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.

And Dreadknights. Feth dreadknights. They were the original sin.

 rawne2510 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Demolisher and Regular (the regular russ needs a name ): Remove the hindrance to other weapons firing. That rule is stupid.
Vanquisher: Give it Instant Death.
Eradicator: Give it a Rad effect, so that units hit by it are reduced in toughness. This ties into that combined arms combo theme I mentioned earlier. Oh, and consider increasing it's range to 48".
Executioner: Help it with the issue of gets hot.
Punisher and Exterminator: They're OK.

And slash the price of all the tanks.

Pretty solid with all you thoughts there except the executioner. Don´t really see the issue here as much but I would like to have the weapon maybe fire even if it gets hot but it should keep the gets hot rule with the thinking that the inside of the tank is over heating.

Yeah, you're right. I remember that time during early 6th edition when the Executioner cannon didn't have Gets Hot, and it just didn't feel right. A big points decrease will help.

Also I don't think the Punisher cannon needs a buff. It's an anti infantry weapon and it does that very well. Making it able to take out vehicles and monsters just makes the other versions worse.

Not mentionning the Vulture would become pretty ridiculously OP if you make the Punisher that good.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Not mentionning the Vulture would become pretty ridiculously OP if you make the Punisher that good.

Yes, that too.

Incidentally, the Vulture should be in the main Codex.

Eh, the way it is set up now, its a legit choice for Scion armies, if it was in the IG 'dex, it would end up like the Vendetta.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
When the problem present is that MCs and GCs are just too good (supposedly) and yet no one considers a Tyranid Carnifex or a DE Talos to be ZOMG OP BROKEN NERF NERF yet virtually everyone can agree that Tau Riptides and Eldar Wraithknights are ridiculously good....

That's a sign of where you need to be aiming your nerfs.

The problem isn't so much Vehicles vs MCs/GCs. It's Vehicles in a meta with Tau and Eldar MCs/GCs.

The balance needs to happen with Tau and Eldar in particular.

I do see where you're coming from here, but if you eliminated Tau and Eldar from the meta entirely, tank heavy guard and Tyranids as a whole would still fail to excel. Mechanicus forces, as they are now, outclass them. Space Wolves can wipe the floor with them without fielding any big monsters at all.

You don't need to nerf a dozen codexes to make guard and Nids viable. Just buff them. All tank entries in their respective books make it out like they're big, beefy, and survivable when they aren't, this relegates guard to bottom tier because their book is built around this premise, while space marines or Tau have alternatives. If you buff tanks across the board to the point where the armies that could but don't take them would seriously consider them, the army has to take them will be in a much better place.

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
When the problem present is that MCs and GCs are just too good (supposedly) and yet no one considers a Tyranid Carnifex or a DE Talos to be ZOMG OP BROKEN NERF NERF yet virtually everyone can agree that Tau Riptides and Eldar Wraithknights are ridiculously good....

That's a sign of where you need to be aiming your nerfs.

The problem isn't so much Vehicles vs MCs/GCs. It's Vehicles in a meta with Tau and Eldar MCs/GCs.

The balance needs to happen with Tau and Eldar in particular.

I do see where you're coming from here, but if you eliminated Tau and Eldar from the meta entirely, tank heavy guard and Tyranids as a whole would still fail to excel. Mechanicus forces, as they are now, outclass them. Space Wolves can wipe the floor with them without fielding any big monsters at all.

You don't need to nerf a dozen codexes to make guard and Nids viable. Just buff them. All tank entries in their respective books make it out like they're big, beefy, and survivable when they aren't, this relegates guard to bottom tier because their book is built around this premise, while space marines or Tau have alternatives. If you buff tanks across the board to the point where the armies that could but don't take them would seriously consider them, the army has to take them will be in a much better place.

I'm actually with you on this.

Really the problem is more than just 'Russes suck'.

It's a problem with how certain unit types function in the rules (vehicles and MCs/GCs) further compounded by the fact that certain examples of each are underpointed or horrendously overpointed. There is no 'broad' sense of point value - because everything seems to be pointed accordingly compared to other units within their own codex.

What this leads to is underpointed armies with strong units and overpointed armies with weak units.

Buffing one unit type or another isn't going to work....until you look at the respective armies. Do Tyranids and Guard need buffs? Badly so. Add in Orks, Sisters and yeah, I'll throw in DE, CSM and KDK into that pile.

The majority of these armies have the same flaws.

They're, for the most part based around 6th edition books that either came about before the Taudar power spike or afterwards, but before the Decurion power spike. KDK are the oddity here - but suffer from the fact their core CSM units are overpointed and based on the 6th ed CSM book. If KDK got anything right it was tacking the Daemon of X rules to marked Daemon units and stacking it with the Mark.

Hilariously, they're also armies that lack Grav or readily available D-weaponry in some form or another. 40k is just a cluster of rules interacting poorly.

Vehicles are too fragile - the HP system is rough and Grav compounds that (oh hey, I rolled a 6 so that's 2 HP stripped off that vehicle). Are MCs perhaps too resilient? Yes and no. MCs with ready access to 2+ saves and FNP or Invuln saves are a bit ridiculous. Tyranids don't fall under that umbrella sadly. If anything Tyranids fall under the 'Dear God why is the majority of our army WS 3 and prone to eating itself unless we babysit it' umbrella. And remember, this is THE close combat alien bug army that is supposed to be filled with terrifying monsters.

Lictors are supposed to be assassins.. 2nd ed. Tyranids were terrifying in assault. Carnifex were WS 6. Tyrants were WS 9 Warriors were WS 6 and Lictors and Genestealers were WS 7. The chaff units were WS 4 - still better than most armies chaff in assault.

Now? Now you're lucky to find anything in the army above WS 6 that isn't a Tyrant and our chaff is outperformed by Orks. Wut.

Like, really? Vehicles need armour saves or something. The Russ could benefit with optional rounds - or to be frank, a points drop.

There's a lot of 40k that needs fixing. Not just one codex or one unit type.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
Now? Now you're lucky to find anything in the army above WS 6 that isn't a Tyrant and our chaff is outperformed by Orks. Wut.

I have seen Hormagaunts go up against Boyz and honestly it's depressing. Even more so if the Orks get the charge. It's completely one-sided.


Orks don't constantly wipe half their own unit unless it's babysit by a tax unit, either.

Lumbering Behemoth, that's the rule where you never count the turret weapon when determining what can fire, right? Yeah, bringing that back sounds fair. Along with that, a 10-point drop across the board for Russ tanks.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Lumbering Behemoth, that's the rule where you never count the turret weapon when determining what can fire, right? Yeah, bringing that back sounds fair. Along with that, a 10-point drop across the board for Russ tanks.

Iirc this was in the days before the Heavy vehicle type existed (which allows the vehicle to count as stationary so fire all weapons at full BS even if moving) so it made sense then but now Russes are classed as Heavy tanks.

Though there is a valid point in having an issue with the Ordnance weapon turret firing at the cost of everything else. There's 2 vehicles in particular that really should be firing their main gun as well as the rest - Leman Russes and Chaos Defilers. Other than these two there are no other vehicles out there toting Ordnance and 2+ extra weapons on the same chassis!

It could be a fix as simple as allowing a Heavy vehicle to fire all weapons including Ordnance (which leaves plenty of design opportunities for the future) or unit specific rules. Tbh the Heavy unit type fix could be a better approach.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 rawne2510 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Demolisher and Regular (the regular russ needs a name ): Remove the hindrance to other weapons firing. That rule is stupid.
Vanquisher: Give it Instant Death.
Eradicator: Give it a Rad effect, so that units hit by it are reduced in toughness. This ties into that combined arms combo theme I mentioned earlier. Oh, and consider increasing it's range to 48".
Executioner: Help it with the issue of gets hot.
Punisher and Exterminator: They're OK.

And slash the price of all the tanks.

Pretty solid with all you thoughts there except the executioner. Don´t really see the issue here as much but I would like to have the weapon maybe fire even if it gets hot but it should keep the gets hot rule with the thinking that the inside of the tank is over heating.

Yeah, you're right. I remember that time during early 6th edition when the Executioner cannon didn't have Gets Hot, and it just didn't feel right. A big points decrease will help.

Also I don't think the Punisher cannon needs a buff. It's an anti infantry weapon and it does that very well. Making it able to take out vehicles and monsters just makes the other versions worse.

I guess it's a matter of perspective or history. To me, vehicle mounted weapons should not get hot. Going all the way back to 2nd ed, vehicle mounted weapons regularly ignored certain rules (Anyone else remember when guns could Jam?) because the vehicle could mount/carry additional ammunition or cooling units or whatever fluff required to ignore that negative result.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Lumbering Behemoth, that's the rule where you never count the turret weapon when determining what can fire, right? Yeah, bringing that back sounds fair. Along with that, a 10-point drop across the board for Russ tanks.

Iirc this was in the days before the Heavy vehicle type existed (which allows the vehicle to count as stationary so fire all weapons at full BS even if moving) so it made sense then but now Russes are classed as Heavy tanks.

Though there is a valid point in having an issue with the Ordnance weapon turret firing at the cost of everything else. There's 2 vehicles in particular that really should be firing their main gun as well as the rest - Leman Russes and Chaos Defilers. Other than these two there are no other vehicles out there toting Ordnance and 2+ extra weapons on the same chassis!

It could be a fix as simple as allowing a Heavy vehicle to fire all weapons including Ordnance (which leaves plenty of design opportunities for the future) or unit specific rules. Tbh the Heavy unit type fix could be a better approach.

I'd also argue that the Monolith should also be able to fire it's main weapon and not have to snap shot the Gauss arcs.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Lumbering Behemoth, that's the rule where you never count the turret weapon when determining what can fire, right? Yeah, bringing that back sounds fair. Along with that, a 10-point drop across the board for Russ tanks.

Iirc this was in the days before the Heavy vehicle type existed (which allows the vehicle to count as stationary so fire all weapons at full BS even if moving) so it made sense then but now Russes are classed as Heavy tanks.

Though there is a valid point in having an issue with the Ordnance weapon turret firing at the cost of everything else. There's 2 vehicles in particular that really should be firing their main gun as well as the rest - Leman Russes and Chaos Defilers. Other than these two there are no other vehicles out there toting Ordnance and 2+ extra weapons on the same chassis!

It could be a fix as simple as allowing a Heavy vehicle to fire all weapons including Ordnance (which leaves plenty of design opportunities for the future) or unit specific rules. Tbh the Heavy unit type fix could be a better approach.

I'd also argue that the Monolith should also be able to fire it's main weapon and not have to snap shot the Gauss arcs.

Fun fact - the Monolith is also a Heavy vehicle so the idea of fixing Heavy vehicles to allow that would benefit it as well.

It was always stupid to have ordinance weapons affecting heavy vehicles. Actually it was stupid to have them affect vehicles at all. This is what I mean; 40k itself needs an overhaul before you can fix any individual units.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It was always stupid to have ordinance weapons affecting heavy vehicles. Actually it was stupid to have them affect vehicles at all. This is what I mean; 40k itself needs an overhaul before you can fix any individual units.

Ordinance weapons have zero effect on anything. Now Ordnance weapons on the other hand...

 don_mondo wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It was always stupid to have ordinance weapons affecting heavy vehicles. Actually it was stupid to have them affect vehicles at all. This is what I mean; 40k itself needs an overhaul before you can fix any individual units.

Ordinance weapons have zero effect on anything. Now Ordnance weapons on the other hand...

The Adeptus Arbites probably have an Ordinance Cannon somewhere in their arsenal.

Edit: Please GW make an Ordinance Cannon be Canon Ordnance

 don_mondo wrote:
[lOrdinance weapons have zero effect on anything. Now Ordnance weapons on the other hand...

Are you the mod in charge of spelling?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
[lOrdinance weapons have zero effect on anything. Now Ordnance weapons on the other hand...

Are you the mod in charge of spelling?

Nope, I just find it amusing that so many people don't know the difference between the words Ordinance (a law or regulation) and Ordnance (a weapon)... Every time I see someone refer to an Ordinance weapon I get this little flash of Sylvester Stallone as Judge Dredd going "I am the Law!" Yeah, now it's embedded in all your heads too...

I knew the difference. You can blame autocorrect for that.

My point about ordnance weapons and vehicles still stands though.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

If you buff vehicles and leave MCs as is? Tau and Eldar will benefit from it.

Would that really be so bad?

I can't speak for Eldar, but the Tau MBT costs almost twice as much as a broadside battlesuit and does not come close to competing with its equal weight of the same.

Would it really be so bad if the oft maligned Tau player had reason to take a few hammerheads instead of that second and third Riptide sometimes?

I don't know about you, but for me, seeing less gundam lists and more gasaraki lists is not too high a price to pay to see tank duels with russes and predators on the field again.

When the problem present is that MCs and GCs are just too good (supposedly) and yet no one considers a Tyranid Carnifex or a DE Talos to be ZOMG OP BROKEN NERF NERF yet virtually everyone can agree that Tau Riptides and Eldar Wraithknights are ridiculously good....

That's a sign of where you need to be aiming your nerfs.

The problem isn't so much Vehicles vs MCs/GCs. It's Vehicles in a meta with Tau and Eldar MCs/GCs.

The balance needs to happen with Tau and Eldar in particular.

The whole Nerf MCs! approach will utterly destroy Tyranids and do a nasty number on CSM and DE as well. It will hardly phase Tau and Eldar - sure, you've nerfed units that were considered S++ in codexes that are for the most part S or A rank across the board.

I'm not sure destroying codexes floundering in the C and D range to penalise codexes in the S to A range and attempt to buff a B-C range codex is the right approach here.

You haven't encountered unkillable daemon princes I imagine? There is a lot wrong with how MCs work in this game and a decent amount of it is Jink and native AP 2. I have had to fight T8 nurgle princes with re-rolling 1s on a 4+ FnP. AND it has a bucket of high Str attacks at AP2. There should not be unkillable monsters, if I shoot 10 lascannons (and they hit) at a thing it should at least take a wound. Vehicles definitely need a buff probably in either the Hull Point direction (give them all 1-2 more) or in the intantly explode area, and MCs need a damage chart like in AoS.

You could only be playing a T8 FnP4+ DP with high Str attacks if the DP had both Iron arm and endurance cast upon it which requires the investment of at least 6 wc if you want to play it safe, that takes away wc from the rest of the army. Plus he could only get that if he rolled accordingly on Biomancy.

It's still not even possible to get a vehicle to that kind of ridiculousness even with that kind of psyker backup.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's still not even possible to get a vehicle to that kind of ridiculousness even with that kind of psyker backup.

Perhaps, but one could also argue that a 400pt monstrous creature who is the warlord and centerpiece of your army deserves a little more survivability than a 150pt (give or take) tank that is one in a million.

Don't get me wrong, tanks deserve something: a points drop and a new set of powers that can buff them up a bit more at least. But I also don't think a tanks drawbacks should be taken out on the fact that monstrous creatures are abbused by certain factions and that other factions can occasionally make their MC pretty good (once in a blue moon when you roll the right powers).

May I also say that without the 'rediculous' buffs, that 400pt model can be insta gibbed by S10. (Had this happen to me last weakend from a Dreadknight, some MC are more OP than others when they don't need psychic powers to do those things).

Question for those more in line with the current meta-- how much survivability change would there be if we did a more simple solution, like, say, doubled the number of hit points each vehicle currently considered underpowered and not survivable enough?

 Melissia wrote:
Question for those more in line with the current meta-- how much survivability change would there be if we did a more simple solution, like, say, doubled the number of hit points each vehicle currently considered underpowered and not survivable enough?

None.

 Melissia wrote:
Question for those more in line with the current meta-- how much survivability change would there be if we did a more simple solution, like, say, doubled the number of hit points each vehicle currently considered underpowered and not survivable enough?

I suppose it would help stop the glancing to death of tanks.

I like giving tanks a 4+ vs glances, because otherwise melta gets harshly punished.

 Melissia wrote:
Question for those more in line with the current meta-- how much survivability change would there be if we did a more simple solution, like, say, doubled the number of hit points each vehicle currently considered underpowered and not survivable enough?

I think things like free vehicles and some superheavies would have to be addressed, all of a sudde a Knight having 12 HP's might be a wee bit of an issue. I think doubling the HP's would basically negate their original point anyway, I'd much rather just go back to a 5E damage table, with the 7E updates for snapshots and passenger effects, if given the choice. Makes vehicles hardier without havig to keep track of lots of HP's, and makes a little more sense as well given their nature.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

If you buff vehicles and leave MCs as is? Tau and Eldar will benefit from it.

Would that really be so bad?

I can't speak for Eldar, but the Tau MBT costs almost twice as much as a broadside battlesuit and does not come close to competing with its equal weight of the same.

Would it really be so bad if the oft maligned Tau player had reason to take a few hammerheads instead of that second and third Riptide sometimes?

I don't know about you, but for me, seeing less gundam lists and more gasaraki lists is not too high a price to pay to see tank duels with russes and predators on the field again.

When the problem present is that MCs and GCs are just too good (supposedly) and yet no one considers a Tyranid Carnifex or a DE Talos to be ZOMG OP BROKEN NERF NERF yet virtually everyone can agree that Tau Riptides and Eldar Wraithknights are ridiculously good....

That's a sign of where you need to be aiming your nerfs.

The problem isn't so much Vehicles vs MCs/GCs. It's Vehicles in a meta with Tau and Eldar MCs/GCs.

The balance needs to happen with Tau and Eldar in particular.

The whole Nerf MCs! approach will utterly destroy Tyranids and do a nasty number on CSM and DE as well. It will hardly phase Tau and Eldar - sure, you've nerfed units that were considered S++ in codexes that are for the most part S or A rank across the board.

I'm not sure destroying codexes floundering in the C and D range to penalise codexes in the S to A range and attempt to buff a B-C range codex is the right approach here.

You haven't encountered unkillable daemon princes I imagine? There is a lot wrong with how MCs work in this game and a decent amount of it is Jink and native AP 2. I have had to fight T8 nurgle princes with re-rolling 1s on a 4+ FnP. AND it has a bucket of high Str attacks at AP2. There should not be unkillable monsters, if I shoot 10 lascannons (and they hit) at a thing it should at least take a wound. Vehicles definitely need a buff probably in either the Hull Point direction (give them all 1-2 more) or in the intantly explode area, and MCs need a damage chart like in AoS.

Spoiler - these unkillable Nurgle Princes with T8? They're not coming from CSM. Not even with Traitor Legions.

Also, if the unkillable Daemon Prince is your excuse for nerfing a sub-par codex into the ground then my friend....I am going to steeple my fingers and show you concern.

Really, the problem there isn't the Daemon Prince - they're expensive character type models that also happen to be MCs. I should fething hope they're durable and frightening to deal with. What you've just described involves a glut of wargear and lucky rolls on the psychic discipline tables - and you know what? That should be scary. MC characters should be terrifying. They are literal Godzillas and should be doing just that.

Furthermore, scary close combat characters is a Chaos thing. It's always been a Chaos thing since 2nd edition. It's not that scary now as since 5th ed. they've been nerfing assault into the ground and buffing shooting. Not being able to assault out of more than a handful of vehicles, overwatch (complete with autohits from flamer type weapons), Tau getting massed overwatch and the sheer proliference of jump and jet troops and units basically make it so that the scary close combat monster is remarkably unimpressive.

If anything is an issue there? It's the Flyer and FMC rules, which to be frank never really had that much of a place in 40k, same as D-weapons, GCs and Super-Heavies but here we are with a glut of rules from Apocalypse wedged in and we just have to deal with them.

Spoiler - that T8 DP is taken from the DeathGuard detachment in the CSM supplement, which is why it re-rolls 1s for FnP.

Besides that the rest of your points are completely correct.