Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

GW likely knows that Slayer is the only person in the world even playing IH and made the change specifically to annoy him.

The way I see it, stacking FNP rolls never should have been allowed, so this is a good change.

Another good change that is hopefully coming in the future would be to give the iron hands a chapter trait that was worth taking.

jcd386 wrote:

The way I see it, stacking FNP rolls never should have been allowed, so this is a good change.

yea, that shouldn't have been a thing anyway. unless the model has a natural X++ fnp, ignore damage, etc.

 DominayTrix wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The multiple FNP one was stupid and needs to be removed.

Yeah, that seemed out of left field. I never noticed a time when it was super OP or anything.

There's literally ZERO incentive to play Iron Hands. ZERO. Now it's a negative, which is impressive to be fair.

Don't make it like the problem with Iron Hands is that they don't stack FNP.

Stacking FNP was stupid, god riddance. It nerfs Iron Hands, ok, but the way to make them playable was not with that gimminick.

Yes because stacking was SUCH an issue?

It really wasn't.

It was fairly exploitable. Shield drones with a 5+ FNP followed by a 6+ FNP is strong. The iron hands do seem like they should get the old stacking FNP though, If they have two 6+ FNP it turns into a single 5+ FNP etc etc. It does not have to extend to other armies so it can stay Iron hand special thing.

How were Shield Drones getting a 6+ FNP? They're not affected by Ethereals.

Jackers wrote:
While not a suggestion, here is my 2 cents about the balance.

I have spent many years playing online video games, including several MMOs, with both PvE and PvP focuses.

The big thing I have learnt about balance is that it should always, always be done around the top-tier of players.
The big thing I have learnt about dev teams/in-house play-testers, is that they simply aren't able to think about their game in the objective manner required to properly balance a game around the top 1%.
These teams have a vision in their heads about how they feel the game should be played, and it is near impossible to move away from this idea for long enough to see how the playerbase will try to abuse their systems. (Especially now that forums and Discord communities are a thing, as a hive mind of 1000+ players can run so many more options through a simulator in far less time.)

This is by no means a defence for poorly written, poorly tested rules and balance, but it is an attempt at an explanation.
Over the years, I have seen that most companies, (especially old-school ones), are painfully slow to accept flaws in their ways, and are even slower at adopting new ways of doing things.
Realistically, there needs to be some form of invitational tournament, where new rule sets can be properly torn down, digested and broken by the kinds of players who will be most affected by them.
Cos let's face it, your average casual player isn't going to notice any difference between a balanced (or as close to it as you can hope for) set of rules, and a broken mess. As long as they can roll some dice, and have a laugh with mates and beer, they are happy.

TL;DR - This is an incredibly common issue, spanning several decades and several types of gaming. In-house playtesting will never have the scope to really try to break the ruleset.

They tried to balance MWO around the top tier players or with their advice, it’s nearly killed the game, you need to balance around the majority not the minority, if that takes more work due to having to filter out the “noise” so be it, that’s what they are being paid to do.

Useing MWO as another example these “top” players and teams play Inner Sphere, so because of them the Clans have been nerfed nearly every patch while the IS have been buffed nearly every patch, the heavy bias is pretty astounding.

The thing is that a lot of the majority of players are really bad, and will end up losing to a lot of really bad or gimmicky stuff. Stuff that shouldn't be nerfed.

Your MWO example doesn't sound like they're balancing stuff around the top players, it sounds like they're biased towards them. If everyone at the top is using a particular faction, it suggests that that faction might need to be nerfed, not the other way around.

MalfunctBot wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The multiple FNP one was stupid and needs to be removed.

Yeah, that seemed out of left field. I never noticed a time when it was super OP or anything.

There's literally ZERO incentive to play Iron Hands. ZERO. Now it's a negative, which is impressive to be fair.

Don't make it like the problem with Iron Hands is that they don't stack FNP.

Stacking FNP was stupid, god riddance. It nerfs Iron Hands, ok, but the way to make them playable was not with that gimminick.

Yes because stacking was SUCH an issue?

It really wasn't.

It was fairly exploitable. Shield drones with a 5+ FNP followed by a 6+ FNP is strong. The iron hands do seem like they should get the old stacking FNP though, If they have two 6+ FNP it turns into a single 5+ FNP etc etc. It does not have to extend to other armies so it can stay Iron hand special thing.

How were Shield Drones getting a 6+ FNP? They're not affected by Ethereals.

First unit that came to mind with FNP. I hadn't slept yet, but the point is still the same even if its another unit. Riptides having 2 6+ FNP before the FAQ was a thing, I didn't want to use stim injector as an example because of the "flowchart doesn't apply to Tau" ruling.

If we're talking about how to make the Beta Rules work, surely the first concern is to get the RAW to match the RAI as closely as possible.

Battle Brothers appears to be in sync in that regard - though I'm curious as to how much of an issue mixes of factions within a detachment were compared to mixes of detachments from different armies.

The one with the RAW vs RAI disparity is Tactical Reserves, specifically the second paragraph. The first paragraph seems to work as written, though using the combination of points and power level seems a little odd. Equally, the third paragraph seems fine, asides from maybe benefiting from a clarification regarding units within transports.

Is fixing the second paragraph just as simple as replacing the "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn" clause with "any unit that was assigned to Tactical Reserves during deployment and then arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn" ?

 Fafnir wrote:
The thing is that a lot of the majority of players are really bad, and will end up losing to a lot of really bad or gimmicky stuff. Stuff that shouldn't be nerfed.

Your MWO example doesn't sound like they're balancing stuff around the top players, it sounds like they're biased towards them. If everyone at the top is using a particular faction, it suggests that that faction might need to be nerfed, not the other way around.

That’s a fair point, bad players can skew the numbers but that’s the “noise” I was talking about, it would take more work to square it away but ultimately it would make the game more fun (subjective I know) for the majority... possibly, I’m not a fool and understand it’s not an easy thing to do, but as I said, it’s their job.

And yep MWO is heavily biased towards IS top players, of which the main development team is part of, it also causes issues that this team doesn’t actually play their own game and understand it as well as most of the players, something GW itself is/has been guilty of.

The beta rules don't need to be changed until we've had a chance to play them and figure out if they work or not.

They could be perfect for all we know.

Generally speaking I think the most controversial change is the no deep strike outside of deployment zone on turn 1 so I'm assuming it'll be the most thoroughly scrutinized.
It looks like 'battle brothers' is the next most discussed change so that'll probably have a fair few 'tests'.
No-one seems too upset about the 'rule of 3' so I'm guessing that's going to go ahead.
No-one seems too upset about the now official smite changes (apart from Tzeentch daemons perhaps).

If they want more ideas for beta rules I'd like to be able to hit targets at range on a 6 always, regardless of the modifiers.

 Formosa wrote:

They tried to balance MWO around the top tier players or with their advice, it’s nearly killed the game, you need to balance around the majority not the minority, if that takes more work due to having to filter out the “noise” so be it, that’s what they are being paid to do.

Useing MWO as another example these “top” players and teams play Inner Sphere, so because of them the Clans have been nerfed nearly every patch while the IS have been buffed nearly every patch, the heavy bias is pretty astounding.

That sounds like balancing for the top tier, rather than balancing around them, which is a subtle yet important difference. If IS are the most heavily played AND are getting buffed every patch, then ofcourse you will just get a horrible mess.

You have to be very careful with getting advice from top tier players, especially in tabletop gaming, as the WAAC mindset can worm its way into that advice. The best thing to do is use the raw data collected at an event, or series of games.

Taking a video game example (as it was my life for a few years), in FFXIV, the dev team completely ignore all 'top tier' players. They do not acknowledge that their game is played that way, and only very rarely acknowledge mistakes (i.e. if the community manages to make a certain class work better than intended). In that game, top end content is all PvE, and classes that buff other classes are king. The dev team will not acknowledge this fact, and instead balance around the idea of 'assume no one will try to stack party buffs, cos we wouldn't'. This means that certain classes are flat out broken, (some since they were added to the game 3.5 years ago), while 3-4 other classes are complete dead-weight that no one runs, and as such they are actively excluded.

While FFXIV is not a wargame, is does highlight perfectly why in-house testing simply isn't enough. I am in no way claiming that this is easy, or that I could do it, but when you release a game, you need to expect that the first thing players will do is break it, so you need to prepare accordingly.

 gbghg wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Then while were are on the subject of -1 to hit. Flat out remove -1 to hit army traits and replace them with something like "always counts as in cover" which is pretty dang good on it's own. Then put a -1 to hit penalty on any weapon that is shooting out of line of site (Basalisk, Manticore, mortar, tempest launcher, ECT)

That sounds pretty fair, indirect buff to LR's as their bs4 and T8 will become more valuable for direct line fire and surviving the enemy response. I've seen other ideas attached to this one for allowing units with vox casters to restore iLOS weaponry's BS4 as well, which could make for a fun balance point, guard player pays the points to build a vox network to improve his arty but has less points to spend on special weapons/sponsor's/units as a result, or he saves the points but takes a hit to his shooting.

It would make vox's worth taking and serve as a price increase to the average infantry squad. If nothing else it could make a good stratagem.

Yeah man - units typically have a means to get around stuff like this. That's totally fine. Like maybe just being within 6" of a master of ordinance would make you ignore LOS penalties or a stratagem or vox like you said.

 Dysartes wrote:
Battle Brothers appears to be in sync in that regard - though I'm curious as to how much of an issue mixes of factions within a detachment were compared to mixes of detachments from different armies.

Of the top 16 at Adepticon I count 4 armies that use soup detachments. So it was definitely a thing that was done, despite what many seem to claim.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The beta rules don't need to be changed until we've had a chance to play them and figure out if they work or not.

They could be perfect for all we know.

Generally speaking I think the most controversial change is the no deep strike outside of deployment zone on turn 1 so I'm assuming it'll be the most thoroughly scrutinized.
It looks like 'battle brothers' is the next most discussed change so that'll probably have a fair few 'tests'.
No-one seems too upset about the 'rule of 3' so I'm guessing that's going to go ahead.
No-one seems too upset about the now official smite changes (apart from Tzeentch daemons perhaps).

If they want more ideas for beta rules I'd like to be able to hit targets at range on a 6 always, regardless of the modifiers.

I would dig this and maybe something like the scout sniper rule where you get an extra mortal wound or something

tag8833 wrote:
How Do we improve the beta rules? Seems pretty easy to me.

Tactical Reserves:
Part 1: On Turn 1, you can only deep strike in your own TABLE HALF. Drop Pods, Tyrannocytes, Mawlocs, Primaris Rievers, and terminators are immune from this restriction.
Part 2: New global Stratagem. 2 CP: Dug in: Your armor saves cannot be reduced by more than 1 on the 1st shooting phase of the game to a minimum of a 6+.

It might not be the perfect dialed in fix, but it's pretty good, and excellent for army diversity. How many Mawlocs, Drop Pods, Terminators do you expect in the meta with the GW version of this rule? My version creates a role for those units in the game again. It also tackles alpha strike in a meaningful way. It's not platitudes about "More Terrain" or a fix to a subset of alpha strike (deepstrikers). It tackles the problem head-on in a meaningful way.


Battle Brothers:
Grey Knights gets Ordo Malleus
Sisters of Battle gets Ordo Heritucs
Deathwatch gets Ordo Xenos
(maybe) Custodes gets Ordo Specialist

Assassins and Sisters of Silence get (Ordo) allowing them to pick Ordo Xenos, Ordo Malleus, Ordo Heriticus, or Ordo Specialist.

Every faction mentioned and inquisition are all improved, and in a pretty fluffy way that allows you to do away with soup detachments.

GW if you are reading this (and I suspect you are), please consider our ideas. We are happy you are putting in the effort, and trying, and hope that together we can improve the fun and diversity of the game.

I would like to thank Tag for the constructive suggestions above and discuss the concerns that have been mentioned.

In regards to part 1. As mentioned there are non-standard deployments for which the above suggestion may not work clearly. I would propose that table half be replaced with "wholly within 12" of your deployment zone" since standard maps have 24" between zones and the original 9" from enemy models would still be in effect. Doing so would lessen the nerf while still not permitting charges and most rapid fire or melta type boosts to ranged. Not that I think charges shouldn't be doable but advancing across the map ought to be made available to the pertinent armies if not already.

Regarding part 1a. I assume the list provided is not in it's complete state. There was a comment about playing favorites but that can be dismissed by adding more units as necessary. I agree that the units above should, following review, be allowed to ignore the general rule. The criteria for permitting the exclusion should be based on role and efficacy. Drop pod/tyrannocyte role is to deliver infantry behind enemy lines, it should be able to do that. We should also consider the worst case scenario. Could somebody more familiar with SM please provide a worst case for a drop pod embarked units? I suspect the beta rule was made to prevent glass cannons and obliterators from wrecking face without interaction and that troops based detachments got the bonus CP to give screens a reason to still be taken. So units that pale in offensive comparison to obliterators and can survive the return fire, or are deepstriking transports should be able to come in first turn.

Question: Does anybody think the alpha legion/raven guard/sygies/alaitoc? stratagem should remain as is? I always thought that they were stronger than deepstriking anyways.

Part2. Not bad, genestealers and daemons probably won't care but having to pay CP if your enemy is packing long range shooting is still punitive like now.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:


Question: Does anybody think the alpha legion/raven guard/sygies/alaitoc? stratagem should remain as is? I always thought that they were stronger than deepstriking anyways.

I personally think they should be next for the chopping block. Or at minimum they should have to be deployed during the deployment phase before you know who is going first / if someone stole initiative.

Just because you pay 3CP to do it, doesn't mean you should be able to start 3x6 aggressors or a bazillion electropriests 9" from the other player's lines and auto win 50% of casual type games.

It's just not fun, and fun should be the #1 rule.

Look at a bunch of the complaints:

IH is trash, because RG is simply better. Same could be said about the other FnP traits out there (I still play Uthwe - it's what my guys are, so it's what I play).

I love IH (and Uthwe's) traits (but my Marines have always been children of UM). But ever since RG was put out (the first such trait), it was obvious how bonkers it was.

It'd be really nice to see the RG-style trait rebalanced. But think about all the complaints about gunlines, and AM gunlines specifically. What's the RG-style trait best against? AM gunlines. Most other armies want to get within 12". Many must to actually shoot. Further, Guard and Tau gunlines hit on 4+ instead of 3+, so the trait has an even larger impact on their gunlines.

I want those traits fixed, but if they're most effective against the big boogyman (AM gunline), wouldn't fixing it buff said boogyman?

I agree that we should play with the beta rules. Make our minds up on each point. Send our feedback to GW with well laid out and clear points. Then hope when the time rolls around that we'll like the finalised changes. Bit of a banal point but it's pretty much what can be done. Some of the FAQs were good, some bad.

Battle Brothers I don't think will make much difference. Most of the soup like lists I've seen had factions split into different detachments in order to keep the benefits of the faction. So can't see a big change.

Tactical reserves has two sides to it and not sure how well it will hold up. Shooting armies are relieved that their backline isn't now threatened turn 1 forcing them into a defensive game plan. But Melee armies are outraged (probably very justifiably) because they now have to endure a turn of shooting without hitting back, which is indeed a shame and I don't want assault armies to be hit too hard. But there are some work rounds for several factions. And don't forget last edition reserves were limited to starting turn 2. Which considering they are intended as forces in reserve to bring in during the battle isn't that insane. So haven't made my mind up on this one yet. It could be countered by allowing a set number of deepstrikes turn 1, Or to extend the turns in which deepstrikers may arrive to turn 4. Maybe both. . Or -1" to charge rolls on turn 1. There are a plethora of ways GW could have limited first turn charges without stopping turn 1 deepstrike entirely.

Psychic Focus is one that confuses me as it seems that it was introduced to nerf smite spam. But the two armies I've heard of doing smite spam a lot, are the ones that have been exempt from the rule. Just seems odd. And the using a power once per turn regardless of the number of psykers seems rather foolish to me. Could limit it to being used 3 times or not at all frankly.

Bharring wrote:
Look at a bunch of the complaints:

IH is trash, because RG is simply better. Same could be said about the other FnP traits out there (I still play Uthwe - it's what my guys are, so it's what I play).

I love IH (and Uthwe's) traits (but my Marines have always been children of UM). But ever since RG was put out (the first such trait), it was obvious how bonkers it was.

It'd be really nice to see the RG-style trait rebalanced. But think about all the complaints about gunlines, and AM gunlines specifically. What's the RG-style trait best against? AM gunlines. Most other armies want to get within 12". Many must to actually shoot. Further, Guard and Tau gunlines hit on 4+ instead of 3+, so the trait has an even larger impact on their gunlines.

I want those traits fixed, but if they're most effective against the big boogyman (AM gunline), wouldn't fixing it buff said boogyman?

As an ultra marines player I too want to see the guy reworked. Have him come down in buff power - but buff the rest of the dang codex which is full of crap over-costed units.

Idea's for RG. Remove reroll W aura. Make his reroll hits aura 12" like the rest of his buffs. Have him extend the range of ancient banner to 12" also. Bring him down to 310 points but remove his get up after death ability. Let Ultra marines take him as an HQ. LOW for anyone else.

Then - reduce cost of all PA/TDA/Gravis - extend chapter tactics to all marine vehicals. Rework stratagems so every chapter has something useful - not just raven gaurd.

RG = Raven Guard in what I wrote, not Roboute Gilleman.

I play a successor chapter (homebrew - Wings of Dawn), so I don't get Big G anyways (I know I can counts-as, but my chapter has nothing with a profile anywhere close to Big G. Wouldn't fit their modus opperendai even if I could come up with a cool counts-as).

I think one of the things TDA need most is a nerf to Plas. But I agree with reworkign CT and stratagems. For all SM.

What are the thoughts on getting rid of the whole equal power level for deepstrike? Balancing points appears to be such a task for GW let alone PL.

-Overwatch only triggers on succesful charge.
-second player may deepstrike freely with half his reserves.
-units taken from outside the army faction doesnt generate cp.
-TDA crux becomes 4+ invul.

Bharring wrote:
Look at a bunch of the complaints:

IH is trash, because RG is simply better. Same could be said about the other FnP traits out there (I still play Uthwe - it's what my guys are, so it's what I play).

I love IH (and Uthwe's) traits (but my Marines have always been children of UM). But ever since RG was put out (the first such trait), it was obvious how bonkers it was.

It'd be really nice to see the RG-style trait rebalanced. But think about all the complaints about gunlines, and AM gunlines specifically. What's the RG-style trait best against? AM gunlines. Most other armies want to get within 12". Many must to actually shoot. Further, Guard and Tau gunlines hit on 4+ instead of 3+, so the trait has an even larger impact on their gunlines.

I want those traits fixed, but if they're most effective against the big boogyman (AM gunline), wouldn't fixing it buff said boogyman?

If Iron Hands at least had a decent Strategem it would be at least mediocre. However not they don't get any form of stacking, they have a bad Strategem, and their relic is blech. There's no amount of synergy.

Also the -1 traits aren't a problem. Gunline is too powerful as is. It helps keep it in check.

Northern85Star wrote:
-Overwatch only triggers on succesful charge.

Overwatch is done before charges are rolled, so you could end up losing models crucial to calculating the distance. The proper way to fix overwatch is to remove overwatch.

-second player may deepstrike freely with half his reserves.

Iffy on this. First turn advantage is a thing that needs to be addressed, but I feel this is not something a universal enough solution.

-units taken from outside the army faction doesnt generate cp.

Iffy on this as well. If they want to discourage souping, a better way of doing so would be eliminating the need for CP batteries in the first place, since a lot of elite armies and otherwise just have difficulty getting the stratagems they need to play how they want. And that would require an overhaul of CP generation on a whole.

-TDA crux becomes 4+ invul.

No, the last thing 40k needs is invulnerable saves becoming better and more widespread than they already are. Invulnerable saves are tossed out like candy at the moment, and it just ends up being really bad for the constant arms-race that plagues the game. Armour saves need to become less trivial, invulnerable saves need to be rarer and less potent, and small arms need to be more important.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also the -1 traits aren't a problem. Gunline is too powerful as is. It helps keep it in check.

Just no. This just means that -1 to hit traits are pretty much mandatory. Get rid of them and balance gun the gunlines. Many long-ranged shooting units just need an point increase. Oh, and if armywide -1 does not exist, then you can give indirect fire -1 to hit.

How to 'change' Beta rules.

1. Actually play a bunch of games with them.
2. Make detailed notes about the impact they're having.
3. Take a breather, and come back to your notes a couple of days later. Let any game based frustration fall away before finalising - add any reflective amendments, without editing the initial notes.
4. Feed it back to Games Workshop - not to Dakkadakka. Not speculative feedback, but game based feedback. Describe the action, outcome, and why you feel it to be problematic. Suggest possible solution or indeed solutions.

Done and done.

Particular on note 4, I'd like to quote a post above. Purely for convenience, I'm not singling out their comment specifically. Nor am I trying to cast doubt upon or denigrate his opinion.

Fafnir wrote:No, the last thing 40k needs is invulnerable saves becoming better and more widespread than they already are. Invulnerable saves are tossed out like candy at the moment, and it just ends up being really bad for the constant arms-race that plagues the game. Armour saves need to become less trivial, invulnerable saves need to be rarer and less potent, and small arms need to be more important.

See, here we have comments. But no rationale. Why does Fafnir believe this to be the case? What's the experience behind them? If invulernable saves should be rarer, what's the metric there? Less bubble ones? Only on elite units?

When he says small arms need to be more important - in what way? One thing that springs immediately to mind is how few small arm weapons in the game are actually affected by Invulnerable Saves, as a great many lack any kind of AP. So immediately, I want to know more about where his opinion is rooted.

Again, for clarity, I'm not having a pop at Fafnir or his opinions. His comment just happened to be a handy point of reference.

Be specific. Point out where you feel X doesn't work, suggest what a fix looks like to you. Relate it back to gaming experiences, rather than just mathhammering.

This stems from my profession. I'm able to award compensation, and on occasion fairly substantial amounts. But I can't do it on a whim. First, I need to ensure someone has genuinely lost out. Under our rules, I can't base my findings on what might have happened, only on what did happen. But I can also take into account the person's unique circumstances. For example, if Person X's home was needlessly exposed to asbestos, that's a hefty amount on it's own. But if Person Y's home was needlessly exposed to asbestos, and they've previously lost a loved one to Asbestosis, their level of worry is naturally going to be far greater than Person X's, necessitating a higher amount of compensation.

The issue for balancing for the top players, or the general playerbase, is the degree to which "skill" determines performance.

In an MMO for instance - or an RTS - or a class based FPS (from Overwatch to World of Tanks) there are potentially imbalances which occur with an increased skill ceiling.

I am not sure this is the case in 40k.

You can use an army more optimally, but you can't change the fundamental probabilities. A unit won't shoot better in the hands of one player or another unless they are strangely lucky or cheating with dice.

So for the most part I don't think balancing for pros or non-pros should matter. You should be able to do both.

Especially because most imbalances that make for games which are not fun are found at the list building stage.

7 hive tyrants or smite spam, or 5 Storm Ravens, or a carpet of Dark Eldar birds was just as - if not more - broken at a lower level of skill as a higher level of skill. Its just you are less likely to see it. What's the point spending all that money to stomp your friends to the ground and then never getting a game with the army again?

The real question is whether you should be able to build a list which gives you an overwhelming probabilistic advantage. Right now you can - very easily. I think the rule of 3 and DS changes will in some way go to changing that. But more games are needed.

jcd386 wrote:
GW likely knows that Slayer is the only person in the world even playing IH and made the change specifically to annoy him.

The way I see it, stacking FNP rolls never should have been allowed, so this is a good change.

Another good change that is hopefully coming in the future would be to give the iron hands a chapter trait that was worth taking.

I use Raven Guard and Black Templars and mainly use Necrons. I'm pissed on the behalf of Iron Hands players and out of principle with balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also the -1 traits aren't a problem. Gunline is too powerful as is. It helps keep it in check.

Just no. This just means that -1 to hit traits are pretty much mandatory. Get rid of them and balance gun the gunlines. Many long-ranged shooting units just need an point increase. Oh, and if armywide -1 does not exist, then you can give indirect fire -1 to hit.

They're pretty mandatory because of gunline, yes. How do you propose to balance gunline besides gutting both the Guard and Tau Codices?

I already said how. Point increases to some units and -1 to hit for indirect fire.

The Iron Hands change only affected one model. Only the Venerable Dreadnought had a FNP save to stack with the Iron Hand chapter trait. Let's not blow up the 'huge blow' Iron Hands were dealt. Especially since RG were just as survivable.

Getting indignant about this minor change is about as silly as people getting hugely indignant about the Roboute Guilliman price increase number 2.

I think changing the Deep Strike change to table half would be enough. It lets you catch out anyone who moves up. Maybe change the deep strike strategems in the various books to give a unit the ability to deep strike OR if they can already deep strike, deep strike outside of 9" on the first turn?

'Course, in that situation you just get boned if you play against DE, but such is life.

 Crazyterran wrote:
The Iron Hands change only affected one model. Only the Venerable Dreadnought had a FNP save to stack with the Iron Hand chapter trait. Let's not blow up the 'huge blow' Iron Hands were dealt. Especially since RG were just as survivable.

Getting indignant about this minor change is about as silly as people getting hugely indignant about the Roboute Guilliman price increase number 2.

I think changing the Deep Strike change to table half would be enough. It lets you catch out anyone who moves up. Maybe change the deep strike strategems in the various books to give a unit the ability to deep strike OR if they can already deep strike, deep strike outside of 9" on the first turn?

'Course, in that situation you just get boned if you play against DE, but such is life.

It actually affected a few models. You had Smashbane, Venerable Dreads, Chaplain Dreads, and Relic Contemptors. Ya know, the things that they were supposed to be synergistic with.

And people are upset at the price increase of Rowboat because it doesn't fix the glaring issues of the SM codex. Yeah he needed a point increase, but if they don't fix other issues too then the whole codex takes a dip, as it feels like everything is priced as though you're running him.

It is comparable to making the Grandmaster Dreadknight More expensive but ignoring the rest of the codex that's bad. Which is most of it.