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.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
I'd give my Xiphons a 2+ save. They are atmospheric reentry capable craft. I'd think their armor was slightly more durable than regular power armor.

Thermal shielding doesn't mean it's inherently tougher. Look at the Space Shuttle, the thermal tiles aren't load bearing at all and are only a fraction of an inch thick. It can withstand atmospheric reentry but a piece of foam can shatter it.

PiñaColada wrote:
Personally I'd be real careful with introducing T9 stuff since quite a few armies are largely dependent on S8 anti-tank weapons.

I think there's an issue with some invulns and some points costs which are too low. Just limit the invulns for T8 vehicles/walkers to the 5++, nothing better. A castellan that costs 850 points with a 5++ is still a nasty dude to deal (especially if part of the imperium soup with tons of other undercosted stuff, starting with the troops) with but nothing game breaking. Still cheaper and extremely more deadly than the stompa Which in fact should be 200ish points cheaper than a castellan. But at least they would be equally resilient.

T9 dudes would make the game even more focussed on anti tank, which is something I'd like to see more limited.

Knights:
All Invuln save buffs (RIS) are +1 Armor Save instead of ++.

Wrydvane Psykers - Have the squad split into characters after deployment (like squadrons and lieutenants) and add the rule where their smites don't get more difficult. Modify the bonus rule to grant +1 to psychic rolls if within 6" of 5+ Wyrdvane Psykers.

Give flash gits assault instead of heavy weapons. *Poof* instantly great unit.

Terminators
+1 Attack
Either +1W or a damage resistance (reduce damage by 1 for example).

Assault Marines
+1 Attack or a HoW-style effect similar to Intercessors

Land Raiders (both Imperial and Chaos
Assault Ramp lets units disembark after it's moved.

Custodian Wardens
Bonus attacks when outnumbered.

Allarus Terminators
Grenade Launcher becomes Assault 3 instead of D3.

Veterans
Lasguns remain Rapid Fire 1.
Autoguns become Assault 2.
Shotguns become S4 by default.

Commissars
Execute removes a model in the unit but allows you to ignore casualties when taking Morale tests.

Stormravens should just have a transport capacity of 20, with a [DREADNAUGHT] counting for 8.

Primaris transport segregation is stupid. I care a lot more about that on the Stormraven than anything else, but it's stupid all the way around.

Centurions really need at least one more wound if they're going to be so close to Dreads in price. Possibly two.

The Redemptor needs either a 5++ or a 5+++, whichever is worse. It's also frustrating that they pay 50% more for the Heavy Onslaught Gattling Cannon than IG does for the clearly superior Punisher Gattling Cannon, and the Punisher getting Grinding Advance is just rubbing salt in the wound. I'd trade the Onslaught and Heavy Onslaught for a Punisher and Assault Cannon without a second thought, even at the increased cost.

Aggressors should have the option to trade the Fragstorm Launcher for the Krakstorm Launcher. They don't even need to invent a statline for the darn thing, it already exists on the Repulsor. Also, there is no sane reason that the flamer version of the Aggressor shouldn't have access to the grenade launchers or that the bolter version shouldn't have the option to not take them, and the Flamestorm Gauntlet has no business costing more than the Boltstorm Gauntlet.

These are less minor tweaks:
Replace the Autobolter profile with the Fragstorm Launcher profile and bump the Stalker to S5. Adjust points as necessary. Make them different enough that the unit fills a different role if you switch to a different gun.

Edit: I'm on the fence about both of the alternate Plasma Incinerator profiles. The Heavy costs more than a Plasma Cannon and I don't feel like S8 really justifies being Heavy 1 instead of Heavy d3. AP 4 is something, but that would only close the gap if they had the same cost. I'm kind of on the fence about the Assault version as well. I'd say both variants need to come down 1 ppm, but I'd also say the Hellblaster needs to come down to the same price as an Intercessor.

I'll be that guy and say it: tear the bandaid off and just dump Tac Marines from the book already. We all know we'll have to convert them and all the other single-wound Marines to Primaris Something-or-Others eventually, just get it over with. I don't want to invest any conversion work into making my Tacs into Sternguard or Company Veterans while I'm sure those are going to go away too. (Does outright removing an option that isn't competitive count as a minor change?)

PiñaColada wrote:
Personally I'd be real careful with introducing T9 stuff since quite a few armies are largely dependent on S8 anti-tank weapons. I feel like the buff tanks need are instead that they get to fire their main gun even if they're in CC (but not at the unit they're in combat with) or that they can fall back and fire at-1.

Can we please make plasma go back up in cost? Like did that weapon type really need to go down?

I think cultists should just lose the heretic astartes keyword and go back to 4ppm.

While I would love for some armies to be able to use bikers as troops I don't think it'll happen. What all bikers should get is the ability that when they complete a charge move, you roll a d6 for every biker in the unit. On every roll of 6 the charged unit suffers a mortal wounds (they get run over) Bikes should also all probably have the ability to fall back and either shoot or charge.

Terminators (and probably Custodes as well) should have the wounds from their multi-damage weapons spill over in CC. Meaning a thunder hammer smacks three cultists instead of just one.

Orks and Sisters, I think, and there's a solution to that too.

The reason I feel that tanks should go 7, 8, 9 rather than 7, 7, 8 is that there isn't really sufficient definition between the classes of tank and the weapons to engage them. There's some effective difference between S8 and S9, but no difference between S9 and S10+. I think they missed an opportunity to add useful detail to the way vehicles work and interact and definition between different vehicles by making them all pretty much T7-8 W10-12 Sv3+. Right now, tank resilience is largely the same across the board.

This might be a discussion for a different thread, but...
Light Tanks: T7 [Rhino, Razorback, Chimera, Manticore]
Medium Tanks: T8 [Leman Russ, Predator]
Heavy Tanks: T9 [Land Raider, Baneblade]
Walkers and Monsters at -1T to their class [legs are complex and less robust], Skimmers and Open Topped at -1Sv [less armor].

Meltaguns could be doubled strength at close range, which would better represent their previous role, and make them good for cracking open Heavy Tanks. Similarly, some single-shot high power AT weapons, like the Vanquisher Cannon and the Railgun, could have received escalated damage, because there's no reason it all should have been capped at D6 damage. 2d6, 3d3, etc wouldn't stray into Super-Heavy territory, since the Shadowsword has 3d3 shots for 2d6, several times the average and potential of a 2d6 Railgun or Vanquisher.

@ Inquisitor Lord Katherine: I think you're really on to something there. I especially like the Melta/Multimelta suggestion, but I shudder at what GW would charge for such a gun.

Edit: Although lethality is already a problem this edition and jumping some single-shot guns up to 2d6 or 3d3 would be the opposite of helping. I'd still give something for my Lascannons to be 2d3 instead of 1d6 though.

Baneblade Chassis Vehicles should have a 5++ save against ranged attacks, to hopefully let it stand up a little more against the Knights it's supposed to counter.

The Newman wrote:
@ Inquisitor Lord Katherine: I think you're really on to something there. I especially like the Melta/Multimelta suggestion, but I shudder at what GW would charge for such a gun.

Edit: Although lethality is already a problem this edition and jumping some single-shot guns up to 2d6 or 3d3 would be the opposite of helping. I'd still give something for my Lascannons to be 2d3 instead of 1d6 though.

Not lascannons, but just the big single firing ones like the Vanquisher or the Railcannon. 2d6 vanq wouldn't have more potential than a annihilator, and tank killers need to be able to threaten tanks more than generalists and massed lighter weapons.

A rail gun or vanquisher should be better than 2 lascannons

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

The Newman wrote:
@ Inquisitor Lord Katherine: I think you're really on to something there. I especially like the Melta/Multimelta suggestion, but I shudder at what GW would charge for such a gun.

Edit: Although lethality is already a problem this edition and jumping some single-shot guns up to 2d6 or 3d3 would be the opposite of helping. I'd still give something for my Lascannons to be 2d3 instead of 1d6 though.

Not lascannons, but just the big single firing ones like the Vanquisher or the Railcannon. 2d6 vanq wouldn't have more potential than a annihilator, and tank killers need to be able to threaten tanks more than generalists and massed lighter weapons.

A rail gun or vanquisher should be better than 2 lascannons

You do realize that 2d3 is only marginally better than 1d6 right? 2-6 averaging 4 vs 1-6 averaging 3.5? Slightly less prone to spikes/flubs? If 4d3 is better than a Rail Gun or Vanquisher then 2 Lascannons are already better than a Rail Gun or Vanquisher.

Either allow Primaris to take one special and one heavy weapon in a ten man squad or bump up all basic marines to 2 wounds and 2 attacks.

The Newman wrote:


You do realize that 2d3 is only marginally better than 1d6 right? 2-6 averaging 4 vs 1-6 averaging 3.5? Slightly less prone to spikes/flubs? If 4d3 is better than a Rail Gun or Vanquisher then 2 Lascannons are already better than a Rail Gun or Vanquisher.

2D3 is way more reliable. You're almost always doing 3-4 damage, which is better than risking a 1-2. I like Executioner Canons on my russes over Battle Cannons for this reason, doing a flat 2 damage is better than risking rolling a 1.

 Horst wrote:

The Newman wrote:


You do realize that 2d3 is only marginally better than 1d6 right? 2-6 averaging 4 vs 1-6 averaging 3.5? Slightly less prone to spikes/flubs? If 4d3 is better than a Rail Gun or Vanquisher then 2 Lascannons are already better than a Rail Gun or Vanquisher.

2D3 is way more reliable. You're almost always doing 3-4 damage, which is better than risking a 1-2. I like Executioner Canons on my russes over Battle Cannons for this reason, doing a flat 2 damage is better than risking rolling a 1.

Well of course it's more reliable, that's why I want it on my Lascannon. What it isn't is much better turn after turn. You don't see as many 1-2, but you also don't see as many 5-6. It averages out.

The Newman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

The Newman wrote:
@ Inquisitor Lord Katherine: I think you're really on to something there. I especially like the Melta/Multimelta suggestion, but I shudder at what GW would charge for such a gun.

Edit: Although lethality is already a problem this edition and jumping some single-shot guns up to 2d6 or 3d3 would be the opposite of helping. I'd still give something for my Lascannons to be 2d3 instead of 1d6 though.

Not lascannons, but just the big single firing ones like the Vanquisher or the Railcannon. 2d6 vanq wouldn't have more potential than a annihilator, and tank killers need to be able to threaten tanks more than generalists and massed lighter weapons.

A rail gun or vanquisher should be better than 2 lascannons

You do realize that 2d3 is only marginally better than 1d6 right? 2-6 averaging 4 vs 1-6 averaging 3.5? Slightly less prone to spikes/flubs? If 4d3 is better than a Rail Gun or Vanquisher then 2 Lascannons are already better than a Rail Gun or Vanquisher.

Huh?

I was opining that a railgun or vanquisher gun should deal something like double their current damage/shot, because they're supposed to be the weapon of choice for tank breaking over a pair of lascannons.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

The Newman wrote:
@ Inquisitor Lord Katherine: I think you're really on to something there. I especially like the Melta/Multimelta suggestion, but I shudder at what GW would charge for such a gun.

Edit: Although lethality is already a problem this edition and jumping some single-shot guns up to 2d6 or 3d3 would be the opposite of helping. I'd still give something for my Lascannons to be 2d3 instead of 1d6 though.

Not lascannons, but just the big single firing ones like the Vanquisher or the Railcannon. 2d6 vanq wouldn't have more potential than a annihilator, and tank killers need to be able to threaten tanks more than generalists and massed lighter weapons.

A rail gun or vanquisher should be better than 2 lascannons

You do realize that 2d3 is only marginally better than 1d6 right? 2-6 averaging 4 vs 1-6 averaging 3.5? Slightly less prone to spikes/flubs? If 4d3 is better than a Rail Gun or Vanquisher then 2 Lascannons are already better than a Rail Gun or Vanquisher.

Huh?

I was opining that a railgun or vanquisher gun should deal something like double their current damage/shot, because they're supposed to be the weapon of choice for tank breaking over a pair of lascannons.

I said Lascannons should get more reliable without dealing much more damage on average, and you said no they shouldn't get more reliable without dealing much more damage on average because two of them shouldn't be as good as you think a single Vanquisher or Rail Gun should be.

I responded that if 4d3 damage (two of my proposed 2d3 Lascannons) is better than what you think a single Vanquisher or Rail Gun should be, then your proposed change also isn't enough to make a single Vanquisher or Rail Gun better than two Lascannons are right now.

Bharring wrote:
Knights:
All Invuln save buffs (RIS) are +1 Armor Save instead of ++.

Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Rail weapons-the"extra mortal wound on 6" rule doesn't fit. its not a sniper, its a high impact cannon. give them these new profile instead
Rail rifle: 30" rapidfire1 S8 Ap-4 Dd3
Heavy Rail Rifle: 60" Heavy2 S10 Ap-4 Dd6
Railgun: 72" Heavy1 S14 Ap-4 D2d6
Supremacy railgun: 72" Heavy2 S14 Ap-4 D2d6

Because we are past the age of max S10. and even with these profiles I'm not sure they are good enough.



On the FW side, tetra speeders are currently non-functional, and easy to fix:
1-give them an ability to ignore penalties to BS shooting heavy weapons when moving. (so it can actually move and shoot as its supposed to do.)
2-replace the high-intensity markerlight with a simple 3-shot markerlight. (so its not all-or-nothing.)

 Dysartes wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Knights:
All Invuln save buffs (RIS) are +1 Armor Save instead of ++.

Are you sure you're in the right thread?

He doesn't care, some people just basically want to play 2nd edition again.

Sorry, I did post in the wrong thread.

It was a mistake. I hope I didn't cause too many hurt feelings.

Just been thinking about some of the options for Knights and while they're not bad at all, these changes are more to do with toning them down a bit, making them a bit easier to play against.

House Raven
Change to "Heavy Weapons count as Assault when Advancing, but keep the -1 penalty when firing"

Knight Paladin
Battle Cannon changes to 3D6 shots, but D2. Very underwhelming at the moment for a 100pt weapon.

Order of Companions
Reduce to 2CP (hear me out before you get your pitchforks), but the re-roll effect only affects one type of dice roll:

"Use this Strategem when you select a unit to fire. Nominate either hit, wound or damage rolls. For the remainder of that phase the selected unit can re-roll all failed rolls of the chosen type".

This changes it from a "Spend 3CP and delete everything" strategy to a more tactical one. My Knight's pretty damaged and is only BS5? Use it to re-roll your misses. My Avenger Cannon needs to take out that Russ but it's only S6? Use it to re-roll wounds, etc.

Armigers
An option for Heavy Flamers on the carapace would be nice.

Titanic Feet
Make it D3 rolls per attack rather than a set 3.

Rust-stalkers should be able to advance + charge.