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.

From posting in the "We Hate Jervis" thread, I realized how simple it would be to re-balance the overpowered options that exist in the "big-three" codex's: Space Marines, Nids, and Eldar.  I got it down to about 1 Page of errata, it would get a tad longer when you add in the notion of having to spell out the changes required to the SM vehicles.

Take a look and give some feedback:

I really feel enlightened now. Are you not the one who took a tonne of six man las/plas squads to Baltimore?

- G

That would absolutely neuter Tyranids, leaving Loyalist Marines as the king of the pack.

Assault Cannon: I don't like that the new rule gives the gun a universal special rule and then changes it further. How about a simple S6 AP 4 Heavy 5 profile? Or would it nobody take it then?

The other rule changes seem reasonable.

I like the carnifex changes. You can't build those dead cheap, but still highly effective elite carnifexes without hosing the whole unit entry.

The Codex Eldar changes are horrible. Sorry.
While I agree that the spirit stone and holofield combination is nasty, there should be a better way to fix it. If played by your rule, Holofields would be far too dangerous to take. When you stop a falcon, it's dead by the next turn. Maybe increasing the cost a bit and making holofield a 4+ Inv. save.

Overall some nice little changes which are very easy to implement.

Greets
Schepp himself

Posted By Green Bloater on 07/02/2007 5:48 AM
I really feel enlightened now. Are you not the one who took a tonne of six man las/plas squads to Baltimore?

- G

Yep, and I think that for the good of the game as a whole, they shouldn't be an option - they're too effective.   I don't hide the fact that I took a cheesy list to the tournament, I knew that the way 40k was going to be played there you needed to bring the power lists or get hosed.    I'm not going to be bringing it again, for a variety of reasons.

Overall if you keep on the track of taking things that are "competitive" from each codex, you end up with the same thing over and over.  Nothing is going to be more efficeint for killing tanks and/or MEQ's/MC's than 6 or 5 Man Las/Plas squads.  In the effort to make a better game, it should be limited or removed as an option.

Shooty Elite Fex's w/ 2x TL Devourers and BS3 are currently way too good for what they do, especially in context of an all MC army.  It should be limited or removed as an option.

Mech Eldar with 3 Holofields+Stones tanks in heavy are currently something that works too well in a game.  Removing Spirit Stones as an option from the holofield combo makes it such that they're still very good, very resilient, but at the same time not as stupidly resilient.  At least that's my take.

@Skyth - You think so?  Did you see what I wanted to do to the Loyalists?  Limits like that would seriously hamper their effective options and would change the "default builds" Assault Cannons, can't be the omnigun anymore, they're just good anti-infantry/MC duty.    Plus with those limits I'm pretty sure it gives a boost to Orks, IG, WH, heck, a LOT of armies.  And considering what you can do with the new Chaos options, I think they'd probably do well vs. Loyalists. 

Nids just lose the option of having 3 more super efficient fex's in Elite, but can still take such firepower in Heavy if they want.  You now have to choose between super-anti-infantry shooting and anti-tank shooting when making Zilla lists.

Posted By Schepp himself on 07/02/2007 6:03 AM
Assault Cannon: I don't like that the new rule gives the gun a universal special rule and then changes it further. How about a simple S6 AP 4 Heavy 5 profile? Or would it nobody take it then?

The other rule changes seem reasonable.

I like the carnifex changes. You can't build those dead cheap, but still highly effective elite carnifexes without hosing the whole unit entry.

The Codex Eldar changes are horrible. Sorry.
While I agree that the spirit stone and holofield combination is nasty, there should be a better way to fix it. If played by your rule, Holofields would be far too dangerous to take. When you stop a falcon, it's dead by the next turn. Maybe increasing the cost a bit and making holofield a 4+ Inv. save.

Overall some nice little changes which are very easy to implement.

Greets
Schepp himself

Re: Assault Cannon - It would go into the "no one takes it option".  Ranged Rending isn't so bad for just affecting troops or MC's.  Given that it's not the "omni-gun" to take out tanks now really limits how many you'll see since points would be needed for anti-armor guns.  Perhaps it should go up in cost though ala the DA style, 30 for terminators and speeders?

Re: Eldar - With the aforementioned changes to Marines and Chaos limiting 6 man Las/Plas and all the anti-tank weapons you currently see in 40k, the skimmers should get a boost in not as much firepower coming their way.  Holofields would still be the better option, but if a 3+ was rolled for the lowest value on 2D6, it makes the Falcon/Prism much more of a risk.  You still have to get that 3 as the lowest, with 2D6 pick the lowest and being a skimmer, it's still probably the most survivable tank in the game, just no where near as stupidly good as it is now.  At least that's my opinion.

I don't think Godzilla armies should disappear, which is what these changes would do. That's a GW-style approach to balance. Tyranid hordes are actually more viable than people give them credit for, but more balanced Warriors would encourage them.

Soooo... I'd just limit armies to ONE Elite Carnifex. That'd still give you up to six MCs, and I think Godzilla-y builds would still be viable, just not quite so shooty. Then I'd drop the cost of Warriors (starting by eliminating "double taxation" of S increases for their guns) and make them a good buy in either the shooty or shooty/assaulty roles. Ravs and Zoeys got properly sorted out in the codex, but they just missed the mark with Warriors.

Start with those and you'd be well on the right path, IMO.

With those options I don't think that Zilla should dissapear. Perhapse reduce the points of scything talons a bit to 4 points instead of 8. Not a bad choice considering how hard CC fex's are to use. That lets you take enhanced senses, 1 TL Devourer and have 3 base attacks in CC for an Elite Fex. Just not the "8 shots of anti-infantry Death for 113 points' that we get now.

What I do know is that the synergy between the Anti-Tank fex's in heavy, the anti-infantry and all around points efficient Elite Fex, and then the Tyrant (flyrant plus walking gun platform) makes for a list that is really hard to deal with, especially when their little friends start coming back in numbers in games over 1500.

Does the phrase 'arbitrary limitation' mean anything to anyone?

I'm all for fixing problems. A lot of the above isn't what I'd call 'fixing' however.

BYE

I guess that depends on your interpretation of how "balance" should be.

In my eyes, the only things that really stand out as "way too good" would be the holofield skimmer lists, Nidzilla, and min/max asscannon spam. I did think there was a problem with Demon Bombs, IW, and Siren - but that's going away already.

Considering your experience in amending the rules, I'd honestly love to hear what you think I posted is absolute crap and what isn't so bad.

I think your change to the rending rules could really hurt Nids. They already have some problems vs vehicles (and they should have some weaknesses), but taking away all rending effects vs AV may go too far since I know of many horde Nid players (including myself) who rely on their stealers, lichtors, and ravenors' rending to help take down tanks. Not having rending work vs AV almost forces people to take gun-fexes, and being forced into taking the same choice in order to compete is what you said you want to change. So leave rending the same.

However, as other people have stated, the assault cannon is currently the 'omnigun' of the game, so why not specialize it a little more, by taking the current WH blessed ammunition rule and making any 6's rolled to hit AP1 shots, with the player still needed to roll to wound. Along with the same points boost used in DA & BA, that keeps the assault cannon as a good anti-infantry gun, but means you'll still need to take lascannons & missiles for the heavy armor.


SteveW

To fix the eldar tanks and skimmers such as tornados, you could put in the rule saying that Fast Skimmers must move 12" in order to get the "moving fast" rule and may then only fire defensive weapons. But, you would then have to also increase the eldar tanks' AV's to compensate, otherwise they would never justify their points.


SteveW


(sorry about the 2-posts. The edit function really doesn't like me)

I believe there's a miscommunication here. The "Rending doesn't affect models with an armor value" only applied to the assault cannon. Nids and such with rending worked just as it does now.

Re-thinking that you're probably better off just re-doing the rules for the stupid donkey-gun to be in line with the cyclic ion blaster: "Any to-wound rolls of a 6 count as AP1" and keep it S6 AP4 Heavy 4.

Posted By Voodoo Boyz on 07/02/2007 6:08 AM

@Skyth - You think so?  Did you see what I wanted to do to the Loyalists?  Limits like that would seriously hamper their effective options and would change the "default builds" Assault Cannons, can't be the omnigun anymore, they're just good anti-infantry/MC duty.    Plus with those limits I'm pretty sure it gives a boost to Orks, IG, WH, heck, a LOT of armies.  And considering what you can do with the new Chaos options, I think they'd probably do well vs. Loyalists. 

The AC will still have most of the power it does now.  I rarely use it against vehicles and the only vehicle that I can think of that it won't be able to hurt would be a Land Raider.  Small lascannon squads would still be around to take out the heavy armor.

Better to Nids would be to limit them to 4 Carnis, or raise the points limit for an elite carni if you keep your point cost to allow a Senses plus devourer plus scything talons.  Or better yet, Not allow taking 2 twin linked weapons.  There aren't that many competetive lists that are swarm based (Besides the obvious not having enough time to move all your models in a tournament environment).

Loyalists with your restrictions would massacre the rumored chaos. 

@Skyth - I see your point and the one made yesterday, the Assault Cannon should be set to "Cyclic Ion Blaster" status, Roll to wound of a 6 is AP1.

However, there are no more "small Lascannon squads". Tac squads like the new Chaos need 10 Marines to get their Heavy or second special.

Re: Nids, I'd rather drop the points for scything talons than increase the points limit for elite nids. You want 3 Elite Fex's? Fine, but it ain't going to be super efficient like now.

And I highly doubt that the revised loyalists could take the new Chaos. The new Chaos list is looking to have a few really good builds in it. At 1500 points you can probably fit two winged Demon Princes, some small move-and-fire Noise Marines, 2 Raptor Squads w/ Fists and then about 6 Oblits. You can make almost anything decent based on the idea that you can take multiple princes, cheap raptors, and up to 9 Oblits.

@milesteg - I would wholeheartedly agree with your assessment there. A lot would be fixed if GW did modifiers. I play Fantasy too, I think modifiers are great.

Problem is that this is GW, we're not getting modifiers. My idea here was more along the lines to quickly errata the "problem lists" in such a way that they are toned down with little changes required to the core rules and codex's wherever possible. I know that even that will never happen, but I was wondering if you really could "fix 40k" in one page of eratta while staying within the current context of the game.

You won't get any arguments from me that re-doing the core rules with modifiers in place would be 100% preferable to this.

ROFLOL

when i see comments about units that include phrases like "works to good" , "is to good" etc..it makes me bang my head int othe wall.

 

this is a war game, it isn't meant to be easy to beat your opponants. all armies have units and items that are good, at the same time. no matter how you write your list it will always have its strengths  and weakness's.  you will eventually run into an army that is the antithesis or yours because of the choices made in your list and thier list. but thats also the fun of the game because you never know what you will run into or how the game will turn out.  your original fix's or both un-neccisary and reflect the sevre reverse pendulum swing that has happened at GW before.

i find it funny how these topics of balance in 40k always seem to start with removing the useful/cost effective units instead of correcting the unusable units. if every unit in a codex was useful there would be less copy and pasted army lists

the current state of 40k is beyond repair, much like 5th edition WFB was. if you want a balanced system, you need to start it over and design the units from a points per benefit outline. much like the way most video games work.

if all models start with a statline of 3 and points are adjusted based on points system, it would make for a much better balance. instead the designers just write rules on how they feel the units should work based on "feel" and fluff, without regard to any points. so we wind up with thinks like imperial guardsmen paying 25 points for a lascannon while space marines pay 15 points. so the 10 man squad of IG has less staying power and hits less often, but pays more for the pleasure. lame.

Posted By Voodoo Boyz on 07/02/2007 10:26 AM
I believe there's a miscommunication here. The "Rending doesn't affect models with an armor value" only applied to the assault cannon. Nids and such with rending worked just as it does now.

Re-thinking that you're probably better off just re-doing the rules for the stupid donkey-gun to be in line with the cyclic ion blaster: "Any to-wound rolls of a 6 count as AP1" and keep it S6 AP4 Heavy 4.

Sounds like a reasonable change to me.  Its still really good against low armor vehicles due to the number of shots, but it doesn't kill land raiders anymore.

Preach on, Brother milesteg, preach on! 

That's a great post.  Glad to see that RAW uber alles isn't the only attitude on Dakka.

Vale,

JohnS

The reason you remove cost effective or over effective things is because there are so much less overpowered things in the game as compared to the amount of things that would otherwise be decent if not for the fact that they get trumped by aforementioned overpowered stuff.

Think about it this way, would Dark Angels be so bad off as an army if things like Zilla, Mech Eldar, and 2 Asscannon Termy squads weren't around? Heck even armies like Orks would begin to do really well in environments like that.

Instead of to hit modifiers, re-rolling hits works really nicely.  Fits with the general rule in 40k, and has roughly the same statistical effect (roughly, not exactly)

Re-rolling misses is negated by re-rolling hits, so you go with straight rolls.

Skimmers moving fast should be an invulnerable save 6-12" 5+      12+"  4+

High strength weapons should have a chance of inflicting multiple wounds.  Anytime "less" than a 2+ is necessary, a good roll does extra damage.  Say a s9 attack, against T1-4 wounds, it is instand death, against T7 or more it wpunds as normal.  The change is against 5 or 6, on a roll of 2+ it does one wound, on a roll of 5+ it does 2 wounds.

As for Assault Cannons, they need to be toned down a bit, or up pointed.  I don't think they should be good at vehicle hunting, so the 6s to hit AP 1 works.   In third edition we played with 6s to hit grant and extra attack die (like a ranged axe of Khorne.  It would help if the cyclone missile launcher wasn't crap, at least twin linked would be nice, but would prefer an upgunned version like, S8 AP3 Blast, gets hot, not likely to kill a termie with gets hot, but...