What would you attempt to balance within 1 Codex of your choice

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.

**koooaei**

I want Ghazzy worth fielding.

**vipoid**

With regard to power weapons, I can understand making a lot of them AP3... kind of. The problem is that the change was horribly executed:

1) Even with universal-AP2, melee was still second to shooting in 5th. So, this perhaps wasn't the best time to initiate this change.

2) It was done in the same edition in which shooting was heavily buffed - both in terms of the core rules and the codices themselves - and assault was nerfed in a variety of ways (casualties removed from the front, random charge distances etc.).

3) Whilst it might *seem* like a sensible decision in theory, in practice it just ended nerfing a lot of the wrong units and made shooting even more dominant. e.g. take Howling Banshees - which ended up with S3 AP3 power weapons, and were unable to assault out of their transport. And, those are Elites. Now, compare it with Dire Avengers - who can disembark and still fire to full effect, can run and shoot in the same phase and have S4 shooting with pseudo-rending. And, those are troops and significantly cheaper. Which are you morel likely to take? Really, I think high-initiative CC units tend to suffer the most, because they're often only allowed AP2 if they sacrifice their initiative - like the DE Succubus, who can only get AP2 by sacrificing 7 points(!!) of initiative.

4) The cost of CC weapons hasn't dropped. Even when they were AP2, most CC weapons were too expensive (especially when you compare them to ranged weapons), and yet their price has remained high even after this nerf. Hell, the cost for IG weapons actually increased.

Basically, in 4th this might have been a deserved change - in 6th it was just piling on the nerfs.

**Luke_Prowler**

Codex: Orks

'Ere We Go!: In addition to the die reroll, on a successful charge the unit gains +1 to init
The reason for this is that, due to the very unpredictable nature and gambling nature of assaulting, there's already the cost of how many boyz you're going to lose before you get the mob into the fight. And because of our terrible initiative then even purely shooting unit are getting free kills against the boys before they swing. That's the reason why trukk boyz are dead as a tactic, and they're just the unit that got it the worse.

Warboss: Give the warboss an additional wound, when a Waaagh! is called all enemy units within 12" of a warboss cannot overwatch.
With the lost of taking Nobs troops, and the nerf of Cybork, a Warboss' ability as a force multiplier and as a beat stick have decreased. Sure, everyone takes one, but that's because Waaagh! is now tied to him not because he's worth taking on his own. Defense wise he's somewhat worse than a chaos lord (+1 toughness, but has +6 save vs the lord's +3) so this is a slight boost. Where as the anti-overwatch is to give a warboss a more proactive use and encourages him to be in the front where he should be.

Meks and Big Meks: New rule: Overclock. Each turn, the mek may choose a ranged non-ordinance weapon in the unit he's attached to, or on a vehicle he is embarked in or in 2" of (including his own). That weapon may fire twice, but gains Gets Hot!. If it already has Gets Hot!, it procs on a roll of 1-2 instead. A mek that uses this cannot repair that turn
I was rather disappointed we didn't see an ability like bolster defenses with the Meks. And while Big meks are still used for KFF, I'd like to see meks get taken for more reasons than just KFF or as a 'naught repair crew.

Nobz: Drop Nobz down to 16. New wargear: Iron Gob: the model gets +1 to leadership
Honestly, I'm not sure what else to do with nobz. I really want them to be a viable footsloging choice, but I don't know what I could give them that wouldn't just transfer over to biker nobz.

Replace Ramshackle with: When the Explode result is roll when a trukk suffers a pen, the explosion is at S3. Give it to all Ork non-super heavy transports
I'd much rather take less dead orks than an off chance I might avoid a pen hit. The explosion is crippling for anything that isn't meganobz. It's not a big buff, it's still preferable.

Deff Dread: Gain 'Ere We Go! and Rampage. May buy Wreckin' Ball and Grabbin' Klaw
There's still an angry ork in that tin can, so he should benefit from 'ere we go! (and technically Waaagh!). An extremely angry ork who's stuck in a metal tube and has to be fed through a straw. Fluffy that he'd want to stomp something as quick as possible. Mechanically, this mechanical menace isn't taken because it's too slow to the rest of the army

Killa Kan: -10 points and +1 HP. may buy Wreckin' Ball and Grabbin' Klaw
Poor, poor killa kans. How the mighty have fallen. At their current points they're really not worth taking over Mek Guns, but there's nothing I can thing that'd be a more unique way of buffing them without over using it.

Mek Gunz: Make them Toughness 6, -2 points
A bit more of a drastic change, but at the moment Mek Guns are flat out better than Lootas and Killa Kan. They're a still a tough cookie to crack even with the nerf, but at least now Lootas are a choice as a glass cannon and Killa Kans are mobile.

Obviously there's more I could change. but I wrote this through the night and I'm tired

**ClockworkZion**

vipoid wrote:
With regard to power weapons, I can understand making a lot of them AP3... kind of. The problem is that the change was horribly executed:

1) Even with universal-AP2, melee was still second to shooting in 5th. So, this perhaps wasn't the best time to initiate this change.

2) It was done in the same edition in which shooting was heavily buffed - both in terms of the core rules and the codices themselves - and assault was nerfed in a variety of ways (casualties removed from the front, random charge distances etc.).

3) Whilst it might *seem* like a sensible decision in theory, in practice it just ended nerfing a lot of the wrong units and made shooting even more dominant. e.g. take Howling Banshees - which ended up with S3 AP3 power weapons, and were unable to assault out of their transport. And, those are Elites. Now, compare it with Dire Avengers - who can disembark and still fire to full effect, can run and shoot in the same phase and have S4 shooting with pseudo-rending. And, those are troops and significantly cheaper. Which are you morel likely to take? Really, I think high-initiative CC units tend to suffer the most, because they're often only allowed AP2 if they sacrifice their initiative - like the DE Succubus, who can only get AP2 by sacrificing 7 points(!!) of initiative.

4) The cost of CC weapons hasn't dropped. Even when they were AP2, most CC weapons were too expensive (especially when you compare them to ranged weapons), and yet their price has remained high even after this nerf. Hell, the cost for IG weapons actually increased.

Basically, in 4th this might have been a deserved change - in 6th it was just piling on the nerfs.

I agree that there was a rather massive piling of nerfs, but it's because there were all of those nerfs that there is a problem that isn't fixed just by making all power weapons AP2. It's not just the power weapons, it's a whole stack of things that need to be adjusted (and as I've said before dropping the cost of certain options on models based on their stats is perfectly fine by me, and something I'm a firm supporter of). The rules for power weapons are fine as is, the issue really goes back to how assaults works and the ways they were nerfed. The changes to that are pretty simple, I think, to bring it back in line with everything else without making it better than shooting:

1. Vehicles with the assault rule can move 6" and the passengers that are inside can still assault, but non-assault vehicles need to be stationary prior to the unit disembarking to allow the same during that player turn.
2. Non-assault vehicles that are destroyed in the opposing player's turn do not inhibit assaulting in their controlling player's turn for the unit that is inside
3. Units can assault from Outflank (which isn't as strong as it once was with how the new assault/overwatch rules work compared to 5th making it more balanced than before)

That would solve most of the major issues without unbalancing anything as the current rules for charging and for overwatch mitigate the potential advantage certain things would have (such as outflanking Genestealers, they'd be good, but not "god-tier" good).

**Bharring**

Eldar:
Serpent Shield shoots 6" when used as a gun (nerfing the shooting into the ground outside emergency situations). The Serpent is still he giant FU to gunlines, without outshoooting the gun line, too.

Jetbikes confer a 4+, instead of a 3+. They shouldn't be as survivable as a Marine. Also, maxxing their mobility at 24" would be unfair - any old bike can do that, and Eldar Jetbikes should be special.

The Wraithknight is a LOW, and gives up a VP if destroyed.

There are many more things I'd like to do to the Codex, but these things should fix the situation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
About the everyone-else-has-36" argument:
Necrons have almost nothing longer than 24".
Almost all Eldar infantry has substantially less than 24" range.

**ClockworkZion**

Regarding the Serpent Shield: I don't think making it a 6" weapon really works well. 24", One Use Only (doesn't regenerate after being fired) would solve it pretty well.

**Frankenberry**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Frankenberry wrote:
Armor being treated as though it's made out of paper is idiotic; the tank rules are stupid, period. I can go on to list what's actually wrong, but that'll take longer than this thread.

"Stupid" is not a reason, it's an opinion given to avoid stating the facts. Yes, the vehicles are ultimately more fragile, but when the possibility is to go back to them being only really effectively kill-able by great effort, such great effort mind you, that you could end up using three to four times the points in models just to kill a Rhino, that is not a solution to the problem that actually cures what the new rules were made to fix, that is a desire to go back to the old and comfortable because it is old and comfortable. You want a means to make glances less deadly, I've got an idea: armor saves. AV10 gets nothing and for each point higher on the facing you improve it by one (AV11 gets a 6+, 12 a 5+, 13 a 4+, 14 a 3+ and 15, for the rare things that might sport it, a 2+). It'd still be AP'd out by anti-tank weapons, but it'd not invalidate the ability of glances to make a difference, or weight of fire to help bring something down.

Frankenberry wrote:
Everything is about points, power weapons aren't worth them; they're suppose to even the odds and/or make something deadly. They don't do that.

"They aren't worth them"? Are you implying that they should be cheaper? Because 10 points on Marines would start to be unreasonable (on S3 models perhaps because it's harder for them to get through T4+ models to make those wounds effect, but not on Marines). The thing is they are better than fighting with your basic equipment, offering ways to ignore armor, and (save for the sword which could use another trick to balance it a bit more since the mace/maul/staff out performs it against everything that isn't a 3+. Maybe a kind of parry save or something even if it's just in a challenge) increase a model's strength. Yes, everything is about points, and in some situations the points aren't aligned quite right to what the model's stats let it do, but the thing is that they aren't bad just because the points are off. Less desirable perhaps, but not automatically bad.

Frankenberry wrote:
No one would build a tank that can mount multiple weapons only to have them completely disabled by the firing of the main gun, not in the year 40000 anyhow.

You claim that but technically it's a tractor that was converted into a tank. Furthermore, considering that the Imperium is fast losing their ability to create new technology, along with maintain the old (as well as recreate the old) do you really thing the Leman Russ can objectively be said to be the pinnacle of engineering? Additionally if you stop and think about things logically, the reason the ordnance makes other weapons snap fire is because of recoil. Ordnance weapons are very powerful and the recoil from firing them would actually cause the tank to shake. That shaking throws off the aim of the (in the case of the Leman Russ, very human) gunners on those other weapons, thus snap firing. It's a practical carry over from real world physics if you really stop and think about it. I know, it's a fantasy space opera in space but the idea makes sense and just because it nerfed your favorite tank a little doesn't mean you're the only one facing this rule. All Ordnance weapons have this rule. It was only the Leman Russ that ignored it before and considering it got a points drop on almost every version, it's already been compensated for being removed.

Frankenberry wrote:
My point is, I would ask that glaring mistakes be rectified, not 'go back to 5th' like you so eloquently put it. Besides the OP asked what I would change and I'm entitled to state exactly that, so leave me alone.

The proposed changes did not solve the reasons the first two were implemented, and seeing as this is a public discussion on a public forum I believe that I, as well as anyone and everyone else has a right to post a disagreement with any post in this thread, as we have. with other ideas. This is a discussion, which means ideas are discussed, not blindly agreed with and left to never be examined or contemplated and if you honestly don't like that then perhaps you should consider not sharing your opinions in such public venues.

Stupid is all the reason I need, thank you, but the save idea is something that should be visited.

Guard pays a premium for access to power weapons that offer none of the same benefits as most other races that have access to the same weapons. Their initiative is crap, their strength is crap, and their weapon skill is crap. It makes no sense for a guard sergeant to pay the same price as a space Marine for a power sword, THAT makes it bad.

Leman Russes have not been compensated for the loss of Lumbering Behemoth; all of the variants should be usable, not just several. As it stands, the standard Leman Russ is a pretty horrid tank when compared to it's other variants, something that shouldn't be so. The whole point behind a Demolisher is to be a mobile form of siege tank, dealing with close-quarters combat like city-scapes and forcing it to snap-fire the rest of it's weapons after using it's main cannon doesn't make any sense. Main battle tanks are fitted with compensators, recoil suppression devices, and god knows what 40k-esque upgrades, I guess that means Russes lose the equipment available today.

No one wants blind agreement, I certainly don't. What I don't appreciate is sarcastic responses to a post I make simply because someone thinks they're being witty.

**ClockworkZion**

Frankenberry wrote:
Stupid is all the reason I need, thank you, but the save idea is something that should be visited.

It may be a motivation, but it's not a justification. And I rather like the save idea as well because it brings vehicle stat-lines a little more in-line with everything else.

Frankenberry wrote:
Guard pays a premium for access to power weapons that offer none of the same benefits as most other races that have access to the same weapons. Their initiative is crap, their strength is crap, and their weapon skill is crap. It makes no sense for a guard sergeant to pay the same price as a space Marine for a power sword, THAT makes it bad.

That makes it bad for the Guard. They aren't universally bad for everyone (the Sisters get the same short end of the stick too by the way). That is a rather important distinction you left out, and is easily fixed by knocking the cost down to 10pts for them (and knocking down Power Fists and other like weapons by 5pts each as well).

Frankenberry wrote:
Leman Russes have not been compensated for the loss of Lumbering Behemoth; all of the variants should be usable, not just several. As it stands, the standard Leman Russ is a pretty horrid tank when compared to it's other variants, something that shouldn't be so. The whole point behind a Demolisher is to be a mobile form of siege tank, dealing with close-quarters combat like city-scapes and forcing it to snap-fire the rest of it's weapons after using it's main cannon doesn't make any sense. Main battle tanks are fitted with compensators, recoil suppression devices, and god knows what 40k-esque upgrades, I guess that means Russes lose the equipment available today.

Considering almost every tank got a lot cheaper, I'd say that there was compensation.

Main battle tanks still only fire one weapon at a time. Having actually seen tanks, and artillery tanks fire (you can actually see the effect recoil on the Paladin for example), I can safely say that if everything was being fired at the same time you -still- couldn't accurately hit things with, say, a pintle mounted machine gun when the main gun is being fired, if at all. If nothing changes it simply encourages that your tanks with Ordnance weapons don't equip sponsons or take and expensive hull mounted weapon, making them cheaper still than most older variants allowing you to spend those upgrade points on other options that could do the same thing for you.

Outside of that, the easiest solution actually isn't to bring back "Lumbering Behemoth" but to modify the Heavy rule to do the same thing (at least in terms of shooting weapons).

Frankenberry wrote:
No one wants blind agreement, I certainly don't. What I don't appreciate is sarcastic responses to a post I make simply because someone thinks they're being witty.

Yeah, I wasn't being all that sarcastic. A straight removal of the rules you didn't like regarding glances and power weapons does bring back the problems we had in 5th edition and before by making Terminators suck more and making parking lot lists the standard again. It wasn't sarcasm but a point I was trying to make about how just the blind removal of things we don't like doesn't solve the reason most of those changes were made.

**Sledgehammer**

Rough Riders: all of these suggestions are to be taken one at a time instead of all together.

drop their base points by five and give them carapace armor.

Give them relentless (there is no reason to take plasma with rough riders at all if they can't charge, and even then 4 strength 5 ap3 attacks at ws 3 is not that dangerous)

give them 2 wounds.

Vendettas: drop by 10 points and move to heavy support

CCS: sword of conquest should cost 20 points or lower. Drop kamazrovs aquilla by 10 points. Death mask should give eternal warrior.

Veterans: allow them to somehow get outflank or infiltrate some other way without rolling lucky on warlord traits. for example give harker and his squad infiltrate back.

HWS: allow these to be taken outside of a platoon. not sure if they should be elites, heavy support, or troops

**Frankenberry**

Spoiler:

ClockworkZion wrote:
Frankenberry wrote:
Stupid is all the reason I need, thank you, but the save idea is something that should be visited.

It may be a motivation, but it's not a justification. And I rather like the save idea as well because it brings vehicle stat-lines a little more in-line with everything else.

Frankenberry wrote:
Guard pays a premium for access to power weapons that offer none of the same benefits as most other races that have access to the same weapons. Their initiative is crap, their strength is crap, and their weapon skill is crap. It makes no sense for a guard sergeant to pay the same price as a space Marine for a power sword, THAT makes it bad.

That makes it bad for the Guard. They aren't universally bad for everyone (the Sisters get the same short end of the stick too by the way). That is a rather important distinction you left out, and is easily fixed by knocking the cost down to 10pts for them (and knocking down Power Fists and other like weapons by 5pts each as well).

Frankenberry wrote:
Leman Russes have not been compensated for the loss of Lumbering Behemoth; all of the variants should be usable, not just several. As it stands, the standard Leman Russ is a pretty horrid tank when compared to it's other variants, something that shouldn't be so. The whole point behind a Demolisher is to be a mobile form of siege tank, dealing with close-quarters combat like city-scapes and forcing it to snap-fire the rest of it's weapons after using it's main cannon doesn't make any sense. Main battle tanks are fitted with compensators, recoil suppression devices, and god knows what 40k-esque upgrades, I guess that means Russes lose the equipment available today.

Considering almost every tank got a lot cheaper, I'd say that there was compensation.

Main battle tanks still only fire one weapon at a time. Having actually seen tanks, and artillery tanks fire (you can actually see the effect recoil on the Paladin for example), I can safely say that if everything was being fired at the same time you -still- couldn't accurately hit things with, say, a pintle mounted machine gun when the main gun is being fired, if at all. If nothing changes it simply encourages that your tanks with Ordnance weapons don't equip sponsons or take and expensive hull mounted weapon, making them cheaper still than most older variants allowing you to spend those upgrade points on other options that could do the same thing for you.

Outside of that, the easiest solution actually isn't to bring back "Lumbering Behemoth" but to modify the Heavy rule to do the same thing (at least in terms of shooting weapons).

Frankenberry wrote:
No one wants blind agreement, I certainly don't. What I don't appreciate is sarcastic responses to a post I make simply because someone thinks they're being witty.

Yeah, I wasn't being all that sarcastic. A straight removal of the rules you didn't like regarding glances and power weapons does bring back the problems we had in 5th edition and before by making Terminators suck more and making parking lot lists the standard again. It wasn't sarcasm but a point I was trying to make about how just the blind removal of things we don't like doesn't solve the reason most of those changes were made.

That's my point about power weapons, their prices are the same for everyone (mostly) and while their profiles don't change, their overall usefulness does. A points decrease across the board for power weapons dependent on what codex you're reading would make the most sense (like you mentioned).

Ok, fine, you've seen tanks. From a game perspective it doesn't make any sense to penalize one chassis over another simply because you want people to use the other variants. I don't like how vehicles are treated in general in 40k now, what with the limit on the weapons that fire at full ballistic skill, or the glancing rules, or the armor penetration rules. Maybe armor needs to be revisited as a whole because in my opinion the current system makes the least sense out of the last three editions I've played.

Fair point. Bad day, wasn't interested in being told that what I felt needed changing was somehow less important simply because it didn't have three pages of reasons WHY it needed to be.

**gwarsh41**

For chaos daemons I wouldn't do too much.

I would give all khorne daemons a +3 to the charge range. Not only would it give mark of khorne on daemon princes and soul grinders a use, but it would also make several unused models slightly more usable (see: everty khorne daemon outside flesh hounds) Sure, flesh hounds would get stronger, but they already have fleet, so they were going to make the charge anyway.
Or maybe just charge 6+D6, something to help them get into CC better, nettes have the fancy run and fleet, figure khorne getting furious charge and better charge range works out well.

Bloodthirsters would be S8 base, though I would love S9 for S10 on the charge, but that is asking a lot I feel. There is no reason that a lord of change should be able to beat a bloodthirster in an arm wrestling match. Currently thirsters have a lot of weaknesses. No assault after landing hit them really hard, and flying they cant really do much. Right now they are eclipsed in CC by a LoC of equal cost, or a nurgle daemon prince of equal cost.
I would also like to see greater unclean ones get a stronger version of touch of rust, maybe on a 4 or 5.
I feel like the keeper of secrets needs something to make it more playable, I just don't know what. I have never used one before and don't really plan on it. Maybe the ability to run and assault, or move 12?

I would absolutely love to say that daemon princes should be T6, but the fact is that they are wicked hard to kill. There are not too many S10 threats out there. Railguns, wraith knights, dreadknights deathrays and vindicators are your main threats. Wraith knights and railguns are probably enemy number one. The daemon prince can just avoid them though, if you are summoning, stay in the air, if you are CC, go nurgle with balesword and insta death all wraithknights and dreadknights before they swing. If they were T6, they would totally overthrow soul grinders in the heavy support slot, as their main weakness would vanish instantly.

Oh, and furies just need to go away, just... no.

**vipoid**

Sledgehammer wrote:
Death mask should give eternal warrior.

If they did add EW, it might actually be worth its stupidly-high cost.

Sledgehammer wrote:

CCS: sword of conquest should cost 20 points or lower.

Really, we should be looking at 15pts (but then, I also think power weapons and fists should go back to 5th edition prices). After all, it's just a Power Axe that trades AP2 for Master Crafted (of, and we get to strike at I3, yipee...). Hell, I'm not even sure it's worth as much as a Power Axe.

Although, more than anything, I hate this weapon because it's so sodding bland. There's nothing remotely interesting about it, and it doesn't even make up for it by being cheap or good.

With regard to power weapon prices in general, I think a big issue is that Swords, Mauls Axes etc. are all priced the same yet are not equally valuable - I'd say Axes and Mauls should stay at 15pts for marines, whilst the others should drop to 10pts.

**ClockworkZion**

vipoid wrote:
With regard to power weapon prices in general, I think a big issue is that Swords, Mauls Axes etc. are all priced the same yet are not equally valuable - I'd say Axes and Mauls should stay at 15pts for marines, whilst the others should drop to 10pts.

Unless they changed in C:SM and I forgot: they are 15pts for Marines. The problem is that S3/T3/I3 models are paying 15 points for them as well. I can understand if Eldar pay a little more because they have have a higher I and WS over your standard humans, but 15 for Guard or Sisters is too much. Likewise Eviscerators and Power Fists are about 5 points too high for them as well for similar reasons.

**vipoid**

ClockworkZion wrote:
The problem is that S3/T3/I3 models are paying 15 points for them as well. I can understand if Eldar pay a little more because they have have a higher I and WS over your standard humans, but 15 for Guard or Sisters is too much.

Oh, I quite agree. Guardsmen and Sisters shouldn't be paying marine prices for power weapons.

ClockworkZion wrote:
Likewise Eviscerators and Power Fists are about 5 points too high for them as well for similar reasons.

Honestly, I think they might be 10pts too high (i.e. I think PFs should be 15pts). S6 is a big step down from S8, and that's before you even get into the reduced WS and survivability.

**ClockworkZion**

vipoid wrote:
Honestly, I think they might be 10pts too high (i.e. I think PFs should be 15pts). S6 is a big step down from S8, and that's before you even get into the reduced WS and survivability.

True, but I was feeling 20 was a good compromise since since it doesn't put it so low that you feel that it's a much better choice to just take the power fist over the power weapon. If they were 15 then Power Weapons would honestly need to be 5 to make them have enough of a gap that it doesn't feel like an automatic choice.

**vipoid**

ClockworkZion wrote:

True, but I was feeling 20 was a good compromise since since it doesn't put it so low that you feel that it's a much better choice to just take the power fist over the power weapon. If they were 15 then Power Weapons would honestly need to be 5 to make them have enough of a gap that it doesn't feel like an automatic choice.

I think it's tricky because 5pts for a power sword on a guardsman doesn't actually seem unreasonable, but 5pts for a power axe seems too cheap.

On a slightly different note, what do you think of the Lord Commissar's pricing?

I know he's an IC, but it just seems a bit wonky that he costs more than an entire Command Squad (which bring Orders to the table).

**ClockworkZion**

vipoid wrote:
I think it's tricky because 5pts for a power sword on a guardsman doesn't actually seem unreasonable, but 5pts for a power axe seems too cheap.

True. For S3 a Power Sword is the worst choice of Power Weapon since a Mace out performs it on anything that isn't a 3+ save, and the Axe is AP2 and I3 is usually going pretty close to last anyways. Maybe tweaking the Power Sword to give an Invul Save in close combat (+1 to Invul, 6++ for those who don't have one) might balance it out, but splitting it so the Power Sword is costs less than the other two could do the trick too.

vipoid wrote:
On a slightly different note, what do you think of the Lord Commissar's pricing?

I know he's an IC, but it just seems a bit wonky that he costs more than an entire Command Squad (which bring Orders to the table).

I don't have the book handy, but costing more than an entire Command Squad (which has more wounds, can get FnP, and more) seems a bit wonky. Especially since he can't be the Warlord unless he's the only HQ you have.

**vipoid**

ClockworkZion wrote:

True. For S3 a Power Sword is the worst choice of Power Weapon since a Mace out performs it on anything that isn't a 3+ save, and the Axe is AP2 and I3 is usually going pretty close to last anyways. Maybe tweaking the Power Sword to give an Invul Save in close combat (+1 to Invul, 6++ for those who don't have one) might balance it out, but splitting it so the Power Sword is costs less than the other two could do the trick too.

The other aspect is that AP3 just doesn't interest me - especially in combat. Marines can be made to fail saves just through massing fire.

As you say though, Some sort of parry bonus could be interesting. However, I suspect its use would still be pretty limited - since most characters take power weapons to do damage, rather than increase their survivability.

ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't have the book handy, but costing more than an entire Command Squad (which has more wounds, can get FnP, and more) seems a bit wonky. Especially since he can't be the Warlord unless he's the only HQ you have.

The warlord thing is a big issue I think - since it makes the extra survivability of the LC largely pointless.

Also, his Aura got worse in that it no longer affects Orders (and, the command squad can buy the Regimental Standard - which has twice the range and gives a Ld reroll).

**ClockworkZion**

vipoid wrote:
The other aspect is that AP3 just doesn't interest me - especially in combat. Marines can be made to fail saves just through massing fire.

True, but I know some Marine players like it because it's good for killing Marines in close combat since they can't mass fire like Guard can.

vipoid wrote:
As you say though, Some sort of parry bonus could be interesting. However, I suspect its use would still be pretty limited - since most characters take power weapons to do damage, rather than increase their survivability.

While true, I think it'd at least swing the pendulum back towards being balanced by giving it an additional bonus like the others do (Axe is +1S/AP2, Mace is +2S, Concussive (gets a small negative by only AP4 or worse)). Though giving a sword to a SS carrying model would be broken because it'd give a 2++ in melee, so a re-roll on failed saves would probably be more balanced instead.

vipoid wrote:
The warlord thing is a big issue I think - since it makes the extra survivability of the LC largely pointless.

Also, his Aura got worse in that it no longer affects Orders (and, the command squad can buy the Regimental Standard - which has twice the range and gives a Ld reroll).

Agreed, both of those are pretty bad. I don't have a quick and clean solution (I'm not really well versed in running Guard, just versed in watching my Sisters die to Guard gunlines), but a points cut sounds like the best solution.

**vipoid**

ClockworkZion wrote:

True, but I know some Marine players like it because it's good for killing Marines in close combat since they can't mass fire like Guard can.

I thought marine players generally preferred the axe for the strength and AP, but I could be mistaken.

ClockworkZion wrote:

While true, I think it'd at least swing the pendulum back towards being balanced by giving it an additional bonus like the others do (Axe is +1S/AP2, Mace is +2S, Concussive (gets a small negative by only AP4 or worse)). Though giving a sword to a SS carrying model would be broken because it'd give a 2++ in melee, so a re-roll on failed saves would probably be more balanced instead.

Could always just cap the bonus at 3+.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Agreed, both of those are pretty bad. I don't have a quick and clean solution (I'm not really well versed in running Guard, just versed in watching my Sisters die to Guard gunlines), but a points cut sounds like the best solution.

I think a small cost reduction to the commissar, combined with reducing the cost of guard wargear to reasonable levels (as we've been discussing) would help. As it stands, he seems to expensive to begin with and then he pays exorbitant prices for his equipment.

Alternatively, instead of reducing his cost, perhaps he could provide some other support ability. The problem I always have is that he has about 3 different abilities that all seem to do the same thing - stop squads falling back. For his cost, I'd like him to help a squad in a way that doesn't revolve around Ld.

Something of an aside, but you have my sympathies as a SoB player. I know they've been in a bad situation for some time.

**ClockworkZion**

vipoid wrote:
I thought marine players generally preferred the axe for the strength and AP, but I could be mistaken.

Might just be a meta thing as I've seen people swear by the sword just so they don't go last and get killed before they swing against other Marines.

vipoid wrote:
Could always just cap the bonus at 3+.

Could, but then it starts becoming a little more complicated in wording and easier to muck up. Short, simple rules are usually the best.

vipoid wrote:
I think a small cost reduction to the commissar, combined with reducing the cost of guard wargear to reasonable levels (as we've been discussing) would help. As it stands, he seems to expensive to begin with and then he pays exorbitant prices for his equipment.

Alternatively, instead of reducing his cost, perhaps he could provide some other support ability. The problem I always have is that he has about 3 different abilities that all seem to do the same thing - stop squads falling back. For his cost, I'd like him to help a squad in a way that doesn't revolve around Ld.

I could see a little of column a and b honestly. Maybe give him a special order and knock some points off.

vipoid wrote:
Something of an aside, but you have my sympathies as a SoB player. I know they've been in a bad situation for some time.

I've had to finally step back and put mine on the shelf. The local meta has me playing to not be tabled. I decided to dig out an old all foot Space Wolves army I built in 5th and pursue that instead at least until Sisters get a better update.