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.

Flip Belts to work in charge phase, at least over other models. Troupes are so bad at their points they werent even playable, now they are hot trash.

Cities of Death Cover and Lucky hit rules to be in effect always.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Heavy bolters made Rapidfire 3 and affected by the new bolter rules

In order for it to become rapid fire it would have to be rapid fire 2. 6 shots seems like a bit much, but if they make that change I won't complain.

Considering stuff like the reaper chaincannon being heavy 8, I'd say rapid fire 3 wouldn't exactly be game breaking but might make tac squads a little better.

That's a fair point.

I guess in that case the HB would be for stationary use and the chain cannon would be for more mobile use. I like it!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
So we can expect a small number of points changes for this FAQ then too.

"Expect" is probably pushing it - but "aware that there is a possibility" would be valid.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Heavy bolters made Rapidfire 3 and affected by the new bolter rules

In order for it to become rapid fire it would have to be rapid fire 2. 6 shots seems like a bit much, but if they make that change I won't complain.

Considering stuff like the reaper chaincannon being heavy 8, I'd say rapid fire 3 wouldn't exactly be game breaking but might make tac squads a little better.

That's a fair point.

I guess in that case the HB would be for stationary use and the chain cannon would be for more mobile use. I like it!

l

The reaper costs however way more.
And a single HB costing less whilest nearly equally putting out the same output would be a bit insane no?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Heavy bolters made Rapidfire 3 and affected by the new bolter rules

In order for it to become rapid fire it would have to be rapid fire 2. 6 shots seems like a bit much, but if they make that change I won't complain.

Considering stuff like the reaper chaincannon being heavy 8, I'd say rapid fire 3 wouldn't exactly be game breaking but might make tac squads a little better.

That's a fair point.

I guess in that case the HB would be for stationary use and the chain cannon would be for more mobile use. I like it!

l

The reaper costs however way more.
And a single HB costing less whilest nearly equally putting out the same output would be a bit insane no?

Even a secondary mode granted to Astartes by the Bolter Discipline rule to make their HBs RF2 would be an improvement. As it stands HBs are only useful with 1 stratagem, which Chaos doesn't even have

-

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Heavy bolters made Rapidfire 3 and affected by the new bolter rules

In order for it to become rapid fire it would have to be rapid fire 2. 6 shots seems like a bit much, but if they make that change I won't complain.

Considering stuff like the reaper chaincannon being heavy 8, I'd say rapid fire 3 wouldn't exactly be game breaking but might make tac squads a little better.

Considering the heavy bolter cost, that would make psycannon feel even worse then they are now. Would be a nice fix to heavy bolters for sure. More options that can actually be considered as being taken are good fot the game.

Karol wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Heavy bolters made Rapidfire 3 and affected by the new bolter rules

In order for it to become rapid fire it would have to be rapid fire 2. 6 shots seems like a bit much, but if they make that change I won't complain.

Considering stuff like the reaper chaincannon being heavy 8, I'd say rapid fire 3 wouldn't exactly be game breaking but might make tac squads a little better.

Considering the heavy bolter cost, that would make psycannon feel even worse then they are now. Would be a nice fix to heavy bolters for sure. More options that can actually be considered as being taken are good fot the game.

I think we need to fix base marines before specialist marines

 Horst wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Heavy bolters made Rapidfire 3 and affected by the new bolter rules

As much as I'd love that, I think having my Leman Russes spit out 18 heavy bolter shots each would be a bit much.

That's the benefit of data slates. You can change it for Marines and leave it for others. Sure, you can argue about immersion and tanks as stable firing platforms. But for every argument that rolls that out, someone else can say Marine training and adaptability.

doom go to wc 6, squat BA, allow codex Astartes to be run as chaos, make the castellan have a 6+ invul that can’t be modified, and hit on 6’s no modifiers either, drop entire cost of model range CWE, Drukhari, and Harlequins, make ITC missions official, and tell BA players they need to buy new armies. BA models aren’t able to be used as counts as other chaos or Astartes army.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
doom go to wc 6, squat BA, allow codex Astartes to be run as chaos, make the castellan have a 6+ invul that can’t be modified, and hit on 6’s no modifiers either, drop entire cost of model range CWE, Drukhari, and Harlequins, make ITC missions official, and tell BA players they need to buy new armies. BA models aren’t able to be used as counts as other chaos or Astartes army.

Well, consolidating the Angels would go a long way to fix bloat and balance. I've been vocally advocating for that.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
doom go to wc 6, squat BA, allow codex Astartes to be run as chaos, make the castellan have a 6+ invul that can’t be modified, and hit on 6’s no modifiers either, drop entire cost of model range CWE, Drukhari, and Harlequins, make ITC missions official, and tell BA players they need to buy new armies. BA models aren’t able to be used as counts as other chaos or Astartes army.

Are you trolling or do you have a problem with Blood Angels?

Actually, I've advocated that BA should have been squatted by Nids. Keeping them around as is is kinda cruel. Makes more sense than Dante and Gman beating like a trillion bugs.

OR we can just consolidate them and Dark Angels into the main codex...

No, I think there needs to be legit less power armor in the game. I offer up BA as tribute.

What could have been a glorious exit against insurmountable bugs is now just going to be more NPCing for Abbaddon.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
OR we can just consolidate them and Dark Angels into the main codex...

With Space Wolves as well.
Make a Codex non-compliant book. Maybe some other chapters along the lines of the renegade rules for CSM.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Actually, I've advocated that BA should have been squatted by Nids. Keeping them around as is is kinda cruel. Makes more sense than Dante and Gman beating like a trillion bugs.

That ship has already sailed. Primaris is going to replace everybody.

Banville wrote:

 Horst wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Heavy bolters made Rapidfire 3 and affected by the new bolter rules

As much as I'd love that, I think having my Leman Russes spit out 18 heavy bolter shots each would be a bit much.

That's the benefit of data slates. You can change it for Marines and leave it for others. Sure, you can argue about immersion and tanks as stable firing platforms. But for every argument that rolls that out, someone else can say Marine training and adaptability.

Yeah, screw that 1000%. The bolter rule not applying to sisters was BS enough, all of a sudden having our ONLY long range weapon be massively gakky in comparison to an army that already has multiple solid long range option would be a fething slap in the face. Especially after getting the laziest, trashiest, weakest, most anemic, uninteresting, piece of gak codex in the entire edition.

Martel732 wrote:
No, I think there needs to be legit less power armor in the game. I offer up BA as tribute.

What could have been a glorious exit against insurmountable bugs is now just going to be more NPCing for Abbaddon.

Ok, but what about people that actually bought the army. They wouldn't be able to use their models.

Like me?

Times change, models go obsolete. Even armies. This is an army that peaked in 3rd ed. Plenty of mileage.

The removal of the Commander limit or at least spread it to other factions. Even changing it to "you get 3 total Commanders for all your detachments at 2k" instead of "only 1 per detachment" would make list building significantly less awkward while barely effecting balance. Named Commanders not counting against the Commander total would be also welcomed, but Tau are in a very good spot right now so that might be too much.

Given that they have messaged for us to not expect radical changes, I offer the following:

a. Limit GSC Mental Onslaught - perhaps with a cap on Mortal Wounds or degrading effectiveness with each Wound inflicted (+1 on the target's roll with each Wound or something)

b. Ratify Bolter Drill for Space Marines

c. Rein in Lootas a little (in how they interact with Strats)

d. Max 4++ save for Knights regardless of Stratagems

e. Doom and Jinx only works for Asuryani attacks/targets (this is a wish)

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Doom goes to wc 8.

I would be ok with this, however, I don't think it would help the abuse of it. Farseers can reroll 1 or both dice for 1 test per turn, so a WC8 power to them is roughly like a WC5-6 power for others.
I think a better fix would be to change the wording on Doom to only affect wounds caused by Asuryani units. That stops Dark Eldar from benefiting from Doom.

-

On 8 i would expect that unit to be unable to use invul saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

Bharring wrote:
However, "reroll wounds" increases the damage Shurken weapons do to Marines by the exact same ratio as it increases LasBlasters/Bolters/etc; it's still a 50% increase in deadliness for to-wounds of a 4+. How quickly Shurikens delete Marines is separate.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss AP when discussing the potency of an ability to reroll wounds, especially when rolling a certain number does something special.
So indicating those 2 things as separate is kinda pedantic. I was illustrating that Doom on Shuriken weapons does more than reroll wounds for Bolters.

But to your point, I would only want Doom restricted to just Asuryani units if Knight Invuls are capped are 4++ as well.

-

That is hardly needed because there will be assassin in every top list. So it will be even harder for aeldar to get rid of knights, i mean +2 to cast is to much for just 85 pts model.

8 wc is what other lists need just to shut down invulns. Just limit doom to eldar.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Given that they have messaged for us to not expect radical changes, I offer the following:

a. Limit GSC Mental Onslaught - perhaps with a cap on Mortal Wounds or degrading effectiveness with each Wound inflicted (+1 on the target's roll with each Wound or something)

b. Ratify Bolter Drill for Space Marines

c. Rein in Lootas a little (in how they interact with Strats)

d. Max 4++ save for Knights regardless of Stratagems

e. Doom and Jinx only works for Asuryani attacks/targets (this is a wish)

I'm going to agree with most of what your proposing, I'm not sure why 5ppm Guardsmen aren't on the list though.

The biggest issue with 8th edition right now though in my opinion is the CP generation system.
That needs to be fixed and strategums recosted as right now I can tell you their is a lot of strategums that in soup get spammed, yet in mono codex or just less min-max lists are almost unplayable overcosted.

I'm not saying no soup, but it also shouldn't be mandatory to include guard for CP to make any Imperial codex work.

Ice_can wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Given that they have messaged for us to not expect radical changes, I offer the following:

a. Limit GSC Mental Onslaught - perhaps with a cap on Mortal Wounds or degrading effectiveness with each Wound inflicted (+1 on the target's roll with each Wound or something)

b. Ratify Bolter Drill for Space Marines

c. Rein in Lootas a little (in how they interact with Strats)

d. Max 4++ save for Knights regardless of Stratagems

e. Doom and Jinx only works for Asuryani attacks/targets (this is a wish)

I'm going to agree with most of what your proposing, I'm not sure why 5ppm Guardsmen aren't on the list though.

The biggest issue with 8th edition right now though in my opinion is the CP generation system.
That needs to be fixed and strategums recosted as right now I can tell you their is a lot of strategums that in soup get spammed, yet in mono codex or just less min-max lists are almost unplayable overcosted.

I'm not saying no soup, but it also shouldn't be mandatory to include guard for CP to make any Imperial codex work.

This. They need to reign in CP farms, full stop. It is probably the single worst thing in the game. Even worse than souping together factions or subfactions. Mostly because it seems like they balance stratagems based on the expected CP for an army e.g. Knights are assumed to have low CP so their stratagems are more powerful to compensate. This then gets thrown out the window since you just power it with the Loyal 32 and the "balance" of knights having few CP but strong stratagems is gone as now they have strong stratagems and lots of CP to use.

For the good of the game, it needs to be stopped somehow, whether it's banning soup, limiting CP, limiting the CP generated (e..g Brood Brothers for everyone) or something else.

Im all for upping guardsment to 5ppm, but they should really make it so that single codex armies gain a bonus to CP as well if they aren't gonna change the current CP generation method.

Add something to battle forged for example. "if your army consists of detachments that have completely the same Keywords, you gain an additional 3CP".


This would help a lot with curbing the loyal 32/rusty 17 problem.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Im all for upping guardsment to 5ppm, but they should really make it so that single codex armies gain a bonus to CP as well if they aren't gonna change the current CP generation method.

Add something to battle forged for example. "if your army consists of detachments that have completely the same Keywords, you gain an additional 3CP".


This would help a lot with curbing the loyal 32/rusty 17 problem.

If a battalion is still 5CP +3CP wouldn't be enough it would probably have to be +6 or more to even remotely be worth it and this also punishes Drukari, Yannari etc just to fix a mainly Guard issue.
It's either all mono codex gets massive bonus CP or better yet fix the real issue.

Martel732 wrote:
Like me?

Times change, models go obsolete. Even armies. This is an army that peaked in 3rd ed. Plenty of mileage.

Well that is great for you. But if someone started the army 6-12 months ago, then to expriance the goodness of 3ed they need to buy a time travel machine.

For the good of the game, it needs to be stopped somehow, whether it's banning soup, limiting CP, limiting the CP generated (e..g Brood Brothers for everyone) or something else.

ok, but if having chaff and CP is essenssial to the edition we have now, then taking away the ability would realy hurt the armies that can not get either of those on their own. The good armies would get worse, that is for sure, but the bad armies would get really bad.

Ice_can wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Im all for upping guardsment to 5ppm, but they should really make it so that single codex armies gain a bonus to CP as well if they aren't gonna change the current CP generation method.

Add something to battle forged for example. "if your army consists of detachments that have completely the same Keywords, you gain an additional 3CP".


This would help a lot with curbing the loyal 32/rusty 17 problem.

if a battalion is still 5CP +3CP wouldn't be enough it would probably have to be +6 or auch to even remotely be worth it and this also punishes Drukari, Yannari etc just to fix a mainly Guard issue.

It's not a "Guard" issue. It's a soup issue.

The fact that we saw two different iterations(Conscripts+Commissars-->Infantry Squads once Conscripts+Commissars got hammered) of this from the outset of 8th, and now also see a third(AdMech has made an appearance in a few spots) option? And we've seen similar soup issues with the Aeldari factions?

That tells you literally everything you should need to know. But for whatever reason it's always "Waah, waaah, waaah nerf Guard!"
You want 5ppm Infantry Squads?
You damn well better be supporting 6ppm Brood Brothers and Neophyte Hybrids.

Karol wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Like me?

Times change, models go obsolete. Even armies. This is an army that peaked in 3rd ed. Plenty of mileage.

Well that is great for you. But if someone started the army 6-12 months ago, then to expriance the goodness of 3ed they need to buy a time travel machine.

For the good of the game, it needs to be stopped somehow, whether it's banning soup, limiting CP, limiting the CP generated (e..g Brood Brothers for everyone) or something else.

ok, but if having chaff and CP is essenssial to the edition we have now, then taking away the ability would realy hurt the armies that can not get either of those on their own. The good armies would get worse, that is for sure, but the bad armies would get really bad.

You obviously didn't read the whole thing, the point is to fix the system then recost the strategums to be fairer under the new system.

Not just go no CP sharing and if your strategums where recosted around the cheap guard CP tough luck.

If someone started ba 6-12 months ago, they're already hosed. They're buying a dead army. Not dead in fact, but in practice.