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.

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

Not really, as if the Predator moves it would be snap firing heavy/ordnance weapons due to no longer having Relentless.

 Happyjew wrote:

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

Not really, as if the Predator moves it would be snap firing heavy/ordnance weapons due to no longer having Relentless.

Under my proposal, vehicles and MCs retain their ability to fire at normal BS while on the go.

I'd agree with Martell, use d10's. And then do away with loads of special rules that have to be put in place to diferentiate one unit from another.

 Traditio wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

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

Not really, as if the Predator moves it would be snap firing heavy/ordnance weapons due to no longer having Relentless.

Under my proposal, vehicles and MCs retain their ability to fire at normal BS while on the go.

So a Riptide becomes a 500 pt model. No thanks.

The cheese does not come from relentless, slow and purposeful, and the other things you are pointing at.

Terminators are currently not worth their points. They are weak units. You want to nerf them farther and say you are eliminating the cheese.

Bikes are strong, but they are strong because the assault phase is exploitable and has powerful effects like sweeping advances and unit immunity by sitting locked in combat and being unable to be shot. The entire assault phase needs to be addressed, not making units that should thrive in assault unable to get there if you decide to equip them half way decently.

As has been stated repeatedly. You just don't understand the actual consequences of your proposal. It won't fix any of the problems you will just make a bunch of units trash units while shifting the op issues onto other units.

Vehicles still wont be taken as often. They function fundamentally different from the rest of the game for some reason and they can all be glanced to death regardless.

What you don't understand is that people who want to exploit the game will. They work within the confines of the systems presented to find the most efficient way to be the best and break the other guy. They always have. They always will. Not only will cheese still exist because cheese often just exists, it will continue t exist because you haven't actually addressed it.

 Lance845 wrote:
The cheese does not come from relentless, slow and purposeful, and the other things you are pointing at.

Terminators are currently not worth their points. They are weak units. You want to nerf them farther and say you are eliminating the cheese.

Bikes are strong, but they are strong because the assault phase is exploitable and has powerful effects like sweeping advances and unit immunity by sitting locked in combat and being unable to be shot. The entire assault phase needs to be addressed, not making units that should thrive in assault unable to get there if you decide to equip them half way decently.

As has been stated repeatedly. You just don't understand the actual consequences of your proposal. It won't fix any of the problems you will just make a bunch of units trash units while shifting the op issues onto other units.

Vehicles still wont be taken as often. They function fundamentally different from the rest of the game for some reason and they can all be glanced to death regardless.

All of this, terminators are already weak as hell.

Ill try to explain why bike armies are OP

So i run a ravenwing command squad with 6 bikes total and apoth, champion, banner, and an HQ. 7 bikes in total, and along with a dark shroud.

On a turn, i can move, shoot my plasma talons, charge in, be immune to over watch, resolve my assault. then on my opponents turn, after his assault is done, rules as written say at the end of any assault i can do a hit and run, i then can auto leave combat because of the banner, right back into my dark shroud, my turn again, i can do the exact same thing.

Relentless does not effect that. You charges do not effect that. It would only nerf already weak units.

If you want to actually address cheese in the game, address the following, The OP rules with formations, the amount of cheap D and AP2 on the field along with its ease of access, and the elephant in the room which is the vast overshadowing of vehicles by MC and the atrocity that is HP

Proposals 2, 3, and 5 are probably a good idea but aren't particularly concrete, I can't discuss whether they'd fix anything or make things worse without specific proposals. #1 and #4 are tangential to any actual problems. The examples cited under #1 are problems with the cost/availability/power of the gun, not with firing it on the move. Rerolls are a speed-of-play thing that have gotten handed out too generously; they aren't an inherently bad idea, and aren't a problem from a balance perspective until rerollable 2+ starts to crop up.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Proposals 2, 3, and 5 are probably a good idea but aren't particularly concrete, I can't discuss whether they'd fix anything or make things worse without specific proposals. #1 and #4 are tangential to any actual problems. The examples cited under #1 are problems with the cost/availability/power of the gun, not with firing it on the move. Rerolls are a speed-of-play thing that have gotten handed out too generously; they aren't an inherently bad idea, and aren't a problem from a balance perspective until rerollable 2+ starts to crop up.

I can agree with this, i really want to see powers go back to old 5th ed status, so much nicer.

I dont think salvo has a problem inherently, i think they should have just made it heavy x/y and say if you move you fire x stay still y and still fire snap if moving.

To be honest, this sounds like the entire system going back to 5th edition. That said, I don't think these ideas are as bad as some people think!

#1: Moving & Shooting
What I think most people aren't understanding is that the game has perhaps swung the pendulum too far. Back in the ancient past of 3rd edition, you had really heavy opportunity costs for moving and shooting. You could stand still and shoot great, or you could move and be completely boned on shooting. This isn't a bad thing per se, it's just that there was a high opportunity cost to moving or shooting. You would either do one effectively, and rarely both. Go figure, close combat was strong because you'd often move AND assault, meaning that the opportunity cost for moving was less for them. I remember that as 4th and 5th editions rolled through we were given more and more ways to move and shoot. This lessened the opportunity cost. Now, when you moved, you could still shoot pretty effectively!

But now, you can move and shoot with nearly no penalty. The only things that suffer a penalty are Heavy Weapons, but as pointed out, Relentless covers this. I think Tradito identified the right problem, but his solution just reverts things to an old problem. Generally speaking, moving should reduce your effectiveness, but not outright destroy it. I think a simple "-1 BS when you move and shoot" across the board would be good, regardless of whether or not you have Relentless. In other words, whether you can or can't shoot is based off your weapon type, and how well you shoot is based on your movement. However, I'd agree that bikes moving so far and still being able to shoot heavy weapons better than vehicles is kind of ridiculous, and I would like to see Relentless be taken away from bikes. Their speed, bonus toughness, and the ability to Jink is good enough.

#2: Salvo
I do not think this needs to be removed. Salvo as it currently exists shares a lot in common with the core concepts of what Rapid Fire used to be. Stand still and shoot great, move and don't do so well. Again, I think the problem with Salvo is that it's on just so many Relentless platforms. I wouldn't mind seeing Salvo be unaffected by Relentless, such that its profile changes due to movement whether or not its platform has any other special rules.

#3: Invisibility
I don't mind it so much when you make it such that units attacking an Invisible target are WS1 and BS1 instead of snap shots or 6's to hit. At least then flamers and blasts can target it, and it'll be 5's in close combat.

#4: Rerolls
I think the changes above help enough that rerolls don't need to be touched. Again, the main problem isn't rerolls in and of themselves, it's all the other stuff that the rerolls can apply to. 2+ Inv rerollable is just something that shouldn't be possible, or at least not possible on super-fast and very killy stuff. Rerolls themselves, however, are a lot of fun!

#5: Psychic Powers
This is too big to just gut, even though I'd love to see it happen.

MCs are already too good. These changes make them too much gooderer. And that's a technical term.

Fast and relentless needs to be more expensive, slow and relentless needs to be cheaper. That's the bottom line.

 Yarium wrote:
To be honest, this sounds like the entire system going back to 5th edition. That said, I don't think these ideas are as bad as some people think!

#1: Moving & Shooting
What I think most people aren't understanding is that the game has perhaps swung the pendulum too far. Back in the ancient past of 3rd edition, you had really heavy opportunity costs for moving and shooting. You could stand still and shoot great, or you could move and be completely boned on shooting. This isn't a bad thing per se, it's just that there was a high opportunity cost to moving or shooting. You would either do one effectively, and rarely both. Go figure, close combat was strong because you'd often move AND assault, meaning that the opportunity cost for moving was less for them. I remember that as 4th and 5th editions rolled through we were given more and more ways to move and shoot. This lessened the opportunity cost. Now, when you moved, you could still shoot pretty effectively!

But now, you can move and shoot with nearly no penalty. The only things that suffer a penalty are Heavy Weapons, but as pointed out, Relentless covers this. I think Tradito identified the right problem, but his solution just reverts things to an old problem. Generally speaking, moving should reduce your effectiveness, but not outright destroy it. I think a simple "-1 BS when you move and shoot" across the board would be good, regardless of whether or not you have Relentless. In other words, whether you can or can't shoot is based off your weapon type, and how well you shoot is based on your movement. However, I'd agree that bikes moving so far and still being able to shoot heavy weapons better than vehicles is kind of ridiculous, and I would like to see Relentless be taken away from bikes. Their speed, bonus toughness, and the ability to Jink is good enough.

#2: Salvo
I do not think this needs to be removed. Salvo as it currently exists shares a lot in common with the core concepts of what Rapid Fire used to be. Stand still and shoot great, move and don't do so well. Again, I think the problem with Salvo is that it's on just so many Relentless platforms. I wouldn't mind seeing Salvo be unaffected by Relentless, such that its profile changes due to movement whether or not its platform has any other special rules.

#3: Invisibility
I don't mind it so much when you make it such that units attacking an Invisible target are WS1 and BS1 instead of snap shots or 6's to hit. At least then flamers and blasts can target it, and it'll be 5's in close combat.

#4: Rerolls
I think the changes above help enough that rerolls don't need to be touched. Again, the main problem isn't rerolls in and of themselves, it's all the other stuff that the rerolls can apply to. 2+ Inv rerollable is just something that shouldn't be possible, or at least not possible on super-fast and very killy stuff. Rerolls themselves, however, are a lot of fun!

#5: Psychic Powers
This is too big to just gut, even though I'd love to see it happen.

I can agree with some of these points and what you are suggesting is far more comparable, but again, the issue with removing relentless is the latter half of the rule everyone always forgets about, that is assaulting after fireing salvo, heavy, or ordnance weapons.

This is no reason a bike should loose the ability to charge for firing a salvo or heavy weapon, its a fast attack unit, removing its ability to shoot and charge is nonsensical.

HOWEVER! the idea of reducing your BS by one on heavy, salvo or ordnance weapons is not the worst thing in the world, but with that said, its honestly a nerf to something that does not actually need a nerf. Again, terminators would suffer already being one of the worst units in the codex made even worse. Bikes would suffer from not being able to assault, i will agree they should not be able to fire heavy weapons as good as a vehicle can, but then again, the only heavy weapons they have access to would be the heavy bolter, and multi melta which can only be taken on an attack bike, which again, is not comparable to vehicle type weapons.

The whole point of bikes is to be fast attack and get up in your face with hit and runs, the draw back to them, they are low wound count, and an ignore cover weapon destroys them, special issue ammunition comes to mind, it shreds bike armies.

So if you really want to nerf relentless for what ever reason, your suggestion seems the most comparable, but there is still the issue that this does not actually address any of the issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
MCs are already too good. These changes make them too much gooderer. And that's a technical term.

Fast and relentless needs to be more expensive, slow and relentless needs to be cheaper. That's the bottom line.

Pretty well put, but again, i think it needs to be stressed, the later half of the relentless rule seems to be forgotten, its not just about moving and shooting, its about charging as well.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
So if you really want to nerf relentless for what ever reason, your suggestion seems the most comparable, but there is still the issue that this does not actually address any of the issues.

The point about Relentless allowing bikes to move, shoot, and assault isn't a bad point to make! All things considered, I think I'd be fine with that change. Like I said, it's about opportunity cost. Do you want bikes to have the invisible ability to not be affected by opportunity costs? I think the idea of bikes having to choose between shooting or charging while moving is possibly a really great one. Actually, if anything, you could change Skilled Rider to do something other than "auto-pass difficult terrain checks" and turn it into "does not suffer -1 BS when moving". Personally, I always considered it ridiculous that every White Scar biker could drive vertically up a building with no ill effects because they were all so skilled

 Yarium wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
So if you really want to nerf relentless for what ever reason, your suggestion seems the most comparable, but there is still the issue that this does not actually address any of the issues.

The point about Relentless allowing bikes to move, shoot, and assault isn't a bad point to make! All things considered, I think I'd be fine with that change. Like I said, it's about opportunity cost. Do you want bikes to have the invisible ability to not be affected by opportunity costs? I think the idea of bikes having to choose between shooting or charging while moving is possibly a really great one. Actually, if anything, you could change Skilled Rider to do something other than "auto-pass difficult terrain checks" and turn it into "does not suffer -1 BS when moving". Personally, I always considered it ridiculous that every White Scar biker could drive vertically up a building with no ill effects because they were all so skilled

You know waht a change i would be totally fine with is this.

Bikes can fire their bike mounted weapons as if standing still and still cahrge, but if they fire a hand weapon, IE a Grav or a plasma gun like that, they suffer form this draw back of not being able to charge. But if its their bike mounted weapon they should be able to charge.

I mean think about it, you are pointing your bike at the enemy to charge at them with your weapons facing them, why would you not shoot them.

 Backspacehacker wrote:


You know waht a change i would be totally fine with is this.

Bikes can fire their bike mounted weapons as if standing still and still cahrge, but if they fire a hand weapon, IE a Grav or a plasma gun like that, they suffer form this draw back of not being able to charge. But if its their bike mounted weapon they should be able to charge.

I mean think about it, you are pointing your bike at the enemy to charge at them with your weapons facing them, why would you not shoot them.

I'd be fine with a change like that too!

 Yarium wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:


You know waht a change i would be totally fine with is this.

Bikes can fire their bike mounted weapons as if standing still and still cahrge, but if they fire a hand weapon, IE a Grav or a plasma gun like that, they suffer form this draw back of not being able to charge. But if its their bike mounted weapon they should be able to charge.

I mean think about it, you are pointing your bike at the enemy to charge at them with your weapons facing them, why would you not shoot them.

I'd be fine with a change like that too!

Look at that! Agreement reached! Now would this allow bikes to fire salvo weapons as if standing still? but loose the ability to charge, or treat it as moving

Maybe. But I'm hesitant to weaken assault in any way in 7th ed. That's why I'm still going with a rewrite.

Well, for this I'd say look at my other responses again. Make it so that Salvo always cares whether or not you moved for rate of fire. Combined with the proposed change to bikes, if it's mounted on the bike that means they can move, shoot (at the reduced rate & BS), and charge, but if it's hand-held (which is what I believe they are), they would not be able to charge.

 Yarium wrote:
Well, for this I'd say look at my other responses again. Make it so that Salvo always cares whether or not you moved for rate of fire. Combined with the proposed change to bikes, if it's mounted on the bike that means they can move, shoot (at the reduced rate & BS), and charge, but if it's hand-held (which is what I believe they are), they would not be able to charge.

I disagree. Grav guns are already very weak compared to grav cannons. Grav bikers are one of the few effective units in the whole BA codex. Maybe they should cost more, but you have to increase scatbikes first for sure.

Martel732 wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Well, for this I'd say look at my other responses again. Make it so that Salvo always cares whether or not you moved for rate of fire. Combined with the proposed change to bikes, if it's mounted on the bike that means they can move, shoot (at the reduced rate & BS), and charge, but if it's hand-held (which is what I believe they are), they would not be able to charge.

I disagree. Grav guns are already very weak compared to grav cannons. Grav bikers are one of the few effective units in the whole BA codex. Maybe they should cost more, but you have to increase scatbikes first for sure.

I will agree, grav gun when compaired to grav cannon is not that great, its mostly due to the grav amp.

And then there are units like Wulfen and demons that straight up laugh at grav. The problems in 40K are varied and actually mostly subtle.

Yarium wrote:#1: Moving & Shooting
What I think most people aren't understanding is that the game has perhaps swung the pendulum too far. Back in the ancient past of 3rd edition, you had really heavy opportunity costs for moving and shooting. You could stand still and shoot great, or you could move and be completely boned on shooting. This isn't a bad thing per se, it's just that there was a high opportunity cost to moving or shooting. You would either do one effectively, and rarely both. Go figure, close combat was strong because you'd often move AND assault, meaning that the opportunity cost for moving was less for them. I remember that as 4th and 5th editions rolled through we were given more and more ways to move and shoot. This lessened the opportunity cost. Now, when you moved, you could still shoot pretty effectively!

But now, you can move and shoot with nearly no penalty. The only things that suffer a penalty are Heavy Weapons, but as pointed out, Relentless covers this. I think Tradito identified the right problem, but his solution just reverts things to an old problem. Generally speaking, moving should reduce your effectiveness, but not outright destroy it. I think a simple "-1 BS when you move and shoot" across the board would be good, regardless of whether or not you have Relentless. In other words, whether you can or can't shoot is based off your weapon type, and how well you shoot is based on your movement. However, I'd agree that bikes moving so far and still being able to shoot heavy weapons better than vehicles is kind of ridiculous, and I would like to see Relentless be taken away from bikes. Their speed, bonus toughness, and the ability to Jink is good enough.

I disagree with at least some of what you are saying here. Several points:

1. The Warhammer 40k ruleset needs to be more simple, not more complicated. There's already enough rules. If anything, people should be rejoicing at my suggestion of "no more relentless or slow and purposeful," since this would simplify the game.

2. I've read the 4th ed ruleset. I don't think that moving and shooting at full BS, in general, is particularly imbalancing. A space marine captain moving 6 inches and then firing a boltgun at full BS does not imbalance the game. You know what does cry of cheese? A space marine chapter master moving 12 inches and then firing an ordnance, barrage weapon. Or an eldar windrider moving 12 inches and then firing a heavy weapon at full BS.

Seriously, if we got rid of relentless and slow and purposeful, sure, some of the weaker units would take something of a hit (seriously, just how important is it to a terminator squad that you fire your missile launcher at full BS? That's what devastator marines and devastator centurions are for). But it would also get rid of a ton of cheese in the game.

People will bring up the fact that bikes are fast attacks, and that means that they should be able to move, shoot and charge in the same turn.

My answer? Well, if they're fast attacks, they shouldn't be equipped with heavy weapons. And fact is, chaos space marine raptors are fast attacks, but they can't double tap plasma guns and then charge. They don't have relentless. You know what they can do? Move 12 inches in the movement phase. You know what a bike can do? Move 12 inches in the movement phase. You don't need to ignore the rules and layer on the gouda for your bikes to work as fast attacks.

I do not think this needs to be removed. Salvo as it currently exists shares a lot in common with the core concepts of what Rapid Fire used to be. Stand still and shoot great, move and don't do so well. Again, I think the problem with Salvo is that it's on just so many Relentless platforms. I wouldn't mind seeing Salvo be unaffected by Relentless, such that its profile changes due to movement whether or not its platform has any other special rules.

There's literally no reason for salvo to exist other than power creep. There is no salvo weapon that could not suitably be replaced with one of the other weapons profiles.

I don't mind it so much when you make it such that units attacking an Invisible target are WS1 and BS1 instead of snap shots or 6's to hit. At least then flamers and blasts can target it, and it'll be 5's in close combat.

Invisibility is commonly admitted to be the most broken psychic power in the game. Remove invisibility altogether, and you get rid of cheese. You should check out the 5th edition space marine psychic power list in the space marine codex of that edition. You'll be amazed at the sheer degree to which psychic shenanigans have escalated since then.

I think the changes above help enough that rerolls don't need to be touched. Again, the main problem isn't rerolls in and of themselves, it's all the other stuff that the rerolls can apply to. 2+ Inv rerollable is just something that shouldn't be possible, or at least not possible on super-fast and very killy stuff. Rerolls themselves, however, are a lot of fun!

Rerolls are most certainly not fun. Who has fun simply because he's rolling dice? That's such a bizarre standard of having fun. "I'm rolling dice! WHEEEEE!"

At the very least, replacing rerolls with a +1 stat mod would give you close enough to the same results, but without the extra hassle. Compare 12 BS 4 TL twin linked devourer shots to 12 BS 5 devourer shots without twin-linked. Or compare 10 BS 4 bolter shots which reroll 1s to 10 BS 5 bolter shots.

If it has absolutely no other benefit, it would speed up the game.

But in addition to this, it would cut down on cheese. Ravenwing bikes would die when they roll 1s, plasma guns would get hot and 2+ rerollables would disappear.

This is too big to just gut, even though I'd love to see it happen.

Do you remember anyone complaining about psychic powers in 5th edition?

You think people should be rejoicing and yet they are not. That should tell you something.

The game is bloated with rules. They need condensing not just wholesale cutting. And even if it did cutting 2 does not create balance it just starts crippling specific units willy nilly.

Anyway, I'm now done with this thread. OP isn't up for discussion. I would never use any of these suggestions.

 Lance845 wrote:
You think people should be rejoicing and yet they are not. That should tell you something.

The game is bloated with rules. They need condensing not just wholesale cutting. And even if it did cutting 2 does not create balance it just starts crippling specific units willy nilly.

People have yet to name an actual unit that would actually become worthless if these rules were implemented.

Saying "But terminators couldn't fire a plasma cannon on the move" or "Terminators cant fire missile launchers at full BS on the move" is not showing that terminators would be "crippled."

Again, that's not what terminators are for. They are not a heavy support option. And you wouldn't even be prevented from using heavy weapons anyway. Deploy your terminators in ruins, shoot that one heavy weapon per turn, and enjoy your 2+, 5++, 4+++ for the duration of the game. I mean, I wouldn't recommend it. I'd recommend either centurions or devastators if that's what you want to do, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Seriously:

Name an actual unit that would become worthless if salvo or relentless stopped existing. Not weaker. "Crippled." Point to a single unit.

The only one that even comes to mind is legion of the damned, but I wouldn't say that they'd be crippled. They'd still have excellent deep strike abilities, ignore cover on everything and 3++ invulns for not too expensive a points cost.

I mean, if someone runs an army that relies on cheese like the stuff I mentioned in the OP, I can see why he'd be screaming bloody murder

Otherwise? I just don't see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Lance, don't you play Tyrranids?

How would you even be affected by any of this? Even if you run TL devourers, the rerolls thing wouldn't be that big of a change.

It doesn't matter if you see it or not.

Bikers aren't cheese traditio. That's the issue i have with your proposals.

I am happy to respond to your one question directed at me.

I would be effected by this because I don't play games in a bubble, and as someone who understands game design, I can see how the changes you propose would effect the way games I play in would play out.

I don't want enemies to be effected by these changes.

I don't want GS cults I might ally with to be effected by these changes.

I don't want the game to exist in a state that is at least as broken as it is now, but this time different, because you lack the forethought to understand what your changes do while also lacking the ability to listen to what the people you have proposed these rules to have been saying to you for 2 pages.

For instance, it has been stated repeatedly that Terminators are already over costed and relatively bad units. Your changes make them categorically worse. But you "don't see it", and probably wont see it.

You are blind to criticism of your ideas. Something more destructive then your suggestions.

Martel732 wrote:
It doesn't matter if you see it or not.

Bikers aren't cheese traditio. That's the issue i have with your proposals.

They're considered an auto take by space marines players precisely because of the fact that they are relentless platforms that you can put things like grav on.

That's one of the reasons why even non-white scars, non-dark angels players will use their fair share of bikes. Assault marines with jump packs? Not so much.

For a measly 7 points, those bikers get +1 toughness, relentless, jink and vastly improved movement capabilities.

In practice, that means that you can move 12 inches and fire 3 grav gun shots per model at 18 inch range at full BS.

Can tanks do this? No.

But bikes can!

Because that totally makes sense. Because that's totally fair. And that's definitely not cheese. #Sarcasm.

 Traditio wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
You think people should be rejoicing and yet they are not. That should tell you something.

The game is bloated with rules. They need condensing not just wholesale cutting. And even if it did cutting 2 does not create balance it just starts crippling specific units willy nilly.

People have yet to name an actual unit that would actually become worthless if these rules were implemented.

Saying "But terminators couldn't fire a plasma cannon on the move" or "Terminators cant fire missile launchers at full BS on the move" is not showing that terminators would be "crippled."

Again, that's not what terminators are for. They are not a heavy support option. And you wouldn't even be prevented from using heavy weapons anyway. Deploy your terminators in ruins, shoot that one heavy weapon per turn, and enjoy your 2+, 5++, 4+++ for the duration of the game. I mean, I wouldn't recommend it. I'd recommend either centurions or devastators if that's what you want to do, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Seriously:

Name an actual unit that would become worthless if salvo or relentless stopped existing. Not weaker. "Crippled." Point to a single unit.

The only one that even comes to mind is legion of the damned, but I wouldn't say that they'd be crippled. They'd still have excellent deep strike abilities, ignore cover on everything and 3++ invulns for not too expensive a points cost.

I mean, if someone runs an army that relies on cheese like the stuff I mentioned in the OP, I can see why he'd be screaming bloody murder

Otherwise? I just don't see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Lance, don't you play Tyrranids?

How would you even be affected by any of this? Even if you run TL devourers, the rerolls thing wouldn't be that big of a change.

Bikes would be crippled as i have already pointed out many times, the later half of relentless allows them to assault after firing weapons, at rapid fire, so you then gut their shooting if they want to assault.

WHICH YOU EVEN SAID! bikes are melee, so why cripple them by not allowing them to shoot weapons pointed at the damn enemy as they charge in.

Terminators, because if you honestly think a 200 point unit of 5 wounds, with SB, and not being able to make use of a heavy weapon and their power fists in the same turn is balanced you have no concept of the word.

Thats just form the space marine arsenal.

no one in this thread has even yet to agree with you on relentless. Sorry, but you are wrong.

 Traditio wrote:
...People have yet to name an actual unit that would actually become worthless if these rules were implemented...

The issue is much less that it'd cripple any specific unit and more that it's tangential to any actual problem. (Deleting Relentless wholesale would unfairly limit Marine/Chaos Bikes, Attack Bikes, Obliterators, most Terminators, Stealthsuits, XV-9 suits, and Skyweavers, but the only things I can find that it'd actually cripple are Thallax, Corsair jetpack units, Legion jetbikes, and Shadow Spectres (all Forge World units, and except for the Legion jetbikes all Jet Pack units)).

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It doesn't matter if you see it or not.

Bikers aren't cheese traditio. That's the issue i have with your proposals.

They're considered an auto take by space marines players precisely because of the fact that they are relentless platforms that you can put things like grav on.

That's one of the reasons why even non-white scars, non-dark angels players will use their fair share of bikes. Assault marines with jump packs? Not so much.

For a measly 7 points, those bikers get +1 toughness, relentless, jink and vastly improved movement capabilities.

In practice, that means that you can move 12 inches and fire 3 grav gun shots per model at 18 inch range at full BS.

Can tanks do this? No.

But bikes can!

Because that totally makes sense. Because that's totally fair. And that's definitely not cheese. #Sarcasm.

And also come with only 3 wounds for a base unit, T5, not that scare friend, and if you ignore cover they are gimped.

They are no an "Auto take" like you think they are, again chalked up to your lack of experience in the game, because im going to go with what is the gladious strike force for 500 bob.

There are only 2 armies that benifit from bike, ravenwing and white scares which their whole thing is bikes, and again, if you take anything that ignores cover you make them cringe, vindicator formation a pie plate of death that ignores cover and insta deaths them, a 300 point formation that can counter a 1850 army gg.

All this you pointed out is not an issue with bikes, its an issue with vehicles in the 7th ed are garbage to take, thats why no one takes them. HP are a stupid idea and the community collectively agrees on this.

Backspacehacker wrote:Bikes would be crippled as i have already pointed out many times

"Bikes would become weaker" =/= "Bikes would be crippled.

the later half of relentless allows them to assault after firing weapons, at rapid fire, so you then gut their shooting if they want to assault.

As I've already pointed out, this would not affect the vast majority of bikes in the game. This wouldn't even affect Eldar Windriders substantially, since they generally aren't used to charge. This would literally only affect space marine bikes, and even then, unless your bike squad is accompanied by Chapter Master Smashfether, how often are you going to be charging with them anyway?

At any rate, again, the fact that they wouldn't be able to charge after using non-assault, non-pistol weapons wouldn't "cripple" space marine bikes. You know what else can't charge after using those kinds of weapons? Everything else in the game that doesn't have relentless and equivalents, INCLUDING OTHER FAST ATTACK OPTIONS IN OTHER CODICES!

No. You're not worried about bikes becoming crippled. You just don't want to give up your unfair advantages.

WHICH YOU EVEN SAID! bikes are melee, so why cripple them by not allowing them to shoot weapons pointed at the damn enemy as they charge in.

If space marine bikes are made for charging, then maybe they should have assault weapons and pistols.

Terminators, because if you honestly think a 200 point unit of 5 wounds, with SB, and not being able to make use of a heavy weapon and their power fists in the same turn is balanced you have no concept of the word.

List building is part of the game. If you want to charge with terminators, and relentless doesn't exist, then you shouldn't equip them with heavy weapons, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER UNIT OPTION IN THE GAME WITHOUT RELENTLESS. It's that simple.