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.

My question is, what is going to replace these abilities? Or are the various Psychic Powers going to be useless and is Daemon of Tzeentch only going to have a unique benefit to Psykers (and a weak one at that).

Burn all to the ground and start over completely.

That's probably the only one sentence fix to 40k.

I love the battle of semantics here. I know what the title is but after reading a handful of Dok'z comments I can tell what his point was. Not to FIX the ENTIRE game but to level the playing field a bit.

And honestly, this helps. Its not the end all be all solution but realistically most of the top armies rely on some sort of reroll mechanic. I hell the entire Necron faction is based on the idea of getting your 4+ RP roll, which for all intents and purposes is a reroll mixed with FNP.

This doesn't address most of the Tau factions stupidly OP nonsense but it at least fixes a number of the other problems.

@MattK: No replacement. Reroll the power would be HIWPI. I dont understand the second part about Tzeentch.

@doktor_g: I honestly admire your intentions (especially since most 40K players want what you apparently want - a balanced system), but there is no simple solution to this. There is no "One size fits all" solution, let alone any simple answer to the problems that 40K has. You can't fix this by addressing re-roĺls while not addressing anything else. It will not even out the disproportionality of the top tier.

Disregard the notion of a simple solution because this not a simple system.

@SemperMortis: 1000 blessings upon you.

So please enlighten us how this fixes anything. Supwrfriends keeps going, Eldar didn't need the mechanic, Gladius doesn't rely on it, Necrons don't reroll any saves...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So please enlighten us how this fixes anything. Supwrfriends keeps going, Eldar didn't need the mechanic, Gladius doesn't rely on it, Necrons don't reroll any saves...

My feelings exactly. It seems like someone is getting butt-hurt over Screamer-Star/Magnus lists more than anything else. Tzeentch is the only "army" that has army-wide access to re-rollable saves. All other "stars" must rely on rolling a specific power.
If you really want to fix Tzeentch save re-rolls, than address that. Change "Daemon of Tzeetch" so that you may only re-roll the model's Invul saves of 1 (thus stopping armour and cover shenanigans) and that any model with Daemon of Tzeetch cannot have an Invul save better that 3++ no matter how many buffs it gets.

-

SemperMortis wrote:
I love the battle of semantics here. I know what the title is but after reading a handful of Dok'z comments I can tell what his point was. Not to FIX the ENTIRE game but to level the playing field a bit.

And honestly, this helps. Its not the end all be all solution but realistically most of the top armies rely on some sort of reroll mechanic. I hell the entire Necron faction is based on the idea of getting your 4+ RP roll, which for all intents and purposes is a reroll mixed with FNP.

This doesn't address most of the Tau factions stupidly OP nonsense but it at least fixes a number of the other problems.

I think Sempermortis gets it. It's not *truly* a claim to fix the entire game. It's a claim to fix the most game with the least complex changes. And I agree with the OP that if I had to pick a single thing to change to fix the most problems possible rerolls are undeniably at the top. A close number two would probably be allies, but removing allies strengthens the strongest lists and weakens the weakest lists. Up there with that would be invisibility, D weapons, etc, but fixing all that is not as elegant or simple as banning rerolls.

 NightHowler wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I love the battle of semantics here. I know what the title is but after reading a handful of Dok'z comments I can tell what his point was. Not to FIX the ENTIRE game but to level the playing field a bit.

And honestly, this helps. Its not the end all be all solution but realistically most of the top armies rely on some sort of reroll mechanic. I hell the entire Necron faction is based on the idea of getting your 4+ RP roll, which for all intents and purposes is a reroll mixed with FNP.

This doesn't address most of the Tau factions stupidly OP nonsense but it at least fixes a number of the other problems.

I think Sempermortis gets it. It's not *truly* a claim to fix the entire game. It's a claim to fix the most game with the least complex changes. And I agree with the OP that if I had to pick a single thing to change to fix the most problems possible rerolls are undeniably at the top. A close number two would probably be allies, but removing allies strengthens the strongest lists and weakens the weakest lists. Up there with that would be invisibility, D weapons, etc, but fixing all that is not as elegant or simple as banning rerolls.

Definitely agree with Nighthowler here. It's an argument about bang-for-your-buck changes.

Maybe not outlaw re-rollable saves, but make it so that if you DO re-roll any save, the re-roll is one worse than the original. So if you re-roll a 2+ save, the re-roll is a 3+ save. It tones things down a bit without leaving too much scope for complaint.

 Fifty wrote:
Maybe not outlaw re-rollable saves, but make it so that if you DO re-roll any save, the re-roll is one worse than the original. So if you re-roll a 2+ save, the re-roll is a 3+ save. It tones things down a bit without leaving too much scope for complaint.

Or just take the ITC ruling. A rerollable 2+ (specifically a rerollable 2+) is passed on a 4+ on the reroll.

Which certainly makes the game more balanced, but rather than a one-sentence errata that fixes everything it's one change amid thirty pages of errata, the rest of which has nothing to do with rerolling saves.

Charistoph wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, the Gladius isn't crazy. Getting a one-use Ultramarine Chapter Tactic isn't broken.

Getting free transports when taking two Demi Battle-Companies is.

The Gladius is what gives the two Demi Battle Companies Free Transports. Its one of the two Gladius Special Rules.

Yes, but I can take my Gladius without those two DBC - is it still broken?

Again, it's not the full Gladius that's broken - it's taking two BDC and getting free transports. At it's base state, the Gladius isn't broken. The battle company is.

Back to the rerollablle save - in my Ultramarine army, I use no rerollable save, and rarely use free transports. In any case, I bring ten man tactical squads and assault squads, with my only grav being on two individual units - Dev Centurions, and Bikers. I have no psychic powers, and no bikerstar.

What tier is my army? It's not affected by your fix at all, and still retains it's old WDL ratio.

And the Battle Company only exists within the Gladius' Command Benefits. Are both Command Benefits powerful? No, just the one. And unless you are operating at a rather low points level, who wouldn't take the Battle Company with the Gladius?

Therefore, the Gladius is broken by this rule.

Unless I don't take the Battle Company, purely because I take ten man units, thereby nearly doubling the unit costs, limiting my games?

I am counting this as base, because the full Battle Company IS broken, and I'll agree on that. Free transports isn't okay. But the Gladius, which can just consist of the BDC and an innocuous Auxiliary, like the Storm Wing perhaps, doesn't have to be broken.

Unless you mean to say that a DBC with ten man squads and a Storm Wing is somehow more broken than what I can make with a CAD?
The Gladius itself isn't the issue. The Battle Company rules are the issue.

Sonic Keyboard wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Again, the Gladius isn't crazy. Getting a one-use Ultramarine Chapter Tactic isn't broken.

Getting free transports when taking two Demi Battle-Companies is.

BDC also makes all the bikes, hqs, command squads, dreads and devastators ob.sec, and CAD doesn't.

Fair point. I'll concede that, although I will note that it requires less units for a CAD (only an HQ, which you could get a Librarian or CM, which isn't obtainable in a Gladius) and only two Troops, which could be Scouts. But yes, I can't deny that the BCD gives all units in it (Bikes, ASM, Devastators, Centurions etc etc) ObSec.

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I love the battle of semantics here. I know what the title is but after reading a handful of Dok'z comments I can tell what his point was. Not to FIX the ENTIRE game but to level the playing field a bit.

And honestly, this helps. Its not the end all be all solution but realistically most of the top armies rely on some sort of reroll mechanic. I hell the entire Necron faction is based on the idea of getting your 4+ RP roll, which for all intents and purposes is a reroll mixed with FNP.

This doesn't address most of the Tau factions stupidly OP nonsense but it at least fixes a number of the other problems.

I think Sempermortis gets it. It's not *truly* a claim to fix the entire game. It's a claim to fix the most game with the least complex changes. And I agree with the OP that if I had to pick a single thing to change to fix the most problems possible rerolls are undeniably at the top. A close number two would probably be allies, but removing allies strengthens the strongest lists and weakens the weakest lists. Up there with that would be invisibility, D weapons, etc, but fixing all that is not as elegant or simple as banning rerolls.

Definitely agree with Nighthowler here. It's an argument about bang-for-your-buck changes.

I'd argue that "All psykers are treated as equipped with a Psychic Hood" and "No power may be cast using more than 6 dice" would be better bang-for-your-buck changes and would be much less guilty of carpet-bombing out things that don't really need to be nerfed (be honest, were 5+ saves in melee rerolling 1s from a Priest in a Conscript blob really hurting the game?).

 doktor_g wrote:
@MattK: No replacement. Reroll the power would be HIWPI. I dont understand the second part about Tzeentch.

All the "Daemon of" rules give Daemon, Hatred(Opposing God) and some secondary benefits (Rending, Fleet & +3"/6" to Run moves for Slaanesh; Shrouded, SnP & Defensive Grenades for Nurgle; Furious Charge & Str 7 HoW for Chariot with Khorne and currently re-roll saves of a 1 & + 3 Ld when manifesting Psychic Powers).

With your 'fix' Tzeentch would go from being broken in one or two very specific circumstances (when combined with Grimoire and the stacking of specific Psychic Powers) while giving s small survivability buff to everything with it to being useless to anyone who isn't a Psyker. It'd make the upgrade a waste of points on non-caster Princes, Furies and Soul Grinders among other things (like Spined Beasts) and only give a secondary benefit to Horrors, Lords of Change & Psychic Princes... and even then that benefit might as well be worthless (the +3 Ld only applies to the Perils table).

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Charistoph wrote:And the Battle Company only exists within the Gladius' Command Benefits. Are both Command Benefits powerful? No, just the one. And unless you are operating at a rather low points level, who wouldn't take the Battle Company with the Gladius?

Therefore, the Gladius is broken by this rule.

Unless I don't take the Battle Company, purely because I take ten man units, thereby nearly doubling the unit costs, limiting my games?

I am counting this as base, because the full Battle Company IS broken, and I'll agree on that. Free transports isn't okay. But the Gladius, which can just consist of the BDC and an innocuous Auxiliary, like the Storm Wing perhaps, doesn't have to be broken.

Unless you mean to say that a DBC with ten man squads and a Storm Wing is somehow more broken than what I can make with a CAD?
The Gladius itself isn't the issue. The Battle Company rules are the issue.

And the Battle Company rule (there is only one) does not exist without the Gladius since it is part of the Gladius' Command Benefits.

This is about knowing the location of the problem. It would be like saying the CAD isn't broken, but Objective Secured is broken. It doesn't track as one is a part (and a very desirable part) of the other.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
@MattK: No replacement. Reroll the power would be HIWPI. I dont understand the second part about Tzeentch.

All the "Daemon of" rules give Daemon, Hatred(Opposing God) and some secondary benefits (Rending, Fleet & +3"/6" to Run moves for Slaanesh; Shrouded, SnP & Defensive Grenades for Nurgle; Furious Charge & Str 7 HoW for Chariot with Khorne and currently re-roll saves of a 1 & + 3 Ld when manifesting Psychic Powers).

With your 'fix' Tzeentch would go from being broken in one or two very specific circumstances (when combined with Grimoire and the stacking of specific Psychic Powers) while giving s small survivability buff to everything with it to being useless to anyone who isn't a Psyker. It'd make the upgrade a waste of points on non-caster Princes, Furies and Soul Grinders among other things (like Spined Beasts) and only give a secondary benefit to Horrors, Lords of Change & Psychic Princes... and even then that benefit might as well be worthless (the +3 Ld only applies to the Perils table).

Ok... well... thats all fine. Tzeentch no longer all encompassing win button. No argument here. Soulgrinder no reroll on a save? Oh well. No Ork vehicles can do that. I think only one Tau suit can. Etc etc. Meta more level than without eratta. There are plenty of useless upgrades in 40k. Target lock on riptides. Stickbomb chucka on ork vehicles. Etc etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dont get me wrong. I like the mechanic. Fatey's unique ability is really cool. Its just that rerollables are at the top of th broken pile in my opinion.

 doktor_g wrote:
...Ok... well... thats all fine. Tzeentch no longer all encompassing win button. No argument here. Soulgrinder no reroll on a save? Oh well. No Ork vehicles can do that. I think only one Tau suit can. Etc etc. Meta more level than without eratta. There are plenty of useless upgrades in 40k. Target lock on riptides. Stickbomb chucka on ork vehicles. Etc etc.

And...useless upgrades are a desirable thing to have in your game?

I may have repeated myself to the point that I need to put this in my signature, but the fact that GW has screwed up a rule is not a justification for making the same screwup when writing your own rules.

We're here to make things better, not to throw whatever ideas happen to occur to us down on the page and then say "Well, at least I haven't made anything any worse." If "but GW screwed up!" is the only reason you can give for screwing up I invite you to go back to the drawing board and come back when you've got an idea that's an improvement on the state of the game rather than an attempt to perpetuate and prolong the mess.

Make "Daemon of Tzeentch" grant +1 to all saving throws (to a mx of 3+) and you can take away re-rolls if you want, but that no longer becomes a "one sentence Errata fix"

This game is too complicated for simple fixes. You can vastly improve the game with a few changes, but you have to think out the possibilities. Getting rid of all re-rolls makes too many rules (which are often built into the cost of a unit) useless.

How about this Errata: "All rules that grant re-rolls to saving throws of any kind, instead grant +1 to the save."
That kills the re-rolls without making every rule that grants them useless.
And I really only see this affecting Tzeentch units and the occasional Farseer, although it creates the possibility for WraithKnights & WraithGuard to have 2+ armour

Then again, WraithGuard with 2+ armour is possible now (Spiritseer with Protect) and no one really uses it.

-

 Galef wrote:
Make "Daemon of Tzeentch" grant +1 to all saving throws (to a mx of 3+) and you can take away re-rolls if you want, but that no longer becomes a "one sentence Errata fix"

This game is too complicated for simple fixes. You can vastly improve the game with a few changes, but you have to think out the possibilities. Getting rid of all re-rolls makes too many rules (which are often built into the cost of a unit) useless.

How about this Errata: "All rules that grant re-rolls to saving throws of any kind, instead grant +1 to the save."
That kills the re-rolls without making every rule that grants them useless.
And I really only see this affecting Tzeentch units and the occasional Farseer, although it creates the possibility for WraithKnights & WraithGuard to have 2+ armour

-

Oh dear. The 150pt-too-cheap taxless stompy monstrosity is going to be slightly more vulnerable to grav-guns.

Allowing someone to cast Protect on the Wraithknight is quite literally the least worrisome buff you could give it. (Given that mine has only ever been killed by grav-cannons I'd argue that actually casting Protect on it in the first place could be considered a bad idea.)

I've killed D cannon WKs by using a dreadnought in a pod to kill the guy with protect and then on the next turn, Mephiston assaulted the thing swinging at S10 AP 3 init 7 instant death. Still lost the game on points, but I wasn't tabled at least.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Allowing someone to cast Protect on the Wraithknight is quite literally the least worrisome buff you could give it. (Given that mine has only ever been killed by grav-cannons I'd argue that actually casting Protect on it in the first place could be considered a bad idea.)

That was partly my point. If we alter any rule that makes save re-rolls into a flat +1 save, then you can Fortune a WK for a 2+ armour. No one would ever voluntarily do this against a Grav army, but it may make the WK even harder for non-Grav armies to take out

But by the same token, it would mean that any Tzeentch army that has Cursed Earth would have 3++ (instead of 4++ re-rolling 1s), and it would be fairly easy for Screamers to get 2++ (but not re-rollable). If that is the goal, I would be fine with it.

-

Charistoph wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Charistoph wrote:And the Battle Company only exists within the Gladius' Command Benefits. Are both Command Benefits powerful? No, just the one. And unless you are operating at a rather low points level, who wouldn't take the Battle Company with the Gladius?

Therefore, the Gladius is broken by this rule.

Unless I don't take the Battle Company, purely because I take ten man units, thereby nearly doubling the unit costs, limiting my games?

I am counting this as base, because the full Battle Company IS broken, and I'll agree on that. Free transports isn't okay. But the Gladius, which can just consist of the BDC and an innocuous Auxiliary, like the Storm Wing perhaps, doesn't have to be broken.

Unless you mean to say that a DBC with ten man squads and a Storm Wing is somehow more broken than what I can make with a CAD?
The Gladius itself isn't the issue. The Battle Company rules are the issue.

And the Battle Company rule (there is only one) does not exist without the Gladius since it is part of the Gladius' Command Benefits.

True. I don't deny that. But just because that the Gladius has the possibility of the BDC doesn't mean that EVERY Gladius has a BDC.
Not all Gladii use their BDC rule, which makes the benefit either negligible when unused, or overpowered when used. As such, because it doesn't trigger ALL the time, we can't say the Gladius is OP.

This is about knowing the location of the problem. It would be like saying the CAD isn't broken, but Objective Secured is broken. It doesn't track as one is a part (and a very desirable part) of the other.

If one wanted to call the CAD OP because of ObSec, I'd disagree too. If you thought ObSec was broken, then call ObSec broken - not the CAD, because the CAD, as in the organisation, extra benefits, etc etc, is NOT broken.

Let's say I am presented with this argument:
Yes, ObSec is broken (for the sake of this).
Yes, ObSec can be obtained through the CAD.
No, the CAD is not broken, because the CAD, when stripped of ObSec, is not broken.
Therefore, the ObSec rule is broken, but the CAD is fine.

Let's apply that to the Gladius.
Yes, I will willingly accept that the BC rules are broken.
Yes, I accept that the BC rules are only obtainable from the Gladius.
No, that doesn't mean the Gladius is broken, because I can take the Gladius without the BC rules.
Therefore, the BC rules are broken, but the Gladius is fine.

 Galef wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Allowing someone to cast Protect on the Wraithknight is quite literally the least worrisome buff you could give it. (Given that mine has only ever been killed by grav-cannons I'd argue that actually casting Protect on it in the first place could be considered a bad idea.)

That was partly my point. If we alter any rule that makes save re-rolls into a flat +1 save, then you can Fortune a WK for a 2+ armour. No one would ever voluntarily do this against a Grav army, but it may make the WK even harder for non-Grav armies to take out

But by the same token, it would mean that any Tzeentch army that has Cursed Earth would have 3++ (instead of 4++ re-rolling 1s), and it would be fairly easy for Screamers to get 2++ (but not re-rollable). If that is the goal, I would be fine with it.

-

Or we could just remember that the hard-ban on rerollable saves was a dumb idea in the first place and move on with our lives.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
True. I don't deny that. But just because that the Gladius has the possibility of the BDC doesn't mean that EVERY Gladius has a BDC.
Not all Gladii use their BDC rule, which makes the benefit either negligible when unused, or overpowered when used. As such, because it doesn't trigger ALL the time, we can't say the Gladius is OP.

Every Gladius has to have a BDC, it just doesn't NEED two BDCs to exist. But if you have the option (and the models), why would you NOT use the BC rules? Why would one deliberately hamper themselves by doing this?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

This is about knowing the location of the problem. It would be like saying the CAD isn't broken, but Objective Secured is broken. It doesn't track as one is a part (and a very desirable part) of the other.

If one wanted to call the CAD OP because of ObSec, I'd disagree too. If you thought ObSec was broken, then call ObSec broken - not the CAD, because the CAD, as in the organisation, extra benefits, etc etc, is NOT broken.

Let's say I am presented with this argument:
Yes, ObSec is broken (for the sake of this).
Yes, ObSec can be obtained through the CAD.
No, the CAD is not broken, because the CAD, when stripped of ObSec, is not broken.
Therefore, the ObSec rule is broken, but the CAD is fine.

Let's apply that to the Gladius.
Yes, I will willingly accept that the BC rules are broken.
Yes, I accept that the BC rules are only obtainable from the Gladius.
No, that doesn't mean the Gladius is broken, because I can take the Gladius without the BC rules.
Therefore, the BC rules are broken, but the Gladius is fine.

If you could just get rid of a Command Benefit, true. But that's not possible. You can choose not to use it, just like one can choose not to have your Troops try and Capture Objectives with a CAD. But that doesn't mean that the Gladius isn't broken just because you choose not to use the BC. One can deliberately limit the brokenness of the Gladius, just as one can limit the brokenness of the Skyhammer Annihilation Force, but that doesn't make the ability to shoot a unit to Pinning and Charge it with rerolls on the turn you Deep Strike not broken.

The BC exists because of the Gladius. The BC is considered broken. Therefore, the Gladius is broken because of the BC.

Exactly. All the Chapters have their own Company formations so there's no reason for defending the Gladius anymore.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Exactly. All the Chapters have their own Company formations so there's no reason for defending the Gladius anymore.

... Not all of them...

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Exactly. All the Chapters have their own Company formations so there's no reason for defending the Gladius anymore.

... Not all of them...

Yeah my poor Flesh Tearers...

Jbz` wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Exactly. All the Chapters have their own Company formations so there's no reason for defending the Gladius anymore.

... Not all of them...

Yeah my poor Flesh Tearers...

Flesh Tearers can still use Angel's Blade, right? Or is it because you can't use Seth with them?

My Templars... The black-armoured, white-pauldroned step-children of the Space Marines. No recognition of their Crusader squads at all...