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.

FEATURES IMPLEMENTED IN THE BATTLESCRIBE CODEX CATALOGUES WILL HAVE AN (Updated) TAG ON THEM

Note: None of these changes should require any changes to the model itself. If you spot any that would require you to do so, let me know and I'll remove them.
Note: Conforming to the fluff is not my top priority. If a solution is unpopular or the majority of people don't seem to like it, I will change it if enough people post.

Editing Requests

It seems remiss not to mention the rather atrocious editing that took place on the 7th edition rulebooks and codex. I (and many others) would like to see certain editorial standards put into place in all new rulesets.

1) Clearly Numbered Pages! (I find this particularly shameful)
2) A full page given to author and staff credits (So we will know who to blame)
3) A clearly labeled table of contents, with hyperlinks on e-book formats
4) All miniature and art portfolios listed either prior to the fluff or immediately after the fluff, not placed between cross referenced indices.
5) All non unit specific fluff placed prior to unit descriptions and indexes
6) Chronology Tables placed prior to fluff entries
7) Duplicate entries for all special rules and equipment in unit descriptions placed in the armory, vehicle armory, special equipment, special rules index, ect.
8) All unit specific fluff placed in the unit desciption, not in the army list where the point costs are listed.
9) Not that its any of my business, but by god the main rulebook is a clusterfeth to read. Seriously, straighten out that mess.


Rules Update List Proposal

This list was designed with three things in mind

1) I've discussed most of these problems at length with other players and tried to listen to their complaints as best I could and I've tried to develop a fair and equitable solution to these problems that benefits all players equally. Some of these changes are more popular than others, but they are designed to be fair.
2) I believe that it is pointless to try to change one thing at a time or even one codex at a time, as this will simply lead to a never ending cycle of buff, nerf, then buff again. Everything on this list was meant to be changed at once, and this list is meant to be taken as a whole.
3) Having a seriously underpowered list is no fun, and neither is having one that is so overpowered that it wipes the floor with everyone else. (At least it shouldn't be, if you enjoy the spirit of the game)

Problem: Grav is Broken vs. MC's and cheesy against vehicles
How Many Times I've Heard This: Since the dawn of Time


Problem: Hunter Killer Missiles are useless and nobody ever uses them
How Many Times I've Heard This: A couple


Problem: Something as iconic as chainswords should DO something
How Many Times I've Heard This: 3 or more times


Problem: Bolters are weak/Space Marine Tac Squads are one of the worse troop choices in the game
How Many Times I've Heard This: 10 or more times, each

Problem: Sniper Rifles are not very good
How Many Times I've Heard This: 5 in one day

Problem: Terminators are overcosted
How Many Times I've Heard This: 5 or more times

Problem: Centaurians are a huge point sink and do not have invul saves
How many times I've heard this: 3 or more times

Problem: Flakk Missiles are overcosted and Missile Launchers are too expensive
How Many Times I've Heard This: a dozen or more


Problem: Orks are fethed to hell
How Many Times I've Heard This: 10,000 or more times

Problem: Chaos is Overpriced, Their Codex is almost as bad as orks
How Many Times I've Heard This: Ad Naseum

Problem: Tau are OP
How Many Times I've Heard This: A Metric Gross

Problem: Tau Strike Teams have too low a BS
How Many Times I've heard this: 3 or more

Problem: Windriders are undercosted, can play scatterbikes, and are a troops choice:
How Many Times I've heard this: Ad Naseum

Problem: Wraithguard are undercosted and D-Weapons are OP
How Many Times I've heard this: Ad Naseum

Problem: Warp Spiders Jump Ability is OP
How Many Times I've heard this: Ad Naseum

Problem: Wraithknights are Extremely Undercosted
How Many Times I've heard this: Ad Naseum


(Optional) Problem: Nerfing Eldar that hard will make Eldar Players Cry
How Many Times I've heard this: Once or Twice


Problem: Flyrant lists are broken
How Many Times I've Heard This: 5 or more

Problem: Nids Have a Problem With Charging Into Difficult Terrain
How Many Times I've Heard This: 3 or more times

Problem: Nids are too Squishy
How Many Times I've heard this: 3 or more times

Problem: Pyrovores Suck
How Many Times I've heard this: 3 or more times

Personal Preferences

I will continue to update this post as I think of new ideas and try to keep an update log as well. If you have any ideas on changes that need to be made or if you disagree with any of the changes on this list, let me know.

Update Log 1


Update Log 2

Update Log 3

Update Log 4

Update 5


Update 6

Update 7

Update 8
(removed) Change Terminators to T5
(added) Raise Dev Centaurians Point Costs to 75 ppm, Assault Centaurians to 80 ppm (From 60-70 ppm)
(removed) Change bolters to 2/1 Salvo

We don't need a THIRD thread for this. At least update it from last time for example you were told that a Wraithlord being 350pts is ridiculously unfair.

-I'm a big fan of giving bolter weapons shred. It makes them stand out from other weapon types, somewhat fits with the fluff of how a bolter works, and gives more feel to the "elite marine" feeling in that you can actually count on your marines to hit and wound, even if they are just s4ap5 wounds. Makes them feel reliable and consistent.

-My biggest pet peeve of tac marines is that they have 1 lousy s4 ap- attack. I would at the very least add a combat knife to their wargear, giving them an extra attack for having two ccw's. Having 2 attacks a man would make them fit their generalist role more as they currently suck out loud at melee. WS I and S don't mean jack if you have the same number attacks as a tau fire warrior.
--I would simultaneously give chainswords rending or shred. It's no big secret that ASM squads are laughable right now, and giving tacticals a second ccw would make them strictly better (before considering jump packs.) It to this day boggles my mind that a weapon as iconic as the chainsword doesn't have an in-game effect. As for which ability, if the game is going to stay at wraithknight/scatbikes/formations power level, they need rending to have a prayer. If the game gets pulled back a bit, shred is alright.

-orks s4 base: We actually had a test game to try this out (it's been suggested many a time. It was actually a pretty ridiculous buff, and the orks steamrolled that game. Turns out when you slightly buff a model that tends to show up on the table in the dozens or even over a hundred-count, the difference is staggering.

pm713 wrote:
We don't need a THIRD thread for this. At least update it from last time for example you were told that a Wraithlord being 350pts is ridiculously unfair.

I started the thread over because I didn't want any bad blood. This is an older list from a text file, which is why that error is there. (supposed to be Wraithknight, not Wraithlord, if thats not obvious from the context) Thanks for pointing it out again.

-I'm a big fan of giving bolter weapons shred. It makes them stand out from other weapon types, somewhat fits with the fluff of how a bolter works, and gives more feel to the "elite marine" feeling in that you can actually count on your marines to hit and wound, even if they are just s4ap5 wounds. Makes them feel reliable and consistent.

-My biggest pet peeve of tac marines is that they have 1 lousy s4 ap- attack. I would at the very least add a combat knife to their wargear, giving them an extra attack for having two ccw's. Having 2 attacks a man would make them fit their generalist role more as they currently suck out loud at melee. WS I and S don't mean jack if you have the same number attacks as a tau fire warrior.
--I would simultaneously give chainswords rending or shred. It's no big secret that ASM squads are laughable right now, and giving tacticals a second ccw would make them strictly better (before considering jump packs.) It to this day boggles my mind that a weapon as iconic as the chainsword doesn't have an in-game effect. As for which ability, if the game is going to stay at wraithknight/scatbikes/formations power level, they need rending to have a prayer. If the game gets pulled back a bit, shred is alright.

-orks s4 base: We actually had a test game to try this out (it's been suggested many a time. It was actually a pretty ridiculous buff, and the orks steamrolled that game. Turns out when you slightly buff a model that tends to show up on the table in the dozens or even over a hundred-count, the difference is staggering.

Many good suggestions, I will post the bolter idea immediately. (I think I like that better than ap4 with "jams" anyway) Not sure about adding a close combat weapon, but i will take it under consideration. Giving chainswords AP 4 would seriously feth over chaos, who pays 3 ppm for chainaxes or 8 on sgt. and HQ's.

As to the S4, I saw a battle report where they did this in a mad max type battle, it seemed to work okay, the orks thrashed them, but the SM's were kinda set up to take a dive anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmHCSjKjOoc

 niv-mizzet wrote:
-I'm a big fan of giving bolter weapons shred. It makes them stand out from other weapon types, somewhat fits with the fluff of how a bolter works, and gives more feel to the "elite marine" feeling in that you can actually count on your marines to hit and wound, even if they are just s4ap5 wounds. Makes them feel reliable and consistent.

-My biggest pet peeve of tac marines is that they have 1 lousy s4 ap- attack. I would at the very least add a combat knife to their wargear, giving them an extra attack for having two ccw's. Having 2 attacks a man would make them fit their generalist role more as they currently suck out loud at melee. WS I and S don't mean jack if you have the same number attacks as a tau fire warrior.
--I would simultaneously give chainswords rending or shred. It's no big secret that ASM squads are laughable right now, and giving tacticals a second ccw would make them strictly better (before considering jump packs.) It to this day boggles my mind that a weapon as iconic as the chainsword doesn't have an in-game effect. As for which ability, if the game is going to stay at wraithknight/scatbikes/formations power level, they need rending to have a prayer. If the game gets pulled back a bit, shred is alright.

-orks s4 base: We actually had a test game to try this out (it's been suggested many a time. It was actually a pretty ridiculous buff, and the orks steamrolled that game. Turns out when you slightly buff a model that tends to show up on the table in the dozens or even over a hundred-count, the difference is staggering.

Does shred not give a massive power increase?

Then what about space wolves? You just make the cc chapter worse than basic marines. We don't need MORE of that thank you.

Rending is over the top for chainswords. Arguably so is Shred. I'd go for rerolling 1's to Wound or live with it.

Why Orks aren't S4 now is beyond me.

So whats worse on bolters, AP 4 or shred? I took down AP 4 and put up shred, but I want to hear your opinions.

how much should space marines pay for an extra cc weapon? If you upgrade chainswords how will you upgrade chainaxes? If you upgrade chainswords should chaos marines get the option to take chainswords/axes as well? Should Khorne Berserkers come with chainaxes for free?

Choosing between the two I'd definitely go for Shred. It does sound like one of those things that's too much for a basic troop weapon though. I've always liked the reroll 1's to Wound idea. Maybe add something like "If the unit firing the Bolters benefits from the Preferred Enemy (X) rule then it may reroll failed wound rolls of a 2 as well as 1". That way the rule still helps even if the squad has preferred enemy.

What do you guys think about the ork changes in the update? Kinna throwing out a bunch of rapid fire ideas and trying to see what sticks

pm713 wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
-I'm a big fan of giving bolter weapons shred. It makes them stand out from other weapon types, somewhat fits with the fluff of how a bolter works, and gives more feel to the "elite marine" feeling in that you can actually count on your marines to hit and wound, even if they are just s4ap5 wounds. Makes them feel reliable and consistent.

-My biggest pet peeve of tac marines is that they have 1 lousy s4 ap- attack. I would at the very least add a combat knife to their wargear, giving them an extra attack for having two ccw's. Having 2 attacks a man would make them fit their generalist role more as they currently suck out loud at melee. WS I and S don't mean jack if you have the same number attacks as a tau fire warrior.
--I would simultaneously give chainswords rending or shred. It's no big secret that ASM squads are laughable right now, and giving tacticals a second ccw would make them strictly better (before considering jump packs.) It to this day boggles my mind that a weapon as iconic as the chainsword doesn't have an in-game effect. As for which ability, if the game is going to stay at wraithknight/scatbikes/formations power level, they need rending to have a prayer. If the game gets pulled back a bit, shred is alright.

-orks s4 base: We actually had a test game to try this out (it's been suggested many a time. It was actually a pretty ridiculous buff, and the orks steamrolled that game. Turns out when you slightly buff a model that tends to show up on the table in the dozens or even over a hundred-count, the difference is staggering.

Does shred not give a massive power increase?

Then what about space wolves? You just make the cc chapter worse than basic marines. We don't need MORE of that thank you.

Rending is over the top for chainswords. Arguably so is Shred. I'd go for rerolling 1's to Wound or live with it.

Why Orks aren't S4 now is beyond me.

-no, shred is not a massive increase. Against plain Jane marines, it takes 9 bs4 bolter shots to down one. With shred, it would take 6. This means a 5 man squad holding an objective and firing 12-24" would go from not killing a marine to...not killing a marine. So no I don't think that's a worrisome power jump. For comparison, a single 27 point scatbike at 36" away kills .75 of a marine in a volley (almost matching the 70 point shred-squad) on top of all its other well-known advantages. So no, I believe if something's firepower is absolutely outclassed in every way by scatbikes, then there's no reason to worry that they're going to become a new superpower.

-When I say "tacticals," I actually mean "all those guys who are just holding bolters and bolt pistols." That includes space wolves and chaos. I just don't want to have to list every model with a bolter every time the issue comes up. So no, the wolves would not be worse.

-I highly disagree that either ability is over the top. Out of a full ASM squad attack step you're looking at 1.6 dead enemy MEQ's, whereas rending would be closer to 2.3ish dead MEQ's, and shred would actually outperform it at 2.5ish. (Although rending outperforms against bigger targets, so I'd say the rending is better overall.) With a squad that is virtually never seen on a competitive table taken for its own merits (aka outside a broken formation,) increasing its combat damage 30ish % is hardly a big event. It's probably way too little to make them viable as a competitive choice to be honest. They still have immense problems "getting there," in addition to the issue that they hit like limp noodles currently.

-on the orks it really depends on what direction you want the game to go. If wraithknights canoptek harvest and such don't bother you, then sure. If your ideal game is to rein some of that crazy stuff back in, nah, orks with massive s5 charges are scary, as I sort of alluded to above. We watched them decimate a good decurion with that test-buff. The crons didn't even have a chance.

If Shred isn't a stupid big boost I don't have an objection. Although I don't think comparing things to scatterbikes is the way to go.

That's good. We don't need more of "the SM version is better than the others because we say so".

I'm refering specificly to these changes:

I would actually be good with giving Bolter's shred and Tac Marines combat knives or something like that.

I also like a lot of the Eldar changes.

I didn't look all that hard, but have you considered taking a stab at helping out Dark Eldar?

Necrons and Dark Eldar are kind of my weak spot, since I know next to nothing about them.

From what I hear Necrons are pretty good where they are at, and Dark Eldar is in a simliar state.

I keep trying to walk away from todays update, but I end up wanting to squeeze in "just one more thing."

I kind of understand why people have a hard time balancing the crunch, its like one change leads to another.

The reason I'm asking about orks is because I think I'm done with pretty much everything, since SoB are being discontinued, DE and Necrons are pretty much fine where they are at, I did all the main codex and I don't really want to mess around with the itty bitty ones.

Orks got nerfed the hardest and were never that great to begin with. I'm wondering if these changes would be enough or if people would prefer to use Odin's fandex. (I prefer my rules because they don't really add anything "new" or require any changes to the models.

rrll wrote:
Necrons and Dark Eldar are kind of my weak spot, since I know next to nothing about them.

From what I hear Necrons are pretty good where they are at, and Dark Eldar is in a simliar state.

I keep trying to walk away from todays update, but I end up wanting to squeeze in "just one more thing."

I kind of understand why people have a hard time balancing the crunch, its like one change leads to another.

The reason I'm asking about orks is because I think I'm done with pretty much everything, since SoB are being discontinued, DE and Necrons are pretty much fine where they are at, I did all the main codex and I don't really want to mess around with the itty bitty ones.

Orks got nerfed the hardest and were never that great to begin with. I'm wondering if these changes would be enough or if people would prefer to use Odin's fandex. (I prefer my rules because they don't really add anything "new" or require any changes to the models.

I'll have to disagree with you on the state of Dark Eldar. The codex is quite frankly a train wreck at the moment

Isn't the DE dex like, really, really old?

I think DE need more than a rules update, they need a complete overhaul.
You can't neglect a factions codex for 10 years and try to patch it, you have to start over from scratch.

So, I think I'm done. This looks pretty balanced to me. I do have a few more questions though.

1) Do you think eldar got nerfed hard enough?
1) Do you think orks got buffed hard enough?
3) Do you think these are reasonable point costs for chaos units?

rrll wrote:
Isn't the DE dex like, really, really old?

I think DE need more than a rules update, they need a complete overhaul.
You can't neglect a factions codex for 10 years and try to patch it, you have to start over from scratch.

So, I think I'm done. This looks pretty balanced to me. I do have a few more questions though.

1) Do you think eldar got nerfed hard enough?
1) Do you think orks got buffed hard enough?
3) Do you think these are reasonable point costs for chaos units?

The Dark Eldar codex isn't terribly old, the CSM dex is older than it.

I will agree with you though that DE need an overhaul.

As to the rest of your questions.

1. I think you did enough to Eldar, I think you covered most of the really cheesy bits.
2. I think you helped out Orks a bit, so no real complaints here (I'm not an Ork player though, so I'll let some Ork players say more if they so desire)
3. I'm terrible with figuring out how much something should cost, so I'll abstain from commenting on this.

New Update Today

I'd like to give chainswords something, but I'm not sure how to do it without nerfing chaos. Do chaos space marines come with chainswords/chainaxes? I know Khorne Berserkers come with chainaxes, but they cost 3ppm. (chainaxes are S User AP 4 BTW) I got rid of apothecary as an HQ choice because it would require making a new model.

I realized the eldar wraithguard and wraithknights were still undercosted, so I upped the price. (Not sure about the wraithblades) Again I hate to nerf something and not give anything back, so added the option to add another wound to wraithguard and wraithblades for extra points. (It seems odd that something that durable should only have one wound) Made Windriders a fast attack choice because nobody else gets bikes as a troop choice, so i don't see why Eldar should. Somebody mentioned chaning warp spiders teleport to d6 made it useless, and someone else suggested once per turn would be the better option. (So long as the player gets to decide when they use it)

Unnerfed boarding blanks, they were the linchpin of ork anti-armor strategy. Reduced the cost of the Stompa to 500 points, might even reduce it to 450 or 400 depending on feedback. (770 was way overpriced)

Most importantly I noticed a couple of my terminator buffs would require changes to the model, so I had to come up with a few workarounds, which I'm still not sure about. Added "totally not heavy bolters" called "Relic Bolters" to basic termies for 5 ppm, which changes their profile to a heavy bolter. (I'm hoping there is a way to add a purity seal to the bolter to distinguish them, giving them a different paint scheme (gold medal/silver foil) and am not sure about giving them 36" range. (might be better at 24") If other units were allowed to take stormbolters maybe they could take them for an additional 5 points on top of the 5 you pay for storm bolters. (Since nobody I know pays for storm bolters anyway)

I also noticed that Centaurian Devestators can't take assault cannons on their model, so I changed them to "assult cannons", dual (not TL) "reinforced" heavy bolters with adamantium ammo. Changed the profile to 24", S6, AP 4, Heavy 2, Rending, which is essentially identicle to assault cannons. Also added the option for Dual Lascannons, (on dev cen) Dual Multi-Meltas, (on dev assault) because nobody ever takes TL lascannons and because a TL MM is pretty "meh" compared to a TL Flamestorm Cannon. (I didn't change it to dual flamestorm cannons cause i thought that would be OP)

I am currently thinking that Eldar are still pretty cheesy and so far I've only really focused on 4 units, (warpspiders, windriders, wraithguard and wraithknights) I'm wondering if that enough.

After some consideration, I've changed the D-Scythes Template to S10 AP2. Still pretty fething brutal, if you ask me.
Also changed warp spiders to lose a model on doubles when they jump.
Changed the Windriders to 1 heavy weapon per 3 bikes.
Also reorganized the table so that I address specific problem instead of "Eldar are cheesy" which is more generalized.

I got rid of the original changes to the terminators storm bolters and the centaurian devestators heavy TL bolters. I decided it was too much like "legislating from the bench", taking creative liberties with a models fluff, and got rid of relic bolters and reinforced heavy bolters. I'm not sure where I'd find purity seals to put on them anyway.

I also added chainaxes to khorne berkerkers for free and gave centaurian devestators dual heavy bolters instead of TL. Since the idea was to give bolters shred, this is still pretty good, probably even better for infantry. I got rid of the +1 to initiative for KB. It seemed like a cool idea, but if it ain't broke why fix it?

I was thinking about giving chainswords/chainaxes shred, maybe even giving chainaxes rending, but i ran into a problem of how many "special" versions of chainswords there might be, like eviscerators and relics and such. Should I give all of them shred and/or rending? How would I find them all?

So I decided on giving chainswords, as well as ork and chaos ccw, reroll 1's to wound, (once per die) and giving big choppas and khorne berserker chainaxes shred, replacing chainaxes AP 4 but keeping big choppas +2 S.

Not much left to do. I want to start a poll pretty soon, see if I can muster some support for these changes.

Got rid of the cost increase for wraithblades, since nobody really asked for it, changed heavy d-scythes to S10, and got rid of the cost increase for windriders scatter laser, since they only have a max of 3 per squad and are now fast attack options. Wondering if there should be a point increase for taking d-scythes, (say from 10 to 20) and if that should lower the base ppm. (Is having a S10 AP2 Template Weapon that much better than having a 18", Strength D, assault 2 weapon?)

Other than that, that is pretty much it, thinking of starting a straw poll, see if we can muster up some support for this list. Maybe people can agree to use it or not, depending on their playstyle. The only thing I'd ask you not to do is cherry pick which rules you want and which you don't, the list is meant to be taken as a whole, as an effort to balance out most of the lower tier and higher factions and make the game more playable.

Thanks for all your participation so far, and good hunting!

The existing standard wraithcannon is R12 SD AP2 Assault 1, unless you changed it somewhere and I missed it.

Personally, I'd change the scythe version back to what it was in 6e: S4 AP2 Assault 1, Distort, Template. You could probably make a case for S5 or S6. An S10 AP2 Ignores Cover weapon is arguably meaner than the current version, in some ways. (The current one is mini-D, so it's effectively wounding on a 3+, while S10 wounds on a 2+ against almost everything, and the current one doesn't have ID, while S10 would have ID against T5 and less. Doesn't inflict as many wounds/hull points though. It's a tossup.)

Okay, so it looks like I'm still not nerfing eldar hard enough.
Total rollback, with one exception: D-Scythes are S6

Honestly I thought you had nerfed Eldar hard enough, with the FAQ hammering Eldar/DEldar transport shenanigans things like D-Scythes aren't as bad as they once were.

Like they said, S10 is better in some ways, since you're not missing to wound on 2's.

After reading the 6th ed Eldar Codex, I'm am just surprised how OP their new codex is. How in the hell do you go from a S4 AP2 template to a S D template? Thats like taking a lasrifle and saying, "okay, lasrifles are underpowered. Lets double their strength."

rrll wrote:
Like they said, S10 is better in some ways, since you're not missing to wound on 2's.

After reading the 6th ed Eldar Codex, I'm am just surprised how OP their new codex is. How in the hell do you go from a S4 AP2 template to a S D template? Thats like taking a lasrifle and saying, "okay, lasrifles are underpowered. Lets double their strength."

The exact same way the Wraithknight was changed to a GMC, they did it because they could. Which rather sucks, because I had always wanted to do an Eldar army (I love Guardians), but people have so much hate towards them that I'd probably be wasting my time.

 War Kitten wrote:

The exact same way the Wraithknight was changed to a GMC, they did it because they could. Which rather sucks, because I had always wanted to do an Eldar army (I love Guardians), but people have so much hate towards them that I'd probably be wasting my time.

Would you still play wraithguard at this point cost/these nerfs?

rrll wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:

The exact same way the Wraithknight was changed to a GMC, they did it because they could. Which rather sucks, because I had always wanted to do an Eldar army (I love Guardians), but people have so much hate towards them that I'd probably be wasting my time.

Would you still play wraithguard at this point cost/these nerfs?

I probably still would play Wraithguard yes. I wouldn't take that many of them, but I would still take them.

what about the wraithknight?

Would it still be worth fielding?

I probably still would yes.

Added an editorial requests listing to the beginning of the post. Much overdue, imho.

All in all, great day today, lots of feedback, lots of constructive criticism.

rrll wrote:Solution 1: Change Bolter Statline (also applies to chaos)
Give Bolters shred
Alternatively
Make Bolters Salvo 2/1 and Heavy Bolters 3-4/2

Shred is probably a better solution than making Bolter Weapons Salvo in general. That being said, I think the following may be a good solution:

-- Bolt Pistols: Keep them as they are as they do not need a buff since:
-- -- They double up as a CCW when making an assault.
-- -- They are (at least in a few cases) also equipped to units with Boltguns, which means that those models still have the choice between firing the Boltgun, or firing the Bolt Pistol and then charging.

-- Boltguns: They should have Shred and keep the Rapid Fire Special Rule.
-- -- Changing Boltguns to Salvo Weapons (from Rapid Fire Weapons) doesn't really improve their capabilities if you ask me (in fact, I think being Salvo makes them worse).

-- I agree that Heavy Bolters should be Salvo Weapons, but they should be Salvo 2/4 or Salvo 3/5.

Edit: Storm Bolters should get S5 instead of S4, and Shred or Twin-Linked (but not both without a points increase), but otherwise stay as is.

rrll wrote:Solution 2: Change price of Heavy Bolter
Heavy Bolter 5ppm

That is too cheap (even with its current profile). I think it's better to buff the Heavy Bolter (and maybe increase the points cost accordingly if required).

rrll wrote:Problem: Terminators are overcosted

Solutions:
Change Terminators to T5
Give them 2 wounds
raise point cost to 40-50 points a model, depending on changes

Gotta do the maths on this, bud. 50 points is on par if it was just 2 Wounds. Add in the Toughness 5 and you're looking at 60 points easily. By increasing the wounds, you've effectively made them twice as survivable. Then consider the fact that you've made it harder to inflict wounds because you've increase their toughness. The extra wound alone is worth 5 - 10 points and the combo of buffs is worth at least 20 points given how much harder to kill that makes Terminators. So you're looking at 55 - 60 points per model (of 45 - 50 if it's just the two wounds).

40 is way too cheap with those two buffs. Think about it: Would you rather take a Tactical Squad at 14 points/model with their profiles? Or would you take your proposed Terminators at 40 points/model? The Terminators win out every time because at 40 points/model with your changes, they are so much more cost efficient.

rrll wrote:Problem: Centaurians are a huge point sink and do not have invul saves

Solutions:
Give Centurians 4+ invul saves
Give Centaurians Deep Stike (Just like other terminators)
Give Devestator Centaurians Dual Heavy Bolters instead of Twin Linked
Let Devastator Centaurians take Dual Lascannons instead of twinlinked for 25 ppm
give Assault Centaurians dual Multi-Melta's instead of twinlinked for 25 ppm
Let Devestator Centaurians take Cyclone ML's for 25 points instead of ML's
Give Assault Centuarians take a Flamestorm Cannon as default weapons
Raise all Centaurians Point Costs to 60-70, depending on changes

-- 5+ Invulnerable is better since you without Storm Shields, you exclusively see 4+ Invulnerable saves on HQ units. Centurions should not be the exception. Plus with a 5+ Invulnerable, that's still a 1/3 chance of success (which is pretty damn good).
-- Deep Strike is a good idea, but given their bulk (even compared to Terminators), a penalty may not go astray here (though this is probably very optional).
-- Replacing Twin-Linked Weapons for Dual Weapons should come with a relatively significant points cost. because you're trading a 22% increase in probability to hit (66.67% w/o TL, 88.89% w/ TL) for the potential to cause more wounds (and in the case of the Heavy Bolter, that's a lot more wounds).
-- 60 - 65 would be appropriate if it was just the Invulnerable Save buff, but with all the other changes, you're probably looking at closer to 75 - 80 points per model base.

rrll wrote:Solution 2: Basic Buffs
Change Initiative to 4
give tank busta's infiltrate

-- Regular Boyz should never be Initiative 4. Initiative 3 tops, with my personal opinion being that Boyz are fine at Initiative 2.
-- No. This would make them too powerful.

Another basic buff that comes to mind (which my friends and I discussed) was to replace the 6+ Armour Save of Boyz with a 6+ FNP. Not only does it fit more with the fluff (I know you don't care much for fluff, but fluff is still valid as part of any reasoning), but logically it makes more sense and also means that their save doesn't get invalidated by so many weapons.