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:

torblind wrote:


That's not even remotely true. Depending on what your save is, a +1 improvement is either massive or barely noticeable.

FNP is a whole other ballpark.

12 bolter shots hitting on 3s, with a -1 to hit = 6 hits, 3 wounds against a 6+ save = 2.5 damage on average
12 bolter shots hitting on 3s = 8 hits, 4 wounds, +1 armor = 2.66 damage ish
12 Bolter shots hitting on 3s = 8 hits, 4 wounds against a 6+ save = 3.33 with a 6+ FNP = 2.77 damage ish
(+1 armor is the same as cover)

So yeah, its different but pretty close to equal. So saying a -1 to hit is a massive buff and worth way more then +1 strength on your weapon is kind of ....dishonest. Is -1 to hit good? Yeah of course, I just don't think its a huge buff over +1 strength on the weapon.

Yeah, now repeat that piece of math with a 3+ save or a 2+ save. HUGE difference.

SemperMortis wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

No skitari Rangers, why GW insist on reusing names I don't know.

Skitari are the same points as firewarriors and can have a -1 to hit trait, but people love to beat on firewarriors despite them having worse damage output vrs T3 infantry.

Correct me if I am wrong ( I don't play against Skittari that often) but their weapons max out at 30' range and are S4, Tau can easily get to 36 or even 42 and have the ability to add a shot at half range so 3 shots at 18-21' range instead of 2 at 15 like Skits. Yeah the -1 to hit is cool but its not a huge boost to durability.

Their weapons are the same range as tau ones.
The 36 inch range requires taking a sept that prevents all the named charictors. The 42 is a nice theory hammer wall but relies on a T4 1W 4+ non charictor unit it dies so easily, additionally it is only available via another 40 points unit.

-1 to hit isn't a huge bust to durability? please point out a what else gives you at worse a 20% damaged reduction against BS 2+ to a 50% reduction against BS 5+?

Cover, FNP, +1 armor, they all add the same 17% bonus to durability.

And the Sept is good enough on its own...but you can take multiple detachments so you can still take whatever named characters you want. I don't play Tau so I don't know which ones are worth a damn, but giving your standard troop choices a S5 ranged 36' gun seems rather nice When Ork shoota boyz finally get in range the Tau are firing 50% more shots at higher strength and Ballistic skill and have easy access to reroll 1s which is a bigger benefit to Tau then Orkz because a 1/3rd chance isn't as good as a 1/2 chance to hit with a reroll

If you're taking multiple detachments it defeats the point of taking the named characters cauae they can'tbuff everything due to different keywords

And of course Firewarriors are better at shooting than Orks because the moment a Boy touches them the Firewarriors melt. If you pay for 2 WS3+ S4 attacks and dont use them because you just want to have a shootout with Tau its your own fault.

And for the Ranger comparison, you have to keep in mind the Skitari have both better BS and access to much better special weapons than the Firewarriors do.

Pure wishlisting but Custodes either need more shots per model, or they need a beta rule like the Marines have to balance how pitifully small their model count is (and to give some merit to things other than just the jetbikes).

They could double up our shots but they would have to make them damage 1 instead of 2. Custodes are too accurate to be doubling up on D2 bolters.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
They could double up our shots but they would have to make them damage 1 instead of 2. Custodes are too accurate to be doubling up on D2 bolters.

That's fair. Beta bolter rules would be better balanced then.

SemperMortis wrote:

torblind wrote:


That's not even remotely true. Depending on what your save is, a +1 improvement is either massive or barely noticeable.

FNP is a whole other ballpark.

12 bolter shots hitting on 3s, with a -1 to hit = 6 hits, 3 wounds against a 6+ save = 2.5 damage on average
12 bolter shots hitting on 3s = 8 hits, 4 wounds, +1 armor = 2.66 damage ish
12 Bolter shots hitting on 3s = 8 hits, 4 wounds against a 6+ save = 3.33 with a 6+ FNP = 2.77 damage ish
(+1 armor is the same as cover)

So yeah, its different but pretty close to equal. So saying a -1 to hit is a massive buff and worth way more then +1 strength on your weapon is kind of ....dishonest. Is -1 to hit good? Yeah of course, I just don't think its a huge buff over +1 strength on the weapon.

Those minor diffrences your talking about are actually quite important, Also you can't use 1 weapon against one target profile to make generalist statements.

6 skitari shooting at Ork boy's kill 1.67
6 Firewarriors kill 1.67 oh look +1S is the same as +1 BS.

But if that was true
Why do the skitari kill 1.78 Guardsmen but the Tau only kill 1.33?

Heck let's look at a Marine incover shot at by anything at 0Ap takes a 50% damage reduction, but only a 33% reduction vrs Ap-1
Let's take Ork boy's, in cover vrs Ap0 they take 20% less damages, just don't fight primaris they only allow you to take 16.7% less in cover.

-1 to hit is the only change that gives zero cares about what the model it's on's stats are or what the weapons stats are it's flat across any weapon on a given Ballistic Skill.

 Dysartes wrote:


Finding errata in a FAQ release is what should be viewed as odd, not as the standard.

Sure this for example.

Page 99 – Armoury of Titan Add the following sentence:‘You can only use this Stratagem once per battle.’

It is possible that they don't think that Imperial soup is a problem, and they may not think the IG are a problem - I suspect they may be aware of a goof on the IK relic/trait side of things, though.

but the problem with the castellan is not the relic, it is the IG allying him in to give it protection from assault, objective grabbers, even more fire and melee power. IK armies with castellans and other knights aren't doing super great. The only people that think that IG is ok, are people that play IG and don't want it nerfed. Now am not saying someone who writes rules for GW can't be playing IG, but it would be rather petty if they just wrote the rules and kept errata/FAQ in such a way, that their armies are better to play with. That is something maybe I would do, but those are grown adults.

Cruddace is an ig homer. Doesnt help.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:
While the odds are poor on sniping Arhiman or even tiggy with the Vidicare, even if you don't get a kill you generally see him get into duck and cover mode. Neither of those charecters can really take 2 shots well.

I found my will to play a bit dimmed right now. I'm only working on modeling and wondering what is going to be worth anything on the table after the FAQ.

85 point model chance of sniping a 4 wound character is really high. You really wont find better odds of getting over 100% point return on a shooting attack anywhere in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Care to run the numbers on a Vindicare oneshotting Tiggy or Ahriman?

(5/6)(5/6)(5/6) to get a wound so about 60% chance to get a wound through. d3 damage with a mortal on a 3+/4+/5+ and so on. It's a little complicated and I don't have to go through all the % but with a cp reroll available it is well over a 50% to kill outright on 4 wound character with a 3+ save. You chance to deal 2 or 3 wounds is also really high.
ahriman on a disk loses infantry so has to wound of 3's but still a great chance of 1 shotting and he cost even more than tiggy.

My math says it's more like 40% to kill a 4W character/24% to kill a 5W character assuming Infantry and 3+ armour, assuming you have a CP available for rerolls.

how do you work out the reroll which can be used at any step in the process? Also wound rolls of 6 do d6 damage - how would you figure that?

The reroll is easy for our purposes. It is flatly worse than firing twice. As such, it cannot double the odds. As such, it cannot get a low-20s base chance up to the 50s even.

If you want a more exact number, you take the odds of failure due to your dice, then multiply that by the odds of success. Then add the odds of success. Remember that you can't CP the failed save (although your opponent can). This is an upper bound, but easily shows - in greater detail - that you're not even close to 50%.

The on-wounds-of-6 is covered in another thread. Doesn't move the numbers much, though.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:


Customers who demand a higher quality of product are playing something other than 40k.

Yea, all us stupid sheeple can't figure it out. If only we would play on a bigger table against an opponent with longer range guns.

Don't put words in my mouth. Most of us know we're settling for an inferior product, and we all have our reasons for doing it.

The more this thread goes on the more sad it becomes. For better or worse this is the most balanced 40k has ever been. If you aren't playing at the most bleeding edge of competitive the system is fine. I know I'm going to say a controversial thing but could it just be that trying to make 40k as it stands, a hyper competitive game perhaps a pointless thing ? Not every game is the height of a skill showcasing exhibition. I know we want to feel like we are the tactical masterminds of the ages but the game really doesn't work that way. Really it never has. Does skill factor in sure it does but unless we were only playing the same armies with the same choices and same set ups given same board states could we really ever find out who is best, oh and we'd need to take dice away as well as that adds to much variance.

We need to either decide on good enough balance and playing games not on the bleeding edge or realize we will always have a best build that will need to be brought down to open up the next one over and over and over etc, forever. This FAQ and countless others won't ever change that fact. Can we maybe not just want armies to be nerfed because we got nerfed with our army ? The only real way for better balance is to have like 0 options and little variance between armies. I mean even on here unless something is broken or could be broken, it's worthless. Saying a unit is ok sounds like a sin. So do we all want everything broke good ? Do we want everything useless ok ? This system isn't a fine tuned machine its a fun machine and that is about all you can ask for. If imperial guard haunt your dreams,maybe you need a break or to play a slightly less tournament ready game, or get a thicker skin to loss. As I bet my bottom dollar even if guard go up 1 point there will still be crying over them unless the whole army is thrashed for right or wrong reasons.

My biggest hope is the FAQ tells people to chill, it's just a game and not a way to judge how much better or worse we are from one another. Not a machine to forever crunch math hammer and cry about how one unit is better than " My" unit. Removing fun will never make the game people want as then they'd say the game is boring. So I hope it is just small stuff, and people can eventually find the fun they once had with the game and get over the army bias and victimization that seems to plague some players.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
The more this thread goes on the more sad it becomes. For better or worse this is the most balanced 40k has ever been. If you aren't playing at the most bleeding edge of competitive the system is fine. I know I'm going to say a controversial thing but could it just be that trying to make 40k as it stands, a hyper competitive game perhaps a pointless thing ? Not every game is the height of a skill showcasing exhibition. I know we want to feel like we are the tactical masterminds of the ages but the game really doesn't work that way. Really it never has. Does skill factor in sure it does but unless we were only playing the same armies with the same choices and same set ups given same board states could we really ever find out who is best, oh and we'd need to take dice away as well as that adds to much variance.

We need to either decide on good enough balance and playing games not on the bleeding edge or realize we will always have a best build that will need to be brought down to open up the next one over and over and over etc, forever. This FAQ and countless others won't ever change that fact. Can we maybe not just want armies to be nerfed because we got nerfed with our army ? The only real way for better balance is to have like 0 options and little variance between armies. I mean even on here unless something is broken or could be broken, it's worthless. Saying a unit is ok sounds like a sin. So do we all want everything broke good ? Do we want everything useless ok ? This system isn't a fine tuned machine its a fun machine and that is about all you can ask for. If imperial guard haunt your dreams,maybe you need a break or to play a slightly less tournament ready game, or get a thicker skin to loss. As I bet my bottom dollar even if guard go up 1 point there will still be crying over them unless the whole army is thrashed for right or wrong reasons.

My biggest hope is the FAQ tells people to chill, it's just a game and not a way to judge how much better or worse we are from one another. Not a machine to forever crunch math hammer and cry about how one unit is better than " My" unit. Removing fun will never make the game people want as then they'd say the game is boring. So I hope it is just small stuff, and people can eventually find the fun they once had with the game and get over the army bias and victimization that seems to plague some players.

Yes

Once dice involved. Don't expect too much really. If you have a bad day rolling ton of 1 and opponent rolling all the 6...

I am definitely on the boat of "more balamce is always good, but" train myself. Mostly when said balance sacrifices flavor or creativity inside of a faction.

List buidling will always be a skill, but I would rather see 100 okay lists come out of a codex than 1 perfect one in terms of options.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
The more this thread goes on the more sad it becomes. For better or worse this is the most balanced 40k has ever been. If you aren't playing at the most bleeding edge of competitive the system is fine. I know I'm going to say a controversial thing but could it just be that trying to make 40k as it stands, a hyper competitive game perhaps a pointless thing ? Not every game is the height of a skill showcasing exhibition. I know we want to feel like we are the tactical masterminds of the ages but the game really doesn't work that way. Really it never has. Does skill factor in sure it does but unless we were only playing the same armies with the same choices and same set ups given same board states could we really ever find out who is best, oh and we'd need to take dice away as well as that adds to much variance.

We need to either decide on good enough balance and playing games not on the bleeding edge or realize we will always have a best build that will need to be brought down to open up the next one over and over and over etc, forever. This FAQ and countless others won't ever change that fact. Can we maybe not just want armies to be nerfed because we got nerfed with our army ? The only real way for better balance is to have like 0 options and little variance between armies. I mean even on here unless something is broken or could be broken, it's worthless. Saying a unit is ok sounds like a sin. So do we all want everything broke good ? Do we want everything useless ok ? This system isn't a fine tuned machine its a fun machine and that is about all you can ask for. If imperial guard haunt your dreams,maybe you need a break or to play a slightly less tournament ready game, or get a thicker skin to loss. As I bet my bottom dollar even if guard go up 1 point there will still be crying over them unless the whole army is thrashed for right or wrong reasons.

My biggest hope is the FAQ tells people to chill, it's just a game and not a way to judge how much better or worse we are from one another. Not a machine to forever crunch math hammer and cry about how one unit is better than " My" unit. Removing fun will never make the game people want as then they'd say the game is boring. So I hope it is just small stuff, and people can eventually find the fun they once had with the game and get over the army bias and victimization that seems to plague some players.

Most dakka threads that go on for some time sours

I have three wishes. One is that flamers range is increased to 9”. Second is that you can always fire a flamer on overwatch no matter the charge distance of your opponent. Lastly is some kind of Inquisition update.

 Nerak wrote:
I have three wishes. One is that flamers range is increased to 9”. Second is that you can always fire a flamer on overwatch no matter the charge distance of your opponent. Lastly is some kind of Inquisition update.

What's the purpose of the 9" flamer range? You still wouldn't be able to use it after deep striking, as by definition an enemy unit must be more than 9" away in that instance. Do you want 10" flamers? I could understand that.

 Stux wrote:

 Nerak wrote:
I have three wishes. One is that flamers range is increased to 9”. Second is that you can always fire a flamer on overwatch no matter the charge distance of your opponent. Lastly is some kind of Inquisition update.

What's the purpose of the 9" flamer range? You still wouldn't be able to use it after deep striking, as by definition an enemy unit must be more than 9" away in that instance. Do you want 10" flamers? I could understand that.[/quote

I'd just like it if they ignored charged distance & cover all together and kept 8".

If they're going to make flamers better, I'd rather it be by making them better for all armies rather than trying to shoe horn them into anti-charge weapons.

10 inch flamers would actually be pretty great, for the flamer loving public. For those who are flamer haters, it would suck. I miss combi flamers feeling like a valid option on the units that could take them though.

SemperMortis wrote:

It doesn't matter what Ork boyz do to Guardsmen, they lose no matter what. Ironically, the best way for ork infantry to kill guardsmen at near parity is to get in range as Bad Moonz. 30 SHoota boyz fire 60 shots for 20 hits and 20 rerolls which result in 7 more hits. 27 hits = 18 wounds, so basically killing 12 guard. Of course 30 Shoota boyz = 210pts and 12 guard = 48pts of course, if GW was smart and reduced the price of boyz back to 6 and increased the cost of guard to 5 that would make it a lot closer in parity.

Comparing units 1 vs 1 like that is silly though. Orks don't come walking across field like that. They charge 9" away with overwatch as only shooting before charge roll. Often needing 8 on the charge.

Stratagems and support is core of 40k. If you aren't factoring those you aren"t comparing 40k units(

Karol wrote:

It is possible that they don't think that Imperial soup is a problem, and they may not think the IG are a problem - I suspect they may be aware of a goof on the IK relic/trait side of things, though.

but the problem with the castellan is not the relic, it is the IG allying him in to give it protection from assault, objective grabbers, even more fire and melee power. IK armies with castellans and other knights aren't doing super great. The only people that think that IG is ok, are people that play IG and don't want it nerfed. Now am not saying someone who writes rules for GW can't be playing IG, but it would be rather petty if they just wrote the rules and kept errata/FAQ in such a way, that their armies are better to play with. That is something maybe I would do, but those are grown adults.

If the base Castellan with extra CP was an issue, we'd be seeing Cultist-powered versions in Chaos armies, which we're not.

Last I checked, the consensus was that the problem was the combo of Cawl's Wrath, House Raven, and possibly Order of Companions (I think it is?), none of which are available to Chaos (AFAIK - don't have CA2018 to hand). Now, being able to power some of the strats with IG CP is certainly a bonus, but it was the extra sauce available to IK that made the difference.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
The more this thread goes on the more sad it becomes. For better or worse this is the most balanced 40k has ever been. If you aren't playing at the most bleeding edge of competitive the system is fine. I know I'm going to say a controversial thing but could it just be that trying to make 40k as it stands, a hyper competitive game perhaps a pointless thing ? Not every game is the height of a skill showcasing exhibition. I know we want to feel like we are the tactical masterminds of the ages but the game really doesn't work that way. Really it never has. Does skill factor in sure it does but unless we were only playing the same armies with the same choices and same set ups given same board states could we really ever find out who is best, oh and we'd need to take dice away as well as that adds to much variance.

We need to either decide on good enough balance and playing games not on the bleeding edge or realize we will always have a best build that will need to be brought down to open up the next one over and over and over etc, forever. This FAQ and countless others won't ever change that fact. Can we maybe not just want armies to be nerfed because we got nerfed with our army ? The only real way for better balance is to have like 0 options and little variance between armies. I mean even on here unless something is broken or could be broken, it's worthless. Saying a unit is ok sounds like a sin. So do we all want everything broke good ? Do we want everything useless ok ? This system isn't a fine tuned machine its a fun machine and that is about all you can ask for. If imperial guard haunt your dreams,maybe you need a break or to play a slightly less tournament ready game, or get a thicker skin to loss. As I bet my bottom dollar even if guard go up 1 point there will still be crying over them unless the whole army is thrashed for right or wrong reasons.

My biggest hope is the FAQ tells people to chill, it's just a game and not a way to judge how much better or worse we are from one another. Not a machine to forever crunch math hammer and cry about how one unit is better than " My" unit. Removing fun will never make the game people want as then they'd say the game is boring. So I hope it is just small stuff, and people can eventually find the fun they once had with the game and get over the army bias and victimization that seems to plague some players.

Ok but if we went with this thinking we would be all living in mud huts, and the pain medicin would be sticking a red hot poker in your ear. Just because the game was bad in the past, doesn't mean it has to be bad now or in the future. People that claim that w40k is great right now, accuse those that want fixs, that we want the game to have all armies at 50/50 win ratio. But it is not the case. People want to not have armies costing the same money, but being night and day as far as power goes. Worse most of the people that tell others to chill play armies that are good to pay with to begin with. I mean where are the legions of GK players telling others to chill and "it is just a game" others ? Math crunching math maybe not fun to all, but sometimes it is needed to show how big a gap exists between those for fun IG armies and bottom tier stuff. Now I get it, if someone plays a good army they don't want it nerfed. But it is really not peoples foult that GW doesn't know how to make stuff better, just how to nerf stuff in to the ground. So if the gap between good and bad can only be made smaller by GW nerfing the living hell out of good armies, then it should be done. At worse people are going to have the same levels as fun, as every army is going to be as unfun to play as the other. There won't be people playing some armies wondering what others talk about when they point out that edition seems to be rather unfun to play right now.

10 inch flamers would actually be pretty great, for the flamer loving public. For those who are flamer haters, it would suck. I miss combi flamers feeling like a valid option on the units that could take them though.

And then your roll a 1 on number of hits and your glorious anti horde weapon is worse then a lascannon vs orcs. Flamer type weapons should have a flat number of auto hits they do, to be a real counter to horde units. Then they can even have a 6" range, as long as shoting with 1-2 of them means a 30 model units with low saves gets hurt real bad.

 nordsturmking wrote:
I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.

Terrain needs better rules.

Ynnari needs a little nerf.

Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.

GK and BA and a few others need a buff

This interests me, because the downside to getting those cp is that your army consists of 6 models. Yes they're big, scary durable models, but 6 dudes doesn't help cap objectives an you have no screening to speak of. No psychic phase or input into it either.

If people want to invest 30% of their force into one model that's a decision for then to make, as when it blows up they will feel the repercussions of it keenly.

 Dysartes wrote:

If the base Castellan with extra CP was an issue, we'd be seeing Cultist-powered versions in Chaos armies, which we're not.

Last I checked, the consensus was that the problem was the combo of Cawl's Wrath, House Raven, and possibly Order of Companions (I think it is?), none of which are available to Chaos (AFAIK - don't have CA2018 to hand). Now, being able to power some of the strats with IG CP is certainly a bonus, but it was the extra sauce available to IK that made the difference.

Well, of course, The problem is the CP powered Castellan, because he has good (but expensive) stratagems that take him to 9000.

The Cultist or Nurgling-powered Castellan + possibly other Knights would obviously be just as good, if he had Stratagems such as Order of Companions as well as ridiculous warlord traits/relics (which also cost CPs to take) to use those CP.

Inversely, the Imperial Guard/AdMech powered Castellan obviously wouldn't be as bad, if all he did was use basic re-rolls with all those CP. No order of companions. No shooting at top profile. No worthwhile relics/warlord traits to choose from (by spending CP on them). Etc.. (Though arguably he would still not be "balanced" point for point in survivability/damage output with other fire support options in the game such as Predators, Devastators or whatever).

And Ion Bulkwark is arguably among the worst parts of it (especially as it stacks with Rotate Ion Shield). But even if they cap Knight Invuls at 4+, Ion Bulwark over 6 game turns is essentially (up to) 18 CP you don't have to spend. More realistically, if the Castellan dies, say, turn 3, it's still 9 CP-equivalent of a warlord trait that eats up enemy firepower, etc.. Not even old-school pre-Farming-nerf Grand Strategist was always this efficient/good in CP-equivalent. Stacking it with Rotate Ion Shields is just the cherry on top.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
10 inch flamers would actually be pretty great, for the flamer loving public. For those who are flamer haters, it would suck. I miss combi flamers feeling like a valid option on the units that could take them though.

I do think it's pretty damn silly that the iconic terminator with a flamer can't use it out of Deepstrike, the iconic method of deploying a terminator.

 Stux wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
10 inch flamers would actually be pretty great, for the flamer loving public. For those who are flamer haters, it would suck. I miss combi flamers feeling like a valid option on the units that could take them though.

I do think it's pretty damn silly that the iconic terminator with a flamer can't use it out of Deepstrike, the iconic method of deploying a terminator.

I think GW needs to experiment more with special bonuses for certain units. Something like Terminators getting +1 extra inch on flamers would be interesting. It would boost an under utilized unit while keeping it away from units that could spam Flamers until the cows come and become sentient. I think the bolter beta rules were an interesting approach that boosted a few under-utilized units although I would also argue that the blanket cheque of upgrades it gave was also a problem as it boosted things that probably needed less boosting in comparison to underutilized units.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Stux wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
10 inch flamers would actually be pretty great, for the flamer loving public. For those who are flamer haters, it would suck. I miss combi flamers feeling like a valid option on the units that could take them though.

I do think it's pretty damn silly that the iconic terminator with a flamer can't use it out of Deepstrike, the iconic method of deploying a terminator.

I think GW needs to experiment more with special bonuses for certain units. Something like Terminators getting +1 extra inch on flamers would be interesting. It would boost an under utilized unit while keeping it away from units that could spam Flamers until the cows come and become sentient. I think the bolter beta rules were an interesting approach that boosted a few under-utilized units although I would also argue that the blanket cheque of upgrades it gave was also a problem as it boosted things that probably needed less boosting in comparison to underutilized units.

They'd need 2" (sorry to be that guy hah).

But yeah, that would be a nice approach. Terminators generally need more love, but that's been the case since day 1 of this edition.

Dudeface wrote:

 nordsturmking wrote:
I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.

Terrain needs better rules.

Ynnari needs a little nerf.

Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.

GK and BA and a few others need a buff

This interests me, because the downside to getting those cp is that your army consists of 6 models. Yes they're big, scary durable models, but 6 dudes doesn't help cap objectives an you have no screening to speak of. No psychic phase or input into it either.

If people want to invest 30% of their force into one model that's a decision for then to make, as when it blows up they will feel the repercussions of it keenly.

A player could also take Castelllan + 2xCrusader + 64 IG and have 15+ CP and all the opsec he wants.

Have you killed a Castellan behinde a screen of 60+ models? Some armys just don't have the shooting to kill the Castellan when it has its 3++.

An Errata I would like to see is the Heavy Plasma Cannon. now it has the same profile of a Plasma Cannon, it seems to me it lacks of +1S.

about Terminator, I’d like to see them move and shoot without penalties and hallow them to take all of the options you find on the sprue. 5 dudes with 3 different heavy weapons