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.

Space Marines DO lose their chapter tactics when they are joined by anyone without them or with a different version. It's why most marine deathstars are actually wolves and dark angels Raven wing. Core rules allow them to keep their abilities when they team up with others.

I disagree with their ruling on it not being wargear, since it is obviously wargear but like bikes or frost blades. Space wolves are my second army after corsair eldar, so this isn't hating on them in any way.

I made thunderwolves a little less durable against anti tank weapons, shouldn't they and the wolf be afraid of a volley of lascannons fire at them instead of just hurting a bit?

Also, my rules would make the power fist str9 anyway.

From the FAQ:
Q: Do Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Dark
Angels all count as having Chapter Tactics for the purposes
of joining allied Space Marine units? That is, does my
Ultramarines unit lose the benefits of Chapter Tactics if they are
joined by Mephiston?
A: If a unit from any of these Factions joins a unit with
the Space Marines Faction, or vice versa, neither unit
benefits from Chapter Tactics.


Space Marines only lose their bonuses when joined by a unit that has Chapter Tactics.


Also: You can't just 'Disagree' woth a rule because you don't like it. You can change it with a house rule, but if you are going to write House Rules, you REALLY should have a basic freakin' understanding of the mechanics that you are changing before you change them. I never said that you were *intentionally* bagging on Space Wolves, but I'll say now that I honestly don't think you understand balance well enough to realize what you are doing.
Making Thunderwolves vulnerable to being obliterated by S8 (which is an incredibly common value that every army can achieve in abundance, compared to S10 which is reserved for rare and extra-strong weaponry,) doesn't make them 'A little less durable against anti-tank fire', it takes a baseball bat to their kneecaps, while simultaneously dropping their Strength for no real reason and denying them Counter Attack in circumstances where Space Marines still get their tactics.

Read the rules before you try and change them. Otherwise, you'll just keep on making a botched fresco-Jesus mess of contradictions, fixing and breaking things at random.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I've used the extra wound rule with every eldar army, chaos marines, space Marines (including space wolves and dark angels), astra militarum, Orks, Tau, skitarri, daemons, and the lost and the damned army list from forgeworld. Again, never been a negative impact to the game in 2 years.

So let's assume that your apparent and relatively extensive (though far from universal) testing is enough to say beyond a reasonable doubt that this change doesn't negative affect the game. The only scenarios I see this positively affecting is the characters that have only One Wound by default. So I see it helping a Terminator Sergeant but not a Centurion Sergeant simply because the Centurion Sergeant already has more than One Wound and thus is already worth investing points in. This is why you see people investing points in Multi-Wound models while simultaneously not investing as many points in One-Wound models. Rather than have a blanket rule, I feel it would be more effective and have less of an imbalance with regards to points if you simply targeted the Character Models that need a buff (e.g. Veteran Sergeants of Tactical Squads but not Centurion Sergeants).

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Tank shocking vehicles aren't accelerating any faster than a vehicle normally would, speed is determined by distance moved, and that already affects accuracy. A leman Russ tank isn't going to be going any farther than normal, but if there are three dudes standing d ctly in front of the tank when they start to move, for some reason the guy in the turret, forward gun, heavy stubber, and the side sponsons suddenly can't fire effectively.

Let's assume that I'm completely wrong and you're completely right. Now let's consider it from a purely game mechanics standpoint. How is what you're suggesting not overpowered?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Venom riding wyches used to get hit with a str3 blast because of open topped bonuses. I thought about​ bringing it back, but decided to vary the damage output from explosions more. So, when their transport explodes now they'll be hit with a str2 boom as opposed to a str4 one and be much less likely to die because of it.

Though I have never played Dark Eldar, I have never seen any other unit from any other army that I have played been so adversely affected by being hit by a Strength 4 Blast with a D6" range. To me, this sounds like nothing more than you or one of your mates playing Dark Eldar and the Explodes! Result burst your bubble a little.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
With smoke launchers, the same could be said for jink. If you are shooting a beam of light at a vehicle, the idea it can dodge said weapon is absurd.

Ok, so let's assume that I shoot a Lascannon (aka a weapon that shoots a beam of light) and then you say "Oh wait, let me pop smoke in order to 'Throw off your aim' and gain a cover save". If Jinking such an attack is - as you said - absurd, how is popping smoke any less absurd? Because to my mind it is even more absurd. You can't justify the introduction of a ridiculous rule simply because another ridiculous rule exists.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Also allowing the player more choices in their opponents' turn is a good thing.

I agree. It helps mitigate the negative effects of 40K being a Turn-Based System, but your proposal regarding Smoke Launchers isn't the right way to go about it.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
My rule for blast doesn't change the fact you have to target a unit or allow you to target units outside of normal range. It just allows you to not have your big kaboom negated by people standing a couple feet away from each other.

The targeted unit is determined by the model over which you place the center of the blast marker. This coinciding with the fact that you have to have the center of the blast marker placed over a model (or its base if applicable) is no mistake. If you remove the requirement of having to place the center of the blast marker over a model, then if nothing else it starts to mess with which unit is targeted. So as your rule says:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Simply place the template to hit as many models as possible.

So now let's assume that the center of the blast marker does not cover any model or base of a model, but the blast marker itself covers three models each from two different units (i.e. 3 models from one unit and 3 models from another unit). Which unit was the target? Is it arbitrary? Is it both? Is it neither? How does this affect the firing unit's ability to charge in the ensuing assault phase? To me it sounds like you haven't given this rule as much thought as the wording of this rule implies. Care to elaborate?

All bikes, thunderwolves, blood crushers, etc are affected by the rule for instant death in my house rules, not just characters. The reason I stipulated ones that can be taken by characters is to show a difference between normal bike and say an attack bike or deff kopta. They are special units that should stand out compared to their more prevalent counterparts in the armies. The problem it fixes is how hard it is to cause instant death to multi-wound models on bikes or cavalry. So, a battle cannon with my rules wouldn't get to wound automatically (because toughness 5) but would eliminate an entire thunderwolf riding iron priests if he failed a save.

Well on the assumption that you're right and I'm wrong (that I'm still not convinced is a good or correct assumption), then let me ask you this: Why should it be easy to cause Instant Death on multi-wound models that are mounted on bikes or cavalry? Because that doesn't seem like a problem let alone a problem that needs fixing nor does it sound like something that necessitates a House Rule.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Making power fists a flat +4 to strength is much easier than trying to adjust point values on a unit by until basis accross every codex in the game. The difference between str7 ap2 and str8 ap2 can be perfectly accounted for by the difference in price between the base models.

This sounds like laziness rather than a genuine attempt to achieve balance with regards to points efficiency. Do you know how far laziness gets you when you're trying to balance a game system like 7th Edition 40K? Not very far. It doesn't take a genius or anyone with experience in such an undertaking for that matter to tell you that.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Changing the high strength weapons isn't power creep, it is keeping damage capability within the game even. If something has a toughness 4+ higher than a weapon's strength, it cannot wound. With this change the opposite is true. It allows for plasma guns to help more against hordes, and if your space Marine battle tank hits a guardsman with it's primary gun the idea that he has just as much chance of ignoring that injury as he does a heavy bolter doesn't make any sense. Weapons have a better bell curve at higher strength to let them be a viable choice on the table.

I see you're logic, especially when we step back from the tabletop, but think of it this way: Most of the game mechanics that involve rolling (e.g. rolling to shoot, rolling to wound, rolling for morale, etc etc etc) involve the chance of failure. Honestly: The only mechanic that comes to mind right now as I'm writing this that involves no possibility of failure is the Armour Penetration Roll with regards to inflicting a Hull Point, and that only happens in a certain subset of circumstances (e.g. S9 against AV10). We do not need another mechanic like this, especially when it's such a blanket mechanic.

At this juncture, I'd like to not only remind you but also emphasis that buffing is not the only route to balance.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Grav isn't good at taking down hordes. Even with their volume of fire they are still wounding guardsmen as a str2 ap2 (str1 ap2 for Tyranids) weapon. It is when you allow people to reroll FAILED wounds that the balance skews heavily because it is then greatly increases the odds of wounding these lightly armored targets. By making the grav amp follow this rule (which is contentious as to whether or not it is the rule to begin with) the grav cannon and amp fill their primary role of heavy infantry/monster hunting as opposed to being the best all around option (in excess of the point cost)

It might not be good against Hordes, but most of the time you're not targeting Hordes with Grav. If you're taking Grav (especially lots of Grav) against Hordes, then you either got really unlucky by coming up against an army you really didn't expect or you're really stupid. Another example is taking Grav against SHV's - Grav is not good against SHV's because SHV's cannot be Immoblised. But just because Grav isn't good against Hordes or SHV's doesn't at all mean that the effectiveness of Grav stretches above and beyond what it should.

Have you not considered narrowing the list of targets that weapons with the Gravitation Special Rule are effective against rather than targeting the relatively superficial mechanic of Grav-Amps? A common that I've seen is to prevent Grav from doing damage to anything other than Infantry and (F)MC's, then have Grav's ability to damage the targets (going from least likely to most likely) as follows:

-- Infantry that's not Bulky
-- Bulky Infantry
-- Very Bulky Infantry
-- Extremely Bulky Infantry
-- (Flying) Monstrous Creatures

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The land raider is only weak due to the core rule set.

The same can be said of wall vehicles in 7th Edition, yet you seem to be set on the power creep of weapons and introducing a set of rules that - at least on the surface - seem to only inflate the problem.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If you play a game using these rules, you will see what I mean. It will take a bit of learning, there are a LOT of changes. But my group has been building this list for years because we are like minded role-playing game nerds who never had a problem modifying games when we noticed balance issues.

Yer from my perspective, all you've done is bring bandaids to a warzone.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Just give it a shot, it might surprise you

Oh I'm willing to give one or two of your rules a shot, but I still maintain that a lot of them (at least conceptually) need work. Better approaches have apparently escaped your 'like minded [group of] role-playing game nerds'.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
With smoke launchers, the same could be said for jink. If you are shooting a beam of light at a vehicle, the idea it can dodge said weapon is absurd.


Ok, so let's assume that I shoot a Lascannon (aka a weapon that shoots a beam of light) and then you say "Oh wait, let me pop smoke in order to 'Throw off your aim' and gain a cover save". If Jinking such an attack is - as you said - absurd, how is popping smoke any less absurd? Because to my mind it is even more absurd. You can't justify the introduction of a ridiculous rule simply because another ridiculous rule exists.

I'm going put this to bed here now with a simple explanation. Popping smoke is to obscure yourself before the enemy can draw an accurate aim on your position, hence the cover save. you know they're in there, you just don't know where. if you pop smoke after I've already got my weapon aimed at you, it's not going to make the damned amount of difference how much smoke you can put out in the second it will take for me to pull the trigger as I already know where you are amidst the smoke.

For the record, Jinking doesn't dodge bullets or lasers, it dodges the guy firing by throwing off his aim. In the same way that you go to ground to avoid being shot at, not to somehow dodge bullets.

Waaaghpower wrote:
From the FAQ:
Q: Do Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Dark
Angels all count as having Chapter Tactics for the purposes
of joining allied Space Marine units? That is, does my
Ultramarines unit lose the benefits of Chapter Tactics if they are
joined by Mephiston?
A: If a unit from any of these Factions joins a unit with
the Space Marines Faction, or vice versa, neither unit
benefits from Chapter Tactics.


Space Marines only lose their bonuses when joined by a unit that has Chapter Tactics.


Also: You can't just 'Disagree' woth a rule because you don't like it. You can change it with a house rule, but if you are going to write House Rules, you REALLY should have a basic freakin' understanding of the mechanics that you are changing before you change them. I never said that you were *intentionally* bagging on Space Wolves, but I'll say now that I honestly don't think you understand balance well enough to realize what you are doing.
Making Thunderwolves vulnerable to being obliterated by S8 (which is an incredibly common value that every army can achieve in abundance, compared to S10 which is reserved for rare and extra-strong weaponry,) doesn't make them 'A little less durable against anti-tank fire', it takes a baseball bat to their kneecaps, while simultaneously dropping their Strength for no real reason and denying them Counter Attack in circumstances where Space Marines still get their tactics.

Read the rules before you try and change them. Otherwise, you'll just keep on making a botched fresco-Jesus mess of contradictions, fixing and breaking things at random.

Except that none of the factions listed HAVE chapter tactics. It specifically says that any of these armies joining the unit doesn't allow them or the unit joined to get the bonus from chapter tactics. So I misremembered what it said, it does still show that units containing models without chapter tactics negates said bonus. I applied it to all factions instead of only the ones with atsknf.

Strength 8 or higher weapons are normally ignored for the multi shot strength 6-7 ones. By making more viable targets for the single shot high strength weapons, you create a need to diversify the weapons chosen. My thunderwolves shouldn't be walking through lascannon shots and missiles without fear. They should be moving tactically to deny line of sight because these weapons designed to blow heavy tanks into nothing shouldn't just be causing a flesh wound to a big wolf and a normal marine on top of them

As for the smoke/jink rules. None of the vehicles are stationary and this is an abstraction of war. If a skimmer can see a person fire and take evasive maneuvers to dodge a shot, then a non skimmer can throw their tank in reverse or cut left or right able releasing smoke to do the same. The non skimmer can only do this once in a battle and it isn't as effective as the jink. Why is this such a hotly contested rule change? How many times have you seen someone pop smoke on a non transport? How many times has someone done so and the opponent just didn't bother to shoot at the tank negating a one use item and denying the ability to shoot? My fix eliminates that and closes the gap between skimmers and most regular vehicles in the game.

My rules have lowered the amount of strength 10 in the game, but made high strength weapons more viable on the table.
I've eliminated the lumbering nature of walkers and monstrous creatures to allow them to threaten a larger area, which conversely increases the amount of melee viable lists in the game. It also forces more decisions in the list building stage because of the increased chance of fast moving hard hitting melee units throughout the armies in the game.
I've eliminated some of the nonsense available to superfriends lists to reign in deathstars
I've allowed blast weapons and ordinance to have a greater effect on the battle field by not requiring the opponent to have to be tucked into a tight space to let them deal damage.
And I've tried to bring every army to around the same capability level of necrons by buffing some, and weakening others.

If one of my houserules directly contradicts a FAQ or eratta from gw, it was intentional. Them changing rules while pretending they didn't is annoying to say the least. Their unwillingness to change point values to balance the game some when they wrote the FAQ is telling (looking at you wraithknight, of which I have one)

This excercise will be futile in a couple months, but I will continue posting what I have so others can see it.

I'm not sure if it's worth it to even bother responding, but let me just say this:
In order to make certain things used by strong armies more effective, you are taking the nerf bat to the only good units in the Space Wolf codex, without providing any significant changes that would actually make the rest of the codex competitive. You lack a basic understanding of how internal balance works, as evidenced by some of your other house rule changes for other armies, and then you have the ego to talk about how you've 'Fixed' the game when there are still many clearly broken builds that you've completely and utterly failed to address, either by omission or simple carelessness.

Also, I want to make this really clear: Your houserules did not directly contradict the FAQ or eratta from GW. Ignoring the fact that TWC directly modify the statline of a unit with or without the FAQ, you never said in the house rules that TWC are fundamentally changed so as to not directly modify a statline. You just assumed something that was incorrect and blundered forward without actually checking the rules before you changed them.

(By the way: Your CSM changes are literally broken and very unbalanced. Just thought you should know.)

Waaaghpower wrote:
I'm not sure if it's worth it to even bother responding, but let me just say this:
In order to make certain things used by strong armies more effective, you are taking the nerf bat to the only good units in the Space Wolf codex, without providing any significant changes that would actually make the rest of the codex competitive. You lack a basic understanding of how internal balance works, as evidenced by some of your other house rule changes for other armies, and then you have the ego to talk about how you've 'Fixed' the game when there are still many clearly broken builds that you've completely and utterly failed to address, either by omission or simple carelessness.

Also, I want to make this really clear: Your houserules did not directly contradict the FAQ or eratta from GW. Ignoring the fact that TWC directly modify the statline of a unit with or without the FAQ, you never said in the house rules that TWC are fundamentally changed so as to not directly modify a statline. You just assumed something that was incorrect and blundered forward without actually checking the rules before you changed them.

(By the way: Your CSM changes are literally broken and very unbalanced. Just thought you should know.)

Thunderwolves are wargear options that may be taken by characters that gives them a bonus to certain stats. Why they decided to arbitrarily decide some pieces of wargear aren't considered wargear is beyond comprehension, but I will not follow that fallacy in regards to game mechanics.

In regards to internal balance, why would I drive to have every unit in the book.towards two outlier units that are considered to be so powerful as to break the game for all other melee units.

As for chaos marines, what makes them broken? Chapter tactics for the guys who just left their chapter is too strong? They still don't have atsknf or combat squads, and they're only a point cheaper than marines...

Oh, you know what's a Piece of Wargear that increases Toughness? Mark of Nurgle.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

As for chaos marines, what makes them broken? Chapter tactics for the guys who just left their chapter is too strong? They still don't have atsknf or combat squads, and they're only a point cheaper than marines...

I'm glad you asked! Let's take a look, shall we?

Fear is for the weak: If the unit fails a morale, pinning, or fear test remove one non-character model from the unit. The unit then counts as having passed the test instead. If there are no models left besides characters, the unit fails the check.

This right here pretty much undoes your argument of 'They don't have ATSKNF.' Yes, it's not as good as ATSKNF, but it's pretty darn close, since it completely prevents the possibility of breaking, unlike ATSKNF, which can still have units break and run off the board if you're too close to your own table edge.

If your detachment isn't given a traitor legion they may opt to use a chapter tactic available to codex: space marine. This bonus is not applied to cultists, units with veterans of the long war, or any vehicle that isn't a dreadnaught/hellbrute. The only unique character allowed is Huron Blackheart.

Chapter Tactics on units that still get Chaos Marks? That's pretty darn good. Not game-breaking on its own, but it's a pretty noteworthy buff since it means that CSM basically get twice the choices for what armywide perks they get compared to Space Marines. Just... Remember this buff, and the one above it.

if a unit with the daemon keyword takes a mark of the chaos gods, they may also gain the daemon of chaos bonus listed with the daemon prince for that god for free. if they choose to do so, they replace fearless for daemonic instability (see codex: chaos daemons).

Read as you have it written here, this literally doesn't work. Daemon Princes cannot take Marks of Chaos. Also, what is a 'Keyword'? I assume you mean any unit that has the Daemon USR, but it's really unclear.

Change "space marines" to "armies of the imperium" whenever a bonus would be applied to a unit against that faction.

Another extremely useful armywide buff.

Aspiring champions and Aspiring Sorcerers can take terminator armor for 15 points.

... Why? What is the fluff basis in this? And considering that your rules also make Aspiring Champions/Sorcerers into 2w models, this is of extremely good benefit for the cost if the squad wasn't going to get in a rhino.

When a character from the army issues or accepts a challenge, roll on the Chaos Boon Table immediately (instead of afterward). If the character is fighting in a challenge with a unique character, add +1 to the tens dice for determining the Boon (max of 6).

This is not a big deal, but it does mean that players are going to be getting a looot of free buffs and gear and Daemon Princes that they otherwise wouldn't get.

Chaos marines may purchase one special weapon per 5 models.

This is fair.

Rhinos may take assault ramps as an upgrade for 10 points. This makes them assault vehicles

Aaand here we get to some of the truly OP stuff. On top of a laundry list of helpful (if not overwhelming) buffs, you give out extremely cheap Assault Vehicles for no real reason. Assault vehicles are pretty much exclusively either expensive or very vulnerable (By being open-topped, that is,) but a 45pt Rhino is neither - It's no Land Raider of durability, but it's so cheap that you can spam a half dozen of them very easily in an 1850 game, and it's resilient enough that several of them will survive for a couple of turns. And in exchange, you get an incredible boost to assault capabilities, despite there being zero precedent for Rhinos being able to magically become Assault vehicles.

Abaddon is a Lord of War.

Sure, why not?

mark of nurgle causes a -1 penalty to wound instead of a +1 to toughness.

You realize that this makes Mark of Nurgle - Already the strongest Mark by far - Even better, right? Because while it does make characters more vulnerable to Instant Death, making their FNP weaker, it still makes Nurgle marked units more resilient to anything that is S7+, because nothing is capable of wounding them on 2s.
Comparing a unit with 5+ FNP to a unit being wounded on 3s, it's less than a one wound difference - So losing FNP is not a big deal - But units that didn't already have that FNP are going to be far more resilient. You're letting Nurgle units shrug off anti-tank fire as though it were a Heavy Bolter round.


The rest of the stuff isn't *particularly* bad, though a lot of it is more minor buffs. CSM are already a good army now that Traitor Legions is out, and you are boosting them through the roof with a plethora of buffs that help them immensely, with no downsides. If your goal was to buff every codex up to top-tier levels to match Eldar, that would be fine, but you don't seem to be doing that, because for Space Marines you tone them down a bit, and for Space Wolves you randomly kneecap them.

They have to pay for Mark's, making them more expensive.

Fear is for the weak requires you to slowly wipe out your units. Yes, they get to not run. But the models with this rule are not cheap. It is definitely worse than atsknf, and they still don't have access to the combat squad ability. One point difference.

The change from marines to armies of the imperium makes thematic sense. They hate the imperium, not just the marines. Chaos marines have never been known for their fair treatment of civilians.

The terminator option is because they used to have that bonus and space wolves already do. Thematic and cool.

The change for the boons is to reward them for their handicap of needing to challenge. Most only ever get to challenge once, so most of their boons never get used (namely the melee ones)

Assault rhinos are, again, thematic. The idea being the chaos marines have spent their time doing something useful for their vehicles in addition to bolting spikes on them. A 45 point non-fast assault transport is perfectly in line with assault transports elsewhere.

My description for mark of Nurgle is the same as my rule for the bonus to wound for twin linked. The penalty to wound should be seen as a step down on the wound chart, not a flat penalty to the dice roll.

The traitor legions book does NOTHING for people wanting to run a mixed warband or those who don't want to run a former legion. My bonuses allow for a viable army outside of those factions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Oh, you know what's a Piece of Wargear that increases Toughness? Mark of Nurgle.

Bikes too, as is the heavy armor Tau relic.

I took my rule for the change from 5th edition. When the rule was dropped for 6th the high strength weapons fell completely out of favor because all they did was a single wound. Medium strength high rate of fire waepons could do that, so they became the obvious choice.

So Typhus is now doubled out by a Melta gun or a Lascannon... I feel so inspired to use that change.

Oooh, I think I'm starting to understand. If it's unbalanced it's because it's fluffy, buffs don't count if they aren't as good as something that other armies get, (Even while you're nerfing those options that the other armies are getting,) and everyone reading these rules is assumed to be able to read your mind and understand that your intent for these rules is not the same as what you wrote down.
Gotcha.

The change to mark of Nurgle means that strength 8+ weapons do counter them, BTU they retain their durability to light and medium strength weapons. As was said, mark of Nurgle was the strongest bonus by far, and now is closer to the others while maintaining the defensive bonus against most weapons in the game. (Basically anything strength 7 or lower)

Waaghpower, you have yet to show me a rule that is actually unbalanced. A 45 point av11/11/10 assault transport isn't unbalanced in the slightest.

I chose to shorthand " gains a +1 on the table when determining how easy it is to wound" to gains a +1 to wound. Since I can't show you the table here, I figured I would stick with the shorthand and if someone was confused, explain it. I didn't expect mind reading to come into it.

None of the buffs I've given are in excess to what the baseline of capability is in the game, not have I weakened any unit to a point of uselessness.

You think what I did to change thunderwolves and wulfen was too negative, but all I did was bring them to a point of not being an auto include. If every single competitive list with space wolves includes not only thunderwolves, but other characters ALSO on thunderwolves, then they are obviously too strong. With wulfen, my personal great company is Bran Redmaw's. I love wulfen, and was ecstatic when they released them. Then I saw them walk through every single thing thrown against them. They eat everything in their path, and the bonuses they grant are absurd.

So, I removed their ability to attack when killed and made their curse ability add the thematic bonus while making it also show the negative side of the curse (they are supposed to lose all control and become rampaging beasts) so making them a little less accurate at range and making them easier to hit in melee for fighters at space Marine level reflects the fluff while balancing out the bonus granted for free.

As for the smoke/jink rules. None of the vehicles are stationary and this is an abstraction of war. If a skimmer can see a person fire and take evasive maneuvers to dodge a shot, then a non skimmer can throw their tank in reverse or cut left or right able releasing smoke to do the same. The non skimmer can only do this once in a battle and it isn't as effective as the jink. Why is this such a hotly contested rule change? How many times have you seen someone pop smoke on a non transport? How many times has someone done so and the opponent just didn't bother to shoot at the tank negating a one use item and denying the ability to shoot? My fix eliminates that and closes the gap between skimmers and most regular vehicles in the game.

That's the Catch, a skimmer isn't limited to it's facing. it can literally boost sideways to throw your opponents aim. you can't do that in a tank as you are limited to moving in the direction the body is facing in one of 2 directions. pretty easy to track. and there is value to not being shot with smoke launchers as your opponent ignores them because of the cover save, this means you have the tank for next turn that isn't shaken or stunned. it's still a threat as it has not been destroyed, meaning your opponent has to manoeuvre his army differently to compensate. when you jink in your opponents turn, you can only snapshot in your next turn and you can get looped into a vicious cycle of jinking if they keep catching you in line of sight. there's no need to worry with this in smoke. move to advantageous position, pop smoke, enact area denial by having a looming threat ready to fire next turn.

While you aren't shaken or stunned, you DID lose your ability to shoot at all for that turn, as well as losing mobility due to not being able to flat out as well.

It is easier to hit a normal tank trying to dodge an attack, even with smoke launchers. Hence the fact it is only granting a 5+ save as opposed to a 4+

 JNAProductions wrote:
So Typhus is now doubled out by a Melta gun or a Lascannon... I feel so inspired to use that change.

Yeah, nobody is taking a T4 Typhus.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So Typhus is now doubled out by a Melta gun or a Lascannon... I feel so inspired to use that change.

Yeah, nobody is taking a T4 Typhus.

Nobody takes typhus to soak up lascannon and meltagun shots, you take him to get piles of zombies.

The fact of the matter is multiple bonuses to the toughness​ of some models have pushed high strength weapons into obscurity. These weapons were viable in 5th edition because they had a better chance to kill vehicles and could threaten to instant death things like nob bikers.

Then 6th edition rolled around. Suddenly a lascannon could be dodged by bikes in the open, and only wounded them on a failed save instead of killing them. The bikes/wolves/bloodcrushers of the game also got cheaper accross the board making them a no brainier to take if you had the option. Then you add in the hullpoint mechanic for vehicles making it drastically easier to kill them without needing an explodes result.

These changes meant that suddenly an autocannon was not only cheaper than a lascannon or missile launchers, but better at fighting almost everything because they fired more shots and had the same chance to wound. They penetrated armor less, but multiple rolls of a lower chance to glance/pen made them almost as deadly. All you NEEDED was three glances for most vehicles after all.

My changes make most vehicles require 3 penetrating hits to die. This makes low rolls on the damage table for things like rail guns less of a letdown and increases the utility of high strength bad AP weapons like manticores and rupture cannons because they may never explode a vehicle, but they'll kill it faster than twin linked devourers. It also means that these big heavy weapons are more viable when targeting units with a toughness value because eventually they will be strong enough to guarantee a wound. There was already a point to where you couldn't possibly wound a model, now there is a mirror of that where you can't possibly fail. This creates a better curve for damage in the game allowing for more weapons to be viable.

So how much cheaper is Typhus?

Because he now dies to a random Veteran Sergeant with a Powerfist, 66% of the time. 2 attacks, 1 hit, 1 automatic wound, and then Typhus only gets his 5+ save. And that's if TYPHUS charged.

If he gets charged by, say a Vanguard Veteran with Powerfist/Lightning Claw combo? That's 4 attacks, 2 hits, 2 automatic wounds, and Typhus now has only a 1/9 chance of living.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

The fact of the matter is multiple bonuses to the toughness​ of some models have pushed high strength weapons into obscurity. These weapons were viable in 5th edition because they had a better chance to kill vehicles and could threaten to instant death things like nob bikers.

I'd say that Instant death shouldn't be based on doubling the T value.
Say if it were T +4 instead
T3 would require Str 7
T4 would still need Str 8
T5 would need Str 9
and T 6 would need Sr 10 (MC would need the GC special rule where ID only takes D3 wounds though or it's going to kick them too hard)

All of a sudden T5/6 characters aren't practically immune, odd number Strength values become more useful (Earthshaker cannon Vs Battle cannon- that exactly 2 non vehicle non-FW model's care about the extra Str)
And T 3 Characters become a heck of a lot better (Especially against how much Str 6 Eldar can field)

Also- Marines MIGHT actually have to make a hard decision between Grav and Plasma

Jbz` wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

The fact of the matter is multiple bonuses to the toughness​ of some models have pushed high strength weapons into obscurity. These weapons were viable in 5th edition because they had a better chance to kill vehicles and could threaten to instant death things like nob bikers.

I'd say that Instant death shouldn't be based on doubling the T value.
Say if it were T +4 instead
T3 would require Str 7
T4 would still need Str 8
T5 would need Str 9
and T 6 would need Sr 10 (MC would need the GC special rule where ID only takes D3 wounds though or it's going to kick them too hard)

All of a sudden T5/6 characters aren't practically immune, odd number Strength values become more useful (Earthshaker cannon Vs Battle cannon- that exactly 2 non FW model's care about the extra Str)
And T 3 Characters become a heck of a lot better (Especially against how much Str 6 Eldar can field)

Also- Marines MIGHT actually have to make a hard decision between Grav and Plasma

The Earth shaker and Battle Cannon suffer from being blasts, not the ID mechanic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So Typhus is now doubled out by a Melta gun or a Lascannon... I feel so inspired to use that change.

Yeah, nobody is taking a T4 Typhus.

Nobody takes typhus to soak up lascannon and meltagun shots, you take him to get piles of zombies.

The fact of the matter is multiple bonuses to the toughness​ of some models have pushed high strength weapons into obscurity. These weapons were viable in 5th edition because they had a better chance to kill vehicles and could threaten to instant death things like nob bikers.

Then 6th edition rolled around. Suddenly a lascannon could be dodged by bikes in the open, and only wounded them on a failed save instead of killing them. The bikes/wolves/bloodcrushers of the game also got cheaper accross the board making them a no brainier to take if you had the option. Then you add in the hullpoint mechanic for vehicles making it drastically easier to kill them without needing an explodes result.

These changes meant that suddenly an autocannon was not only cheaper than a lascannon or missile launchers, but better at fighting almost everything because they fired more shots and had the same chance to wound. They penetrated armor less, but multiple rolls of a lower chance to glance/pen made them almost as deadly. All you NEEDED was three glances for most vehicles after all.

My changes make most vehicles require 3 penetrating hits to die. This makes low rolls on the damage table for things like rail guns less of a letdown and increases the utility of high strength bad AP weapons like manticores and rupture cannons because they may never explode a vehicle, but they'll kill it faster than twin linked devourers. It also means that these big heavy weapons are more viable when targeting units with a toughness value because eventually they will be strong enough to guarantee a wound. There was already a point to where you couldn't possibly wound a model, now there is a mirror of that where you can't possibly fail. This creates a better curve for damage in the game allowing for more weapons to be viable.

Actually you're taking him for the toughness, Zombies, and small amount of casting power. Under no circumstances will anyone take a 230 point T4 character that doesn't have any instant death mitigation. At least with T5 he just needs to pick and choose his battles and can make use of Spawn that are MoN for T6 shenanigans.

I don't think you really know why people take certain units at this point...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The Earth shaker and Battle Cannon suffer from being blasts, not the ID mechanic.

I was making an example, works with Krak missile to Lascannon too.

The ID mechanic and T raising effects are not equal is the point.
Raising T from 3 to 4 is nowhere near as good as raising from T 4 to 5.

Lascannons need a better chart against vehicles, and Krak Missiles suffer from being on Missile Launchers. The easiest fix to the latter is to give ML the Flakk upgrade for free, so that you get three mediocre firing modes instead of just two. The former requires more in depth fixing.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So how much cheaper is Typhus?

Because he now dies to a random Veteran Sergeant with a Powerfist, 66% of the time. 2 attacks, 1 hit, 1 automatic wound, and then Typhus only gets his 5+ save. And that's if TYPHUS charged.

If he gets charged by, say a Vanguard Veteran with Powerfist/Lightning Claw combo? That's 4 attacks, 2 hits, 2 automatic wounds, and Typhus now has only a 1/9 chance of living.

The bonus from Mark of Nurgle would mean the attack would wound as if it were str7, but still have the strength to cause instant death. So he is more durable than a normal space Marine in those circumstances.

I had thought of making his weapon lose the unwieldy property, but once they announced the death guard supplement I decided to hold off on any changes to wargear (if they do it themselves, victory)

As it stands, he will probably kill the powerfist Sargent and several of his people at the same time he is killed. That can totally be negated as an issue if the aspiring champion in the unit takes the challenge to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I have that change to missile launchers.

Then take a look at what ordinance does to multi wound models to make up for the penalties with blasts on some weapons platforms.

You need to go back and rethink the Grey Knights rules altogether.

By nerfing Aedeptus Astartes overall, and nerfing the Dreadknight, you've really made them a joke.

Extra 5 points per terminator? Ok. Great. Show me mathematically how that would be significant over an 1850 point list and i'll back off.

 Marmatag wrote:
You need to go back and rethink the Grey Knights rules altogether.

By nerfing Aedeptus Astartes overall, and nerfing the Dreadknight, you've really made them a joke.

Extra 5 points per terminator? Ok. Great. Show me mathematically how that would be significant over an 1850 point list and i'll back off.

Other than it being 25 points cheaper per 5 man squad, basically making the extra heavy gun they get per 5 free. Each of their characters in a unit have an extra wound, thereby increasing the damage needed to drop the unit. Every basic gun (their storm bolters) on every unit in their army gained a +1 to strength and the aforementioned dreadknight is still running around with a 5+, sometimes 4+ invul save while being much better off against all small arms fire and things like psychic shriek, poison, rending, and blade storm.

Why would you consider 15-25 points of free gear or models per unit of terminators/paladins not a significant boost to their capability?