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.

I put the title of the thread in quotes because let's be honest here: We're all biased. As neutrally as you try to view the game, you're still going to be looking at it through whatever your chosen codex's terms are. With that in mind..

My friends and I (there's 8 of us all said and done) are taking a good, hard look at both the BRB and our codex's over the next couple weeks and when we next congregate, we're going to bring a list of "gak that just plain needs talking about". Be that the wonky way the Skybourne rule is worded, whether or not Lance works vs Structures, whatever. The ultimate goal of this meeting is to balance everything out. The way we have it set up is someone will bring up a rule, we will write the rule down, along with the proposed change to the rule. Underneath this paragraph is going to be a section for each of our players to sign their agreement to the change (or to leave blank if they think the change is out of line with what we're trying to do), so a majority rules situation.

We have 4 players with Space Marines as their primary army, and 4 players with Xenos (I'm Tau, we also have a Nids, DE, and Chaos player), so theoritcally we have enough combined experience to be able to say "Yes, that's more balanced" or "No, you're freakin' dumb, get out of here with that crap." I guess I should mention that this is going to be ONLY for in house, we won't be bringing these new rules to our FLGS and trying to get anyone else to follow them, this is just a "We're all friends here and we all want to ensure a friendly, equal game between us." sort of deal.

For a couple examples, when we get to the codex specific part of the conversation, I'm going to suggest things like "Fire Warriors cost 1 more point base and can only take 1 EMP per 3 Fire Warriors" and "Remora Stealth Drones cost 135 points as opposed to 115" (Yes, I'm both a Tau player and very dissatisfied with the stupidly high strength of my models, I know, weird right?)

My question to the community at large is what rules would you bring up at a talk like this with your friends? Would you propose any changes to how we're going about "editting" the books? What problems do you think your codex has that could be fixed at a meeting like this?

I have a few suggestions for Space Marines, Specifically the Black Templar.

Chapter Tactics should apply to vehicles. I mean, Adamantium Will is the power of the spirit to overcome psychic attacks. A dreadnought still has a space marine inside, why would his will be any weaker than the rest of the Black Templar. In fact, his will, fluff-wise should be that much more hardened. So even if Vehicles in general dont get the chapter tactics, I think Dreadnoughts should get it.

In fact, If your army is exclusively Black Templar, you should always deny on a 5+ regardless of whether you are targeted or not.

I would also vote to change The Emperor's Champion's Black Sword and Stances to just give him a S+2 Ap2, two-handed weapon. No more of this stance changing or instant death stuff. Just make it a flat-bonus and make him an HQ worthy of being taken.

I think you need more than a simple majority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also think you need to do changes in order. Like, I think that there are a lot of units that need fewer changes if the basic weapons have been changed e.g. Lascannons, and a lot of units that don't need to be changed if the basic rules are changed - like if you changed the penalty for assaulting into cover it would be less unfair that some codexes don't have offensive grenades, and those units wouldn't need "fixing."

So do the basic rules first, then the basic weapons, then the individual units.

pelicaniforce wrote:
I think you need more than a simple majority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also think you need to do changes in order. Like, I think that there are a lot of units that need fewer changes if the basic weapons have been changed e.g. Lascannons, and a lot of units that don't need to be changed if the basic rules are changed - like if you changed the penalty for assaulting into cover it would be less unfair that some codexes don't have offensive grenades, and those units wouldn't need "fixing."

So do the basic rules first, then the basic weapons, then the individual units.

As far as I'm aware nobody has it in their head to change any weapon strength/ap or anything like that, none of us have any problems with specific weapons or anything. It's mostly broad-concept stuff that affects everyone. The poster above you has a great example of some simple, quick changes that match the flavor of his army without absurdly increasing the power of it.

What did you mean by "more than a simple majority" though? We discussed pretty thoroughly which ways we'd be comfortable enacting the changes, and none of us had any better idea than "majority rules". Then again, none of us where particularly opposed to it because as I said, there's 4 SM players and 4 Xenos players, so if anybody gets it in their head to make changes that would blatantly and unnecessarily buff a faction, we have an equal standing from both points of view. I'd love to hear any ideas you have about how to improve it though, as I agree it could be improved.

Big issues off the top of my head that can be fixed without completely overhauling the underlying system:

Terminators. Too expensive, too choppy, too slow. Change base Terminators to about 35pts with a power sword, give them a 4+ Inv default, and make tactical Terminator squads get two heavy weapons per five; 40pts with power fist or lightning claws, 45 with TH/SS. Assault Terminators are decent today at their price if you have a delivery system but Tactical Terminators are ass, this would make all Terminators work better without excessive power tweaks or silliness.

Markerlights. One of the three effects per squad using Markerlight counters. Replace the 2 counters to Ignore Cover effect with: "Reduce the target's cover save by 1 for each Markerlight counter expended". The Tau book may be silly but drop this and some of their silliest units are a lot less silly.

Invisibility. If you roll Invisibility you actually didn't and you need to reroll. Be'lakor doesn't know it. It was a stupid power in the first place.

Deep Strike: You can assault after Deep Striking if you did not disembark from a vehicle or get placed by a Mycetic Spore that turn. If you do so you must declare that you are before you roll for scatter and you may not do anything in the Shooting phase that turn. This is going to no doubt be controversial, but I think it'd force players to plan for more situations and build more TAC lists since they can't assume they'll be able to sit back and shoot everything down before it gets to them. It'd bring back the counter-assault role too. The Tau are the only army I foresee difficulty with here, but I've got a few ideas on that front.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Superheavies: Regardless of how you got it if the game is under 1,500 you can't have any, if it's 1,500+ you can have one. We don't want to require list-tailoring to have decent games.

Skyfire: No more of this "hits ground targets on 6s" gibberish. Make ground-based AA a viable choice.

Jink: Go back to last edition, start it at 5+ and improve it to 4+ if you turbo-boosted. We're pulling at least some of the rug out from under Wave Serpents with this without utterly hammering them with the nerfbat.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Big issues off the top of my head that can be fixed without completely overhauling the underlying system:

-snip-
Markerlights. One of the three effects per squad using Markerlight counters. Replace the 2 counters to Ignore Cover effect with: "Reduce the target's cover save by 1 for each Markerlight counter expended". The Tau book may be silly but drop this and some of their silliest units are a lot less silly.

Invisibility. If you roll Invisibility you actually didn't and you need to reroll. Be'lakor doesn't know it. It was a stupid power in the first place.

Deep Strike: You can assault after Deep Striking if you did not disembark from a vehicle or get placed by a Mycetic Spore that turn. If you do so you must declare that you are before you roll for scatter and you may not do anything in the Shooting phase that turn. This is going to no doubt be controversial, but I think it'd force players to plan for more situations and build more TAC lists since they can't assume they'll be able to sit back and shoot everything down before it gets to them. It'd bring back the counter-assault role too. The Tau are the only army I foresee difficulty with here, but I've got a few ideas on that front.

Actually all three of these things are being proposed at the meeting. I'm bringing the Markerlight change and adding a toughness test (I know this makes no sense lore-wise, but balance wise this was the best way I could think of limiting it) to Supporting Fire. We're touching up Invisibility (Nobody in our group plays heavy psykers, but I borrowed my buddies Chaos models just to show him how stupid it was so he'd bring it up at the meeting) as well, because... lol....

The Deep Strike thing is a little more touch and go. We're proposing a change that says "If you Deep Strike on an Assault Vehicle, you may charge out of it on the turn you deepstrike" because.. That just doesn't make sense to me. I proposed the same change you did, but coming from a Tau player it seemed like I was asking for more cheese (I think I've rolled a grand total of 8 assault distance dice in the year and a half I've been playing, but I see where they're coming from regardless lol.)

Good think no one in your group plays eldar.

Your letting marine players charge out of drop pods ?

Supporting fire - if its a test, wouldn't either Init or BS make more sense? Either their reaction speed or their training?

Invis - I've felt that it should force WS/bs1 just like Blind while attacking them, and reroll any direct hits (once).

Makumba wrote:
Good think no one in your group plays eldar.

Your letting marine players charge out of drop pods ?

Honestly I never understood what the point of a drop pod was if you couldn't, but yes, I was going to propose this change. Then again, I play Tau. I feel like I get way, way too many cool toys for way, way to cheap, and that SM players pay way too much for rather unimpressive toys comparitively. Another thing to keep in mind is that one of these guys has played more than 50 games against me as his Blood Angels and has never even once come close to winning a game with him. Hopefully the new codex changes things for him, but we haven't played since he got it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Supporting fire - if its a test, wouldn't either Init or BS make more sense? Either their reaction speed or their training?

Invis - I've felt that it should force WS/bs1 just like Blind while attacking them, and reroll any direct hits (once).

Initiative is against the other player right? That one didn't make sense to me because his guys charging have very little to do with whether or not my guys notice/get their guns pointed the right way / whatever. A BS test might work too. I was thinking maybe Leadership would work as well? Like the Shasui either tells his guys to help or doesn't give the order in time? Idk. It needs to not be automatic though lol.

You do understand that any IG or tau player will lose to marines turn one if they bring 4 or more drop pods

we are trying these amongst others and finding them fun

Only one Super Heavy unit may be selected per Primary Detachment in your army.
Invulnerable Saves may be taken against Destroyer Weapons regardless of the result rolled
All missile launchers have Flakk missiles for free
Relic Blades will count as AP2.
Eldar may select Falcon Grav Tanks as Dedicated Transports.
Howling Banshees can Assault from any vehicle
If a vehicle has not moved, the passengers may assault as normal even if not an Assault vehicle
template weapons and precision shots hitting artillery units do not test to wound against the gun but the individual crew models
Any Celestian may replace her boltgun and/or bolt pistol with a Power Weapon (15pts),

Inquisitors have the following options:
May replace bolt pistol and /or chainsword with one of the following:
Power axe, Power sword, Power maul, Combi-flamer, melta, or plasma 10pts
Thunder Hammer 20pts
Null Rod 25pts
May replace carapace armour with power armour 8pts
May replace carapace armour with artificer armour 15pts
May take a refractor field 10pts
May take up to three servo-skulls 3pts
May take psyocculum 25pts
May be a Close Combat Specialist add +1 WS 5pts
May be a Marksman add +1 BS 5pts

Makumba wrote:
You do understand that any IG or tau player will lose to marines turn one if they bring 4 or more drop pods

As the proud owner of 7 Tetras and 2 full Rapid Insertion Forces, I can promise you Tau will be fine with people assaulting from drop pods. Plus, these are for casual, less-than-2k house games. Currently none of my friends have more than 3 drop pods anyways, so it's not a huge concern.

Telmenari wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Supporting fire - if its a test, wouldn't either Init or BS make more sense? Either their reaction speed or their training?

Invis - I've felt that it should force WS/bs1 just like Blind while attacking them, and reroll any direct hits (once).

Initiative is against the other player right? That one didn't make sense to me because his guys charging have very little to do with whether or not my guys notice/get their guns pointed the right way / whatever. A BS test might work too. I was thinking maybe Leadership would work as well? Like the Shasui either tells his guys to help or doesn't give the order in time? Idk. It needs to not be automatic though lol.

Fluff-wise automatic fits. Fire Warrior training is described as making covering fire (which the Supporting Fire rule represents) second nature to the Tau and taking only a single command through their comm-system to order.

Initiative test (ie roll equal to or under your initiative) would change that to Fire Warriors only doing what is second nature to them one third of the time, BS half the time. Leadership is slightly better in that they'd do it just over 50% of the time (slightly higher with a Shas'ui). Out of the options I think Leadership is the best, which would also lead to more people taking Shas'ui team leaders, but it still has quite a high failure rate compared to what is described in the fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Telmenari wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Good think no one in your group plays eldar.

Your letting marine players charge out of drop pods ?

Honestly I never understood what the point of a drop pod was if you couldn't, but yes, I was going to propose this change. Then again, I play Tau. I feel like I get way, way too many cool toys for way, way to cheap, and that SM players pay way too much for rather unimpressive toys comparitively. Another thing to keep in mind is that one of these guys has played more than 50 games against me as his Blood Angels and has never even once come close to winning a game with him. Hopefully the new codex changes things for him, but we haven't played since he got it.

Drop Pods are super cheap and allow for an almost risk-free deep strike. That's the point of it

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Invisibility. If you roll Invisibility you actually didn't and you need to reroll. Be'lakor doesn't know it. It was a stupid power in the first place.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Telmenari wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Supporting fire - if its a test, wouldn't either Init or BS make more sense? Either their reaction speed or their training?

Invis - I've felt that it should force WS/bs1 just like Blind while attacking them, and reroll any direct hits (once).

Initiative is against the other player right? That one didn't make sense to me because his guys charging have very little to do with whether or not my guys notice/get their guns pointed the right way / whatever. A BS test might work too. I was thinking maybe Leadership would work as well? Like the Shasui either tells his guys to help or doesn't give the order in time? Idk. It needs to not be automatic though lol.

Fluff-wise automatic fits. Fire Warrior training is described as making covering fire (which the Supporting Fire rule represents) second nature to the Tau and taking only a single command through their comm-system to order.

Initiative test (ie roll equal to or under your initiative) would change that to Fire Warriors only doing what is second nature to them one third of the time, BS half the time. Leadership is slightly better in that they'd do it just over 50% of the time (slightly higher with a Shas'ui). Out of the options I think Leadership is the best, which would also lead to more people taking Shas'ui team leaders, but it still has quite a high failure rate compared to what is described in the fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Telmenari wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Good think no one in your group plays eldar.

Your letting marine players charge out of drop pods ?

Honestly I never understood what the point of a drop pod was if you couldn't, but yes, I was going to propose this change. Then again, I play Tau. I feel like I get way, way too many cool toys for way, way to cheap, and that SM players pay way too much for rather unimpressive toys comparitively. Another thing to keep in mind is that one of these guys has played more than 50 games against me as his Blood Angels and has never even once come close to winning a game with him. Hopefully the new codex changes things for him, but we haven't played since he got it.

Drop Pods are super cheap and allow for an almost risk-free deep strike. That's the point of it

Fluff-wise automatic fits, but when I went around asking what problems my friends had with playing my army, Supporting Fire was the only thing unanimously considered bs across 7 different views lol.

And on Drop Pods, yes, in a vaccuum, charging out of them is scary. But I know these people, not a single one of them is going to go out and buy 5 more drop pods just because we're allowing people to charge out of them. Gotta keep the context of the changes in mind haha. =P

Telmenari wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Big issues off the top of my head that can be fixed without completely overhauling the underlying system:

-snip-
Markerlights. One of the three effects per squad using Markerlight counters. Replace the 2 counters to Ignore Cover effect with: "Reduce the target's cover save by 1 for each Markerlight counter expended". The Tau book may be silly but drop this and some of their silliest units are a lot less silly.

Invisibility. If you roll Invisibility you actually didn't and you need to reroll. Be'lakor doesn't know it. It was a stupid power in the first place.

Deep Strike: You can assault after Deep Striking if you did not disembark from a vehicle or get placed by a Mycetic Spore that turn. If you do so you must declare that you are before you roll for scatter and you may not do anything in the Shooting phase that turn. This is going to no doubt be controversial, but I think it'd force players to plan for more situations and build more TAC lists since they can't assume they'll be able to sit back and shoot everything down before it gets to them. It'd bring back the counter-assault role too. The Tau are the only army I foresee difficulty with here, but I've got a few ideas on that front.

Actually all three of these things are being proposed at the meeting. I'm bringing the Markerlight change and adding a toughness test (I know this makes no sense lore-wise, but balance wise this was the best way I could think of limiting it) to Supporting Fire. We're touching up Invisibility (Nobody in our group plays heavy psykers, but I borrowed my buddies Chaos models just to show him how stupid it was so he'd bring it up at the meeting) as well, because... lol....

The Deep Strike thing is a little more touch and go. We're proposing a change that says "If you Deep Strike on an Assault Vehicle, you may charge out of it on the turn you deepstrike" because.. That just doesn't make sense to me. I proposed the same change you did, but coming from a Tau player it seemed like I was asking for more cheese (I think I've rolled a grand total of 8 assault distance dice in the year and a half I've been playing, but I see where they're coming from regardless lol.)

I'd think the Tau player would have an easier time handling folks assaulting out of Deep Striking transports only as opposed to assaulting out of Deep Strike sans vehicle.

@Makumba: The entire point of saying "no vehicles" was to prevent people from charging after using Drop Pods or the strict-reading that claims DE vehicles can't mishap from landing on enemy models, because both of those make Deep Strike too reliable too cheaply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makumba wrote:
You do understand that any IG or tau player will lose to marines turn one if they bring 4 or more drop pods

I said "Deep Striking without vehicles" for exactly that reason. On top of that Guard have an abundance of cheap screening units and access to pretty brutal counterassault (charging people who try and get into melee with your army) through Ogryns and Allies, Tau have ways of getting Interceptor, Supporting Fire, and this would presumably come with an overhaul to Kroot to make them a more effective melee force for counterassault.

If you want to fix the rules, you need to address the core issues in the core rules,basic game mechanics and resolution methods.

Because unless the game play has a stable base to build on, it all falls down into over complication and counter intuitive game play.(Like current 40k rules.)

Makumba wrote:
You do understand that any IG or tau player will lose to marines turn one if they bring 4 or more drop pods

What if the rule was, you can assault he turn you deep strike, but you go at initiative 1?

 GKTiberius wrote:

Makumba wrote:
You do understand that any IG or tau player will lose to marines turn one if they bring 4 or more drop pods

What if the rule was, you can assault he turn you deep strike, but you go at initiative 1?

The problem is that it makes it too easy to get into Assault with Tau at all; charging Tau and hitting at I1 you'll probably still shred them (unless you're a Knight charging Pathfinders with Haywire in cover or some such). A better solution would be to make Tau less one-dimensional so they don't auto-loose when you get into melee with them.

After playing since Rogue Trader I am completely exhausted with "New Rules". I have played RT, 2nd, 4th, 6th and now 7th. My opinion, 6th was a mess and 7th is a train wreck. What do I like about 7th? snap fire, vehicle hull points, what don't I like about it? Everything else. Having your armies units mechanics completely change from one edition to the next, is very frustrating and it seems, is done is the spirit of selling new models. (BTW, Centurion, Dreadknight, the Dark Angel land speeder and the flying boxes are horrible looking, silly, models). LOS broken, area terrain is gone, invisibility is ridiculous, Shrike attacking with a Str 4 weapon? Maelstrom cards, stupid etc etc.

Play 4th edition, go on ebay and pick up all the codexes for cheap and enjoy fun, friendly games.

To those Tournament guys, I only played one once (tournament) but I feel for you, with this pile of garbage that is 7th edition.

Fanboys, I know Ill get stomped for daring to dis GW new rules, however Im just giving a veterans opinion.

wulfbrigade wrote:


Play 4th edition, go on ebay and pick up all the codexes for cheap and enjoy fun, friendly games.

Sure, so long as you want to only ever assault stuff, you out range shooting with assault moves. Vehicles(if I remember right) were death traps. I didn't like 4th. Some where in between 4th and 7th would be fun(the rules, not the edition) Take the best of every edition and run with it.

This sort of proves that the core rules of 40k from 3rd ed on wards are not stable.

There is no fine adjustment, or enough diversity and depth in the game play ,generated by the core rules.

So every edition swings to favor shooting OR assault.
And adds tons of new special rules to sell the new shiny models GW plc want you to to buy!

The game play of 40k does not grow.Just the cost in time and effort trying to have fun with the bloated rules does.

To fix the 40K rules you need to fix the core imbalance, of using rules for game play focused on mobility and assault .(WHFB.)
With a game populated by units that require an equal blend of mobility fire power and assault in the game play to balance it properly.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Telmenari wrote:

Fluff-wise automatic fits. Fire Warrior training is described as making covering fire (which the Supporting Fire rule represents) second nature to the Tau and taking only a single command through their comm-system to order.

I would actually disagree with this, guard fluff describes several disciplined regiments (Cadians, Mordians, etc) reacting to orders instinctively and automatically but they still test for it, as battle is loud and unpredictable, I am pretty sure no pair of earbuds no matter how strong the anime fan plot armor surrounding them could relay discernible sound over an artillery barrage, therefore a test would be required to see if the fire warrior can hear the commands over the din of batttle just like the guard.