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.

Maybe give Ork Boyz a 6+ FNP in addition to their 6+ armor? Instead of just straight up replacing their armor, give them that FNP as an additional save. It's not much, but it'll make them just a tad harder to kill

 War Kitten wrote:
Maybe give Ork Boyz a 6+ FNP in addition to their 6+ armor? Instead of just straight up replacing their armor, give them that FNP as an additional save. It's not much, but it'll make them just a tad harder to kill

That could work as well. My friends and I also thought it was important for the FNP Save to no have a value that exceeds the model's Armour Save (assuming it has both saves), thus always capping it at a default of 6+ for Orks. Admittedly we preferred the FNP to take the Armour Save's place, but having both could work.

 War Kitten wrote:
Maybe give Ork Boyz a 6+ FNP in addition to their 6+ armor? Instead of just straight up replacing their armor, give them that FNP as an additional save. It's not much, but it'll make them just a tad harder to kill

they already have painboyz for that. honestly, a 5+ armor save on nobz isn't hurting anyone

rrll wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
Maybe give Ork Boyz a 6+ FNP in addition to their 6+ armor? Instead of just straight up replacing their armor, give them that FNP as an additional save. It's not much, but it'll make them just a tad harder to kill

they already have painboyz for that. honestly, a 5+ armor save on nobz isn't hurting anyone

But is it not a tad ridiculous that an Ork player needs a Painboy in their army list for something which all Orks should (arguably) have by default?

And nobody is arguing about a 5+ Armour Save on Nobz (because that's fair), but more discussing whether or not Boyz (and other Orks) should be getting a FNP (6+) as well as a 6+ Armour Save.

-- -- 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 find this funny because I'm pretty sure this was your idea.

As to the terminator buffs being undercosted, you may be right. Somebody was particularly vehement about ID on terminators being the worse thing ever, but they still get their invul saves so I think I might reduce them to T4 again. (Still think the extra wound makes sense though)


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

-- 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.

Yeah, that makes sense actually, 75 points for devs and 80 for assaults sounds about right. (I like the 4+ invul saves because centaurians are supposed to be buffer than ordinary terminators, and also they can't take storm shields)

>People hate I2 on boys, its practically a meme.
>Tankbustas had infiltrate in the original dawn of war video game series, (though i think it might have been an upgrade) which i think was based on an old codex. I'll talk to some more people and think about it

Its a little fluff breaking when there isn't a real difference between Centurians and Terminators.

Centurians should be less durable than Terminators as Tactical Dreadnaught armour was originally designed for maintenance use in plasma reactors where Centurian battle armour is designed to lug around more heavy equipment than a normal Astartes could carry.

-Centurians should never have an Invuln. In fact, I think they really shouldn't have 2+ Armour. 3+ Armour is good.
-Assault Centurians should have Relentless, not SaP.
-Assault Centurians should have 2 attacks in their base profile.
-Terminators should either have T5 or 2W, not both. I'd go for the T5 so we have variability between GK Paladins and Vanilla Terminators.
-Terminators should be able to assault from Deep Strike if they get a "direct hit."
-Terminators and Assault Terminators can be merged into one unit and have all their weapons (Dual LC, TH/SS, PF/Storm Bolters) available to the entire squad.
-Terminators should be able to have 2 Heavy Weapons per 5 Terminators and 3 at 10.

rrll wrote:
-- -- 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 find this funny because I'm pretty sure this was your idea.

The following is what I said:

 IllumiNini wrote:

rrll wrote:
Problem: Bolters are weak/Space Marine Tac Squads are one of the worse troop choices in the game

Solution 1: Change Bolter Statline
Change Heavy Bolters to Heavy 5
Change Bolters AP 4

A better solution may be to change the type of weapon that a Bolter is. For example, it might be a better "Fix" to make Bolterguns Salvo 1/2 or Assault 2 or something like that.

Heavy 5 is too much. Heavy Bolters may benefit better from being something like Salvo 2/4.

I did suggest Salvo for Boltguns, but I also made the suggestion of Assault 2, not to mention I was relative open about what could be done about this problem (as evidenced by "...or something like that." tailing on the end of that sentence).

In addition, I have given it further thought which lead to my suggestions in this thread regarding each particular type of Bolt weapon. What you have to remember is that with Salvo weapons, you cannot assault if you fire them, and you fire less shots at half of your maximum range if you move. So with that in mind, making Boltguns, Bolt Pistols, and Storm Bolters Salvo Weapons won't buff them (but probably make them worse).

rrll wrote:
>People hate I2 on boys, its practically a meme.

But I don't think people hating something is quite enough reason to change it. For example, I hate the fact that my Vindicators only have AV 10 on it's Rear Armour, but that's hardly enough reason to change it. But as I said before, you could probably bump up the Initiative of Boyz to 3 without running into problems. Any higher than 3 is going to be a problem because then you'll be putting them at least on par with Space Marines (which doesn't sound right).

rrll wrote:
>Tankbustas had infiltrate in the original dawn of war video game series, (though i think it might have been an upgrade) which i think was based on an old codex. I'll talk to some more people and think about it

Yeah, probably best to talk to a few more people about it. Plus IMO, video games are another one of those things which isn't always good as a basis for tabletop rules. For example, in DoW1 and it's expansions, it was possible to chew through more than a thousand individual Space Marines in a given match or over the course of the campaign (or part thereof) which doesn't make any sense because there are (roughly) 1,000 Space Marines in a Chapter. My point is that some of the game mechanics of the DoW1 video game exist because, among other things, they work because the mechanic is being employed as part of a video game (which is distinctly different from a mechanic that works on tabletop).

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Its a little fluff breaking when there isn't a real difference between Centurians and Terminators.

>Centurians should be less durable than Terminators as Tactical Dreadnaught armour was originally designed for maintenance use in plasma reactors where Centurian battle armour is designed to lug around more heavy equipment than a normal Astartes could carry.

-Centurians should never have an Invuln. In fact, I think they really shouldn't have 2+ Armour. 3+ Armour is good.

Like I said, fluff isn't my number one priority. The fact is, centaurians LOOK bigger, tougher and stronger, yet are statistically weaker than terminator armor. Why? It doesn't make any sense.

-Assault Centurians should have Relentless, not SaP.

This just sounds like a needless buff. If ordinary terminators are S&P, why would something nearly twice its size be faster and quicker?

-Assault Centurians should have 2 attacks in their base profile.

they already get 2. (3 on a charge) Why should something that big and clunky get 2 attacks?

-Terminators should either have T5 or 2W, not both. I'd go for the T5 so we have variability between GK Paladins and Vanilla Terminators.

Seems like needless nerf. Again, centaurians are big and tough, it makes sense that they should have a higher toughness and an extra wound.

-Terminators should be able to assault from Deep Strike if they get a "direct hit."

I don't want to mess with the games core mechanics.

-Terminators and Assault Terminators can be merged into one unit and have all their weapons (Dual LC, TH/SS, PF/Storm Bolters) available to the entire squad.

Again, this would require a change to the models sprues, which is not something we have any control over.

-Terminators should be able to have 2 Heavy Weapons per 5 Terminators and 3 at 10.

Originally I had ALL terminators being able to carry heavy weapons, but again, i realized that would require a change to the models.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IllumiNini wrote:

I did suggest Salvo for Boltguns, but I also made the suggestion of Assault 2, not to mention I was relative open about what could be done about this problem. (as evidenced by "...or something like that." tailing on the end of that sentence)

Yeah, I know, I just thought it was humorous. I removed the salvo change to standard bolters.

rrll wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Its a little fluff breaking when there isn't a real difference between Centurians and Terminators.

>Centurians should be less durable than Terminators as Tactical Dreadnaught armour was originally designed for maintenance use in plasma reactors where Centurian battle armour is designed to lug around more heavy equipment than a normal Astartes could carry.

-Centurians should never have an Invuln. In fact, I think they really shouldn't have 2+ Armour. 3+ Armour is good.

Like I said, fluff isn't my number one priority. The fact is, centaurians LOOK bigger, tougher and stronger, yet are statistically weaker than terminator armor. Why? It doesn't make any sense.

Right... Well, my Baneblade looks bigger, tougher and stronger than a Land Raider yet only has AV12 in its rear arch where as a Lan Raider has AV14. When you take out the fluff from the game, there really isn't any point in playing the game if I can't represent the fluff. That's kind of the reason we have a game for the fluff and the fluff for the game. They should mostly go hand in hand.

-Assault Centurians should have Relentless, not SaP.

This just sounds like a needless buff. If ordinary terminators are S&P, why would something nearly twice its size be faster and quicker?

I am going to call you out for not knowing your rules here. Terminators do not have SaP; they just can't make Sweeping Advances. You seem to be basing a lot of your rules on appearence only and I find that very disturbing.

-Assault Centurians should have 2 attacks in their base profile.

they already get 2. (3 on a charge) Why should something that big and clunky get 2 attacks?

Because it goes with my earlier change for them to have a 3+ save. I'm putting a lot of points into a unit that has uber amounts of melee capability, but sucks at range, are super slow and huge targets.

Again with the "rules based on appearence" thing. If we keep doing this, we might as well give the Carnifex a 2+/3++, FnP (+4) and IWND.

-Terminators should either have T5 or 2W, not both. I'd go for the T5 so we have variability between GK Paladins and Vanilla Terminators.

Seems like needless nerf. Again, centaurians are big and tough, it makes sense that they should have a higher toughness and an extra wound.

GK Paladins have 2 wounds. If we give Terminators T5, then there is still a difference between Paladins and regular Terminators.

-Terminators should be able to assault from Deep Strike if they get a "direct hit."

I don't want to mess with the games core mechanics.

Then you are in the wrong place, friend.

-Terminators and Assault Terminators can be merged into one unit and have all their weapons (Dual LC, TH/SS, PF/Storm Bolters) available to the entire squad.

Again, this would require a change to the models sprues, which is not something we have any control over.

No, it wouldn't. Just leave a kit for Assault Terminators and regular Terminators. The regular Terminator kit doesn't even come with all the options Terminators have. I would also like to point out that many other kits don't come with all of their options, case and point Devastator and Tactical Marine boxes.

-Terminators should be able to have 2 Heavy Weapons per 5 Terminators and 3 at 10.

Originally I had ALL terminators being able to carry heavy weapons, but again, i realized that would require a change to the models.

Giving every model a Heavy Weapon is both OP and breaks the fluff, not that you care.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

-Assault Centurians should have Relentless, not SaP.

rrll wrote:
This just sounds like a needless buff. If ordinary terminators are S&P, why would something nearly twice its size be faster and quicker?

Terminators aren't Slow and Purposeful. I don't know why, but that is a common misconception. I can't speak for the viability of Assault Centurions, though.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

-Assault Centurians should have Relentless, not SaP.

rrll wrote:
This just sounds like a needless buff. If ordinary terminators are S&P, why would something nearly twice its size be faster and quicker?

Terminators aren't Slow and Purposeful. I don't know why, but that is a common misconception. I can't speak for the viability of Assault Centurions, though.

Assault Centurians will destroy anything they touch in CC, but they are too slow and their only DT is a Land Raider. If you pile them into a Land Raider, let's assume a Crusader so you can take 5 Centurians. That is a massive nest egg and it draws a lot of attention. If it reaches its Target, it will kill it, no doubt, but then the Centurians are stuck in the open for an entire shooting phase. They do happen to be marginally better in Zone Mortalis because there aren't long site lines. Crowded environments are where the Assault Centurians are meant to be in. Open terrain is their bane.

>Then you are in the wrong place, friend.

You're being kind of a pill.

rrll wrote:
>Then you are in the wrong place, friend.

You're being kind of a pill.

Don't pull what I say out of context.

If you aren't going to alter and change rules, there is no purpose fiddling in the Proposed Rules subforum. Many, many units ignore certain core rules. We call the ignoring of these core rules "Special Rules." Don't propose all of these changes then shut someone else down when they try because "I don't want to mess with the core rules."

I didn't "shut you down", I disagreed with you. Reasonable people can have disagreements without disparaging one another. Don't expect me to just ignore the implications of your rhetoric.

rrll wrote:
I didn't "shut you down", I disagreed with you. Reasonable people can have disagreements without disparaging one another. Don't expect me to just ignore the implications of your rhetoric.

I proposed a rule, you shut it down by saying you didn't want to change the core rules. If we aren't here to change rules, why are we here?

rrll wrote:
Like I said, fluff isn't my number one priority. The fact is, centaurians LOOK bigger, tougher and stronger, yet are statistically weaker than terminator armor. Why? It doesn't make any sense.

And this is where you trip up massively. Fluff should not be your number one priority here; balancing existing rules and proposing new ones should be (especially since this is the Proposed Rules Sub-Forum). But fluff should be a close second (or at least somewhere in your top 5).

Also, the argument that artistic impression of a unit (whether that's the model or a piece of artwork) is not a valid reason to change the rules. It might be a good argument for saying that the unit is misrepresented on the tabletop, but the fluff will at least help you to figure out the sorts of things that are appropriate for a unit.

If fluff wasn't your top priority because balancing the rules is, I can understand and live with that, but saying something looks bigger and better to your eyes and therefore should be better is no real reasoning to a basis of rules. It's like saying a car should be more powerful because it has the capacity to hold a bigger engine.

rrll wrote:
-->> Terminators should either have T5 or 2W, not both. I'd go for the T5 so we have variability between GK Paladins and Vanilla Terminators.

Seems like needless nerf. Again, centaurians are big and tough, it makes sense that they should have a higher toughness and an extra wound.

It makes sense, yes, but you also have to consider the individuality of each unit and the balance on the tabletop. I mean, I'd be OK with both, but Tactical_Spam is talking sense.

rrll wrote:
I don't want to mess with the games core mechanics.

Then what are you doing trying to balance this game? On some level or another, all of your proposed rules make changes to what are the core mechanics of their respective armies (and some make changes to the core rule set). If you're not OK with changing the core rules and/or core mechanics of the game, you might as well as the Forum Moderators/Administrators to lock this thread because you can't propose a rule without making a change to the core mechanics.

rrll wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

I did suggest Salvo for Boltguns, but I also made the suggestion of Assault 2, not to mention I was relative open about what could be done about this problem. (as evidenced by "...or something like that." tailing on the end of that sentence)

Yeah, I know, I just thought it was humorous.

I don't see the humor, but OK.

rrll wrote:
I didn't "shut you down", I disagreed with you. Reasonable people can have disagreements without disparaging one another. Don't expect me to just ignore the implications of your rhetoric.

You called him a pill. How is that Disagreeing with him as opposed to insulting him? You called him a derogatory name - to most people's minds that's not disagreement, that's name-calling (which is bullying). Being rude is not only against the Forum Rules, but it's something you've tried to call me out on before (the operative and important word there being tried), and yet here you are doing the exact thing you berated me for.

I'm sorry I lost my temper a bit, but I find certain questions and criticisms particularly grating, as well as certain tones and attitudes.

I've been moving away from crowdsourcing opinions and more towards implementing some of the fixes I listed here. Some of them turned out to be more feasible than others, and I've had to make a lot of ad hoc changes without updating the logs.

I'm still open to suggestions on what we should change and how we should change it, and so far I've got the ork, space marine, and chaos space marine catalogues for battlescribe up and running.

rrll wrote:
I'm sorry I lost my temper a bit, but I find certain questions and criticisms particularly grating, as well as certain tones and attitudes.

You're on an internet forum that uses text as a medium of communication. Things aren't always what they seem, and nor do they necessarily carry the tones and attitudes you read into it. Trust me, it's a mistake I make all the time.

rrll wrote:
II'm still open to suggestions on what we should change and how we should change it, and so far I've got the ork, space marine, and chaos space marine catalogues for battlescribe up and running.

Not everyone uses Battlescribe. I, for one, use Excel all the time. I can gather the gist from most rules, but my suggestion is try to write the rules as if you were writing them to go directly into the next edition of the BRB. Clarity through 'correct' expression

okay, so eldar 'dex catalogue is up and running and they are all now in one file so you don't have to download them separately. It should update all the older versions of the catalogues with the new ones all at once.

I kept windriders as a troop choice but increased the point cost and set the maximum number of heavy weapons to 1 per every 3 models.

So does anybody but the peanut gallery have any legitimate criticisms?

Things I maybe might not have thought of in regard to game balance, point cost, breaking the game, etc.?

Any thoughts as to which of these changes might be a dealbreaker for you?

I'm going to work on the Tyranid changes next, not sure when I'll get around to it. Kind of depends on whether or not I get any feedback. So far lots of views, but no comments, so I'm hoping that means your downloading the links I provided and using them.

So 50ppm Wraith guard with S10AP2 @12"?

Vindication get a S10 AP2 *pieplate* for a lot less than a 2 of these WG.

Some of this stuff just goes to far.

My suggestion for what to do with Wraith guard? Give them these rules:
-SnP (Wraith blades lose this rule)
-Cannot join or be joined by units containing any models from other 'Dexes.

Wraith blades would still be not great, but Wraith guard would be about right then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The best way to make Bolt guns viable again is to make the things it works well against more relevant. There are tons of units in this game that are beaten handily by the "lowly" Marine and his Bolt gun. But they are "never taken", making the bolt gun feel worse than it is.

It's so much easier to just make Wraithguard as they were in the previous codex. Nobody complained and it saves all this faff about balancing brand new stuff.

I upped the price from 40 ppm to 50 ppm when they still had D weapons.

I see your point, though. I'll change it with the next update.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
It's so much easier to just make Wraithguard as they were in the previous codex. Nobody complained and it saves all this faff about balancing brand new stuff.

Basically that is what I'm trying to do, except I don't think anybody is going to take a S4 AP2 template over a S10 AP2 assault, especially not for 10 points. Do you happen to know what wraithguard were priced as in their old dex offhand? I'm thinking 40 ppm with 10 ppm for the flamer upgrade.

It was S4 AP2, but it was a *template*.

They also had ID on a roll of 6.

(They werent D solely because GW was smart enough not to bring D to normal 40k. But yeah, reverting most of the 7E CWE to their 6E CWE rules would be a great first step.)

rrll wrote:
I upped the price from 40 ppm to 50 ppm when they still had D weapons.

I see your point, though. I'll change it with the next update.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
It's so much easier to just make Wraithguard as they were in the previous codex. Nobody complained and it saves all this faff about balancing brand new stuff.

Basically that is what I'm trying to do, except I don't think anybody is going to take a S4 AP2 template over a S10 AP2 assault, especially not for 10 points. Do you happen to know what wraithguard were priced as in their old dex offhand? I'm thinking 40 ppm with 10 ppm for the flamer upgrade.

Those Template guard were pretty good for holding objectives imo. Takes a fair bit of shooting to kill them and nobody wants to charge through 5D3 S4 AP2 shots.

I'm 90% sure the price was the same as now but I can't check right now.

Alright, i fixed it. BTW, I added the old distort rule to all the distortion weapons and updated the battlescribe file.

I assume your new version of the Bolter and heavy bolter applies to all those who use such weapons and not just Imperial and Chaos Marines.

Specifically Inquisitors and Adepta Sororitas

The latter are quite keen on their new Shredding Bolters.

Referring to general users as "the peanut gallery" is hardly a polite way to discuss something. Don't try and place yourself above other users