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.

Probs a good idea, know your limits man

Am getting in games with my DK and Orks so I can help contribute to those areas when they come up. Eldar and Crons are just way out of my league though

 Dakkamite wrote:
Probs a good idea, know your limits man

Am getting in games with my DK and Orks so I can help contribute to those areas when they come up. Eldar and Crons are just way out of my league though

Haha, thanks, just trying to keep the scope of the project manageable. And it can always grow, especially if people are willing to use them and contribute.


And if you'd be interested, we could work on the Ork Errata, I already know a good portion of what I'd like to do with it. And if you were willing to find an opponent that would play two games against you, one with the normal Dex, and one with the Balance Errated one +/- the Points difference it would be very helpful..

Yeah bro, I have a guy who is all good with all sorts of home rules. Post up the errata and I'll give it a go.

Will take at least a week to get the game though

What if GMC/SH combined can be no more than 25% of the total points?

I think Zagman is trying to pick his battles - fix the main rules, *then* maybe look at superheavies etc. Makes sense to me, these rules are way too big to take on in one go.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Yeah bro, I have a guy who is all good with all sorts of home rules. Post up the errata and I'll give it a go.

Will take at least a week to get the game though

Awesome, sounds good. I'll have to move Orks up on the list.

Luckily, Orks won't take that much to do as the early 7th books weren't terrible for basic pricing and with Mob Rule fixed their basic power level should fit nicely around the Errataed Codices.

Fix Mob Rule
Few Wargear Fixes ie Bosspole, Cyborg,
Reduce Cost of Nob Bikers
Reduce Cost of Flash Gitz
Reduce Cost of Ork Flyers
Increase cost of Mek Gunz
Fix Morkanaught, Gorkanaught, Killa Kanz, and Deff Dread.... mostly just +1 HP for Kanz and Dread.
Reduce Cost of Stompa, maybe ass Assault Vehicles for Stompa and Morka/Gorkanaught.

How about that for a basic list??



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:What if GMC/SH combined can be no more than 25% of the total points?

Dakkamite wrote:I think Zagman is trying to pick his battles - fix the main rules, *then* maybe look at superheavies etc. Makes sense to me, these rules are way too big to take on in one go.

I'm thinking for starters it's only the SHs/GCs that are in the main rules. I feel trying to eliminate SHs/GCs is going to anger more people than designing the Errata for "Codex +6th Supplements". The whole of the content is just too large to tackle in one go. And with IKs being the only real Codex plus the occasional LOW entry, I feel that is managelbe amount to balance out.

Also, I need to add a Psychic Clause for the SHs/GCs can only be affected by psychic powers that are attacks with a Strength Value. No Invisible Wraithknight + Appropirate Wraithknight Costing should fix most issues. If a Stompa can only be repiared 1HP/turn that fixes that if its costed appropriately. Shouldn't be hard to fix those problems and balance them out.

Seems like a good start. Some of those units I don't use or have never used so may need to give them a try.

Two things there I reckon may not be the best answer for an errata;
-Kans @ 3HP: Mostly from a common sense point of view, they're roughly equivalent to sentinels in size and those are HP2. They are not equivalent to dreadnaughts @ HP3. It could be an interesting niche for Ork walkers if thats your idea, even if most of the time they'll just blow up
-Mek Gunz @ Higher Cost: On paper they're horrifying. But make sure you play them a few times before committing to this. They are very easy to put morale tests on, and then that Ld5 comes into serious effect. A lot of the special guns are quite possibly overpriced as is, only the KMK and perhaps the Traktor gun are a bit ott
Edit: - Stompa Repair Limit: As long as the StrD on the other walkers gets gimped too, otherwise we seriously have nothing going for our superheavy. Only D is a gak INT melee weapon so it dies to Knights half its price. Guns are meh. Very meh unit overall. Make sure you don't make it worse!

Would be better if we can get some more experienced Ork players to weigh in once the errata is written up.

Allies rules should be left alone. The whole point of changing them was that A, not everybody's hobby is collecting a specific army, and B, not every collector cares at all about the fluff. The allies matrix and unbound rules open the game up for every hobbyist to play the game with the (expensive) models that they have chosen, and as an ex gw staff member, I can tell you that that is a lot more hobbyists than you might think.

Dakkamite wrote:Seems like a good start. Some of those units I don't use or have never used so may need to give them a try.

Two things there I reckon may not be the best answer for an errata;
-Kans @ 3HP: Mostly from a common sense point of view, they're roughly equivalent to sentinels in size and those are HP2. They are not equivalent to dreadnaughts @ HP3. It could be an interesting niche for Ork walkers if thats your idea, even if most of the time they'll just blow up
-Mek Gunz @ Higher Cost: On paper they're horrifying. But make sure you play them a few times before committing to this. They are very easy to put morale tests on, and then that Ld5 comes into serious effect. A lot of the special guns are quite possibly overpriced as is, only the KMK and perhaps the Traktor gun are a bit ott
Edit: - Stompa Repair Limit: As long as the StrD on the other walkers gets gimped too, otherwise we seriously have nothing going for our superheavy. Only D is a gak INT melee weapon so it dies to Knights half its price. Guns are meh. Very meh unit overall. Make sure you don't make it worse!

Would be better if we can get some more experienced Ork players to weigh in once the errata is written up.

Well, Dreads do get 4HP in my other Errata, so that helps that comparison, and I can see a Sentinall as smaller and less than a Kan.

I was thinking of increasing the base cost of the Mek Gunz, and playing with the upgrade costs for the poor performers. 18pts for a Lobba is just too little, I was thinking 25pts and dropping the cost of most upgrades to match. For most, minus the Lobba, their cost wont' really change mcuh at all besides some internal balancing for the unit.

Don't worry about making the Stompa Worse, it would most likely be cheaper and get Assault Vehicle. And the can't be affected by Psychic Powers or Abilities would be pretty widespread. A one HP/Turn Repair limit for a Vehicle is very reasonable. You definitely won't need to spam Mechs inside the Stompa to make it playable, that is for sure. Off the top of my head I was looking at 570pts with Assault Vehicle.

JamesY wrote:Allies rules should be left alone. The whole point of changing them was that A, not everybody's hobby is collecting a specific army, and B, not every collector cares at all about the fluff. The allies matrix and unbound rules open the game up for every hobbyist to play the game with the (expensive) models that they have chosen, and as an ex gw staff member, I can tell you that that is a lot more hobbyists than you might think.

I do understand where you are coming from, I truly do, but the Battle Brother Rules are a nightmare for balance. The hobbiest and fun players will have no reason not to houserule this stuff. But, those looking to play more balanced games won't have much of a problem with it.

The alternative is adding rules about not using other Detachment's Transports, or BB's special Rules not affecting a unit from a Different Detachment. But, that gets messy, downgrading BBs doesn't stop most fluffy things you want to see on the tabletop from happening, but does stop Driago Tanking and teleporting around a unit of Ultramarine Grav Cents leg by Tigerius... .because that's fluffy. Or Ultramarines stuffing Blood Angel Drop Pods fully of their Centurions...

The primary goal is playable balance, and currently there are too many problems and unfair advantages for Eldar and IoM.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
5-18-15 Added

Destroyer Weapons
Destroyer Weapon Attack Table
1: Nothing
2-5: D3 Wounds or Hull Points and counts as a Penetrating Hit; Saves Allowed
6: D3 Wounds or Hull Points and counts as a Penetrating Hit; No Saves Allowed
D Weapons count as Strength 10 for calculating Instant Death.

5-18-15 Added

Super Heavy Vehicles and Gargantuan Creatures cannot be affected by Blessings or Maledictions.

 Zagman wrote:

.

I do understand where you are coming from, I truly do, but the Battle Brother Rules are a nightmare for balance. The hobbiest and fun players will have no reason not to houserule this stuff. But, those looking to play more balanced games won't have much of a problem with it.

The alternative is adding rules about not using other Detachment's Transports, or BB's special Rules not affecting a unit from a Different Detachment. But, that gets messy, downgrading BBs doesn't stop most fluffy things you want to see on the tabletop from happening, but does stop Driago Tanking and teleporting around a unit of Ultramarine Grav Cents leg by Tigerius... .because that's fluffy. Or Ultramarines stuffing Blood Angel Drop Pods fully of their Centurions...

When I say hobbyist I mean anyone who is in to any part of the hobby, and to me, all doors should be open. What is the point of opening the door to all collectors to play the game if you then cut them off after the initial 'fun' part is over? Yes there are killer combos available, but if tournament playing is your thing then you should accept that some people will be trying to win and you will be up against serious players. The hobby is not and should not be dictated by the minority of people who are concerned with tournament placements, in my personal view.

 JamesY wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

.

I do understand where you are coming from, I truly do, but the Battle Brother Rules are a nightmare for balance. The hobbiest and fun players will have no reason not to houserule this stuff. But, those looking to play more balanced games won't have much of a problem with it.

The alternative is adding rules about not using other Detachment's Transports, or BB's special Rules not affecting a unit from a Different Detachment. But, that gets messy, downgrading BBs doesn't stop most fluffy things you want to see on the tabletop from happening, but does stop Driago Tanking and teleporting around a unit of Ultramarine Grav Cents leg by Tigerius... .because that's fluffy. Or Ultramarines stuffing Blood Angel Drop Pods fully of their Centurions...

When I say hobbyist I mean anyone who is in to any part of the hobby, and to me, all doors should be open. What is the point of opening the door to all collectors to play the game if you then cut them off after the initial 'fun' part is over? Yes there are killer combos available, but if tournament playing is your thing then you should accept that some people will be trying to win and you will be up against serious players. The hobby is not and should not be dictated by the minority of people who are concerned with tournament placements, in my personal view.

That is a very large generalization. This project is meant for those who which to play a game and expect a passable level of balance. Might I remind you that the concept of allies is what, three years old? This still allows allies, what it does not allow is units from different Factions or Chapter Tacitcs to be mucking around in a different Faction's units or transports. Sure, there can be some fluff reasons for the IoM Battle Brothers, but outside that its pretty tenuous.

6th to 7th removed a lot of the Battle Brother Shennanings ite Tau + Eldar, Eldar + SM, SM + Tau, etc. Boiled right now to it, it is an unfair mechanic that ruins balance by opening up the floodgates of potential synergy for some armies while keeping others as stand alones. This is not a good thing.

This is a Balance Errata, meant to increase the likelyhood of having a balanced and fair game. I for one would derive more enjoyment out of that, then being able to Battlebro it up with obscene and unlikely combinations just to gain unintended rules advantages.

And this Errata does not remove allies, it just means they are allies of convenience.

I'm not arguing with working on the balance at all, only closing doors to people wanting to have whatever models they choose.
My point is more about the guy who likes genestealers and kills kans (for example), not the win at any cost players. But again, if competitive play is your thing, you have to expect horrible combos from people who want to win, as that is some players intention.
Also, allies have always existed in the rules, they aren't new by any means, although the rules around them have changed. I honestly respect the intention of what is being worked on here, but anything that or tries to tell collectors what they can or can't have based on the few that abuse it doesn't sit well with me. To me, as a collector of armies and a gamer, changing the allies rules and allowing unbound armies have been the best change to the game in a long time, as it means I can have the army I actually want, rather than the closest the force org will allow. My ork mech army never wins games, but it looks awesome and I have great fun playing it. Should I not be allowed to use it in a tournament because someone else has abused the same rules that lets me field it?

I agree with what is intended for this thread.
Unfortunately it would be at it's best if GW dies.

I like the fan based new Epic rules so see many possibilities for this. At the very least something to try out with my friends.
Something competitive for my one friend to try out would be a blessing.

It is a big task since point costs are a fundamental issue, what can buff what is exciting all it's own. Then the various special rules or the codex specific ones. Would the general stats for the units remain consistent and just change abilities and points from there?

You have to start somewhere and I figure that is the best way to go. I will read further and see what can be commented on what has been proposed.

 JamesY wrote:
I'm not arguing with working on the balance at all, only closing doors to people wanting to have whatever models they choose.
My point is more about the guy who likes genestealers and kills kans (for example), not the win at any cost players. But again, if competitive play is your thing, you have to expect horrible combos from people who want to win, as that is some players intention.
Also, allies have always existed in the rules, they aren't new by any means, although the rules around them have changed. I honestly respect the intention of what is being worked on here, but anything that or tries to tell collectors what they can or can't have based on the few that abuse it doesn't sit well with me. To me, as a collector of armies and a gamer, changing the allies rules and allowing unbound armies have been the best change to the game in a long time, as it means I can have the army I actually want, rather than the closest the force org will allow. My ork mech army never wins games, but it looks awesome and I have great fun playing it. Should I not be allowed to use it in a tournament because someone else has abused the same rules that lets me field it?

I haven't included any rule that would prevent them from using their models, only using them together in one unit and sharing special rules/psychic powers.

If you are referring to my having this Balance Errata only apply to the Codices and named supplements, well that is just to manage the task at hand and for quality control. Nothing saying it can't eventually be expanded to cover much more. But, form a balancing perspective it is easier to start smaller in a more controlled environment than it is to throw every and everything into the mix. And of course if people are using this for causal play they are free to make any addition they and their opponent feel are necessary or are going to enhance their experience. In a tournament... well almost all tournaments have such kinds of limitations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
I agree with what is intended for this thread.
Unfortunately it would be at it's best if GW dies.

I like the fan based new Epic rules so see many possibilities for this. At the very least something to try out with my friends.
Something competitive for my one friend to try out would be a blessing.

It is a big task since point costs are a fundamental issue, what can buff what is exciting all it's own. Then the various special rules or the codex specific ones. Would the general stats for the units remain consistent and just change abilities and points from there?

You have to start somewhere and I figure that is the best way to go. I will read further and see what can be commented on what has been proposed.

Glad you agree! And you are right, if GW was no longer part of the equation the community would eventually hammer out most of the issues and something like this could gain widespread usage and go through prolonged testing and modifications for improvement.

Haven't seen the fan based Epic rules, but I never got into Epic to begin with, shame GW got rid of a game that would have let people play with tons of titans... without pushing them into 40k... same goes for Apoc.

I'm mostly doing this because I enjoy the project, I find it relaxing and therapeutic. I am hoping that I can find some local people to try it out, and if others find it useful and use it to enhance their local play experiences I'll be thrilled. I have no illusions that this would become really mainstream, but it could lead to other community projects long term that would make 40k a more balanced and fun experience for all of those who are looking fore even a semblance of balance and fairness.

It is a big Task, maintaining the value of a point across codices is difficult, but IMO we don't have to be perfect, we just need to address the biggest problems. Even buffing the worst 10% and nerfing the best 10% would greatly improve Balance.

I am mostly adjusting Points costs, it is the easiest and the more that remains consistent the better, both in unit cost and upgrade costs. I am adjusting some weapon profiles for balance, I'm trying to do this sparingly. Some special rules are open to modification, especially those that do not function well or are overpowering. I am also adjusting some Stats or Wargear, again sparingly.

Basically I'm trying to use the smallest modification to achieve the desired affect that doesn't change the feel or experience of the game. I am not trying to shape each unit into what I think they need to be, but take what is there and give it the smallest changes necessary to have it function correctly and be relatively balanced within the rules.

I look forward to any feedback you may have, thank again.

 Zagman wrote:
I look forward to any feedback you may have, thank again.

I have played since 2nd edition.
Played heavily in 3rd and pretty well into 5th.
6th and 7th is about a game every 2 weeks (sad I know).
I have the following up to date codex's:

Astra Militarum (Imperial Guard)
Tempestus Scions
Imperial Knights <new!>
Space Marines (focus on BT, I know, new codex incoming...)
Grey Knights <new>
Inquisition
Chaos Space Marines (got way too much of this stuff)
Skitarii

My round-about way to show what I am willing to chime-in about.
My Eldar codex went the way of the dodo pretty quick as well as the Imperial Knights.
My main opponent is Orks so I have to get a hold of the new codex for them.

The main thing is addressing the units that are good for pretty much anything and are a "deal" in points.
Also addressing the models you would never use is another consideration.

Anyway, yes, will review with books in hand.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
I look forward to any feedback you may have, thank again.

I have played since 2nd edition.
Played heavily in 3rd and pretty well into 5th.
6th and 7th is about a game every 2 weeks (sad I know).
I have the following up to date codex's:

Astra Militarum (Imperial Guard)
Tempestus Scions
Imperial Knights <new!>
Space Marines (focus on BT, I know, new codex incoming...)
Grey Knights <new>
Inquisition
Chaos Space Marines (got way too much of this stuff)
Skitarii

My round-about way to show what I am willing to chime-in about.
My Eldar codex went the way of the dodo pretty quick as well as the Imperial Knights.
My main opponent is Orks so I have to get a hold of the new codex for them.

The main thing is addressing the units that are good for pretty much anything and are a "deal" in points.
Also addressing the models you would never use is another consideration.

Anyway, yes, will review with books in hand.

Well, I have already gone through CSM and know what I want to change, I just need to sit down and do it. Expect it within a week I'd expect along with Daemons. Grey Knights will come down the pike once I am more comfortable with my SM decisions, as they will be used as the main balancing point for BA, SW, and GK.

I look forward to your imput on SM, and will definitely appreciate imput on AM, they are not my strongest suit. I will need help with Tempestus. I'm new to Skitarii, so I'll be relying on feedback from other to go beyond my basic mathhammer comparisons. IKs will probably come last, but IKs are too bad so long as they don't have the Adamantine Lance so I'm not expecting too much work there.


All help and feedback is greatly appreciated!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just added Codex: Tau Empire to the Errata, located in the same thread as the Necron Errata.

All feedback is welcome!

Militarum Tempestus troops would benefit from more access to orders and better characters to support their squads.

-- Give the Tempestor Primes the same statline as a Company Commander (+1W, +1A, 5++), the Senior Officer rule, and Meltabombs for 5pts. There's no reason these guys should be inferior or underequipped in their own codex.
-- Vox included for free on all squads through the existing Clarion Vox. Only works with orders issued from Command Squads to Scion squads though.
-- Let the Medkit and Standard bearer add to the Command Squad's size, not occupy a Special Weapons carrier slot.
-- The Commissar and LC have little to no synergy with the MT force. Rewriting these guys might be closer to a new unit than a balance patch.
-- Give the Tempestor Sergeants 2W default, and the ability to issue an order to their squad. Also, give the entire army +1 LD. They are supposed to be humanity's elite!
-- The Taurox Prime is underrated. The Battle Cannon, however, is not. It needs some kind of help. Searchlights and Smoke Launchers should be included as default, as well as maybe the command vehicle rule.
-- AM players will have lots to say about Valkyries.
-- Ideas for Senior Officer MT orders: Confers Relentless / Hit and Run / Interceptor. This will help maximize use from the Volleygun and let Scions assault in a pinch, reduce MT's vulnerability to being locked in assault without making them too powerful, and help them with board control. The Senior Orders from AM are probably stronger firepower-wise but they aren't tailored to the MT army.
-- The Hotshot Lasgun should probably be bumped up to range 24", and the Hotshot Laspistol to 12". Scions are already quite expensive, their reach should be standardized to other 40k infantry.
-- Warlord Traits could use a in-depth rework. Grav Chute is awesome -- basically, every trait shoukd help you to play the army in a slightly different sense. Air cav, ground assault, airborne, etc.

Good luck on the project Zagman -- it's definitely masochistic!

Yoyoyo wrote:
Militarum Tempestus troops would benefit from more access to orders and better characters to support their squads.

-- Give the Tempestor Primes the same statline as a Company Commander (+1W, +1A, 5++), the Senior Officer rule, and Meltabombs for 5pts. There's no reason these guys should be inferior or underequipped in their own codex.
-- Vox included for free on all squads through the existing Clarion Vox. Only works with orders issued from Command Squads to Scion squads though.
-- Let the Medkit and Standard bearer add to the Command Squad's size, not occupy a Special Weapons carrier slot.
-- The Commissar and LC have little to no synergy with the MT force. Rewriting these guys might be closer to a new unit than a balance patch.
-- Give the Tempestor Sergeants 2W default, and the ability to issue an order to their squad. Also, give the entire army +1 LD. They are supposed to be humanity's elite!
-- The Taurox Prime is underrated. The Battle Cannon, however, is not. It needs some kind of help. Searchlights and Smoke Launchers should be included as default, as well as maybe the command vehicle rule.
-- AM players will have lots to say about Valkyries.
-- Ideas for Senior Officer MT orders: Confers Relentless / Hit and Run / Interceptor. This will help maximize use from the Volleygun and let Scions assault in a pinch, reduce MT's vulnerability to being locked in assault without making them too powerful, and help them with board control. The Senior Orders from AM are probably stronger firepower-wise but they aren't tailored to the MT army.
-- The Hotshot Lasgun should probably be bumped up to range 24", and the Hotshot Laspistol to 12". Scions are already quite expensive, their reach should be standardized to other 40k infantry.
-- Warlord Traits could use a in-depth rework. Grav Chute is awesome -- basically, every trait shoukd help you to play the army in a slightly different sense. Air cav, ground assault, airborne, etc.

Good luck on the project Zagman -- it's definitely masochistic!

Haha, thanks! I'll put your insight to good use! Some of those changes may be outside of the scope of this project, but I'll do my best to use your suggestions.

Keep the feedback coming!

Is there a thread for SM or BA?

Martel732 wrote:
Is there a thread for SM or BA?

Yes, just open the Spoiler and it is the first link. I'll appreciate any and all feedback.

I would like to add my own:

-Limit the number of psykers per side to one per 1000 points, OR, Limit the number of mastery levels to 3 per 1000 points. For those of you wondering I have a friend whom has been known to bring 20 mastery levels to a 2.5K game and averages out at around 6-8 in a 2K game

-Reduce Severin Loth's 2++ save to a 3++ save. Seriously, NO model should have access to a 2+/2++ save block.

-Also remove Severin's ability to select his psychic powers. There are REASONS you have to roll for them, namely to avoid invisible Terminators led by an Invisible Warpspeed Iron Arm Endurance 2+/2++ Librarian. It is most certainly NOT fun to go up against them

-Remove Unbound as a playable option. Armies of 3+/3++ marines that ignore cover are just OP, and that is not the worst combination that I have seen.

-Give Cavalry units +1 T like bikers.

-Allow Cover saves and Armour saves to stack

-Limit Primarchs to one per side and only if your opponent consents

-Get rid of Super Heavies from non apocalypse games. They really are not balanced for standard play.

 master of ordinance wrote:
I would like to add my own:

-Limit the number of psykers per side to one per 1000 points, OR, Limit the number of mastery levels to 3 per 1000 points. For those of you wondering I have a friend whom has been known to bring 20 mastery levels to a 2.5K game and averages out at around 6-8 in a 2K game

-Reduce Severin Loth's 2++ save to a 3++ save. Seriously, NO model should have access to a 2+/2++ save block.

-Also remove Severin's ability to select his psychic powers. There are REASONS you have to roll for them, namely to avoid invisible Terminators led by an Invisible Warpspeed Iron Arm Endurance 2+/2++ Librarian. It is most certainly NOT fun to go up against them

-Remove Unbound as a playable option. Armies of 3+/3++ marines that ignore cover are just OP, and that is not the worst combination that I have seen.

-Give Cavalry units +1 T like bikers.

-Allow Cover saves and Armour saves to stack

-Limit Primarchs to one per side and only if your opponent consents

-Get rid of Super Heavies from non apocalypse games. They really are not balanced for standard play.

Psykers will have received some rebalancing, especially at the codex level and the worst Psychic powers have been toned down. I don't think your Psyker problem will be as prominent as before.

Loth is not codex and outside the direct realm of my fixes, but even so now he could only be in his Chapter a Tactics units. Both Warp a Speed and Akron Arm aren't as bad, neither is Invisibility. I'll eventually get around to him, but you are right about a 2++.

What marines are you talking about? Legion of the Damned?? I'm curious. I left Unbound, most people agree not to play it. And with better balance in the Codices, unbound isn't as bad either.

Calvary don't need an across the board bonus, but per unit points balancing. Seekers with +1 T would be terrifying for example.

Stacking saves requires a rewrite of the game, way too big for this food.

Primaries are again outside the realm of these fixes and an agreement between players.

SHs and GCs not in Codices will be outside the realm of these fixes, and the ones that are left won't be so bad.

Thanks for your input.

There are actually two other threads in Proposed Rules about Saves overhauls.

Neither are specifically aimed t Zagman's balances. Very different scopes.

C:Space Marine Balance Errata
C:Eldar Craftworlds and Codex: Dark Eldar Balance Errata
C: Necron and Codex: Tau Empire Balance Errata
C: Orks and C: Tyranids Balance Errata
C: Chaos Space Marines

Just added DE to the mix, check them out and let me know what you think!

Yep, Legion of the Damned. My unbound army loving friend (He has brought a total of 1 bound army since unbound dropped) just loves to dick me over :( . Amassed firepower is the only thing that works.


I was thinking more of just having the SH's banned from regular games. With the modern rules you can bring a Shadow Sword or BaneBlade to a 1K game. This is monstrously unbalanced and quite frankly needs rectifying.

The Cavalry I was thinking of where Rough Riders. They already cost over twice the points of a basic IG man and offer nothing of use. The ability to take carapace armour, outflank or even just +1T would help.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Yep, Legion of the Damned. My unbound army loving friend (He has brought a total of 1 bound army since unbound dropped) just loves to dick me over :( . Amassed firepower is the only thing that works.


I was thinking more of just having the SH's banned from regular games. With the modern rules you can bring a Shadow Sword or BaneBlade to a 1K game. This is monstrously unbalanced and quite frankly needs rectifying.

The Cavalry I was thinking of where Rough Riders. They already cost over twice the points of a basic IG man and offer nothing of use. The ability to take carapace armour, outflank or even just +1T would help.

Sorry you have an Unbound loving friend. Maybe you could ask for some bound games. That seems more social contract, less rules problems. I'm looking at this from the assumption most people are playing bound.

I originally had a limit on SHs and GCs, but removed it. If the SHs and GCs are balanced, they are less of an issue. I generally agree, but again GW has made the use of SHs and GCs controversial, and I feel should be addressed more on a social contract, or tournament format level.

Ok, suggesting a blanket +1 T for Cavalry is bad, but suggesting a Rough Riders need to be addressed is right. When I get around to doing AM they will be. Only a handful of codices left to do for their first draft.

 Zagman wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Yep, Legion of the Damned. My unbound army loving friend (He has brought a total of 1 bound army since unbound dropped) just loves to dick me over :( . Amassed firepower is the only thing that works.


I was thinking more of just having the SH's banned from regular games. With the modern rules you can bring a Shadow Sword or BaneBlade to a 1K game. This is monstrously unbalanced and quite frankly needs rectifying.

The Cavalry I was thinking of where Rough Riders. They already cost over twice the points of a basic IG man and offer nothing of use. The ability to take carapace armour, outflank or even just +1T would help.

Sorry you have an Unbound loving friend. Maybe you could ask for some bound games. That seems more social contract, less rules problems. I'm looking at this from the assumption most people are playing bound.

I originally had a limit on SHs and GCs, but removed it. If the SHs and GCs are balanced, they are less of an issue. I generally agree, but again GW has made the use of SHs and GCs controversial, and I feel should be addressed more on a social contract, or tournament format level.

Ok, suggesting a blanket +1 T for Cavalry is bad, but suggesting a Rough Riders need to be addressed is right. When I get around to doing AM they will be. Only a handful of codices left to do for their first draft.

Okay, I look forward to seeing the result.

We have been testing various rules that cross between Apoc, 6th and 7th edition to make the game:

1) Better balanced
2) Smoother and most importantly - more fun for all:

To that end I have listed some here (spoilered in case not interested :0 ) and also added some Sororitas tweeks

 Mr Morden wrote:
We have been testing various rules that cross between Apoc, 6th and 7th edition to make the game:

1) Better balanced
2) Smoother and most importantly - more fun for all:

To that end I have listed some here (spoilered in case not interested :0 ) and also added some Sororitas tweeks

Spoiler:

General
(6th Ed rules unless otherwise noted) Its 7th, got to try and stay current. Plus they are similar enough its not too hard. 6th Allies chart was ugly with Tau, Eldar, SM all being BB. Scary.
.Vehicles ignore damage results apart from explodes - damage pts work as normal, table as 6th ed That might be a bit drastic, and takes away a staple of the game. I think recosting vehicles and/or adding HP to some(Dreads) largely fixes this problem. Better addressed at codex level IMO.
.Invulnerable saves can be used against Destroyer weapons regardless of result on table Destroyer is nasty, just changing it to a D3 across the board with 6s ignoring all saves fixes most of the problem. Means that 6 may only take away one one wound no saves, not nearly as bad that way.
.Vehicles may overwatch with weapons in relevant arc and subject to normal overwatch weapon restrictions. Adds more rolling, not a major issue. IMO, not necessary to add.
.All Missile Launchers have free flakk missiles Effectively done at the codex level, usualy by making Missile + Flakk equal to ML cost.
.If a vehicle has not moved, passengers may assault as normal even if not a Assault vehicle and may do so if in a vehicle that was destroyed previous turn - unless otherwise prevented from doing so, Tempted to readd this rule, I think it would help assault quite a bit.
Template wepaons and precesion shots hitting artillery units test to wound against crew rather than the gun itself But this would really require a rebalancing of Artillery, could be done I suppose. It would be much easier to just make the T6 instead.
A model with double its opponents WS in close COmbat hits on 2+ instead of 3+ Not a bad thing, but kind of a fringe thing that doesn't occur that often.
All Units are scoring, none are objective secured - except Flyers or Creatures flying hig, a Flyer in Hover mode can claim Makes CAD less popular, makes formations more so... Don't like it. Obsec hasits place.
Vertical unit coherency is 6" vertically Is this really an issue?
Charging through difficult terrain - if one or more models in a unit have to move through difficult terrain , the entire unit subtracts 2" from charge distance Isn't this the actual rule?

Army lists
All Army lists - models may take multiple relics but not more than one may ever be taken in a single army Helps some, but like Tau its overpowered. Just address ad Codex level.

Inquisition
Inquisitors have the following additional options: Refractor Field (5++) 10pts, Conversion field (4++), 20pts, Storm Shield (30pts),
Close Combat speclaist (+1WS) 5pts, Ranged Expert (+1BS) 5pts Not bad options I suppose.

Adepta Sororitas
Cannoness may take artificer armour (2+ armour), 20pts
Canoness includes Rosarius as stock at 70pts
Any Celestian may replace her boltgun and/or Bolt pistol with a Power Weapon for 15pts Power Weapon is still too costly, but I may need some help rebalancing Sisters wehn I get around to it.

Tau
A Riptide that overcharges doess not increse its invulnerable save, it remains at 5+ That was only one of 3 options and my least used one, and I played Triptide very competitively and was successful. the 3++ was a trap. This effectively just removes the option.

Orks
.Stompa Scorcha gains Torrent Not bad I suppose, I just rebalanced the Stompa.

Marines
Land Raiders are Superheavy vehicles (bit do not catat explode and can not thunderblitz) Interesting, but I don't like adding the intermediate vehicle type.
Relic Blades are AP2 Or just recost them...
All temrinators (except Stormshield/Thunderhammer. Deathwing Knights and all characters) are reduced by 5pts a model Not enough, but gets close. 30pts for PW/SB, 30 for LC, 35 for PF/SB, 40 for TH/SH with cheaper heavy weapons.
I am arguing for combining Assualt and Tactical Temrinators into a single entry. Not hard to do.

Guard
Wyverns - loose TL, considering loosing Shred Will definitely be fixed in my upcoming Errata, don't know how I'll do it yet though, may just be a 10pt cost upgrade.

we have not done much with the new Eldar Codex - we had previously altered Falcons to be DT and the Wave Serpent - its shield gun was a one shot template, once fired the shield is no longer active.
Holwing Banshees treat all vehicles as assault vehicles Yeah, assault for Banshees is tough...

Thanks for your feedback. Some of these are a bit too drastic or out of character for my total project and IMO some things are just not addressed that need it. I'll comment on some of the individual stuff inside the spoiler.

Edit: One more very important question Mr. Morden, "What do you want?"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:


Okay, I look forward to seeing the result.

Stay tuned and I'd love any feedback on the Codex Errata thread. All feedback and comments are welcome. Lots of players have experience and expertise that is different than mine!

Zagman, my man, funk master flex;

Have you put any thought into the disparity between vehicles and MCs? Or turning some vehicles into MCs outright? Is that within your scope, or are you trying to impact the rules as little as possible while affecting as much change as you can?

I'll be sure to poke my head in for the inevitable IG thread.

If you feth up my Guard, we won't be friends.