicated. They are, however, not very favorable to vehicles.

My proposal would actually be a significant buff to vehicles. That means that a rhino could move 12 and shoot its storm bolter at full BS, but an eldar jetbike could move no further than 6 inches and shoot scatter lasers at full BS. It would also get rid of chapter master shenanigans. It would also nerf MCs and completely gut grav shenanigans.

Vehicle rules need to be burned down and redone from scratch.

Or just go back to 5th ed rules and fix transports from being op

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What if we just left it alone and started with a few points adjustments first?

The vehicle shooting rules are not complicated. They are, however, not very favorable to vehicles.

My proposal would actually be a significant buff to vehicles. That means that a rhino could move 12 and shoot its storm bolter at full BS, but an eldar jetbike could move no further than 6 inches and shoot scatter lasers at full BS. It would also get rid of chapter master shenanigans. It would also nerf MCs and completely gut grav shenanigans.

Vehicle rules need to be burned down and redone from scratch.

Or just go back to 5th ed rules and fix transports from being op

Eh... I didn't particularly enjoy stun-locking vehicles all game without being able to kill them. Even the non-transports. I kind of like the (frequently seen) suggestion that vehicles basically be treated like other units, giving them a toughness value, wounds, an armor save, and a "mechanical" rule that makes them immune to poison but susceptible to haywire and so forth. But that's something that we should probably discuss in a different thread.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
What is the specific goal of your changes to relentless? If you want to nerf bikes, let's talk about nerfing bikes (or simply raising their points) in a way that doesn't hurt other units. If you want to buff vehicles and simplify their rules, let's have a conversation about that. I still feel that trying to mess around with relentless is an indirect way of accomplishing what you're probably really going for.

Alternatively, if you want to remove Relentless from certain units, let's talk about removing them from certain units.

A very valid point.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Eh... I didn't particularly enjoy stun-locking vehicles all game without being able to kill them. Even the non-transports. I kind of like the (frequently seen) suggestion that vehicles basically be treated like other units, giving them a toughness value, wounds, an armor save, and a "mechanical" rule that makes them immune to poison but susceptible to haywire and so forth. But that's something that we should probably discuss in a different thread.

Indeed. As you said, it is probably best in another thread, but I do like the Hull Point system and the Glancing v Penetrating system, I just think they got it backwards and/or didn't include enough Hull Points for most Vehicles (let's face it, a Trukk is not designed to take hits like a Predator), especially with auto-Glancing rules like Gauss, Graviton, and Haywire being proliferated. I think that both Glancing and Penetrating Hits should roll on the Table, but only Penetrating Hits cause an automatic Hull Point loss or Explodes result. And I think that it was better with 6th's table, as well. A 6+ on the Glancing table would just be a Hull Point loss, but Explodes on a Penetrating Hit.

In a way, this could fix Graviton for Vehicles, too. Just have it work as an Immobilized Result on a 5 or 6+, and you don't have to worry about it doing such ridiculous damage scaling. First Immobilizes, and the rest just start stripping Hull Points.

But again, that's just my thoughts on it. Getting Vehicles in to the Toughness race takes all the characteristic stuff from the VDT out of the game and that would be a loss. It would make things mostly simpler all around, but if you wanted simple, 40K isn't the game you should be playing in the first place.

Because I can't be bothered going through three pages and addressing every single relevant point, let me take a minute to consider the original points, proposals, and comments:

 Traditio wrote:
It seems to me that if a few core rules were changed, the game would become much more balanced, since most shenanigans seem to revolve around abusing/exploiting a few of the more broken ones.

Why is it that when a lot of people (including yourself) say that they are going to 'Fix the Core Rules', they end up looking at a very finite set of rules? Curious that...


With regards to the first point about Relentless, I think that's been covered well enough by others.

 Traditio wrote:
2. Salvo needs to be removed from the game. It's only ever really used in combination with relentless platforms to become an assault weapon/heavy weapon on steroids. Granted, this is mitigated if relentless is removed from the game. But the simple fact is that salvo, as a rule, steps on the toes of rapidfire weapons. It's a stupid rule. It needs to die.

Not at all. If anything, Rapid Fire is just a special case of 'Salvo' in much the same way that a square is a special case of the rectangle. The only error I see with Salvo weapons is using it to make weapons ridiculously powerful (e.g. your favourite weapon - the Grav Cannon - being Salvo 3/5 IIRC).

 Traditio wrote:
3. Invisibility needs to die in a fire.

This is a tricky one mainly because of this:

Yes it is a powerful Psykic Power, but in my experience it's how the powers are used. For example, I have seen the 'Hallucination' power used more effectively more often than 'Invisibility'. With that in mind, I think what you're looking for is a rework of Psykic Powers.

 Traditio wrote:
4. Rerollable anything needs to die in a fire. Rerollables should be replaced with stat modifiers. Example: instead of the bolter drill allowing rerolls of 1s, just replace that with +1 BS (to a maximum of BS 5). Simple. Easy. And you should always fail on 1s. Period.

Again, Re-rolls are not a bad mechanic in and of itself. It's when it gets abused that is the problem. For example: 3x TL Lascannons? That's reasonable. 15x shots from 3x stationary Grac Cannons getting re-rolls because of Grav Amps? No thanks. It just needs to be toned down, not removed.

 Traditio wrote:
5. Not only does random psychic powers need to die in a fire, but we should go back to the way that 5th edition did it. Each psyker has a particular set of codex-specific powers that they can take, and they must choose from that list. Furthermore, those codex-specific powers MUST be resolved in lieu of shooting in the shooting phase.

If you could flesh this idea out properly, I could get behind this idea. Being a BT player: Not only would I like to see this idea fleshed out in great detail, but I'd like to see what you think this means for the opposite side (i.e. Denying the Witch)..

My idea for powers is this.

Cast the number equal to your mastery, pass on a leadership check modified by the warp charge level

IE primas casts on a ld check of 10(assuming your caster is Ld 10)

Warp charge one cast on a LD 9
Warp charge two on ld 8
Warp charge three on ld7

Then to deny you need to "fail" a ld check result modified by your mastery leave above or below the caster

Is if I had a primas case as a level 2 caster, and you are a level one caster, you need to roll a 12 if you are level 2 11 or 12

If I cast a warp charge 3 pass on a 7 or less you deny on a 8 or more as an equal leave caster

The system allows you to get easie spells off, well, eaiser( while making them harder to deny while also making harder spells harder to make yet eaiser to deny.

It would pretty well and sped things up we came up with it on the fly so we still need to work out things like physic hoods and such

 Backspacehacker wrote:
My idea for powers is this.

Cast the number equal to your mastery, pass on a leadership check modified by the warp charge level

IE primas casts on a ld check of 10(assuming your caster is Ld 10)

Warp charge one cast on a LD 9
Warp charge two on ld 8
Warp charge three on ld7

Then to deny you need to "fail" a ld check result modified by your mastery leave above or below the caster

Is if I had a primas case as a level 2 caster, and you are a level one caster, you need to roll a 12 if you are level 2 11 or 12

If I cast a warp charge 3 pass on a 7 or less you deny on a 8 or more as an equal leave caster

The system allows you to get easie spells off, well, eaiser( while making them harder to deny while also making harder spells harder to make yet eaiser to deny.

It would pretty well and sped things up we came up with it on the fly so we still need to work out things like physic hoods and such

I would recommend that a enemy psyker can deny any power who's target or caster is within 12" of them. Which means they can deny buffs, and makes psyker positioning important for boosting defenses against powers. Psychic hoods can increase that range by 6".

I want to understand the Deny better.

So a ML 2 psyker casts whatever.

A ML 1, ld 10, psyker attempts to deny.

So if their mastery level was equal it would be a 11+ that denied.. but because he is weaker he -1 from his test result... effectively needing a 12 to deny? This is further modified by the mastery level of the spell. +3 to deny result and -3 to cast result for a 3 Warp Charge power.


The only problem here is a lower leadership model actually has a higher chance to Deny the Witch. A Deny roll would have to be a default of 10ld... or more correctly 2d6-ML+WC cost.11+ to succeed

IllumiNini wrote:Again, Re-rolls are not a bad mechanic in and of itself. It's when it gets abused that is the problem. For example: 3x TL Lascannons? That's reasonable. 15x shots from 3x stationary Grac Cannons getting re-rolls because of Grav Amps? No thanks. It just needs to be toned down, not removed.

Rerolls are unnecessary at best and game-breaking at worst.

Do the math. 12 TL lascannons (by current rules) at BS 4:

12 X 2/3 = 8 hits; 4 misses
4 X 2/3 = 8/3 hits, 4/3 misses
Total: 10 2/3 hits

12 TL lascannons, assuming that TL conferred a +1 BS mod:

12 X 5/6 = 60/6 = 10 hits

2/3s of a hit. That's the difference. That's it. You're wasting all of that time, and you're opening up the game to all kinds of broken bullgak, for 2/3s of a hit every 12th shot, assuming BS 4.

You want to try BS 3?

12 TL lascannon shots at BS 3, assuming current rules:

12/1 X 1/2 = 6 hits, 6 misses
6/1 X 1/2 = 3 hits, 3 misses
9 shots total

12 TL lascannon shots at BS 3, assuming my rules change:

12/1 X 2/3 = 24/3
8 shots total.

1 shot per 12 TL shots. One. You're wasting all of that time re-rolling things and allowing game-breaking combinations for 1 extra shot in 12.

Is it really worth it?

Let's even go with BS 1:

BS 1 twin linked, 12 shots:

12/1 X 1/6 = 2 hits, 10 misses
10/1 X 1/6 = 10/6 hits, 50/6 misses

Result: 3 2/3 hits

BS 2, 12 shots:

12/1 X 1/3 = 12/3
4 hits.

It's a difference of 1/3 of a hit every 12 shots.

The only time it matters:

1. When we are dealing with 2+ rerollables. And feth 2+ rerollables.
2. When using a weapon with the Gets Hot! special rule. And fact is, blast weapons with the Gets Hot! special rule don't get to reroll anyway. so why should non-blast weapons get it?

If you could flesh this idea out properly, I could get behind this idea. Being a BT player: Not only would I like to see this idea fleshed out in great detail, but I'd like to see what you think this means for the opposite side (i.e. Denying the Witch)..

Very simple:

Make the psychic test a basic leadership test. Specify in advance that each psyker may use x number of powers per shooting phase. Rework all psychic powers so that you are no better or worse off for using a psychic power than for using a shooting attack or running. Give a one page, codex specific list of psychic powers for each army. You then pick whichever psychic powers you want, up to the number of psychic powers that each psyker can know.

Naturally, some psykers would come with powers that they automatically know.

I suppose you could have slightly stronger psychic powers, assuming appropriate restrictions: "You must exhaust two chances to use a psychic power and pass two separate leadership tests to harness this power."

And then simply remove the deny the witch roll, except for model/unit specific cases.

Again, it would improve game balance and make the game go much faster.

Your not even taking to wound or armor saves into account when you are doing your math.

Lets just say for gaks and giggle we are going up again MEQ.

And now lets say we have a squad of terminators that deep strike on them with twinlinked storm bolters (On deep strike they are twin linked)

So for benefit of the doubt lets round up

10 bolter shots twin linked

10 *2/3 = 6.6666 -> 7
3 misses
3*2/3 = 2

9 hits total

to wound on a toughness 4, needs 4s

9*2/3 = 6 wounds

Marines save of a 3+

thats 3 wounds unsaved not counting things like FNP which is highly possible in today's games

Besides you example is hardly even tangible, if your getting shot at something that has 12 TW Laz cannon, your are fighting a Death start and its doing its job.

Hell lets even now assume thats being shot at MEQ, thats 12*2/3 = 8
4*2/3 = 2.666-> 3
11 hits

again we can say to wound is going to be on 2s

11*5/6 = 9.1666 -> 9

now your marines are going to get cover saves, of 4+ because if you are in the open, you dont have any real right to complain because you are not playing right by leaving yourself in the open with a unit with 12 TL Laz cannons running around. so still 4+ cover save

9*2/3 = 6 wounds

if you go to ground +1 to that save

9/2 = 5 wounds.

So even though YES you are getting 11 hits, that still, if we assume perfect rolling statistics, you are only going to get 6 wounds if you are in ruins.

TL is not the problem. You are asking for it to be removed, but you are basing your entire logic here off of a unit that has 12 TL laz canons which wtf are you fighting with that, and on top of that you are not even counting wounds or saves.

So again, you are trying to make arguments for rules you dont even understand, and are to lazy to even flush out the full run down of those hits, wounds, and saves.

I think he's arguing that it's more complicated for little-to-no benefit.

But it's not that much more complicated-it's pretty basic statistics.

Edit: Also, how would Twin-Linked work on Overwatch? Is it still +1 BS? Does that work against fliers? What if I have Bolter Drill and Twin-Linked? Or Bolter Drill, Twin-Linked, and PE? Do I get BS 4 Snap Shots?

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Your not even taking to wound or armor saves into account when you are doing your math.

TL doesn't directly affect armor saves or to wound rolls. That's why I didn't take it into account. This is not rocket science.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think he's arguing that it's more complicated for little-to-no benefit.

But it's not that much more complicated-it's pretty basic statistics.

Edit: Also, how would Twin-Linked work on Overwatch? Is it still +1 BS? Does that work against fliers? What if I have Bolter Drill and Twin-Linked? Or Bolter Drill, Twin-Linked, and PE? Do I get BS 4 Snap Shots?

You seem to have missed this.

 Traditio wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Your not even taking to wound or armor saves into account when you are doing your math.

TL doesn't directly affect armor saves or to wound rolls. That's why I didn't take it into account. This is not rocket science.

But you cant bitch about twin linked before you even go though all of your wounds and saves Thats sill math to be taken into account, and needs to be taken into account.

Again, your example is wimsical, who the hell is running around with 12 TL laz cannons? Because if a single unit is getting shot with 12 TL laz cannons, your opponent wants them dead one way or another.

Again, like everyone has been saying your ideas of "Fixing" the rules only break more units or make units worse. This will not actually fix anything.

Your lack of understanding of the rules clouds your judgement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think he's arguing that it's more complicated for little-to-no benefit.

But it's not that much more complicated-it's pretty basic statistics.

Edit: Also, how would Twin-Linked work on Overwatch? Is it still +1 BS? Does that work against fliers? What if I have Bolter Drill and Twin-Linked? Or Bolter Drill, Twin-Linked, and PE? Do I get BS 4 Snap Shots?

You seem to have missed this.

Was that toward me or him? Because his system is more complicated then TL is now and one thing 40k does not need is more modifiers to rules.

gak snap shotting at a 4+ what would that do to the lions blade strike force that over watches at full BS, now i would be hitting on 2s? lol

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think he's arguing that it's more complicated for little-to-no benefit.

It's not just more complicated. It's more time consuming. If you have a TL dakkafex, I have to wait for you to roll 12 dice. I then have to wait for you to count out how many 1s, 2s and 3s you got. I then have to wait for you to reroll those. I then have to wait for you to count up the 1s, 2s and 3s and remove those. I then have to wait for you to to add the result of the 4s, 5s and 6s you just got to the 4s, 5s and 6s that you already rolled. I then have to wait for you to roll to wound.

If TL just added +1 BS, I'd have to wait for you to roll 12 dice, remove the 1s and the 2s, and then roll to wound.

And it's not just "little to no benefit." That's the BEST case scenario.

The more serious result is OP cheese like 2+ rerollables.

Edit: Also, how would Twin-Linked work on Overwatch? Is it still +1 BS?

Yes. It's so statistically insignificant that it wouldn't even matter all that much.

Does that work against fliers?

Yes.

What if I have Bolter Drill and Twin-Linked?

How do they interact now? Yes, I understand that rules which specifically say "reroll 1s" would get somewhat more of a more significant buff, but I don't think it would be significant enough to justify having both sets of rules.

r Bolter Drill, Twin-Linked, and PE? Do I get BS 4 Snap Shots?

You don't get that now! Twin-linked simply overrides the others in those cases currently. I'm suggesting an even greater simplification.

"Regardless of the rule, you get +1 to BS (or whatever other stat). These benefits do not stack. Period."

But how do we know which rules overwrite others? Preferred Enemy rerolls ones, Hatred rerolls all hits, Master-Crafted lets you reroll one hit... What if I have all three of those?

And why would they overwrite each other? It's pretty clear how they interact in the BRB normally-you only ever reroll a die once, so Twin-Linked, Bolter Drill, and PE cannot stack. But under your system, they're just modifiers.

Also, my captain (BS 5) with a Twin-Linked Bolter (BS 6), Bolter Drill (BS 7) and PE (from joining a Skitarii Squad with a Warlord, BS 8) is now absolutely no better at shooting than a bog-standard captain (BS 5).

This system for twinlinked im sorry kid, is dumb, and one of the stupidest rule suggestions, you are trying to make a system more complicated then it needs to be to effect nothing, and in turn making over watch more powerful.

Reroll misses a hell of a lot simpler then +1 to your BS skill

What even has a 2+ rerollable thats not a jink? Is there eldar tom foolery that does that? because i have never run into it.

If all this stems form bikes, which looking over your entire thread here these all seems to be stemming for a saltyness about bikes then you are playing against a bike army wrong. Template weapons, and GG bike armies, which is the only thing that can easily access 2+ rerollable jink.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But how do we know which rules overwrite others? Preferred Enemy rerolls ones, Hatred rerolls all hits, Master-Crafted lets you reroll one hit... What if I have all three of those?

And why would they overwrite each other? It's pretty clear how they interact in the BRB normally-you only ever reroll a die once, so Twin-Linked, Bolter Drill, and PE cannot stack. But under your system, they're just modifiers.

Also, my captain (BS 5) with a Twin-Linked Bolter (BS 6), Bolter Drill (BS 7) and PE (from joining a Skitarii Squad with a Warlord, BS 8) is now absolutely no better at shooting than a bog-standard captain (BS 5).

Again this is because OP has no concept of how rules interact with one another.

I honestly bet OP is a pissed off kid who went up against a bike army, got wrecked, and decided to come to Dakka and talk about how great his changes are and would balances everything, by nerfing bikes.

Oh, and PE on 12 BS 3 Lascannons nets you 7 hits, by the way. (About.)

So you just nerfed Twin-Linked and buffed Preferred Enemy. To make them the exact same rule.

How does that work in Close Combat, by the way? Preferred Enemy, Shred, Hatred, Master-Crafted...

 JNAProductions wrote:
But how do we know which rules overwrite others?

I think that this would actually be pretty easy. Preferred enemy (x) would read: "Add +1 to your ballistic skill when firing against an enemy model of the type (x). When resolving the to-wound roll of a shooting attack against an enemy model of the type (x), you succeed at wounding on a roll of 1 less than you otherwise would have needed. This cannot cause instant death. In close combat, resolve to hit rolls as 1 better than it would have otherwise been against an enemy model of the type x. When resolving the to-wound roll of a close combat attack of an enemy model of the type (x),you succeed at wounding on a roll of 1 less than you otherwise would have needed. Any such roll cannot be improved, by this or by any other rule, by more than 1. This rule cannot be used to cause a reroll."

Or some such thing.

Preferred Enemy rerolls ones, Hatred rerolls all hits, Master-Crafted lets you reroll one hit... What if I have all three of those?

PE and Hatred would both increase the stat by 1, but would not stack with each other or with master crafted. Master-crafted would increase the stat used for one roll by 1, but would not stack with the others.

And why would they overwrite each other?

In order to obtain roughly the same effect as now, except minus the cheese.

Also, my captain (BS 5) with a Twin-Linked Bolter (BS 6), Bolter Drill (BS 7) and PE (from joining a Skitarii Squad with a Warlord, BS 8) is now absolutely no better at shooting than a bog-standard captain (BS 5).

That is correct. I don't see this as problematic.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Oh, and PE on 12 BS 3 Lascannons nets you 7 hits, by the way. (About.)

So you just nerfed Twin-Linked and buffed Preferred Enemy. To make them the exact same rule.

How does that work in Close Combat, by the way? Preferred Enemy, Shred, Hatred, Master-Crafted...

Good point, now we need to talk about that too

You have shred, master crafted, digital weapons.

you.....you dont see how a BS 8 captain is the same as a BS 5 captain....in what world do you live in.

So now anything above BS 5 is worthless, and your gonna say that with a straight face.

There is a big problem with that, so waht does that BS 8 on assasins do for them now? they are no different from BS 5 models.

What happens to cypher? whos whole character is being BS10, no gets hot, now he is the same as a BS5 marine but costs 190 points.

 Traditio wrote:
Preferred enemy (x) would read: "Add +1 to your ballistic skill when firing against an enemy model of the type (x). When resolving the to-wound roll of a shooting against an enemy model of the type (x), you succeed at wounding on a roll of 1 less than you otherwise would have needed. This cannot cause instant death. In close combat, resolve to hit rolls as 1 better than it would have otherwise been against an enemy model of the type x. When resolving the to-wound roll of a close combat attack of an enemy model of the type (x),you succeed at wounding on a roll of 1 less than you otherwise would have needed. Any such roll cannot be improved, by this or by any other rule, by more than 1. This rule cannot be used to cause a reroll."

Do you... Do you not see how that's a LOT more complicated than "Reroll ones when rolling to-hit and to-wound"?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Preferred enemy (x) would read: "Add +1 to your ballistic skill when firing against an enemy model of the type (x). When resolving the to-wound roll of a shooting against an enemy model of the type (x), you succeed at wounding on a roll of 1 less than you otherwise would have needed. This cannot cause instant death. In close combat, resolve to hit rolls as 1 better than it would have otherwise been against an enemy model of the type x. When resolving the to-wound roll of a close combat attack of an enemy model of the type (x),you succeed at wounding on a roll of 1 less than you otherwise would have needed. Any such roll cannot be improved, by this or by any other rule, by more than 1. This rule cannot be used to cause a reroll."

Do you... Do you not see how that's a LOT more complicated than "Reroll ones when rolling to-hit and to-wound"?

It's more complicated in phrasing, but less complicated in practice.

Because all I'm really saying is: "Hey, you know that 3 you would have needed? You need a 2 now. No, you can't make that 2 smaller. Period."

 Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Preferred enemy (x) would read: "Add +1 to your ballistic skill when firing against an enemy model of the type (x). When resolving the to-wound roll of a shooting against an enemy model of the type (x), you succeed at wounding on a roll of 1 less than you otherwise would have needed. This cannot cause instant death. In close combat, resolve to hit rolls as 1 better than it would have otherwise been against an enemy model of the type x. When resolving the to-wound roll of a close combat attack of an enemy model of the type (x),you succeed at wounding on a roll of 1 less than you otherwise would have needed. Any such roll cannot be improved, by this or by any other rule, by more than 1. This rule cannot be used to cause a reroll."

Do you... Do you not see how that's a LOT more complicated than "Reroll ones when rolling to-hit and to-wound"?

It's more complicated in phrasing, but less complicated in practice.

Because all I'm really saying is: "Hey, you know that 3 you would have needed? You need a 2 now. No, you can't make that 2 smaller. Period."

No its not

You have spent the last 2 pages trying to explain it, and make it work every time we bring something up and your saying it still less complicated then, reroll misses.

So now PE is absolutely useless when you needed 2s before. So you just took the MOST USEFUL part of PE and made it useless. That's a massively radical change for basically no benefit.

Backspacehacker wrote:No its not

Yes it is.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So now PE is absolutely useless when you needed 2s before. So you just took the MOST USEFUL part of PE and made it useless. That's a massively radical change for basically no benefit.

Its talking to a brick wall man, the kid wants to live in his own little bubble of "Muh super simple rules that over write rules," is better then current tl rule

 JNAProductions wrote:
So now PE is absolutely useless when you needed 2s before. So you just took the MOST USEFUL part of PE and made it useless. That's a massively radical change for basically no benefit.

I fully admit that what I'm proposing would nerf 2+ rerollables.

That's the point.

 Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:No its not

Yes it is.

Ok, then in one post, write the rule, as if it was in the rule book. Go, nothing more nothing less.

Oh, also, PE is now crazily more useful when you needed 6s, because you just DOUBLED your chances of Hitting/Wounding. Whereas normally, it would increase your chances by (1/6 chance of rolling a 1, then 1/6 chance of a 6) 1/36th, for a total of 7/36th.

Also, how does that interact with "Only on 6s"? My Skitarii often have PE thanks to Warlord, and their Rad Carbines do bonus wounds on 6s. Do they get that on 5s with PE?

Backspacehacker wrote:Ok, then in one post, write the rule, as if it was in the rule book. Go, nothing more nothing less.

You're not grasping the phrasing vs. practice distinction. Even if it takes me an entire page to explain it, the practice isn't necessarily more complicated.

Because, again, what I'm saying ultimately boils down to:

You need 1 less on your roll. You cannot get better than 1 less on your roll. You cannot reroll.

I think that both of you fully understand what I mean. That's why you in particular are displaying such vitriol against the idea.

 Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:Ok, then in one post, write the rule, as if it was in the rule book. Go, nothing more nothing less.

You're not grasping the phrasing vs. practice distinction. Even if it takes me an entire page to explain it, the practice isn't necessarily more complicated.

Because, again, what I'm saying ultimately boils down to:

You need 1 less on your roll. You cannot get better than 1 less on your roll. You cannot reroll.

I think that both of you fully understand what I mean. That's why you in particular are displaying such vitriol against the idea.

So you want to make a rule that you cant even write out yourself?

We understand, and we are pointing out how this "fix" gets more and more complicated as we go on, because of other rules, this one rule change would need to change every other rule


All this compaired to the current rules

<special rule that allows reroll of to hit/to wound>

may never re-roll the same dice more then once per to hit and to wound phase.

Thats the current rules, short sweet and to the point.

How does this interact if you normally can't wound? Can PE Bolters now hurt a Wraithknight?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Oh, also, PE is now crazily more useful when you needed 6s, because you just DOUBLED your chances of Hitting/Wounding.

Do you think that this would be game-breaking? In practice, would this actually be a significant issue?

Understand, JNA, that there are tradeoffs. Yes, it means that PE becomes stronger for things that need 5s and 6s. But it also removes 2+ rerollables.

I think that's a darned good trade off.

Also, how does that interact with "Only on 6s"? My Skitarii often have PE thanks to Warlord, and their Rad Carbines do bonus wounds on 6s. Do they get that on 5s with PE?

It wouldn't interact at all. If you want to deal bonus wounds, then roll 6s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
How does this interact if you normally can't wound? Can PE Bolters now hurt a Wraithknight?

No.

So, as part of your proposed changes, you want to make PE Overwatch twice as effective as regular Overwatch. My Skitarii Vanguard thank you!

(I don't. Assault is already weak enough without making Overwatch more powerful, which your changes do.)

Edit: And why can't they? Following the logical progression, they would need to roll 7s to wound, so +1 to that would be 6s. It makes sense.

 Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Oh, also, PE is now crazily more useful when you needed 6s, because you just DOUBLED your chances of Hitting/Wounding.

Do you think that this would be game-breaking? In practice, would this actually be a significant issue?

Understand, JNA, that there are tradeoffs. Yes, it means that PE becomes stronger for things that need 5s and 6s. But it also removes 2+ rerollables.

I think that's a darned good trade off.

Also, how does that interact with "Only on 6s"? My Skitarii often have PE thanks to Warlord, and their Rad Carbines do bonus wounds on 6s. Do they get that on 5s with PE?

It wouldn't interact at all. If you want to deal bonus wounds, then roll 6s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
How does this interact if you normally can't wound? Can PE Bolters now hurt a Wraithknight?

No.

Its not a good trade off when you need to rewrite all the rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, as part of your proposed changes, you want to make PE Overwatch twice as effective as regular Overwatch. My Skitarii Vanguard thank you!

(I don't. Assault is already weak enough without making Overwatch more powerful, which your changes do.)

Edit: And why can't they? Following the logical progression, they would need to roll 7s to wound, so +1 to that would be 6s. It makes sense.

Totally, i mean, bolters can wound wraithknights under his logic, sounds great to me man.

I'd agree-you're proposing what's essentially a rewrite of the entire rules... Without actually fixing a darn thing.

If you want to do a complete rewrite, more power to you! That's a great idea! Just actually put effort in.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd agree-you're proposing what's essentially a rewrite of the entire rules... Without actually fixing a darn thing.

If you want to do a complete rewrite, more power to you! That's a great idea! Just actually put effort in.

Not half assed, make it up as you go along and as we point out the issues.

JNAProductions wrote:Edit: And why can't they? Following the logical progression, they would need to roll 7s to wound, so +1 to that would be 6s. It makes sense.

If you look at the chart, there's no 7+ on the to-wound table. If you have an S4 weapon that you're using against a T7 creature, you don't actually roll to wound because you can't wound.

Sure, you can roll a die for the lols. But that's not a game mechanic.

At any rate, I don't see the BS2 overwatch thing as a problem. Compared to the actually OP overwatch shenanigans (here's looking at the Tau and Dark Angels), BS2 overwatch seems pretty tame, doesn't it?

...

Dark Angels are the ones with BS 2 Overwatch currently.

And you can wound T7 with S4.

Do you not know the rules?

 Traditio wrote:

JNAProductions wrote:Edit: And why can't they? Following the logical progression, they would need to roll 7s to wound, so +1 to that would be 6s. It makes sense.

If you look at the chart, there's no 7+ on the to-wound table. If you have an S4 weapon that you're using against a T7 creature, you don't actually roll to wound because you can't wound.

Sure, you can roll a die for the lols. But that's not a game mechanic.

At any rate, I don't see the BS2 overwatch thing as a problem. Compared to the actually OP overwatch shenanigans (here's looking at the Tau and Dark Angels), BS2 overwatch seems pretty tame, doesn't it?

except you now made dark angels even better at over watching.

Dark angles ALL have grim resloves meaning i over watch at BS 2, with your system its gets a +1 which means im over watching at BS 3. if i take a battle demi company, i get to over watch at BS 4. If i take a lions blade strike force i get to overwatch at BS 5, better then my normal shooting.

So sure, thanks for making my overwatching army even better, and infact, it now is better for me to HOPE i get charged.

 JNAProductions wrote:
...

Dark Angels are the ones with BS 2 Overwatch currently.

And you can wound T7 with S4.

Do you not know the rules?

No, tradito does not. Multiple times he's started threads complaining about problems with rules that actually weren't a problem if had read the rules

This thread has gotten hilarious to read.

Traditio, do you not see that everyone has a problem with every one of your fleshed out ideas?

If there is any vitriol coming at your ideas it's because you seem to ignore every single argument against them. People present you with examples, logical arguments, even proof via algebraic equations that show how your ideas are indisputably worse then the game is now.

You blow it all off and just tell them they don't understand. I don't wish their frustration with you on them. But damn is it entertaining to watch reasonable people try to argue with a wall. Sorry JNA and Backspace, but I would just give up at this point.

 JNAProductions wrote:
...

Dark Angels are the ones with BS 2 Overwatch currently.

And you can wound T7 with S4.

Do you not know the rules?

Yeah my dude, S4 wounds T7 on a 6....

 JNAProductions wrote:
...

Dark Angels are the ones with BS 2 Overwatch currently.

And you can wound T7 with S4.

Do you not know the rules?

1. I mis-spoke when I said T7. I likely had T3 in mind. To be clear:

If you compare T4 to T8, there's not a number in the chart.

2. Check out the Lions Blade Strike Force for DA. Full BS overwatch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backspacehacker wrote:except you now made dark angels even better at over watching.

Dark angles ALL have grim resloves meaning i over watch at BS 2, with your system its gets a +1 which means im over watching at BS 3. if i take a battle demi company, i get to over watch at BS 4. If i take a lions blade strike force i get to overwatch at BS 5, better then my normal shooting.

So sure, thanks for making my overwatching army even better, and infact, it now is better for me to HOPE i get charged.

This isn't a problem with replacing PE with a +1 stat mod. This is a problem with dark angels. DA are OP.

 Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
...

Dark Angels are the ones with BS 2 Overwatch currently.

And you can wound T7 with S4.

Do you not know the rules?

1. I mis-spoke when I said T7. I likely had T3 in mind. To be clear:

If you compare T4 to T8, there's not a number in the chart.

2. Check out the Lions Blade Strike Force for DA. Full BS overwatch.

Which in your system now lets me get a +1 to over watch now right? So im going to be firing BS 5 in over watch, thats on average going to be 16 bolter shots hitting on 2s

Damn man, i totally wanna use this system now and fight orks or nids and watch them cry.

Please stop accusing things of being OP. I've seen what you consider a TAC list-you pretty clearly do not have much of an idea what OP is.

 Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
...

Dark Angels are the ones with BS 2 Overwatch currently.

And you can wound T7 with S4.

Do you not know the rules?

1. I mis-spoke when I said T7. I likely had T3 in mind. To be clear:

If you compare T4 to T8, there's not a number in the chart.

2. Check out the Lions Blade Strike Force for DA. Full BS overwatch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backspacehacker wrote:except you now made dark angels even better at over watching.

Dark angles ALL have grim resloves meaning i over watch at BS 2, with your system its gets a +1 which means im over watching at BS 3. if i take a battle demi company, i get to over watch at BS 4. If i take a lions blade strike force i get to overwatch at BS 5, better then my normal shooting.

So sure, thanks for making my overwatching army even better, and infact, it now is better for me to HOPE i get charged.

This isn't a problem with replacing PE with a +1 stat mod. This is a problem with dark angels. DA are OP.

They are OP because your rules just made them OP, being able to overwatch at BS 5. lol good job breaking my army for me ha

 JNAProductions wrote:
Please stop accusing things of being OP. I've seen what you consider a TAC list-you pretty clearly do not have much of an idea what OP is.

You don't consider 3+ rerollable jinks, free transports and BS 4 overwatch as OP?

I mean, I could start talking about more, but let's start there.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Please stop accusing things of being OP. I've seen what you consider a TAC list-you pretty clearly do not have much of an idea what OP is.

This, you wanna see an OP Dark angels army? i can show you an OP dark angels army thats going to make you cry and rage quit, and it wont even have anything to do with twin linked.

Backspacehacker wrote:They are OP because your rules just made them OP, being able to overwatch at BS 5. lol good job breaking my army for me ha

My rules didn't make them OP. They're OP as is.

 Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Please stop accusing things of being OP. I've seen what you consider a TAC list-you pretty clearly do not have much of an idea what OP is.

You don't consider 3+ rerollable jinks, free transports and BS 4 overwatch as OP?

I mean, I could start talking about more, but let's start there.

3+ Rerollable Jinks? Nah, just kill 'em in Close Combat or use Template weapons.

Free Transports and BS 4 Overwatch are powerful, and I would consider them probably top tier along with Space Marines. The Lion's Blade is something you should not bring to a casual game, I'd agree on that. But Dark Angels in general? Not overpowered. Powerful-but not too much so. Lion's Blade could use a nerf, but that's a very small subset of DA players.

 Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Please stop accusing things of being OP. I've seen what you consider a TAC list-you pretty clearly do not have much of an idea what OP is.

You don't consider 3+ rerollable jinks, free transports and BS 4 overwatch as OP?

I mean, I could start talking about more, but let's start there.

"3+ rerollable" what is template and ignore cover for $1000 bob.

addtionally, thats HARDLY their most OP thing they can do with bikes, thats timid.

And the free transports are only if you run the Lions blade strike force, which is very costly to run, and the only way you can even get it into a 1850 game is if you run your squads VERY lean and thin, im talking only taking 30 marines and 3 heavy/special weapons. At which point you are fighting a tournament list which is designed to be game breaking and exploitative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:They are OP because your rules just made them OP, being able to overwatch at BS 5. lol good job breaking my army for me ha

My rules didn't make them OP. They're OP as is.

Only if you take lions blade, which again, in the 1850 range, thats a tournament build. If you are trying to fight a tournament list with a none tournament list, then thats not op thats you being foolish.

 Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Please stop accusing things of being OP. I've seen what you consider a TAC list-you pretty clearly do not have much of an idea what OP is.

You don't consider 3+ rerollable jinks, free transports and BS 4 overwatch as OP?

I mean, I could start talking about more, but let's start there.

You've been told before why the rerollable jinking bikes aren't actually broken (because when they jink they don't do any damage since they are snap firing and have short range, you can just assault them, shoot flamers at them, etc.). BS4 Overwatch (and overwatch in general) is easily mitigated with charging in bait units or using LoS blocking terrain to limit damage to a model or two.

Free transports is dumb but C:SM does it better

CrownAxe wrote:You've been told before why the rerollable jinking bikes aren't actually broken (because when they jink they don't do any damage since they are snap firing and have short range).

That didn't stop people from crying "OP" over transports in 5th edition.

No. If something is practically unkillable, it's OP. Period.

BS4 Overwatch (and overwatch in general) is easily mitigated with charging in bait units or using LoS blocking terrain to limit damage to a model or two.

It basically gives DA two shooting phases. That's not fair. End of story.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Please stop accusing things of being OP. I've seen what you consider a TAC list-you pretty clearly do not have much of an idea what OP is.

You don't consider 3+ rerollable jinks, free transports and BS 4 overwatch as OP?

I mean, I could start talking about more, but let's start there.

You've been told before why the rerollable jinking bikes aren't actually broken (because when they jink they don't do any damage since they are snap firing and have short range, you can just assault them, shoot flamers at them, etc.). BS4 Overwatch (and overwatch in general) is easily mitigated with charging in bait units or using LoS blocking terrain to limit damage to a model or two.

Free transports is dumb but C:SM does it better

This, this is why combat squads are awesome, half the force soaks up the bullets the other gets the attacks.

3+ re rollable is hardly an issue.

You wanna talk broken in that army?

Ok

RW command squad, banner, apoth, champion, 10 bikes, and a darkshroud, enjoy dealing with 2+ rerollable, and not being able to over watch me, then in your assault phase getting to auto pass hit and run back into my dark shourd and blast you point blank with my plasma talons then charge at you.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:You've been told before why the rerollable jinking bikes aren't actually broken (because when they jink they don't do any damage since they are snap firing and have short range).

That didn't stop people from crying "OP" over transports in 5th edition.

No. If something is practically unkillable, it's OP. Period.

BS4 Overwatch (and overwatch in general) is easily mitigated with charging in bait units or using LoS blocking terrain to limit damage to a model or two.

It basically gives DA two shooting phases. That's not fair. End of story.

Right! Because no CC units or Ignores Cover weapons exist! And there's no way to make them fail when 1 out of every 9 wounds will go through on average! No sir-ree!

And the second shooting phase makes them target your choice of model, not their choice. It's powerful-but it's not perfect.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:You've been told before why the rerollable jinking bikes aren't actually broken (because when they jink they don't do any damage since they are snap firing and have short range).

That didn't stop people from crying "OP" over transports in 5th edition.

No. If something is practically unkillable, it's OP. Period.

BS4 Overwatch (and overwatch in general) is easily mitigated with charging in bait units or using LoS blocking terrain to limit damage to a model or two.

It basically gives DA two shooting phases. That's not fair. End of story.

Ok, well guess waht, that was 5th ed, this is 7th, thats 2 ed ago, welcome to the now.

They only get 2 shooting phases if they run lions blade, WHICH is a very costly formation and the LOWEST you can run it reasonably is in 1850 which agian, running a lions blade in 1850 is a tournament list. All tournament lists are broken because thats how they win.

If you are fighting a tournament list with a non tournament list, then yeah you are gonna get smashed.

WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO ADD! they are still firing snap shots so they cant fire blast weapons.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:You've been told before why the rerollable jinking bikes aren't actually broken (because when they jink they don't do any damage since they are snap firing and have short range).

That didn't stop people from crying "OP" over transports in 5th edition.

No. If something is practically unkillable, it's OP. Period.

Those aren't even remotely comparable. DA bikes can't jink in close combat so are just as durable as regular bikes against half the damage in the game. 5ed Transports actually were unkillable because you had to get a lucky 6+ to get an explode to kill it and if you didn't they didn't care because they were just being transports. And this was against all forms of damage, not just shooting like it is for DA bikes.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:You've been told before why the rerollable jinking bikes aren't actually broken (because when they jink they don't do any damage since they are snap firing and have short range).

That didn't stop people from crying "OP" over transports in 5th edition.

No. If something is practically unkillable, it's OP. Period.

Those aren't even remotely comparable. DA bikes can't jink in close combat so are just as durable as regular bikes against half the damage in the game. 5ed Transports actually were unkillable because you had to get a lucky 6+ to get an explode to kill it and if you didn't they didn't care because they were just being transports.

Not to mention, once you blased off all the weapons it just ran around as mobile cover so.

Also this is the flaw of bikes, they are low wound count, still only save on a 3+ and are only T5.

CrownAxe wrote:Those aren't even remotely comparable. DA bikes can't jink in close combat so are just as durable as regular bikes against half the damage in the game. 5ed Transports actually were unkillable because you had to get a lucky 6+ to get an explode to kill it and if you didn't they didn't care because they were just being transports. And this was against all forms of damage, not just shooting like it is for DA bikes.

That still makes DA virtually unkillable against shooty armies.

That's not cool.

What army do you play, Tradito? Because I guarantee you there's ways to take out Dark Angels.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Those aren't even remotely comparable. DA bikes can't jink in close combat so are just as durable as regular bikes against half the damage in the game. 5ed Transports actually were unkillable because you had to get a lucky 6+ to get an explode to kill it and if you didn't they didn't care because they were just being transports. And this was against all forms of damage, not just shooting like it is for DA bikes.

That still makes DA virtually unkillable against shooty armies.

That's not cool.

Then I fall back to the other point i made which is when DA bikes are busy jinking to not die to shooting they aren't contributing much to the game because they proceed to do almost no damage while jinking

 JNAProductions wrote:
What army do you play, Tradito? Because I guarantee you there's ways to take out Dark Angels.

That's a different topic for another thread.

Will you at least admit this:

If the DA save maxed out at a 2+ jink without the possibility of reroll, this would be more fair and more balanced?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe[ wrote:Then I fall back to the other point i made which is when DA bikes are busy jinking to not die to shooting they aren't contributing much to the game because they proceed to do almost no damage while jinking

Again:

This didn't stop people from crying OP about transports in 5th edition.

Why is it a different topic? You're complaining they're OP-but you refuse to receive advice on how to handle them.

And no-a 3+ rerollable (or the ITC's 2+/4+) is not unbalanced. It encourages you to find a way around it heavily, but it's not unbalanced.

I will agree that a 2+ rerollable, especially for invulns, is unbalanced. Which is why the ITC ruling that a 2+ rerolls to a 4+ (giving a 1/12 chance of failure) is a good idea.

 Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What army do you play, Tradito? Because I guarantee you there's ways to take out Dark Angels.

That's a different topic for another thread.

Will you at least admit this:

If the DA save maxed out at a 2+ jink without the possibility of reroll, this would be more fair and more balanced?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe[ wrote:Then I fall back to the other point i made which is when DA bikes are busy jinking to not die to shooting they aren't contributing much to the game because they proceed to do almost no damage while jinking

Again:

This didn't stop people from crying OP about transports in 5th edition.

Again not comparable. The transports job was to transport a unit inside and that unit did all the damage. Which is what the problem with 5ed transports was was that there was almost nothing you could to stop the transports from getting to where it needed to and having it riders get out and blow stuff up

DA bikes are either durable or damaging dealing. 5ed Transports were both at the same time.

Will you admit to any of the arguments everyone has been presenting to you for 5 pages?

 CrownAxe wrote:
Again not comparable. The transports job was to transport a unit inside and that unit did all the damage. Which is what the problem with 5ed transports was was that there was almost nothing you could to stop the transports from getting to where it needed to and having it riders get out and blow stuff up

This. Seriously, the problem with transport durability in 5th was not that they were impossible to kill (which was annoying if the dice were against you too much), it was that they were very difficult to stop. Shaken and weapon destroyed results did nothing to transports, so very often you'd put some hits on a Rhino, keep it from shooting its irrelevant storm bolter, and watch it drive up to unload its cargo of full-BS shooting. Or you'd kill it after it moved its cargo up and the passengers would get out without any problems and go straight to killing you. It is possible that bikes have a durability problem, but it is not the same durability problem as 5th edition transport spam.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Those aren't even remotely comparable. DA bikes can't jink in close combat so are just as durable as regular bikes against half the damage in the game. 5ed Transports actually were unkillable because you had to get a lucky 6+ to get an explode to kill it and if you didn't they didn't care because they were just being transports. And this was against all forms of damage, not just shooting like it is for DA bikes.

That still makes DA virtually unkillable against shooty armies.

That's not cool.

I dont know how many times i have said it, but template and ignore cover weapons shred bikes, yet you seem to never want to acknowledge this points

We are arguing with the person that thinks Orbital Bombardment from Chapter Masters is an issue.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
We are arguing with the person that thinks Orbital Bombardment from Chapter Masters is an issue.

You mean the thing that ends up scattering off the table half the time, or hitting you a fourth of the time?

I warned everyone about four pages back.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:You've been told before why the rerollable jinking bikes aren't actually broken (because when they jink they don't do any damage since they are snap firing and have short range).

That didn't stop people from crying "OP" over transports in 5th edition.

Different situation. A Transport wasn't a threat. The unit it was transporting was. Seeing as Bikes become extremely lessened in shooting if they jink, they are not an issue. A transport with nothing in it isn't an issue.

If something is practically unkillable, it's OP. Period.

So, an immortal blob that cannot move, cannot be removed from the table, has no weaponry, cannot claim objectives, has no statline and costs 100 points is OP? Even though it actually contributes nothing to the game, but is unkillable?

'Kay.

I would amend your statement to "If a unit is undercosted in relation to it's abilities, it is overpowered." You can have glass hammers. You can have tanks (in the colloquial sense, not by game mechanics) that don't really fight back. You can have buffers. All of these are fine, so long as they are costed appropriately to their rules and possible combinations they create.

BS4 Overwatch (and overwatch in general) is easily mitigated with charging in bait units or using LoS blocking terrain to limit damage to a model or two.

It basically gives DA two shooting phases. That's not fair. End of story.

But you've just given them a better Overwatch than what they have right now.
And you complain about GW's broken rules...

My general critique here is:
1) Listen to people, and don't brush them off. You'll get further with your ideas.
2) The thread name is rather misleading. These aren't CORE changes. These are a handful of rules that may not even come into play, and in many cases, you actually make them more complex, adding to the rules bloat of 40k.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:Again, Re-rolls are not a bad mechanic in and of itself. It's when it gets abused that is the problem. For example: 3x TL Lascannons? That's reasonable. 15x shots from 3x stationary Grac Cannons getting re-rolls because of Grav Amps? No thanks. It just needs to be toned down, not removed.

Rerolls are unnecessary at best and game-breaking at worst.

< Insert Maths >

The only time it matters:

1. When we are dealing with 2+ rerollables. And feth 2+ rerollables.
2. When using a weapon with the Gets Hot! special rule. And fact is, blast weapons with the Gets Hot! special rule don't get to reroll anyway. so why should non-blast weapons get it?

Re-rolls have been insanely helpful to me in a number of scenarios, my most recent example being when I took two wounds off of a hovering MC while firing only Snapshots with a Twin-Linked Lascannon on the top of a Razorback. Statistically speaking it doesn't make a huge difference when you consider just the numbers and averages, but it can make a big practical difference.

Traditio wrote:

If you could flesh this idea out properly, I could get behind this idea. Being a BT player: Not only would I like to see this idea fleshed out in great detail, but I'd like to see what you think this means for the opposite side (i.e. Denying the Witch)..

Spoiler:

Very simple:

Make the psychic test a basic leadership test. Specify in advance that each psyker may use x number of powers per shooting phase. Rework all psychic powers so that you are no better or worse off for using a psychic power than for using a shooting attack or running. Give a one page, codex specific list of psychic powers for each army. You then pick whichever psychic powers you want, up to the number of psychic powers that each psyker can know.

Naturally, some psykers would come with powers that they automatically know.

I suppose you could have slightly stronger psychic powers, assuming appropriate restrictions: "You must exhaust two chances to use a psychic power and pass two separate leadership tests to harness this power."

And then simply remove the deny the witch roll, except for model/unit specific cases.

Again, it would improve game balance and make the game go much faster.

I am definitely not opposed to the broad concept you've just laid out here, but I asked for a fleshed out idea, not a broad concept. Try again.

Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:Ok, then in one post, write the rule, as if it was in the rule book. Go, nothing more nothing less.

You're not grasping the phrasing vs. practice distinction. Even if it takes me an entire page to explain it, the practice isn't necessarily more complicated.

We are all well aware of the phrasing vs practice distinction, but if it takes you a page to properly explain you rule (if not more), how is that rule any less complex than re-rolling? And then let's assume that people will eventually understand the rule as it is presented: Is it a rule worth having? As noted by a number of other posters: Your proposed changes with regards to re-rolls fails to consider the interaction re-rolls had with other rules, a prime example of this being that the elimination of re-rolls limits BS to 5.

In light of the above, do you know exactly how many other rules are affected by this change to re-rolls as well as exactly which rules they are? And how do you propose to fix them? Because I don't see solutions to those problems listed yet...

With the above in mind, your idea to remove re-rolls, replace it with a stat modifier, and then limit BS to 5 is a potentially an ill-conceived idea (definitely an ill-conceived idea in its current form) and also fails to deal with all the inherent problems created by the change. Point (5) about the Psykic Powers also suffers from the same problem: It is potentially (and likely is) and ill-conceived idea that undoubtedly will probably cause more problems than it solves and will most definitely cause more problems than you have accounted for (since you have apparently accounted for absolutely no consequences of these changes). The same could be said of the remaining three points, but I felt these two were the most prominent.


I would say that if you put some thought into these rules, you would consider the consequences and account for them, but you have failed to listen to the consequences for the better part of 6 pages and I don't see that as likely to change (especially given you posting history outside this thread as well as in it). With that in mind. I can comfortable say that I no longer support any of these changes. I find them to be poorly thought out, inconsiderate of the consequences, and - metaphorically speaking - "A band-aid over a stab wound."

 IllumiNini wrote:
"A band-aid over a stab wound."

A band-aid over a stab wound who's adhesive is made of tiny hooks that stab into the skin.

I will agree with OP that something does need to be done about powers.

Powers right now are a bloody mess. I wish we could just go back to 5th ed powers.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I will agree with OP that something does need to be done about powers.

Powers right now are a bloody mess. I wish we could just go back to 5th ed powers.

Jaws of the World Wolf... Lash of Submission...

Every generation has Powers that are borked up. The real challenge is to make a set that no one power is the default, but can be chosen between games to suit so randomness is not required. I do wish Witchfires had the mode counting as firing a weapon each time they were used for the next Phase, though.

 Lance845 wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
"A band-aid over a stab wound."

A band-aid over a stab wound who's adhesive is made of tiny hooks that stab into the skin.

Huh? Is there any other kind of band-aid? That's the only brand we have here in Commorragh.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I will agree with OP that something does need to be done about powers.

Powers right now are a bloody mess. I wish we could just go back to 5th ed powers.

Jaws of the World Wolf... Lash of Submission...

Every generation has Powers that are borked up. The real challenge is to make a set that no one power is the default, but can be chosen between games to suit so randomness is not required. I do wish Witchfires had the mode counting as firing a weapon each time they were used for the next Phase, though.

An excellent point. Thank you for temporarily taking off everyone's rose-tinted glasses there. ;D

I totally agree about witchfires. it always feels a bit odd when my psyker brings down a whirling maelstrom of psychic energy... and then also makes sure to crack off a shot with his pistol afterwards. I actually kind of like that this lets me shoot and then run away in the shooting phase, but it definitely feels unintentional.

For some units, mostly pink horrors, I really like the idea of just giving them a shooting attack that works in the shooting phase but also giving them a power or special rule that lets them use warp charges to buff that attack in the psychic phase. So instead of having the flickering fire power, maybe you could just increase the number of shots it fires by X per warp charge set aside during the psychic phase.

That is a really good idea!

So lets say for the sake of argument that the psychic phase got condensed into the shooting phase some how. Then...

"Each Witchfire and Nova power counts as a single weapon for the purpose of determining how many weapons the model can fire in the shooting phase.

If a infantry model can fire 1 weapon in the shooting phase it can attempt to manifest any benediction or malediction powers it knows. In addition it may fire a single weapon in the form of a piece of wargear or manifesting a witchfire or nova power.

 Lance845 wrote:
That is a really good idea!

So lets say for the sake of argument that the psychic phase got condensed into the shooting phase some how. Then...

"Each Witchfire and Nova power counts as a single weapon for the purpose of determining how many weapons the model can fire in the shooting phase.

If a infantry model can fire 1 weapon in the shooting phase it can attempt to manifest any benediction or malediction powers it knows. In addition it may fire a single weapon in the form of a piece of wargear or manifesting a witchfire or nova power.

Or "For each successful casting of a Witchfire power, the model gains the listed Weapon for use in the next Shooting Phase". The Weapon is the listed profile or Nova set (Novas could be better defined, as well, they are so sloppy and should fit a Weapon Profile).

You'd have to redo some of the Psychic Disciplines then as some (Looking at you Tzeentch, Change and Pyromancy) consist mostly or solely (pre-Curse of the Wulfen Change) of Witchfires.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
You'd have to redo some of the Psychic Disciplines then as some (Looking at you Tzeentch, Change and Pyromancy) consist mostly or solely (pre-Curse of the Wulfen Change) of Witchfires.

Not necessarily. Infantry get to fire 1 of whichever power they have and must pick which power is best for their situation. MC can fire 2. Some special models might get to unload more (Lord of Change). Having multiple powers with different effects gives you options.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
You'd have to redo some of the Psychic Disciplines then as some (Looking at you Tzeentch, Change and Pyromancy) consist mostly or solely (pre-Curse of the Wulfen Change) of Witchfires.

Not necessarily. Infantry get to fire 1 of whichever power they have and must pick which power is best for their situation. MC can fire 2. Some special models might get to unload more (Lord of Change). Having multiple powers with different effects gives you options.

And then there are the Psychic Pilots of Vehicles like the Blood Angels Librarian Dreadnought.

But either way, Psychic Powers are bound to be undergoing a revision by the very nature of a rules revision, especially one intended for balance.

Having been almost a week, I'm surprised that there hasn't been an attempt to twist the poll results into something they're not.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I will agree with OP that something does need to be done about powers.

Powers right now are a bloody mess. I wish we could just go back to 5th ed powers.

Jaws of the World Wolf... Lash of Submission...

Every generation has Powers that are borked up. The real challenge is to make a set that no one power is the default, but can be chosen between games to suit so randomness is not required.

Having a spectacular effect like Jaws of the World Wolf or Invisibility or Gate of Infinity is the point of taking a psyker, they give you a big game changing strategy. If all the powers are balanced so that all you get is curse of the machine spirit then the default power that everyone takes is just Shield Eternal on a captain, and they never take the psyker in the first place.

You can't do it, there will always be a default power that you want to get. What you should do is test powers as one use only, and then give a psyker access to the whole discipline for the game.

You say ok, you can choose biomancy, and you don't have to roll, you get all the powers. However if you try to cast a power that isn't the primaris more than once, it casts on 5+ instead of 4+.

pelicaniforce wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I will agree with OP that something does need to be done about powers.

Powers right now are a bloody mess. I wish we could just go back to 5th ed powers.

Jaws of the World Wolf... Lash of Submission...

Every generation has Powers that are borked up. The real challenge is to make a set that no one power is the default, but can be chosen between games to suit so randomness is not required.

Having a spectacular effect like Jaws of the World Wolf or Invisibility or Gate of Infinity is the point of taking a psyker, they give you a big game changing strategy. If all the powers are balanced so that all you get is curse of the machine spirit then the default power that everyone takes is just Shield Eternal on a captain, and they never take the psyker in the first place.

You can't do it, there will always be a default power that you want to get. What you should do is test powers as one use only, and then give a psyker access to the whole discipline for the game.

You say ok, you can choose biomancy, and you don't have to roll, you get all the powers. However if you try to cast a power that isn't the primaris more than once, it casts on 5+ instead of 4+.

Then you missed the point of that post and to what it was responding to. The point was, that even when you could pick the powers and they were not "so messed up", both 4th and 5th Edition had some really abusive Powers. The only big difference between 5th Edition and 7th Edition is that there are a smaller proportion of "Grand Powers" that everyone wants because of the number of "lesser powers" has increased and you can't just decide to get them.

Part of the reason for the randomness of the Powers is so that no one is just taking the default most powerful power and ignoring the rest. If one wants to remove randomness from power selection, then powers need to be balanced so that they are at the same level.

Then we have the problem that four codices (if we combine AdMech, IK, and Skitarii in one), and a small portion of a fifth (Black Templars), have zero access to these Psychic Powers on their own and have little direct counter to them that isn't also reflected in every other army.

I like the way psychic powers work now, both in selection and casting. It puts a bit of depth into that part of the game beyond, roll your LD. The only real gripe I have is that there is no effective way to deal with blessings beyond a culexus asssasin.

Blessings are the most powerful set of powers. Endurance, Veil of time, Iron Arm, INVISIBILITY etc.,. at they're also the hardest to stop

I've always been a proponent of giving psykers tiered ranges at which they can deny blessings with bonuses, as well as giving benefits for psychic hood and adamantium will.

You can still Deny Blessings, it is just VERY difficult. It would be nice if other Psykers on the board could help Deny Blessings more effectively as a default.

Warhammer Fantasy could get away with such things because everyone had access to Wizards except the Dwarfs (obviously some were better than others). And the Dwarfs had some powerful tools available to help shut down the Magic Phase for their opponent. In some editions, it just wasn't worth even bringing a Wizard against a prepared Dwarf army.

Now, the only help Tau, Necrons, Dark Eldar, Mechanicum, and Black Templars have is to bring in an Assassin Ally (though the Mechanicum may have changed from some of the recent questions on YMDC), Ally in another army's Witch, or overwhelm the Psyker in Attacks to kill them off.

To be fair, though, as bad as Invisibility is (and it is VERY bad), it isn't nearly as over the top as some of the 8th Edition spells in Fantasy, where a failed Initiative or Strength Test would have the models removed from the board without even a chance at a Save, and these could affect most, if not all, of a 40 man block.

Removing Relentless would make Sergeant Harker a regular IG vet sarge with a heavy bolter... who still can't take the 4+ armor doctrine. Even with relentless, he's still 55 points for heavy bolter. Think about *all* the toes you'd be stepping on

 Charistoph wrote:
You can still Deny Blessings, it is just VERY difficult. It would be nice if other Psykers on the board could help Deny Blessings more effectively as a default.

Warhammer Fantasy could get away with such things because everyone had access to Wizards except the Dwarfs (obviously some were better than others). And the Dwarfs had some powerful tools available to help shut down the Magic Phase for their opponent. In some editions, it just wasn't worth even bringing a Wizard against a prepared Dwarf army.

Now, the only help Tau, Necrons, Dark Eldar, Mechanicum, and Black Templars have is to bring in an Assassin Ally (though the Mechanicum may have changed from some of the recent questions on YMDC), Ally in another army's Witch, or overwhelm the Psyker in Attacks to kill them off.

To be fair, though, as bad as Invisibility is (and it is VERY bad), it isn't nearly as over the top as some of the 8th Edition spells in Fantasy, where a failed Initiative or Strength Test would have the models removed from the board without even a chance at a Save, and these could affect most, if not all, of a 40 man block.

I hesitate to say it but Age of Sigmar actually took the right approach to counterspelling. Wizards can counterspell any spell cast within a certain distance of them, period, end of discussion.

The armies with no psykers problem is more annoying, but I think WHFB Dwarves had the right idea; they should have some kind of effects that generate Warp Charge that can be used for Denial only.