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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Like everyone else is saying, put the focus back towards core units and infantry. We can keep Superheavies and Flyers, but make them more vulnerable to infantry so people are less forced to have a "hard-counter".

Use of more than one Grenade in assault with MCs and vehicles again, please. (nix the draft FAQ ruling)

I'll echo the above post and also say no to first turn assaults.

Right now Vehicles require 25+% cover to get a cover save, while MC's only require base contact. This doesn't feel right.

Ability for weapons to do multiple wounds to models would be nice. For example, if a model is hit by a weapon with more than 2 Strength above the Targets toughness, do 2 wounds. EG, a Riptide hit by a Lascannon takes two wounds. A Wraithknight would take only one. (or some similar mechanic) A Plasma Gun would do two wounds to a Space Marine Captain with this rule. Plasma Cannons get more interesting.

I agree with those two last posts except that the mechanic of dealing 2 wounds to a MC is problematic if your going to carry it over to infantry models.

Centurions and Meganobz would basically be garbage if you could, for all intents and purposes, double them out with a S7 weapon. I see the point of shooting a MC and it doing 2 wounds but that is also a flawed mechanic against the more Normalized MCs that the Nids have.

 danjbrierton wrote:
Vehicile. Design. Rules.

Only if done properly. This is GW we are talking about so we know they can't do nothing properly. I am sure if GW did new VDR it would be just roll a d6 for armour/ weapons etc, and there you go, your VDR .

Also, bring back the power of the Combined Arms Detachment.

Has it gone away? It's still there isn't it? You just choose not to use it.

Actually I would love for GW to get rid of this. Why? I am a Tyranid player. Why would aliens from another galaxy have a same layout as if they were Space Marines? As for what needs to be "buffed" or usable? How about instead of buffing things that are not usable actually make a game that is fair and fun and perfectly balanced?

I find it funny that certain ideas are automatically rejected or supported by the player base because of their experience with it. Take a step back, people.

Maybe if GW didn't cock up the rules in the first place something might work? Take vehicle rules for example - in 4th vehicles were death traps except for skimmers. So instead of making vehicles a bit hardier while toning down skimmers, GW went on to make vehicles too capable with the new vehicle resolution table. Adding rules like hitting on the rear automatically or later adding hull points are just clunky, counterintuitive mechanics slapped on to adjust for not getting the rules to make sense in the first place.

The solution is a better rule, not to fix the fix of a bad fix. Too many people are thinking in terms of fixing layer D because layer F of rule X is bad. Just throw out the original "fix" as well and start over. Get the basic rules right, and let them make sense. La de da, let's or we can just chase our tails.

I want the Tyranid Codex to be more like 4 (not as overpowered; just pliable enough to have different ways to play other than flyrants. Flyrants are boring. Blobbing is boring. I want my MCs to actually be scary and be competent.

Give Tyranids more than the Hive mind psyker discipline. It's okay but it suck by comparison to the old options!

I would like to see CSM and SM terminators recive a slight buff. Give the a 4++ or give them a second wound, or maybe even give them Reanimation protocol 5++ after the failed save.

GIVE SPACE MARINE WHILRWINDS BACK THEIR LAND MINES! I MADE LIKE fething 12 OF THOSE THINGS ONLY TO HAVE THEM REMOVED FROM THE GAME
-I understand why, I'm just really sad I put so much effort for its to be removed-

I would like swarm bases to be just a tad more survivable.

Make imperial Guard psykers have more options from diffrent disciplines. Right now, its either rerolls to hit or summon deamons, No real reason to do anything else with them.

Chaos just need an overall buff. Nothing huge, maybe like make every unit they have justa couple points cheaper and thats it.

Otherwise I'm pretty okay.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Like everyone else is saying, put the focus back towards core units and infantry. We can keep Superheavies and Flyers, but make them more vulnerable to infantry so people are less forced to have a "hard-counter".

Use of more than one Grenade in assault with MCs and vehicles again, please. (nix the draft FAQ ruling)

I'll echo the above post and also say no to first turn assaults.

Right now Vehicles require 25+% cover to get a cover save, while MC's only require base contact. This doesn't feel right.

Ability for weapons to do multiple wounds to models would be nice. For example, if a model is hit by a weapon with more than 2 Strength above the Targets toughness, do 2 wounds. EG, a Riptide hit by a Lascannon takes two wounds. A Wraithknight would take only one. (or some similar mechanic) A Plasma Gun would do two wounds to a Space Marine Captain with this rule. Plasma Cannons get more interesting.

I agree with those two last posts except that the mechanic of dealing 2 wounds to a MC is problematic if your going to carry it over to infantry models.

Centurions and Meganobz would basically be garbage if you could, for all intents and purposes, double them out with a S7 weapon. I see the point of shooting a MC and it doing 2 wounds but that is also a flawed mechanic against the more Normalized MCs that the Nids have.

Also what would happen if you shoot a one wound model? Do you remove two models from the squad?

SemperMortis wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Like everyone else is saying, put the focus back towards core units and infantry. We can keep Superheavies and Flyers, but make them more vulnerable to infantry so people are less forced to have a "hard-counter".

Use of more than one Grenade in assault with MCs and vehicles again, please. (nix the draft FAQ ruling)

I'll echo the above post and also say no to first turn assaults.

Right now Vehicles require 25+% cover to get a cover save, while MC's only require base contact. This doesn't feel right.

Ability for weapons to do multiple wounds to models would be nice. For example, if a model is hit by a weapon with more than 2 Strength above the Targets toughness, do 2 wounds. EG, a Riptide hit by a Lascannon takes two wounds. A Wraithknight would take only one. (or some similar mechanic) A Plasma Gun would do two wounds to a Space Marine Captain with this rule. Plasma Cannons get more interesting.

I agree with those two last posts except that the mechanic of dealing 2 wounds to a MC is problematic if your going to carry it over to infantry models.

Centurions and Meganobz would basically be garbage if you could, for all intents and purposes, double them out with a S7 weapon. I see the point of shooting a MC and it doing 2 wounds but that is also a flawed mechanic against the more Normalized MCs that the Nids have.

It would also kill Tyranid Warriors even further then they have.

SemperMortis wrote:

I agree with those two last posts except that the mechanic of dealing 2 wounds to a MC is problematic if your going to carry it over to infantry models.

Centurions and Meganobz would basically be garbage if you could, for all intents and purposes, double them out with a S7 weapon. I see the point of shooting a MC and it doing 2 wounds but that is also a flawed mechanic against the more Normalized MCs that the Nids have.

Well, for Centurions that wouldn't be the case for S7, since they're T 5. I can see the point for Meganobs though (although making them T5 wouldn't be bad, either.)

 TheLumberJack wrote:

Also what would happen if you shoot a one wound model? Do you remove two models from the squad?

No, just 2 W on a single model. I was thinking in line with an older Tyranid mutation I think, any single unsaved wound done to a model becomes two.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It would also kill Tyranid Warriors even further then they have.

Honestly, I would rather bring back the old Synapse rules from 4th, where creatures in Synapse would only take a single wound even if ID'd. I always thought that was one of the best rules in the game.

I feel like something like the rule would help certain weapons be more competitive with each other, in any case. It helps weapons like a Lascannon compete with something like a Grav Cannon (which ought to lose a shot or two anyways, while we're at it).

I always wondered why GW has been so resistant to making the medium Tyranid bugs T5. There's a fairly logical progression from T3 Gaunts to T4 Genestealers, then T6 Tyrants and T7 Carnifexes. But, there's a gap where T5 ought to be, and the midsized bugs are bigger than Stealers but smaller than Tyrants, so you'd think T5 would be logical for them. Instead, they're T4, and occasionally have BS rules exempting them from Instant Death because GW won't do the logical thing and just make them T5.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I always wondered why GW has been so resistant to making the medium Tyranid bugs T5. There's a fairly logical progression from T3 Gaunts to T4 Genestealers, then T6 Tyrants and T7 Carnifexes. But, there's a gap where T5 ought to be, and the midsized bugs are bigger than Stealers but smaller than Tyrants, so you'd think T5 would be logical for them. Instead, they're T4, and occasionally have BS rules exempting them from Instant Death because GW won't do the logical thing and just make them T5.

You know? That's a damn fine point. Warriors wouldn't be fearing Krak Missiles or Battlecannons at T5.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I always wondered why GW has been so resistant to making the medium Tyranid bugs T5. There's a fairly logical progression from T3 Gaunts to T4 Genestealers, then T6 Tyrants and T7 Carnifexes. But, there's a gap where T5 ought to be, and the midsized bugs are bigger than Stealers but smaller than Tyrants, so you'd think T5 would be logical for them. Instead, they're T4, and occasionally have BS rules exempting them from Instant Death because GW won't do the logical thing and just make them T5.

You know? That's a damn fine point. Warriors wouldn't be fearing Krak Missiles or Battlecannons at T5.

The main problem there is that I think warriors would then experience a further price hike. Outside of instant death issues of being T4, I think T4 suits them. But then again eternal warrior would be too OP, especially vs S9 + S10 weapons, realistically they should be T4 with T4.5 in terms of instant death which is impossible. So I suppose T5 would be the best solution :/

Given their size its hard to argue Crisis Suits and Broadsides staying T4, at least both of them being it.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I always wondered why GW has been so resistant to making the medium Tyranid bugs T5. There's a fairly logical progression from T3 Gaunts to T4 Genestealers, then T6 Tyrants and T7 Carnifexes. But, there's a gap where T5 ought to be, and the midsized bugs are bigger than Stealers but smaller than Tyrants, so you'd think T5 would be logical for them. Instead, they're T4, and occasionally have BS rules exempting them from Instant Death because GW won't do the logical thing and just make them T5.

You know? That's a damn fine point. Warriors wouldn't be fearing Krak Missiles or Battlecannons at T5.

The main problem there is that I think warriors would then experience a further price hike. Outside of instant death issues of being T4, I think T4 suits them. But then again eternal warrior would be too OP, especially vs S9 + S10 weapons, realistically they should be T4 with T4.5 in terms of instant death which is impossible. So I suppose T5 would be the best solution :/

T4 is a marine. T5 is a centurion. Think about the size of the Warrior, to which one is closer?

Davor wrote:


Actually I would love for GW to get rid of this. Why? I am a Tyranid player. Why would aliens from another galaxy have a same layout as if they were Space Marines? As for what needs to be "buffed" or usable? How about instead of buffing things that are not usable actually make a game that is fair and fun and perfectly balanced?

Yeah, I feel like the right way to go would have been more variant force org charts for each army, but instead they decided to go with formations which I'm just not a fan of. Why the latter was necessary instead of the former, I'm not entirely clear tbh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like, I feel like the Ork Horde detachment was a good idea in theory, but there's literally nothing about it that makes it better than taking a CAD.

Jefffar wrote:
Given their size its hard to argue Crisis Suits and Broadsides staying T4, at least both of them being it.

They used to be toughness 5. Frankly I think they should be made T5 because crisis suits already have a tough time being competitive, and broadsides feel way to soft IMO.

 Jaxler wrote:

Frankly I think they should be made T5 because crisis suits already have a tough time being competitive, and broadsides feel way to soft IMO.

I vomitted in my mouth after reading this.

I would like to see more realistic rules for bikes, give them a fixed firing arc like vehicle weapons and make it so they can only turn 90 degrees for every 6" they move. This would sort out scatter bikes because yeah they could still JSJ, but they would end up going further forwards with the second jump.

Also double the number of hull points on all vehicles, any weapon of strength 7/8 or higher is now considered an anti tank weapon and removes 2 hull points at a time.

I'd like to see Heldrakes get a better arc of fire. Give them 180 degrees frontal with a special rule that allows them to fire at a unit they vector struck, perhaps with an accuracy modifier. (+1 to hit or something).

Less buffs, more nerfs, I think, with the main one being a re-understanding of the core game.

Waaayyy back when, there was a passage that says, roughly,

"The modern battlefield is filled with terrible weapons, great warmachines that stride through cities laying waste to everything they survey, while deadly craft fill the skies.

This is not about them.

This is about the trooper down in the trenches, doing what they can to survive. A fragment of the greater war, away from those great machines, where stubborn men of high resolve do battle with guns, knives, or even their bare hands. These are tales of small battles that turn the tide and of skirmishes that will never be known.

This is Warhammer 40K"

A game that's based around the troopers, common footsloggers getting in there and getting it done.

No super-heavy stuff, no flyers, no crazy stuff ... just a game where basic Guardsmen, Ork Boys, and Tactical Marines can throw down and make a big difference by themselves, rather than just being "Ablative wounds for a heavy/special weapon".

Is that too much to ask?

Jefffar wrote:
Given their size its hard to argue Crisis Suits and Broadsides staying T4, at least both of them being it.

I agree 100%

They should definitely become AV10 walkers.

Walkers. I love ork walkers, but they are all terrible. I'm not sure what could be done exactly, and I don't think I'd really like them being MCs.....I honestly don't know how to fix walkers, but I know I'd like deff dreads to actually do something every so often.

Of course, any walker buff that happens will be universal, and deff dreads will still be awful compared to other dreads, but still, would be nice to see.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Walkers. I love ork walkers, but they are all terrible. I'm not sure what could be done exactly, and I don't think I'd really like them being MCs.....I honestly don't know how to fix walkers, but I know I'd like deff dreads to actually do something every so often.

Of course, any walker buff that happens will be universal, and deff dreads will still be awful compared to other dreads, but still, would be nice to see.

4 CC arms and still garbage number of attacks.....

SemperMortis wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Given their size its hard to argue Crisis Suits and Broadsides staying T4, at least both of them being it.

I agree 100%

They should definitely become AV10 walkers.

Nerfing- I mean ruining, crisis suits when riptides are the problem is like fixing a car with a bad engine by giving it new tires.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Walkers. I love ork walkers, but they are all terrible. I'm not sure what could be done exactly, and I don't think I'd really like them being MCs.....I honestly don't know how to fix walkers, but I know I'd like deff dreads to actually do something every so often.

Of course, any walker buff that happens will be universal, and deff dreads will still be awful compared to other dreads, but still, would be nice to see.

Make all Walkers MCs, or all MCs Walkers. Leave the vehicle rules to actual vehicles?

One thing I would love to see is MCs get weaker as they take more wounds. It's worked out well in AoS and I think would help balance some of the more ridiculous MCs in 40k.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Walkers. I love ork walkers, but they are all terrible. I'm not sure what could be done exactly, and I don't think I'd really like them being MCs.....I honestly don't know how to fix walkers, but I know I'd like deff dreads to actually do something every so often.

Of course, any walker buff that happens will be universal, and deff dreads will still be awful compared to other dreads, but still, would be nice to see.

Make all Walkers MCs, or all MCs Walkers. Leave the vehicle rules to actual vehicles?

One thing I would love to see is MCs get weaker as they take more wounds. It's worked out well in AoS and I think would help balance some of the more ridiculous MCs in 40k.

Minor issue with that is that wound count is much lower in 40k. I like the idea-I just think it'd be difficult to implement well.

 Jaxler wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Given their size its hard to argue Crisis Suits and Broadsides staying T4, at least both of them being it.

I agree 100%

They should definitely become AV10 walkers.

Nerfing- I mean ruining, crisis suits when riptides are the problem is like fixing a car with a bad engine by giving it new tires.

I think Riptides should be vehicles as well, as should stormsurge and that stupid looking ghostkeel.

*Insert tau argument* (But they are really mobile), (But they are sophisticated), (But they are special because reasons)

*Insert Counter Argument * (IDGAF, it looks like a walker its a fething walker)

SemperMortis wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Given their size its hard to argue Crisis Suits and Broadsides staying T4, at least both of them being it.

I agree 100%

They should definitely become AV10 walkers.

Actually, I've run some figures on making them walkers, the sweet spots seem to be AV 11 and 12 for Crisis Suit and Broadside respectively.

Less and they are giving away too much in durability vs medium guns. More and they are far too resistant to high strength weapons.

Of course the Walker transition does make them immune from.leadership, morale and poison effects. It does substitute instant death with explosions however.

Jefffar wrote:
Given their size its hard to argue Crisis Suits and Broadsides staying T4, at least both of them being it.

Centurions are pretty thick, and the guy inside is T 4, so T 5 feels ok for them. But the Crisis suits are much spindlier, and the fish-man inside is only T 3, so I think T 4 works well enough for them. Both Crisis suits and Centurion suits give +1 Toughness and +1 wound, which feels consistent.

The current Broadside model is huge though, so T 5 seems appropriate to me.

It's tough comparing them to Tyranid Warriors simply going by size though. IMO the Warriors 4+ save hurts them a lot, but a 3+ would feel out of place. As organics, they're much bigger than a Space Marine, so T 5 feels alright. In comparison to Broadsides or Crisis suits, I like the idea that Warriors don't feel pain like a Tau or Marine, and as hive-mind controlled entities they will continue fighting after losing limbs/can't go into shock/and you basically have to annihilate them before they stop.

That and I'd just like to see them on the table again. T 5, 3 W without a raise in price would help.

Jefffar wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Given their size its hard to argue Crisis Suits and Broadsides staying T4, at least both of them being it.

I agree 100%

They should definitely become AV10 walkers.

Actually, I've run some figures on making them walkers, the sweet spots seem to be AV 11 and 12 for Crisis Suit and Broadside respectively.

Less and they are giving away too much in durability vs medium guns. More and they are far too resistant to high strength weapons.

Of course the Walker transition does make them immune from.leadership, morale and poison effects. It does substitute instant death with explosions however.

Nope, those little buggers should be AV10, maybe the broadsides should be 11 but thats it. And they should be 2HPs

this really just sums up the problem o the current rule set, MCs and infantry with stupid abilities like the Tau have should either be made into vehicles or fix the rules, and in the case of the tau, fix the codex.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Walkers. I love ork walkers, but they are all terrible. I'm not sure what could be done exactly, and I don't think I'd really like them being MCs.....I honestly don't know how to fix walkers, but I know I'd like deff dreads to actually do something every so often.

Of course, any walker buff that happens will be universal, and deff dreads will still be awful compared to other dreads, but still, would be nice to see.

Make all Walkers MCs, or all MCs Walkers. Leave the vehicle rules to actual vehicles?

One thing I would love to see is MCs get weaker as they take more wounds. It's worked out well in AoS and I think would help balance some of the more ridiculous MCs in 40k.

Minor issue with that is that wound count is much lower in 40k. I like the idea-I just think it'd be difficult to implement well.

Maybe increase wound count overall? Guardsmen and the like are still 1 wound, tac marines get 2 wounds, etc. But we'd have to change weapon stats too, I bet.

SemperMortis wrote:

Jefffar wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Given their size its hard to argue Crisis Suits and Broadsides staying T4, at least both of them being it.

I agree 100%

They should definitely become AV10 walkers.

Actually, I've run some figures on making them walkers, the sweet spots seem to be AV 11 and 12 for Crisis Suit and Broadside respectively.

Less and they are giving away too much in durability vs medium guns. More and they are far too resistant to high strength weapons.

Of course the Walker transition does make them immune from.leadership, morale and poison effects. It does substitute instant death with explosions however.

Nope, those little buggers should be AV10, maybe the broadsides should be 11 but thats it. And they should be 2HPs

this really just sums up the problem o the current rule set, MCs and infantry with stupid abilities like the Tau have should either be made into vehicles or fix the rules, and in the case of the tau, fix the codex.

Crisis suits and broadsides were never a problem in 5thed and before when tau literally sucked. Making their suits into walks removes their ability to Jump shoot jump and kinda kills the only thing crisis suits have that makes them viable. Broadsides don't need to be more delicate when they already aren't that good.

Also the reason tau MCs are MCs is because they wouldn't be able to use tau support systems and wouldn't be able to jump shoot jump, which has been integeral to tau play since forever.