No, I dont mean nerfing the Riptide or Scats, I mean units you like/have lots of/used to use/miss playing.
Personally I'd like to see Wolf Guard Termies make a comeback. I have about 20 of them and can never seem to fit them in a list or make them work that well.
Shout outs also to Killakanz and Tyranno/Carnifexes.
I'd like to see some universal vehicle buffs, stuff like eliminating glances and allowing vehicles to target multiple units.
For specific buffs, the loss of the Broadside's strength 10 railweapon still hurts, as buff to the new HRR to at least make it a reasonable alternative to the HYMP would be nice, but most would agree Tau aren't in need of a lot right now.
A character: Lucius. I love me some Slaanesh and I would really like to have Lucius lead one of my EC armies and actually pull some weight. Last time I brought him he got insta killed by a meltagun after his body guards were blown apart.
As for models I have loads of but never get to use, Khorne bezerkers and Possessed. I have enough of each to run swarm armies but it is too sad to see them both be gunned down before they can turn their enemies to shreds. In the game I mentioned above a unit of Havocs did more damage in cc than any possessed I took, depressing. :(
Tyranids, the whole codex. Wonderful models, abysmal rules; instinctive behavior/synapse needs an overhaul and the game has moved on so that running hordes of gaunts, ripper and stealers isn't really viable.
Celestine needs EWBSS need to drop 1-2ppm, seraphim need a cqc gimmick, repentia need bikes, Canoness needs a 35pt drop or some serious buffs, Celestians need to not be pointless, penitent engines need to be monstrous creatures. exorcist is great but less random please. drop pods would be cool.
Another thought is more allowed charges, but make them disordered, and make disordered charges have a real penalty instead of just denying a bonus. Like maybe initiative reduced to 1.
I'd also like to see most special melee weapons (and models that come equipped with them standard) - in the current shooting heavy environment no way is a power weapon worth a Plasma Gun.
I do play Tau, and did back in 5th Ed where we were murdered by hard charging Blood Angels and Grey Knights, but I do think there needs to be some redress to the melee units now that WH40K is a proper shooting game.
I'm not saying we should nerf shooting, remove over watch or similar, just give more chances for charges to happen and cut back on the pricing of melee stuff a bit to recognize it's not as effective as heavy firepower.
Backspacehacker wrote: Terminators, followed by assault terminators, followed by terminator command squads.
Then Vehicles i guess.
What would be your perfect base terminator?
I would like to see at the least T5
There have been multiple threads about this with no real resolution. I don't think T5 really fixes anything.
T5 would help out a lot! That or 2 wounds Imo is the quickest way to make terminators worth it, that and allowing assault terminators to charge out of deep strike.
Definitely terminators. Cmon, they're supposed to be most badass and iconic veterans in the Space Marine arsenal. I'd love to see them also get rid of that stupid sweeping advance restriction considering we got tons of bulkier and heavier units able to sweep advance.
Berzerkers need a buff to match their price or a price decrease to match their loadout. If you keep the price, give them their chainaxes free again. Or give them another attack. Fething give them assault rhinos for khornes sake!
NInjatactiks wrote: Definitely terminators. Cmon, they're supposed to be most badass and iconic veterans in the Space Marine arsenal. I'd love to see them also get rid of that stupid sweeping advance restriction considering we got tons of bulkier and heavier units able to sweep advance.
Burning Chariots of Tzeentch. I've love the model they made for it but it had such such terrible rules when they released it in 6th (literally not functional rules wise) and while 7ed fixed its rules issue now the power creep has passed it by making it still very not playable
At least it sees the table top by being summoned by Fateweaver now.
Happyjew wrote: Everything except Flyrants in the Tyranid codex.
Agree almost 100% - except for flyrants it is the devourer and basic parts of the flyrant that don't need tweaking as they are strong (maybe too strong with multiple flyrants which I hate - I liked the days of a single hive tyrant (the essence of the hive mind), but I'm getting side-tracked) - there are many biomorphs/upgrades that flyrants can use, whether buffs types or weapons, that need fixing.
One of the main things for 8th is to make assault units worthwhile - and I don't mean deathstar type units - I mean regular close-combat type units. Tyranids (and other armies/units that are assault based) suffer from BRB rules that hurt or undermine such units and then poor dexes that messed them up further. So fixing 8th with regard to regular assault units would be great but not enough - dexes with such units all need to be fixed as needed.
Wouldn't that end up getting fixed if they made vehicles not gak?
Nah..... they also have a problem that they pay SM prices for infantry heavy weapons.... that miss more often and die too easily. I understand why they made HW teams a 2W model (originally they were two separate models), but it actually makes them worse rather than better. Also footslogging guard isn't really much of an option these days plus most of their specialist infantry units (ratlings, scions, orgryns etc) might as well be left at home. Another issue also being their basic weapons haven't kept up with the meta at all. Guard are effectively almost identical to what they were like in 3rd with a couple of flyers, wyverns and orders added.
I would say Nid's, Ork, CSM and Guard all need help. Nid's need a complete rework, Guard have great internal balance but have extreme external balance issues, Orks need tweeks to stats, points etc, with CSM being in the worst spot. I wouldn't say they need a complete rework nid style, but need a combination of what Nids, Orks and Guard all need.
I'd disagree a bit with the OP's wording a little bit.
I don't believe things need to be buffed, I think things across the board need to be reeled in. The power creep/arms race seems to be completely out of control. Stuff in general is far too powerful/strong/tough and this exacerbates the low standing in which we find basic troop choices (something which should never happen in a game).
While not very impressive things like a normal squad of Imperial Guard should never be completely useless in a game of 40K. A Space Marine tactical squad should be a feasible unit. Game design should address things like this. The idea of a "tax unit" is a bit silly.
Elbows wrote: Stuff in general is far too powerful/strong/tough and this exacerbates the low standing in which we find basic troop choices (something which should never happen in a game).
While not very impressive things like a normal squad of Imperial Guard should never be completely useless in a game of 40K. A Space Marine tactical squad should be a feasible unit. Game design should address things like this. The idea of a "tax unit" is a bit silly.
Basic troops should be cheap, proportional to their usefulness. IG are overpriced for how under-useful they are in the current environment.
A SM Tactical squad is very feasible, when given a FREE scoring Transport.
That said, it's not a huge deal. It's not like I'm going to sell my army because it's not awesomeness.
Actually, I'll amend my earlier comment to Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines in general. You know, the core of those codices. Not heldrakes, spawn or winged mace DPs. Not gravcenturions, thunderwolf cavalry or drop pods. But the defining images of those codices. Tactical Marines. Chosen. Assault Marines. Chaos/Terminators. Chaos/Land Raiders. Predators.
It's a shame that they make the gimmicky stuff OP and the thematic core of the armies so bad it has to be made free through a really broken formation in order to see play.
Terminators and land raiders need buffs
The tyranids need buffs
Invisibility needs to go up in warp charge cost.
Keep tactical objectives as an option, remove stupid ones like destroy a fortification and cast a psychic power.
On a side note is this just a wish list or are there actually rumors of 8th ed soon?
As much as I hated it at first I like the idea of unbound now, it allows for much more thematic game, though there are always the people who exploit it.
my defilers.. they got me into 40k. they are so cool i bought two. painted them all nice very proud of them. now i cannot bear to run them. Also khorne berzerkers need a comeback. Need to be able to assault out of a rhino again. I want to blow up tanks with my defilers and assault the juicy insides with berzerkers.
_ghost_ wrote: Nerf the top 4 in a reasonable way. buff the rest. and close the gap between vehicles and monsters
Seconded.
Which top 4? Eldar, space marines, daemons and dark angels? They placed best ITC?
How about the Eldar, space marines, Tau, crons, top four who are the bane of casual play?
What about Knights, space puppers, and ad mec/skittles?
The problem here is that we've two types of codexes. Ones that are cheese and ones who aren't. I'd much rather see guard and nids and the others brought up than the top guys knocked down a peg, especially when nobody seems to be able to agree which ones are the best. That being said, can we agree to nerf riptides and wraith knights and do something about bark stars and super friends?
_ghost_ wrote: Nerf the top 4 in a reasonable way. buff the rest. and close the gap between vehicles and monsters
Seconded.
Which top 4? Eldar, space marines, daemons and dark angels? They placed best ITC?
How about the Eldar, space marines, Tau, crons, top four who are the bane of casual play?
What about Knights, space puppers, and ad mec/skittles?
The problem here is that we've two types of codexes. Ones that are cheese and ones who aren't. I'd much rather see guard and nids and the others brought up than the top guys knocked down a peg, especially when nobody seems to be able to agree which ones are the best.
The only reason people poke at dark angels is because of raven wing death start which, get in melee or an ignore cover and they are toast.
And lions blade which lets you kit a bit more on the squads since you can take a scout squad as a aux vs the gladiolus.
Wouldn't that end up getting fixed if they made vehicles not gak?
That'd be a good start. But it's not like footguard is particularly good - many of the infantry choices are stupendously bad.
^This. Fixing vehicle rules will benefit the IG codex, but it has a plethora of other issues. Most of the codex needs a significant points reduction. Foot guard largely serve only as a tax on the army, instead of the meat shield/expendable resource they are supposed to be. Most of the elite choices are way overpriced or do not fulfill the roles they are intended to. Orders need a massive buff in utility/function (like give outflank, twin link, be able to issue orders to vehicles as non tank commander etc) and when used with vox caster need to have infinite range. Either special weapons given to infantry need to be reduced in cost to reflect the guard statline (we currently pay SM prices) or IG infantry need be reduced in cost further. All of this is just the tip of the iceberg of issues plaguing IG codex.
Several codexes would be improved with some points adjustments and those that lack formations gaining them (and not that stupid AM formation in Montka where you need a million models).
The basic infantry for every faction. I want to see and use armies where the bulk of models are your most basic troop unit; chaos marines, space marines, guard platoons, termagants, ork boyz, eldar guardians etc. I can think of a couple of simple ways to achieve this. Either make core infantry choices disproportionately cheap (10 point tac marines, possibly even cheaper than that), or have a few pure troop formations for every faction, like four units of (insert unit) with really good buffs that aren't even attempting to balance themselves against other formations. I want really strong incentives to field troops, not just ObSec.
I'd also like to see gargantuans/superheavies paying a premium to be fielded. Go the other way with these units and make them prohibitively expensive for competitive games but still kind of okay for casual environments. They'll still sell, and probably cause carnage in a troop heavy meta, but you just won't win the mission against a halfway savvy opponent who can field five fully upgraded tac squads for the price of your knight.
I’d like to see some of the classic things boosted a bit from SM. They have been left in the dust as the new, shiny stuff gets put out.
Plasma pistols, stormbolters, heavy bolters, MLs. Iconic weapons, and massively overpriced for lackluster performance.
I think some core rules changes to balance vehicles out a bit would be enough to make dreads and most of the tanks a bit more viable. The LR might take a little more work.
Jump packs need a boost to make them compare better to bikes. Both should be viable options. Or bikes could take a slight nerf; they are very good these days.
Terminators need something.
If they are going to keep the armory page system of upgrades, rather then squad-by-squad, I’d like to see them return to duel pricing for upgrades, with one price for single wound models, and the other for multiple wound guys. The Chapter Master is going to get a lot more use out of that powerfist then a sarge. Vanguard Vets would be a good place to start for price changes for the ordinary guys. But I preferred the squad level upgrade pricing. Tac squads should not be paying the same premium for heavies as dev squads. I’d say go back to the 5th edition setup/pricing, but devs were massively overcharged back then.
Eldar are very solid these days. The codex is actually fairly well balanced, with the exception of a few very broken things. Rangers and Banshees could use a slight boost, and the broken stuff a solid nerf, and then they’d be all sorted.
Zerkers...,that they become once again the Killers they where before.
1A base is just ridiculous, having to pay for an AP4 weapon is dumb, i'd pay for AP3's, AP4's i don't give a damn, or if the axes would give Rending, that'll be another story.
Also a rule ala Eldars battle rites or what is it, move+run+assault.
Broadly speaking, vehicles need buffs in both their resilience and in their ability to move and fire. Either they need saves, more hull points, or more forgiving damage tables. Having a glancing hits table that only causes hull point loss on a result of a 6, say, with Stunned as a 5, Shaken as a 3-4, and Single Weapon Shaken on a 1-2.
Dreadnoughts in particular need buffs. Probably the easiest thing to do would be to eliminate the Walker category entirely, and just make them Monstrous Creatures. Failing that, they need a save.
I'd like to see non-Skyfire weapons shooting at flyers changed from snap shooting to the flyers getting an automatic 2+ save. The current system penalizes high ballistic skill/low model count armies much more than low ballistic skill/high model count armies.
Squads should have some ability to split fire. It's completely stupid that I could have up to 9 Space Marines with bolters doing absolutely nothing if I want 1 Space Marine with a lascannon to shoot at a tank. Same applies across the board.
For my Dark Angels, I'd like to see Terminators get buffed to the point where I don't feel like I'm taking a handicap by using them. I'd argue getting 2 wounds is the buff they need the most, but they ould also use a buff to shooting damage output.
Sammael, Belial, and Azrael are all overpriced. They were appropriately priced when they unlocked FOC-swaps, but they don't anymore and stayed the same price. Sammael needs a 2+ save and +1 strength to the Raven Sword. Azrael needs Eternal Warrior, and AP2 on the Sword of Secrets would be good. Belial just needs to be cheaper.
I'd like to see the Lion's Blade (and by extension, they Gladius Strike Force) toned down a little. Specifically, instead of getting free transports for taking 2 minimum demi-companies, I'd like the free transports to be unlocked for taking full-strength squads in 1 demi-company. Free jump packs for the Assault Squad should be an option too - it's more fluffy. Maybe free Veteran Sergeant upgrades too. I'd like to give sergeants interesting upgrades, but it's such a huge points-sink that all I generally do is equip sergeants with combi-weapons.
I'd also like the Lion's Blade to provide a broader range of Auxiliary choices. It's great I can get away with a singe Scout Squad, but I can't just take, say, a single Predator to support my demi-company. I'd like some Company Support options that let me take a single tank or plane, instead of having to take whole squadrons.
Vehicles are in an odd spot tbh. I think we can all agree they need help, but we also have issues such as the traditional AT weapons (aka lascannon etc) are no longer reliable at knocking out vehicles. Krak missiles for example are even worse seeing they're only AP3!
Glances need to be made weaker. I'm not sure I totally agree with GMR when he says stop it's ability to strip hull points unless they roll a 6. Glances should totally stun and shaken results, but massed fire needs to be capable of destroying lighter vehicles. However one of the main issues facing vehicles is how CC affects them, hit's to rear armour should not be automatic and everyone has thought this for a long time now.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: <snip>remove stupid ones like destroy a fortification and cast a psychic power. <snip>
Or just an official wording in the missions, something along the lines of "If you cannot secure an objective because it's impossible within the current game (i.e. Your opponent does not have any foritifications in his list that can be destroyed) then discard that objective and redraw a new one until a valid one is chosen."
Maybe even extend it to say "If at any earlier point in the game it would have been possible to achieve the objective, but it can no longer be fulfilled (because your opponent's only flyer was eliminated on turn 2, but you drew the "Eliminate an enemy flyer" objective turn 3, then you cannot discard that objective."
- Anything in power armor or intended to be an assault unit in the Chaos codex needs buffing or point dropping.
- The Heavy Bolter needs a fundamental change to give it a place in a game where superior options exist every where
Assault in general needs a buff. Bring back being able to assault after disembarking from a vehicle that hasn't moved yet. Also bring back being able to assault out of walk-on reserves, Outflank, and after Scout moves and infiltration. Doing these things would buff Chaos Marines without touching their rules or altering their points. Not saying those aren't needed too, just saying assault in general needs to be a more viable option.
Heavy bolters can be decent weapons if the platform for them can take enough of them for a reasonable price. My heavy bolter Sicarian, for instance, is a fine tank that puts out a ton of dakka. One thing could be done is making heavy bolters both a heavy weapon option and a special weapon option for squads that have those kinds of upgrade slots. If you could take two HBs in a Tac Squad, for instance, that might be a worthwhile option. Giving infantry heavy weapons more ability to shoot on the move would also be helpful - maybe make the HB Salvo 3/3. I'd also like the multimelta to be Salvo 1/1.
Baldeagle91 wrote: However one of the main issues facing vehicles is how CC affects them, hit's to rear armour should not be automatic and everyone has thought this for a long time now.
I don't In fact, I'm vehemently against removing hitting back armor in CC, for a reason you yourself stated: Massed fire needs to be capable of destroying lighter vehicles. Since normal units can only ever get a better melee weapon on the sarge and a power fists costs more than two meltaguns, being able to deal with vehicles with basic attacks has to happen. Otherwise, you need vehicles to be able to be locked in combat or not have assault units be forced to make the shortest distance when assaulting, or assault armies will end up needing dedicated elite assault units to deal with anything tougher than a rhino.
Snake Tortoise wrote: The basic infantry for every faction. I want to see and use armies where the bulk of models are your most basic troop unit; chaos marines, space marines, guard platoons, termagants, ork boyz, eldar guardians etc. I can think of a couple of simple ways to achieve this. Either make core infantry choices disproportionately cheap (10 point tac marines, possibly even cheaper than that), or have a few pure troop formations for every faction, like four units of (insert unit) with really good buffs that aren't even attempting to balance themselves against other formations. I want really strong incentives to field troops, not just ObSec.
I'd also like to see gargantuans/superheavies paying a premium to be fielded. Go the other way with these units and make them prohibitively expensive for competitive games but still kind of okay for casual environments. They'll still sell, and probably cause carnage in a troop heavy meta, but you just won't win the mission against a halfway savvy opponent who can field five fully upgraded tac squads for the price of your knight.
I pretty much agree with you except that I would say avengers rather than guardians for the Eldar. I would say guardians are more akin to the weak troops most armies can field: scouts, cultists, conscripts, etc (they actually are conscripted eldar).
Baldeagle91 wrote: Guard have great internal balance but have extreme external balance issues,
LOL.
Yeah, no. They have awful internal balance, awful external balance, and in general are just a hot mess of WTFery.
I Think IG I think Big Fething tanks and hordes of cheap flashlight toting infantry.
In the current edition that doesn't work. IG use elite troops and a handful of other tools to attempt to win, apparently GW put all the gunline money into making Tau the most boring army to play against.
Wouldn't that end up getting fixed if they made vehicles not gak?
That'd be a good start. But it's not like footguard is particularly good - many of the infantry choices are stupendously bad.
^This. Fixing vehicle rules will benefit the IG codex, but it has a plethora of other issues. Most of the codex needs a significant points reduction. Foot guard largely serve only as a tax on the army, instead of the meat shield/expendable resource they are supposed to be. Most of the elite choices are way overpriced or do not fulfill the roles they are intended to. Orders need a massive buff in utility/function (like give outflank, twin link, be able to issue orders to vehicles as non tank commander etc) and when used with vox caster need to have infinite range. Either special weapons given to infantry need to be reduced in cost to reflect the guard statline (we currently pay SM prices) or IG infantry need be reduced in cost further. All of this is just the tip of the iceberg of issues plaguing IG codex.
On the subject of points, yeah, IG is broadly overcosted for a very different play environment. A lot of units (Elites & SCs, in particular) that I like the idea of are so overpriced, I just can't see myself fielding them, even if I have the models. Orders should be simpler and more meaningful, without as many restrictions; FRFSRF should simply grant every weapon an extra die -- simple & effective. Yes, infantry weapon upgrades are heavily overcosted with SM points on IG; but naked IG don't have that much room to get much cheaper - it's the associated kit that makes the army so overpriced.
OTOH, if I'm playing my IG against natural enemies like Orks / Dark Eldar / Tyranids, it's not so bad.
1. I would like to see first turn assault, assault from vehicles and assault from deep-strike get reworked. I don't really have any ideas on how to fix them, just something I wouldn't mind seeing a pass on.
2. In specific I would like to see Dark Angel characters mounted on bikes receive the Ravenwing special rule. If I'm stretching I would like to be able to mount them to a Black Knight bike with plasma talon.
Snake Tortoise wrote: The basic infantry for every faction. I want to see and use armies where the bulk of models are your most basic troop unit; chaos marines, space marines, guard platoons, termagants, ork boyz, eldar guardians etc. I can think of a couple of simple ways to achieve this. Either make core infantry choices disproportionately cheap (10 point tac marines, possibly even cheaper than that), or have a few pure troop formations for every faction, like four units of (insert unit) with really good buffs that aren't even attempting to balance themselves against other formations. I want really strong incentives to field troops, not just ObSec.
I'd also like to see gargantuans/superheavies paying a premium to be fielded. Go the other way with these units and make them prohibitively expensive for competitive games but still kind of okay for casual environments. They'll still sell, and probably cause carnage in a troop heavy meta, but you just won't win the mission against a halfway savvy opponent who can field five fully upgraded tac squads for the price of your knight.
I think the game should return to its "core" and that troops should be the only unit capable of being ObSec. Even making sure you have a percentage of troops would be nice, ala WHFB. Troops should be the the thing that makes the game run, which makes objectives work (they are trained to take them after all, specialists are equipped to take objectives) and they should also be a bit cheaper on top of that. Ive always been the guy who spammed tact marines back in the day so the gladius was a bit of a godsend because I already played Codex compliant.
The real big change the game needs is how vehicles and monstrous creatures work. As it is vehicles are too weak and MCs are too powerful, and they both suffer from some degree of rules bloat. Id like to see them either melded together or like it was said earlier have them lose power as they lose wounds, or at least give MCs a damage chart like vehicles have.
Baldeagle91 wrote: However one of the main issues facing vehicles is how CC affects them, hit's to rear armour should not be automatic and everyone has thought this for a long time now.
I don't In fact, I'm vehemently against removing hitting back armor in CC, for a reason you yourself stated: Massed fire needs to be capable of destroying lighter vehicles. Since normal units can only ever get a better melee weapon on the sarge and a power fists costs more than two meltaguns, being able to deal with vehicles with basic attacks has to happen. Otherwise, you need vehicles to be able to be locked in combat or not have assault units be forced to make the shortest distance when assaulting, or assault armies will end up needing dedicated elite assault units to deal with anything tougher than a rhino.
Albeit most dedicated CC armies have option towards rending etc. It personally seems funny to me that a single sergeant with a powerfist that gets close to a few tanks, can quite easily knock all of them out with little to no effort. If you're truly swarming tanks, you should have guys swinging near the near armour anyway. Plus my point for massed fire is more addressing basic arms vs vehicles no better than civilian cars.... by comparison you have guys hitting battle tanks and knocking them out as easily as Trukks.
ERJAK wrote: Celestine needs EWBSS need to drop 1-2ppm, seraphim need a cqc gimmick, repentia need bikes, Canoness needs a 35pt drop or some serious buffs, Celestians need to not be pointless, penitent engines need to be monstrous creatures. exorcist is great but less random please. drop pods would be cool.
Love playing my Sisters army and don't really have any real problems on the table top with them aside from 36" range strong armies on tables with too little terrain....like scatbike filled armies.
But this post pretty well sums up what a new sisters codex could use, especially the 1 to 2 ppm drop on BSS just to make up for how strong a marine with chapter tactics is in comparison to a Battle Sister.
hrmp.. i would like to see bikes have a shorter range on weapons.
Having a relentless platform, that moves 12 inch with 18inch gravguns, or Eldar with Jetbikes and scatter, and doesnt have a accuracy reduction.. is kinda odd?
I think it would be better balanced, that if the bike/jetbike moves 6 inch or less it would be able to shoot at max range with accuracy.
If the bike/jetbike moves 6.1 inch to 12 inch, it would be able to shoot half range as normal, or over half to maximum with snapshots(or less ballistic skill).
This too show that moving at high speeds has a negative effect on long range accuracy.
Also, bring back the power of the Combined Arms Detachment.
No to the VDRs. That set of rules was far too easy to abuse. Although an amusing result of my messing around with them was me spending considerable time and effort converting Rhinos into Rhinos.
In case you want the full story....
Spoiler:
I'd set out to make a vehicle to fill the role of a Predator, but have better ability to move and shoot. I had an extra front plate from a Land Raider kicking around from having built my LR Prometheus, so I substituted that for the Rhino's front plate, and threw together a TLLC turret that would fit in the space, with a TLLC Razorback turret for the top. In a fit of enthusiasm for the idea, I built a second. Then I came to my senses and realized no one was likely to agree to let me use the things, so I used plasticard to make little additions I could drop into the space to fill them in and represent a driver's position. Wound up with a couple of distinctive-looking, somewhat asymmetrical Rhinos.
An additional wrinkle to this story - I left them in my car on a hot, sunny day. They warped, particularly those Land Raider plates. So, I took them out, and I was going to simply replicate the normal Rhino front plate with plasticard as best I could, when I had the idea to instead build out the front with an extended cab, kind of like the Unimog, or various European APCs. That worked pretty decently. Now I have a couple visually distinctive, symmetrical Rhinos. I call them MkIV Rhinos (the previous versions being Mk IIIs), and I say the extra space provides more room for ammunition and supplies for the squads.
In principle, I agree with giving some kind of buff to CADs.
One thing I think 5th ed did right - only Troops could score. If we went back to that - sure, you can min-max and skimp on Troops to build a huge deathstar, or to cram in as many Riptides or Wraithknights as you can, but when I kill your 100pts of Troops with my whole army, about the best you'll be able to do is tie.
Like everyone else is saying, put the focus back towards core units and infantry. We can keep Superheavies and Flyers, but make them more vulnerable to infantry so people are less forced to have a "hard-counter".
Use of more than one Grenade in assault with MCs and vehicles again, please. (nix the draft FAQ ruling)
I'll echo the above post and also say no to first turn assaults.
Right now Vehicles require 25+% cover to get a cover save, while MC's only require base contact. This doesn't feel right.
Ability for weapons to do multiple wounds to models would be nice. For example, if a model is hit by a weapon with more than 2 Strength above the Targets toughness, do 2 wounds. EG, a Riptide hit by a Lascannon takes two wounds. A Wraithknight would take only one. (or some similar mechanic) A Plasma Gun would do two wounds to a Space Marine Captain with this rule. Plasma Cannons get more interesting.
Insectum7 wrote: Like everyone else is saying, put the focus back towards core units and infantry. We can keep Superheavies and Flyers, but make them more vulnerable to infantry so people are less forced to have a "hard-counter".
Use of more than one Grenade in assault with MCs and vehicles again, please. (nix the draft FAQ ruling)
I'll echo the above post and also say no to first turn assaults.
Right now Vehicles require 25+% cover to get a cover save, while MC's only require base contact. This doesn't feel right.
Ability for weapons to do multiple wounds to models would be nice. For example, if a model is hit by a weapon with more than 2 Strength above the Targets toughness, do 2 wounds. EG, a Riptide hit by a Lascannon takes two wounds. A Wraithknight would take only one. (or some similar mechanic) A Plasma Gun would do two wounds to a Space Marine Captain with this rule. Plasma Cannons get more interesting.
I agree with those two last posts except that the mechanic of dealing 2 wounds to a MC is problematic if your going to carry it over to infantry models.
Centurions and Meganobz would basically be garbage if you could, for all intents and purposes, double them out with a S7 weapon. I see the point of shooting a MC and it doing 2 wounds but that is also a flawed mechanic against the more Normalized MCs that the Nids have.
Only if done properly. This is GW we are talking about so we know they can't do nothing properly. I am sure if GW did new VDR it would be just roll a d6 for armour/ weapons etc, and there you go, your VDR .
Also, bring back the power of the Combined Arms Detachment.
Has it gone away? It's still there isn't it? You just choose not to use it.
Actually I would love for GW to get rid of this. Why? I am a Tyranid player. Why would aliens from another galaxy have a same layout as if they were Space Marines? As for what needs to be "buffed" or usable? How about instead of buffing things that are not usable actually make a game that is fair and fun and perfectly balanced?
I find it funny that certain ideas are automatically rejected or supported by the player base because of their experience with it. Take a step back, people.
Maybe if GW didn't cock up the rules in the first place something might work? Take vehicle rules for example - in 4th vehicles were death traps except for skimmers. So instead of making vehicles a bit hardier while toning down skimmers, GW went on to make vehicles too capable with the new vehicle resolution table. Adding rules like hitting on the rear automatically or later adding hull points are just clunky, counterintuitive mechanics slapped on to adjust for not getting the rules to make sense in the first place.
The solution is a better rule, not to fix the fix of a bad fix. Too many people are thinking in terms of fixing layer D because layer F of rule X is bad. Just throw out the original "fix" as well and start over. Get the basic rules right, and let them make sense. La de da, let's or we can just chase our tails.
I want the Tyranid Codex to be more like 4 (not as overpowered; just pliable enough to have different ways to play other than flyrants. Flyrants are boring. Blobbing is boring. I want my MCs to actually be scary and be competent.
Give Tyranids more than the Hive mind psyker discipline. It's okay but it suck by comparison to the old options!
I would like to see CSM and SM terminators recive a slight buff. Give the a 4++ or give them a second wound, or maybe even give them Reanimation protocol 5++ after the failed save.
GIVE SPACE MARINE WHILRWINDS BACK THEIR LAND MINES! I MADE LIKE fething 12 OF THOSE THINGS ONLY TO HAVE THEM REMOVED FROM THE GAME
-I understand why, I'm just really sad I put so much effort for its to be removed-
I would like swarm bases to be just a tad more survivable.
Make imperial Guard psykers have more options from diffrent disciplines. Right now, its either rerolls to hit or summon deamons, No real reason to do anything else with them.
Chaos just need an overall buff. Nothing huge, maybe like make every unit they have justa couple points cheaper and thats it.
Insectum7 wrote: Like everyone else is saying, put the focus back towards core units and infantry. We can keep Superheavies and Flyers, but make them more vulnerable to infantry so people are less forced to have a "hard-counter".
Use of more than one Grenade in assault with MCs and vehicles again, please. (nix the draft FAQ ruling)
I'll echo the above post and also say no to first turn assaults.
Right now Vehicles require 25+% cover to get a cover save, while MC's only require base contact. This doesn't feel right.
Ability for weapons to do multiple wounds to models would be nice. For example, if a model is hit by a weapon with more than 2 Strength above the Targets toughness, do 2 wounds. EG, a Riptide hit by a Lascannon takes two wounds. A Wraithknight would take only one. (or some similar mechanic) A Plasma Gun would do two wounds to a Space Marine Captain with this rule. Plasma Cannons get more interesting.
I agree with those two last posts except that the mechanic of dealing 2 wounds to a MC is problematic if your going to carry it over to infantry models.
Centurions and Meganobz would basically be garbage if you could, for all intents and purposes, double them out with a S7 weapon. I see the point of shooting a MC and it doing 2 wounds but that is also a flawed mechanic against the more Normalized MCs that the Nids have.
Also what would happen if you shoot a one wound model? Do you remove two models from the squad?
Insectum7 wrote: Like everyone else is saying, put the focus back towards core units and infantry. We can keep Superheavies and Flyers, but make them more vulnerable to infantry so people are less forced to have a "hard-counter".
Use of more than one Grenade in assault with MCs and vehicles again, please. (nix the draft FAQ ruling)
I'll echo the above post and also say no to first turn assaults.
Right now Vehicles require 25+% cover to get a cover save, while MC's only require base contact. This doesn't feel right.
Ability for weapons to do multiple wounds to models would be nice. For example, if a model is hit by a weapon with more than 2 Strength above the Targets toughness, do 2 wounds. EG, a Riptide hit by a Lascannon takes two wounds. A Wraithknight would take only one. (or some similar mechanic) A Plasma Gun would do two wounds to a Space Marine Captain with this rule. Plasma Cannons get more interesting.
I agree with those two last posts except that the mechanic of dealing 2 wounds to a MC is problematic if your going to carry it over to infantry models.
Centurions and Meganobz would basically be garbage if you could, for all intents and purposes, double them out with a S7 weapon. I see the point of shooting a MC and it doing 2 wounds but that is also a flawed mechanic against the more Normalized MCs that the Nids have.
It would also kill Tyranid Warriors even further then they have.
I agree with those two last posts except that the mechanic of dealing 2 wounds to a MC is problematic if your going to carry it over to infantry models.
Centurions and Meganobz would basically be garbage if you could, for all intents and purposes, double them out with a S7 weapon. I see the point of shooting a MC and it doing 2 wounds but that is also a flawed mechanic against the more Normalized MCs that the Nids have.
Well, for Centurions that wouldn't be the case for S7, since they're T 5. I can see the point for Meganobs though (although making them T5 wouldn't be bad, either.)
Also what would happen if you shoot a one wound model? Do you remove two models from the squad?
No, just 2 W on a single model. I was thinking in line with an older Tyranid mutation I think, any single unsaved wound done to a model becomes two.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: It would also kill Tyranid Warriors even further then they have.
Honestly, I would rather bring back the old Synapse rules from 4th, where creatures in Synapse would only take a single wound even if ID'd. I always thought that was one of the best rules in the game.
I feel like something like the rule would help certain weapons be more competitive with each other, in any case. It helps weapons like a Lascannon compete with something like a Grav Cannon (which ought to lose a shot or two anyways, while we're at it).
I always wondered why GW has been so resistant to making the medium Tyranid bugs T5. There's a fairly logical progression from T3 Gaunts to T4 Genestealers, then T6 Tyrants and T7 Carnifexes. But, there's a gap where T5 ought to be, and the midsized bugs are bigger than Stealers but smaller than Tyrants, so you'd think T5 would be logical for them. Instead, they're T4, and occasionally have BS rules exempting them from Instant Death because GW won't do the logical thing and just make them T5.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: I always wondered why GW has been so resistant to making the medium Tyranid bugs T5. There's a fairly logical progression from T3 Gaunts to T4 Genestealers, then T6 Tyrants and T7 Carnifexes. But, there's a gap where T5 ought to be, and the midsized bugs are bigger than Stealers but smaller than Tyrants, so you'd think T5 would be logical for them. Instead, they're T4, and occasionally have BS rules exempting them from Instant Death because GW won't do the logical thing and just make them T5.
You know? That's a damn fine point. Warriors wouldn't be fearing Krak Missiles or Battlecannons at T5.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: I always wondered why GW has been so resistant to making the medium Tyranid bugs T5. There's a fairly logical progression from T3 Gaunts to T4 Genestealers, then T6 Tyrants and T7 Carnifexes. But, there's a gap where T5 ought to be, and the midsized bugs are bigger than Stealers but smaller than Tyrants, so you'd think T5 would be logical for them. Instead, they're T4, and occasionally have BS rules exempting them from Instant Death because GW won't do the logical thing and just make them T5.
You know? That's a damn fine point. Warriors wouldn't be fearing Krak Missiles or Battlecannons at T5.
The main problem there is that I think warriors would then experience a further price hike. Outside of instant death issues of being T4, I think T4 suits them. But then again eternal warrior would be too OP, especially vs S9 + S10 weapons, realistically they should be T4 with T4.5 in terms of instant death which is impossible. So I suppose T5 would be the best solution :/
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: I always wondered why GW has been so resistant to making the medium Tyranid bugs T5. There's a fairly logical progression from T3 Gaunts to T4 Genestealers, then T6 Tyrants and T7 Carnifexes. But, there's a gap where T5 ought to be, and the midsized bugs are bigger than Stealers but smaller than Tyrants, so you'd think T5 would be logical for them. Instead, they're T4, and occasionally have BS rules exempting them from Instant Death because GW won't do the logical thing and just make them T5.
You know? That's a damn fine point. Warriors wouldn't be fearing Krak Missiles or Battlecannons at T5.
The main problem there is that I think warriors would then experience a further price hike. Outside of instant death issues of being T4, I think T4 suits them. But then again eternal warrior would be too OP, especially vs S9 + S10 weapons, realistically they should be T4 with T4.5 in terms of instant death which is impossible. So I suppose T5 would be the best solution :/
T4 is a marine. T5 is a centurion. Think about the size of the Warrior, to which one is closer?
Actually I would love for GW to get rid of this. Why? I am a Tyranid player. Why would aliens from another galaxy have a same layout as if they were Space Marines? As for what needs to be "buffed" or usable? How about instead of buffing things that are not usable actually make a game that is fair and fun and perfectly balanced?
Yeah, I feel like the right way to go would have been more variant force org charts for each army, but instead they decided to go with formations which I'm just not a fan of. Why the latter was necessary instead of the former, I'm not entirely clear tbh.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Like, I feel like the Ork Horde detachment was a good idea in theory, but there's literally nothing about it that makes it better than taking a CAD.
Jefffar wrote: Given their size its hard to argue Crisis Suits and Broadsides staying T4, at least both of them being it.
They used to be toughness 5. Frankly I think they should be made T5 because crisis suits already have a tough time being competitive, and broadsides feel way to soft IMO.
I would like to see more realistic rules for bikes, give them a fixed firing arc like vehicle weapons and make it so they can only turn 90 degrees for every 6" they move. This would sort out scatter bikes because yeah they could still JSJ, but they would end up going further forwards with the second jump.
Also double the number of hull points on all vehicles, any weapon of strength 7/8 or higher is now considered an anti tank weapon and removes 2 hull points at a time.
I'd like to see Heldrakes get a better arc of fire. Give them 180 degrees frontal with a special rule that allows them to fire at a unit they vector struck, perhaps with an accuracy modifier. (+1 to hit or something).
Less buffs, more nerfs, I think, with the main one being a re-understanding of the core game.
Waaayyy back when, there was a passage that says, roughly,
"The modern battlefield is filled with terrible weapons, great warmachines that stride through cities laying waste to everything they survey, while deadly craft fill the skies.
This is not about them.
This is about the trooper down in the trenches, doing what they can to survive. A fragment of the greater war, away from those great machines, where stubborn men of high resolve do battle with guns, knives, or even their bare hands. These are tales of small battles that turn the tide and of skirmishes that will never be known.
This is Warhammer 40K"
A game that's based around the troopers, common footsloggers getting in there and getting it done.
No super-heavy stuff, no flyers, no crazy stuff ... just a game where basic Guardsmen, Ork Boys, and Tactical Marines can throw down and make a big difference by themselves, rather than just being "Ablative wounds for a heavy/special weapon".
Walkers. I love ork walkers, but they are all terrible. I'm not sure what could be done exactly, and I don't think I'd really like them being MCs.....I honestly don't know how to fix walkers, but I know I'd like deff dreads to actually do something every so often.
Of course, any walker buff that happens will be universal, and deff dreads will still be awful compared to other dreads, but still, would be nice to see.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Walkers. I love ork walkers, but they are all terrible. I'm not sure what could be done exactly, and I don't think I'd really like them being MCs.....I honestly don't know how to fix walkers, but I know I'd like deff dreads to actually do something every so often.
Of course, any walker buff that happens will be universal, and deff dreads will still be awful compared to other dreads, but still, would be nice to see.
4 CC arms and still garbage number of attacks.....
Kap'n Krump wrote: Walkers. I love ork walkers, but they are all terrible. I'm not sure what could be done exactly, and I don't think I'd really like them being MCs.....I honestly don't know how to fix walkers, but I know I'd like deff dreads to actually do something every so often.
Of course, any walker buff that happens will be universal, and deff dreads will still be awful compared to other dreads, but still, would be nice to see.
Make all Walkers MCs, or all MCs Walkers. Leave the vehicle rules to actual vehicles?
One thing I would love to see is MCs get weaker as they take more wounds. It's worked out well in AoS and I think would help balance some of the more ridiculous MCs in 40k.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Walkers. I love ork walkers, but they are all terrible. I'm not sure what could be done exactly, and I don't think I'd really like them being MCs.....I honestly don't know how to fix walkers, but I know I'd like deff dreads to actually do something every so often.
Of course, any walker buff that happens will be universal, and deff dreads will still be awful compared to other dreads, but still, would be nice to see.
Make all Walkers MCs, or all MCs Walkers. Leave the vehicle rules to actual vehicles?
One thing I would love to see is MCs get weaker as they take more wounds. It's worked out well in AoS and I think would help balance some of the more ridiculous MCs in 40k.
Minor issue with that is that wound count is much lower in 40k. I like the idea-I just think it'd be difficult to implement well.
Jefffar wrote: Given their size its hard to argue Crisis Suits and Broadsides staying T4, at least both of them being it.
I agree 100%
They should definitely become AV10 walkers.
Actually, I've run some figures on making them walkers, the sweet spots seem to be AV 11 and 12 for Crisis Suit and Broadside respectively.
Less and they are giving away too much in durability vs medium guns. More and they are far too resistant to high strength weapons.
Of course the Walker transition does make them immune from.leadership, morale and poison effects. It does substitute instant death with explosions however.
Jefffar wrote: Given their size its hard to argue Crisis Suits and Broadsides staying T4, at least both of them being it.
Centurions are pretty thick, and the guy inside is T 4, so T 5 feels ok for them. But the Crisis suits are much spindlier, and the fish-man inside is only T 3, so I think T 4 works well enough for them. Both Crisis suits and Centurion suits give +1 Toughness and +1 wound, which feels consistent.
The current Broadside model is huge though, so T 5 seems appropriate to me.
It's tough comparing them to Tyranid Warriors simply going by size though. IMO the Warriors 4+ save hurts them a lot, but a 3+ would feel out of place. As organics, they're much bigger than a Space Marine, so T 5 feels alright. In comparison to Broadsides or Crisis suits, I like the idea that Warriors don't feel pain like a Tau or Marine, and as hive-mind controlled entities they will continue fighting after losing limbs/can't go into shock/and you basically have to annihilate them before they stop.
That and I'd just like to see them on the table again. T 5, 3 W without a raise in price would help.
Jefffar wrote: Given their size its hard to argue Crisis Suits and Broadsides staying T4, at least both of them being it.
I agree 100%
They should definitely become AV10 walkers.
Actually, I've run some figures on making them walkers, the sweet spots seem to be AV 11 and 12 for Crisis Suit and Broadside respectively.
Less and they are giving away too much in durability vs medium guns. More and they are far too resistant to high strength weapons.
Of course the Walker transition does make them immune from.leadership, morale and poison effects. It does substitute instant death with explosions however.
Nope, those little buggers should be AV10, maybe the broadsides should be 11 but thats it. And they should be 2HPs
this really just sums up the problem o the current rule set, MCs and infantry with stupid abilities like the Tau have should either be made into vehicles or fix the rules, and in the case of the tau, fix the codex.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Walkers. I love ork walkers, but they are all terrible. I'm not sure what could be done exactly, and I don't think I'd really like them being MCs.....I honestly don't know how to fix walkers, but I know I'd like deff dreads to actually do something every so often.
Of course, any walker buff that happens will be universal, and deff dreads will still be awful compared to other dreads, but still, would be nice to see.
Make all Walkers MCs, or all MCs Walkers. Leave the vehicle rules to actual vehicles?
One thing I would love to see is MCs get weaker as they take more wounds. It's worked out well in AoS and I think would help balance some of the more ridiculous MCs in 40k.
Minor issue with that is that wound count is much lower in 40k. I like the idea-I just think it'd be difficult to implement well.
Maybe increase wound count overall? Guardsmen and the like are still 1 wound, tac marines get 2 wounds, etc. But we'd have to change weapon stats too, I bet.
Jefffar wrote: Given their size its hard to argue Crisis Suits and Broadsides staying T4, at least both of them being it.
I agree 100%
They should definitely become AV10 walkers.
Actually, I've run some figures on making them walkers, the sweet spots seem to be AV 11 and 12 for Crisis Suit and Broadside respectively.
Less and they are giving away too much in durability vs medium guns. More and they are far too resistant to high strength weapons.
Of course the Walker transition does make them immune from.leadership, morale and poison effects. It does substitute instant death with explosions however.
Nope, those little buggers should be AV10, maybe the broadsides should be 11 but thats it. And they should be 2HPs
this really just sums up the problem o the current rule set, MCs and infantry with stupid abilities like the Tau have should either be made into vehicles or fix the rules, and in the case of the tau, fix the codex.
Crisis suits and broadsides were never a problem in 5thed and before when tau literally sucked. Making their suits into walks removes their ability to Jump shoot jump and kinda kills the only thing crisis suits have that makes them viable. Broadsides don't need to be more delicate when they already aren't that good.
Also the reason tau MCs are MCs is because they wouldn't be able to use tau support systems and wouldn't be able to jump shoot jump, which has been integeral to tau play since forever.
Right now the game seems to be about speed and numbers, or D weaponry.
Personally I think escalation should be a 3rd game type, or just bring back the VP system it had. The escalation VP system where you got points for beating down a Super Heavy when you didn't have one was pretty nice. It might lower the spamming of them in games if they gave up a few VP for killing them.
The D table and vehicle damage table, both I feel need reworked.
Right now the D table is either "I did a bit of damage" or "lol, you lose the game because I rolled a 6" and there is nothing fun about that. 6 on the D chart is too much for standard tabletop play to me.
I feel like vehicles became a liability, so GW started to give them out for free. So were in a nasty spot. I wish we could go back to no free transports and just make vehicles a little more durable and better.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: I always wondered why GW has been so resistant to making the medium Tyranid bugs T5. There's a fairly logical progression from T3 Gaunts to T4 Genestealers, then T6 Tyrants and T7 Carnifexes. But, there's a gap where T5 ought to be, and the midsized bugs are bigger than Stealers but smaller than Tyrants, so you'd think T5 would be logical for them. Instead, they're T4, and occasionally have BS rules exempting them from Instant Death because GW won't do the logical thing and just make them T5.
You know? That's a damn fine point. Warriors wouldn't be fearing Krak Missiles or Battlecannons at T5.
The main problem there is that I think warriors would then experience a further price hike. Outside of instant death issues of being T4, I think T4 suits them. But then again eternal warrior would be too OP, especially vs S9 + S10 weapons, realistically they should be T4 with T4.5 in terms of instant death which is impossible. So I suppose T5 would be the best solution :/
T4 is a marine. T5 is a centurion. Think about the size of the Warrior, to which one is closer?
Size isn't a measure of toughness, there's a reason they're 3W and fluff wise I think T4 suits them perfectly fine. They're not suppose to be tanky units, but yes they're suppose to be tough. The problem is they're already 30 ppm, make them T5 and they're going to be extremely tough units to remove from the table and I'd imagine they're also experience a price hike. Against small arms fire or even Krak Missiles I'm perfectly fine with them being T4, it's just vs blasts in all honesty that it ruins the unit which is made worse by the fact most large blasts are S8-10.
Nope, those little buggers should be AV10, maybe the broadsides should be 11 but thats it. And they should be 2HPs
Yeah, like that'll happen. . .
It'd also make them less susceptible to CC, which is the wrong direction anyways. Guardsmen couldn't hurt them at all in CC, Vehicles are fearless so you couldn't Sweeping Advance them, with drones you'd wind up with units that are both standard infantry stats and Vehicle rules. . . making them AV just isn't the way to go. There are easier solutions available.
I'd be happy to see walkers got rid of and just become MC. Doesn't really add anything to the game, mechanically, by having a weird halfway-between-vehicle-and-infantry category in there, and it definitely causes a fair bit of weird bother.
Nazrak wrote: I'd be happy to see walkers got rid of and just become MC. Doesn't really add anything to the game, mechanically, by having a weird halfway-between-vehicle-and-infantry category in there, and it definitely causes a fair bit of weird bother.
I don't know if they should be gotten rid of, but the relationship between the MCs and Walkers definitely needs some adjustments.
But what does something being a walker, rather than an MC, add to the game? It seems like an unnecessary complication to me. Of course it's entirely possible I've overlooked something.
Nazrak wrote: I'd be happy to see walkers got rid of and just become MC. Doesn't really add anything to the game, mechanically, by having a weird halfway-between-vehicle-and-infantry category in there, and it definitely causes a fair bit of weird bother.
I don't know if they should be gotten rid of, but the relationship between the MCs and Walkers definitely needs some adjustments.
I agree, I like having something being critters and some things being robots, but the MC ruleset currently is far superior to that of walkers and vehicles in general.
Nazrak wrote: But what does something being a walker, rather than an MC, add to the game? It seems like an unnecessary complication to me. Of course it's entirely possible I've overlooked something.
My dreadnought can walk into a unit of gaunts, zombies, guardsmen and heck, even most tactical marine squads and not have much to worry about.
Most MCs can be slowly whittled down by numbers of attacks. Even the riptide can be taken out by orks or guard.
Armor ignores light fire, toughness doesn't. That is what it adds. You used to have to have the right tools to kill a walker or tank, but now, many units can glance them to death.
Jefffar wrote: Given their size its hard to argue Crisis Suits and Broadsides staying T4, at least both of them being it.
They used to be toughness 5. Frankly I think they should be made T5 because crisis suits already have a tough time being competitive, and broadsides feel way to soft IMO.
Nah. T4 is OK. They just need 4++ with a bonus FNP on top of that!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wakshaani wrote: Less buffs, more nerfs, I think, with the main one being a re-understanding of the core game.
A game that's based around the troopers, common footsloggers getting in there and getting it done.
No super-heavy stuff, no flyers, no crazy stuff ... just a game where basic Guardsmen, Ork Boys, and Tactical Marines can throw down and make a big difference by themselves, rather than just being "Ablative wounds for a heavy/special weapon".
Yeah, as a principle I don't have a problem with Flyers or Superheavies, it's just that the rules around them could make them much more engaging, and ensure relevancy for the little guy.
Get rid of multiple saves (RP, FnP, etc) and rerolls on saves, they slow the game down, if you want something to be tough give it more wounds.
Replace AP with rend, AP is all or nothing and that's lame. Rend allows for diversification of weapons without invalidating an opponents defenses.
Get rid of the vehicle damage table, and replace it with multiple profiles based on how many Hull points a vehicle has taken. Give them a bunch of hull points, and allow penetrating hits from heavy weapons to do multiple hull points. This makes vehicles harder to glance to death, but allows heavy weapons a specific role in taking them down. We do the same thing for monstrous creatures, multiple profiles, and heavy weapons do multiple wounds with a good rend value.
Get rid of ID, make high strength weapons inflict multiple wounds per hit, so there is a chance that a space marine IC might survive a hit from a melta (like huron blackheart).
Have modifiers to saves instead of different save types, Cover gives a +1 to your save (to a maximum save of 2+ after rending), Invul saves are a minimum value that your save can't be reduced past, for instance a chaplain would have a 3+ save and could only be rended down to a 4+.
The biggest, best nerf I'd like to say is on saving throws, and would something like this:
"When a model takes a wound, it gets one attempt to remove the damage. This can take several forms, and you may pick which one to attempt for each wound your model takes.
Armor Save - These are negated by sufficient armor piercing (For example, an armor save of 5+ can be negated by AP 5 or lower)
Cover Save - These are negated by any weapon with the "Ignores cover" rule, and also may not be taken against melee attacks.
Feel No Pain - These are negated by any attack that inflicts Instant Death. (Most notable of these is an attack with a Strength of double or greater of the target's Toughness)
Invulnerable Save - Unless they are generated by a special rule that notes that they may be negated, a model may always take invulnerable Saves. Note that, unlike other saves, you may never reroll invulnerable saves.
When a model suffers a wound, you may choose one method that the model has to try and reduce the wound. If this save is failed, you may not attempt another way to negate the wound."
Push the Necron Repair Protocols up into Feel no Pain, and let fly.
So, invulnerable saves, never get rerolls.
All other saves might be rerolled (due to a psychic power, for instance), but may be negated.
You only get one try to dodge damage. No more "Try my invulnerable 3+. , reroll it, 4+ feel no pain (and possible repair after *that*!) ... just one and done.
This lets you play around with a few rules from there.
For example, allow Terminators to reroll failed armor saves. Suddenly, the pitter-patter of Gretchin blasters is as rain upon them, splattering off simply, while heavy guns can still power through. Meanwhile, Deathstars take a gamble as you don't get to stack save on top of save ..one well-placed kaboom could wipe them out in one go..
Jefffar wrote: Given their size its hard to argue Crisis Suits and Broadsides staying T4, at least both of them being it.
They used to be toughness 5. Frankly I think they should be made T5 because crisis suits already have a tough time being competitive, and broadsides feel way to soft IMO.
Nah. T4 is OK. They just need 4++ with a bonus FNP on top of that!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wakshaani wrote: Less buffs, more nerfs, I think, with the main one being a re-understanding of the core game.
A game that's based around the troopers, common footsloggers getting in there and getting it done.
No super-heavy stuff, no flyers, no crazy stuff ... just a game where basic Guardsmen, Ork Boys, and Tactical Marines can throw down and make a big difference by themselves, rather than just being "Ablative wounds for a heavy/special weapon".
Is that too much to ask?
Yes. Yes it is. I like my giant toys, TYVM.
So blow 40 points making it so your crisis suits can only have 1 weapon? You've literally doubled the price and halved the shooting power of a crisis suit so that it only gains 4 up invuln when a 5 up cover save is almost always there, and FNP does nothing about str 8.
Broadsides can only take one support system and FNP is useless against str 8, and your broadsides should always be in 4+ cover anyways.
Here's my mad list of space marine (and others) things I think would be neat:
1. Let different guns in the same unit shoot at different targets (across the board, but prob affects marines and IG the most).
2. Tac marines get a combat blade as well as their bolter and pistol. Give Chainswords Shred. Tacs become more flexible, assault marines become nastier.
3. Storm bolters become Assault 4. (Range 18"?) Back in the day, they used to kick out twice as many shots as a bolter. Now they aren't different enough.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Prob bump tacs and assault marines by a point if you're implementing the above)
Nazrak wrote: Here's my mad list of space marine (and others) things I think would be neat:
1. Let different guns in the same unit shoot at different targets (across the board, but prob affects marines and IG the most).
2. Tac marines get a combat blade as well as their bolter and pistol. Give Chainswords Shred. Tacs become more flexible, assault marines become nastier.
3. Storm bolters become Assault 4. (Range 18"?) Back in the day, they used to kick out twice as many shots as a bolter. Now they aren't different enough.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Prob bump tacs and assault marines by a point if you're implementing the above)
In regards to number 3, the DA have a Relic that is exactly that, plus Shred and AP4 for about 20 points. Not great, but can be a nasty little surprise from a Librarian leading a bunch of Terminators.
Change the explodes result to "model losses 1+d3 hull points. If it's not a Super heavy, it also suffers the loss of a random weapon, is immobilized and can only snap fire, also all models inside take a str 4 hit and must take a leadership test. If they fail they can only snap fire.
I'd like to exploded not insta kill automatically.
Jaxler wrote: Change the explodes result to "model losses 1+d3 hull points. If it's not a Super heavy, it also suffers the loss of a random weapon, is immobilized and can only snap fire, also all models inside take a str 4 hit and must take a leadership test. If they fail they can only snap fire.
I'd like to exploded not insta kill automatically.
Most vehicles are 3 HP, Land Raiders are 4. That'd still kill most vehicles 66% of the time, and Land Raiders 25% of the time. You'd have to give them more hull points.
Jaxler wrote: Change the explodes result to "model losses 1+d3 hull points. If it's not a Super heavy, it also suffers the loss of a random weapon, is immobilized and can only snap fire, also all models inside take a str 4 hit and must take a leadership test. If they fail they can only snap fire.
I'd like to exploded not insta kill automatically.
Most vehicles are 3 HP, Land Raiders are 4. That'd still kill most vehicles 66% of the time, and Land Raiders 25% of the time. You'd have to give them more hull points.
I would actually like for most things to have more wounds/HP, but for those wounds/HP to be easier to take off. It's one of the things I love about AoS. Even though I may not have removed that model with my attack, I feel like I've actually done something.
For the Tau, and restricting the discussion to the topic at hand (that is, what one wants to see BUFFED/USABLE, not which models you want to see nerfed into oblivion because they've touched you in a bad place, while allowing for minor changes to avoid people hating you for fielding a model at all)...
I think a general buff to vehicles would be a substantial step in making all Tau vehicles worthwhile. The only thing I could imagine still needing a buff would probably be the Hammerhead's Railgun (unless they fix the issue of the relative weakness for single shot, high strength/low ap guns).
Devilfish could stand to drop a bit in points, though nothing drastic.
I'd like to see Vespid be improved again - as is, their niche is too small to be worth taking when one can get more Crisis suits. Rending on their claws, maybe, to represent their ability to tear through rocks?
I'd like to see viable Kroot CQC capabilities like the old 4th ed codex, with S4 and effectively two attacks base. Preferrably one could still take them with Sniper rounds, but I wouldn't mind if one had to choose between the extra attack and the ability to shoot sniper shots.
Fire Warriors and Breacher teams are probably roughly fine where they are, and would be in a reasonably fine place if they had slightly cheaper transport options.
Stealth teams could use a slight point cost reduction, though the OSC formation is already a pretty big effective point reduction (the equivalent of 3 ML tokens per squad, which would be about 66 points per squad at the cheapest, albeit with fairly light restrictions).
Crisis Suits are fine as they are - I don't think they quite deserve T5, and the mechanics for Infantry fit them far better than the mechanics for Walkers.
Broadsides, with their significantly upsized (practically Dreadnought-sized) models, would be well served by a T5. The HYMP is fine (if not underpriced) as is, but the Heavy Rail Rifle should be a Rapidfire instead of Heavy so it can compete. I'd accept a slight point increase for these changes to keep them balanced.
Ghostkeels seem fine, though I've found their Small Blast melta weapon underwhelming. Not sure how to fix that, and not sure if my experience is universal, so I'd be OK if it was left as is.
Riptides should have their point cost increased a bit. I'd also be fine with the IA losing some range (down to 36"-48"). The Heavy Burst Cannon could stand to be buffed a bit - Perhaps Rending on the non-Nova firing mode.
Stormsurges should be T7, but not capable of being taken in multiples (They're Lords of War, FFS).
The Coldstar Commander needs to prevent instant death upon failing the check after being hit while flying. That's just silly. I would prefer if it was a bit more open to modification in weapons loadoat.
Generally speaking, I wouldn't mind if 8th added some sort of "Cyborg" or "Machine" USR that one could apply to Infantry-type models, which would allow for effective immunity against things like Fleshbane, Poison, and the like, while making them more vulnerable to Haywire, Armorbane, and other anti-vehicle tools.
That would help Tau battlesuits make more sense in their behavior and durability in the game.
gwarsh41 wrote: Right now the D table is either "I did a bit of damage" or "lol, you lose the game because I rolled a 6" and there is nothing fun about that. 6 on the D chart is too much for standard tabletop play to me.
This. Wraithguard can potentially do more damage on Overwatch than most units can in a full turn, and while there are ways to mitigate this it still seems a bit excessive to me.
First, the D table starts with NOTHING HAPPENS [1] and jumps up to 6+d6 [6].
Second, if WG are doing that much damage on Overwatch, you need to ensure that fair dice are being used, because that's an awful lot of 6s that Eldar player is rolling. If that other unit is always rolling 6s, it's going to do an awful lot of damage, too.
a 5 man unit is going to get 10 D hits against a charging unit on average, typically killing 7-8 models.
If it's D-Scythes, then it's 10 D-1 hits, so it'll kill 6-7 models.
Tactically, maybe it's not a good idea to charge a unit of UberFlamers, given that said unit is slow and short-ranged, and not especially durable for the points...
Matt.Kingsley wrote: I was just refuting your claim that they aren't super-killy when overwatching. They are when they have D-Scythes.
You just said "WG", which default to be armed with standard Wraithcannon. 6 WG will score 1 hit, and maybe kill 1 dude. That is not even close to "super-killy" when overwatching.
I might as well say that SM are super solid against Imperial Guard S8 AP3 Battlecannon fire, without clarifying afterward that they are when they have Terminator armor....
You're mixing people up here, I only ever said WG with D-Scythes. It was the other guy (the one who started this conversation) that just said WG.
It seemed pretty obvious to me that he meant D-Scythe WG, as that's the most common kind you see these days simply because of how devastating their firepower is.
455_PWR wrote: Terminators... deathwing... dark angels deathwing alpha strike (hell blood angels and space marines can do it now, we used to be able to do it)
Make the BA as competent at high speed combat as the DA, and we'll talk.
I wouldn't mind assaults on turn 1 if they changed the action to something like Dark Age where each player took turns activating one unit back and fourth until each sides units have activated then end the round.
Orks, in general. More specifically:
Meganobz are overcosted, and while they can be dead killy if they actually get to hit, they are slow to get into close combat (Unless you buy an expensive and fragile transport, or a cheap and really really fragile transport,) and the amount of AP2 at range (Or just AP2 at initiative) currently in the game ensures that they'll be made into mincemeat.
C'mon, would it kill GW to let us have one invuln? Somewhere? (Kustom Force Fields don't count.) Cybork Bodies were fine as they were, but 6+ FNP is just useless.
There's practically no reason to take about half the units in the codex, on top of it all.
455_PWR wrote: Terminators... deathwing... dark angels deathwing alpha strike (hell blood angels and space marines can do it now, we used to be able to do it)
Make the BA as competent at high speed combat as the DA, and we'll talk.
You know, I think that what the BA really need is new design space.
Wolves are the close combat force.
White Scars are the fast and mobile force.
Ultramarines are the balanced force. (Hadouken!)
Dark Angeles are kinda hard to place but tend to be the beefy types (lots of Terminators)
Blood Angels just don't have design space in there to be *another* CC force.
So, mix 'em up.
Invoke the power of Sanguinus and make them a psyche-heavy force. Not bands of them so much as having more Librarians than most and gently nudge the Black Rage into "A permanent state of psychic-fueled rage, making them stronger, faster, more powerful than normal as psychic power ripples out of them, but the power drives them mad." They aren't the anti-Chaos force of the Grey Knights, but they have something different than most. give 'em fairly normal Marine stuff, minus a few neat gadgets, but add more psychic options. Let their veteran sergeants be upgraded to Pshycher Level 1 and have some small unit buff abilities. Give them a "Blood coven" Elite group of level 1 psychers lead by a level 2, who channel their power through him to blast stuff better.
It's a bit odd, but it gives them *something*, you know?
See, now I think 40k should go back to BA and DA being palette swap Ultras with just a couple unique units and Special Characters. 90% identical on the board.
You know, I think that what the BA really need is new design space.
Wolves are the close combat force.
White Scars are the fast and mobile force.
Ultramarines are the balanced force. (Hadouken!)
Dark Angeles are kinda hard to place but tend to be the beefy types (lots of Terminators)
Blood Angels just don't have design space in there to be *another* CC force.
So, mix 'em up.
Invoke the power of Sanguinus and make them a psyche-heavy force. Not bands of them so much as having more Librarians than most and gently nudge the Black Rage into "A permanent state of psychic-fueled rage, making them stronger, faster, more powerful than normal as psychic power ripples out of them, but the power drives them mad." They aren't the anti-Chaos force of the Grey Knights, but they have something different than most. give 'em fairly normal Marine stuff, minus a few neat gadgets, but add more psychic options. Let their veteran sergeants be upgraded to Pshycher Level 1 and have some small unit buff abilities. Give them a "Blood coven" Elite group of level 1 psychers lead by a level 2, who channel their power through him to blast stuff better.
It's a bit odd, but it gives them *something*, you know?
SW are not close combat, they are SM+1. Somehow better at literally everything.
DA are elite bikes and terminators
Ultras are balanced
BA are close combat
Having BA be psyker heavy doesnt make much sense. Sanguinius was a CC monster who Horus was only able to defeat by using sorcery. Apparently he didnt have much defense for that kind of stuff.
You know, I think that what the BA really need is new design space.
Wolves are the close combat force.
White Scars are the fast and mobile force.
Ultramarines are the balanced force. (Hadouken!)
Dark Angeles are kinda hard to place but tend to be the beefy types (lots of Terminators)
Blood Angels just don't have design space in there to be *another* CC force.
So, mix 'em up.
Invoke the power of Sanguinus and make them a psyche-heavy force. Not bands of them so much as having more Librarians than most and gently nudge the Black Rage into "A permanent state of psychic-fueled rage, making them stronger, faster, more powerful than normal as psychic power ripples out of them, but the power drives them mad." They aren't the anti-Chaos force of the Grey Knights, but they have something different than most. give 'em fairly normal Marine stuff, minus a few neat gadgets, but add more psychic options. Let their veteran sergeants be upgraded to Pshycher Level 1 and have some small unit buff abilities. Give them a "Blood coven" Elite group of level 1 psychers lead by a level 2, who channel their power through him to blast stuff better.
It's a bit odd, but it gives them *something*, you know?
SW are not close combat, they are SM+1. Somehow better at literally everything.
DA are elite bikes and terminators
Ultras are balanced
BA are close combat
Having BA be psyker heavy doesnt make much sense. Sanguinius was a CC monster who Horus was only able to defeat by using sorcery. Apparently he didnt have much defense for that kind of stuff.
Are you kidding about SW? Because they haven't been that since 5th edition. Nowadays, Space Wolves are Space Marines, but without most of their toys. We don't get Grav Guns, we don't get Centurion armor, we don't get a lot of things. Our scouts suck, our 'Tactical Marines' can take two special weapons, which is nice, but can't combat squad and ultimately kind of suck (Our version of Chapter Tactics just isn't as good as what most other armies get, and it's not worth 2ppm to get the +1 CCW). We don't have a Chapter Master equivalent, we don't have any way to get EW on anyone except our overcosted special characters. Most of our relics are pretty meh. We have two good units (TWC and Wulfen,) and neither of them are 'SM+1.'
SW are not close combat, they are SM+1. Somehow better at literally everything.
DA are elite bikes and terminators
Ultras are balanced
BA are close combat
Having BA be psyker heavy doesnt make much sense. Sanguinius was a CC monster who Horus was only able to defeat by using sorcery. Apparently he didnt have much defense for that kind of stuff.
Sanguinius was considered one of the most powerful psykers of all the Primarchs, possibly the 2nd most powerful behind Magnus. So it would make perfect sense.
JohnHwangDD wrote: See, now I think 40k should go back to BA and DA being palette swap Ultras with just a couple unique units and Special Characters. 90% identical on the board.
Care to explain why not? Because as far as I can see, shooting is king in 40k. Melee exists as an afterthought, for all but the specialized and highly focused close-combat units. Outside of straight removing melee from the game, I don't see how you could make things more balanced towards shooting.
Bobthehero wrote: If the Guard or Krieg had anything decent in CC I wouldn't take that unit anyway.
Good for you but a big part of this game is predicated on the ability to get into and fight Close Combat. Nids, Orks, some eldar, and some SM chapters THRIVE in CC. It would utterly ruin the game for half the factions if you got rid of CC.
So if you wanted to ruin half of 40k and lose a large portion of the fanbase this would be a good way to go about doing that
I am aware, don't care much about those armies (one in particular...) besides the point of this thread is to tell what you want to see buffed and I did just that.
You know, I think that what the BA really need is new design space.
Wolves are the close combat force.
White Scars are the fast and mobile force.
Ultramarines are the balanced force. (Hadouken!)
Dark Angeles are kinda hard to place but tend to be the beefy types (lots of Terminators)
Blood Angels just don't have design space in there to be *another* CC force.
So, mix 'em up.
Invoke the power of Sanguinus and make them a psyche-heavy force. Not bands of them so much as having more Librarians than most and gently nudge the Black Rage into "A permanent state of psychic-fueled rage, making them stronger, faster, more powerful than normal as psychic power ripples out of them, but the power drives them mad." They aren't the anti-Chaos force of the Grey Knights, but they have something different than most. give 'em fairly normal Marine stuff, minus a few neat gadgets, but add more psychic options. Let their veteran sergeants be upgraded to Pshycher Level 1 and have some small unit buff abilities. Give them a "Blood coven" Elite group of level 1 psychers lead by a level 2, who channel their power through him to blast stuff better.
It's a bit odd, but it gives them *something*, you know?
SW are not close combat, they are SM+1. Somehow better at literally everything.
DA are elite bikes and terminators
Ultras are balanced
BA are close combat
Having BA be psyker heavy doesnt make much sense. Sanguinius was a CC monster who Horus was only able to defeat by using sorcery. Apparently he didnt have much defense for that kind of stuff.
Are you kidding about SW? Because they haven't been that since 5th edition. Nowadays, Space Wolves are Space Marines, but without most of their toys. We don't get Grav Guns, we don't get Centurion armor, we don't get a lot of things. Our scouts suck, our 'Tactical Marines' can take two special weapons, which is nice, but can't combat squad and ultimately kind of suck (Our version of Chapter Tactics just isn't as good as what most other armies get, and it's not worth 2ppm to get the +1 CCW). We don't have a Chapter Master equivalent, we don't have any way to get EW on anyone except our overcosted special characters. Most of our relics are pretty meh. We have two good units (TWC and Wulfen,) and neither of them are 'SM+1.'
SW, otherwise known as C: Wulfen and TWC, make most other CC armies completely pointless. Lists like BA might as well not exist. Death Company and other CC-focused units are embarrassingly bad compared to SW melee.
(/quote)SW are not close combat, they are SM+1. Somehow better at literally everything.
DA are elite bikes and terminators
Ultras are balanced
BA are close combat
Having BA be psyker heavy doesnt make much sense. Sanguinius was a CC monster who Horus was only able to defeat by using sorcery. Apparently he didnt have much defense for that kind of stuff.
Space wolves are close combat, for gods sake our troop choices are obviously built for close combat. Space marines are a lot stronger than even the nastiest space wolf lists. The thing that the space wolves have awesome combat units, that is literally what makes space wolves, space wolves (oh and wolfy wolfy special dreadnoughts).
And sanguinius was a psyker, unless I am super mistaken.
As an IG player, I don't mind that Tau (& Eldar) have better shooting. That's fine. Tau are semi-elite (and Eldar are elite), so having better, higher-quality shooting is reasonable.
I do mind somewhat that my IG shooting isn't sufficiently cheap enough for me to make up in sheer quantity what others do with quality.
The game fundamentally needs a total ground-up reboot at this point, probably even more drastic than the 3E reboot. Wipe the rules in their entirety and restart from scratch, with a clearer vision of scale and power level. There's no salvaging 7th.
The problem with a full-scratch rewrite is that GW has kinda painted themselves into a corner with the 40k Titans and Flyers and GMCs. And made it even worse with a massive amount of Special Rules.
I mean, yes, that's the right way to fix 40k, but a lot of people are going to be super mad about the change, moreso than 2E.
I think assault should be fixed as well as codexes like chaos and IG also possibly orks to make every unit playable so that people can bring whatever they want and not stick to the prescribed list like speed freaks and hell drake flying circus or maybe Leman Russ spam, I want Warhammer to become more fluffy.
And by the gods make thousand sons and berserkers playable!
jreilly89 wrote:Oh, one other thing: Plasma. Make it actually fething useful, instead of hurting myself.
I never take Plasma. Grav does the same thing (usually), only better and I never risk hurting myself.
Ditto. Grav has almost completely replaced plasma in my lists. The only reason plasma is still in them at all is because of my Ravenwing Knights.
Vaktathi wrote:The game fundamentally needs a total ground-up reboot at this point, probably even more drastic than the 3E reboot. Wipe the rules in their entirety and restart from scratch, with a clearer vision of scale and power level. There's no salvaging 7th.
Incremental change is better than systemic change. GW could do numerous things to the rules that would have overall beneficial results without doing a system reboot. Get rid of either Walkers or MCs, improve vehicle surviveability, condense and clean up special rules, make assault more viable, get rid of or majorly tone down Allies...there's plenty they can do without wiping the slate clean to start over.
Besides, it's not like GW did that good a job in the 2nd-to-3rd transition. 3rd ed was horrendously unbalanced.
All I want to see is Ogryns and rough riders at least somewhat useful. I'm not asking for them to be top tier cheese or anything, just at least not a complete waste of points if you want to use them for fun porpuses.
jreilly89 wrote:Oh, one other thing: Plasma. Make it actually fething useful, instead of hurting myself.
I never take Plasma. Grav does the same thing (usually), only better and I never risk hurting myself.
Ditto. Grav has almost completely replaced plasma in my lists. The only reason plasma is still in them at all is because of my Ravenwing Knights.
Vaktathi wrote:The game fundamentally needs a total ground-up reboot at this point, probably even more drastic than the 3E reboot. Wipe the rules in their entirety and restart from scratch, with a clearer vision of scale and power level. There's no salvaging 7th.
Incremental change is better than systemic change. GW could do numerous things to the rules that would have overall beneficial results without doing a system reboot. Get rid of either Walkers or MCs, improve vehicle surviveability, condense and clean up special rules, make assault more viable, get rid of or majorly tone down Allies...there's plenty they can do without wiping the slate clean to start over.
Besides, it's not like GW did that good a job in the 2nd-to-3rd transition. 3rd ed was horrendously unbalanced.
For me your comment really illustrates just how difficult a road GW is gonna have for themselves. I think improving vehicle survivability (and changes to stunnes and immobilized) would solve the walker/MC issue and still let them be different things with different strengths.
As for assault, certain setups right now are so crazy strong that improving assault as a whole would destroy the game. I think people think assault sucks because they keep trying to get Tyranid warriors or Khorne berserkers or other bad assault units across the table when they just can't. The units that ARE good in assault are so good it makes playing against them incredibly frustrating. Properly starred up Khorne dogs, screamers, Thunderwolves, ironhand command squads, dark angels superfriends, Wulfen and a few others are so bad to go against for people who aren'y ready for them that you get people quitting the game all together. Getting rid of allies won't stop all of those stars either.
Side Note: Assault, as it is now, is easily the worst most boring part of the game. At least in the psychic phase I get to make decisions. Assault is slow and fiddley and 99% of all combats are decided before they even start. If your models have worse numbers than their models the best you can hope for is to survive long enough to irritate your opponent as much as you've been irritated having to go through the motions when we both know exactly how 10 khorne dogs charging 10 SoB is gonna go.
jreilly89 wrote:Oh, one other thing: Plasma. Make it actually fething useful, instead of hurting myself.
I never take Plasma. Grav does the same thing (usually), only better and I never risk hurting myself.
Ditto. Grav has almost completely replaced plasma in my lists. The only reason plasma is still in them at all is because of my Ravenwing Knights.
Vaktathi wrote:The game fundamentally needs a total ground-up reboot at this point, probably even more drastic than the 3E reboot. Wipe the rules in their entirety and restart from scratch, with a clearer vision of scale and power level. There's no salvaging 7th.
Incremental change is better than systemic change. GW could do numerous things to the rules that would have overall beneficial results without doing a system reboot. Get rid of either Walkers or MCs, improve vehicle surviveability, condense and clean up special rules, make assault more viable, get rid of or majorly tone down Allies...there's plenty they can do without wiping the slate clean to start over.
the problem is that theyve incrementally changed the core ruleset to death, we're on the 5th version of the same ruleset and arguably the least balanced and hardest to learn, and with all the power ramp up they've introduced, there's no good way to tone that down through product releases that wont take the lifespan of another edition anyway, and a sharp break will help realign player expectations in power levels better (as the game will be a blank slate) than a gradual change that clings to elements that nobody can ever quite seem to kill off.
Besides, it's not like GW did that good a job in the 2nd-to-3rd transition. 3rd ed was horrendously unbalanced.
no edition of 40k has been "well" balanced, and 3rd certainly wasnt perfect nor my favorite, but 3rd was better than 2E or 7E by a longshot.
Everything should be viable, everything should be usable. That is not to say that every unit must be good at all roles, but every unit needs a defined function that, with proper synergy in an army list (single Codex), it performs its role well.
Obviously, against certain lists, certain units will be less-viable than others (ie, horde infantry vs pie-plate artillery/armor), but that is a case of bringing the wrong tools for the job, not a shortcoming of the unit itself.
As it stands right now, too many codices contain units that actively decrease your chance of winning a game by taking them, regardless of what you put them up against and, at the same time, too many codices contain auto-include units that excel at everything.
Psienesis wrote: Everything should be viable, everything should be usable. That is not to say that every unit must be good at all roles, but every unit needs a defined function that, with proper synergy in an army list (single Codex), it performs its role well.
Obviously, against certain lists, certain units will be less-viable than others (ie, horde infantry vs pie-plate artillery/armor), but that is a case of bringing the wrong tools for the job, not a shortcoming of the unit itself.
As it stands right now, too many codices contain units that actively decrease your chance of winning a game by taking them, regardless of what you put them up against and, at the same time, too many codices contain auto-include units that excel at everything.
This so much. We really shouldn't be using allies because all allies does is let the "units not viable" not be used. Remember when it was said some things cost less/more points because other units are not good in the codex so overall everything is pointed correctly.
I really like the ideas of having allies, only thing I don't like is that for a lot of people, they are using allies not for fluff reasons but to replace units that are not "viable" or "cost too much" or are "just plain no good" and only "cherry picking the best" out of both or more codices".
So we will need to either get rid of allies or just have like in Age of Sigmar and say armies are part of a greater "order" and can be used together then. Or if you do take units outside of your codex you loose all your benefits and you get no benefits that you would have had if you just kept to your codex.
ERJAK wrote:
As for assault, certain setups right now are so crazy strong that improving assault as a whole would destroy the game. I think people think assault sucks because they keep trying to get Tyranid warriors or Khorne berserkers or other bad assault units across the table when they just can't. The units that ARE good in assault are so good it makes playing against them incredibly frustrating. Properly starred up Khorne dogs, screamers, Thunderwolves, ironhand command squads, dark angels superfriends, Wulfen and a few others are so bad to go against for people who aren'y ready for them that you get people quitting the game all together. Getting rid of allies won't stop all of those stars either.
The assault units that currently work are fast-moving deathstars. If you're going to try and make the assault phase work, you're forced to play such a list, because it's the only way to deliver an assault unit onto target without investing huge points in an overpriced delivery system (Land Raiders) or exposing assault units to whole turns of being shot at. GW seems to realize the problem, as evidenced by formations whose benefit is to be able to assault out of Deep Strike, something that would have made people's heads explode back in earlier editions. Making assault more viable across the board while simultaneously taking steps to nerf the deathstars (gettng rid of Allies would be a big step in that direction) would be good for the overall health of the game.
Vaktathi wrote:]the problem is that theyve incrementally changed the core ruleset to death, we're on the 5th version of the same ruleset and arguably the least balanced and hardest to learn, and with all the power ramp up they've introduced, there's no good way to tone that down through product releases that wont take the lifespan of another edition anyway, and a sharp break will help realign player expectations in power levels better (as the game will be a blank slate) than a gradual change that clings to elements that nobody can ever quite seem to kill off.
I think 4th to 5th was generally seen as a positive step. 5th to 6th was more problematic, introducing flyers and superheavies to normal 40K. Thus far, flyers don't seen to have drastically altered the state of the game, but superheavies certainly have, though superheavies aren't game-breaking when taken in moderation. They only become a problem when spammed.
Besides, do we really thing GW is going to release a new set of core rules, AND have everyone's dex ready to go in short order? They didn't do that for the 2nd-to-3rd transition, and they had a much smaller amount of armies (with a much smaller selection of units) to accommodate then.
8th edition will shake the game up pretty hard. They'll probably make every formation and army book illegal and outdated. A new combat stat system AoS style, and a GHB/Ravenous Hordes book with all points costs for everything straight out of the box.
Might be good for the game too, but it'll be pretty hilarious to see how many people are willing to keep going once half of their 'tournament worthy' models become unusable in the new competitive setting. The amount of Eldar players will suddenly diminish by 80%.
AoS already is a better game than 40K, funnily enough, but with some improvements it could actually be a really good game. If they do that for 40K, good times might follow.
Make railgun Hammerheads better by giving them a way to inflict multiple wounds/HP without making then Str D.
Give Vespids rending or something to make them usable at all.
Give Kroot their 2 attacks back.
Entirely replace the Sun Shark and Razorshark bombers with a link to the FW Tau flyers ()
Nerf the OSC, please.
Vaktathi wrote:
]the problem is that theyve incrementally changed the core ruleset to death, we're on the 5th version of the same ruleset and arguably the least balanced and hardest to learn, and with all the power ramp up they've introduced, there's no good way to tone that down through product releases that wont take the lifespan of another edition anyway, and a sharp break will help realign player expectations in power levels better (as the game will be a blank slate) than a gradual change that clings to elements that nobody can ever quite seem to kill off.
Therion wrote: 8th edition will shake the game up pretty hard. They'll probably make every formation and army book illegal and outdated. A new combat stat system AoS style, and a GHB/Ravenous Hordes book with all points costs for everything straight out of the box.
Might be good for the game too, but it'll be pretty hilarious to see how many people are willing to keep going once half of their 'tournament worthy' models become unusable in the new competitive setting. The amount of Eldar players will suddenly diminish by 80%.
AoS already is a better game than 40K, funnily enough, but with some improvements it could actually be a really good game. If they do that for 40K, good times might follow.
Supposedly 8E will be a major step toward AoS. As for the outdated books, I've got loads of them dating back to RT/2E, no big deal. If 8E is AoS+GHB/RH in a single, lightweight Rules+Armies book, I will be very, very happy with that. I liked playing 3E Rulebook games.
I played Eldar in 2E, I played Eldar in 3E and 4E, shelved them for 5E, and played them again in 6E and 7E. If the Eldar are nerfed too heavily, I'll switch over to Guard like I did in 5E, even tough I started the army back in 3E and have kept adding to it. Or maybe I'll revisit my SM / CSM. No big deal. If Eldar WKs get dirt cheap, I'll grab another off eBay.
AoS is a good game, and an excellent prototype for radically cleaning up an overbloated GW game.
Who is saying this that we can rely on? Lady Atia? Sad Panda? I think a lot of people are just guessing or just fanning the flames to get a lot of us nerds/geeks to get our knickers tied in a knot and it's working. Unless this is from Lady Atia or Sad Panda (I think I am forgetting one more trust worthy rumour monger) I don't believe this at all.
Sadly my memory is not there any more so I can't remember if they did say this was the case or not.
7E is excellent as it is. I play in many cities and we are having tons of fun with this edition both with tournament, regular play, campaigns and kill teams.
I'll never understand the hate. The complexity is one of the fun part of this game; list building is a great passtime when you want to challenge and bring something new to the table.
AoS sounds like a Dumb and Dumber mode for frustrated players who have hit the glass wall of their local meta. Hopefuly 8th ed won't ruin the game by favoring too much the taste of Pokemon amateurs.
The hate is because of the following things.
•The introduction of so much randomness that games can be won before models hit the table, and the usage of skill is impacted. I routinely roll dice to see how many dice I get to roll. (Ignoring the fact that 40k is basically rolling to see how many dice you roll to see how many dice your opponent rolls to see how many models of his/hers get removed)
•Gak balance between armies. IG are horrible, and Eldar are great. It's incredibly hard to have a fair game without 30 mins of negotiations beforehand.
•Constantly forgetting rules due to the staggering amount of them, and really weird rules interactions such as Khârn hitting invisible units, or straight up horrific failures of the writiers understanding the systems such as the 6th edition Sun Shark bomber.
•The rules are spread over many, many books. To play my Tau list, I need the BRB, Death From The Skies, the Codex, several Forgeworld rules printouts, and Warzone Damocles if I want to run my Farsight list.
With the General's Handbook, AOS currently has a better core ruleset than 40k.
Psienesis wrote: Everything should be viable, everything should be usable. That is not to say that every unit must be good at all roles, but every unit needs a defined function that, with proper synergy in an army list (single Codex), it performs its role well.
Obviously, against certain lists, certain units will be less-viable than others (ie, horde infantry vs pie-plate artillery/armor), but that is a case of bringing the wrong tools for the job, not a shortcoming of the unit itself.
As it stands right now, too many codices contain units that actively decrease your chance of winning a game by taking them, regardless of what you put them up against and, at the same time, too many codices contain auto-include units that excel at everything.
This so much. We really shouldn't be using allies because all allies does is let the "units not viable" not be used. Remember when it was said some things cost less/more points because other units are not good in the codex so overall everything is pointed correctly.
I really like the ideas of having allies, only thing I don't like is that for a lot of people, they are using allies not for fluff reasons but to replace units that are not "viable" or "cost too much" or are "just plain no good" and only "cherry picking the best" out of both or more codices".
So we will need to either get rid of allies or just have like in Age of Sigmar and say armies are part of a greater "order" and can be used together then. Or if you do take units outside of your codex you loose all your benefits and you get no benefits that you would have had if you just kept to your codex.
I like the allies idea for fluffy armies but I feel it breaks the game too much. I think it should be removed and go back to how you used allies before. You asked your opponent if it was okay to field a fluffy list with allies and if they said yes you did it and if they said no you didnt
7E has lots of complexity in the wrong places. Army building can be mind bogglingly complex, and the insane number of random rolls and tables eats up game time. Actual gameplay is extremely shallow and simplistic, with risks increasingly reduced (see Dangerous Terrain, Reserves, Deep Strike mishaps, etc) and power levels spiked dramatically over previous editions, all the complexity comes in army building and following the rules rather than the tactical challenge of engaging the opponent, which are barriers to play and results of poor game design.
Yes army building can be fun. When it costs several thousand dollara to legally obtain copies of all current rules including codex books, imperial armor books, rulebooks, supplements, dataslates, White Dwarfs, etc, few of which are designed to be used together in ways the rules allow for, this turns army building into something of a farcical exercise. The insane balance issues layered on top with absurdly powerful books like Eldar competing with fractured factions like AdMech or Scions and hilariously underpowered books like DE and IG, further cheapens the joke.
7E has killed the pickup game and my playgroup, which has people that have been playing since 2E and RT, has basically been killed off by the insanity of this edition.
I'd like to see a solid, well-designed ruleset with all the fluff in a separate book, the rules written for clarity instead of in conversational English, a well-defined and consistently-used set of key terms, the rules themselves designed for quick, smooth gameplay, and an absolute minimum of dice-rolling (things like randomly generating your psykers' spells every game are completely absurd).
Make all the power armored grey Knights less expensive. Make paladins cost less than custodians please.
Paladins should be 100pts each, custodes should be 300pts each, those should be things of legends, not something, some shmuck can deploy a whole army of it on the table...
Less expensives Paladins will happen when Defilers becomes 50pts a pieces and Daemons units are free...
Make all the power armored grey Knights less expensive. Make paladins cost less than custodians please.
Paladins should be 100pts each, custodes should be 300pts each, those should be things of legends, not something, some shmuck can deploy a whole army of it on the table...
Less expensives Paladins will happen when Defilers becomes 50pts a pieces and Daemons units are free...
Do you propose increasing the price of ALL units? If so, then I guess I can get behind it? But if not... Why?
Make all the power armored grey Knights less expensive. Make paladins cost less than custodians please.
Paladins should be 100pts each, custodes should be 300pts each, those should be things of legends, not something, some shmuck can deploy a whole army of it on the table...
Less expensives Paladins will happen when Defilers becomes 50pts a pieces and Daemons units are free...
O.o
Custodes? In the TTG? Are WH40k battles taking place in the Imperial Palace on Terra now?
Have two editions of the game, one for mass battles, one for smaller games. Two different sets of rules and two different sets of allowable units.
Do away with physical codex's and rulebooks and have a subscription whereby you get access to all the current rules and units. This can then be tweaked when a rule or unit is clearly op or not working as intended (like patching a game) This would be done at certain known dates, it would be up to tournament organisers to choose which patch they're playing at.
From a financial point of view I doubt GW would lose money, and from a personal point of view I'd be more inclined to try new stuff if I didn't have to keep buying new books.
I actually thought of a unit I'd like buffed/made usable.
I'd like the official rules to allow my Exorcists to fire at their intended targets so we don't have to keep houseruling that the standard line-of-sight rules do not apply to it.
I'm a bit worried. I recently bought some DKoK and now that 8th edition is soon to arrive I wonder what that will change. GW will probably pump out the popular codexes fairly promptly but FW aren't known, is my impression at least, of releasing updated books in a timely manner. It would suck severely to have a totally outdated army book (assault brigade) when the next edition is released.
Panzerkanzler wrote: I'm a bit worried. I recently bought some DKoK and now that 8th edition is soon to arrive I wonder what that will change. GW will probably pump out the popular codexes fairly promptly but FW aren't known, is my impression at least, of releasing updated books in a timely manner. It would suck severely to have a totally outdated army book (assault brigade) when the next edition is released.
In all honesty this is why I don't think an extreme 40k revamp would happen. Sure with fantasy they produced army lists, but most of them were extremely limited. By comparison for 40K they would be required to release all the main army books on release of 8th.... unless "shock horror"... they do what they did in 3rd and include them all in the main rulebook.
In terms of forgeworld books.... we still have some from 5th edition...
Baldeagle91 wrote: By comparison for 40K they would be required to release all the main army books on release of 8th.... unless "shock horror"awesomesauce... they do what they did in 3rd and include them all in the main rulebook.
the problem is that theyve incrementally changed the core ruleset to death, we're on the 5th version of the same ruleset and arguably the least balanced and hardest to learn, and with all the power ramp up they've introduced, there's no good way to tone that down through product releases that wont take the lifespan of another edition anyway, and a sharp break will help realign player expectations in power levels better (as the game will be a blank slate) than a gradual change that clings to elements that nobody can ever quite seem to kill off.
This.
Also, to the people defending 7th because of its complexity... 7th is not complex. It's just convoluted. All the 100s of pages of superfluous rules are a huge drain of money, time and brainpower, but they don't add anything meaningful to the play experience. At its core, 40k is as tactically simple and unchallenging as 4-page AoS. The only challenge is in keeping track of dozens of near identical ways to do the same thing with the same end results.
There needs to be a better reason to take not just troops, but all infantry on foot. GW has tried to force it in with scoring & objective secured, but there are very few armies that take more than 2 minimum squads of footsloggers if they have any other choice. Gladius shows that you need to give people 500+ points of free transports to consider it!
Ways to do this would be increasing overall durability of infantry, or vastly increasing the points of Elite units. Or making dudes on foot the only models that can truly make full use of cover & giving them the most manoeuvrability compared to other models.
Also:
Kill battle brothers
Only one IC per squad
Get rid of "tactical 6" abilities like D, stomp, etc that completely change the course of a game in a single roll.
Baldeagle91 wrote: By comparison for 40K they would be required to release all the main army books on release of 8th.... unless "shock horror"awesomesauce... they do what they did in 3rd and include them all in the main rulebook.
Stuff like D or Stomp 6's is far too variable to be a consistently effective answer to deathstars, particularly when it doesnt usually effect the entire unit, and absolutely murders big single units that dont posses the same sort of distributed and overlapping durability a Deathstar does, stuff like Land Raiders or Baneblades and the like.
Deathstar mechanics need to be addressed, but the random "6" results arent currently a viablr counter, and are a really poor ham-fisted way of doing that in the first place.
By that same token of "but I need X to deal with Y", why exactly do death stars need to nerfed? Considering the paltry state of assault, units that have the speed AND toughness to get into melee without getting flattened by the outrageous shooting some armies have is the best (if not only) way to deal with gunlines. And it certainly seems like many of the suggestions to nerf death star hurt assault units as a whole and only increases the reliance on death stars.
The issues with deathstars and the issues with assault are distinct, deathstars happen to generally be assault units, but they neednt all be (see Centstars), the fundamental issue is that many deathstars are effectively unkillable, particularly if theyre not facing a blistering Eldar gunline. When you get TWC or Wraith units that take more S10 AP1 firepower to kill off than a Titan, and require nearly a thousand lasgun shots to kill or more (far more than any army is ever going to be able to bring to bear over 6 turns), thats a major issue.
They're not fun to play against, don't take much skill or intelligence to play, and, most critically, often are built around playing gimmicks with rules that really were never intended to be able to make the units that are possible.
Assault units have some issues. Deathstars are neither an appropriate answer nor are their issues inextricably linked to assault.
Being able to assault out of stationary transports or from walk on reserve would solve a whole lot of issues on its own, Deathstars are not the answer there.
kronk wrote: Dreadnoughts. I love the damn things, but they're too fragile.
I would love to see Melee Dreads actually usable, I would even give to have 5th edition shooty dreads back!
In similar threads, I've mentioned that I'd like to see the elimination of Walker Vehicles and make then all MCs.
Instant boost right there.
"But, but! What about poison! You can't make a dread die to massed poison fire!"
"Fine. Give them Walker Special rule: Immune to weapons with the Poison rule/type/whatever."
Bam. Done.
Or add a subtype of MC, rule Non-Biological or Armored Skin which makes it immune. That would fill anything not considered "walker" for future proofing.
Vaktathi wrote: They're not fun to play against, don't take much skill or intelligence to play, and, most critically, often are built around playing gimmicks with rules that really were never intended to be able to make the units that are possible.
I think troops need a reason to be taken but I don't think having them be the only scoring units is it. Troops are a filler unit at the moment, but making them the only scoring unit turns them from filler to most of your army. Say what you want about how armies should be, but nobody likes having 70% of their 1000 dollar army be vanilla infantryman. Boring to model, boring to play.
I want to see snipers be buffed. I want orks to be less random. Orks shouldn't be good at shooting, but I've taken models that literally never hit, making them irrelevant in my army. No model should be like that if you ask me. And its not like its overpowered when they do hit, its the exact same as other armies (sometimes weaker, never stronger).
Vaktathi wrote: They're not fun to play against, don't take much skill or intelligence to play, and, most critically, often are built around playing gimmicks with rules that really were never intended to be able to make the units that are possible.
At that rate, we Squat the Necrons. Actually....
In their current incarnation...
Well, most can probably agree that the implementation of RP is probably more than a wee bit strong in its "enhancable-and-always-on-army-wide-super-FNP" form. It certainly results in many of the same issues as Deathstars and Wraiths are unjustifiably powerful.
Trasvi wrote: Get rid of "tactical 6" abilities like D, stomp, etc that completely change the course of a game in a single roll.
Hold on there, hoss. Thorpian 6s are one of the few good things about 40k. Stomp 6, in particular, is completely necessary to counter Deathstars.
As others said: death stars are a different issue, which would be severely minimised by my other suggestions of removing battle brothers & restricting ICs in a unit.
Personally I get very frustrated that some 40k games can swing so massively on a single dice roll. I recently played against a friends Tau list, and tabled him handily because his Stormsurge didn't kill my knight with its missiles. We then turned around and played the exact same game, and I conceded on turn 2 because the tactical 6's showed up. Such a big variance over such a little yet fairly common thing should not be possible.
If it is necessary to deal with death stars, then both death stars and strength D are problematic.
I'll just start with basic game rules I think could be changed, going by order of game turn.
-Pregame-
No more battle brothers on the allies matrix.
Warlord Traits...need to be reworked so that instead of random rolling you can pick your choice of trait. This requires a rework of all the different trait tables to so that all choices are somewhat balanced, or assign point costs to the traits so that better ones can have higher prices.
Psychic Powers...random rolling these is garbage. Completely redo the power tables as I mentioned from warlord traits.
-Movement Phase-
Change moving through Difficult terrain to a straight up -2 to movement and nothing more for Infantry models. No more random die rolling.
Vehicles (non skimmer) should be able to move up to 6 inches and still fire all weapons, if it moves 12 inches then reduce this to 1 weapon at full bs and others at snap shots. They should also be able to disembark passengers after having moved 12, or move up to 12 after embarking them.
Jump Pack units should be able to choose to jink if they used the jump pack during movement phase.
Beast type units should be reduced to a speed of 9 inches instead of 12 inches.
Skimmer units should be able to move up to 12 inches and fire all weapons, and move up to 18 with snap fire all weapons.
MC's and Walkers can move up to 9 inches during movement phase
-Psychic Phase-
Roll 3+1d6 for general warp charges.
Your Psykers can only use powers with the warp charges they personally generate and the general pool from above. No one may "borrow" warp charges from any other friendly unit.
-Shooting Phase-
Infantry units that wish to declare a run can now run a full 6 inches (unless slowed by terrain as discussed) in Lieu of shooting.
Beast units that wish to declare a run can now run a full 9 inches (see terrain statement) in lieu of shooting.
Remove twin-linked off MANY weapons systems. This means people are going to miss more often, sure. OTOH it makes armor/cover/invuln saves more worthwhile. Since I've seen too many people bitching about armor re-rolls being super broken then I think removing a lot of re-rolls to hit would help balance this out.
Wound allocation works fine most of the time I think but I think blasts should be able to effect people even not in line of sight.
Bikes should have firing arcs with their mounted weapons.
-Assault Phase-
Units should be able to assault turn 1 capable.
Troops should be able to,assault out of a stationary transport.
Troops should be able to charge from reserves but will count as a disorderly charge.
Now, here some specific changes for Space Marines since that is my primary force...
WS...remove Hit and Run from all their units with the exceptions of bike and jump troops. Also, Khan does not GIVE scout to all transports, only bike units and maybe jump units.
IH are mostly ok, but I think the Gorgans chain artifact has to go. Chapter Master Smashfether needs to not be a thing. Also, their FnP should just be a base 5+ anyway.
Salamanders...should have access to heavy flamers in their Tac squads, option for artificer armour to be bough for any Character, and the option to switch out a melta pistol for a plasma pistol.
So just a few thing I think would improve the new edition.
Make vehicles tougher and more distinct than MCs. Right now vehicles are unarmored mcs that don't perform as well.
Vehicles should be much tougher, but weaker in close quarters and not as versatile as MCs (ie, slower, can't traverse terrain as easily, limited vision cones, etc)
MCs should be relatively less resilant (tougher than infantry, but more fragile than vehicles), don't pack as much fire power, but more mobile and better in assault and tends to specialize in short ranged combat.
In other words, MCs are assault juggernaut like units, whereas vehicles tend to be better at medium to long range.
At least that's the general idea. There will be exceptions.
Make flyers into gunships that behave more like helicopters / vtol aircraft. The fact that a "jet" moves something like 18" a turn is silly. That's still not far enough for a vehicle that's supposed to be moving super fast.
Basically, all flyers now much move a minimum of 3" and can move a maximum of 18". If they turn, it counts towards their max movement, but not towards their minimal movement; ie they must always be 3" away from their starting position.
Vehicles with hover have no minimal move distance (they can just stay in place), and vehicles with aerial dancer or whatever its called has no pivot distance.
Snap shots removed. To hit modifiers now. -1 to hit a flyer. AA weapons have a +1 to hit flyers though, so it balances it out.
A flyer may go flat out at 36", but only in a straight line.
This makes them harder to hit, increasing the modifier to hit them at -2
Unlike most vehicles which move flat out, some flyers may still fire. A flyer that could do this has the Strafing Run rule, which permits them to shoot at every enemy it moves over, but the shots suffer a -1 modifier to hit, that gets worse for every 6" the model moves. The idea is that the targets on the ground sees the flyer coming for them, so they run to cover and jump out of the way.
Every race now have some form of air to surface AA. No exceptions.
Trasvi wrote: There needs to be a better reason to take not just troops, but all infantry on foot. GW has tried to force it in with scoring & objective secured, but there are very few armies that take more than 2 minimum squads of footsloggers if they have any other choice. Gladius shows that you need to give people 500+ points of free transports to consider it!
Ways to do this would be increasing overall durability of infantry, or vastly increasing the points of Elite units. Or making dudes on foot the only models that can truly make full use of cover & giving them the most manoeuvrability compared to other models.
Also:
Kill battle brothers
Only one IC per squad
Get rid of "tactical 6" abilities like D, stomp, etc that completely change the course of a game in a single roll.
If you allow only 1 IC per unit then most ork lists just stopped functioning. Orks have ZERO Invuls in CC so they rely on that 5+ FNP from a Painboy on there T6 Warboss on a Bike to save his life from the incessant AP1-4 CC weapons with high strength.
Don't get me wrong we could fix the codex to negate that change but as it stands that would ruin what little is working in the Ork Dex.
Also I STRONGLY agree with getting rid of Battle Brothers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Don Savik wrote: I think troops need a reason to be taken but I don't think having them be the only scoring units is it. Troops are a filler unit at the moment, but making them the only scoring unit turns them from filler to most of your army. Say what you want about how armies should be, but nobody likes having 70% of their 1000 dollar army be vanilla infantryman. Boring to model, boring to play.
I want to see snipers be buffed. I want orks to be less random. Orks shouldn't be good at shooting, but I've taken models that literally never hit, making them irrelevant in my army. No model should be like that if you ask me. And its not like its overpowered when they do hit, its the exact same as other armies (sometimes weaker, never stronger).
This, a thousand times this.
Random is ok if when it works its DEVESTATING, but if it is just meh what the hell is the point?
A standardised Void Shield/Power Field/Xenos Equivalent USR that can be accessed by at least one element of each codex or faction.
An actual functional split between Anti MC and Anti Vehicle weapons, so that anti both options are the least effective in return for being more versatile.
Land Raiders. I want to be able to put one on the table and not feel like an idiot for doing so. In addition to vehicles not being durable enough this edition, they're just too many points for the return. I'm not sure I'd use one even at a 50pt discount of the current price.
TBF, Leman Russes are over priced.
The game should really go back to how it was in 4th ed, with mostly infantry supported by some vehicles.
I would make all vehicles more expensive, but much tougher to compensate.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm kinda shaking my head here at the idea of 150-pt Land Raiders, given that a Leman Russ Demolisher is more expensive and far less survivable.
I wouldn't pay 150 for a Russ, either. The Wraithknight and D in general has ruined a lot of things. Of course, the land raider has always been useless junk, but the Russ has been good at some points in the game.
They're not fun to play against, don't take much skill or intelligence to play, and, most critically, often are built around playing gimmicks with rules that really were never intended to be able to make the units that are possible.
This is I think absolutely right. The game is not intended to be played with deathstars; they an accidental product of inattentive game design, created primarily by lack of attention to how rules interact with each other.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: TBF, Leman Russes are over priced.
The game should really go back to how it was in 4th ed, with mostly infantry supported by some vehicles.
I would make all vehicles more expensive, but much tougher to compensate.
I think if you had a list of bullet points stating what is wrong with 40k currently, say vehicles are OP would not be one of them. Vehicle strong lists actually need to be made competitive tbh.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: TBF, Leman Russes are over priced.
The game should really go back to how it was in 4th ed, with mostly infantry supported by some vehicles.
I would make all vehicles more expensive, but much tougher to compensate.
4th edition was horrid for Vehicles. You either had nobody in transports because they could instantly die along with the entire passenger crew, or you were Tau and Eldar Fish of Fury and Falconspam respectively.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: TBF, Leman Russes are over priced.
The game should really go back to how it was in 4th ed, with mostly infantry supported by some vehicles.
I would make all vehicles more expensive, but much tougher to compensate.
4th edition was horrid for Vehicles. You either had nobody in transports because they could instantly die along with the entire passenger crew, or you were Tau and Eldar Fish of Fury and Falconspam respectively.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: TBF, Leman Russes are over priced.
The game should really go back to how it was in 4th ed, with mostly infantry supported by some vehicles.
I would make all vehicles more expensive, but much tougher to compensate.
4th edition was horrid for Vehicles. You either had nobody in transports because they could instantly die along with the entire passenger crew, or you were Tau and Eldar Fish of Fury and Falconspam respectively.
4th was fine. Tanks were fine.
As long as they were skimmers, sure. Otherwise they had about the same lifespan they do now but with a lot more stunlocking and were totally worthless as transports to boot, also they couldnt benefit from saves of any kind.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Right now, Skimmers are worthless. It's unbelievably stupid how Skimmers get assaulted. WTF?
skimmers are in a great place right now, at least next to tracked tanks. On demand Jink keeps them viable next to tracked or walker counterparts.
Vehicle assault in general are rather absurdly easy, its not an issue confined to skimmers, and Skimmers arent flying vehicles either, they operate low enough that infantry can embark and disembark without issue. Older editions gave Skimmers wayyyyy too much damage mitigation.
And I say that as someone who owns probably ~20 skimmer tanks of various sorts
CthuluIsSpy wrote: TBF, Leman Russes are over priced. The game should really go back to how it was in 4th ed, with mostly infantry supported by some vehicles. I would make all vehicles more expensive, but much tougher to compensate.
4th edition was horrid for Vehicles. You either had nobody in transports because they could instantly die along with the entire passenger crew, or you were Tau and Eldar Fish of Fury and Falconspam respectively.
Yeah, they were pretty fragile in 4th. But at least they were usable. They are even worse now. I probably wasn't very clear, but I meant to say that I would make it like how it was in 4th ed, but with tougher vehicles. Like a cross between 4th and 5ed, but without necrons getting shafted, and no Grey Knight shanigans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: Right now, Skimmers are worthless. It's unbelievably stupid how Skimmers get assaulted. WTF?
Is it 6 to hit skimmers in CC? Or am I thinking of 4th ed again? I think the idea is that the skimmer isn't supposed to be flying, but hovering a few feet off the ground. Granted, the artwork does show skimmers flying, so that's a contradiction there. Now that I think of it, I would merge the rules for flyers and skimmers. Because a flyer atm is just a glorified, slightly faster skimmer with some extra gimmicks.
Is it 6 to hit skimmers in CC? Or am I thinking of 4th ed again?
I think the idea is that the skimmer isn't supposed to be flying, but hovering a few feet off the ground. Granted, the artwork does show skimmers flying, so that's a contradiction there.
4E had skimmers being hit only on 6's.
JohnHwangDD wrote: IKTs are still walkers in CC. Front armor all the time, baby!
Aye, and that 13 on the front makes a world of difference.
Oh right, this is a buff thread.
Make Monoliths great again.
I want to be able to deep strike, deploy squads on arrival and resist melta, as they were intended to be used.
JohnHwangDD wrote: IKTs are still walkers in CC. Front armor all the time, baby!
Aye, and that 13 on the front makes a world of difference.
And that is why 4E vehicle rules would be acceptable. Skimmers should only be hit on 6s. I could see 5+ if they Embarked or Disembarked or Hovered during the movement phase. Regardless, Skimmers would only be hit on the Side, not the Rear, because they expect to take fire from below, whereas Tanks don't expect to be attacked from above.
And that is why 4E vehicle rules would be acceptable. Skimmers should only be hit on 6s. I could see 5+ if they Embarked or Disembarked or Hovered during the movement phase. Regardless, Skimmers would only be hit on the Side, not the Rear, because they expect to take fire from below, whereas Tanks don't expect to be attacked from above.
I guess I just don't see why they should only be hit on 6's, they're not flying ultra high, and the undercarriage of a skimmer shouldn't be any less vulnerable than "rear" on anything else, probably moreso looking at most of my skimmer models (particularly those Eldar ones), and it's certainly hard to see a good game balance reason for such. I could live with it if there was a meaningful cost difference between skimmers and non-skimmers, but there really isn't and never has been.
The 4E rules were especially egregious. Skimmers that moved 6" a turn couldn't be penetrated, only glanced. Penetrating hits killed on a 4+ and also forced a disembark automatically and a pinning test for transports, while penetrating explodes or Annihilated results would cause heavy damage or total annihilation of passengers (that Skimmers were, again, immune to). Skimmers were only ever hit on 6's in CC regardless of if it moved or not (while a non-skimmer was auto-hit if it didn't move), and almost all Skimmers were Fast or could fire as if they were Fast so they all always moved at that 6" (and could simply always declared they moved 6" and end up back in the same spot). Their supposed downside was that they were killed if they were Immobilized and had moved over 6", but then the only race that had to deal with that was Dark Eldar because Eldar and Tau all had wargear to negate that drawback. All that on top of getting to ignore terrain while moving. Tracked tanks and walkers had zero advantages to counterbalance that.
Skimmer bonuses always felt like "well they just get to be better just because", rather than some rational tradeoff of mobility versus durability with tracked tanks. Comparing vehicles with similar stats, roles, and costs between the two types, it's hard to see where Skimmers need such bonuses over their tracked counterparts.
The problem with necrons is the same one trollbloods had in Hordes, a hot set of dice could make the game completely unfun for an opponent. It's not a balance problem per se, because everything returns to the mean eventually, it's that the lumpy nature of RNG will make for occasional lousy experiences. Privateer press fixed it by making their FnP equivalent once a round per model.
The solution in 40k is similar, Make repair protocol/feel no pain once per wound per round (so a three wound model can make three a round), It's a slight nerf, but necrons are in a good position to take it, as are the death stars that use FnP as another layer of defense. Maybe then Eldar players could stop complaining about fighting necrons, because the board has a limited budget for irony that has been mostly eaten up by eldar players complaining about balance and autopilot armies.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And that is why 4E vehicle rules would be acceptable. Skimmers should only be hit on 6s. I could see 5+ if they Embarked or Disembarked or Hovered during the movement phase. Regardless, Skimmers would only be hit on the Side, not the Rear, because they expect to take fire from below, whereas Tanks don't expect to be attacked from above.
I guess I just don't see why they should only be hit on 6's, they're not flying ultra high, and the undercarriage of a skimmer shouldn't be any less vulnerable than "rear" on anything else, probably moreso looking at most of my skimmer models (particularly those Eldar ones), and it's certainly hard to see a good game balance reason for such. I could live with it if there was a meaningful cost difference between skimmers and non-skimmers, but there really isn't and never has been.
The 4E rules were especially egregious. Skimmers that moved 6" a turn couldn't be penetrated, only glanced. Penetrating hits killed on a 4+ and also forced a disembark automatically and a pinning test for transports, while penetrating explodes or Annihilated results would cause heavy damage or total annihilation of passengers (that Skimmers were, again, immune to). Skimmers were only ever hit on 6's in CC regardless of if it moved or not (while a non-skimmer was auto-hit if it didn't move), and almost all Skimmers were Fast or could fire as if they were Fast so they all always moved at that 6" (and could simply always declared they moved 6" and end up back in the same spot). Their supposed downside was that they were killed if they were Immobilized and had moved over 6", but then the only race that had to deal with that was Dark Eldar because Eldar and Tau all had wargear to negate that drawback. All that on top of getting to ignore terrain while moving. Tracked tanks and walkers had zero advantages to counterbalance that.
Skimmer bonuses always felt like "well they just get to be better just because", rather than some rational tradeoff of mobility versus durability with tracked tanks. Comparing vehicles with similar stats, roles, and costs between the two types, it's hard to see where Skimmers need such bonuses over their tracked counterparts.
Let's be clear that pretty much all Skimmers are Helicopter or V/STOL equivalents. That means there should be ZERO chance to hit them with a sword unless they are sitting on the ground. Flying low is still like 50 feet off the ground, not 5 feet off the ground. If it's a balance issue, simply have ALL hits be Penetrating or reduce Hull Points by one... High risk / High reward.
4E handled things much more reasonably.
The problem is that 7E breaks immersion. 4E didn't. That's the difference.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And that is why 4E vehicle rules would be acceptable. Skimmers should only be hit on 6s. I could see 5+ if they Embarked or Disembarked or Hovered during the movement phase. Regardless, Skimmers would only be hit on the Side, not the Rear, because they expect to take fire from below, whereas Tanks don't expect to be attacked from above.
I guess I just don't see why they should only be hit on 6's, they're not flying ultra high, and the undercarriage of a skimmer shouldn't be any less vulnerable than "rear" on anything else, probably moreso looking at most of my skimmer models (particularly those Eldar ones), and it's certainly hard to see a good game balance reason for such. I could live with it if there was a meaningful cost difference between skimmers and non-skimmers, but there really isn't and never has been.
The 4E rules were especially egregious. Skimmers that moved 6" a turn couldn't be penetrated, only glanced. Penetrating hits killed on a 4+ and also forced a disembark automatically and a pinning test for transports, while penetrating explodes or Annihilated results would cause heavy damage or total annihilation of passengers (that Skimmers were, again, immune to). Skimmers were only ever hit on 6's in CC regardless of if it moved or not (while a non-skimmer was auto-hit if it didn't move), and almost all Skimmers were Fast or could fire as if they were Fast so they all always moved at that 6" (and could simply always declared they moved 6" and end up back in the same spot). Their supposed downside was that they were killed if they were Immobilized and had moved over 6", but then the only race that had to deal with that was Dark Eldar because Eldar and Tau all had wargear to negate that drawback. All that on top of getting to ignore terrain while moving. Tracked tanks and walkers had zero advantages to counterbalance that.
Skimmer bonuses always felt like "well they just get to be better just because", rather than some rational tradeoff of mobility versus durability with tracked tanks. Comparing vehicles with similar stats, roles, and costs between the two types, it's hard to see where Skimmers need such bonuses over their tracked counterparts.
Let's be clear that pretty much all Skimmers are Helicopter or V/STOL equivalents.
That wouldn't seem to apply to all skimmers, and certainly not necessarily when they're operating at the level of 40k battle is portraying. Sure, Wave Serpents or Land Speeders might meet that in some ways, but not necessarily a Devil Fish or Ghost Ark or the like.
That means there should be ZERO chance to hit them with a sword unless they are sitting on the ground.
There should be 0 chance for a sword wielded by anything less than a flying warp spawned megademon to hurt anything in the first place on a tank, but that's another conversation
Flying low is still like 50 feet off the ground, not 5 feet off the ground.
That would be the first time I've ever heard of that interpretation. Most portrayals do not show them flying like that, especially non-Eldar skimmers. Most skimmers are not Wave Serpents. Flyer transports are operating at treetop height like that, but Skimmer portrayals of things like Hammerheads or Ghost Arks or Annihilation Barges and Devilfish are almost exclusively just a few feet off the ground, and even most portrayals of Eldar and Dark Eldar skimmer show them just a few feet above the ground, being capable of higher level flight for long distance travel cruising but not generally operating at such heights during battle.
If it's a balance issue, simply have ALL hits be Penetrating or reduce Hull Points by one... High risk / High reward.
Sure if we must, as long as there's a meaningful downside to skimmer bonuses.
The problem is that 7E breaks immersion. 4E didn't. That's the difference.
Hrm, having a Leman Russ blow up when a single bolt pistol shoots it in the butt and it explodes on a lucky 6 or a Rhino have to auto-disembark because a Big Shoota penetrated it once was pretty ridiculous, also vehicles being unable to take cover saves...and the 4E Eldar Invinci-skimmers weren't fun for anyone but the Eldar players, that's when I started my Eldar
Vehicles didn't work right in 4E and non-skimmer transports were effectively useless, there was a huge skimmer vs non-skimmer gap, just like we have now. 5E was really the only edition that didn't have a fundamental core imbalance between skimmers and non-skimmers, skimmers got a cover save for moving with a meaningful downside, the big issue was that half the big skimmer armies didn't get a codex update during the edition, but the skimmer armies that did get 5E updates (DE and Necrons) did very solidly.
In an ideal scenario, additional changes would be made to the Eldar to make them not as powerful.
The first step is to not let Phil Kelly anywhere near them. The second step to make limit the availability of scatter lasers, make the strong weapons shorter ranged, and make the eldar vehicles considerably more fragile, en par with Dark Eldar vehicles.
Remove assorted restrictions on what vehicles can fire on the move so they can become a genuine threat beyond Fast Vehicles or Superheavies. (Or POTMS Iron Hands too).
Make "War Hymn"-style prayers universal to "priest" Characters, and make such characters more prevalent among armies. For example, Chaplains/Dark Apostles should get assorted hymn options, as well as characters like Aun'va, or even Ghaz (he is da Profit of da Waaagh, after all...)
ALL of my skimmers are Eldar Falcon-class hulls, Land Speeders or Valkyrie models. ALL are shown flying high in the artwork. NONE of those should be vulnerable to Assault except when disembarking. 4E handled them correctly.
Now, if you want to argue that Tau / Necron skimmers are actually ground effect hovercraft, that's fine. I'd be OK with that.
But I wouldn't agree with that for the atmospheric craft.
JohnHwangDD wrote: ALL of my skimmers are Eldar Falcon-class hulls, Land Speeders or Valkyrie models. ALL are shown flying high in the artwork. NONE of those should be vulnerable to Assault except when disembarking. 4E handled them correctly.
Now, if you want to argue that Tau / Necron skimmers are actually ground effect hovercraft, that's fine. I'd be OK with that.
But I wouldn't agree with that for the atmospheric craft.
I have always understood that Eldar tanks are used in similar manner to the old Centurion Grav tanks - you can fly with them but they are horibly vulnerable when they do so. usually they will stay near the ground and cover.
JohnHwangDD wrote: ALL of my skimmers are Eldar Falcon-class hulls, Land Speeders or Valkyrie models. ALL are shown flying high in the artwork. NONE of those should be vulnerable to Assault except when disembarking. 4E handled them correctly.
Now, if you want to argue that Tau / Necron skimmers are actually ground effect hovercraft, that's fine. I'd be OK with that.
But I wouldn't agree with that for the atmospheric craft.
Valkyries are Flyers, they were only Skimmers when Flyers didnt have rules. Now, if you want Eldar tanks and Land Speeders to be Flyers, there may be some case for that, but thats a different argument than skimmer bonuses. From what I recall stuff like Eldar tanks dont fight while flying if they can help it, its essentially a supercruise transport mode and they drop altitude and speed to actually fight, there used to be an Apoc formation that allowed certain Eldar vehicles to act as Flyers but IIRC they couldnt shoot to reflect that. Ill have to look it up again.
Let's be clear that pretty much all Skimmers are Helicopter or V/STOL equivalents. That means there should be ZERO chance to hit them with a sword unless they are sitting on the ground. Flying low is still like 50 feet off the ground, not 5 feet off the ground. If it's a balance issue, simply have ALL hits be Penetrating or reduce Hull Points by one... High risk / High reward.
4E handled things much more reasonably.
The problem is that 7E breaks immersion. 4E didn't. That's the difference.
Even in 4th it had some problems. Skimmers were still gaining cover form low-height terrain, the "Skimmers do not block LOS" was not so immersive for the Monolith.
Much earlier in 2nd, Skimmers were explicitly closer to the ground, but could make a "pop up attack" in the shooting phase.
I don't think it's a safe assumption that they're all supposed to constantly be 50+ feet off the ground.
Back in 2E, the only skimmers were Eldar and Landspeeders. There were no Valkyries, no Necron vehicles, no Tau at all, no Dark Eldar, either... I can accept Tau / Necron stuff as hovercraft, and getting hit as such.
Eldar Falcons and Landspeeders and Valks are helicopter-like V/STOL.
Well, if you want to get technical, in 1st edition "hoverers" and 2nd edition "skimmers", float a foot or so above the ground, but are then able to pass over terrain features without hindrance. In 1st Ed. this is in comparison to Flyers, which had an "Air Speed" (and no Ground Speed), which explicitly covered units like helicopters.
While I think Land Speeders and Falcons are capable of limited (or maybe even unlimited) flight in the description or fluff, their rules history is that they don't enter combat like that. Once in battle they're more or less hugging the ground.
Does anyone else notice the trend for bad rules where someone claims something needs to be "balanced" but then their suggestion for that thing is instead to make something "fluffy" or "immersive"?
The falcon is a transport, so unless every eldar unit eldar had grav chutes this whole time and forgot to tell us, I imagine they need to be close to the ground to disembark. Since they can disembark/Embark at any point, they must always be close to the ground.
If we are in the market for giving powerful armies buffs why can't my monolith just land on people, give it the stomp rule or something. It makes sense from the fluff perspective, but it's flying rodent gak crazy from a rules perspective.
Grimgold wrote: The falcon is a transport, so unless every eldar unit eldar had grav chutes this whole time and forgot to tell us, I imagine they need to be close to the ground to disembark. Since they can disembark/Embark at any point, they must always be close to the ground.
That's a non-sequitur. It only needs to be close to the ground while it embarks / disembarks, like a helo touch & go for fast roping...
It's not like modern helicopters spend their time at walking speed a foot off the ground...
Eldar tanks are very much tanks really, their physical design strongly suggests very low level flight and operating in a 2D environment. They have armor over the top, fore, and sides, but not the rear or more critically underneath (where an aircraft would take most fire), suggesting a primarily 2d threat profile and operating mode, and just about every camo and color scheme seen follows the same pattern. A Valkyrie is a true aircraft and is built as such, whereas something like a Falcon or Wave Serpent is more a tank that *can* fly to make operational or strategic level redeployments than an actual flyer running around at dozens or hundreds of meters of altitude in a tactical engagement. Id be fine with giving them a flight mode at a cost bump where they cant fire or count as AV10 (to represent exposed unarmored bits) or something, but their physical design and longstanding non-differentiation from other hovertanks suggests that they generally arent much more than a few feet off the ground in combat *most* of the time.
Vaktathi wrote: Eldar tanks are very much tanks really, their physical design strongly suggests very low level flight and operating in a 2D environment. They have armor over the top, fore, and sides, but not the rear or more critically underneath (where an aircraft would take most fire), suggesting a primarily 2d threat profile and operating mode, and just about every camo and color scheme seen follows the same pattern.
A Valkyrie is a true aircraft and is built as such, whereas something like a Falcon or Wave Serpent is more a tank that *can* fly to make operational or strategic level redeployments than an actual flyer running around at dozens or hundreds of meters of altitude in a tactical engagement.
Id be fine with giving them a flight mode at a cost bump where they cant fire or count as AV10 (to represent exposed unarmored bits) or something, but their physical design and longstanding non-differentiation from other hovertanks suggests that they generally arent much more than a few feet off the ground in combat *most* of the time.
That is some willful disconnection there. The Falcon fluff has been crystal clear for over a decade that Falcons are very fast and easily capable of high altitude operation:
Lexicanum wrote:The anti-gravitic generators which give the Falcon its amazing speed and agility are prime examples of the Eldar's technological mastery. Thanks to these powerful devices a Falcon can achieve speeds of up to 800 kph and soar to altitudes much higher than the equivalent Imperial craft, giving it limited flight capability. The Falcon's crew of pilot and gunner will themselves be veteran pilots, having learned their craft either on Eldar Jetbikes or along a similar Path, and take full advantage of these abilities, hiding within cloud cover only to swoop down on their pre-selected targets at high speed to deliver death and destruction.
Like all Eldar vehicles the Falcon is constructed from Wraithbone and other psycho-plastics, lightweight material which is incredibly strong and specially attuned to the Eldar's psychic abilities. This not only allows the vehicle to be controlled with both mind and body, but makes it impossible for other races to duplicate or operate the vehicle.
The Eldar Tanks are dominated by massive axial engines and anti-grav lift vanes, with secondary directional thrusters / stabilizers. Those huge intakes and giant engines suggest tremendous forward speed, far in excess of what would be generated by the much smaller diameter engines of a Valkyrie. Speed that would be off the ground and up in the skies, as pictured. The heavy forward armor is because the Eldar have non-inertial, non-aerodynamic thrust vectoring to keep their heaviest armor facing at the target. The Eldar don't use camo paint - they have holofields, remember? Those patterns are decorative; nevertheless, if you've seen an airplane in Euro paint, they were camo on top, neutral below. A Valkyrie apes an aircraft, in the same way that an early automobile apes a horseless carriage. But to say that the high-speed environmentally sealed Falcon isn't an aircraft is nonsense.
From the quote you pulled: "Limited flight capability"
"Limited" As in it may not be the primary mode of engagement. On the 40K table it's not flying, because that's not how it handles close support with Eldar troops.
Drop Pods are "immobile" because despite falling thousands of miles through space and atmosphere, in the context of a 40K game they simply appear on the table, and no longer move.
I guess C'Tan are flyers as well since all that you require to prove that is an advertising image
While we are handing out the wings lets not forget or assult marine brethern who can fly and have airborn fights with FMCs. Because if it's an image it's cannon right?
I'd rather they overhaul the system to make most things have some semblance of balance, not to mention give some more distinct uses for some of the factions, specifically the space marines. As it stands if I asked "which is the CC Chapter" I could get, quite literally, almost half a dozen different answers, only differentiated by minute differences (one has fast vehicles, one has scout, one has rerolls on some strange weapon, one has wolves, etc...) but all generally boil down to some roving deathstar with a threat radius of almost 24" (and most of the time packing some sort of AP2 weapon and an invul save of 3+).
Vaktathi wrote: Eldar tanks are very much tanks really, their physical design strongly suggests very low level flight and operating in a 2D environment. They have armor over the top, fore, and sides, but not the rear or more critically underneath (where an aircraft would take most fire), suggesting a primarily 2d threat profile and operating mode, and just about every camo and color scheme seen follows the same pattern.
A Valkyrie is a true aircraft and is built as such, whereas something like a Falcon or Wave Serpent is more a tank that *can* fly to make operational or strategic level redeployments than an actual flyer running around at dozens or hundreds of meters of altitude in a tactical engagement.
Id be fine with giving them a flight mode at a cost bump where they cant fire or count as AV10 (to represent exposed unarmored bits) or something, but their physical design and longstanding non-differentiation from other hovertanks suggests that they generally arent much more than a few feet off the ground in combat *most* of the time.
That is some willful disconnection there. The Falcon fluff has been crystal clear for over a decade that Falcons are very fast and easily capable of high altitude operation:
I haven't disputed that anywhere.
Rather I pointed out they don't operate up there against the enemy and only really "fly" for travel as opposed to combat, your quote even points out that they drop altitude to actually engage their targets. Both fluff and game mechanics GW have used in the past reflect that. They're capable of flight, but they've never been presented as aircraft in the way a Nightwing, Barracuda, Stormraven, Valkyrie, Razorwing, Orca, Thunderhawk, Crimson Hunter, etc are, as actually engaging in combat as aircraft as general practice. There's a reason they're called hovertanks and not dropships, and why GW has kept them as Skimmers and not moved them to be Flyers the way they did the Valkyrie over two consecutive codex updates and rules editions since introducing Flyers to the core rules.
As I said, I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of alternate flight mode with some sort of downside as I mentioned before, but it doesn't appear GW ever intended for them to really be "flyers" in the way a Valkyrie or Stormraven are.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Does anyone else notice the trend for bad rules where someone claims something needs to be "balanced" but then their suggestion for that thing is instead to make something "fluffy" or "immersive"?
What I find more common is instead of removing or changing a bad rule people would rather add more bad rules to compensate.
While we are handing out the wings lets not forget or assult marine brethern who can fly and have airborn fights with FMCs. Because if it's an image it's cannon right?
I hope this proves how silly that argument is.
Dunno..., kinda makes sense and would be epic...
Airborn CC combats, where Jump/Flying units engage others or Flyers...
I mean if i din't have any AA weapons , but i had Assault/flying troops at mt disposal, i'll sent them to harase and try to disable those ennemy crafts/monsters...
In fact, I'm vehemently against removing hitting back armor in 
.
Warriors wouldn't be fearing Krak Missiles or Battlecannons at T5.
