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.

I dont expect much.

Maybe a reward for non soup with an additional 2 CPs or something.

I would hope for a cap on regerating CPs to its starting number, enemy CPs can only be refunded on 6s.

Only Faction specific Strategems can be refunded. Why is my DG the only army that has a restriction?

I dont really care about Alpha Strike assaults, but one possible fix might be allowing only 1 die reroll for Alpha Charges.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I dont expect much.

Maybe a reward for non soup with an additional 2 CPs or something.

I would hope for a cap on regerating CPs to its starting number, enemy CPs can only be refunded on 6s.

Only Faction specific Strategems can be refunded. Why is my DG the only army that has a restriction?

I dont really care about Alpha Strike assaults, but one possible fix might be allowing only 1 die reroll for Alpha Charges.

This last part would just make alpha shooting supreme. We'd need to somehow limit that too if we changed alpha assaults to 1 die.

...I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Give everyone -1 to hit outside of 18".

You'd need to rebalance a few more individual factions and units around it, but it would be much healthier for the state of the game.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Too bad deep strike sucks horribly this edition. For all the people scared of first turn charge, your opponents must be rolling a lot of 9's.

There is a lot of stuff taht lets you get bonuses to the charge as well. I mean, tzaangors get +1 to the charge, so i only need to make an 8" charge, + i can reroll a single die for a command point, or if i got the spell off for no command points.

You can also deep strike and warp time stuff directly up to your enemy and just need to make a 3 inch charge. Or for alpha legion, just pop up 9" away, move, and make like a 4 inch charge. Its not hard to make it into combat outta a deep strike. I kept telling people that with garuneed deep strike, and being able to charge, its gonna get dumb, and it has, alpha strike is worse now then it was in 7th.

It's actually very hard. Alpha strikes are coming from shooting lists, not melee lists.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Genestealers need to be nerfed. Moving and advancing 20 models 16-20" across the battlefield (kraken 3D6 for advancing, using the highest roll, doubling it with 1CP) and being able to charge with 3-4 attacks, and acid maws (AP-3 for free), for 12 pts. a model is a big nono.

What gets me is that, last I heard, Tyranid Genestealers are Troops and cheaper than Genestealer Genestealers for effectively the same model, ability-wise.

That's definitely gotta get reconciled if true.

GSC have the Ambush rules.

Yeah I know, that's why I said effectively. Ambush alone does not justify those changes

Audustum wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Genestealers need to be nerfed. Moving and advancing 20 models 16-20" across the battlefield (kraken 3D6 for advancing, using the highest roll, doubling it with 1CP) and being able to charge with 3-4 attacks, and acid maws (AP-3 for free), for 12 pts. a model is a big nono.

What gets me is that, last I heard, Tyranid Genestealers are Troops and cheaper than Genestealer Genestealers for effectively the same model, ability-wise.

That's definitely gotta get reconciled if true.

GSC have the Ambush rules.

Yeah I know, that's why I said effectively. Ambush alone does not justify those changes

This. Give Gene cult's chance to pick tyranids <hive fleet> faction abilities or make them own <House of ..> rules and then higher point cost is justified.

 Fafnir wrote:
...I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Give everyone -1 to hit outside of 18".

You'd need to rebalance a few more individual factions and units around it, but it would be much healthier for the state of the game.

Why not just hit my orks with a hammer too while your at it?

Won't happen, but change the overcharge on plasma to a natural roll of 1, and not modified to a 1.

So far as actual rules changes go, I think something needs to be done about stacking penalties to hit.

-1 to hit a unit is reasonable, -2 to hit is ridiculous and -3 to hit is insane.

Important points about MEQ. Feels like this post needs it's own thread.

I would be surprised if the FAQ offers any improvements for MEQ or TEQ. You're completely right, the offense / defense is just not there for them this edition.

Thanks, i'll try making its own thread.

Wouldn't making mono marine lists stronger make the soup even stronger still thereby defeating the overall purpose?

I don't think so because it is effective different units. These MeQ units are barely used in the soup lists. Most soup is marine elites/heavies that aren't meqs, and then swarm/horde units from another list. So the units getting buffed aren't the ones being used in the soup list.

As long as they get a good point increase. Hurricane bolters would be even more desirable. Rubrics would go to -3 and Soul Reapers to -4...

Some items might need point increases, but most won't. Hurricane's might. Rubrics shouldn't, as they are already expensive and not that great. Their bolters used to fully ignore MeQ armor, and now they fully ignore...guard armor. Woo. They always should have been AP -3 imo.

Only if a chainsword, bolt pistol, and bolter combination comes at a higher cost. Rubrics would be left in the dust there (heh heh). And Berzerkers would be even more absurd wouldn't they?

Having thought about it a bit more, I think the solution is to allow Bolter+Chainsword as an option. I don't think this should increase points, because the units it benefits need to get stronger. And Berzerkers wouldn't get this (in the past they didn't have bolter+pistol+ccw)

I think there may be more elegant solutions to that problem.

I hope so. There doesn't seem to be many good solutions given the nature of the problem. But I'm sure there's more creative folks than I.

Why only Marines??????

Because these are the units that aren't worth taking now. Other factions, like Sisters, may also need it. But Guard doesn't.

I love how everyone thinks this FAQ will be game changing just like we hoped CA would be... in the end it won't change anything major and will just cause arguments on general. Why do I love this game...

 lolman1c wrote:
I love how everyone thinks this FAQ will be game changing just like we hoped CA would be... in the end it won't change anything major and will just cause arguments on general. Why do I love this game...

Well, you cant please everyone all of the time. Especially with these lofty desires.

 davou wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
...I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Give everyone -1 to hit outside of 18".

You'd need to rebalance a few more individual factions and units around it, but it would be much healthier for the state of the game.

Why not just hit my orks with a hammer too while your at it?

Read the last sentence in my post.

 conker249 wrote:
Won't happen, but change the overcharge on plasma to a natural roll of 1, and not modified to a 1.

You wanna buff one of the currently most powerfull types shooting?

meleti wrote:
So far as actual rules changes go, I think something needs to be done about stacking penalties to hit.

-1 to hit a unit is reasonable, -2 to hit is ridiculous and -3 to hit is insane.

This is definitely the big one. I'd be all in favor of no stacking at all, but you'd need to allow stacking between enemy imposed and self imposed penalties so that moving with a heavy weapon doesn't cause it to ignore stealthy tricks.

 LunarSol wrote:

meleti wrote:
So far as actual rules changes go, I think something needs to be done about stacking penalties to hit.

-1 to hit a unit is reasonable, -2 to hit is ridiculous and -3 to hit is insane.

This is definitely the big one. I'd be all in favor of no stacking at all, but you'd need to allow stacking between enemy imposed and self imposed penalties so that moving with a heavy weapon doesn't cause it to ignore stealthy tricks.

The issue with this is that as far as I'm aware, there are exceedingly few units that can have -2s--let alone -3s.
Two of them, that I'm aware of, are Eldar units(Alaitoc Rangers and Flyers with Hard to Hit). One is an AdMech unit(Dragoons with Stygies).
Flyers with multiple negative to hits aren't bad IMO, since most of them get balanced out by the fact that anti-air weaponry has gotten a smidge bit of a boost(+1 to hit versus Fly keyword means it's a bit more helpful against stuff rather than just being "Only take it if your opponent has Flyers").

I'd argue in favor of the more advanced anti-air weapons(Hydra Flak Tanks, Icarus Array Onagers, Tau with Velocity Trackers, etc) getting an additional caveat added to them where they ignore the Hard to Hit modifier in addition to the flat +1 to hit things with the Fly keyword.

But I'd also argue that if such is done, we need more AA weapon platforms in the game.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

meleti wrote:
So far as actual rules changes go, I think something needs to be done about stacking penalties to hit.

-1 to hit a unit is reasonable, -2 to hit is ridiculous and -3 to hit is insane.

This is definitely the big one. I'd be all in favor of no stacking at all, but you'd need to allow stacking between enemy imposed and self imposed penalties so that moving with a heavy weapon doesn't cause it to ignore stealthy tricks.

The issue with this is that as far as I'm aware, there are exceedingly few units that can have -2s--let alone -3s.
Two of them, that I'm aware of, are Eldar units(Alaitoc Rangers and Flyers with Hard to Hit). One is an AdMech unit(Dragoons with Stygies).
Flyers with multiple negative to hits aren't bad IMO, since most of them get balanced out by the fact that anti-air weaponry has gotten a smidge bit of a boost(+1 to hit versus Fly keyword means it's a bit more helpful against stuff rather than just being "Only take it if your opponent has Flyers").

I'd argue in favor of the more advanced anti-air weapons(Hydra Flak Tanks, Icarus Array Onagers, Tau with Velocity Trackers, etc) getting an additional caveat added to them where they ignore the Hard to Hit modifier in addition to the flat +1 to hit things with the Fly keyword.

But I'd also argue that if such is done, we need more AA weapon platforms in the game.

You're forgetting Conceal from the Runes of Battle.

meleti wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

meleti wrote:
So far as actual rules changes go, I think something needs to be done about stacking penalties to hit.

-1 to hit a unit is reasonable, -2 to hit is ridiculous and -3 to hit is insane.

This is definitely the big one. I'd be all in favor of no stacking at all, but you'd need to allow stacking between enemy imposed and self imposed penalties so that moving with a heavy weapon doesn't cause it to ignore stealthy tricks.

The issue with this is that as far as I'm aware, there are exceedingly few units that can have -2s--let alone -3s.
Two of them, that I'm aware of, are Eldar units(Alaitoc Rangers and Flyers with Hard to Hit). One is an AdMech unit(Dragoons with Stygies).
Flyers with multiple negative to hits aren't bad IMO, since most of them get balanced out by the fact that anti-air weaponry has gotten a smidge bit of a boost(+1 to hit versus Fly keyword means it's a bit more helpful against stuff rather than just being "Only take it if your opponent has Flyers").

I'd argue in favor of the more advanced anti-air weapons(Hydra Flak Tanks, Icarus Array Onagers, Tau with Velocity Trackers, etc) getting an additional caveat added to them where they ignore the Hard to Hit modifier in addition to the flat +1 to hit things with the Fly keyword.

But I'd also argue that if such is done, we need more AA weapon platforms in the game.

You're forgetting Conceal from the Runes of Battle.

So it still comes down to "Eldar units"?

To be honest, I'm not running into too many Eldar players locally and I just am not buying codices like I used to.

Yeah, for now -2 is mostly an Eldar problem, it's just nearly any unit in the Eldar army, rather than just Rangers or flyers.

There's still a bunch of codices yet to come out that will probably introduce some new -1 to hit mechanics (ex: Tau Stealth suits with a Alaitoc Sept tactic).

For soup nerfing: Your warlord must come from the detachment with the highest points total. Only detachments and units that share every faction keyword with your warlord may contribute command points to your overall pool.

For MEQ buffs: Bolt weapons generally get a "on a roll of a 6 to hit, make another roll. These rolls cannot generate further rolls". Or do that to on to-wound rolls for two damage shots instead of 1 damage shots.

For Death Guard: Please make the generic lords and sorcerers toughness 5 with digustingly resilient. My eye twitches every time I see that T4 stat sandwiched in with the T5s.

I don't think the flyer battlefield role is really a problem any more. It's at least not the primary source of -1 to hit issues anymore.

I think the crux of the issue is that -2 is ridiculous and basically needs to be reserved for a moving heavy weapon shooting at something hard to hit.

Maybe some limitations on army wide -1 to hit traits.

You always hit on 6 regardless of modifiers.

Some change to either how plasma works or wounds on elite units to discourage plasma spam.

meleti wrote:
Yeah, for now -2 is mostly an Eldar problem, it's just nearly any unit in the Eldar army, rather than just Rangers or flyers.

There's still a bunch of codices yet to come out that will probably introduce some new -1 to hit mechanics (ex: Tau Stealth suits with a Alaitoc Sept tactic).

I'm not expecting Tau to get an Alaitoc styled Sept trait, if I'm honest. There's not really any of them known for stealth/fieldcraft. I would expect their traits to be more in line with Guard's stuff.

Hopefully Kroot get given the trait though.

Change -1 to hit in 12" army traits to -1 to hit in 18".

 Kanluwen wrote:

meleti wrote:
Yeah, for now -2 is mostly an Eldar problem, it's just nearly any unit in the Eldar army, rather than just Rangers or flyers.

There's still a bunch of codices yet to come out that will probably introduce some new -1 to hit mechanics (ex: Tau Stealth suits with a Alaitoc Sept tactic).

I'm not expecting Tau to get an Alaitoc styled Sept trait, if I'm honest. There's not really any of them known for stealth/fieldcraft. I would expect their traits to be more in line with Guard's stuff.

Hopefully Kroot get given the trait though.

I'll love for Tau to get Guard style traits, with different bonus for infantry and for tanks. Or maybe even infantry, battlesuits and tanks.

 Galas wrote:
Change -1 to hit in 12" army traits to -1 to hit in 18".

 Kanluwen wrote:

meleti wrote:
Yeah, for now -2 is mostly an Eldar problem, it's just nearly any unit in the Eldar army, rather than just Rangers or flyers.

There's still a bunch of codices yet to come out that will probably introduce some new -1 to hit mechanics (ex: Tau Stealth suits with a Alaitoc Sept tactic).

I'm not expecting Tau to get an Alaitoc styled Sept trait, if I'm honest. There's not really any of them known for stealth/fieldcraft. I would expect their traits to be more in line with Guard's stuff.

Hopefully Kroot get given the trait though.

I'll love for Tau to get Guard style traits, with different bonus for infantry and for tanks. Or maybe even infantry, battlesuits and tanks.

It would definitely suit them considering they're the only other professional military in 40k, at least in a modern sense. I would like to see more Tau hovertanks on the table especially, anything to get people to take firewarriors and hammerheads. It's sad to see Tau get reduced to just suit spam when they have so many cool and characterful options that just get outshined by battlesuits and those hideous super heavy monstrosities GW is pushing like riptides. I don't think I've seen a Tau player willingly take fire warriors in over 2 years.

I just had a thought. What if they changed CP for matched play to be static? The Malign Portents book for AOS has something like this.. it uses "Prophecy Points" which are randomly generated (each turn in that case) but for Matched Play it's like... 3 per 500 points or something like that. Would we see less soup lists if it was, for example 3 base for being battleforged and then +1 per 500 points (so 7 at 2000 points) and that number was fixed for everybody, other than the characters who give a bonus?

Wayniac wrote:
I just had a thought. What if they changed CP for matched play to be static? The Malign Portents book for AOS has something like this.. it uses "Prophecy Points" which are randomly generated (each turn in that case) but for Matched Play it's like... 3 per 500 points or something like that. Would we see less soup lists if it was, for example 3 base for being battleforged and then +1 per 500 points (so 7 at 2000 points) and that number was fixed for everybody, other than the characters who give a bonus?

Then you'd see everyone move away from more basic units when they're no longer penalized for taking all fast attack, heavy, etc.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I just had a thought. What if they changed CP for matched play to be static? The Malign Portents book for AOS has something like this.. it uses "Prophecy Points" which are randomly generated (each turn in that case) but for Matched Play it's like... 3 per 500 points or something like that. Would we see less soup lists if it was, for example 3 base for being battleforged and then +1 per 500 points (so 7 at 2000 points) and that number was fixed for everybody, other than the characters who give a bonus?

Then you'd see everyone move away from more basic units when they're no longer penalized for taking all fast attack, heavy, etc.

A lot of troop choices are pretty good and would be taken anyways. It's just that the tactical is so terrible (this isn't even a general space marine thing because scouts are a really good troop choice) that it skews perception a bit.

I'm of a controversial opinion that we need to bring blast weapons back. There's no 'other' easy answer to anti horde, or at the very least bring black flamer templates.

Changes that I think are needed:
* Deep strike and its variants can now only happen on turn 2+ (Fixes the alpha strike problems, I'm looking at you berserkers!)
* We need to see a melee 'overwatch' that happens when people retreat from combat
* All Vehicles now reduce AP penalties by half, AP on Lascannons and Meltas go up slightly to compensate

And finally a wishlist of things that will never happen but should:
* Add psychic dice a-la 8e Warhammer fantasy, using a pool of dice that increases per psyker in your army - makes it easier to cast a single spell but harder for multiple
* TEQ units now have a save of 3+ but pass using 2d6
* Remove all reroll auras (As they are bland, uninspiring and reduce game-design space available) and replace them with something interesting.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

1) AP changes made 3+ less strong

2) Bolters effectively losing AP made them so inefficient they are barely worth rolling

5) The combination of bolters becoming proportionally weaker and flamers/frag missiles becoming weaker, less reliable, and more expensive totally destroyed the ability to normal marine units to provide anti-swarm.

8) In the past, marine infantry relied on a good armor save to out attrition their opponents. But now the offensive power of everyone has increased considerably, so they've lost their ability to take in damage without getting wiped out early. The changes to cover have also hurt them, but not necessarily more than other races.

A) Move all bolter weapons an AP lower for marines. Standard becomes AP -1, intercessor one becomes -2, heavy bolter -2, etc. This will also help their vehicles out. But it won't break currently good units like assault cannon razorbacks.

I agree with most of your points but this. You said that high AP weapons are making marines worse, and then later suggest adding more high AP weapons?

E) Give Jump Pack troops the ability to lock enemies in close combat, or perhaps follow them if they fall back (can be based on leadership check.)

I don't think that's the right way of doing it; Non-jump pack infantry are still invalid

 Eonfuzz wrote:

* Deep strike and its variants can now only happen on turn 2+ (Fixes the alpha strike problems, I'm looking at you berserkers!)

Wouldn't alpha strikes just turn into beta strikes?

* We need to see a melee 'overwatch' that happens when people retreat from combat

That sounds neat. Hitting on 6s wouldn't make it too terrible.

* All Vehicles now reduce AP penalties by half, AP on Lascannons and Meltas go up slightly to compensate

They're already pretty damn tough...