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.

 Blacksails wrote:
Zagman, my man, funk master flex;

Have you put any thought into the disparity between vehicles and MCs? Or turning some vehicles into MCs outright? Is that within your scope, or are you trying to impact the rules as little as possible while affecting as much change as you can?

I'll be sure to poke my head in for the inevitable IG thread.

If you feth up my Guard, we won't be friends.

Hey Buddy, you cracked my gak right up with "funk master flex"!

Honestly there needs to be vehicle changes, but they are well beyond the scope of this project. I'm looking for the biggest and most balancing chsnge with the lightest hand. Ideally tweaking points, occasionally unit sizes or wargear, occasionally weapons profiles, and even more rarely special rules.

I'd love some help with Guard, it will be a tougher Dex for me to do. I've been really good at killing guard for a really long time, but never delved too far into what makes them tick. I could use some experienced help there, otherwise I have to rely on my more limited experience, math, and lots of extra work, haha. All suggestions are wlcome.

List ten things that are the best or auto includes,and list ten things that are never worth taking.

That's a reasonable methodology to have, and I don't blame you one bit for going in with the lightest touch possible. It would likely come off the rails pretty quick if you changed everything, so that's fair.

As for Guard, I can try and help, but there are certainly other posters who know more than myself or who I'd either agree with or defer to on some balance issues. Either way, I'll take a look at what happens.

Keep up the good work!

 Blacksails wrote:
That's a reasonable methodology to have, and I don't blame you one bit for going in with the lightest touch possible. It would likely come off the rails pretty quick if you changed everything, so that's fair.

As for Guard, I can try and help, but there are certainly other posters who know more than myself or who I'd either agree with or defer to on some balance issues. Either way, I'll take a look at what happens.

Keep up the good work!

Thanks. Derailing is a very real concern, hence my modus operandi. It's not recreating 40k, just tweaking it towards the most balanced 40k we've ever seen.

Nothing wrong with deferring to the right people. The more community members and experienced voices we get on this project, the better. Glad you like the direction of the project so far, I feel like what has been done so far is already a massive improvement and one that still is close to the original.

I've spent the past hours here reading all these threads and I'll admit I'm interested. Your overall methodology of recosting and making small tweeks is probably what a game as large and complex as 40k needs and has needed for a while.
I'm no expert on balance but I'll post my 2 bits where I can.
Good luck to you though and hopefully this kind of gestalt balancing goes somewhere.

 Gavik Dross wrote:
I've spent the past hours here reading all these threads and I'll admit I'm interested. Your overall methodology of recosting and making small tweeks is probably what a game as large and complex as 40k needs and has needed for a while.
I'm no expert on balance but I'll post my 2 bits where I can.
Good luck to you though and hopefully this kind of gestalt balancing goes somewhere.

Thanks! Glad to have you on board, all input is welcome and appreciated.

*Edit* I'm an idiot.

Zagman's Balance Errata
[spoiler]
C:Space Marine, C: Blood Angels, and C: Grey Knights Balance Errata
C:Eldar Craftworlds and C: Dark Eldar Balance Errata
C: Necron and C: Tau Empire Balance Errata
C: Orks and C: Tyranids Balance Errata
C: Chaos Space Marines and C: Chaos Daemons

Added C: Chaos Daemons, C: Dark Eldar, C: Blood Angels, and C: Grey Knights to the Balance Errata

All Feedback welcome!

OK, I've had a little time to digest the DE stuff. Those are fairly massive changes, and I get why you made them. Still not sure whether I like the mandatory larger squads or not, but I'd certainly play around with it and see how it shakes out on the table top. I just personally look at the DE as the ultimate MSU army, and should excel at zipping across the board in smaller units, dealing the "death of a thousand cuts". My only suggested changes are:

1. Make Drazhar cheaper still. even at 170 nobody would play him, unfortunately. He should really be a 130-150 pt melee beatstick due to the limited way in which he can be used (i.e. with Incubi)

2. Maybe allow Warriors to take a Heavy weapon for every 6 guys, so they can get 3 in a blob squad? May give more reason for people to do evil footdar? The DE heavy weapons really aren't super devastating as it is, being Splinter Cannons and Dark Lances.

3. Allow Pain Engines to be taken IN ANY COMBINATION. Boom, blew yo' mind. Even with fleet, they are slow, tough, but only mildly survivable monsters. Allowing each Pain Engine squad to have the FNP buff brings them up a huge notch, and supports the rest of the army well by being able to spread the FNP love. With that change, it would make more sense to keep the Spirit Probe expensive, codex price.

 Homeskillet wrote:
OK, I've had a little time to digest the DE stuff. Those are fairly massive changes, and I get why you made them. Still not sure whether I like the mandatory larger squads or not, but I'd certainly play around with it and see how it shakes out on the table top. I just personally look at the DE as the ultimate MSU army, and should excel at zipping across the board in smaller units, dealing the "death of a thousand cuts". My only suggested changes are:

1. Make Drazhar cheaper still. even at 170 nobody would play him, unfortunately. He should really be a 130-150 pt melee beatstick due to the limited way in which he can be used (i.e. with Incubi)

2. Maybe allow Warriors to take a Heavy weapon for every 6 guys, so they can get 3 in a blob squad? May give more reason for people to do evil footdar? The DE heavy weapons really aren't super devastating as it is, being Splinter Cannons and Dark Lances.

3. Allow Pain Engines to be taken IN ANY COMBINATION. Boom, blew yo' mind. Even with fleet, they are slow, tough, but only mildly survivable monsters. Allowing each Pain Engine squad to have the FNP buff brings them up a huge notch, and supports the rest of the army well by being able to spread the FNP love. With that change, it would make more sense to keep the Spirit Probe expensive, codex price.

Thanks, I added it to the Relevant Dae thread and responded.




Also, here is C: Astra Millitarum Balance Errata

Can we get a separate Guard thread?

Overall, I agree with these changes, with the following exceptions:

Not letting flyers/FMC's claim cover saves. This would prevent them from using the Jink rule, as Jinking counts as a cover save. Also, just as a side note, everything has line of sight to a zooming/swooping flyer/FMC.

Changes to psychic power access. I would argue that it's best to simply clarify that psykers have access to the powers listed on their unit entry, and them modifying those entries for balance purposes.

Changes to allies matrix. I can agree on not allowing CtA allies, but not having Battle Brothers is IMO a mistake. While it would cut down on Centstar/Draigostar and DE taxis, it harms players who weren't abusing allies just as badly, such as CSM allied with Daemons. I think that a better solution would be to disallow Battle Brothers from riding in each others' transports. A limit on the number of Detachments/Formations would help as well.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Overall, I agree with these changes, with the following exceptions:

Not letting flyers/FMC's claim cover saves. This would prevent them from using the Jink rule, as Jinking counts as a cover save. Also, just as a side note, everything has line of sight to a zooming/swooping flyer/FMC.

Changes to psychic power access. I would argue that it's best to simply clarify that psykers have access to the powers listed on their unit entry, and them modifying those entries for balance purposes.

Changes to allies matrix. I can agree on not allowing CtA allies, but not having Battle Brothers is IMO a mistake. While it would cut down on Centstar/Draigostar and DE taxis, it harms players who weren't abusing allies just as badly, such as CSM allied with Daemons. I think that a better solution would be to disallow Battle Brothers from riding in each others' transports. A limit on the number of Detachments/Formations would help as well.

5-30-15 Changed To

Flyers/FMCs: When swooping or Zooming Flyers and FMCs may never claim a cover save other than Jinking or have Line of Sight blocked to them by Terrain.

Thanks, as written it did not function correctly. I simply did not want cover saves from Terrain or intervening models, as written it broke Jink. Thakns!

Psychic Power Access: That may be the best solution, but require significantly more work and arbritrary work... why does this PA Libby have access to Divination and this one does not... etc. It also makes some Master Levels worth more than other, just due to the disiplines they have access to. IMO opening it up levels the playing field, if the individual powers are relatively balanced it doesn't break anything. Unique disiplines still give quite a bit of potential variety for Psykers. At the least it opens up many more crazy things we could see, 4++ Ork mob, Invisible Orks, etc.

Allies Matrix: I had though about not allowing them to ride in another's transport, or not allowing them to join another faction's unit etc. I'm trying to think of situations that weren't meant to create synergy in excess of any one codex... ie ATSKNF in a Guard Blob, AM in Pods, Cents in Pods, DE Taxis, etc. We sufficed with a single CAD/FOC for ages, and this doesn't stop any fluffy combinations on the table, it just means you can't swap abilities between factions. And honestly, from a balance stand point this was almost exclusively to bring special rules over that you don't have access to. It is almost exclusively for additional synergy that is difficult to balance. Pods in FA are perfectly fine, until AdMech can borrow them. AdMech aren't bad until they have their army wide weaknesses removed by stealing BA Pods etc.

Thanks for the feedback. Nothing is set in stone, if you can convince me what's here is a bad idea it'll change. Right now I see the good and balancing effect to be greater than the inconvenience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ziggurattt wrote:
Can we get a separate Guard thread?

Linked above is only guard currently. Later more factions will join that thread. I tried to group Codices to limit the number of threads somewhat.

6-4-15 Add

FMCs may deployed in Swooping or Gliding mode.

This goes with the change to Hive Tyrants(4+AS with Wings) and DPs(3+ Armor is mutually exclusive with wings, barring Daemonic Gift roll of course). No longer a chance to to first and alpha strike FMCs before they take flight, but no FMC short of the Blood Thirster has a 3+ armor save. As almost all standard AA weapons are AP4 this is fitting, when coupled with easier access for most armies especially missile launchers to AA this should help balance FMCs. But, IMO needing to go first to have a chance against FMCs wasn't very good game balance for either side.

Gw, could you just have this guy head of codex publishing instead? Some neat changes. Would love to help out. I am not a tournament player but I play quite some and I have a lot of armies.

I'm sorry to put this on you, but I really feel that the WS chart needs a MAJOR overhaul. Any WS over 5 is basically meaningless, while WS1 is a slap on the wrists. I really feel it would be better to make it similar to the would table, replacing all of the "-" with "6+" this not only make the handful of models with really high WS useful, but also plays into your change to invisibility. Though the humor of two invisible units hitting each other on 4's makes it a bit silly.

Allot wrote:Gw, could you just have this guy head of codex publishing instead? Some neat changes. Would love to help out. I am not a tournament player but I play quite some and I have a lot of armies.

Thanks for the compliment! Your feedback is welcome for any armies you play or play against often. The goal is significantly improved balance, it won't be perfect but it doesn't take much for a vast improvement.

StarHunter25 wrote:I'm sorry to put this on you, but I really feel that the WS chart needs a MAJOR overhaul. Any WS over 5 is basically meaningless, while WS1 is a slap on the wrists. I really feel it would be better to make it similar to the would table, replacing all of the "-" with "6+" this not only make the handful of models with really high WS useful, but also plays into your change to invisibility. Though the humor of two invisible units hitting each other on 4's makes it a bit silly.

I am inclined to agree with you on some level, but I'm extremely hesitant to make changes.

If I were...

Equal 4+/4+
Difference of 1 3+/4+
Difference of 2-3 3+/5+
Difference of 4+ 3+/6+

 Zagman wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:I'm sorry to put this on you, but I really feel that the WS chart needs a MAJOR overhaul. Any WS over 5 is basically meaningless, while WS1 is a slap on the wrists. I really feel it would be better to make it similar to the would table, replacing all of the "-" with "6+" this not only make the handful of models with really high WS useful, but also plays into your change to invisibility. Though the humor of two invisible units hitting each other on 4's makes it a bit silly.

I am inclined to agree with you on some level, but I'm extremely hesitant to make changes.

If I were...

Equal 4+/4+
Difference of 1 3+/4+
Difference of 2-3 3+/5+
Difference of 4+ 3+/6+

I agree with StarHunter25. WS and Initiative are basically a game of "whose number is higher" at the moment. I personally would argue for more of system based on the "to wound" table as well.

I would have it something like this:

Equal: 4+/4+
1 above: 3+/4+
2 above: 3+/5+
4 above: 2+/6+

I feel this reflects what is happening on the field better. Currently, the only WS that matter are 5 (WS2 hits on fives), 7 (WS3 hits on fives) and 9(WS4 hits on fives). With this system, your average Chaos Lord will be much more powerful against MEQ, and a Hive Tyrant would be almost untouchable. It also prevents the old problem of having a 33% chance of failing to plant a melta bomb on a stationary vehicle

With this system, having a low weapon skill is a death sentence, while having a high one makes you untouchable by grunts and stand a chance against the really big hitters. WS buffs will actually mean something as well.

I wouldn't do 2+/6+. But 2+/5+ Or 3+/6+ for a 4 or more difference would work. I highly recommend avoiding 2+/6+, it's unnecessary and for each level I'd only alter the numbers by 1.

Add 6+ difference 2+/6+

If we get to crazy, it makes some combats pointless and skews balance a bit more. It helps some units that help it, but not necessarily others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
6-4-15 Added

Warlord Traits
Choose a Warlord Traits table and roll twice and select one trait. If you are allowed to reroll your Warlord Trait you must choose to reroll one or both dice before any reroll is made. After rerolls you must select one a Warlord Trait.

Personal
4. Legendary Fighter: Replace With "Your Warlord has the Shred Special Rule while engaged in a Challenge."
5. Tenacity: Add "If your Warlord already has the Feel No Pain Special Rule, your Warlord gains a +1 bonus to Feel No Pain rolls."
Strategic
3. Master of Ambush: Change "Warlord and three non-vehicle units" to "Warlord and one non-vehicle unit"

Automatically Appended Next Post:
6-4-15 Add

Missions
Eternal War(2): Purge the Alien
Victory Conditions: Change To "Each unit destroyed is worth Victory Points. Each unit is worth 1 Victory Point plus an additional Victory Point for each full 100pts the unit was worth."
1-99pts: 1VP
100-199pts: 2VPs
200-299pts: 3VPs
300-399pts: 4VPs
Etc

Maelstrom
Add "If you draw a Tactical Objective which is impossible to complete, immediately discard it and draw a new Tactical Objective. If at anytime a Tacticsl Objective become impossible to complete, immediately discard it and draw another Tactical Objective."

Add some flufftext after that Maelstrom rule, ideally. While the rule is clear RAW, it might still be worth pointing out something like ("Impossible to complete does not mean incredibly unlikely. For instance, if you play Tau, and draw a card requiring you to eliminate a unit in melee, it may be virtually impossible, but is still technically possible. Therefore, the card may not be discarded.").

Master of Ambush:
-"your Warlord and/or up to one of your non-vehicle unit may be given..."

Bharring wrote:
Add some flufftext after that Maelstrom rule, ideally. While the rule is clear RAW, it might still be worth pointing out something like ("Impossible to complete does not mean incredibly unlikely. For instance, if you play Tau, and draw a card requiring you to eliminate a unit in melee, it may be virtually impossible, but is still technically possible. Therefore, the card may not be discarded.").

Master of Ambush:
-"your Warlord and/or up to one of your non-vehicle unit may be given..."

I suppose I could add some fluff txt, but IMO its clear enough. I suppose a gaming group can decide what exactly impossible will mean for them.

For Master of Ambush all I did was duplicate the existing txt. There really is no effective difference for having them worded differently.

Just noticed the new killpoints rule.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Just noticed the new killpoints rule.

Spoiler:

Glad you agree. It's a pretty simple fix and scales with old school VPs nicely,mwithout counting the value of every unit etc...

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:I'm sorry to put this on you, but I really feel that the WS chart needs a MAJOR overhaul. Any WS over 5 is basically meaningless, while WS1 is a slap on the wrists. I really feel it would be better to make it similar to the would table, replacing all of the "-" with "6+" this not only make the handful of models with really high WS useful, but also plays into your change to invisibility. Though the humor of two invisible units hitting each other on 4's makes it a bit silly.

I am inclined to agree with you on some level, but I'm extremely hesitant to make changes.

If I were...

Equal 4+/4+
Difference of 1 3+/4+
Difference of 2-3 3+/5+
Difference of 4+ 3+/6+

I agree with StarHunter25. WS and Initiative are basically a game of "whose number is higher" at the moment. I personally would argue for more of system based on the "to wound" table as well.

I would have it something like this:

Equal: 4+/4+
1 above: 3+/4+
2 above: 3+/5+
4 above: 2+/6+

I feel this reflects what is happening on the field better. Currently, the only WS that matter are 5 (WS2 hits on fives), 7 (WS3 hits on fives) and 9(WS4 hits on fives). With this system, your average Chaos Lord will be much more powerful against MEQ, and a Hive Tyrant would be almost untouchable. It also prevents the old problem of having a 33% chance of failing to plant a melta bomb on a stationary vehicle

With this system, having a low weapon skill is a death sentence, while having a high one makes you untouchable by grunts and stand a chance against the really big hitters. WS buffs will actually mean something as well.

The actual WS system has a meaning, and that is to make the close combat highly lethal. At the worst you are hit on 5+ and that is good. Remember that a unit engaged in a fight cannot go somewhere else contrarily to ranged fights.
What is wrong is hitting the advantage limit at 3+.
I'm not too keen on letting 2+ hit, it would make for some nasty combos with preferred enemy.
I would propose the following: If your WS is 3 points higher then you can reroll to hit, similar to the effect of high BS.

What this means is:

WS4 lets you hit WS3 on 3+
WS 5 lets you hit WS4 on 3+ and reroll against WS2 while being hit at 5+
WS6 lets you hit WS5 on 3+ allows you to reroll against WS3
WS 7 allows you to reroll against WS4 and get hit at 5+ by WS3
WS8 allows you to reroll against WS5
WS9 allows you to get hit on 5+ by WS4
WS10 is pretty much useless

So, since the most common WS range from 2 to 4 with some 5 then this change would make all the WS levels more interesting, with the exception of WS10 and maybe WS 8.

It is an easy rule. I still have new players struggling with the "hit on 5+ if WS is *2+1", so i would like to avoid introducing more tables.

Just wanted to congratulate you on making this, I'll be using your point values isntead of GW's in friendly games, and has given me some ideas for my planned Codex: Steel Legion home-brew. This thread definitely gets a +1 from me. Suggestions to follow.