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.

 Elbows wrote:
Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?

Probably on the scale of "they do feth all"

We know there's going to be some Sisters testing stuff, and that there's going to be looted wagon rules. Beyond that [and missions], there's probably going to be general knee-jerk reactions to whatever is showing up in tournaments right now that doesn't actually attempt to analyse or address the situation.

That said, it'll probably be fine, and the sky won't fall.

valdier wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

valdier wrote:

Land Raider with twin las, twin assault and multi does 9.18 wounds to a leman russ, and 4.68 to marines.

The Phobos Land Raider (the standard version you're referring to) doesn't have a twin assault cannon. It has a twin heavy bolter. It's the variants that lack lascannons (the Crusader and the Redeemer) that have twin assault cannons.

Yeah I wrote twin assault because it was 2am and I mistyped. The stats I did up were for whatever the twin las was. (bolters)

But they aren't, because a double twin-las. twin HB and multimelta in half range Land Raider is only doing on average 7.335 wounds to a Leman Russ.

There is a bolter drill stratagem, but it's for Imperial Fists only.

@Elbows, probably about a 5 on the scale for me. I'm not expecting too much more than a few points changes and them maybe reworking Legion Traits/Chapter Tactics slightly to apply to all units except Servitors.

Most of the space that was used last time to give other armies a few small bits here and there while they were waiting for a codex will be taken up by the Sister's beta codex, and the rest will probably be dedicated to Narrative modes or new missions again.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
There is a bolter drill stratagem, but it's for Imperial Fists only.

@Elbows, probably about a 5 on the scale for me. I'm not expecting too much more than a few points changes and them maybe reworking Legion Traits/Chapter Tactics slightly to apply to all units except Servitors.

Most of the space that was used last time to give other armies a few small bits here and there while they were waiting for a codex will be taken up by the Sister's beta codex, and the rest will probably be dedicated to Narrative modes or new missions again.

And looted vehicles for orks for open play.
That's actually confirmed (because December is still Orktober):
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/10/29/orktober-never-ends/

'any kind of looted wagon' is a lot of potential datasheets eating page count.

 Elbows wrote:
Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?

About 4.5 Maybe less. But greater than 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

valdier wrote:

(Btw, I've actually written for award winning books in the game industry and edited for the same numbers intensive system [#2 selling game in the world at the time], since you mentioned it)

Please cite your name & works so that I & others may be properly impressed.

I would say 6,5. They will nerf the obvious problems and buff the obvious underperformers while sprinkling a few buffs here and there to make the book interesting for every faction.

About the marine issue, a fix eaasy enough to be implemented in a CA book would be something like this:

Fire pattern: Adeptus Astartes units that shoot with bolter weapons receive bonuses based on the number of models in the unit:
-3 or more: +1 to hit
- 5 or more:+1 to wound
- 8 or more: Ignore hit penalties, in addition roll 2 wound rolls for every unmodified hit roll of 6 instead of one.

These bonuses stack with each other. For the purpose of this rule bolter weapons are bolters, storm bolters, stalker bolters, stalker bolt rfile, auto bolt rifles and bolt rifles.


This adds a bit more punch to the bolter class weapons and in particular to the troops. This way a drop pod of 10 tacticals dropping on you starts becoming a more serious threath (assuming a reduction in cost of the pod), or 10 tacticals dropped in rapid fire range by a rhino. 10 intercessors with stalker bolt rifles become a big issue for the opponent.

For those that like to crunch numbers, at 10 men this means an increased firepower of 82% against GEQ, 94% against MEQ and 191% against T8 targets

The first bonus being at 3 also does something to help bikes.

This is a simple and thematical way to improve the performance of bolters, but only when in the hands of marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, drop Gman to 310 points and change his aura to only reroll 1's to wound, this plague on the marines has to end. He will still be good as a Chapter master + Lt + beatstick + 3CP package, but not a cornerstone of marine lists.

 l1ttlej wrote:
On the marine topic I saw a fairly eloquent fix, with some adjustment that doesnt need a million point reductions. (Marines becoming a horde army is a mistake imo)

All MEQ get a rule something like armoured ceramaite (or whatever name you want): reduce ap (ie ap value +1) on incoming attacks from ranged weapons by 1.

TEQ: either 2d6 for saves or +2 to the AP. I prefer the 2d6 over the +2. Feels like it starts messing with fluff of plasma chewing through armour.

Problem with 2D6 is now you have Long Fangs with a WG Terminator loaded out with a cyclone ML, Stormshield and a combi weapon, camping at the top of a building; body blocking. Now that Terminator has a 1+, 3++ invuln. 2D6 save will basically gurantee that Long Fang squad will never come down and no one can charge it.

Sheer volume of firepower won't stop SW players from just running three of this combo. It'd be downright insane. Now further, imagining five WG termies with stormshields, combi plasmas. Sitting in cover and damn near un removable.

As fun as that'd be, it'd not go well.

What if MEQ (and other power armor wearers) was just moved to a 2+ save and TEQ to a 1+ (with the understanding that 1's always fail, so it's still essentially a 2+ against AP0)? That would give room to move Necron Warriors to a 3+ save while still leaving their bodies as inferior to the Immortal. Not really sure what else would fit at a 3+ in this scenario though, I doubt anyone would argue that carapace armor should have a better save.

Obviously this whole thing falls apart if the math says that would make marines too durable, but from a design standpoint it's far more fluid than giving termies a 2d6 save.

The only problem I see of terminators moving to a 2D6 save is that it would render their 5++ redundant.

But, since in the fluff the all terminator armour contains a microscopic part of the emperors armour, perhaps it could give them the Custodes 6+++ against mortal wounds in the psychic phase instead of a 5++ invulnerable?

 Arachnofiend wrote:
What if MEQ (and other power armor wearers) was just moved to a 2+ save and TEQ to a 1+ (with the understanding that 1's always fail, so it's still essentially a 2+ against AP0)? That would give room to move Necron Warriors to a 3+ save while still leaving their bodies as inferior to the Immortal. Not really sure what else would fit at a 3+ in this scenario though, I doubt anyone would argue that carapace armor should have a better save.

Obviously this whole thing falls apart if the math says that would make marines too durable, but from a design standpoint it's far more fluid than giving termies a 2d6 save.

The problem is it makes Marines disproportionately more durable to small arms than to the real marine killing weapons.

I prefer the idea of reducing AP by 1. It's effectively the same against weapons with AP, without making them too durable against small arms.

Terminators can have the same, though I'd also give them an extra wound.

I don't like 2d6 saves at all (as much as I have some nostalgia for them). It means you can't fast roll.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


For extra hits though? Tesla already has that rule.
I'd prefer if there was not much rule overlap.
Maybe an extra wound on a wound roll of a six? It would follow the normal damage rules, so getting 2 wounds off would just mean 2 saves for a single model, not 2 saves for 2 models.

That would create a lot of extra rolling for shots fired in that sort of volume.

How so? Its not going to happen every time, you have to hit first, and then roll a 6 to wound.
I don't think its going to add that much rolling. I use tesla and the number of extra hits I generate isn't as much as you'd think.
And you still have to wound with tesla extra hits. With my suggestion your opponent is just saving against an extra bolter wound.

Tesla is different as you can fast roll them and not roll them per model. FNP on no save model(ie only save he gets is the FNP) is slower than inv save for that reason as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?

Level 4 changing stuff to make people buy what they don't already have


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
Honestly, marines (of all kinds) cannot get overhauled in CA to the level that they really need. However, there is possibly a way to indirectly buff them that helps across the board.
Produce new Adeptus Astartes strategems that are straight out buffs for all power armour or terminator armour. Just simple stuff like "Steadfast in the face of the enemy" (or whatever). 1CP . When targeted by an enemy unit, improve armour save by 1 to a maximum of 2+ for the rest of the phase.Or "Overwhelming firepower" 1CP. If an Adeptus Astartes infantry unit did not move in the movement phase, it may shoot twice with all bolter type weapon this phase (is there a bolter drill type strategem in regular SM codex?). And so on. Just devise some really cheap CPs that buff a SM unit for a phase, either in resiliency, firepower, or close combat.
It's a bandaid, granted, but that's the best we can hope for in a CA. IMHO of course.

And if that's what really helps then it helps marines basically in small scale games but for example +1 save will be fairly irrelevant in 2k game where there's multiple units so enemy can instead shoot at other units instead.

 Elbows wrote:
Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?

I think, realistically it'll be about 4.5. What I'm hoping for is closer to 7-8. I wouldn't want them to delve too deep as they might.ake things worse by overcompensating . There's a lot I'd like to happen but I expect to be partially let down, because I'm just one dude and my opinion doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

 Elbows wrote:
Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?

A 3-4, most likely. I think we'll see some obvious targets getting nerfs (Disintegrator Cannons, Grotesques) but I'm not so sure we'll see much to help bring up the struggling armies/units like Necrons. Marines might get something due to being the poster boys of 40k. Any mechanical fixes like terrain seem equally unlikely too as that seems to be more of a FAQ thing.

What I'd love to see more from GW is some riskier, more impactful beta rules suggestions. At the moment everything feels really safe and incremental. Why not use the FAQs and Chapter Approved to throw out some more off-the-wall ideas? If they don't work then fine, they were beta after all.

Slipspace wrote:
Why not use the FAQs and Chapter Approved to throw out some more off-the-wall ideas? If they don't work then fine, they were beta after all.

Then again that means in practice all those off the wall ideas will become de facto standard until revoken.

 Elbows wrote:
Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?

Probably like a 3, which I think is ok. When game developers try completely fix everything all at once it usually just results in a shift to new problems in different places. For example, if they were to make all the massive point decreases to Necrons some here have wanted we would probably end up with unbeatable flying bakery's again like we did in 5th edition. When the changes are smaller I think it's easier to avoid breaking the game.

IIRC, chapter approved is mainly:
1) small to moderate points adjustments.
2) occasional stat adjustments (more uncommon).
3) 'fun' stuff for open play (looted stuff this year, landraider stuff last year).
And this year to include
4) SoB beta Codex.

Actual changes to rules seem to mainly occur during the FAQ, which we already had.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
What if MEQ (and other power armor wearers) was just moved to a 2+ save and TEQ to a 1+ (with the understanding that 1's always fail, so it's still essentially a 2+ against AP0)? That would give room to move Necron Warriors to a 3+ save while still leaving their bodies as inferior to the Immortal. Not really sure what else would fit at a 3+ in this scenario though, I doubt anyone would argue that carapace armor should have a better save.

Obviously this whole thing falls apart if the math says that would make marines too durable, but from a design standpoint it's far more fluid than giving termies a 2d6 save.

I lkke the 2+ and 1+ armour save. Feels good

I doubt they would do anythng that radical in CA.

I'd like it if warriors had 3+ saves and Immortals had T5 again.

I’m also expecting around the “4” on the scale.
I think we’ll see hits to the main things, i.e Castellan and Talos etc, but I also expect a couple of hits and buffs to random units no one is really expecting.

I don’t think that there will be wide scale changes to Marines or Grey Knights etc, even though we all know they are needed and want them.

 Elbows wrote:
Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?

I'd say about a 4. Some changes to over-performers, and maybe some points changes to a couple units per army, but nothing more. The main focus of this Chapter Approved doesn't appear to be for balance changes, but instead a collection of missions, beta rules, Looted vehicle rules and beta Sister's codex. Amongst all that, there is little development space for any real balance changes or army fixes.

 Elbows wrote:
Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?

6 - they won't be able to hit it all and new issues will pop up.

 Creeping Dementia wrote:


Actual changes to rules seem to mainly occur during the FAQ, which we already had.

When the FAQ came out and I asked about the lack of any GK FAQ, people said that rules changes only happen in the CA book. So which of the true is true, they change rules only in the FAQ or durning the CA. If they only change them in FAQ, this means we would have to wait to a new update till spring next year.

Darsath wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?

I'd say about a 4. Some changes to over-performers, and maybe some points changes to a couple units per army, but nothing more. The main focus of this Chapter Approved doesn't appear to be for balance changes, but instead a collection of missions, beta rules, Looted vehicle rules and beta Sister's codex. Amongst all that, there is little development space for any real balance changes or army fixes.

Did you miss the last one?

It was 128 pages.
Open was 24.
Narrative was 33.
Matched was 24.
New faction rules were 12.
Terrain was 4.
Campaigns were 2.
Points were 8.

Sisters have 15 datasheets across 8 pages. Stratagems, relics, and traits come in at 4 to 5 pages for singular factions like Sisters. So the whole Sisters beta codex could fit almost within the new faction rules of last year.

Not all units need points updates so far fewer pages will be needed there.

Case in point - there is plenty of room.

(They're not constrained on the number of pages, either.)

On Elbows' ranking, I'd say about a 2. I don't think GW sees (or is concerned about) problems in the same way as some in this thread.

Beyond some point adjustments and finalizing/editing Beta rules from the FAQs, I don't see real changes in the works.

Part of that has been the rush to get everything out- while that allows them time to doodle napkin rules for looted wagons over lunch breaks for open play, it doesn't leave real time for systematic changes to the rule set, or overhauling major codex lines less than a year out.

Maybe next year, once the final few are out and done.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Anybody proposing the 2D6 armor save is on drugs. Lemme just shoot your squad with 3 Frag Cannons and 6 Storm Bolters and laugh as you run down the clock.

Just roll once dice for each save. If it's a 1 reroll it and 1s fail after that (or whatever the target is).

The op meant roll 2 dice for the save and add the results together if I understood him correctly. I don't think there's a gun in the game with an AP high enough to entirely deny such a save. Mortal Wounds would screw such Termies over even harder though.

tneva82 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Why not use the FAQs and Chapter Approved to throw out some more off-the-wall ideas? If they don't work then fine, they were beta after all.

Then again that means in practice all those off the wall ideas will become de facto standard until revoken.

Not really. The idea would be that they wouldn't be along the lines of the minor adjustments we've seen until now. They'd be much bigger changes that would get people thinking while also not being automatically added to the rules. Of course, you then run the risk of the player base being a little too safe and not using them.

The Newman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Anybody proposing the 2D6 armor save is on drugs. Lemme just shoot your squad with 3 Frag Cannons and 6 Storm Bolters and laugh as you run down the clock.

Just roll once dice for each save. If it's a 1 reroll it and 1s fail after that (or whatever the target is).

The op meant roll 2 dice for the save and add the results together if I understood him correctly. I don't think there's a gun in the game with an AP high enough to entirely deny such a save. Mortal Wounds would screw such Termies over even harder though.

Well, back in 2ed Terminators were a 3+ on 2D6 (or was it 2+?). In either case rolling one dice determines the importance of the second. Same thing with charge rolls - if I need 7" to get in and I roll a 6 I don't need to roll the second dice to know what will happen.

Mortal wounds will be fine, because you still need two of them to kill a terminator.

Well, back in 2ed Terminators were a 3+ on 2D6 (or was it 2+?). In either case rolling one dice determines the importance of the second. Same thing with charge rolls - if I need 7" to get in and I roll a 6 I don't need to roll the second dice to know what will happen.

Mortal wounds will be fine, because you still need two of them to kill a terminator.

I wouldn't be entirely opposed to 'heavy' infantry being defined with having 2d6 rolls. This would make an important distinction between heavy infantry and light infantry. It would also, in my opinion, make Terminators and heavy infantry some of the strongest in the game. Wraithguard, chaos terminators, helk even primarchs would suddenly become very effective.

But that would make them far more worth it to take and would justify their costs. It would also provide vechiles and other options the ability to be, well, pardon the pun: 'tanky'.

Now that would people would only take terminators? Or would it encourage people to run heavy infantry more?

The issue you have is one of scale. If Terminators were 3+ save on 2D6 (meaning you'd bounce a lascannon shot on a 6+, below the average), what about Dreadnoughts? land raiders. Things that should be far more resilient, wouldn't be.

Voss wrote:

Maybe next year, once the final few are out and done.

At which point they are too busy with redoing codexes completely invalidating current good builds into trash and making new ones to ensure new models are bought not fixing problems but just changing them

 bullyboy wrote:
The issue you have is one of scale. If Terminators were 3+ save on 2D6 (meaning you'd bounce a lascannon shot on a 6+, below the average), what about Dreadnoughts? land raiders. Things that should be far more resilient, wouldn't be.

He makes a good point on Magnus. It would make AP3/4/5 weapons more relevant when it takes a lot more to knock them down to an invulnerable.

Deadnought / LR / etc are fine in their current config, because they don't pack invulnerable saves and aren't juiced by disintegrators so easily.