doktor_g's 7th Ed Errata:

Invulnerable, Cover, Armor and other saves are not allowed to be re-rolled by any means whether it is by a psychic power, unique relic, innate ability or other means.

There are a LOT more issues than just that.

In addition to that, which is worse-a 2+ armour/3+ invuln, followed by a 2+ FNP, or a 5+ rerollable armor, such as that had by a Conscript with a Priest?

Disagree. See errata above.

That... That addresses nothing of what I said.

A 5+ rerollable armor has a 55.56% chance of saving, and is ignored by a lot of things. A 2+ armor/3+ invuln followed by a 2+ FNP has a 97.22% (94.44% with invuln) chance of ignoring a wound.

I completely disagree with your "fix".

 doktor_g wrote:
doktor_g's 7th Ed Errata:

Invulnerable, Cover, Armor and other saves are not allowed to be re-rolled by any means whether it is by a psychic power, unique relic, innate ability or other means.

While this could be indeed a good thing, it doesn't fullfil the promess of making the game more balanced at all. It removes a gimmick of the Tzeentch Daemon army and that's pretty much it. What happens to ability that allow for failed armor saved to be rerolled are they cancelled? Are they replaced? If so by what? If they are cancelled how much point decrease are those units going to get. The imbalance in 40K is a very complicated problem with numerous elements that need to be taken in comsideration. One sentence will only fix one problem (and maybe create several more).

Well, it does tone down the more powerful armies. I can't think of anything excepting Guard and their Priests (and anyone else with Priests, so Sisters and Inquisition) who get to reroll saves. But it certainly doesn't fix the entire game-there are a whole host more issues than survivable models.

I'd say that the impact on a 5+ save would not be nearly as large as it would on a 3+ or 2+ save. The 5+ save is already ignored by most things, so taking away their rerollable would hurt but not nearly as much as it would hurt the unit that normally laughs as they reroll their 2+ or 2++.

It may not fix all of 40k's 40,000 problems, but I think it's a great start.

The point is, there's nothing INHERENTLY wrong with rerolling saves. The issue is with 2+ rerollables, for instance, since that's a better than 97% chance of saving.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Well, it does tone down the more powerful armies. I can't think of anything excepting Guard and their Priests (and anyone else with Priests, so Sisters and Inquisition) who get to reroll saves. But it certainly doesn't fix the entire game-there are a whole host more issues than survivable models.

Wait, you can't think of anything that rerolls saves?

2++ rerollable has been an issue for almost the entirety of 6th and 7th edition.

Lets think - Daemons of Tzeentch re-roll all saves of 1.

Eldar Runes of Fate power Fortune lets the unit re-roll all saves.

Many units can re-roll their cover saves when Jinking - Ravenwing, Harlequins (hah!), etc, and can easily bring this up to a 2+ cover save.

The Space Marine librarirus power lets the unit reroll saves.

Just as some examples, Eldar, and Tzeentch Daemons have been rocking the 2++ reroll for a while and Space Marines have joined the crowd. The biggest offenders are definitely the Eldar power Fortune and Tzeentch daemons.

Woops! I can't think of any weaker armies that get to reroll saves, excepting those guys.

Eldar, Tzeentch Daemons, and Marines are all up top.

Nothing among the overpowered units has rerollable saves. So this proposed rule doesn't fix anything.

Rerollable examples off the top of my head:
-Eldar
-Ravenwing
-Marines
-Wolves (superfriends)
-Daemons
-Dark Eldar w Allies
-Sisters
-Orks (DLS)
-Tyranids

Jesus this is the best errata ever. The amount that it hurts top tier is proportional to how little it hurts bottom tier. How in all logic is there an argument to this. And, JNAProductions Who gets a 2+ FNP? Only one army this doesnt hurt to my knowledge is Crons. Maybe praetorians?

This errata is brilliant. Its the best errata ever. Its big league.

Pain engines rerolling 1s on their fnp when near the warlord haemonculus? Op?

Harlequins rerolling 1's when taken in cegorarches revenge? OP?

Your fix does little to fix the imbalance of 40k, only hamstringing certain builds, or which not all of them were overperforming. Balance with a sledgehammer isn't balance at all.

How does this fix gladius, scatbikes, riptide spam??? It doesn't.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Pain engines rerolling 1s on their fnp when near the warlord haemonculus? Op?

Or any Thousand Sons units with their Formation bonus.

Balancing 40k is NOT simple. Aren't there something like 22 factions?

 doktor_g wrote:
Rerollable examples off the top of my head:
-Eldar
-Ravenwing
-Marines
-Wolves (superfriends)
-Daemons
-Dark Eldar w Allies
-Sisters
-Orks (DLS)
-Tyranids

Jesus this is the best errata ever. The amount that it hurts top tier is proportional to how little it hurts bottom tier. How in all logic is there an argument to this. And, JNAProductions Who gets a 2+ FNP? Only one army this doesnt hurt to my knowledge is Crons. Maybe praetorians?

This errata is brilliant. Its the best errata ever. Its big league.

I bolded the weak factions you're hurting.

And Smashfeth gets it. The Iron Hands Chapter Master in a Command Squad with the Gorgon's Chain.

Edit: Also, you sound REALLY full of yourself. Just letting you know you might want to toot your own horn less.

It's an okay start, but there's a ton more that needs to be hit with a wrench. Blasts take too long, getting new people to understand battleforged army construction requires a special class, most vehicles suck, some units suck, formations are dumb and distribute power multipliers unevenly, several armies suck, some mechanics need two pages of FAQ for a single rule, some powers suck, some powers rock the house still...

There's a lot of tinkering left to do before the thing purrs.

Speaking of powers, what does Veil of Time do under this errata?

You get to punch yourself in the face for being dumb enough to cast a power that no longer has any effect.

Preeeetty sure that the OP is trolling at this point, based off of his tone, responses, and the vagueness and incompleteness of his original idea.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Preeeetty sure that the OP is trolling at this point, based off of his tone, responses, and the vagueness and incompleteness of his original idea.

Ouch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
Rerollable examples off the top of my head:
-Eldar
-Ravenwing
-Marines
-Wolves (superfriends)
-Daemons
-Dark Eldar w Allies
-Sisters
-Orks (DLS)
-Tyranids

Jesus this is the best errata ever. The amount that it hurts top tier is proportional to how little it hurts bottom tier. How in all logic is there an argument to this. And, JNAProductions Who gets a 2+ FNP? Only one army this doesnt hurt to my knowledge is Crons. Maybe praetorians?

This errata is brilliant. Its the best errata ever. Its big league.

I bolded the weak factions you're hurting.

And Smashfeth gets it. The Iron Hands Chapter Master in a Command Squad with the Gorgon's Chain.

Edit: Also, you sound REALLY full of yourself. Just letting you know you might want to toot your own horn less.

Ouch. Also.

Nobody got the "big league" part except the guy from France?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My point can be summed up with this question. Is there a top 8 at the LVO that didnt have rerollables?

Not trying to be a jerk here, being genuinely sincere when I say this:

It sounds like you are either in, or trying to get into, the tournament scene, perhaps with one of the armies you're 'raising issue' with or maybe you are one of those armies that doesn't get those re-rolls and is mad about that. I'm not sure, not gonna speculate or assume. But, with that said, have you considered not playing with people who are in the competitive scene? To me at least, it seems like you are having a less-than-satisfactory experience with it. Perhaps you should try playing more in-tune with the lore with other like-minded people, maybe give the competitive scene a break for a while and play using some homebrow, such as the lovely homebrew found on this forum or even make your own and test it with your fellow casual 40k players.

So fix the broken rerolls. Again-5+ rerollable armor is not something that needs fixing. Don't blanket ban something because some of it is too good.

How about we ban Monstrous Creatures too, since Magnus and Riptides are so damn good? You know, because that won't have any far-reaching consequences.

 Marik Law wrote:
Not trying to be a jerk here, being genuinely sincere when I say this:

It sounds like you are either in, or trying to get into, the tournament scene, perhaps with one of the armies you're 'raising issue' with or maybe you are one of those armies that doesn't get those re-rolls and is mad about that. I'm not sure, not gonna speculate or assume. But, with that said, have you considered not playing with people who are in the competitive scene? To me at least, it seems like you are having a less-than-satisfactory experience with it. Perhaps you should try playing more in-tune with the lore with other like-minded people, maybe give the competitive scene a break for a while and play using some homebrow, such as the lovely homebrew found on this forum or even make your own and test it with your fellow casual 40k players.

@Mark: Canadians are so nice. Ugh. Had to go back and edit my comment. Yes into competitive scene.


@JNAProd: I assume you play IG? How dependent are your lists on rerollables? On a scale of 0-10. Zero being not dependent. 10 being if i cant get them list collapses? If its low.... my point is again reinforced. My errata idea hurts top tier the MOST. I dont think Ive ever played an AM with rerollables. My favorite faction has one relic Da Lukky stik and it is an AUTO INCLUDE do you know why? Because its broken.

To thread... do the math.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Riptides are vulnerable to grav.
Magnus only is worth it with rerollables

Wolves (superfriends)??

DLS is an autoinclude but it's far from being broken, it's just almost a better attack squig as its real advantage is to grant 1-2 more S10 wounds. A warboss on a bike has a 4+ save and he probably never rerolls it with DLS, same as his jink save as his buddies take the wounds before him. Same for the megarmor, the lack of invuln and being only T5 means that the boyz will get the wounds before him. I never use DLS to tank wounds, and I think its real advantage is to buff the WS of the entire unit: 18 boyz (plus the warboss) that hit on 3 is way better than rerolling saves.

And what about my army? I have a healthy W/D/L with my dudes, and I've not used a single rerollable save, and yet according to you, my army often uses them? I don't think I've actually seen a rerollable save in my army, barring psychic powers everyone gets?
With my 30k guys, I'll have a rerollable 3+ against blasts and templates (Breachers), but that's not regarded as game breaking in 30k.

I don't play IG (yet) but I have a friend who runs an Ogryn-Star, and yes, he relies on his rerollable saves a lot. It's not a competitive list, but removing the rerolls turns it from not that good to pure crap.

Here Is my attempt to fix 40k in one sentence: Erase the formation from existence and only play with the CAD. It would not fix all of the issues by any stretch of the imagination but, it is a good place to start.

 Howscat wrote:
Here Is my attempt to fix 40k in one sentence: Erase the formation from existence and only play with the CAD. It would not fix all of the issues by any stretch of the imagination but, it is a good place to start.

Can we still allow all the CAD-like detachments, such as Baal Strike Force.

"An invul save can never be better than a 4+"
Similar but should be interesting in what it does too. It counters the rerollable 2++ however enables the rerollable 5++.


Screw the stormshield change from 4++ in combat only to 3++ for everything.

 Howscat wrote:
Here Is my attempt to fix 40k in one sentence: Erase the formation from existence and only play with the CAD. It would not fix all of the issues by any stretch of the imagination but, it is a good place to start.

Oh yeah, because everything outside the Gladius is sooooooo broken.

 Howscat wrote:
Here Is my attempt to fix 40k in one sentence: Erase the formation from existence and only play with the CAD. It would not fix all of the issues by any stretch of the imagination but, it is a good place to start.

I wasn't aware that the Battle Demi-Company was such a problem.

I mean, for all the stuff you need to take, which could be taken in a CAD anyway, you get a one-use version of the Ultramarine Chapter Tactics. Sure, it's alright, but you need 3 Tactical Squads, a fast moving squad, and a heavy support variant as well as a mandatory Captain or Chaplain. In a CAD, I could take a far better Librarian, two units of Scouts, and then max everything else out with grav Centurions, dropmelta Sternguard or grav bikers.

I think Formations are fine. They're fluffy and they're fun. I think the Formation and CAD should have no difference in benefits - as in, the only difference is that a CAD allows for your own combination of units, whereas a Formation limits your units, but you can afford to have multiple units that would be impossible in a CAD - multiple Librarians, for example, or Elites choices. Unbound then only exists if you want to break the CAD and refuse to use the fluffy organisation - ie, I want to bring a Riptide, Wraithknight and Dreadknight. They get no bonuses at all. The CAD and Formations would all retain ObSec and all have the reroll Warlord Trait ability.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Howscat wrote:
Here Is my attempt to fix 40k in one sentence: Erase the formation from existence and only play with the CAD. It would not fix all of the issues by any stretch of the imagination but, it is a good place to start.

I wasn't aware that the Battle Demi-Company was such a problem.

I mean, for all the stuff you need to take, which could be taken in a CAD anyway, you get a one-use version of the Ultramarine Chapter Tactics. Sure, it's alright, but you need 3 Tactical Squads, a fast moving squad, and a heavy support variant as well as a mandatory Captain or Chaplain. In a CAD, I could take a far better Librarian, two units of Scouts, and then max everything else out with grav Centurions, dropmelta Sternguard or grav bikers.

I think Formations are fine. They're fluffy and they're fun. I think the Formation and CAD should have no difference in benefits - as in, the only difference is that a CAD allows for your own combination of units, whereas a Formation limits your units, but you can afford to have multiple units that would be impossible in a CAD - multiple Librarians, for example, or Elites choices. Unbound then only exists if you want to break the CAD and refuse to use the fluffy organisation - ie, I want to bring a Riptide, Wraithknight and Dreadknight. They get no bonuses at all. The CAD and Formations would all retain ObSec and all have the reroll Warlord Trait ability.

I quite like minor benefits such as +1 initiative on the charge or similar. It's only when formations get crazy like Gladius or Skyhammer that formations are really set apart.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Howscat wrote:
Here Is my attempt to fix 40k in one sentence: Erase the formation from existence and only play with the CAD. It would not fix all of the issues by any stretch of the imagination but, it is a good place to start.

I wasn't aware that the Battle Demi-Company was such a problem.

I mean, for all the stuff you need to take, which could be taken in a CAD anyway, you get a one-use version of the Ultramarine Chapter Tactics. Sure, it's alright, but you need 3 Tactical Squads, a fast moving squad, and a heavy support variant as well as a mandatory Captain or Chaplain. In a CAD, I could take a far better Librarian, two units of Scouts, and then max everything else out with grav Centurions, dropmelta Sternguard or grav bikers.

I think Formations are fine. They're fluffy and they're fun. I think the Formation and CAD should have no difference in benefits - as in, the only difference is that a CAD allows for your own combination of units, whereas a Formation limits your units, but you can afford to have multiple units that would be impossible in a CAD - multiple Librarians, for example, or Elites choices. Unbound then only exists if you want to break the CAD and refuse to use the fluffy organisation - ie, I want to bring a Riptide, Wraithknight and Dreadknight. They get no bonuses at all. The CAD and Formations would all retain ObSec and all have the reroll Warlord Trait ability.

I quite like minor benefits such as +1 initiative on the charge or similar. It's only when formations get crazy like Gladius or Skyhammer that formations are really set apart.

Again, the Gladius isn't crazy. Getting a one-use Ultramarine Chapter Tactic isn't broken.

Getting free transports when taking two Demi Battle-Companies is.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Howscat wrote:
Here Is my attempt to fix 40k in one sentence: Erase the formation from existence and only play with the CAD. It would not fix all of the issues by any stretch of the imagination but, it is a good place to start.

I wasn't aware that the Battle Demi-Company was such a problem.

I mean, for all the stuff you need to take, which could be taken in a CAD anyway, you get a one-use version of the Ultramarine Chapter Tactics. Sure, it's alright, but you need 3 Tactical Squads, a fast moving squad, and a heavy support variant as well as a mandatory Captain or Chaplain. In a CAD, I could take a far better Librarian, two units of Scouts, and then max everything else out with grav Centurions, dropmelta Sternguard or grav bikers.

I think Formations are fine. They're fluffy and they're fun. I think the Formation and CAD should have no difference in benefits - as in, the only difference is that a CAD allows for your own combination of units, whereas a Formation limits your units, but you can afford to have multiple units that would be impossible in a CAD - multiple Librarians, for example, or Elites choices. Unbound then only exists if you want to break the CAD and refuse to use the fluffy organisation - ie, I want to bring a Riptide, Wraithknight and Dreadknight. They get no bonuses at all. The CAD and Formations would all retain ObSec and all have the reroll Warlord Trait ability.

I quite like minor benefits such as +1 initiative on the charge or similar. It's only when formations get crazy like Gladius or Skyhammer that formations are really set apart.

Again, the Gladius isn't crazy. Getting a one-use Ultramarine Chapter Tactic isn't broken.

Getting free transports when taking two Demi Battle-Companies is.

I forgot my vehicles when I took gladius to a GT in October. (Grabbed the wrong identical case.) My wife drove it up there in time for round 2, but I still had to play round 1 missing 9 pods, 5 razorbacks, and 2 dreads against an eldar double-CAD with wraithknight, a couple large scatbike squads escorting farseers, some minimum scatbike squads, and some warp spiders in a shrine formation.

I still won 7-5. Turns out getting rerolls to hit for half the game is still really good, especially when you're also getting the chapter tactic of your choice past that. (In this case good ol' hit and run.)

I use formations at events because everyone else is and trying to win without them when facing against them is dumb, but the overall game would be much better at this point if the tourney scene would've banned the firebase cadre the instant it showed up years ago.

Turns out when you take a game that's already not balanced, and then randomly distribute power-multiplying formations unevenly across the armies, you get a significantly more unbalanced game. CAD tactical marines have no place being on the same table across from riptides, but don't even belong in the same event as bunch of riptides that can double fire, almost never fail their reactor roll, and came without any squishy tax units.

Someday I hope either the competitive players wise up to how slowed formations are or that 8e kills them with fire. They are the worst thing to ever happen to the game.

I appreciate the mentality of the OP. I don't play current 40K so I can't bother with the argument, but anything which removes the silliness that plagues the current game gets a thumbs up from me.

A better solution to the OPs exact arguement could instead be something like
''if a unit for any reason obtains a rerollable save of any kind they instead pass that save on one lower (so a 4+ rerollable becomes a regular 3+). If this means they end up with a 1+ armour save they instead get a reroll on their 2+, with the reroll only passing on a 6+.
Rerollable effects can therefore stack, giving better and better saves. With saves that would be pushed to 1+ or even lower instead getting a reroll with modifers to that. So a would-be 0+ save in this system would be a 2+ followed by a 5+ save. (see BS6+)

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, the Gladius isn't crazy. Getting a one-use Ultramarine Chapter Tactic isn't broken.

Getting free transports when taking two Demi Battle-Companies is.

The Gladius is what gives the two Demi Battle Companies Free Transports. Its one of the two Gladius Special Rules.

Implement d10 system.

See above.

doktor_g's eratta = No rerollables.

The reason everyone is so upset is because it has been the biggest crutch / win button of the meta of the last 2 editions. If you dont have it, you are mid to bottom tier. Period.

Yet to have seen proof otherwise, other than personal attacks. Like calling me a troll.

Priests give rerolls to Sisters, Guard, and Inquisition. Are they top tier?

Orks have Da Lucky Stick. Are they top tier?

Rerollable 2+ is bad (2.7%).

Rerollable 3+ (11%) is less than a D10 facing.

Rerollable 4+ (25%) is less than a D6 facing.

GW just needs to reduce interlocking synergies, they even have rules designed just for that purpose (like Mark of Tzeentch).

JNAProd: c'mon brother. Orks have ONE unique option that only applies to one IC (that aint access). Not the same as super friends or screamers.

Who benefits from 2++ rerollables?

3++?

4++?

5++?

I suspect that the break down will look an awful lot like the current meta.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lets see the math folks. Millions of dice have been rolled.

No one is saying 2+ rerollable invulns are good.

What IS being said is that blanket banning a mechanic is not a good idea-it removes a good element from the game. One thing I and others have suggested is capping Invuln improvers at 3+ (and probably FNP at 4+) making the ABSOLUTE WORST CASE SCENARIO a 3+ rerollable by 4+, or a 1/18 chance of getting a wound if using the right (AP2 or Ignores Cover, as appropriate) weapon.

That would help balance the game without needlessly removing a good function.

Edit: Also, how in the hell does this fix all of 40k like you claim?

Mmmm. Its a one line balance. Its not gonna be rainbows and unicorns. Its the grimdark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also... look at LVO top lists. Show me the math.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
7 out of 8 needed rerollables.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nix them. Meta shifts.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, the Gladius isn't crazy. Getting a one-use Ultramarine Chapter Tactic isn't broken.

Getting free transports when taking two Demi Battle-Companies is.

The Gladius is what gives the two Demi Battle Companies Free Transports. Its one of the two Gladius Special Rules.

Yes, but I can take my Gladius without those two DBC - is it still broken?

Again, it's not the full Gladius that's broken - it's taking two BDC and getting free transports. At it's base state, the Gladius isn't broken. The battle company is.

Back to the rerollablle save - in my Ultramarine army, I use no rerollable save, and rarely use free transports. In any case, I bring ten man tactical squads and assault squads, with my only grav being on two individual units - Dev Centurions, and Bikers. I have no psychic powers, and no bikerstar.

What tier is my army? It's not affected by your fix at all, and still retains it's old WDL ratio.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, the Gladius isn't crazy. Getting a one-use Ultramarine Chapter Tactic isn't broken.

Getting free transports when taking two Demi Battle-Companies is.

The Gladius is what gives the two Demi Battle Companies Free Transports. Its one of the two Gladius Special Rules.

Yes, but I can take my Gladius without those two DBC - is it still broken?

Again, it's not the full Gladius that's broken - it's taking two BDC and getting free transports. At it's base state, the Gladius isn't broken. The battle company is.

Back to the rerollablle save - in my Ultramarine army, I use no rerollable save, and rarely use free transports. In any case, I bring ten man tactical squads and assault squads, with my only grav being on two individual units - Dev Centurions, and Bikers. I have no psychic powers, and no bikerstar.

What tier is my army? It's not affected by your fix at all, and still retains it's old WDL ratio.

And the Battle Company only exists within the Gladius' Command Benefits. Are both Command Benefits powerful? No, just the one. And unless you are operating at a rather low points level, who wouldn't take the Battle Company with the Gladius?

Therefore, the Gladius is broken by this rule.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Again, the Gladius isn't crazy. Getting a one-use Ultramarine Chapter Tactic isn't broken.

Getting free transports when taking two Demi Battle-Companies is.

BDC also makes all the bikes, hqs, command squads, dreads and devastators ob.sec, and CAD doesn't.

 doktor_g wrote:
Also... look at LVO top lists. Show me the math.

Considering it's YOUR suggestion... I think the burden of proof lies upon you!

Actually fixing 40k in a mathematical sense requires work -- graphs, excel tables, testing, collaboration for feedback, etc. Then there's how many armies to balance? Not simple.

I don't see anyone who's not getting paid being willing to put in that amount of work, and I don't see a one sentence errata fixing anything either.

 doktor_g wrote:
The reason everyone is so upset is because it has been the biggest crutch / win button of the meta of the last 2 editions. If you dont have it, you are mid to bottom tier. Period.

Yet to have seen proof otherwise, other than personal attacks. Like calling me a troll.

It's possibly the way your posts seem to be coming across through text; seemingly ignoring people saying otherwise while remaining extremely headstrong that your idea is the best thing to happen to 40k. I agree it's a good start, but it's not that simple. As others have said rerollable 2++ is a huge problem that needs to go, however a rerollable 5++ is perfectly fine; as such a blanket banning of "remove all rerolls" while good at first glance becomes not so great as you look into it more. That's why I'd probably go with rerolling being removed for anything 3+ or better instead.

It removes the problem that is 2++ rerolls, but without hurting those bottom tier armies. Just a blanket ban would not see the tiers shift around, this way it may have an actual effect on it.

 doktor_g wrote:
doktor_g's 7th Ed Errata:

Invulnerable, Cover, Armor and other saves are not allowed to be re-rolled by any means whether it is by a psychic power, unique relic, innate ability or other means.

Let me try to put this in a way you might understand by using the following example:

I have a car that has bald tires, damaged rims, collapsed suspension, and a number of minor problems to do with the engine, the gearbox, the interior, etc etc etc. Obviously there are many problems to be fixed. Think of the aforementioned as an analogy to the 40K gaming system. Now: You proposed errata of removing the 'Re-Roll Mechanic of various Saves regardless of their source is like saying (for our car example) that cleaning the damaged rims will solve all the other problems the car has.

@Yoyoyo Sorry it was 6 out of 8.
LVO:
1st place - Perkins: Renegades, Screamer Star, Ordinance Tyrant
2nd place - Grant: LionsBlade, Barkstar, Ministorum Priest
3rd place - Platt: Screamers, Fatey, Magnus
4th place - Root: War convocation, Conclave
5th place - Nayden: Iyanden, RiptideWing
6th place - Leach: Corsairs, Venom Spam*
7th place - Abilez: FSE*
8th place - Curtis: Screamers, Fatey, Magnus

*no access to rerollables.

@IllumiNini: Let me put this to you in a way you can understand using the following example: If you're trying to sell a house, and you can only do one thing to increase the value/curb appeal for almost no work, money, or time would you do it? Of course you would. Incidentally, its painting the front door. Thats what this errata does. It doesnt fix the hideous wallpaper in the dinning room, or the poltergeist that haunts the place, but it nevertheless statistically increases the perceived value of the house by the buyer. I submit that this statistically flattens/broadens the meta in one sentence by taking away shenanigans disproportionately from the top tier than from the bottom.

Selling that house is a one-off deal. Sell it and you never have to deal with it again.
Having to drive to work every day with your wheels falling off. That's an ongoing issue, and needs lots of work to sort out.

Back to the OP:
Drop the re-roll to "Roll the next-best save" after a failed save.
If you have a 2++ and you roll a 1, you get to fall back on your current cover save of 4+, or 5+ armour save (or whatever).
It isn't a straight-up re-roll, and means you have to work really hard to get a 2++/2++.

For Eldar Farseers out in the open, without their invil, they're toast.
In cover, where they should be hiding, cover save if Fortune is up.
Hiding in a DA squad with an Exarch invul shield, fail the rune armour save, get a DA invul save.
etc,

@doktor_g: I see your point, but the title of your thread is: "Fixing the imbalance in 40k with a one sentence errata", the ignorance of which is supprted by your proposal. Your proposal doesn't even come close to fixing the imbalances in 40K, but is more an incredibly shallow start. I'm not arguing that the re-roll mechanic needs to be addressed, but getting rid of it isn't going to balance 40K or justify your misleading thread title.

 Howscat wrote:
Here Is my attempt to fix 40k in one sentence: Erase the formation from existence and only play with the CAD. It would not fix all of the issues by any stretch of the imagination but, it is a good place to start.

I don't really like this either.

Just say that anytime a save is re-rolled (armour, cover, invul) it can never be better than 4+.
That keeps 'Daemon of Tzeentch', 'Precognition', 'Fortune' and many other rules viable still without flat out making them useless.
Remember, these rules do not give 2++ re-rollable saves, they merely allow re-roll. It is when you combine them with unit that has, or can get 2+ saves that they become broken.
Just make the re-roll a 50/50 after the first failed roll.

-

 IllumiNini wrote:
@doktor_g: I see your point, but the title of your thread is: "Fixing the imbalance in 40k with a one sentence errata", the ignorance of which is supprted by your proposal. Your proposal doesn't even come close to fixing the imbalances in 40K, but is more an incredibly shallow start. I'm not arguing that the re-roll mechanic needs to be addressed, but getting rid of it isn't going to balance 40K or justify your misleading thread title.

How about "leveling the meta?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
Just say that anytime a save is re-rolled (armour, cover, invul) it can never be better than 4+.
That keeps 'Daemon of Tzeentch', 'Precognition', 'Fortune' and many other rules viable still without flat out making them useless.
Remember, these rules do not give 2++ re-rollable saves, they merely allow re-roll. It is when you combine them with unit that has, or can get 2+ saves that they become broken.
Just make the re-roll a 50/50 after the first failed roll.

-

Gaelf: thats what ITC has done. 2+ rerollable goes to 2+/4+, yet the largest 40k event in the world shows that 75% of the top lists utilize rerolls.

Leveling the meta has very little to do with your proposal. I will reiterate: I feel that the issue of re-rolls needs to be addressed, but in the grand scheme of things, fixing this machanic alone doesn't do much at all (if anything).

You're trying to fix a broken, complex system with an oversimplification. It's not going to work.

Its not perfect. i think it is a simple, easy to understand and easy to implement, elegant solution to a game with what 23 different codexes / supplements?

My goal is to weaken the top disproportionately. I still feel as if it has done so.

Perhaps you have a different idea of a one sentence errata fix?(lets say 'patch'). One sentence patch.

My question is, what is going to replace these abilities? Or are the various Psychic Powers going to be useless and is Daemon of Tzeentch only going to have a unique benefit to Psykers (and a weak one at that).

Burn all to the ground and start over completely.

That's probably the only one sentence fix to 40k.

I love the battle of semantics here. I know what the title is but after reading a handful of Dok'z comments I can tell what his point was. Not to FIX the ENTIRE game but to level the playing field a bit.

And honestly, this helps. Its not the end all be all solution but realistically most of the top armies rely on some sort of reroll mechanic. I hell the entire Necron faction is based on the idea of getting your 4+ RP roll, which for all intents and purposes is a reroll mixed with FNP.

This doesn't address most of the Tau factions stupidly OP nonsense but it at least fixes a number of the other problems.

@MattK: No replacement. Reroll the power would be HIWPI. I dont understand the second part about Tzeentch.

@doktor_g: I honestly admire your intentions (especially since most 40K players want what you apparently want - a balanced system), but there is no simple solution to this. There is no "One size fits all" solution, let alone any simple answer to the problems that 40K has. You can't fix this by addressing re-roĺls while not addressing anything else. It will not even out the disproportionality of the top tier.

Disregard the notion of a simple solution because this not a simple system.

@SemperMortis: 1000 blessings upon you.

So please enlighten us how this fixes anything. Supwrfriends keeps going, Eldar didn't need the mechanic, Gladius doesn't rely on it, Necrons don't reroll any saves...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So please enlighten us how this fixes anything. Supwrfriends keeps going, Eldar didn't need the mechanic, Gladius doesn't rely on it, Necrons don't reroll any saves...

My feelings exactly. It seems like someone is getting butt-hurt over Screamer-Star/Magnus lists more than anything else. Tzeentch is the only "army" that has army-wide access to re-rollable saves. All other "stars" must rely on rolling a specific power.
If you really want to fix Tzeentch save re-rolls, than address that. Change "Daemon of Tzeetch" so that you may only re-roll the model's Invul saves of 1 (thus stopping armour and cover shenanigans) and that any model with Daemon of Tzeetch cannot have an Invul save better that 3++ no matter how many buffs it gets.

-

SemperMortis wrote:
I love the battle of semantics here. I know what the title is but after reading a handful of Dok'z comments I can tell what his point was. Not to FIX the ENTIRE game but to level the playing field a bit.

And honestly, this helps. Its not the end all be all solution but realistically most of the top armies rely on some sort of reroll mechanic. I hell the entire Necron faction is based on the idea of getting your 4+ RP roll, which for all intents and purposes is a reroll mixed with FNP.

This doesn't address most of the Tau factions stupidly OP nonsense but it at least fixes a number of the other problems.

I think Sempermortis gets it. It's not *truly* a claim to fix the entire game. It's a claim to fix the most game with the least complex changes. And I agree with the OP that if I had to pick a single thing to change to fix the most problems possible rerolls are undeniably at the top. A close number two would probably be allies, but removing allies strengthens the strongest lists and weakens the weakest lists. Up there with that would be invisibility, D weapons, etc, but fixing all that is not as elegant or simple as banning rerolls.

 NightHowler wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I love the battle of semantics here. I know what the title is but after reading a handful of Dok'z comments I can tell what his point was. Not to FIX the ENTIRE game but to level the playing field a bit.

And honestly, this helps. Its not the end all be all solution but realistically most of the top armies rely on some sort of reroll mechanic. I hell the entire Necron faction is based on the idea of getting your 4+ RP roll, which for all intents and purposes is a reroll mixed with FNP.

This doesn't address most of the Tau factions stupidly OP nonsense but it at least fixes a number of the other problems.

I think Sempermortis gets it. It's not *truly* a claim to fix the entire game. It's a claim to fix the most game with the least complex changes. And I agree with the OP that if I had to pick a single thing to change to fix the most problems possible rerolls are undeniably at the top. A close number two would probably be allies, but removing allies strengthens the strongest lists and weakens the weakest lists. Up there with that would be invisibility, D weapons, etc, but fixing all that is not as elegant or simple as banning rerolls.

Definitely agree with Nighthowler here. It's an argument about bang-for-your-buck changes.

Maybe not outlaw re-rollable saves, but make it so that if you DO re-roll any save, the re-roll is one worse than the original. So if you re-roll a 2+ save, the re-roll is a 3+ save. It tones things down a bit without leaving too much scope for complaint.

 Fifty wrote:
Maybe not outlaw re-rollable saves, but make it so that if you DO re-roll any save, the re-roll is one worse than the original. So if you re-roll a 2+ save, the re-roll is a 3+ save. It tones things down a bit without leaving too much scope for complaint.

Or just take the ITC ruling. A rerollable 2+ (specifically a rerollable 2+) is passed on a 4+ on the reroll.

Which certainly makes the game more balanced, but rather than a one-sentence errata that fixes everything it's one change amid thirty pages of errata, the rest of which has nothing to do with rerolling saves.

Charistoph wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, the Gladius isn't crazy. Getting a one-use Ultramarine Chapter Tactic isn't broken.

Getting free transports when taking two Demi Battle-Companies is.

The Gladius is what gives the two Demi Battle Companies Free Transports. Its one of the two Gladius Special Rules.

Yes, but I can take my Gladius without those two DBC - is it still broken?

Again, it's not the full Gladius that's broken - it's taking two BDC and getting free transports. At it's base state, the Gladius isn't broken. The battle company is.

Back to the rerollablle save - in my Ultramarine army, I use no rerollable save, and rarely use free transports. In any case, I bring ten man tactical squads and assault squads, with my only grav being on two individual units - Dev Centurions, and Bikers. I have no psychic powers, and no bikerstar.

What tier is my army? It's not affected by your fix at all, and still retains it's old WDL ratio.

And the Battle Company only exists within the Gladius' Command Benefits. Are both Command Benefits powerful? No, just the one. And unless you are operating at a rather low points level, who wouldn't take the Battle Company with the Gladius?

Therefore, the Gladius is broken by this rule.

Unless I don't take the Battle Company, purely because I take ten man units, thereby nearly doubling the unit costs, limiting my games?

I am counting this as base, because the full Battle Company IS broken, and I'll agree on that. Free transports isn't okay. But the Gladius, which can just consist of the BDC and an innocuous Auxiliary, like the Storm Wing perhaps, doesn't have to be broken.

Unless you mean to say that a DBC with ten man squads and a Storm Wing is somehow more broken than what I can make with a CAD?
The Gladius itself isn't the issue. The Battle Company rules are the issue.

Sonic Keyboard wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Again, the Gladius isn't crazy. Getting a one-use Ultramarine Chapter Tactic isn't broken.

Getting free transports when taking two Demi Battle-Companies is.

BDC also makes all the bikes, hqs, command squads, dreads and devastators ob.sec, and CAD doesn't.

Fair point. I'll concede that, although I will note that it requires less units for a CAD (only an HQ, which you could get a Librarian or CM, which isn't obtainable in a Gladius) and only two Troops, which could be Scouts. But yes, I can't deny that the BCD gives all units in it (Bikes, ASM, Devastators, Centurions etc etc) ObSec.

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I love the battle of semantics here. I know what the title is but after reading a handful of Dok'z comments I can tell what his point was. Not to FIX the ENTIRE game but to level the playing field a bit.

And honestly, this helps. Its not the end all be all solution but realistically most of the top armies rely on some sort of reroll mechanic. I hell the entire Necron faction is based on the idea of getting your 4+ RP roll, which for all intents and purposes is a reroll mixed with FNP.

This doesn't address most of the Tau factions stupidly OP nonsense but it at least fixes a number of the other problems.

I think Sempermortis gets it. It's not *truly* a claim to fix the entire game. It's a claim to fix the most game with the least complex changes. And I agree with the OP that if I had to pick a single thing to change to fix the most problems possible rerolls are undeniably at the top. A close number two would probably be allies, but removing allies strengthens the strongest lists and weakens the weakest lists. Up there with that would be invisibility, D weapons, etc, but fixing all that is not as elegant or simple as banning rerolls.

Definitely agree with Nighthowler here. It's an argument about bang-for-your-buck changes.

I'd argue that "All psykers are treated as equipped with a Psychic Hood" and "No power may be cast using more than 6 dice" would be better bang-for-your-buck changes and would be much less guilty of carpet-bombing out things that don't really need to be nerfed (be honest, were 5+ saves in melee rerolling 1s from a Priest in a Conscript blob really hurting the game?).

 doktor_g wrote:
@MattK: No replacement. Reroll the power would be HIWPI. I dont understand the second part about Tzeentch.

All the "Daemon of" rules give Daemon, Hatred(Opposing God) and some secondary benefits (Rending, Fleet & +3"/6" to Run moves for Slaanesh; Shrouded, SnP & Defensive Grenades for Nurgle; Furious Charge & Str 7 HoW for Chariot with Khorne and currently re-roll saves of a 1 & + 3 Ld when manifesting Psychic Powers).

With your 'fix' Tzeentch would go from being broken in one or two very specific circumstances (when combined with Grimoire and the stacking of specific Psychic Powers) while giving s small survivability buff to everything with it to being useless to anyone who isn't a Psyker. It'd make the upgrade a waste of points on non-caster Princes, Furies and Soul Grinders among other things (like Spined Beasts) and only give a secondary benefit to Horrors, Lords of Change & Psychic Princes... and even then that benefit might as well be worthless (the +3 Ld only applies to the Perils table).

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Charistoph wrote:And the Battle Company only exists within the Gladius' Command Benefits. Are both Command Benefits powerful? No, just the one. And unless you are operating at a rather low points level, who wouldn't take the Battle Company with the Gladius?

Therefore, the Gladius is broken by this rule.

Unless I don't take the Battle Company, purely because I take ten man units, thereby nearly doubling the unit costs, limiting my games?

I am counting this as base, because the full Battle Company IS broken, and I'll agree on that. Free transports isn't okay. But the Gladius, which can just consist of the BDC and an innocuous Auxiliary, like the Storm Wing perhaps, doesn't have to be broken.

Unless you mean to say that a DBC with ten man squads and a Storm Wing is somehow more broken than what I can make with a CAD?
The Gladius itself isn't the issue. The Battle Company rules are the issue.

And the Battle Company rule (there is only one) does not exist without the Gladius since it is part of the Gladius' Command Benefits.

This is about knowing the location of the problem. It would be like saying the CAD isn't broken, but Objective Secured is broken. It doesn't track as one is a part (and a very desirable part) of the other.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
@MattK: No replacement. Reroll the power would be HIWPI. I dont understand the second part about Tzeentch.

All the "Daemon of" rules give Daemon, Hatred(Opposing God) and some secondary benefits (Rending, Fleet & +3"/6" to Run moves for Slaanesh; Shrouded, SnP & Defensive Grenades for Nurgle; Furious Charge & Str 7 HoW for Chariot with Khorne and currently re-roll saves of a 1 & + 3 Ld when manifesting Psychic Powers).

With your 'fix' Tzeentch would go from being broken in one or two very specific circumstances (when combined with Grimoire and the stacking of specific Psychic Powers) while giving s small survivability buff to everything with it to being useless to anyone who isn't a Psyker. It'd make the upgrade a waste of points on non-caster Princes, Furies and Soul Grinders among other things (like Spined Beasts) and only give a secondary benefit to Horrors, Lords of Change & Psychic Princes... and even then that benefit might as well be worthless (the +3 Ld only applies to the Perils table).

Ok... well... thats all fine. Tzeentch no longer all encompassing win button. No argument here. Soulgrinder no reroll on a save? Oh well. No Ork vehicles can do that. I think only one Tau suit can. Etc etc. Meta more level than without eratta. There are plenty of useless upgrades in 40k. Target lock on riptides. Stickbomb chucka on ork vehicles. Etc etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dont get me wrong. I like the mechanic. Fatey's unique ability is really cool. Its just that rerollables are at the top of th broken pile in my opinion.

 doktor_g wrote:
...Ok... well... thats all fine. Tzeentch no longer all encompassing win button. No argument here. Soulgrinder no reroll on a save? Oh well. No Ork vehicles can do that. I think only one Tau suit can. Etc etc. Meta more level than without eratta. There are plenty of useless upgrades in 40k. Target lock on riptides. Stickbomb chucka on ork vehicles. Etc etc.

And...useless upgrades are a desirable thing to have in your game?

I may have repeated myself to the point that I need to put this in my signature, but the fact that GW has screwed up a rule is not a justification for making the same screwup when writing your own rules.

We're here to make things better, not to throw whatever ideas happen to occur to us down on the page and then say "Well, at least I haven't made anything any worse." If "but GW screwed up!" is the only reason you can give for screwing up I invite you to go back to the drawing board and come back when you've got an idea that's an improvement on the state of the game rather than an attempt to perpetuate and prolong the mess.

Make "Daemon of Tzeentch" grant +1 to all saving throws (to a mx of 3+) and you can take away re-rolls if you want, but that no longer becomes a "one sentence Errata fix"

This game is too complicated for simple fixes. You can vastly improve the game with a few changes, but you have to think out the possibilities. Getting rid of all re-rolls makes too many rules (which are often built into the cost of a unit) useless.

How about this Errata: "All rules that grant re-rolls to saving throws of any kind, instead grant +1 to the save."
That kills the re-rolls without making every rule that grants them useless.
And I really only see this affecting Tzeentch units and the occasional Farseer, although it creates the possibility for WraithKnights & WraithGuard to have 2+ armour

Then again, WraithGuard with 2+ armour is possible now (Spiritseer with Protect) and no one really uses it.

-

 Galef wrote:
Make "Daemon of Tzeentch" grant +1 to all saving throws (to a mx of 3+) and you can take away re-rolls if you want, but that no longer becomes a "one sentence Errata fix"

This game is too complicated for simple fixes. You can vastly improve the game with a few changes, but you have to think out the possibilities. Getting rid of all re-rolls makes too many rules (which are often built into the cost of a unit) useless.

How about this Errata: "All rules that grant re-rolls to saving throws of any kind, instead grant +1 to the save."
That kills the re-rolls without making every rule that grants them useless.
And I really only see this affecting Tzeentch units and the occasional Farseer, although it creates the possibility for WraithKnights & WraithGuard to have 2+ armour

-

Oh dear. The 150pt-too-cheap taxless stompy monstrosity is going to be slightly more vulnerable to grav-guns.

Allowing someone to cast Protect on the Wraithknight is quite literally the least worrisome buff you could give it. (Given that mine has only ever been killed by grav-cannons I'd argue that actually casting Protect on it in the first place could be considered a bad idea.)

I've killed D cannon WKs by using a dreadnought in a pod to kill the guy with protect and then on the next turn, Mephiston assaulted the thing swinging at S10 AP 3 init 7 instant death. Still lost the game on points, but I wasn't tabled at least.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Allowing someone to cast Protect on the Wraithknight is quite literally the least worrisome buff you could give it. (Given that mine has only ever been killed by grav-cannons I'd argue that actually casting Protect on it in the first place could be considered a bad idea.)

That was partly my point. If we alter any rule that makes save re-rolls into a flat +1 save, then you can Fortune a WK for a 2+ armour. No one would ever voluntarily do this against a Grav army, but it may make the WK even harder for non-Grav armies to take out

But by the same token, it would mean that any Tzeentch army that has Cursed Earth would have 3++ (instead of 4++ re-rolling 1s), and it would be fairly easy for Screamers to get 2++ (but not re-rollable). If that is the goal, I would be fine with it.

-

Charistoph wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Charistoph wrote:And the Battle Company only exists within the Gladius' Command Benefits. Are both Command Benefits powerful? No, just the one. And unless you are operating at a rather low points level, who wouldn't take the Battle Company with the Gladius?

Therefore, the Gladius is broken by this rule.

Unless I don't take the Battle Company, purely because I take ten man units, thereby nearly doubling the unit costs, limiting my games?

I am counting this as base, because the full Battle Company IS broken, and I'll agree on that. Free transports isn't okay. But the Gladius, which can just consist of the BDC and an innocuous Auxiliary, like the Storm Wing perhaps, doesn't have to be broken.

Unless you mean to say that a DBC with ten man squads and a Storm Wing is somehow more broken than what I can make with a CAD?
The Gladius itself isn't the issue. The Battle Company rules are the issue.

And the Battle Company rule (there is only one) does not exist without the Gladius since it is part of the Gladius' Command Benefits.

True. I don't deny that. But just because that the Gladius has the possibility of the BDC doesn't mean that EVERY Gladius has a BDC.
Not all Gladii use their BDC rule, which makes the benefit either negligible when unused, or overpowered when used. As such, because it doesn't trigger ALL the time, we can't say the Gladius is OP.

This is about knowing the location of the problem. It would be like saying the CAD isn't broken, but Objective Secured is broken. It doesn't track as one is a part (and a very desirable part) of the other.

If one wanted to call the CAD OP because of ObSec, I'd disagree too. If you thought ObSec was broken, then call ObSec broken - not the CAD, because the CAD, as in the organisation, extra benefits, etc etc, is NOT broken.

Let's say I am presented with this argument:
Yes, ObSec is broken (for the sake of this).
Yes, ObSec can be obtained through the CAD.
No, the CAD is not broken, because the CAD, when stripped of ObSec, is not broken.
Therefore, the ObSec rule is broken, but the CAD is fine.

Let's apply that to the Gladius.
Yes, I will willingly accept that the BC rules are broken.
Yes, I accept that the BC rules are only obtainable from the Gladius.
No, that doesn't mean the Gladius is broken, because I can take the Gladius without the BC rules.
Therefore, the BC rules are broken, but the Gladius is fine.

 Galef wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Allowing someone to cast Protect on the Wraithknight is quite literally the least worrisome buff you could give it. (Given that mine has only ever been killed by grav-cannons I'd argue that actually casting Protect on it in the first place could be considered a bad idea.)

That was partly my point. If we alter any rule that makes save re-rolls into a flat +1 save, then you can Fortune a WK for a 2+ armour. No one would ever voluntarily do this against a Grav army, but it may make the WK even harder for non-Grav armies to take out

But by the same token, it would mean that any Tzeentch army that has Cursed Earth would have 3++ (instead of 4++ re-rolling 1s), and it would be fairly easy for Screamers to get 2++ (but not re-rollable). If that is the goal, I would be fine with it.

-

Or we could just remember that the hard-ban on rerollable saves was a dumb idea in the first place and move on with our lives.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
True. I don't deny that. But just because that the Gladius has the possibility of the BDC doesn't mean that EVERY Gladius has a BDC.
Not all Gladii use their BDC rule, which makes the benefit either negligible when unused, or overpowered when used. As such, because it doesn't trigger ALL the time, we can't say the Gladius is OP.

Every Gladius has to have a BDC, it just doesn't NEED two BDCs to exist. But if you have the option (and the models), why would you NOT use the BC rules? Why would one deliberately hamper themselves by doing this?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

This is about knowing the location of the problem. It would be like saying the CAD isn't broken, but Objective Secured is broken. It doesn't track as one is a part (and a very desirable part) of the other.

If one wanted to call the CAD OP because of ObSec, I'd disagree too. If you thought ObSec was broken, then call ObSec broken - not the CAD, because the CAD, as in the organisation, extra benefits, etc etc, is NOT broken.

Let's say I am presented with this argument:
Yes, ObSec is broken (for the sake of this).
Yes, ObSec can be obtained through the CAD.
No, the CAD is not broken, because the CAD, when stripped of ObSec, is not broken.
Therefore, the ObSec rule is broken, but the CAD is fine.

Let's apply that to the Gladius.
Yes, I will willingly accept that the BC rules are broken.
Yes, I accept that the BC rules are only obtainable from the Gladius.
No, that doesn't mean the Gladius is broken, because I can take the Gladius without the BC rules.
Therefore, the BC rules are broken, but the Gladius is fine.

If you could just get rid of a Command Benefit, true. But that's not possible. You can choose not to use it, just like one can choose not to have your Troops try and Capture Objectives with a CAD. But that doesn't mean that the Gladius isn't broken just because you choose not to use the BC. One can deliberately limit the brokenness of the Gladius, just as one can limit the brokenness of the Skyhammer Annihilation Force, but that doesn't make the ability to shoot a unit to Pinning and Charge it with rerolls on the turn you Deep Strike not broken.

The BC exists because of the Gladius. The BC is considered broken. Therefore, the Gladius is broken because of the BC.

Exactly. All the Chapters have their own Company formations so there's no reason for defending the Gladius anymore.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Exactly. All the Chapters have their own Company formations so there's no reason for defending the Gladius anymore.

... Not all of them...

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Exactly. All the Chapters have their own Company formations so there's no reason for defending the Gladius anymore.

... Not all of them...

Yeah my poor Flesh Tearers...

Jbz` wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Exactly. All the Chapters have their own Company formations so there's no reason for defending the Gladius anymore.

... Not all of them...

Yeah my poor Flesh Tearers...

Flesh Tearers can still use Angel's Blade, right? Or is it because you can't use Seth with them?

My Templars... The black-armoured, white-pauldroned step-children of the Space Marines. No recognition of their Crusader squads at all...

One sentence.
Relegate Superheavies, GMCs and FGMCs back to Apocalypse.

Leaving the game as it stands is a more wholesome 'fix' than OP's 'brilliant errata,' since it's clear that he cannot distinguish a symptom from an origin.
0/10, waste of an internet.

 Charistoph wrote:

Jbz` wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Exactly. All the Chapters have their own Company formations so there's no reason for defending the Gladius anymore.

... Not all of them...

Yeah my poor Flesh Tearers...

Flesh Tearers can still use Angel's Blade, right? Or is it because you can't use Seth with them?

My Templars... The black-armoured, white-pauldroned step-children of the Space Marines. No recognition of their Crusader squads at all...

Just use tactical squads, they're the same thing right /sarcasm.

I've proposed a much milder version of this. Basically, what I've proposed is:

"All rerolls shall be replaced with a +1 to the relevant roll." So a 3+ rerollable becomes a 2+, and a 2+ rerollable simply can't exist.

Suffice to say, nobody liked the idea.

Because people like the fact that 40k is broken and unfair.

 Traditio wrote:
I've proposed a much milder version of this. Basically, what I've proposed is:

"All rerolls shall be replaced with a +1 to the relevant roll." So a 3+ rerollable becomes a 2+, and a 2+ rerollable simply can't exist.

Suffice to say, nobody liked the idea.

Because people like the fact that 40k is broken and unfair.

Even those that are re-roll ones?

I think a big problem with rerolls is that they're not a linear progression, so they're hard to point.
I'll add the % chance for a roll, followed by the % chance if it becomes rerollable to demonstrate.

6+ 16.7/30.6
5+ 33.3/55.6
4+ 50.0/75.0
3+ 66.7/88.9
2+ 83.33/97.2

Generally speaking a reroll isn't too different to a simple +1, and by this system a 2+ rerollable becomes an almost guaranteed success.

koooaei wrote:Even those that are re-roll ones?

Yes.

Do the math. It's not that big of a deal.

I mean, orks would really benefit. But is that such a bad thing?

 Traditio wrote:

koooaei wrote:Even those that are re-roll ones?

Yes.

Do the math. It's not that big of a deal.

I mean, orks would really benefit. But is that such a bad thing?

benefit...how? And how would it affect blasts? Cause blasts and dls on a 2+ save is allready pretty much all the relevant re-rolls that we have...other than 'ere we go.
Bosspoles - +1 to mob rule (no, thx, it's a huge nerf - not a buff)? 'Ere we go - +1 to charge ranges? Tankhunting tankbustas +1 to...armor pen? Means they get s9? Too vague - too broad.

koooaei wrote:benefit...how?

Do the math. Would you prefer a 5+ rerollable or a 5+ that rerolls 1s?

And how would it affect blasts?

It wouldn't. Blasts don't roll to hit.

Cause blasts and dls on a 2+ save is allready pretty much all we have.

Then no change. You keep your 2+ save.

Oh, also, tankhunter on one unit. How would tankhunter re-rolls work? Bosspoles - +1 to mob rule (no, thx, it's a huge nerf - not a buff)? 'Ere we go - +1 to charge ranges? Tankhunting tankbustas +1 to...armor pen? Means they get s9?

My proposal doesn't deal with stats. It deals solely with dice rolls. A 4+ rerollable becomes a 3+. A 3+ rerollable becomes a 2+. And you can't get better than a 2+.

You may think it's a nerf. Because it is. But it's much less of a nerf than the OP.

 Traditio wrote:

Would you prefer a 5+ rerollable or a 5+ that rerolls 1s?

5+ re-rollable what?

And come to think of it, yes, it even works for tank hunters. It means that S8 auto glances rhinos.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Would you prefer a 5+ rerollable or a 5+ that rerolls 1s?

5+ re-rollable what?

5+ rerollable anything.

Would you have a greater chance of success if you roll a d6, hope for a 5, fail, and then reroll?

Or roll a d6, hope for a 5, fail, hope that your failure is a 1, and then reroll?

I mean you said orks would benefit a lot. I'm not seeing how. Also, how would lukky stikk work?

 Charistoph wrote:

Jbz` wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Exactly. All the Chapters have their own Company formations so there's no reason for defending the Gladius anymore.

... Not all of them...

Yeah my poor Flesh Tearers...

Flesh Tearers can still use Angel's Blade, right? Or is it because you can't use Seth with them?

My Templars... The black-armoured, white-pauldroned step-children of the Space Marines. No recognition of their Crusader squads at all...

Well there was a degree of sarcasm there. I knew you were on about Templars

Yeah the Angel's blade strike force can be used to use Flesh Tearers (without Seth, similar situation to Pedro Cantor with the Crimson fists)
But it doesn't represent them very well (Blood Angels following the Codex as close as they can while Flesh Tearers have a different organizational structure due to being horrendously depleted)

Flesh Tearers have their own supplement don't they?
With the Flesh Tearers Strike Force and Vanguard Strike Force formations.
The former being pretty good at sort of getting assault marines back as troops.

Errata.
Please consult the 3rd edition of this book. If such book does not exist, please find a suitable subsitute.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
One sentence.
Relegate Superheavies, GMCs and FGMCs back to Apocalypse.

Along those lines, limiting any ARMY (not just detachment) to 1 LoW choice of any kind (IC, GMC, SHW, etc) per 1000pts could work. It allows 2 in a 2000pt game, but since most tourneys are 1850, you basically will only ever see 1 in 99% of non-Apoc games.
My biggest issue is BattleForged being a joke. It is basically Unbound + tax = loads of beneifits. I think the Gathering Storm detachments might be a sign of how 8th might fix this.
I don't know about the Imperial detahcments, but the Ynnari Reborn host requires 1 HQ & 2 Troops BEFORE you can start taking Formations.
If 8th rewords it so that Formations are no longer detachments that can be taken alone and require them to be taken in the "Meta-detachment" that most books now have, you would cut down on loads of mix-n-match armies.
Make the Combined Arms Detachment have "Formation slots" that allow you to take 2-3 formations of the same Faction
Also make a note that the required HQ can be substituted for a 3rd required Troop or Elite for armies that do not have the necessary units (so Skitari basically, because Harlies now have 2 HQ choices)

And get rid of the Allied detachment. No one really uses it now and but making the above changes, you force players to really pay for a second faction to be part of their army. And if you can only have a max of 2 detachments (but those now include Formations), you get a max of 2 Factions per army....ever (unless you use the Gathering Storm detachments).
Correct me if I am wrong, but that severely hampers Imperial multi-faction death-stars, which also cuts down on the need for getting rid of re-rolls.

 Traditio wrote:
I've proposed a much milder version of this. Basically, what I've proposed is:

"All rerolls shall be replaced with a +1 to the relevant roll." So a 3+ rerollable becomes a 2+, and a 2+ rerollable simply can't exist.

Suffice to say, nobody liked the idea.

Because people like the fact that 40k is broken and unfair.

Actually, I very much like this idea, that is why I suggested it on the prior page of this thread.

-

 Galef wrote:
Actually, I very much like this idea, that is why I suggested it on the prior page of this thread.

But didn't you suggest that it could go beyond a 2+, into a 2+/6+, 2+/5+, and so on and so forth? Which is much better, since it lets you differentiate between BS5 (a Captain) and BS5, twin-linked, Bolter Drill, and reroll ones (a Fists Captain on a Bike with that one Command Trait) or BS10.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Actually, I very much like this idea, that is why I suggested it on the prior page of this thread.

But didn't you suggest that it could go beyond a 2+, into a 2+/6+, 2+/5+, and so on and so forth? Which is much better, since it lets you differentiate between BS5 (a Captain) and BS5, twin-linked, Bolter Drill, and reroll ones (a Fists Captain on a Bike with that one Command Trait) or BS10.

That wasn't me that suggested that. Earlier I was suggesting to change Daemon of Tzeentch to grant +1 invul instead of re-rolling 1s and that this could not go past 3++ (exactly like Mark of Tzeentch)

But simply making all re-roll saving throw rules grant a flat +1 to the save instead of the re-roll would work out much better in the long run. It would benefit lower 4+/5+ saves more without breaking 2+/3+ save units.

-

My Errata: Your opponent wants to have fun too.

I think more conversations and consideration between players would eliminate SO MANY of the issues between gamers - Two beatstick players decide they want to play beatstick lists - thats all cool. exploit what is powerful and its no mercy.

People always say its unfair for a competitive player to wipe the floor with a fluffy list, but from the other perspective it is just as unfair to bring a non-competative list to play a player who wants to test themselves to the hardest degree!

Consideration and communication can go a long way.

 Jpogfreak886 wrote:
My Errata: Your opponent wants to have fun too.

I think more conversations and consideration between players would eliminate SO MANY of the issues between gamers - Two beatstick players decide they want to play beatstick lists - thats all cool. exploit what is powerful and its no mercy.

People always say its unfair for a competitive player to wipe the floor with a fluffy list, but from the other perspective it is just as unfair to bring a non-competative list to play a player who wants to test themselves to the hardest degree!

Consideration and communication can go a long way.

This people forget the the 1st rules of preparing for a game is TALKING to each other about what type of game you want.

Any single change does not do anything to balance the game. It just shifts the meta, and we get new kings in the game. You can't take a look at a broken machine or computer system that has 100 problems, choose just one, and go "yep, it works now". Maybe you even improved efficiency by 10%, but there are still 99 other problems to fix, and you may have just ensured that in a week 5 more problems pop up due to the fix.

Sure, 2++ rerollables should not be a thing. The system needs a giant simplification and rework to be fixed.