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.

SemperMortis wrote:

FO's also have inherent Deep strike, -1 to leadership tests for enemy units that they kill 1 model from, a 4+ save, so a 50% chance to survive compared to the Ork boyz 6+ save or 16.6% chance to survive, and inherent re rolls for failed wound rolls. Not to mention reanimation protocols. I'll agree though that they are overpriced, they could use a 2-3pt price cut, but don't short change their abilities. A better comparison is the fact that they are 4pts more expensive then a SM Tactical but have a worse save, are slower and have no ranged weapons.

Deep strike is currently crap, and worth at most 2ppm. The leadership ability is pathetic and the better armour save is vastly outweighed by the extra bodies Orks will be fielding. This is without taking into account that Boyz (and all other comparable units mentioned) have their own, superior special rules. Which is why it's only really worth comparing stalines. I'm not short changing their abilities in the slightest - they are currently one of the worst units in the entire game

SemperMortis wrote:
Ohh, and what I want to see is a clarification on how Loota's random shots and SAG random shots/strength interact with shoot twice stratagems.

Stuff like this annoys me because the rules are explicitly clear. It's like asking them "If I concede do I still lose?" or "What does double mean?" Asking them to clarify this just wastes their time.

What I would like to see? I think a rule that you can only use stratagems and relics from the codex which your warlord is from would do a lot to help balance soup.

Someone’s suggestion earlier in this thread that battle forged is 5 CP and battalion is back to 3 would also be great to somewhat help elite armies close the CP gap without allies.

What do I think will happen? Some beta rules become permanent maybe a new beta rule and some minor clarifications.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would even make battle forged 6 cp

"Orks suck because they need to have a ton of CP to spam stratagems"... they are one of the horde armies. Running double or triple batallion is no problem for Orks.

Not saying that they are good or rebutting the rest. But I don't think is a problem that Orks are a CP hungry army when they can have CP to spare without a problem.

Cynista wrote:
Exactly what Tyel said. You have to compare them to other combat units and when you do, you see how woefully poor they are.

A Slugga boy, at 10 points less per model, puts out about the same damage as a FO but rerolls charges and has mob up.

Khorne Berzerkers, who Dakka lead me to believe nobody even uses, are the same price as FO's but significantly better

Are we forgetting about reanimation protocols? I know RP isn't as great as it should be, but it's still something to consider.

What I want is parity between the deep strikers and the scouts and all things that can scout move.

I know GW is testing out the rule about no deep strike on turn 1. But then how about scouts and scout move? Is it fair that scouts can then deploy within 9 inches before the game even starts but we can't deep strike on turn 1? Plus scouts can move and shoot normally after that. If they wanted to, they have a guaranteed charge. Not that scouts are built for charging, but even standing in front of a Gallant to render it next to useless since it can't move forward is a huge thing. I just find it unfair that if deep strikers aren't allowed to come in on turn 1, then why are scouts allowed to deploy where ever they want within 9 inches before the game even starts. Deep strikers don't even get a guaranteed charge off last time whereas for scouts, they get to move and charge after deployment, so they are almost guaranteed of a turn 1 charge if they wished to. We know scouts aren't really suited for close combat, but they are coming out with new versions of phobos armour in the future. You never know when GW might forget and launch a Phobos unit that is good in melee. I propose a rule that during the turn that scouts are deployed, they cannot move or charge. Shoot yes, they love to do that anyway. Narratively this works too, because once scouts gets into position, they usually stay there, until they need to retreat out of there.

Furthermore, the interaction of scouts against other scouts is all about who gets to deploy his scouts first. Now that we have missions where one side deploys everything first. What if both sides bring lots of scouts? The first one to deploy places all his scouts down, and by the time he is finished, the second to deploy find that his scouts are all wasted because essentially, there is nowhere on the board left he can place his scouts without being within 9 inches of an enemy scout. (The new infiltrator unit makes it worse, its 12 inches, not 9). So, he ends up being forced to deploy his scouts within his own deployment line. This is wrong and doesn't make sense.

Imagine scout to scout commander "ohh!!!! enemy has deployed their scouts already, so lets stay within our lines..."

I think scouts should be able to deploy within 2 inches of another scout type unit. The tactical value of scouts and similar units of that type are enormous, and I just feel that when both sides bring them, it shouldn't be a case of who gets to plonk down his scouts on the best real estate. This will also apply to anything which gets a scout move forward and such. So, hence, scouts still deploy, but cannot move or charge turn 1, and they still must deploy at least 9 inches from the enemy deployment zone. But other than that, even if they are other enemy scouts on the field, they are free to plonk themselves wherever as long as they stay 2 inches away from other scout units. That way, it won't be possible for a player deploying first to screen out the other player's scouts.

In conclusion, I propose that if the beta rules on deep strike and coming in from reserves are to be made actual rules, then scouts and any other similar unit similar to scouts really need to be looked at as well. They should not be allowed to move or charge on turn 1. And, it should be ok to deploy scouts within 2 inches of enemy scouts so that you don't have a situation of not being able to deploy the scouts you brought

I'd like to see necron tomb spiders get a fixed save and the ability to repair themselves of d3 wounds per turn.

 Galas wrote:
"Orks suck because they need to have a ton of CP to spam stratagems"... they are one of the horde armies. Running double or triple batallion is no problem for Orks.

Not saying that they are good or rebutting the rest. But I don't think is a problem that Orks are a CP hungry army when they can have CP to spare without a problem.

Except orkz don't run triple battalions with 270 boyz, they are running 2 to 4 full mobz of boyz and then filling out the other 5-7 troop slots with minimum squads of Grotz. And last time I checked grotz are good for....having a pulse.....and not for very long mind you.

And I do consider orkz being a CP hungry army as a problem, specifically when most of us want to get away from being forced to field a horde and get back to fielding a real speed freak army. Plus if you field 3 battalions you are only getting 18CP and if you run a loota bomb as i previously mentioned you are spending 5-7 of that turn 1 just for it to function and then 4-6 every turn thereafter, so if you get good rolls and never need the CP reroll you will be spending 6 turn 1 and 5 turn 2 and 3 JUST to make the loota bomb worth taking, so do the math, that is 16 CP to make 1 ork unit competitive for 3 turns. without CP that unit dies turn 1, and even if it doesn't it will be crap in the shooting phase, 20 lootas without Stratagems, average 40 shots, 17-18 hits and 5-6 wounds to a Knight a turn, give them their 4+ save and that is 5-6 damage a turn for a unit that costs as much as knights.

In my opinion, stratagems have been used by GW to band aid over their inability to properly balance units within the game or to find a way to bring bad units up to par.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Cynista wrote:
Exactly what Tyel said. You have to compare them to other combat units and when you do, you see how woefully poor they are.

A Slugga boy, at 10 points less per model, puts out about the same damage as a FO but rerolls charges and has mob up.

Khorne Berzerkers, who Dakka lead me to believe nobody even uses, are the same price as FO's but significantly better

Are we forgetting about reanimation protocols? I know RP isn't as great as it should be, but it's still something to consider.

Not really, it has been discussed in depth with every CA and FAQ and GW has done nothing about it. Don't see why they would suddenly fix it now

1. Every army should have the same CP, regardless how many, and what detachments its composed of. If both armys are the same points they should have the same CP.
2. IK RIS should be capped at 4+.
3. Replace all D6 with 2D3. 2D6 with 4D3, etc.
4. MW should only happen on unmodified dice rolls. E.g. this weapon does one additional MW if you roll an unmodified wound roll of 6, instead of a wound roll of 6+. There are to many ways to add to wound rolls.
5. SM vehicles should benefit from chapter tactics. SM vehicles shouldnt get a penalty for shooting heavy weapons when moving, im ok if its limited to half speed. Why can havocs move at full speed, dont suffer that penalty, but a SM tank moving just 0,1" gets it ?

I agree that BA has been nerfed to death. The only unit that is worth playing are smash captains. But i dont see them getting unnerfed. It costs the same to redeploy a single JP assault marine, or a 15 model JP DC unit. Both are 2CP, thats ridiculous.

Necrons needs more point drops. RP is fine. A stratagem that lets necrons bring back a (slain) unit would be nice. Why can cultists and orks do it, but not the faction who can come back from death ? The 2 CP stratagem that lets you re-roll 1s on reanimation should be +1 to the roll. I have never ever used it, its not worth 2CP. Better synergy would be nice, why can necrons HQs only buff infantry ? Spiders can repair other vehicles but are unable to repair themselves, or each other, thats ridiculous. Imotekh should be able to hit characters with more than 10 wounds with his storm.

NERF genestealers. Being able to move 30+" and charge, pile in, and consolidate, and fight again in one turn is utterly ridiculous. Free AP-3 weapons ? WTF ?

1. Every army should have the same CP, regardless how many, and what detachments its composed of. If both armys are the same points they should have the same CP.

This would be a move in the right direction.
But I guess that GW still strongly supports soup and so this will hardly happen.
At least, one could restrict the use of CPs to the detachment which has generated it.

 wuestenfux wrote:

1. Every army should have the same CP, regardless how many, and what detachments its composed of. If both armys are the same points they should have the same CP.

This would be a move in the right direction.
But I guess that GW still strongly supports soup and so this will hardly happen.
At least, one could restrict the use of CPs to the detachment which has generated it.

Indeed, considering that even csm now got bonus cp speciality i think we will see more of that and less reigning in cp.

 wuestenfux wrote:

At least, one could restrict the use of CPs to the detachment which has generated it.

AM could still run two brigades for 24CP, and have a strong army. Necrons can only dream of having one brigade, necron elites suck, troop choices are very expensive. This doesnt fix the CP issue. Keeping track of what CPs belongs to what detachment makes the game more complicated.

 p5freak wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

At least, one could restrict the use of CPs to the detachment which has generated it.

AM could still run two brigades for 24CP, and have a strong army. Necrons can only dream of having one brigade, necron elites suck, troop choices are very expensive. This doesnt fix the CP issue. Keeping track of what CPs belongs to what detachment makes the game more complicated.

The idea keeps coming up, but I agree with you on that point. Detachment specific CP isn't happening, tracking it would be a pain.

 p5freak wrote:
1. Every army should have the same CP, regardless how many, and what detachments its composed of. If both armys are the same points they should have the same CP.

Only if every army has the same model count too. If both armies are the same points, they should have the same model count.

Also armies should roll the same number of dice per attack. If armies are the same points, each attack should have the same amount of dice.

Also armies should have identical move stats. If armies are the same point, they should move identical distances.

Etc....

Seems a bit silly.

Not that there are no problems with CP, but having the ability to use your "list building" to make armies with fewer or more CP, with fewer or more models, with less or more offensive output, etc.. is kinda the nature of the game. Otherwise, why not just play (at least in tournament play) perfect mirror matches all the time (say, the ITC or even GW publishes a 2019 "tournament list" with the exact models and equipment in it, which tournament players all use for "perfectly fair games".. the rest is open play)

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

At least, one could restrict the use of CPs to the detachment which has generated it.

AM could still run two brigades for 24CP, and have a strong army. Necrons can only dream of having one brigade, necron elites suck, troop choices are very expensive. This doesnt fix the CP issue. Keeping track of what CPs belongs to what detachment makes the game more complicated.

The idea keeps coming up, but I agree with you on that point. Detachment specific CP isn't happening, tracking it would be a pain.

How so? I'd say usually armies consist of not more than 3 detachments. So you set 3 dice aside in different colors for each detachment showing you their CP. If you want take a 4th die for battleforged. Or simply write it down...

You know, in lotr every single HQ unit comes with 3 values that are limited in use so you have to keep track of what every single hero did/ how many points of might/will/faith they have spent. The game is not breaking down because of that.

 p5freak wrote:

NERF genestealers. Being able to move 30+" and charge, pile in, and consolidate, and fight again in one turn is utterly ridiculous. Free AP-3 weapons ? WTF ?

I was with you up until you mentioned needling genestealers. Yes they’re the best unit in the tyranid codex, but they’re hardly dominating the competitive scene. The insane movement requires a 250pt targetable hq,, 1 cp to double the advance roll and 3cp to fight again, in an army that eats cp like crazy. Because it requires stratagems, only one unit can do this per turn and due to the fragility of the unit, any additional units will die to a stale fart. In addition, once the unit drops below half health it loses a quarter of its combat effectiveness. Nerf genestealers and you kill tyranids as a codex

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

How so? I'd say usually armies consist of not more than 3 detachments. So you set 3 dice aside in different colors for each detachment showing you their CP. If you want take a 4th die for battleforged. Or simply write it down...

It makes the game more complicated, even if its only a tiny bit.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

You know, in lotr every single HQ unit comes with 3 values that are limited in use so you have to keep track of what every single hero did/ how many points of might/will/faith they have spent. The game is not breaking down because of that.

Thats not a game i would want to play. Micromanagement sucks.

C4790M wrote:

I was with you up until you mentioned needling genestealers. Yes they’re the best unit in the tyranid codex, but they’re hardly dominating the competitive scene. The insane movement requires a 250pt targetable hq,, 1 cp to double the advance roll and 3cp to fight again, in an army that eats cp like crazy. Because it requires stratagems, only one unit can do this per turn and due to the fragility of the unit, any additional units will die to a stale fart. In addition, once the unit drops below half health it loses a quarter of its combat effectiveness. Nerf genestealers and you kill tyranids as a codex

That targetable HQ can be hidden out of sight, or out of range. A basic infantry troop choice should not be able to outrun a supersonic flyer, and charge, and fight (again), with another 12" movement. The entire tyranid codex isnt dead when one unit gets nerfed.

 Galas wrote:
"Orks suck because they need to have a ton of CP to spam stratagems"... they are one of the horde armies. Running double or triple batallion is no problem for Orks.

Not saying that they are good or rebutting the rest. But I don't think is a problem that Orks are a CP hungry army when they can have CP to spare without a problem.

Yeah. 3 bat is easy. Of course that gives you about 2.5 turns at best before you are out.

 p5freak wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

How so? I'd say usually armies consist of not more than 3 detachments. So you set 3 dice aside in different colors for each detachment showing you their CP. If you want take a 4th die for battleforged. Or simply write it down...

It makes the game more complicated, even if its only a tiny bit.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

You know, in lotr every single HQ unit comes with 3 values that are limited in use so you have to keep track of what every single hero did/ how many points of might/will/faith they have spent. The game is not breaking down because of that.

Thats not a game i would want to play. Micromanagement sucks.

Well... if that's too much micromanagement for you I wonder how you survive a single CC-phase in 40K. Also, you should never play with the Cities of Death or any terrain rules, really, they're much more complicated than keeping track of some points...

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

At least, one could restrict the use of CPs to the detachment which has generated it.

AM could still run two brigades for 24CP, and have a strong army. Necrons can only dream of having one brigade, necron elites suck, troop choices are very expensive. This doesnt fix the CP issue. Keeping track of what CPs belongs to what detachment makes the game more complicated.

The idea keeps coming up, but I agree with you on that point. Detachment specific CP isn't happening, tracking it would be a pain.

How so? I'd say usually armies consist of not more than 3 detachments. So you set 3 dice aside in different colors for each detachment showing you their CP. If you want take a 4th die for battleforged. Or simply write it down...

You know, in lotr every single HQ unit comes with 3 values that are limited in use so you have to keep track of what every single hero did/ how many points of might/will/faith they have spent. The game is not breaking down because of that.

You know there's also option of nerfing one unit to reasonable level and buffing others? I wouldn't mind lootas getting nerfed a bit if instead we would get orks that don't rely on unit that does in average with full cp usage 1+100+16.6666+36.1+6=159 dice rolls just to determine hits(averaging 54 hits). Then to wound and saves.

Sure that 1 unit is keeping orks playable but would be nice to have more variety or at least have crutch unit with less mind numbing rolling. When you literally need hundreds dices to resolve one units shooting...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

1. Every army should have the same CP, regardless how many, and what detachments its composed of. If both armys are the same points they should have the same CP.

This would be a move in the right direction.
But I guess that GW still strongly supports soup and so this will hardly happen.
At least, one could restrict the use of CPs to the detachment which has generated it.

My fav is still start with x, each det taken reduces cp. Helps mono armies(codex and trait), gives reason to fill in slots rather than just taking new det and get cp as well

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

At least, one could restrict the use of CPs to the detachment which has generated it.

AM could still run two brigades for 24CP, and have a strong army. Necrons can only dream of having one brigade, necron elites suck, troop choices are very expensive. This doesnt fix the CP issue. Keeping track of what CPs belongs to what detachment makes the game more complicated.

The idea keeps coming up, but I agree with you on that point. Detachment specific CP isn't happening, tracking it would be a pain.

How so? I'd say usually armies consist of not more than 3 detachments. So you set 3 dice aside in different colors for each detachment showing you their CP. If you want take a 4th die for battleforged. Or simply write it down...

You know, in lotr every single HQ unit comes with 3 values that are limited in use so you have to keep track of what every single hero did/ how many points of might/will/faith they have spent. The game is not breaking down because of that.

40k already has plenty to keep track of. And I'm not saying I couldn't find a way to manage it, I'm saying GW, in my opinion, definitely won't want to add that layer of complexity to a game they've tried to make more accessible this edition.

Far more likely in my opinion would be limiting Strats to your Warlord's faction, and limiting CP generated by other factions in the same way as Brood Brothers.

tneva82 wrote:

My fav is still start with x, each det taken reduces cp. Helps mono armies(codex and trait), gives reason to fill in slots rather than just taking new det and get cp as well

This would be a massive nerf to DE.

I'd really like to see -1 to hit army-wide to become always on cover or +1 when in cover (whichever is equal to Sa'cea) and to have SM/CSM and flavours to get chapter tactics on ALL units, just like, well... ALL other armies.

 Vector Strike wrote:
I'd really like to see -1 to hit army-wide to become always on cover or +1 when in cover (whichever is equal to Sa'cea) and to have SM/CSM and flavours to get chapter tactics on ALL units, just like, well... ALL other armies.

Agreed on both.

With that nerf to the -1 to hit traits though, I'd probably also change the RG/AL strat to be a scout deployment, but limited to 1 unit for 1CP or 2 for 3CP. The current iteration is frankly awful given it costs CP. This sidegrade would give it a use, but stop the previous issue of it being spammable.

I actually think there isn't enough -1 in the game, given how lethal it is and how much of an inflation of double-shooting, double-fighting, etc.. we've seen.

I'd probably rather see a flat reduction in BS/WS to all armies, Marines/Eldar going to 4+, Tau/Guard to 5+, Conscripts/Orks going to 6+ and making -X to hit a bit more prolific.

Alternatively, every army should probably get some -1 activation strat for shooting and/or cc to combat double-activation strats as well as more units with a in-build ability to only take half the hits or something to balance out units with in-built double-shooting like Leman Russes.

The "structural" main problem with 40K IMO is that, Index-to-Codex" the buffs to offensive output of armies have far outpaced the buffs to defensive abilities (with the odd -1 being the rare exception), leaving very little between spamming hordes or spamming T7/T8 with good invuls.

 Vector Strike wrote:
I'd really like to see -1 to hit army-wide to become always on cover or +1 when in cover (whichever is equal to Sa'cea) and to have SM/CSM and flavours to get chapter tactics on ALL units, just like, well... ALL other armies.

Not Sa'cea (which has +1 Ld and one To Hit reroll per unit per shooting phase) but Dal'yth (has cover even in open ground if remained still).

Sunny Side Up wrote:
I actually think there isn't enough -1 in the game, given how lethal it is and how much of an inflation of double-shooting, double-fighting, etc.. we've seen.

I'd probably rather see a flat reduction in BS/WS to all armies, Marines/Eldar going to 4+, Tau/Guard to 5+, Conscripts/Orks going to 6+ and making -X to hit a bit more prolific.

having 20/40pts models hiting on +4 with opponents possibly stacking a -1 to hit, seems like a very punishing thing for elite armies. And considering melee is always better for horde, elite armies may as well not exist.

 Vector Strike wrote:
I'd really like to see -1 to hit army-wide to become always on cover or +1 when in cover (whichever is equal to Sa'cea) and to have SM/CSM and flavours to get chapter tactics on ALL units, just like, well... ALL other armies.

A lot of armies don't get their "chapter tactic" on all models...
I mean it would totally be a lot fairer if it was the same way for everyone, but sm/csm aren't the lonely outlier you make them seem to be.

Jorim wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
I'd really like to see -1 to hit army-wide to become always on cover or +1 when in cover (whichever is equal to Sa'cea) and to have SM/CSM and flavours to get chapter tactics on ALL units, just like, well... ALL other armies.

A lot of armies don't get their "chapter tactic" on all models...
I mean it would totally be a lot fairer if it was the same way for everyone, but sm/csm aren't the lonely outlier you make them seem to be.

Yep. DE has many units that dont.