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.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Don't bikes count as very bulky for purposes of transport? Is that taken into account?

They're only 'Very Bulky' if it's in their listed Special Rules.

Note that Centurions for example, have the Very Bulky rule lists under their special rules. Bikes do not, hence, they won't be wounded on a 3+.

Ideally, 'Bike/Jetbike' unit type should be coupled alongside 'Bulky' models, since bikes themselves are rather ponderous & heavy looking models. With the ability to Jink, it's not like a strait 4+ to-wound is going to suddenly nerf the hell out of them.
Besides, it would make Grav worse against them than it currently tends to be, and thus bumps Plasma Guns up a bit as the preferred weapon of choice to mow down Bikers. (or else the humble Flamer for the basic Orky & DE versions!)

And all bikes have Very Bulky in the special rules because of their unit type.

Like how all Jump and Jet units are Bulky (Because the Jump and Jet types give models the Bulky special rule).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Here is how I plan to get it in your skull why your fixes are terrible. You'll answer questions one at a time.
Here's the first question: are Plasma Cannons taken at a competitive level currently? Were they ever?

You have yet to answer this.

Martel732 wrote:
No scatterlasers on Windriders. Period. That's a heavy weapon and they should go on Vypers only. There is nothing reasonable about the scatterlaser in 7th ed. They kill Gdamn IKs.

I don't see this as particularly problematic, if all of the rules that I've recommended are imposed.

3 windriders with a single scatter laser upgrade would be an 82 point unit.

Compare this to a 5 man tactical squad with heavy bolter in a rhino for 80 points.

This strikes me as basically equivalent.

It's not even close. They can get that scatterlaser on the side if basically anything.

I don't agree with all of your other changes anyway.

I'm just waiting for him to answer my question about the Plasma Cannon. He doesn't want it buffed, but historically it isn't taken.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm just waiting for him to answer my question about the Plasma Cannon. He doesn't want it buffed, but historically it isn't taken.

He's crazy. It's a terrible weapon. Small templates in general are a dumpster fire.

I'm sure Traditio wants you to play nothing but Tactical marines at this point considering he keeps comparing everything to them

Traditio wrote:

Nope.
In the SW codex, Eternal Warrior was actually buyable, at 35 points, IIRC. Put on the 15 for the storm shield, and 5 for the situational Adamantium Will. 55/60 is where it should be costed. Certainly not 70.
Why do you hate it so much?

There's no arguing with that. If stormshield = 15 and eternal warrior = 35, then 15+35 = 50. Adamantium will has no substantial points value, as per black templar chapter tactics. Together with adamantium will, their other chapter tactics special rules, and And They Shall Know No Fear, all of that collectively is part of the 1 ppm addition to what chaos space marines get.

Lesser Locus of Abjuration is 10 pts to give an IC Adamantium Will.

There's no sense using CSM as a basis for measurement since they are so grossly over-costed relative to tac marines it's ridiculous. Once you start down that road you come to all kinds of absurd conclusions, like +1 to FNP is worth no pts, H&R is worth no pts, etc.

Traditio wrote:
Go through the rules advantages that centurions have over basic devastators or assault marines. Give me a points value for each of those advantages. Please explain to me how you come to a result of "55 points."

This reasoning is nonsensical as it does not account for diminishing returns. For example, I don't care if you give a guy 30 special rules if he's still T4 W1 3+ since a) I'm never going to use every single rule you gave him and b) he still dies like a tac marine. Units need to be priced based on quality of rules, not quantity. Primarily you're looking at survivability, damage output and mobility. Everything else is mostly window dressing.

Martel732 wrote:
No scatterlasers on Windriders. Period. That's a heavy weapon and they should go on Vypers only. There is nothing reasonable about the scatterlaser in 7th ed. They kill Gdamn IKs.

I think the fix for Wind Riders is to reclassify their scatter lasers as something else, i.e- some kind of lighter variant more in line with a special rather than heavy weapon.
Whatever the case though I think that Wind Riders come into a category of something that's broken in Codex: Eldar, rather than something that needs fixing or countering in Codex: Space Marines, so I'm not sure it's really worth discussing.


Anyway, the thing that annoys me most about the 7th edition book is the ability to make Space Marine bikes Troops by mounting any character on a Bike. This should be axed right off and replaced with an appropriate bike formation. Maybe allow White Scars Bikes as Troops, but I'd say it should come with some trade-off (i.e- if you're taking Bikes as Troops you should have to take mounted everything, i.e- Dedicated Transports, Drop Pods etc., no foot-sloggers without some form of rapid transport. In fact I was surprised when I found this caveat as I thought the whole point of Formations was to cover themed builds and get away from buy X to unlock Y as Troops nonsense of previous editions.

It seems easier to just reduce their access to the Laser than make a brand new weapon.

I think a formation to replace Bikes as Troops is a good idea considering every other codex I know of lost the ability to move foc slots around.

 Haravikk wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No scatterlasers on Windriders. Period. That's a heavy weapon and they should go on Vypers only. There is nothing reasonable about the scatterlaser in 7th ed. They kill Gdamn IKs.

Anyway, the thing that annoys me most about the 7th edition book is the ability to make Space Marine bikes Troops by mounting any character on a Bike. This should be axed right off and replaced with an appropriate bike formation. Maybe allow White Scars Bikes as Troops, but I'd say it should come with some trade-off (i.e- if you're taking Bikes as Troops you should have to take mounted everything, i.e- Dedicated Transports, Drop Pods etc., no foot-sloggers without some form of rapid transport. In fact I was surprised when I found this caveat as I thought the whole point of Formations was to cover themed builds and get away from buy X to unlock Y as Troops nonsense of previous editions.

You got the same effect in 5th and 6th by mounting a captain on a bike. Bikes aren't broken, MSU bikes are.

It's still stupid though that only SM get this. Either make it so every army has access to IC makes X become troops, or get rid of it all together.

I prefer that every army gets the ability to shift units around the FOC though. It would make some really fluffy lists (that are bound). Gargoyles for troops for Winged Hive Tyrants. Big Meks making Deffdreads troops for Dread Mob. Haemonculus making Wracks Troops for Covens, etc etc.

But, that is ranting and not on topic. I agree with a lot of things. Grav is still icky, but it's a mechanic I don't like to begin with. Also don't approve of free Rhino's - nothing should be free IMO.

 Frozocrone wrote:
It's still stupid though that only SM get this. Either make it so every army has access to IC makes X become troops, or get rid of it all together.

I prefer that every army gets the ability to shift units around the FOC though. It would make some really fluffy lists (that are bound). Gargoyles for troops for Winged Hive Tyrants. Big Meks making Deffdreads troops for Dread Mob. Haemonculus making Wracks Troops for Covens, etc etc.

But, that is ranting and not on topic. I agree with a lot of things. Grav is still icky, but it's a mechanic I don't like to begin with. Also don't approve of free Rhino's - nothing should be free IMO.

Eldar get it and they don't even need an IC on a jetbike

Instead of formations for everything, I'd much rather see edited FOC for every army dependent upon the mobility of the HQ or the HQ itself, just like you said. It'd make for very interesting and fluffy armies.

Well, Windriders are in a league of their own xD Should be FA imo, combined with Striking Spears into one profile.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Don't agree with some of this. A drop pod that lands on impassible terrain should be considered a loss, for instance.
No free Razorbacks. To easy to spam. No free pods either. Only rhinos and only with 10 man units.
Grav gun should be 5 points more
26 ppm on the bikes.
Centurions should still be t4 but with a 6+ invul

Simply because you think your answers are the best does not mean "boom codex fixed"
You hardly nerfed it at all.

Also drop pods 10 points more

From an Eldar player that is cute. It is ok for Eldar to have biker infantry for dirt cheap, that usually field S6 Ap6 weapons that fire 4 times, but god forbid any other codex has something remotely affordable.
And the centurions thing? Wraithguard are ok being Wicked Tough, but again lets not let SM have something similar. And giving them a 6+ Invul is just fething stupid. From a guy who argued that Wraithguard are perfectly priced and if anything need a buff, this is a bit...well I don't want to be rude but the words double standard kind of come to mind.

SemperMortis wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Don't agree with some of this. A drop pod that lands on impassible terrain should be considered a loss, for instance.
No free Razorbacks. To easy to spam. No free pods either. Only rhinos and only with 10 man units.
Grav gun should be 5 points more
26 ppm on the bikes.
Centurions should still be t4 but with a 6+ invul

Simply because you think your answers are the best does not mean "boom codex fixed"
You hardly nerfed it at all.

Also drop pods 10 points more

From an Eldar player that is cute. It is ok for Eldar to have biker infantry for dirt cheap, that usually field S6 Ap6 weapons that fire 4 times, but god forbid any other codex has something remotely affordable.
And the centurions thing? Wraithguard are ok being Wicked Tough, but again lets not let SM have something similar. And giving them a 6+ Invul is just fething stupid. From a guy who argued that Wraithguard are perfectly priced and if anything need a buff, this is a bit...well I don't want to be rude but the words double standard kind of come to mind.

Way to not look to the post where myself and a few other posted to include OP brainstormed together to create a decent balance to it all. Don't like my fixes? Make your own or don't post in the purposed rules forum

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Don't agree with some of this. A drop pod that lands on impassible terrain should be considered a loss, for instance.
No free Razorbacks. To easy to spam. No free pods either. Only rhinos and only with 10 man units.
Grav gun should be 5 points more
26 ppm on the bikes.
Centurions should still be t4 but with a 6+ invul

Simply because you think your answers are the best does not mean "boom codex fixed"
You hardly nerfed it at all.

Also drop pods 10 points more

From an Eldar player that is cute. It is ok for Eldar to have biker infantry for dirt cheap, that usually field S6 Ap6 weapons that fire 4 times, but god forbid any other codex has something remotely affordable.
And the centurions thing? Wraithguard are ok being Wicked Tough, but again lets not let SM have something similar. And giving them a 6+ Invul is just fething stupid. From a guy who argued that Wraithguard are perfectly priced and if anything need a buff, this is a bit...well I don't want to be rude but the words double standard kind of come to mind.

Way to not look to the post where myself and a few other posted to include OP brainstormed together to create a decent balance to it all. Don't like my fixes? Make your own or don't post in the purposed rules forum

That goes both ways. Don't like that people express their dislike of your ideas? Don't post in the proposed rules forum.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No scatterlasers on Windriders. Period. That's a heavy weapon and they should go on Vypers only. There is nothing reasonable about the scatterlaser in 7th ed. They kill Gdamn IKs.

Anyway, the thing that annoys me most about the 7th edition book is the ability to make Space Marine bikes Troops by mounting any character on a Bike. This should be axed right off and replaced with an appropriate bike formation. Maybe allow White Scars Bikes as Troops, but I'd say it should come with some trade-off (i.e- if you're taking Bikes as Troops you should have to take mounted everything, i.e- Dedicated Transports, Drop Pods etc., no foot-sloggers without some form of rapid transport. In fact I was surprised when I found this caveat as I thought the whole point of Formations was to cover themed builds and get away from buy X to unlock Y as Troops nonsense of previous editions.

You got the same effect in 5th and 6th by mounting a captain on a bike. Bikes aren't broken, MSU bikes are.

I know, but I was under the impression that this was supposed to be going away due to formations. Dark Angels for example can no longer take Deathwing as Troops by taking Belial, or Ravenwing as Troops by taking Sammael, we have to take the appropriate formation(s) to take them in large quantities, which means a buy-in cost to get the minimum required units, as well as deciding how to slot the formation into your list.

So why should a random captain hopping on a bike, for nothing more than the cost of said bike, unlock Bikes as Troops unconditionally? X as Troops list building has always been a terrible way to add things to the list, and often exploitable, as it never seems to come with a penalty. Sure it doesn't help that there are issues with bikes in general, such as their having unconditional Relentless, but this isn't a problem with the Space Marine codex, unlocking them as Troops is.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Don't agree with some of this. A drop pod that lands on impassible terrain should be considered a loss, for instance.
No free Razorbacks. To easy to spam. No free pods either. Only rhinos and only with 10 man units.
Grav gun should be 5 points more
26 ppm on the bikes.
Centurions should still be t4 but with a 6+ invul

Simply because you think your answers are the best does not mean "boom codex fixed"
You hardly nerfed it at all.

Also drop pods 10 points more

From an Eldar player that is cute. It is ok for Eldar to have biker infantry for dirt cheap, that usually field S6 Ap6 weapons that fire 4 times, but god forbid any other codex has something remotely affordable.
And the centurions thing? Wraithguard are ok being Wicked Tough, but again lets not let SM have something similar. And giving them a 6+ Invul is just fething stupid. From a guy who argued that Wraithguard are perfectly priced and if anything need a buff, this is a bit...well I don't want to be rude but the words double standard kind of come to mind.

Way to not look to the post where myself and a few other posted to include OP brainstormed together to create a decent balance to it all. Don't like my fixes? Make your own or don't post in the purposed rules forum

That goes both ways. Don't like that people express their dislike of your ideas? Don't post in the proposed rules forum.

Oh I agree! If someone logically expressed dislike for my idea and offered an improved result of such a rule with an open ended sentence so that s conversation could arise then no one should be upset! However, unless your blind, or that's like, a really" close friend you are attempting to protect.. Or maybe you just like acting hard? Either way, he did none of the above. Simply stated the typical "waah eldar fan boy tried to hurt my space marines wah!"

You're not arguing in good faith. The track record in the Eldar thread speaks for itself.

Why do Centurions need a reduction to Toughness when the Grav-cannon is the reason they're fielded? Nerd the Grav-cannon but leave HB and Lascannons Centurions alone, they see no play as it is.

All the anger over "free" points is silly because it assumes that units are actually worth their current cost. If I made Guardians cost 1000000 points but let each Eldar list get one for free, does that mean the Eldar player is up almost a million points? Yes. Is his list one million points better than his opponent's? Yeah no. Tactical Marines were almost universally reviled before the Gladius, and now people take them.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're not arguing in good faith. The track record in the Eldar thread speaks for itself.

Why do Centurions need a reduction to Toughness when the Grav-cannon is the reason they're fielded? Nerd the Grav-cannon but leave HB and Lascannons Centurions alone, they see no play as it is.

All the anger over "free" points is silly because it assumes that units are actually worth their current cost. If I made Guardians cost 1000000 points but let each Eldar list get one for free, does that mean the Eldar player is up almost a million points? Yes. Is his list one million points better than his opponent's? Yeah no. Tactical Marines were almost universally reviled before the Gladius, and now people take them.

Sir, I et again ask you to please read the whole thread. That has already been fixed. We said leave them at t5 but either give them a way for a small invul or two wounds. Either or... This is what I'm saying. My original post quoted above was dumb, yet had you READ the whole thread you'd see corrections to those corrections that are better suited for an actual marine codex.

Removed by insaniak. Please don't post if you're not interested in actually contributing to the thread.

Oh I agree! If someone logically expressed dislike for my idea and offered an improved result of such a rule with an open ended sentence so that s conversation could arise then no one should be upset! However, unless your blind, or that's like, a really" close friend you are attempting to protect.. Or maybe you just like acting hard? Either way, he did none of the above. Simply stated the typical "waah eldar fan boy tried to hurt my space marines wah!"

Specifically "waag eldar fan boy tried to hurt my space marines wah!" Ironically I play Orks, I don't own any space marines except for some tacticals that I model to look like they are getting stomped on my Kanz and Deff Dreadz.

I am basing my opinion of your proposed rules completely off your track record. Every time someone proposes a nerf to eldar you jump all over them and rant about how awesome and balanced your codex is. In fact you have even gone as far as to say L2P to a number of people.

So I am sorry if you mentioned later on that you fethed up and didn't mean "NERF Everything that can hurt meh speece elves" But thats how you came across, especially when I take into account your previous posts.

Semper Mortis:

What is your opinion of the changes proposed in the OP?

As an ork player, do they basically strike you as fair?

Traditio wrote:
Semper Mortis:

What is your opinion of the changes proposed in the OP?

As an ork player, do they basically strike you as fair?

If anything you nerfed them to much. Plus I would never propose a nerf to terminators, I never see them in the game as is and on the amazingly rare occurrences where my opponent takes them, it means easy points/win for me depending on how much of them he takes.

SemperMortis wrote:If anything you nerfed them to much. Plus I would never propose a nerf to terminators, I never see them in the game as is and on the amazingly rare occurrences where my opponent takes them, it means easy points/win for me depending on how much of them he takes.

Well, in all fairness, you have to understand:

The nerfs that I am conceiving are in the much greater context of a complete rebalance of 40k. Nerf pointy eared space elves. Nerf Tau. Etc.

Simply for the intellectual exercise, I might just start a thread for orks.

Traditio wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:If anything you nerfed them to much. Plus I would never propose a nerf to terminators, I never see them in the game as is and on the amazingly rare occurrences where my opponent takes them, it means easy points/win for me depending on how much of them he takes.

Well, in all fairness, you have to understand:

The nerfs that I am conceiving are in the much greater context of a complete rebalance of 40k. Nerf pointy eared space elves. Nerf Tau. Etc.

Simply for the intellectual exercise, I might just start a thread for orks.

What I think would be hilarious would be for GW do to a complete 180 on Eldar/Tau/Necrons and SM for 2-3 editions and replace those with Tyranid, CSM, IG and Ork armies becoming OP cheese fests.

At this point I really don't know if it is P2Ps fault that he acts like he does and instead GW is to blame. Realistically those armies I said above haven't had a "Weak" codex or hell even a bottom mid codex since...well Hell I can't really think of any edition where those codex's were in that category, on the other hand Tyranid, CSM, and Orks (not sure about IG) have been bottom tier since...4th? maybe longer.

I think it would be a nice, humbling experience for the Eldar/Tau/Necron/SM players to learn how it feels to start a game at a distinct disadvantage and have to "General" your way through the power difference.

Anyway, go ahead and do a Ork Fix, just bring Killa Kanz back down to around 25-30pts a model, I might field them again.

SemperMortis wrote:

Traditio wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:If anything you nerfed them to much. Plus I would never propose a nerf to terminators, I never see them in the game as is and on the amazingly rare occurrences where my opponent takes them, it means easy points/win for me depending on how much of them he takes.

Well, in all fairness, you have to understand:

The nerfs that I am conceiving are in the much greater context of a complete rebalance of 40k. Nerf pointy eared space elves. Nerf Tau. Etc.

Simply for the intellectual exercise, I might just start a thread for orks.

What I think would be hilarious would be for GW do to a complete 180 on Eldar/Tau/Necrons and SM for 2-3 editions and replace those with Tyranid, CSM, IG and Ork armies becoming OP cheese fests.

At this point I really don't know if it is P2Ps fault that he acts like he does and instead GW is to blame. Realistically those armies I said above haven't had a "Weak" codex or hell even a bottom mid codex since...well Hell I can't really think of any edition where those codex's were in that category, on the other hand Tyranid, CSM, and Orks (not sure about IG) have been bottom tier since...4th? maybe longer.

I think it would be a nice, humbling experience for the Eldar/Tau/Necron/SM players to learn how it feels to start a game at a distinct disadvantage and have to "General" your way through the power difference.

Anyway, go ahead and do a Ork Fix, just bring Killa Kanz back down to around 25-30pts a model, I might field them again.

The way I act? To be fair I'm a very new eldar player. My first ever army was drop pod Crimson fist space marines in 5th Ed. Followed by tau in 6th, then a huge ork army for a very long time. I then collected a second army, grey Knights. After I couldn't stand lugging around so many boys anymore, even though I miss them dearly, I sold my 20,000 (roughly) of orks for dark eldar.. Dark eldar became militarum Tempestus, inquisition, imperial knights, skitarii, and cult mechanicus. Only recently has all of that been sold to field a huge eldar, dark eldar, and harlequins army. I have been to EVERY end of the spectrum. Bottom, middle, top. I respect and play armies at each of these levels and love and enjoy every one of them. My hope, however, isn't for top tier to become bottom tier and vice Versace. It's for all codex to become as balanced and equal as possible.

SemperMortis wrote:

Traditio wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:If anything you nerfed them to much. Plus I would never propose a nerf to terminators, I never see them in the game as is and on the amazingly rare occurrences where my opponent takes them, it means easy points/win for me depending on how much of them he takes.

Well, in all fairness, you have to understand:

The nerfs that I am conceiving are in the much greater context of a complete rebalance of 40k. Nerf pointy eared space elves. Nerf Tau. Etc.

Simply for the intellectual exercise, I might just start a thread for orks.

What I think would be hilarious would be for GW do to a complete 180 on Eldar/Tau/Necrons and SM for 2-3 editions and replace those with Tyranid, CSM, IG and Ork armies becoming OP cheese fests.

At this point I really don't know if it is P2Ps fault that he acts like he does and instead GW is to blame. Realistically those armies I said above haven't had a "Weak" codex or hell even a bottom mid codex since...well Hell I can't really think of any edition where those codex's were in that category, on the other hand Tyranid, CSM, and Orks (not sure about IG) have been bottom tier since...4th? maybe longer.

I think it would be a nice, humbling experience for the Eldar/Tau/Necron/SM players to learn how it feels to start a game at a distinct disadvantage and have to "General" your way through the power difference.

Anyway, go ahead and do a Ork Fix, just bring Killa Kanz back down to around 25-30pts a model, I might field them again.

As a BT player, trust me when I say I know what the bottom of the pile feels like. You could always ask Martel as well and see if Blood Angels are doing well (hint: they're not). The grass is not always greener.