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.

So the poor Guard, probably won't get their codex until later this year, maybe even later. So for my gaming group I wanted to come up with some houserules to boost them up a bit and I'd like to get some feedback:

So one of our guys likes to bring a baneblade (which is awsome by the way), but that thing is waay too expensive for what it does, so I wanted to give it a little boost:
- 2+ save. Let's be honest, it makes no sense whatsoever that the Leman Russ got a 2+ save and the Baneblade still has a 3+.
- T9: so my reasoning for T9 is simply that I don't think an invulnerable save would fit the Baneblade. Invulns usually represents a forcefield or superb reflexes or something along those lines. The baneblade doesn't have any of these things and it shouldn't have. It's a steel behemoth and that should imo be represented by the higher durability of T9 (or a LOT more wounds).
- if the baneblade get's hit by an attack with S8 or less, subtract 1 from the damage characteristic of that attack. So this mainly buffs the Baneblade against melee attacks and incidental fire, the really juicy anti tank weapons will not be affected by this anyway, but it still boosts the overall survivability.

The focus here is obviously durability, because the Baneblade still only hits on a 4+ and I would not change that. So the output is always going to be somewhat swingy, but due to the higher durability, you have more chances for the baneblade to actually contribute to the game, because right now it doesn't shoot very well and also just dies really, really quickly.

The Leman Russ recently got buffed to a 2+ save, but I'd go a bit further:
- if the Leman Russ ge's hit by an attack with S7 or less, subtract 1 from the damage characteristic of that attack. So basically just ramshackle. So like with the baneblade this helps against melee and some shooting weapons, but the really good anti tank weapons still do full damage. But it is still an overall boost in durability.

We were also debating on just simply ignoring the 10p increase on the Manticore. Because yes, the Manticore is good, but Guard is in such a rough spot, that this nerf really feels unwarranted.

I dig it. Personally, I think that all super-heavies (knights, tanks, etc) should have the built in -1 damage that dreads have. Making it similar to the orks "ramshackle" rule is intriguing... but do we really need that limitation?

A house rule that some of my FLGS people use is to automatically give the super-heavy tanks the effects of that strategem where they can melee hit on a 2+ for any turn where they successfully charge. I mean, if a vehicle that big tries to run you over: it's probably going to have an easy time of it!

I've got a simple one for you. I call it the Quick Fix. 4 pages, basically my version of a MFM covering both Codex and FW units. Has a brief Errata to fix a couple of issues. Also has an FAQ I'm happy to answer questions on.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ecPe8-VzGW9L4uP_1VUVv_Tlpp_M2imgmtpVLd4_8Ng/edit?usp=sharing

I tried to be as balanced and reasonable as possible.

Nice data sheet! A bit more than just the super-heavies, but I really appreciate the amount of work that went into it :-)

Exalted!

Jarms48 wrote:
I've got a simple one for you. I call it the Quick Fix. 4 pages, basically my version of a MFM covering both Codex and FW units. Has a brief Errata to fix a couple of issues. Also has an FAQ I'm happy to answer questions on.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ecPe8-VzGW9L4uP_1VUVv_Tlpp_M2imgmtpVLd4_8Ng/edit?usp=sharing

I tried to be as balanced and reasonable as possible.

Might I suggest re-formatting to just "-Xpts" instead of the verbose and visually distracting "Down X points" on every entry? You might also reduce the border margins to allow your text columns to be a little wider.

Tiberias wrote:

So one of our guys likes to bring a baneblade (which is awsome by the way), but that thing is waay too expensive for what it does, so I wanted to give it a little boost:
- 2+ save. Let's be honest, it makes no sense whatsoever that the Leman Russ got a 2+ save and the Baneblade still has a 3+.
- T9: so my reasoning for T9 is simply that I don't think an invulnerable save would fit the Baneblade. Invulns usually represents a forcefield or superb reflexes or something along those lines. The baneblade doesn't have any of these things and it shouldn't have. It's a steel behemoth and that should imo be represented by the higher durability of T9 (or a LOT more wounds).
- if the baneblade get's hit by an attack with S8 or less, subtract 1 from the damage characteristic of that attack. So this mainly buffs the Baneblade against melee attacks and incidental fire, the really juicy anti tank weapons will not be affected by this anyway, but it still boosts the overall survivability.

The focus here is obviously durability, because the Baneblade still only hits on a 4+ and I would not change that. So the output is always going to be somewhat swingy, but due to the higher durability, you have more chances for the baneblade to actually contribute to the game, because right now it doesn't shoot very well and also just dies really, really quickly.

This is probably reasonable. You may or may not have to tweak the point slightly, but it's reasonable. That said, this does specifically nerf mid-strength D>1 weapons against a chunky unit. So if the baneblade's opponent was fielding a lot of HYMP, disintegrators, certain plasma variants, etc. to be a big part of his anti-tank, these changes risk turning the IG player's army into an extra skewy skew list. Not a unique problem, but something to look out for.

If the problem being solved is that the baneblade is too fragile for its cost, two very simple solutions might be:
A.) Lower its points cost.
B.) Just give it more wounds.
A makes the unit more cost effective without changing its actual performance. B increases its durability without making players remember an altered armor save or a damage reduction ability that only kicks in some of the time. Is there any particular reason you want to go for a more complicated solution rather than one of these two options?

The Leman Russ recently got buffed to a 2+ save, but I'd go a bit further:
- if the Leman Russ ge's hit by an attack with S7 or less, subtract 1 from the damage characteristic of that attack. So basically just ramshackle. So like with the baneblade this helps against melee and some shooting weapons, but the really good anti tank weapons still do full damage. But it is still an overall boost in durability.

Meh. I'm not sure there's anything about a leman russ that makes it deserve a unique damage reduction mechanic. They aren't "ramshackle" the way ork vehicles are; capable of losing lots of bits and bobs without impacting any major systems. They aren't made of especially impressive space metal or equipped with an eldar serpent shield. They're among the most baseline metal box tanks in the setting. If a leman russ deserves a special defensive rule, what tank in the game doesn't?

Again, if you're basically just trying to make russes more cost-effective, why not just lower their cost? Heck, if guard are in as bad a position as you say, maybe just give your guard friend 15% extra army points or something.

 RustyNumber wrote:

Might I suggest re-formatting to just "-Xpts" instead of the verbose and visually distracting "Down X points" on every entry? You might also reduce the border margins to allow your text columns to be a little wider.

That's a good idea.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

So one of our guys likes to bring a baneblade (which is awsome by the way), but that thing is waay too expensive for what it does, so I wanted to give it a little boost:
- 2+ save. Let's be honest, it makes no sense whatsoever that the Leman Russ got a 2+ save and the Baneblade still has a 3+.
- T9: so my reasoning for T9 is simply that I don't think an invulnerable save would fit the Baneblade. Invulns usually represents a forcefield or superb reflexes or something along those lines. The baneblade doesn't have any of these things and it shouldn't have. It's a steel behemoth and that should imo be represented by the higher durability of T9 (or a LOT more wounds).
- if the baneblade get's hit by an attack with S8 or less, subtract 1 from the damage characteristic of that attack. So this mainly buffs the Baneblade against melee attacks and incidental fire, the really juicy anti tank weapons will not be affected by this anyway, but it still boosts the overall survivability.

The focus here is obviously durability, because the Baneblade still only hits on a 4+ and I would not change that. So the output is always going to be somewhat swingy, but due to the higher durability, you have more chances for the baneblade to actually contribute to the game, because right now it doesn't shoot very well and also just dies really, really quickly.

This is probably reasonable. You may or may not have to tweak the point slightly, but it's reasonable. That said, this does specifically nerf mid-strength D>1 weapons against a chunky unit. So if the baneblade's opponent was fielding a lot of HYMP, disintegrators, certain plasma variants, etc. to be a big part of his anti-tank, these changes risk turning the IG player's army into an extra skewy skew list. Not a unique problem, but something to look out for.

If the problem being solved is that the baneblade is too fragile for its cost, two very simple solutions might be:
A.) Lower its points cost.
B.) Just give it more wounds.
A makes the unit more cost effective without changing its actual performance. B increases its durability without making players remember an altered armor save or a damage reduction ability that only kicks in some of the time. Is there any particular reason you want to go for a more complicated solution rather than one of these two options?

The Leman Russ recently got buffed to a 2+ save, but I'd go a bit further:
- if the Leman Russ ge's hit by an attack with S7 or less, subtract 1 from the damage characteristic of that attack. So basically just ramshackle. So like with the baneblade this helps against melee and some shooting weapons, but the really good anti tank weapons still do full damage. But it is still an overall boost in durability.

Meh. I'm not sure there's anything about a leman russ that makes it deserve a unique damage reduction mechanic. They aren't "ramshackle" the way ork vehicles are; capable of losing lots of bits and bobs without impacting any major systems. They aren't made of especially impressive space metal or equipped with an eldar serpent shield. They're among the most baseline metal box tanks in the setting. If a leman russ deserves a special defensive rule, what tank in the game doesn't?

Again, if you're basically just trying to make russes more cost-effective, why not just lower their cost? Heck, if guard are in as bad a position as you say, maybe just give your guard friend 15% extra army points or something.

Lowering the points is always a solution for such a problem, but I am not a fan of it. The goal here is for the guard player to feel like his tanks are not made of paper. If we lower the points cost, he'll be able to fit more other good stuff in his lists and that's fine, but that does not change the fact that the baneblade does not feel like the steel behemoth it is supposed to be. By buffing the rules of the baneblade, he might have more fun bringing it again.

Also giving out extra army points is a good idea. We already ignore the 10p nerf on the manticore.