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 don't have a problem with monstrous creatures myself, but some people do. I've been toying in my mind some possible changes to MC- in particular, introducing an injury table.

Special rules:
Move through cover
Fear
Smash
Hammer of wrath
Feel no pain (6+)

The injury table operates pretty much identical to how a vehicle damage table functions. After the MC has made its saving throws, roll on the table to see if the MC suffers any additional affects.
The roll may be modified by the strength of the weapon much like the weapon ap modifies the vehicle table.
A weapon 2 of more points lower than the MC toughness gets a -2 roll on the table. 1 point less than toughness gets -1. Equal strength to toughness gets no modifiers. Strenght one point higher than toughness gets +1. Strength 2 points or higher gets +2 modifier to table.

Eg: a T6 MC fails it's saves against a S6 weapon; the roll is unmodified. S5 rolls at -1 and S4 at -2 on the table. The modifier cannot be made any worse than -2; so S3 will get a -2 roll on the table.
The reverse is true of higher strength weapons; T6 fails it's saves against a S7 weapon, there's a +1 modifier; S8 gets +2, the modifier gets no better than +2.

MC injury table. Roll a d6.

1: no additional affect.
2-3: Jarred. (Only snap fire.)
4: Stunned. (Only snap fire, half movement.)
5: Injured limb. (Loses a weapon like vehicle does.)
6: Crippled. (Loses move through cover. Treats open terrain as difficult terrain and difficult as difficult as dangerous terrain.
7: Killing Blow. (MC suffers instant death.

That's basically it. I was thinking MCs from the codex could have any other unique rules- like tyranid MC could be immune to affects of Jarred and Stunned.


Haven't got anything for FMC as that's flying stuff and that's a whole other can of worms. Really, swooping shouldn't get a jink save as its sacrificing g agility for speed. Glidi g gets jink as its sacrificing speed for agility.

GMC would operate same as MC on the injury table with the exception of ignoring affects of Jarred and Stunned. Killing blow instead removes d3 wounds.

Why do you hate Tyranids?

I don't hate them, I quite enjoy them- good in BBQ sauce

My purpose isn't to neuter the nids but try and create a core system that is sound for MC in general. If the nids suffer from it then that's an issue that can be tweaked within their codex.

Any Tyranid Monstrous creature now has a 1/3 chance of being instagibbed by a Krak Missile, excepting the Tyrannofex. Even with all factors (hitting, wounding, etc.) a BS 4 Krak Missile has a...

2/3 chance of hitting.
5/6 chance of wounding.
5/6 chance of getting through FNP.
1/3 chance of a 5+ on the injury table.

25/162, or 15% chance of one-shotting them. So a squad of Missile Devs-commonly considered a BAD CHOICE-will kill ANY Tyranid MC more than 50% of the time in a single shooting phase, and have a good chance of killing several, if they're squadded.

No, I think you're going about this the wrong way. Instead of making MCs worse, make vehicles better.

Nah, bring back the ole niddy rule of being immune to install death

So Tyranids now ignore everything but a 5 or 6, making a +2 potentially BAD since you can roll 7 or 8, which they ignore?

Or, another example-a Daemon Prince can be taken out in one shot by a Scatter Laser, or Assault Cannon. Does that make sense to you?

The problems of individual MC from various codeci are not what I'm trying to address. As I said, flavourful tweaks can be made inside the codex themselves. What I'm looking at is how they work at a basic core rule level.

Except the big user of MCs (Nids) would have to ignore basically ALL THIS or become worse than before, and probably the second most prolific users (Daemons) now have their Primo unit getting one-shotted by Assault Cannons and Scatter Lasers, and their bigger guys getting one-shotted by random plasma hits.

The issue is, methinks, that this change is going to cause more issues than it solves. You can't just modify a unit type and ignore what it effects.

Sorry, friend. I'm not sure I'm a fan of these proposals. Breaking it down...

Special Rules:
So same as now but with FNP(6+) thrown on? Eh. 6+s are nice when they kick in, but that's a pretty minor change. You're nerfing MCs overall, and I don't feel that ignoring 1 in 6 wounds (that don't have ID) is likely to be the exact tweak they need to balance things out. I'm not against 6+FNP, but I don't think it will have a huge impact most of the time.

Injury Table:
As has been pointed out by JNAProductions, killing blow makes life pretty rough (and short) for most MCs. Yes, you'll have a chance of one-shotting tha tpesky riptide, but you'll also nerf every tyranid MC, greater daemons, etc. into the ground.

The 1-6 results aren't nearly as problematic, but you're still nerfing a ton of units that don't need nerfing. Also, I'm not a huge fan of having to track additional damage effects. I'd actually rather we simplify or remove the vehicle damage rules rather than spread them out to even more units. That's mostly personal preference though.

I think the main problem here might be the premise. These rules are meant to nerf MCs, right? Then what is the reason for broadly nerfing MCs? Are you simply trying to tone down wraith knights and riptides? If so, that's probably better done with rules that target those problem units. As is, these rules make life more difficult for...

* The entire 'nid MC line
* Wraith lords
*Any daemon MC on foot
* Necron MCs
* The avatar of Ynnead
* The avatar of Khaine

Do any of those units, in your eyes, need to be nerfed? You say that units that are hurt by these rules should have their problems addressed within their own 'dexes, but that's a lot of units to modify just to offset the nerfs you've proposed. The MCs I here people complain about are...

FateWeaver
Magnus
Hive Tyrants
Wraith Knights
Riptides
Storm Surges

Other MCs, in my experience, are generally considered to be either fine where they're at or in need of buffing, and half of those get a lot less scary if you address the issues with flyers. What units not on that list do you consider in need of a nerf?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Giantwalkingchair wrote:
The problems of individual MC from various codeci are not what I'm trying to address. As I said, flavourful tweaks can be made inside the codex themselves. What I'm looking at is how they work at a basic core rule level.

"I'd like to propose that all psykers and infantry models have a 30% chance of dying before deployment because being a psyker is dangerous, and so is walking around in the hellscapes of the 41st millenium. We can balance out individual units from there." </snark>

Wyldhunt wrote:
Sorry, friend. I'm not sure I'm a fan of these proposals. Breaking it down...

Special Rules:
So same as now but with FNP(6+) thrown on? Eh. 6+s are nice when they kick in, but that's a pretty minor change. You're nerfing MCs overall, and I don't feel that ignoring 1 in 6 wounds (that don't have ID) is likely to be the exact tweak they need to balance things out. I'm not against 6+FNP, but I don't think it will have a huge impact most of the time.

Injury Table:
As has been pointed out by JNAProductions, killing blow makes life pretty rough (and short) for most MCs. Yes, you'll have a chance of one-shotting tha tpesky riptide, but you'll also nerf every tyranid MC, greater daemons, etc. into the ground.

The 1-6 results aren't nearly as problematic, but you're still nerfing a ton of units that don't need nerfing. Also, I'm not a huge fan of having to track additional damage effects. I'd actually rather we simplify or remove the vehicle damage rules rather than spread them out to even more units. That's mostly personal preference though.

I think the main problem here might be the premise. These rules are meant to nerf MCs, right? Then what is the reason for broadly nerfing MCs? Are you simply trying to tone down wraith knights and riptides? If so, that's probably better done with rules that target those problem units. As is, these rules make life more difficult for...

* The entire 'nid MC line
* Wraith lords
*Any daemon MC on foot
* Necron MCs
* The avatar of Ynnead
* The avatar of Khaine

Do any of those units, in your eyes, need to be nerfed? You say that units that are hurt by these rules should have their problems addressed within their own 'dexes, but that's a lot of units to modify just to offset the nerfs you've proposed. The MCs I here people complain about are...

FateWeaver
Magnus
Hive Tyrants
Wraith Knights
Riptides
Storm Surges

Other MCs, in my experience, are generally considered to be either fine where they're at or in need of buffing, and half of those get a lot less scary if you address the issues with flyers. What units not on that list do you consider in need of a nerf?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Giantwalkingchair wrote:
The problems of individual MC from various codeci are not what I'm trying to address. As I said, flavourful tweaks can be made inside the codex themselves. What I'm looking at is how they work at a basic core rule level.

"I'd like to propose that all psykers and infantry models have a 30% chance of dying before deployment because being a psyker is dangerous, and so is walking around in the hellscapes of the 41st millenium. We can balance out individual units from there." </snark>

Well consensus seems to come across that MC are fine (something I think anyways) but just a handful of evils ruining the good name of a fair unit type.
Granted the insta death option is a swift kick to the gonads but as I said, the table was pretty much a copy paste if the vehicle chart.

I've mentioned this before but our group tried a damage table once for 3+ wound models that when reduced to half or less were incapacitated somewhat. But too many either forget to use it or didn't like the extra bookkeeping. So we use a critical hit system instead:

If you roll a 6 when attempting to wound a multi-wound model, you may declare you are going for a critical hit. If you roll to wound again successfully, the model takes D3 wounds. If the second roll fails, it takes no wounds.

I would just propose this.

Leave the MC alone, instead find a way to make vehicles just as reliable and tanky

First i would get rid of the STUPID HP system for normal vehicles (Note how i said normal)

Make it the old vehicle system except it is the current damage table (a.k.a a 7 Explodes, that's it. If a vehicle loses all it's weps and is immobilized then it's a wreck)

Super heavy will keep the HP system but only lose 1 HP on a 7 and D3 HP on a 8+

Destroyers can get a +2 dmg modifier in addition to AP

This way vehicles will feel immensely more powerful than the cruddy system we have atm, and can tank through most non anti tank things.

Since the glancing will be the old 5th edition (-1 to dmg table) you wont be able to explode the vehicle but can still glance it to death by taking out everything (No weps goes to an imm, so you can still wreck anything except SH)

So vehicle rules suck. They don't function like anything else in the game. It's more rolling on random charts for random effects.

So what do we see suggested all the time? Make more things work like vehicles.

Why?

We shouldn't be making things work like vehicles. We should be making vehicles work like everything else.

I think among other others we should be giving walkers smash and move through cover.
Why does a vehicle need a melee weapon in order to get AP2, but MCs just get it?

Do NOT leave MCs alone. Low ROF , high Str weapons should inflict mulitple wounds and remove FNP off of MCs. You seriously think that the hammerhead rail gun is going to do one wound? MCs and GMCs should have to test for instant death vs D weapons as well. In return, some MCs should get cheaper and many should gain extra wounds to make them make a whole lot more sense. Under this kind of system, Carnifex could have 8-10 wounds, but the hammerhead rail gun inflicts 4 at a time.

Martel732 wrote:
Do NOT leave MCs alone. Low ROF , high Str weapons should inflict mulitple wounds and remove FNP off of MCs. You seriously think that the hammerhead rail gun is going to do one wound? MCs and GMCs should have to test for instant death vs D weapons as well. In return, some MCs should get cheaper and many should gain extra wounds to make them make a whole lot more sense. Under this kind of system, Carnifex could have 8-10 wounds, but the hammerhead rail gun inflicts 4 at a time.

That would be a lot easier with an overhaul of how high-strength weaponary functions work than a change to MCs.

MCs should be models with a very high toughness and multiple wounds. However, they should not combine that with 2+ armor or good invulns, because they then become immune to low RoF high Str weapons.
A wraithlord with T8 is immune to small firearm (as it should), but with 3W and no invul, it dies quickly to lascannons (as it should).
A Riptide is only T6, but with 5W and usually a good invul and FNP, it becomes mostly insensible to lascannons.
The wraithlord is an example of an "old school" MC, whereas the riptide is a more recent "power creep" era one. I don't think a change to all MCs would do any good, because there is too much imbalance within the MC category.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Do NOT leave MCs alone. Low ROF , high Str weapons should inflict mulitple wounds and remove FNP off of MCs. You seriously think that the hammerhead rail gun is going to do one wound? MCs and GMCs should have to test for instant death vs D weapons as well. In return, some MCs should get cheaper and many should gain extra wounds to make them make a whole lot more sense. Under this kind of system, Carnifex could have 8-10 wounds, but the hammerhead rail gun inflicts 4 at a time.

That would be a lot easier with an overhaul of how high-strength weaponary functions work than a change to MCs.

Indeed. That's one of the way AoS deals with big creatures. A weapon that deals 3 damages can remove up to three wounds on a single model if it causes an unsaved wound. So it would make a MC loose three wounds, but would still kill a single guardsman. It would make things like lascannon good against MCs, without buffing them against infantry, which would avoid the "scattlaser effect" (where high Str high RoF becomes good against pretty much everything).
But only a new edition could bring this type of change.

I still can't get over hammerhead railgun deals one wound. Absurd. Suspension of disbelief breaking levels of absurd.

Martel732 wrote:
I still can't get over hammerhead railgun deals one wound. Absurd. Suspension of disbelief breaking levels of absurd.

"wound" does not mean "tanked a railgun shot to center mass with no issue". If it helps just assume the shot hit the carapace or something (or hell, that it was a clean miss and the wound was from the round's windshear).

 Battlegrinder wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I still can't get over hammerhead railgun deals one wound. Absurd. Suspension of disbelief breaking levels of absurd.

"wound" does not mean "tanked a railgun shot to center mass with no issue". If it helps just assume the shot hit the carapace or something (or hell, that it was a clean miss and the wound was from the round's windshear).

Taking a wound means that you took a wound. It's not "it hit the carapace or something".

Railguns, battle cannons, etc are busted this edition thanks to the simple fact that they don't cause multiple wounds. They should have been fixed at the outset of 7th, or given a rule that allowed them to cause multiple wounds since those weapons that can't instagib monsters can instawreck--if not cause an Explodes result--on many vehicles.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I still can't get over hammerhead railgun deals one wound. Absurd. Suspension of disbelief breaking levels of absurd.

"wound" does not mean "tanked a railgun shot to center mass with no issue". If it helps just assume the shot hit the carapace or something (or hell, that it was a clean miss and the wound was from the round's windshear).

So i can never "hit" an mc? Not a convincing argument.

Kanluwen wrote:

 Battlegrinder wrote:
Taking a wound means that you took a wound. It's not "it hit the carapace or something".

Railguns, battle cannons, etc are busted this edition thanks to the simple fact that they don't cause multiple wounds. They should have been fixed at the outset of 7th, or given a rule that allowed them to cause multiple wounds since those weapons that can't instagib monsters can instawreck--if not cause an Explodes result--on many vehicles.

I get that aspect of it (recent loser of lascannons v mawloc battle), that was more in response to the Suspension of Disbelief bit.

Sorry, the Riptide soaking more firepower than a Warhound titan already broke SoD for me.

Martel732 wrote:
Sorry, the Riptide soaking more firepower than a Warhound titan already broke SoD for me.

I'm sorry I bothered responding. Fine, go back to endlessly whining about MCs.

Sorry I was obnoxious. This topic is very troublesome for me.

MCs cannot be fixed with a blanket approach.
No matter how you reduce them the lower end ones (my poor nids) just get even worse.

The higher end ones are still good.


They just need repointing badly.
That's the only real way to fix them properly.

 Jackal wrote:
MCs cannot be fixed with a blanket approach.
No matter how you reduce them the lower end ones (my poor nids) just get even worse.

The higher end ones are still good.


They just need repointing badly.
That's the only real way to fix them properly.

As I've said many times, miscosted units are the worst part of the game, not the actual rules. Want supremacy armor? Great! Pay 900+ for it and I won't care.

Martel - I'm with you 100% bud.

Blanket approach is hopeless as it'd never work fairly throughout the board.

Repoint all models as they should be and job done.

The turmoil with terminators and some other problems units is that they are VERY difficult to point because of lack of balance of offense/ defense(terminators), hit or miss nature (some Ork units) or other various reasons.

But it's CLEAR that there are several often-spammed units that are clearly undercosted.

Exactly.
Fexs weren't even spammed when you could gear them up at 113 points or less.
That was what, 2 books ago?

Ever since then they have been over costed.


I just find it strange that's nids are the most MC orientated army in the game, yet all bar 1 of them is stupidly over priced for what they do.
(Flyrant being the exception here)