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:

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.

Point of order. Deathwatch and Chaos Bikes do want to charge, you'd be unfairly restricting them just to take a swat at Codex bikers.

Windriders are unaffected unless they've got scatter lasers since their other options are Assault, but Skyweavers would take a completely unfair hit from this since one of the primary sources of anti-armour in the Harlequin book is their 24"-range Heavy 1 Haywire weapon.

 Traditio wrote:

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 you want to charge so much, then equip your bikes with 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.

How often do you charge with a bike? ummmm any chance you get? Yes i would like to charge your squad of troops and tie them up while my units advance up the field thank you.

We have 2 pages of telling you why you are wrong, and you still dont want to believe it because you are to ignorant to see it.

I would equip them with assault weapons if their defualt weapon was not none assault weapon, IE Twin linked bolters.

I cant tell at this point if you are actually trolling, because if you are god damn i am impressed, because no one can be this thick to see they are just flat out wrong.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

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.

Point of order. Deathwatch and Chaos Bikes do want to charge, you'd be unfairly restricting them just to take a swat at Codex bikers.

Windriders are unaffected unless they've got scatter lasers since their other options are Assault, but Skyweavers would take a completely unfair hit from this since one of the primary sources of anti-armour in the Harlequin book is their 24"-range Heavy 1 Haywire weapon.

Oh god if we could please reduce the reasons for taking even MORE scatter lasers that would be cool.

Another great example of how OP has no idea what his changes would effect.

 Traditio wrote:

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.

Then give me a way to take a Terminator squad that doesn't have to pay for power fists. And/or fix the *bleep*ing psycannon, taking Relentless away moves it from 'generally unhelpful except on Terminators' to just 'generally unhelpful'.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

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.

Then give me a way to take a Terminator squad that doesn't have to pay for power fists. And/or fix the *bleep*ing psycannon, taking Relentless away moves it from 'generally unhelpful except on Terminators' to just 'generally unhelpful'.

This, I run a deathwing army, one of the weakest armies out there right now, if we could not remove relentless and make them pure garbage that would also be great.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
...Oh god if we could please reduce the reasons for taking even MORE scatter lasers that would be cool.

Another great example of how OP has no idea what his changes would effect.

It's actually a reason to take shuriken cannons over scatter lasers, since you'd be able to move-shoot-move with them and you wouldn't be able to with scatter lasers. It's the only positive change I've found that'd result from this.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
...Oh god if we could please reduce the reasons for taking even MORE scatter lasers that would be cool.

Another great example of how OP has no idea what his changes would effect.

It's actually a reason to take shuriken cannons over scatter lasers, since you'd be able to move-shoot-move with them and you wouldn't be able to with scatter lasers. It's the only positive change I've found that'd result from this.

Ugh, still not great but that a whole other issue with the eldar dex and what not.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
...This, I run a deathwing army, one of the weakest armies out there right now, if we could not remove relentless and make them pure garbage that would also be great.

I'd personally love it if my Grey Knights Codex didn't get reduced from "Codex: Dreadknights (and a few other things)" to "Codex: Dreadknights". I haven't finished building a non-terrible-looking alternative model yet.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
...This, I run a deathwing army, one of the weakest armies out there right now, if we could not remove relentless and make them pure garbage that would also be great.

I'd personally love it if my Grey Knights Codex didn't get reduced from "Codex: Dreadknights (and a few other things)" to "Codex: Dreadknights". I haven't finished building a non-terrible-looking alternative model yet.

Right!? honestly i would kill for DW to be on par with paladins at least wound wise. The dread knight is such an ugly unit to, i feel for you in that aspect.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
...Oh god if we could please reduce the reasons for taking even MORE scatter lasers that would be cool.

Another great example of how OP has no idea what his changes would effect.

It's actually a reason to take shuriken cannons over scatter lasers, since you'd be able to move-shoot-move with them and you wouldn't be able to with scatter lasers. It's the only positive change I've found that'd result from this.

Ugh, still not great but that a whole other issue with the eldar dex and what not.

And changing "any Windrider may take a scatter laser or shuriken cannon for +10pts" to "one Windrider per three models in the squad may take a scatter laser or shuriken cannon for +10pts" is a much easier fix that doesn't screw over anyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
...This, I run a deathwing army, one of the weakest armies out there right now, if we could not remove relentless and make them pure garbage that would also be great.

I'd personally love it if my Grey Knights Codex didn't get reduced from "Codex: Dreadknights (and a few other things)" to "Codex: Dreadknights". I haven't finished building a non-terrible-looking alternative model yet.

Right!? honestly i would kill for DW to be on par with paladins at least wound wise. The dread knight is such an ugly unit to, i feel for you in that aspect.

You probably don't want to pay 55ppm for a model that can't get a Storm Shield and has to pay an extra 10pts for a power fist. Two wounds isn't all it's cracked up to be on T4 models with a 5++.

@ Traditio: Actually Skyweavers would become unplayable as they are fragile Jetbikes (for their cost), armed with heavy weapons, who live and die by their movement. Plus this so called "best evar rulez change" would make their pricing combat upgrade worthless.

Currently their main uses are twofold: 1) a source of long ranged anti-tank in an army mostly lacking it; and 2) a source of fast assault with good weapons in an army that otherwise would lack the speed outside of their transport vehicle. No relentless means the expensive Haywire upgrade is worthless and the CC upgrade will never be taken, removing the 2 things this unit is good at and reducing them to a terribly expensive way to get Shuriken Cannons when you could instead take the Transport Vehicle for cheaper to do the exact same thing + transport your squishy troupes.

Fortunately the shuriken cannon is Assault 3, so Skyweavers wouldn't become completely useless (just mostly useless).

To change the core rules to arrive a good enough game balance, you need to cover the core game play with the core rules.This is where 40k fails at the first hurdle.

Change actual core rules so all combat is resolved using 2 resolution methods with about twenty special rules, (reserved for actual for special abilities,) like good war games.

Rather than keep the totally inadequate WHFB based rules with seven resolution methods and over eighty special rules.

Although I disagree that changing to a D10 is necessary.(I would prefer to fully utilize all the values of a D6 first.)

Sorting out the primary resoluiton methods to deliver proportional results should be a priority in any core rules changes.

Of the top of my head, the list of things that would become severely nerfed, or join the likes of Mutilators & Pyrovores.

1. T'au battlesuits with plasma guns equipped, including Farsight himself. Yeah, they're WS2 for the most part, but charging a vindicator with 1 hull left with your S5 relentless jet infantry after ripping off a HP or 2 to finish it of.

2. SM bikes. Biggest "abuser" of relentless. But you do pay extra for that ability. Plus, those attack bikes would be Mutilator Pals if they lost relentless.

3. GK terminators. Currently the book's only reliable way to kill anything with an AV or T>5.

4. Death company. Not as obvious, but being able to give your only real good unit in the BA book a PF/Bolter is nice. The boys in red/black need all the help they can get.

5. Obliterators. The ability to shift your firing position and still dakka at full, either to back away from a tarpit or get a better firing position on their chosen target. No relentless takes most of the wind out of one of the last reason to play CSM.

6. Chaos terminators. They have no way outside of a combi to fire and charge without relentless without taking hilariously over costed heavy weapons

7. Heavy destroyers. Who takes them now anyway? Who would if they couldn't shoot-n-scoot effectively?

8. Tomb Blades: an the tax unit whose only real benefit are the blasts. Which are heavy.

9. Ravenwing. An assault focused army of bikes that pays a premium for what it does. Yes, they're good at what they do, but without relentless they lose most of their bite.

May not seem like many, but again, that's 9 I came up with in a few minutes. I'm sure there are others that have already been mentioned. Many of these are popular units, or really the last decent units in a given codex. We all know grav spam is obnoxious. We all know scatterbikes are OPAF. We all know HP was a stupid hamfisted fix to 5e parking lots. Removing relentless just makes more units worse, and those who doubt care [including scatterbikes!] Will keep doing their thing.

Flow chart if TLDR.
HP added > most vehicles nerfed into oblivion > MC golden age > SM needed a hard counter > grav is the only heavy/special you care about > grav is Salvo so get relentless/S&P > Traditio logic "RELENTLESS OP REMOVE FROM GAME ANYONE WHO DISAGREES IS WRONG"

Edit: autocorrect derps

So let us create a list of everything that gets hurt by removing Relentless and SaP, shall we?
1. Codex Terminators have literally no purpose now and Assault ones remain the only ones to take. You made a unit worse than it already was. Blood Angels go in this category.
2. Deathwing can't use a rule that's built around them (TL on Deep Strike and then running), and they're already more expensive than the unit you ruined!
3. Space Wolf Terminators now can't make use of their heavy weapons OR Combi Weapons!
4. Chaos Terminators suffer the same as Space Wolves but on a worse level.
5. Obliterators literally lose their purpose.
6. Centurions literally lose their purpose.
7. Skitarii suffer, but mostly Rangers, who already had it rough trying to compete with the other choice.
8. Dark reapers become worse.
9. Chaos Bikers suffer supremely. Now they can't take Plasma if they want to charge, which isn't fair.
10. It takes a huge chunk off the bonus for the Decurion, in which it isn't even broken on Warriors, Immortals, and Deathmarks.
11. I don't remember if the Gauss Cannons are listed as Assault or Heavy. If they're Heavy, you destroyed Destroyers.
12. Rubric Marines lose the ability to charge, making them even worse.
13. The Harlequin Jet bikes are equipped with heavy weapons I'm pretty sure.
14. Now Chapter Masters can't call down a Bombardment, which nobody cares about.

So what exactly did you fix?
1. Bikers can't charge after using Grav Guns?
2. Windriders take Shurkien Cannons instead?
3. Mutilators now run?

Did you even think when you came up with that fix? Honestly? This thread is the result of a parent telling their kid they're special and can't do any wrong.

You guys are trying very hard, but it's probably futile.

 Traditio wrote:
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'm jumping in late here. For starters, people might be a bit more receptive to your ideas if you phrased your responses a bit more politely, Traditio. You're coming across as very antagonistic.

Suggestions 3 and 5 I can agree with. The rest, I disagree with. I'll try to address these in order of wordiness.

Suggestion 4: What exactly is the problem with rerolls? It's a fairly simple way to play with the math of a given roll. Specific combinations present problematic rerolls (rerollable 2+ invuls, for instance), but I feel that those problematic combos should be addressed individually rather than tossing out a flexible mechanic that most people don't seem to disagree with for the most part. Some rerolls (usually those tied to psychic powers) can be more powerful than others, but that's largely fixed by your suggestion to go back to 5th edition style psychic powers. What specifically do you dislike about rerolls in general? I feel that this suggestion, and several others, are cases of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Suggestion 2: I could see an argument for rapid fire simply being rolled into salvo, but I don't think anything is wrong with salvo itself. Salvo is, in my eyes, actually kind of an interesting mechanic! It presents you with an interesting trade-off between holding still and shooting better or moving around and shooting worse. It makes for an interesting decision, and I don't see any inherent problem with it. Maybe we should get rid of rapid fire instead? Or just keep both since neither rule is especially complicated? I can't help but feel that this is an extension of your dislike for several relentless units.

Suggestion 1: Others have pointed out many of the problems with this suggestion, and I've found your responses to those problems unsatisfactory. As others have pointed out, units like terminators, a unit that is considered very bad in today's games, even worse. When presented with this problem, you responded by saying that they should simply stop taking iconic weapons that are neither overpowered nor contradictory to their fluff. Similarly, obliterators, despite being taken for their firepower and and durability, become somewhat less appealing if they have to spend the entire game standing still and can't fire after deepstriking. Reading through the thread, I can't help but feel that you're being defensive about the fact that people have found fault with a rules proposal that you're fond of. You can downplay the fact that it makes bad units worse, but you are, in fact, making bad units worse unnecessarily.

It seems like your main goal in removing relentless is to nerf bike units. Which is fair to a point. Scatbikes are too good. Certain marine bike armies are annoyingly good. But if your real goal is to nerf bikes, why not simply make suggestions that only nerf bikes rather than hurting units (like terminators and oblits) who don't need to be nerfed right now? Would you agree that terminators and oblits don't need to be nerfed? Would you agree that it's reasonable for a terminator to shoot an assault cannon and assault in the same turn? If so, why not consider some alternatives that nerf the real problem units without hurting others?

For instance, you could restrict eldar jetbikes to 1 heavy weapon per 3 bikes like in previous books (this puts their firepower-to-points ratio roughly on par with vypers)? And perhaps space marine bikers could reasonably suffer a slight points hike? So they'd still be able to shoot guns while on the move and charge in afterwards, but they'd also be fewer in number. Considering that bikes got several bonuses in recent years (easy access to skilled rider, Jink, and Hammer of Wrath), I don't feel that a small points increase would be uncalled for. It would simply render bike armies few in number but possessed of enough durability, mobility, and fire power to make up for those small numbers.

I think a lot of the debate around your proposals boil down to this: You're trying to fix specific problems by making broad changes that have unwanted consequences for other units. When presented with the fact that your changes would hurt other units, you try to dismiss the problems by saying things like, "Oh, that makes terminators worse/punishes them for taking certain options? Well just don't use those options then. My changes are worth punishing underperforming units further."

Martel732 wrote:
You guys are trying very hard, but it's probably futile.

True, but with how wrong OP is and how arrogant he is acting in the face of all this, we really need to drive the point home that his ideas are bad and he should feel bad.

Again D10 system as we have talked about before would fix most of the issues, but again confines of the dice we are limited to.

Ok, I'm going to address the other points, but I think I have a solution to the relentless problem.

What if instead of deleting relentless, it instead read as follows:

"Any model with the relentless special rule may both shoot and charge in the same turn. Furthermore, any model with the relentless special rule may fire up to 1 heavy weapon at full BS if it has moved no more than half of its maximum movement distance in the movement phase. This rule does not affect salvo or ordnance weapons."

Then we could apply relentless to MCs, vehicles, etc., and get rid of the complicated vehicle shooting rules, except to add that vehicles and MCs may indeed use the rule to fire one ordnance weapons at full BS, as an exception, if they've moved 6 inches or less in the movement phase.

What if we just left it alone and started with a few points adjustments first?

The vehicle shooting rules are not complicated. They are, however, not very favorable to vehicles.

Martel732 wrote:
What if we just left it alone and started with a few points adjustments first?

The vehicle shooting rules are not complicated. They are, however, not very favorable to vehicles.

My proposal would actually be a significant buff to vehicles. That means that a rhino could move 12 and shoot its storm bolter at full BS, but an eldar jetbike could move no further than 6 inches and shoot scatter lasers at full BS. It would also get rid of chapter master shenanigans. It would also nerf MCs and completely gut grav shenanigans.

That's not the way to buff vehicles.

Marines need a way to be heroic, and currently, bikes are one big way.

Grav is not a "shenanigan".


Even grav cannons are fair without invisibility and skyhammer.

 Traditio wrote:
Ok, I'm going to address the other points, but I think I have a solution to the relentless problem.

What if instead of deleting relentless, it instead read as follows:

"Any model with the relentless special rule may both shoot and charge in the same turn. Furthermore, any model with the relentless special rule may fire up to 1 heavy weapon at full BS if it has moved no more than half of its maximum movement distance in the movement phase. This rule does not affect salvo or ordnance weapons."

Then we could apply relentless to MCs, vehicles, etc., and get rid of the complicated vehicle shooting rules, except to add that vehicles and MCs may indeed use the rule to fire one ordnance weapons at full BS, as an exception, if they've moved 6 inches or less in the movement phase.

So now terminators move 3 inches and shoot at 12, and bikes move 6 inches
Cents can now only move 3 inches and shoot at half range as well

Congradulation you made slow units even slower and shittier range.

You have also made it so the entire point of a fast attack unit is the same speed as a normal unit shooting at better range as well.

If you could just stop making suggestions that would be great, relentless does not need to be changed.

 Traditio wrote:
Ok, I'm going to address the other points, but I think I have a solution to the relentless problem.

What if instead of deleting relentless, it instead read as follows:

"Any model with the relentless special rule may both shoot and charge in the same turn. Furthermore, any model with the relentless special rule may fire up to 1 heavy weapon at full BS if it has moved no more than half of its maximum movement distance in the movement phase. This rule does not affect salvo or ordnance weapons."

Then we could apply relentless to MCs, vehicles, etc., and get rid of the complicated vehicle shooting rules, except to add that vehicles and MCs may indeed use the rule to fire one ordnance weapons at full BS, as an exception, if they've moved 6 inches or less in the movement phase.

I'm afraid this doesn't really work either. As has been pointed out, this means things like terminators would now move 3" a turn which is hardly better than holding still. My wraith lords are slow enough as is without being punished for firing their weapons. :(

What is the specific goal of your changes to relentless? If you want to nerf bikes, let's talk about nerfing bikes (or simply raising their points) in a way that doesn't hurt other units. If you want to buff vehicles and simplify their rules, let's have a conversation about that. I still feel that trying to mess around with relentless is an indirect way of accomplishing what you're probably really going for.

Wyldhunt wrote:
What is the specific goal of your changes to relentless? If you want to nerf bikes, let's talk about nerfing bikes (or simply raising their points) in a way that doesn't hurt other units. If you want to buff vehicles and simplify their rules, let's have a conversation about that. I still feel that trying to mess around with relentless is an indirect way of accomplishing what you're probably really going for.

Alternatively, if you want to remove Relentless from certain units, let's talk about removing them from certain units.

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What if we just left it alone and started with a few points adjustments first?

The vehicle shooting rules are not complicated. They are, however, not very favorable to vehicles.

My proposal would actually be a significant buff to vehicles. That means that a rhino could move 12 and shoot its storm bolter at full BS, but an eldar jetbike could move no further than 6 inches and shoot scatter lasers at full BS. It would also get rid of chapter master shenanigans. It would also nerf MCs and completely gut grav shenanigans.

Vehicle rules need to be burned down and redone from scratch.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What if we just left it alone and started with a few points adjustments first?

The vehicle shooting rules are not complicated. They are, however, not very favorable to vehicles.

My proposal would actually be a significant buff to vehicles. That means that a rhino could move 12 and shoot its storm bolter at full BS, but an eldar jetbike could move no further than 6 inches and shoot scatter lasers at full BS. It would also get rid of chapter master shenanigans. It would also nerf MCs and completely gut grav shenanigans.

Vehicle rules need to be burned down and redone from scratch.

Or just go back to 5th ed rules and fix transports from being op

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What if we just left it alone and started with a few points adjustments first?

The vehicle shooting rules are not complicated. They are, however, not very favorable to vehicles.

My proposal would actually be a significant buff to vehicles. That means that a rhino could move 12 and shoot its storm bolter at full BS, but an eldar jetbike could move no further than 6 inches and shoot scatter lasers at full BS. It would also get rid of chapter master shenanigans. It would also nerf MCs and completely gut grav shenanigans.

Vehicle rules need to be burned down and redone from scratch.

Or just go back to 5th ed rules and fix transports from being op

Eh... I didn't particularly enjoy stun-locking vehicles all game without being able to kill them. Even the non-transports. I kind of like the (frequently seen) suggestion that vehicles basically be treated like other units, giving them a toughness value, wounds, an armor save, and a "mechanical" rule that makes them immune to poison but susceptible to haywire and so forth. But that's something that we should probably discuss in a different thread.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
What is the specific goal of your changes to relentless? If you want to nerf bikes, let's talk about nerfing bikes (or simply raising their points) in a way that doesn't hurt other units. If you want to buff vehicles and simplify their rules, let's have a conversation about that. I still feel that trying to mess around with relentless is an indirect way of accomplishing what you're probably really going for.

Alternatively, if you want to remove Relentless from certain units, let's talk about removing them from certain units.

A very valid point.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Eh... I didn't particularly enjoy stun-locking vehicles all game without being able to kill them. Even the non-transports. I kind of like the (frequently seen) suggestion that vehicles basically be treated like other units, giving them a toughness value, wounds, an armor save, and a "mechanical" rule that makes them immune to poison but susceptible to haywire and so forth. But that's something that we should probably discuss in a different thread.

Indeed. As you said, it is probably best in another thread, but I do like the Hull Point system and the Glancing v Penetrating system, I just think they got it backwards and/or didn't include enough Hull Points for most Vehicles (let's face it, a Trukk is not designed to take hits like a Predator), especially with auto-Glancing rules like Gauss, Graviton, and Haywire being proliferated. I think that both Glancing and Penetrating Hits should roll on the Table, but only Penetrating Hits cause an automatic Hull Point loss or Explodes result. And I think that it was better with 6th's table, as well. A 6+ on the Glancing table would just be a Hull Point loss, but Explodes on a Penetrating Hit.

In a way, this could fix Graviton for Vehicles, too. Just have it work as an Immobilized Result on a 5 or 6+, and you don't have to worry about it doing such ridiculous damage scaling. First Immobilizes, and the rest just start stripping Hull Points.

But again, that's just my thoughts on it. Getting Vehicles in to the Toughness race takes all the characteristic stuff from the VDT out of the game and that would be a loss. It would make things mostly simpler all around, but if you wanted simple, 40K isn't the game you should be playing in the first place.

Because I can't be bothered going through three pages and addressing every single relevant point, let me take a minute to consider the original points, proposals, and comments:

 Traditio wrote:
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.

Why is it that when a lot of people (including yourself) say that they are going to 'Fix the Core Rules', they end up looking at a very finite set of rules? Curious that...


With regards to the first point about Relentless, I think that's been covered well enough by others.

 Traditio wrote:
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.

Not at all. If anything, Rapid Fire is just a special case of 'Salvo' in much the same way that a square is a special case of the rectangle. The only error I see with Salvo weapons is using it to make weapons ridiculously powerful (e.g. your favourite weapon - the Grav Cannon - being Salvo 3/5 IIRC).

 Traditio wrote:
3. Invisibility needs to die in a fire.

This is a tricky one mainly because of this:

Yes it is a powerful Psykic Power, but in my experience it's how the powers are used. For example, I have seen the 'Hallucination' power used more effectively more often than 'Invisibility'. With that in mind, I think what you're looking for is a rework of Psykic Powers.

 Traditio wrote:
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.

Again, Re-rolls are not a bad mechanic in and of itself. It's when it gets abused that is the problem. For example: 3x TL Lascannons? That's reasonable. 15x shots from 3x stationary Grac Cannons getting re-rolls because of Grav Amps? No thanks. It just needs to be toned down, not removed.

 Traditio wrote:
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.

If you could flesh this idea out properly, I could get behind this idea. Being a BT player: Not only would I like to see this idea fleshed out in great detail, but I'd like to see what you think this means for the opposite side (i.e. Denying the Witch)..

My idea for powers is this.

Cast the number equal to your mastery, pass on a leadership check modified by the warp charge level

IE primas casts on a ld check of 10(assuming your caster is Ld 10)

Warp charge one cast on a LD 9
Warp charge two on ld 8
Warp charge three on ld7

Then to deny you need to "fail" a ld check result modified by your mastery leave above or below the caster

Is if I had a primas case as a level 2 caster, and you are a level one caster, you need to roll a 12 if you are level 2 11 or 12

If I cast a warp charge 3 pass on a 7 or less you deny on a 8 or more as an equal leave caster

The system allows you to get easie spells off, well, eaiser( while making them harder to deny while also making harder spells harder to make yet eaiser to deny.

It would pretty well and sped things up we came up with it on the fly so we still need to work out things like physic hoods and such