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.

 Elbows wrote:
Vehicles seem to be stuck in a bad place. While the game follows older codexes, the AV is pretty much max'ed at 13-14 for most things (since that used to be good). With the constant weapons race flying into the stratosphere soon we'll have every soldier in the game with a Strength 8, AP1 rifle, etc.

If armour doesn't get better, and weapons continue to get more and more ridiculous, then all armour/vehicles will become increasingly useless/targeted.

(Sarcasm) But that's what Jink and Cover are for, because, you know, the biggest things in the game should definately be hiding from the little infantry guys. That's just how it works. (End Sarcasm)

Honestly, I agree. Hull points work fine. They should have been a replacement, not an addition, to the table. Get rid of the vehicle damage table; then they can be more on par with MC's. But I think the AV is fine. Tanks do not need an extra roll step. You either get AV or you get armor saves. Not both. And if in Cover, vehicles are already at an advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also agree with acting on initiative or alternative phases instead if your turn/my turn. Makes things more realistic.

How would they make their own special characters and not just make them as omgsocool as the last one? Giving free reign to the player base on making their own special characters with traits and etc. would require more work than it's worth. You can already customize most HQs anyways.

I'm note really saying they should let you make your own special character just more different options for characters over all so we have more freedom to create personalized characters.
They could do this a few ways, One might be having several lists of wargear and weapons that only "your" character can use. I'd like that as a one off supplement covering every army if not in my codex. I don't agree that it would be more work than it's worth at all. We buy the codex and pay too much for what's not in them. Because they'ed rather stick a bunch of photos in them that fill them with useful and interesting things.

And 40k isn't a galactic scale game, it can very easily be justified that Dante is on a crusade with like a company of space marines or something, it makes a lot of sense that chapter master could be "in every single battle ever".

The point I ws making seems to have been..missed? maybe. Ok, so you play the same player all the time and they always bring a special character. In my experience it's always I like this one because it does this for my army, but I really couldn't care less which one it is and don't even know the characters name and haven't bothered to read about the character. I'm all for neutering that kind of thing. But that's just how I see it.

And your SW friend is cheating, 1 relic per detachment. And how are wargear cards any different than relics in most cases? Sounds like you just want better ork relics.

My SW friend I don't think was cheating given the wording in the codex. However, now with the faq I can see how he should be doing it.
As far as Me and relics go, I'm not really sure. I didn't even use any for the first two years( is it past two years now?.. can't remember) Just started using them this year or late last year. feels like I've hardly used them. My point is there's a small list of relics for each army and I think there should be more options which could be put in the rule book, like warlord traits.
But I'll take a fat stack of Wargear cards and Strategy cards over that.
It seems sad to me that on forums players are beating the drums of it's this one or that one don't bother with the rest.
Isn't it a problem if we as players look at our list of relics and only ever choose one or two from the list?
I'd either come up with a better way or just amputate.
"Sorry lads, dat list's ave ta go."

 Red_Ink_Cat wrote:
Honestly, I agree. Hull points work fine. They should have been a replacement, not an addition, to the table. Get rid of the vehicle damage table; then they can be more on par with MC's. But I think the AV is fine. Tanks do not need an extra roll step. You either get AV or you get armor saves. Not both. And if in Cover, vehicles are already at an advantage.

Dare you suggest that GW overuse random tables? That sounds like HERESY

 ShieldBrother wrote:
...How would they make their own special characters and not just make them as omgsocool as the last one? Giving free reign to the player base on making their own special characters with traits and etc. would require more work than it's worth. You can already customize most HQs anyways...

A better solution would be to stop gutting generic characters' options to make special characters more special. Coteaz' interceptor shot used to be the function of a guy in the Henchmen warband before they took it away to make him more unique (you also used to be able to get generic ML2 Inquisitors with artificer armour before they took that away).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warhead01 wrote:

And your SW friend is cheating, 1 relic per detachment. And how are wargear cards any different than relics in most cases? Sounds like you just want better ork relics.

My SW friend I don't think was cheating given the wording in the codex. However, now with the faq I can see how he should be doing it.
As far as Me and relics go, I'm not really sure. I didn't even use any for the first two years( is it past two years now?.. can't remember) Just started using them this year or late last year. feels like I've hardly used them. My point is there's a small list of relics for each army and I think there should be more options which could be put in the rule book, like warlord traits.
But I'll take a fat stack of Wargear cards and Strategy cards over that.
It seems sad to me that on forums players are beating the drums of it's this one or that one don't bother with the rest.
Isn't it a problem if we as players look at our list of relics and only ever choose one or two from the list?
I'd either come up with a better way or just amputate.
"Sorry lads, dat list's ave ta go."

The 'Relics' are a weird design decision in the first place. Before 6e normal power weapons/power fists/et cetera were judged sufficient for most characters (I've been poking through some old Codexes out of curiosity and the Special Characters in the 4e Space Marines Codex had either generic weapons or master-crafted generic weapons (except for Shrike, who has...a master-crafted generic weapon with Rending)), and there was a 'Special-Issue Wargear' section that had useful and interesting non-unique support items. These days 'Special-Issue Wargear' has been stripped down to mounts and meltabombs, everyone and their mother has 'unique' melee weapons, and 'special characters' are loaded with piles of unique toys and rules stolen from the masses.

 DarkBlack wrote:

 Red_Ink_Cat wrote:
Honestly, I agree. Hull points work fine. They should have been a replacement, not an addition, to the table. Get rid of the vehicle damage table; then they can be more on par with MC's. But I think the AV is fine. Tanks do not need an extra roll step. You either get AV or you get armor saves. Not both. And if in Cover, vehicles are already at an advantage.

Dare you suggest that GW overuse random tables? That sounds like HERESY

Please roll on *BLAM* table to see results.

But seriously the vehicle system is a mess currently as HP, lack of saves, and damage table royally hose standard vehicles. I am a huge proponent of vehicles getting armor saves to help make anti vehicle weapons the better option relative to the high strength AP- spam or volume of fire HP stripping weapons like gauss. Damage table is gak when it overlaps with the HP system but outright removing it is a bit more tricky when weapons like Meltas bank on explosions. I like the concept of the damage table shaking the crew and damaging weapons but the execution and how it impacts combat vehicles makes currently bad.

 Vankraken wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

 Red_Ink_Cat wrote:
Honestly, I agree. Hull points work fine. They should have been a replacement, not an addition, to the table. Get rid of the vehicle damage table; then they can be more on par with MC's. But I think the AV is fine. Tanks do not need an extra roll step. You either get AV or you get armor saves. Not both. And if in Cover, vehicles are already at an advantage.

Dare you suggest that GW overuse random tables? That sounds like HERESY

Please roll on *BLAM* table to see results.

But seriously the vehicle system is a mess currently as HP, lack of saves, and damage table royally hose standard vehicles. I am a huge proponent of vehicles getting armor saves to help make anti vehicle weapons the better option relative to the high strength AP- spam or volume of fire HP stripping weapons like gauss. Damage table is gak when it overlaps with the HP system but outright removing it is a bit more tricky when weapons like Meltas bank on explosions. I like the concept of the damage table shaking the crew and damaging weapons but the execution and how it impacts combat vehicles makes currently bad.

This is a constant argument over on Proposed Rules. Personally I'm a proponent of increasing hull points and decreasing the spammability of mid-Strength weapons as a quick patch; absent scatterbikes and the like hull points become a solution to the 4e problem of throwing ten melta hits into a Falcon and just Shaking it instead of a new problem.

Being able to run and assault as standard or assault out of a vehicle without the assault transport special rule, I'm ok with it being disordered but the waiting around to get shot is so frustrating.

You always get less out of assault units in comparison to shootingif only because they lay on the hurt T1 onwards whilst you can spend 2/3 turns trying to get into close combat (almost half the game damn it!)

Pick&Pay for psychic powers
Have vehicles with an armour save (3+ super/heavy, 4+ standard, 5+ open topped)
Play more games against people with superheavies

Relics are.... Well they vary.
On the one hand some are amazingly good (looking at you Shield Eternal and Burning Blade) such as the Marine ones (and probably the Eldar and tau ones, but I havnt encountered those.)
On the other hand some are medicore at best (Death Mask of Ollinaius Pious) to just plain bad (the Tactical Auto-Reliquary of Tiberius) like the Guard relics.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Relics are.... Well they vary.
On the one hand some are amazingly good (looking at you Shield Eternal and Burning Blade) such as the Marine ones (and probably the Eldar and tau ones, but I havnt encountered those.)
On the other hand some are medicore at best (Death Mask of Ollinaius Pious) to just plain bad (the Tactical Auto-Reliquary of Tiberius) like the Guard relics.

Eldar have one good Relic (the Spirit Stone of Anath'lan), three Relics that are there to trap you into trying to kit an Autarch out for melee, one that's funny but not particularly useful (Faolchu's Wing: 30pts to run 48" if you didn't shoot or use psychic powers and reroll cover saves for the turn. Or you could take a Jetbike for 15pts and run 36" after casting powers.), and a couple of mediocre guns (an AP3 sniper rifle and an AP3 shuriken pistol).

Yes, there's a bit of the Craftworld book that's not broken as *bleep*. Shock and horror.

Silly question for a non-player. What is a relic? How is it different from a wargear card?

 Elbows wrote:
Silly question for a non-player. What is a relic? How is it different from a wargear card?

A unique piece of wargear that does something special. EG, the Shield Eternal is a Storm Shield that gives the wielder Eternal Warrior, the Burning Blade is a Power Sword that is Master Crafted, AP 2 and gives the user +2 strength, but inflicts a wound on them on a D6 roll of a 1.

It's like the same idea as a wargear card. A few are weapons, armour, banners, or something special, that kinda thing. Each codex only having say 6 or so. A character, normally can have only one from the list and or only one in total.
Armies are limited in their selection to those from their codex and supplements. Depending.
This means some armies may have access to more choices than others. Unlike the Wargear cards where it was more or less a pool of things and most every army had access to them as well as to those for their own army.
Hope that sums it up.

A power fist is better for the captain than the burning blade anyway. You only need one relic to make captain smashfether.

One thing I always felt would be "interesting" (if not necessarily conducive to gameplay) would be if 40k allowed the ability to model proper barrage fire. Not the "no LOS shooting" in the current game, so much as the ability to concentrate fire at a particular area to deny movement (aka "box barrages/curtain barrages").

The other thing that always irked me was the way "Tank Shock" is purely based on unit type, rather than relative size of models being displaced. A Rhino can push a Riptide out of the way, but a Land Raider comes to a halt when it rams a Warbuggy. Having Tank Shocking/Ramming being a "displace the model based on relative unit sizes" would be cute, especially if it let you do stuff like having Bullgryns "block" movement corridors (ala mobile Tank Traps), etc.

Finally, "Power Attacks" for Dreadnoughts/MCs. I like the idea of being able to throw enemy vehicles around!

Agree with you MJug, all walkers need Smash (so what if it gives Sentinels AP2 :p).


As to your tankshock/ram complaint, I think the problem in part is that the Rippedeyed perhaps should be a vehicle?

 Dioxalyn wrote:
I think turns should be based off of your units initiative, higher initiative units and fast vehicles move first, then move down the line until you get to Initiative 1 units/models. Same way for the Shooting/Assault phase. Higher Initiative units get to shoot/melee first.

This eliminates the alpha strikes, the 1 turn and half your army is gone games, allows you to both play and react a lot more, providing more strategy and tactics, and makes sense IMO, higher initiative = better agility and quick thinking.

Except that initiative is generally race dependent, ie all Necrons are 2, all guardsmen are 3, SM 4, eldar 4-5, ect. So all your suggestion would do is guarantee that eldar always get the alpha strike, and that tau and necrons always go second.

Additionally high initiative has nothing to do with any sort of reaction time, metal acuity, or quick thinking ability. It is completely arbitrary. As an example, basically every source for Necron lords in combat is, either are not specific enough to extrapolate their reaction speed, or they are on par OR FASTER than space marines, and the Necron codex flat out states becoming Necrons made them think faster, yet they aren't even as fast as guardsmen on the table top. /rant

 NL_Cirrus wrote:
Except that initiative is generally race dependent, ie all Necrons are 2, all guardsmen are 3, SM 4, eldar 4-5, ect. So all your suggestion would do is guarantee that eldar always get the alpha strike, and that tau and necrons always go second.

Additionally high initiative has nothing to do with any sort of reaction time, metal acuity, or quick thinking ability. It is completely arbitrary. As an example, basically every source for Necron lords in combat is, either are not specific enough to extrapolate their reaction speed, or they are on par OR FASTER than space marines, and the Necron codex flat out states becoming Necrons made them think faster, yet they aren't even as fast as guardsmen on the table top. /rant

This is quite valid... maybe the alternating phases is really the best way to do it then. I was going to say choosing which unit you want to act first in a kind of you-go, I-go that I saw in, I think, WHFB melee phase, but that would just end up as a complicated mess.

That said, to be fair, if the initiative thing was added, I would expect some changes to be enacted first to make it a little less wierd.

Also, I saw it somewhere, and I agree so hard with purchasing psychic powers. Bring that back! Less random, more actual freaking tactical choices, please! What we have now is an absolute mess (and why I am making a specific model for Bel-Annanth - standard psychic powers? Why, yes please!).

Edit: why am I so bad at spelling today?

Charge d6 + initiative value would be pretty cool, obviously some previsions would need to be made for orks but otherwise that would be a bit interesting.

Being able to bombard my enemy from all directions with my imperial guard mortar teams, deep strike some termies in and then land assault marines on the edges. Wait that is incredibly OP

Play Tyranids without being handicaped by default. That'd be neat.

True Swarm Tactics - not in a "It'll fix the army" sort of way, cause I've been so deep in the hobby and away from the meta for so long, but I always wished I could somehow clog the treads of vehicles with Tyranid guants. Like, just truly take down a superior foe with numbers, even if it means "number of bodies".

I wish I could have a rebalanced version of Codex: Witch Hunter's Acts of Faith instead of the ones we have.