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.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Imperial Guard. The entire Codex.

Wouldn't that end up getting fixed if they made vehicles not gak?

Nah..... they also have a problem that they pay SM prices for infantry heavy weapons.... that miss more often and die too easily. I understand why they made HW teams a 2W model (originally they were two separate models), but it actually makes them worse rather than better. Also footslogging guard isn't really much of an option these days plus most of their specialist infantry units (ratlings, scions, orgryns etc) might as well be left at home. Another issue also being their basic weapons haven't kept up with the meta at all. Guard are effectively almost identical to what they were like in 3rd with a couple of flyers, wyverns and orders added.

I would say Nid's, Ork, CSM and Guard all need help. Nid's need a complete rework, Guard have great internal balance but have extreme external balance issues, Orks need tweeks to stats, points etc, with CSM being in the worst spot. I wouldn't say they need a complete rework nid style, but need a combination of what Nids, Orks and Guard all need.

Vehicles are in an odd spot tbh. I think we can all agree they need help, but we also have issues such as the traditional AT weapons (aka lascannon etc) are no longer reliable at knocking out vehicles. Krak missiles for example are even worse seeing they're only AP3!

Glances need to be made weaker. I'm not sure I totally agree with GMR when he says stop it's ability to strip hull points unless they roll a 6. Glances should totally stun and shaken results, but massed fire needs to be capable of destroying lighter vehicles. However one of the main issues facing vehicles is how CC affects them, hit's to rear armour should not be automatic and everyone has thought this for a long time now.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
However one of the main issues facing vehicles is how CC affects them, hit's to rear armour should not be automatic and everyone has thought this for a long time now.

I don't In fact, I'm vehemently against removing hitting back armor in CC, for a reason you yourself stated: Massed fire needs to be capable of destroying lighter vehicles. Since normal units can only ever get a better melee weapon on the sarge and a power fists costs more than two meltaguns, being able to deal with vehicles with basic attacks has to happen. Otherwise, you need vehicles to be able to be locked in combat or not have assault units be forced to make the shortest distance when assaulting, or assault armies will end up needing dedicated elite assault units to deal with anything tougher than a rhino.

Albeit most dedicated CC armies have option towards rending etc. It personally seems funny to me that a single sergeant with a powerfist that gets close to a few tanks, can quite easily knock all of them out with little to no effort. If you're truly swarming tanks, you should have guys swinging near the near armour anyway. Plus my point for massed fire is more addressing basic arms vs vehicles no better than civilian cars.... by comparison you have guys hitting battle tanks and knocking them out as easily as Trukks.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I always wondered why GW has been so resistant to making the medium Tyranid bugs T5. There's a fairly logical progression from T3 Gaunts to T4 Genestealers, then T6 Tyrants and T7 Carnifexes. But, there's a gap where T5 ought to be, and the midsized bugs are bigger than Stealers but smaller than Tyrants, so you'd think T5 would be logical for them. Instead, they're T4, and occasionally have BS rules exempting them from Instant Death because GW won't do the logical thing and just make them T5.

You know? That's a damn fine point. Warriors wouldn't be fearing Krak Missiles or Battlecannons at T5.

The main problem there is that I think warriors would then experience a further price hike. Outside of instant death issues of being T4, I think T4 suits them. But then again eternal warrior would be too OP, especially vs S9 + S10 weapons, realistically they should be T4 with T4.5 in terms of instant death which is impossible. So I suppose T5 would be the best solution :/

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I always wondered why GW has been so resistant to making the medium Tyranid bugs T5. There's a fairly logical progression from T3 Gaunts to T4 Genestealers, then T6 Tyrants and T7 Carnifexes. But, there's a gap where T5 ought to be, and the midsized bugs are bigger than Stealers but smaller than Tyrants, so you'd think T5 would be logical for them. Instead, they're T4, and occasionally have BS rules exempting them from Instant Death because GW won't do the logical thing and just make them T5.

You know? That's a damn fine point. Warriors wouldn't be fearing Krak Missiles or Battlecannons at T5.

The main problem there is that I think warriors would then experience a further price hike. Outside of instant death issues of being T4, I think T4 suits them. But then again eternal warrior would be too OP, especially vs S9 + S10 weapons, realistically they should be T4 with T4.5 in terms of instant death which is impossible. So I suppose T5 would be the best solution :/

T4 is a marine. T5 is a centurion. Think about the size of the Warrior, to which one is closer?

Size isn't a measure of toughness, there's a reason they're 3W and fluff wise I think T4 suits them perfectly fine. They're not suppose to be tanky units, but yes they're suppose to be tough. The problem is they're already 30 ppm, make them T5 and they're going to be extremely tough units to remove from the table and I'd imagine they're also experience a price hike. Against small arms fire or even Krak Missiles I'm perfectly fine with them being T4, it's just vs blasts in all honesty that it ruins the unit which is made worse by the fact most large blasts are S8-10.

Panzerkanzler wrote:
I'm a bit worried. I recently bought some DKoK and now that 8th edition is soon to arrive I wonder what that will change. GW will probably pump out the popular codexes fairly promptly but FW aren't known, is my impression at least, of releasing updated books in a timely manner. It would suck severely to have a totally outdated army book (assault brigade) when the next edition is released.

In all honesty this is why I don't think an extreme 40k revamp would happen. Sure with fantasy they produced army lists, but most of them were extremely limited. By comparison for 40K they would be required to release all the main army books on release of 8th.... unless "shock horror"... they do what they did in 3rd and include them all in the main rulebook.

In terms of forgeworld books.... we still have some from 5th edition...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
By comparison for 40K they would be required to release all the main army books on release of 8th.... unless "shock horror"awesomesauce... they do what they did in 3rd and include them all in the main rulebook.

FTFY. Rulebook lists would rule.

I have to admit it was awesome in 3rd.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
Get rid of "tactical 6" abilities like D, stomp, etc that completely change the course of a game in a single roll.

Hold on there, hoss. Thorpian 6s are one of the few good things about 40k. Stomp 6, in particular, is completely necessary to counter Deathstars.

Well some of the main features of deathstars need to be removed. Some of the unit/terrain swapping and invisi' powers especially.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
TBF, Leman Russes are over priced.
The game should really go back to how it was in 4th ed, with mostly infantry supported by some vehicles.
I would make all vehicles more expensive, but much tougher to compensate.

I think if you had a list of bullet points stating what is wrong with 40k currently, say vehicles are OP would not be one of them. Vehicle strong lists actually need to be made competitive tbh.