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.

Rules Update List Proposal

This list was designed with three things in mind

1) I've discussed most of these problems at length with other players and tried to listen to their complaints as best I could and I've tried to develop a fair and equitable solution to these problems that benefits all players equally. Some of these changes are more popular than others, but they are designed to be fair.
2) I believe that it is pointless to try to change one thing at a time or even one codex at a time, as this will simply lead to a never ending cycle of buff, nerf, then buff again. Everything on this list was meant to be changed at once, and this list is meant to be taken as a whole.
3) Having a seriously underpowered list is no fun, and neither is having one that is so overpowered that it wipes the floor with everyone else. (At least it shouldn't be, if you enjoy the spirit of the game)

Problem: Bolters are weak/Space Marine Tac Squads are one of the worse troop choices in the game
How Many Times I've Heard This: 10 or more times, each


Problem: Terminators are overcosted and cannot use heavy weapons
How Many Times I've Heard This: 5 or more times, each



Problem: Centaurians are a huge point sink and do not have invul saves
How many times I've heard this: 3 or more times


Problem: Flakk Missiles are overcosted and Missile Launchers are too expensive
How Many Times I've Heard This: a dozen or more


Problem: Orks are fethed to hell
How Many Times I've Heard This: 10,000 or more times


Problem: Chaos is Overpriced, Their Codex is almost as bad as orks
How Many Times I've Heard This: Ad Naseum


Problem: Tau are OP
How Many Times I've Heard This: A Metric Gross


Problem: Tau Strike Teams have too low a BS
How Many Times I've heard this: 3 or more


Problem: Flyrant lists are broken
How Many Times I've Heard This: 5 or more


Problem: Eldar are extremely cheesy and OP
How Many Times I've Heard This: As many times as there are stars in the galaxy.


Personal Preferences


I will continue to update this post as I think of new ideas and try to keep an update log as well. If you have any ideas on changes that need to be made or if you agree or disagree with any of the changes on this list, let me know.

Update Log 1

The Wraithlord stuff does not need to be there. No sane person has ever told me it's op and most people say that it needs buffing. The same applies to Wraithblades. While people love saying all Eldar are OP it's just not true.

The Warp Spider nerf doesn't work properly. It takes their defining equipment and makes it useless. You need to address the specific issue of Flickerjumping not the teleport.

S6 Plasma Grenades seems a bit too much for something that a lot of units have. I see why you'd change it but I don't think you should.

pm713 wrote:
While people love saying all Eldar are OP it's just not true.

I can assure you that your opinion is in the minority.

rrll wrote:

pm713 wrote:
While people love saying all Eldar are OP it's just not true.

I can assure you that your opinion is in the minority.

Because most people hear Eldar and think scatterbike. Take scatterbikes, Wraithknights, Warp Spiders and Wraithguard out. Things aren't as blatantly broken as people make out.

Honestly, restricting flickerjump to 1/turn might just be a place to start, then adjust from there.

I also really hope that Wraith Lord 350ppm is meant to be the Knight, because there's no reason to nearly triple the cost of the Lord.

Um, yeah, for sure. A Wraithlord reduced down to S7/T7 should absolutely not be more expensive than the DE Talos: the Talos is S7/T7/W3/3+, and also has FNP. Almost nobody thinks it's seriously OP. It's not UP, either - one of those mostly-balanced oddballs: it has some trouble making it into CC, but is pretty devastating if it does.

 BossJakadakk wrote:
Honestly, restricting flickerjump to 1/turn might just be a place to start, then adjust from there.

I also really hope that Wraith Lord 350ppm is meant to be the Knight, because there's no reason to nearly triple the cost of the Lord.

You are absolutely right, that is a typo. Apologies.

So I'll say again as I did in the last thread:

Why should all Chapters now suddenly go against the Codex Adeptus Astartes and now change their numbers?

In terms of the tabletop, it may make some sense, but the problem with your solution is still two-fold:

-- You'd have to rewrite a whole lot of fluff.
-- The issue(s) that this increase in squad size would fix could be fixed via other means that don't break the fluff (e.g. Special Rules).

Also, why do Chaplains (in your iteration of rules) still have the Narthecium? It doesn't fit.

 IllumiNini wrote:
So I'll say again as I did in the last thread:

Why should all Chapters now suddenly go against the Codex Adeptus Astartes and now change their numbers?

In terms of the tabletop, it may make some sense, but the problem with your solution is still two-fold:

-- You'd have to rewrite a whole lot of fluff.
-- The issue(s) that this increase in squad size would fix could be fixed via other means that don't break the fluff (e.g. Special Rules).

Also, why do Chaplains (in your iteration of rules) still have the Narthecium? It doesn't fit.

Alright, i'll tell you what, you get 4 more people to agree with you and I'll take it both those rules out. (I know you already had a couple)

rrll wrote:
Alright, i'll tell you what, you get 5 more people to agree with you and I'll take it both those rules out. (I know you already had a couple)

In all honestly: I'm too lazy to do that. If people agree with me and care enough to comment on this thread, they'll comment eventually regardless of whether or not I can find 5 people who agree with me. Plus, if your approach to whether or not a rule is worth keening or can be improved upon is to get me to find 5 people who agree with me rather than genuinely consider what I (or anyone else) have suggested, then that suggests to me that not only are you not taking the feedback from myself or anyone else seriously, but you also seem to be more interested in people agreeing with you on your proposed rules rather than improving upon the rules.

On the topic of the rules: Why should these rules exist? Because no rule should exist simply because you want another rule. There has to be a purpose to it. So what is the purpose in breaking the fluff just so you can give Narthecium to Chaplain? What is the purpose of breaking the fluff to increase squad sizes? Because as I've said before: Chaplains don't need Narthecium (because you have Apothecaries for that, and it doesn't fit), and the issues that can be fixed using the numbers thing can also be fixed via other methods.

I agree with IllumiNini. Chaplains have no reason to have a narthecium, as it makes zero sense fluffwise for them to have those. Chaplains aren't healers, nor are they responsible for the harvest of geneseed from the fallen. That's always been a thing for the apothecary

>In all honestly: I'm too lazy to do that.

You cared about it enough to post about it 4 times in a row.

rrll wrote:
>In all honestly: I'm too lazy to do that.

You cared about it enough to post about it 4 times in a row.

So with this post, here's what you've done:

-- Made the assumption that just because I can be bothered posting, I can also can be bothered going around the forums fishing for support. This is 100% false.
-- -- Not only that: Why should I even have to proceed with your request in the first place?

-- You have ignored all the points I've raised simply because I don't meet your support requirements.
-- You've failed to provide any good reason(s) as to why Tactical Squads (and other Squads) need this Squad Size Increase.
-- You've failed to provide any good reason(s) as to why Chaplains require Narthecium.

This shows me that you're not posting these rules here because you're trying to develop good rules, but more so because you want validation for your rules. I cannot support you when all you're doing is seeking validation. Unless you can demonstrate that you are genuinely interested in listening suggestions and justifying your new rules, the best anyone can do is wish you luck.

Alright then, I'm just going set you to ignore until you can learn how to be civil. I took some thought and consideration in creating this list, and I don't really appreciate your tone. I do not agree with your repeated and redundant criticisms. I've stated why I made the change in the preface, I've stated why I think its in tone with the fluff and I've also stated why I disagree with you. Now you are basically resorting to ad homonim attacks and repeating the same argument over and over, even after I've updated the list with over a two dozen new items.

For what its worth, I decided to pull the 12 man squads from the list, not because of fluff reasons, but because of logistical ones. It would simply be too much effort to change everything and require a cascade of changes that would be far more trouble than they are worth. It also appears to be a fairly unpopular solution, and not simply among habitual detractors such as yourself. I've also pulled the narthecium from the Chaplain as well, more due to the general unpopular nature of the solution and less due to fluff reason which I feel I adequately explained my position on why I think it might be appropriate for a priest or clergy member to act as a healer.

So congratulations, you "won" the "argument". You took what I was hoping could be a constructive petition of needed changes to the fluff in a productive consensus building exercise and basically turned it into a gak flinging contest.

You "win".

rrll wrote:
a constructive petition of needed changes to the fluff in a productive consensus building exercise

Seriously?

It isn't constructive when you just ignore people...

Niether is being an obnoxious blowhard. Illumininni was getting on my nerves.

rrll wrote:
Niether is being an obnoxious blowhard. Illumininni was getting on my nerves.

Dude if you actually want to create a rule set people are going to play you're going to have to put your ego aside and actually take criticism

He wasn't criticizing my list, he was criticizing me. There is a difference. You guys were criticizing my list, which is why i changed it. You gotta learn how not to put up with that kind of gak. If you don't, people will just tear you down whenever you speak up.

No he was criticising the list and your methods there is a difference.

You've also got to learn to let some things slide otherwise people shove you out of life.

Let me tell you a little story...

http://proliberty.com/observer/20080703.htm

Wow, what a great attitude from the OP.

Fun story. I'm sure it was meant to mean something.

 curran12 wrote:
Wow, what a great attitude from the OP.

Your cynicism, it burns! It wounds me so! Oh, hath you no heart, rapacious scoundrel?!

Did I change the list or not?

rrll wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Wow, what a great attitude from the OP.

Your cynicism, it burns! It wounds me so! Oh, hath you no heart, rapacious scoundrel?!

Did I change the list or not?

After a while yes. Really the list should have been changed when you made the thread because a lot of the stuff in it were things you'd already been told shouldn't be there.