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.

This is something that I've been thinking about. It seems to me that if a few core rules were changed, the game would become much more balanced, since most shenanigans seem to revolve around abusing/exploiting a few of the more broken ones. I expect to receive a lot of flakk for this posting, since many of you probably exploit these things. But I think that other people will agree with me that if these changes occurred, the game would become much more balanced.

1. Relentless needs to disappear as a rule. The only things in the game that shouldn't be adversely affected by movement are monstrous creature and vehicles. If this happens, all of a sudden, some of the most broken things in the game disappear. Why? Because some of the most broken things in the game involve combining strong weapons that are adversely affected by movement with...you guessed it...relentless platforms. Chief examples:

A. Grav centurions
B. Eldar jetbikes with scatter lasers.
C. Space marine bikes with grav guns.
D. Space marine chapter masters on bikes or in terminator armor (read: "orbital strike on the move").

The flipside to this is that vehicles would begin to look much more attractive. If your codex's only viable mobile heavy weapons platform is a tank, then guess what's going to look pretty darned good?

As it is, bikes actually compete with tanks as mobile weapons platforms. If anything, they sometimes outshine them. An eldar jetbike can move 12 and then shoot accurately. A tank can only move 6 and then shoot accurately. In my view, that's just ridiculous.

2. Salvo needs to be removed from the game. It's only ever really used in combination with relentless platforms to become an assault weapon/heavy weapon on steroids. Granted, this is mitigated if relentless is removed from the game. But the simple fact is that salvo, as a rule, steps on the toes of rapidfire weapons. It's a stupid rule. It needs to die.

3. Invisibility needs to die in a fire.

4. Rerollable anything needs to die in a fire. Rerollables should be replaced with stat modifiers. Example: instead of the bolter drill allowing rerolls of 1s, just replace that with +1 BS (to a maximum of BS 5). Simple. Easy. And you should always fail on 1s. Period.

5. Not only does random psychic powers need to die in a fire, but we should go back to the way that 5th edition did it. Each psyker has a particular set of codex-specific powers that they can take, and they must choose from that list. Furthermore, those codex-specific powers MUST be resolved in lieu of shooting in the shooting phase.

Say that this is a horrible change, but the simple fact is this: whatever else people may have complained about in 5th edition, I don't see anyone complaining about OP 5th ed. psychic shenanigans.

I disagree with most of this. You are not generally changing "core" rules. Just special rules. And your doing it targetting specific units. This wont fix the game, it will just place all the bs in another place.

 Lance845 wrote:
I disagree with most of this. You are not generally changing "core" rules. Just special rules. And your doing it targetting specific units. This wont fix the game, it will just place all the bs in another place.

They're special rules in the core rulebook.

At any rate, can you think of an OP space marine combo if those rules were changed or removed?

Can you think of anything that's underpowered that would be hit too hard?

Can you think of anything OP that would become more OP?

Change to d10. Rewrite everything. Anything else is a waste.

You're also on crack if you think relentless is the number one thing that needs to go.

Martel732 wrote:
Change to d10. Rewrite everything. Anything else is a waste.

That wouldn't necessarily balance anything. That could even potentially cause even more balance.

Knowing GW, even if there were a d10 system, there would still be 2+ rerollables, and the fething eldar would get them.

You're also on crack if you think relentless is the number one thing that needs to go.

How many things from the core rulebook (iow, not codex-specific) can you think of that cause more imbalance?

I rewrite it, not gw.

Problems are caused by combinations. Not single rules.

Thing is, there are some armies where relentless is sort of their thing. Skitarii actively pay for that bonus on every model. Crisis suits technically wouldn't be effected for the most part, aside from being unable to charge after firing plasma. Oblits would be pointless.
Even then, the biggest issues right now, IMO, are
1. the gross imbalance between the Astartes flavors. 9 times out of 10 you're better playing your blood angels as "red codex marines"
2. Over abuse of BB level allies.
3. Psychic phase being so out of balance with itself. When is the last time you saw someone roll on Pyromancy?
4. How stupidly fragile non superheavy vehicles are
5. Lack of an Age of Darkness style LoW cap. Give knights a caveat of they are alone, as in the only codex you draw from is Imperial/Renegade Knights.
6. MC having to much free candy. I can see relentless. I can see MTC. But when I have 0 reason to ever give my Kastellans PF, the is a bit of an issue.
6a. This could be a thing actually. MC grants relentless, MTC, and HoW. Then give MC natural melee AP, Smash [number], and smash attack improves AP by 1 and [doubles?] strength. So riptide gets Smash [4]. Its attacks in close combat are AP4. It can reduce its attacks to 1 to improve the AP by 1, so it makes a single swing athe s10 AP3. This little addendum could be the balance pass monsters need.

StarHunter25 wrote:
Thing is, there are some armies where relentless is sort of their thing. Skitarii actively pay for that bonus on every model. Crisis suits technically wouldn't be effected for the most part, aside from being unable to charge after firing plasma. Oblits would be pointless.

Remove relentless; readjust points accordingly. And oblits wouldn't be pointless. Their shtick is that they have a 2+ armor save, an invuln and the ability to change their weapon loadout based on the needs imposed by the circumstances. Oblits aren't about mobility. They're about durability and adaptability.

Of course, whether or not obliterators are fairly costed, or would be fairly costed without relentless, is another discussion.

But consider this: if obliterators don't have relentless, chaos space marine predators start to look more attractive, don't they?

1. the gross imbalance between the Astartes flavors. 9 times out of 10 you're better playing your blood angels as "red codex marines"

There's internal imbalance even within the same Astartes flavor. If you're playing competitively, is your captain going in a rhino or on a bike?

Are your bikes carrying grav guns or plasma guns?

3. Psychic phase being so out of balance with itself. When is the last time you saw someone roll on Pyromancy?[/quote[

Go back to the 5th edition way of dealing with psychic powers, and this problem is largely mitigated.

Traditio you don't understand game theory at all. I understand you want tanks to be better but this not the way.

I agree with Martel. These are ideas coming from a good place of mind but lacking any technical skill or real understanding of actual game mechanics and their interactions.

Your #1 on that list should be Formations. Restricting viable player options while handing out free rules is highly destructive to the entire game experience and in particular to the flexibility that building an army you enjoy and playing some games should be.

Space Marines were not considered over powered until their most recent dex came out and they were handed a handful of formations and "decurions" that shoved them towards the top tier.

If Marines only had a CAD to work with would you feel so upset about many of these units?

Some units are broken. Eldar have a book with quite a few standouts at this point. Relentless is not the reason they are bad. Bikes are meant to be mobile. Making it so they cannot use their mobility and their firepower cripples the unit. You are not fixing Eldar bikes, your breaking them.

Again, these things you are targeting are not fixing core elements of the game that impact the whole experience. Your targeting specific units by finding similar, but not necessarily the same, features amongst them and trying to knock them back.

Core game mechanics are things like movement, the way assault works, shooting, all the ways in which 2 units interact with each other.

Special rules are exceptions to those mechanics. The game has much bigger core problems then any handful of special rules can fix.

I guarantee i could write a badass d10 system that makes 90% happy. But grad school sucks.

1) Absoulutly not, this would render many units completely worthless, IE terminators, cents, and bikes from the space marine list, it would cripple the units to worthlessness.

Your arguments about bikes being more favorable then vehicles is honestly laughable. bikes are weak, get something that ignores cover, congratulations, you just killed the bike. The reason for no one taking tanks anymore is because armor in general is weak, not because of relentless, its because HP are a stupid system that allow for vehicles to be glanced to death by small arms fire. Relentless is far from the problem.

2) Again no, salvo is fine, honestly i dont like it simple because of more freaking rules.

3) I have no opinion one way or the other

4) again see point one, reroll to hit from twin linked it what makes a large potion of weapons even worth anything. Removeing this would again, cripple units to pure worthlessness.

5) Im not against 5th ed pycic powers.

To be brash, most of your arugments have been, Its dumb i dont like it, which is not very good

Martel732 wrote:
I guarantee i could write a badass d10 system that makes 90% happy. But grad school sucks.

I think you and I have gone over this one many a times, I agree, but, we gotta work in the bounds we are given lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I disagree with most of this. You are not generally changing "core" rules. Just special rules. And your doing it targetting specific units. This wont fix the game, it will just place all the bs in another place.

They're special rules in the core rulebook.

At any rate, can you think of an OP space marine combo if those rules were changed or removed?

Can you think of anything that's underpowered that would be hit too hard?

Can you think of anything OP that would become more OP?

I sure can, lions blade strike force is still going to be OP

1850 points, over 400 points of free razor backs with heavy bolters, everything gets objective secure, and fires over watch at full BS.

Raven wing army with dark shrouds, TL plasma guns and have a 2+ rerollable jink out in the open.

These "core rules" Fix nothing and are just nit picked.

I vote for D + E

D. This poll is bad and you should feel bad. (look at all posts above)
E. Traditio shouldn't make any polls , ever again (no really , please stop with it )

Traditio - in each of your threads you cherry pick a rule as a "holy grail of balancing 40K", but time after time you fail to realise, that everything you wish to change this way just shifts the relative power levels and restores no overall balance at all!

When you have such a complex ruleset (in terms of sheer volume of unit/rules interactions) you cannot simply change one parameter and expect the entire game to be "better" - it will just be broken in a different way. The main problem with 40K is that it is a game with trivial winning conditions (especially in Eternal War missions) and almost total freedom of army building - so you can always "game the game". Try to picture a chess competition, when every player can bring any pieces he wishes as long as he has one piece apointed as the king. If you ban queens, then rooks or bishops or knights will dominate and overal ballance of such game will not improve... And if you keep banning each new most OP bull gak this way, then chess become checkers...

If you really want to attempt to balance 40K for tournament/pick-up play, you should try to invent a scenario/tournament format, that counters as many army-building problems as possible and then impose army construction restrictions for all of the problems you couldn't counter this way. And then reason as many players as you can to use this format as a standard for their games. Any other approach is destined to fail with current size of 40K, as it is currently a sandbox ruleset and not a tournament ready game really...

 Backspacehacker wrote:
1) Absoulutly not, this would render many units completely worthless, IE terminators, cents, and bikes from the space marine list, it would cripple the units to worthlessness.

False.

1.Terminators would barely even be affected. Stormbolters are assault weapons. It would make the cyclone missile launcher and assault cannon upgrades less viable, but I don't see this as problematic.

2. With respect to centurions: see my comments about obliterators. It would remove the possibility of grav centurion cheese, but again, that's the point of the nerf.

3. Most bikes wouldn't even be affected. The only bikes that would be affected are: 1. bike squads that are primarily "for" melee" but you still equipped with non-assault, non-pistol weapons for some reason and 2. bike squads that are equipped with heavy and salvo weapons...and 2 is the exact point of the nerf.

So really, all you're saying is: "BUT I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE BIKER CHEESE ANY MORE!"

To which I reply: "Yes. That's the point."

Legions of the damned, I will admit, would be adversely affected as a side effect of this. To the point of uselessness...?

bikes are weak, get something that ignores cover, congratulations, you just killed the bike.

Which is why Dark Eldar bikes, ork bikes and Chaos space marine bikers with melta guns would be sooooo affected by the nerf I've proposed.

I sure can, lions blade strike force is still going to be OP

1850 points, over 400 points of free razor backs with heavy bolters, everything gets objective secure, and fires over watch at full BS.

Raven wing army with dark shrouds, TL plasma guns and have a 2+ rerollable jink out in the open.

These "core rules" Fix nothing and are just nit picked.

Formations are codex specific problems, not a BRB problem.

That said, the ravenwing army would be ignificantly nerfed:

Those plasma guns would be hitting on 2s and would NOT be rerolling 1s. And you'd get your 2+ jink saves...but you are still failing on 1s with no opportunity to reroll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RE Twin-Linked:

Under my proposal, twin-link would add +1 to BS. This is a nerf, but I wouldn't call it worthless.

 Traditio wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
1) Absoulutly not, this would render many units completely worthless, IE terminators, cents, and bikes from the space marine list, it would cripple the units to worthlessness.

False.

1.Terminators would barely even be affected. Stormbolters are assault weapons. It would make the cyclone missile launcher and assault cannon upgrades less viable, but I don't see this as problematic.

2. With respect to centurions: see my comments about obliterators. It would remove the possibility of grav centurion cheese, but again, that's the point of the nerf.

3. Most bikes wouldn't even be affected. The only bikes that would be affected are: 1. bike squads that are primarily "for" melee" but you still equipped with non-assault, non-pistol weapons for some reason and 2. bike squads that are equipped with heavy and salvo weapons...and 2 is the exact point of the nerf.

So really, all you're saying is: "BUT I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE BIKER CHEESE ANY MORE!"

To which I reply: "Yes. That's the point."

Legions of the damned, I will admit, would be adversely affected as a side effect of this. To the point of uselessness...?

bikes are weak, get something that ignores cover, congratulations, you just killed the bike.

Which is why Dark Eldar bikes, ork bikes and Chaos space marine bikers with melta guns would be sooooo affected by the nerf I've proposed.

I sure can, lions blade strike force is still going to be OP

1850 points, over 400 points of free razor backs with heavy bolters, everything gets objective secure, and fires over watch at full BS.

Raven wing army with dark shrouds, TL plasma guns and have a 2+ rerollable jink out in the open.

These "core rules" Fix nothing and are just nit picked.

Formations are codex specific problems, not a BRB problem.

That said, the ravenwing army would be ignificantly nerfed:

Those plasma guns would be hitting on 2s and would NOT be rerolling 1s. And you'd get your 2+ jink saves...but you are still failing on 1s with no opportunity to reroll.

Let me tell you why you are wrong,

It would make ALL their heavy weapons useless, plasma is a heavy, flamer is also a heavy, so there goes that. Additionally the reason the relentless rule is there is because of the later half, which from how you are arguing i bet you have not even read.

So in that case ill tell you it, the relentless rule also lets you assault after firing a heavy, salvo or ordinance weapon. So that would make terminators gimped since i would have this nice assault cannon i would not even be able to use because the only way to make terminators up for their points is to get them in combat so no one would ever buy heavy weapons upgrades.

Centurions in general are a bad model and dont fit in thats my opinion so we can leave that at that.

Grav itself inherently does not have a problem, other then AP 2. the reason it rocks vehicles is because of HP and re-rolling to wound with a grav amp.


AND FURTHER MORE! to show your total lack of knowledge for the rules and the sheer ARROGANCE you have. You cant charge after firing a solvo weapon at all, because not only do you loose the ability to fire at full salvo, you loose the ability the charge AND your range is reduce by half when shooting! so YES that would nerf bikes that run grav weapons, and it would nerf bikes that use rapid fire because you cant charge after rapid firing UNLESS you have relentless. So dont say bikes are for melee if you dont even realize rapid fire prevents you from charging.

Legion of the damned dont even use relentless, they use slow and purposeful which, guess what, is what cents use, you are arguing over units you dont even know the rules for.

Again, you are wrong with ravenwing because you are arguing about models you have no idea how they work. They hit on 3s, and you dont get to jink a gets hot my man. Not to mention raven wing already get a 2+ rerollable if they have a dark shroud near them.

So far lets see what you have gotten wrong

Lack of general knowledge of the game
not knowing how solvo works
not knowing that relentless lets you charge after fireing heavy weapons, which if you take that away from terminators you gimp them to uslessness
Not knowing that cents and legion of the damned dont even use relentless they use Slow and purposful
Not knowing basic understanding of gets hot.
Not realizing that space marine bikes have rapid fire and that doing so removes the ability to charge.

So overall you are just someone wining on a Dakka form about how Devs blasted you off the board because they used slow and purposeful, and as a result you come onto this board crying and bitching when you clearly know nothing about the rules you are asking to remove, or the effect it would have on the units that have them.

With that, i would humbly request a mod lock this thread as i can guarantee you this will not result is any grounds being made simply on the fact the OP has shown know knowledge of the rules he is asking to change.

So how does one handle BS over 5? Such as an Imperial Fists Captain? (Who, under your changes, would have BS 6 when firing bolters.)

 JNAProductions wrote:
So how does one handle BS over 5? Such as an Imperial Fists Captain? (Who, under your changes, would have BS 6 when firing bolters.)

I would not even ask the OP honestly. Post above explains why

He does not understand what he is asking to remove or how it would effect the entire game.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So how does one handle BS over 5? Such as an Imperial Fists Captain? (Who, under your changes, would have BS 6 when firing bolters.)

Wouldn't exist. Modifier would be capped out at BS 5.

And really, does Pedro Kantor really need the ability to reroll 1s?

 Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So how does one handle BS over 5? Such as an Imperial Fists Captain? (Who, under your changes, would have BS 6 when firing bolters.)

Wouldn't exist. Modifier would be capped out at BS 5.

And really, does Pedro Kantor really need the ability to reroll 1s?

Seeing as thats the whole Iron hands and successor chapters gimick, yeah.

Backspacehacker wrote:Let me tell you why you are wrong,

It would make ALL their heavy weapons useless, plasma is a heavy

Plasma cannons are heavy weapons. Plasma guns are rapidfire weapons. The only difference it would make to ravenwing bikes is that they wouldn't be able to fire plasma guns and then charge afterwards.

flamer is also a heavy

Flamers are all assault weapons. Paradoxically, even heavy flamers are assault weapons.

So in that case ill tell you it, the relentless rule also lets you assault after firing a heavy, salvo or ordinance weapon. So that would make terminators gimped since i would have this nice assault cannon i would not even be able to use because the only way to make terminators up for their points is to get them in combat so no one would ever buy heavy weapons upgrades.

Again, terminators are normally equipped with stormbolters. Yes, you wouldn't be able to charge if you fire a cyclone missile launcher or an assault cannon, but I'm not sure that this would make terminators "worthless." Ultimately, you're paying for the 2+ armor, the 5+ invuln and those sweet, sweet power fists.

Centurions in general are a bad model and dont fit in thats my opinion so we can leave that at that.

It all depends what you're going for. They have a better armor save and a greater number of wounds than devastators, and they have the splitfire special rule.

If you want greater durability and the ability to hit more targets, then you go centurions.

Grav itself inherently does not have a problem

Many people will disagree with you.

so YES that would nerf bikes that run grav weapons

I've already admitted this. In fact, that was the point of the neft.

and it would nerf bikes that use rapid fire because you cant charge after rapid firing UNLESS you have relentless.

Why would you want to? Besides, even if you want to, why should you be able to? It's not like tactical marines can rapidfire and then charge.

Legion of the damned dont even use relentless, they use slow and purposeful which, guess what, is what cents use, you are arguing over units you dont even know the rules for.

Slow and purposeful = relentless + differences. When I say that relentless needs to die, I also mean that slow and purposeful needs to die.

Again, you are wrong with ravenwing because you are arguing about models you have no idea how they work. They hit on 3s, and you dont get to jink a gets hot my man. Not to mention raven wing already get a 2+ rerollable if they have a dark shroud near them.

I'm afraid that you are misunderstanding me. you are claiming that ravenwing have plasma guns that they can reroll. Great. If we adopt my proposals, the reroll would be changed to +1 BS. BS 4 = 3s to hit. +1 BS = 2s to hit.

If we replace rerollables with a stat mod which caps out at a result of 2+, then no, ravenwing wouldn't get a 2+ rerollable. They'd just get a 2+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backspacehacker wrote:Seeing as thats the whole Iron hands and successor chapters gimick, yeah.

Then maybe they need a different gimick.

So what about Assassins? Or Bloodthirsters? Or Skitarii? And how come Twin-Linked (reroll EVERYTHING) is exactly the same as reroll ones? Wouldn't that make the Benediction of Omniscience exactly the same at any unit level?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So what about Assassins? Or Bloodthirsters? Or Skitarii? And how come Twin-Linked (reroll EVERYTHING) is exactly the same as reroll ones? Wouldn't that make the Benediction of Omniscience exactly the same at any unit level?

I'm cool with all of that. I mean, some rules may need to be rewritten, and some points may need to be readjusted.

But really?

Rerolls are bull gak. Period.

LOL maybe a chapter whos whole thing is shooting bolters needs to be changed because you dont like it?! give me a break kid.

Slow and purposeful is not the same as relentless.

You cant run, or fire over watch if you are slow and purposeful

They are different rules.

Relentless is there for a reason, its mean to represent fast attack or models that are lumbering war machines.

Again, if you remove the option for terminators to charge by removing relentless you completely gimp them.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about, these changes fix nothing and only add problems.

This is by far one of the stupidest suggestions to come across this form in a long time, and i have see some one suggest space furry lynx before.

Your only counter points here are, "well why?"

And it still does not excuse the fact you are trying to argue for rules you have no idea what they do or how it will vastly effect it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So what about Assassins? Or Bloodthirsters? Or Skitarii? And how come Twin-Linked (reroll EVERYTHING) is exactly the same as reroll ones? Wouldn't that make the Benediction of Omniscience exactly the same at any unit level?

I'm cool with all of that. I mean, some rules may need to be rewritten, and some points may need to be readjusted.

But really?

Rerolls are bull gak. Period.

So we are just now picking and choosing which models get the nerf, just the models that you are fighting and looseing to all the time right?

Rerolls are not crap they have been in this game since i have been playing and that was back in 5th ed and NO ONE complains about it.

Backspacehacker wrote:Slow and purposeful is not the same as relentless.

Well let me be clear: when I say that relentless needs to die, I also mean that SnP needs to die. S othere.

again, if you remove the option for terminators to charge by removing relentless you completely gimp them.

Again, only if you equip them with assault cannons or cyclone missile launchers. If you equip them with stormbolters and a heavy flamer, they can charge just fine.

 Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:Slow and purposeful is not the same as relentless.

Well let me be clear: when I say that relentless needs to die, I also mean that SnP needs to die. S othere.

again, if you remove the option for terminators to charge by removing relentless you completely gimp them.

Again, only if you equip them with assault cannons or cyclone missile launchers. If you equip them with stormbolters and a heavy flamer, they can charge just fine.

Or giving them a plasma cannon that will also nerf them, you can just sit there and say well ill make half of their heavy weapons obsolete and its all fine.

Bolters are already weak ass weapons.

All you have done this thread is act like your point is right, and clearly every one in here is wrong when no one is agreeing with you.

To me and everyone in here you just sound like some kid who lost to space marines and now think everyone should change. Its not going to happen man im sorry, your ideas are bad, they unbalance the game, nerf far more units they you actually understand.

I mean come, you cant really sit here and tell me the, "When i meant nerf relentless that also means SnP nees to do, so there," does not sound pompus and arrogant kid you did not even know the diffrence until i had to point it out to you, let alone the fact the unit you are complaining about does not even have relentless, or how salvo or rapid fire work.

Do you even know the difference between the two? relentless and SnP

Backspacehacker wrote:Or giving them a plasma cannon that will also nerf them, you can just sit there and say well ill make half of their heavy weapons obsolete and its all fine.

So far as I'm aware, no bike can take a plasma cannon. If you concern is centurions, then plasma cannons have a 36 inch range. That's long enough for relentless/snP not to matter.

To me and everyone in here you just sound like some kid

If your profile is correct, I'm actually older than you.

they unbalance the game, nerf far more units they you actually understand.

They would cut the cheese in the game. I fully understand, however, that if your army relies on gimmicks and cheese, you might strongly disagree with what I'm saying.

 Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:Or giving them a plasma cannon that will also nerf them, you can just sit there and say well ill make half of their heavy weapons obsolete and its all fine.

So far as I'm aware, no bike can take a plasma cannon. If you concern is centurions, then plasma cannons have a 36 inch range. That's long enough for relentless/snP not to matter.

To me and everyone in here you just sound like some kid

If your profile is correct, I'm actually older than you.

they unbalance the game, nerf far more units they you actually understand.

They would cut the cheese in the game. I fully understand, however, that if your army relies on gimmicks and cheese, you might strongly disagree with what I'm saying.

Plasma cannon on the terminators, so with terminators 3 of their 4 weapons are worthless to take since they wont be able to charge in the same turn.

Age does not guarantee wisdom, and the way you are acting is like a child thinking your ideas are clearly the right ones when everyone here has told you other wise.

And it would not effect Cheese because it does not even begin to address cheese armies. and 80% of the people who voted in this thread seem to agree, and i would bet dollars to doughnuts that 1 of those 2 votes for effecting the balance is your own.

Backspacehacker wrote:Plasma cannon on the terminators, so with terminators 3 of their 4 weapons are worthless to take since they wont be able to charge in the same turn.

Easy: you want plasma cannons? Put them on a tactical or devastator squad. You want terminators? Don't use a plasma cannon.

 Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:Plasma cannon on the terminators, so with terminators 3 of their 4 weapons are worthless to take since they wont be able to charge in the same turn.

Easy: you want plasma cannons? Put them on a tactical or devastator squad. You want terminators? Don't use a plasma cannon.

Dont take an iconic weapon for a unit that has had it for ever.

The best part is, terminators are considered one of the weakest units in the codex and you wanna make them worse lol. Real good balancing there.

You have no idea what you are going on about.

Relentless as a rule is fine, it is hardly the cause of problems.

IF you want to address the actual problems in the game right now, try addressing the issue of MC vastly over shadowing vehicles, HP being one of the worst things put into the game in its current state, the ease of access to AP 2 across the board.

THOSE are the things that actually are the problems right now, not bike, not terminators, not even relentless like you think it is.

Also nice job in side stepping the fact i call you on your nit picking and adjusting of your own arguments as you actually learn what the rules are as i tell them to you. XD