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.

 Tyran wrote:
Going back to actual balance discussion rather than theoreticals, I'm surprised I haven't see that much actual discussion about Tyranid imbalance issues.

Like sure we can agree they are a problem being the current strongest codex (although arguably not as much as a problem as Harley's and releseDE were), but looking at the lists winning tournaments, there is actually a quite decent diversity with different subfactions and units being used.

Sure there are units that are more common than others, double flyrant is common, everyone brings a maleceptor, zoanthropes and a neurothrope. And yet none of these units is being spammed.

So again, while everyone can agree there is a problem, I actually haven't seen a lot of talk identifying which are the specific problems and suggested fixes.

The design of the Nid Codex encourages diversification of the big bugs for their varied Synaptic Imperatives, which prevents a certain amount of spamming. In general I think the internal balance seems pretty good but, like the DE Codex, I think a lot of things are just a little too good. I'm not sure exactly what I'd change though, because the only things that seem completely stupid are Maleceptors and Harpys. Everything else is almost OK. It's still just a horrible experience using an older Codex like Necrons or Death Guard against them though.

Playing against the new tyranids feels like playing against an army which not only has very good rules and synergies, but also, which is also the feeling some people had playing the old pre nerf DEs, an army which has like 2500pts in a 2000pts game. the monsters, all of them, the way they are now went beyond what is efficient or with good rules. They are just cheap right now, and when stuff is cheap it is easy to diversify in what someone can take.

 Blackie wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


How would you propose to avoid the "My vehicle is facing in all directions constantly" conundrum?

And what about my infantry/biker/monster guy is facing in all directions constantly conundrum? Why only vehicles have to have firing arcs? I've never understood it.

The AV systen I get it to make vehicles sturdier (since why only vehicles have to be weaker on the flank or rare?) but with the current game design if that's the goal just give all vehicles some ability to reduce damage or to mitigate the to wound roll. This way jetbikes wouldn't be sturdier than tanks.

Not sure. That's exactly what I mean. The AV system involves an implicit honor system, that I would inherently distrust. You would have to say, not be allowed to touch models after placing them, until it's your movement phase again. Otherwise they are locked in place. That then begs the question of sightlines. If my Vertus Praetor's speartip can see the back of your tank, do I get rear shooting with my melta missiles? Or do we put a rule that the "majority" has to be in view? Either way it's up to player discretion, which is always ugly.

I think it's impractical to introduce arc facings in 40k. In Necromunda they work because each model is actually a unit of one model, but in 40k units can be squads of several dudes and it would be impossible to determine appropriate arc facings for such units. At the same time one model units, such as vehicles, can't be penalized and get arc facings just because they're solo models.

I believe the current rules are the best option regarding this matter.

 Blackie wrote:
I think it's impractical to introduce arc facings in 40k. In Necromunda they work because each model is actually a unit of one model, but in 40k units can be squads of several dudes and it would be impossible to determine appropriate arc facings for such units. At the same time one model units, such as vehicles, can't be penalized and get arc facings just because they're solo models.

I believe the current rules are the best option regarding this matter.

make range/facing be based on the squad leader, easy

I think adding more and more rules is how we end up with bloat. AV facings aren't necessary. I'm definitely not a fan of stringent arcs and facings. It makes the game too tedious.
Making everything wound on a roll of 6, regardless of toughness vs weapon strength is a problem. It makes volume of fire a priority and takes away from weapon roles. It also makes it difficult to scale durability.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I think it's impractical to introduce arc facings in 40k. In Necromunda they work because each model is actually a unit of one model, but in 40k units can be squads of several dudes and it would be impossible to determine appropriate arc facings for such units. At the same time one model units, such as vehicles, can't be penalized and get arc facings just because they're solo models.

I believe the current rules are the best option regarding this matter.

make range/facing be based on the squad leader, easy

Not so easy actually. Not every units has a squad leader. Necrons or tyranids units can't possibly have a squad leader and many other units from other factions don't have it as well. Kroots, Mandrakes, Talos, Grotesques, etc...

Even for orks (where most stuff has a squad leader) deffkoptas, gretchins, killa kanz, dreads, buggies immediately come to my mind. Lootas and burnaboyz also, unless the meks are the squad leader but in that case people might have to decide which specific meks (up to 3 in a squad can be taken) is the actual leader.

Not even fair or immersive I think. Squad leader is looking somewhere, all the other dudes look at the opposite direction and yet the whole squad can only target what the leader sees? Sound much more nonsense than the current mechanics.

Armor value systems worked for every edition of 40k up until 7th.

It isn't impossible or mysterious to figure out how they need to work.

1) you shoot the facing you are standing in, not any facing you can see. Shooting at an extreme angle into the thinner armor increases it's effective thickness anyways.

2) once your movement phase is over, you don't get to move your models again (including pivoting them) unless a special rule allows you to. I don't know of anyone who plays a different way even in 9th (otherwise what stops you from rotating your turret to see in your shooting phase with the tip of the gun, then rotating it back out of LOS later?).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Armor value systems worked for every edition of 40k up until 7th.

It isn't impossible or mysterious to figure out how they need to work.

1) you shoot the facing you are standing in, not any facing you can see. Shooting at an extreme angle into the thinner armor increases it's effective thickness anyways.

2) once your movement phase is over, you don't get to move your models again (including pivoting them) unless a special rule allows you to. I don't know of anyone who plays a different way even in 9th (otherwise what stops you from rotating your turret to see in your shooting phase with the tip of the gun, then rotating it back out of LOS later?).

AV didn't work in 6th or 7th. They existed in 6th and 7th. They didn't work.

That first one also doesn't resolve the concern. Something relatively long or otherwise large, like a custodes jetbike, could easily be in a position where part of the model is in one arc and the rest is in the other. It could even be a very, very small portion of the model. In that case, you'd be able to target whichever facing is weakest despite the plurality of the model not being in that arc. You are 'standing in' both arcs, so you can shoot both arcs.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I think it's impractical to introduce arc facings in 40k. In Necromunda they work because each model is actually a unit of one model, but in 40k units can be squads of several dudes and it would be impossible to determine appropriate arc facings for such units. At the same time one model units, such as vehicles, can't be penalized and get arc facings just because they're solo models.

I believe the current rules are the best option regarding this matter.

make range/facing be based on the squad leader, easy

That's one of the worst rules in Star Wars Legion and they're only dealing with squad sizes of like 6 max.

ERJAK wrote:

make range/facing be based on the squad leader, easy

That's one of the worst rules in Star Wars Legion and they're only dealing with squad sizes of like 6 max.

Why?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


2) once your movement phase is over, you don't get to move your models again (including pivoting them) unless a special rule allows you to. I don't know of anyone who plays a different way even in 9th (otherwise what stops you from rotating your turret to see in your shooting phase with the tip of the gun, then rotating it back out of LOS later?).

moving the turret counts as part of your movement


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:


That's one of the worst rules in Star Wars Legion and they're only dealing with squad sizes of like 6 max.

Thats one of the best rules in Star Wars Legion because it speeds up the game

ERJAK wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Armor value systems worked for every edition of 40k up until 7th.

It isn't impossible or mysterious to figure out how they need to work.

1) you shoot the facing you are standing in, not any facing you can see. Shooting at an extreme angle into the thinner armor increases it's effective thickness anyways.

2) once your movement phase is over, you don't get to move your models again (including pivoting them) unless a special rule allows you to. I don't know of anyone who plays a different way even in 9th (otherwise what stops you from rotating your turret to see in your shooting phase with the tip of the gun, then rotating it back out of LOS later?).

AV didn't work in 6th or 7th. They existed in 6th and 7th. They didn't work.

That first one also doesn't resolve the concern. Something relatively long or otherwise large, like a custodes jetbike, could easily be in a position where part of the model is in one arc and the rest is in the other. It could even be a very, very small portion of the model. In that case, you'd be able to target whichever facing is weakest despite the plurality of the model not being in that arc. You are 'standing in' both arcs, so you can shoot both arcs.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I think it's impractical to introduce arc facings in 40k. In Necromunda they work because each model is actually a unit of one model, but in 40k units can be squads of several dudes and it would be impossible to determine appropriate arc facings for such units. At the same time one model units, such as vehicles, can't be penalized and get arc facings just because they're solo models.

I believe the current rules are the best option regarding this matter.

make range/facing be based on the squad leader, easy

That's one of the worst rules in Star Wars Legion and they're only dealing with squad sizes of like 6 max.

How big is the base on a Custodes jetbike? I thought it was less than 60mm

Also how about "if you can't tell what facing a model is in, use the highest AV of the facings".

Gotta actually maneuver, you know, and the tank crew has a small say.

 Blackie wrote:
I think it's impractical to introduce arc facings in 40k. In Necromunda they work because each model is actually a unit of one model, but in 40k units can be squads of several dudes and it would be impossible to determine appropriate arc facings for such units. At the same time one model units, such as vehicles, can't be penalized and get arc facings just because they're solo models.

I believe the current rules are the best option regarding this matter.

Option 1: Use the model closest to the firing unit. Could be gamed by both parties though.

Option 2: Have the firing unit explicity state which vehicles in the target unit are being fired at by which weapons. I prefer this option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Armor value systems worked for every edition of 40k up until 7th.

It isn't impossible or mysterious to figure out how they need to work.

1) you shoot the facing you are standing in, not any facing you can see. Shooting at an extreme angle into the thinner armor increases it's effective thickness anyways.

2) once your movement phase is over, you don't get to move your models again (including pivoting them) unless a special rule allows you to. I don't know of anyone who plays a different way even in 9th (otherwise what stops you from rotating your turret to see in your shooting phase with the tip of the gun, then rotating it back out of LOS later?).

AV didn't work in 6th or 7th. They existed in 6th and 7th. They didn't work.

They worked fine. The controversy would be around the HP system, which we can do away with.

I'd greatly argue AV barely worked in 5th and it was absolutely terrible in 4th.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'd greatly argue AV barely worked in 5th and it was absolutely terrible in 4th.

I imagine that comes down more to taste, and how vulnerable you think vehicles should be, rather than the mechanics themselves. I preffered 4th to 5th, personally. 5th ed games often just looked like parking lots on deployment.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'd greatly argue AV barely worked in 5th and it was absolutely terrible in 4th.

how AV worked didn't change between editions though

Unless you are lumping in the damage chart concept with AV

 Insectum7 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
AV didn't work in 6th or 7th. They existed in 6th and 7th. They didn't work.

They worked fine. The controversy would be around the HP system, which we can do away with.

Exactly. They stapled a wounds system on top of a completely different damage dealing system. No wonder it didn't work.

The AV system had the issue of making AP and like half of the weapon related USRs irrelevant.

And of course GW was never able to properly balance vehicles vs monsters.

 Tyran wrote:
The AV system had the issue of making AP and like half of the weapon related USRs irrelevant.

Yeah, that's a feature not a bug.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
AV didn't work in 6th or 7th. They existed in 6th and 7th. They didn't work.

They worked fine. The controversy would be around the HP system, which we can do away with.

Exactly. They stapled a wounds system on top of a completely different damage dealing system. No wonder it didn't work.

well it was an attempt to fix the over-tough vehicles of 5th, and do something about the chance to perpetually stun/shake them. It was an ok idea, but the HP counts were probably to low. Or they could have just rolled back the changes for 5th, and gone about alleviating vehicle issues in 4th with some fine tuning.

ccs wrote:

Yeah, that's a feature not a bug.

Armor Values not caring about Armor Penetration is a dumb feature.

 Tyran wrote:

ccs wrote:

Yeah, that's a feature not a bug.

Armor Values not caring about Armor Penetration is a dumb feature.

You're forgetting that Armour Penetration did effect your result on the Damage Chart however, with AP2 and AP1 giving you more severe results.
Penning a vehicle with an AP1 weapon made it more likely than not that said vehicle was dead in a single hit, especially if that AP1 weapon was also Ordnance.

 Tyran wrote:
Armor Values not caring about Armor Penetration is a dumb feature.

That's an issue of terminology, not a problem with the rules.

the simple suggested solution or house rule back in the days was to replace the D6 with "7-AP", to make the AP of weapons count (and AntiTank USRs to give +1 if needed)

now with higher AP being better, you would simply use Strength+AP against AV

but a lot of people did not like replacing random dice with fixed values, as this was not 40k any more without the randomness on vehicles
how times are changing

The introduction of hullpoints made the whole AV system fall apart. So you had pages upon pages describing these intricate rules and then scatterlaser/ autocannon just went brrrt, ignored all of it and killed most vehicles easier than infantry. What do you mean my Plague Marine gets a 3+ followed by a 5+++ against that weapon but my tank just dies without any save?
It might have worked in 5th but from 6th on it was just rules bloat serving no purpose outside of fringe cases like Leman Russ and Battle wagons in the first turn and Land Raiders in a casual game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Armor value systems worked for every edition of 40k up until 7th.

Did they work or were they tolerated?

Because if your logic is based on the success of the editions also 9th of 40k works perfectly, according to how many players are still in the game and GW sales.

I can say that vehicles finally works in 9th edition, after ages of bad rules. I have never been fond of how my ork vehicles performed in 5th for example, and in 3rd they worked barely just because armies didn't have the same amount of firepower they have these days and armies were smaller in size. No more silly rules such as immobilized, weapon destroyed, useless for a whole turn, harsh limitations on shooting and moving even for vehicles with transport capacity, FOC limitations, etc... Now I play tons of vehicles and I enjoy it a lot. Including a Land raider for my SW.

 Blackie wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Armor value systems worked for every edition of 40k up until 7th.

Did they work or were they tolerated?

Because if your logic is based on the success of the editions also 9th of 40k works perfectly, according to how many players are still in the game and GW sales.

I think it's safe to say that the success of 40k didn't hinge on the AV system.

 Blackie wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Armor value systems worked for every edition of 40k up until 7th.

Did they work or were they tolerated?

Because if your logic is based on the success of the editions also 9th of 40k works perfectly, according to how many players are still in the game and GW sales.

I can say that vehicles finally works in 9th edition, after ages of bad rules. I have never been fond of how my ork vehicles performed in 5th for example, and in 3rd they worked barely just because armies didn't have the same amount of firepower they have these days and armies were smaller in size. No more silly rules such as immobilized, weapon destroyed, useless for a whole turn, harsh limitations on shooting and moving even for vehicles with transport capacity, FOC limitations, etc... Now I play tons of vehicles and I enjoy it a lot. Including a Land raider for my SW.

I am not sure what you mean - are you asking whether they were fun or not? Because that is a subjective question. I can say my friends and I enjoyed them, and many still do - the 30k group here is very active, as is my little 4th Ed. enclave. Just got another player this week - another Ork.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

ccs wrote:

Yeah, that's a feature not a bug.

Armor Values not caring about Armor Penetration is a dumb feature.

You're forgetting that Armour Penetration did effect your result on the Damage Chart however, with AP2 and AP1 giving you more severe results.
Penning a vehicle with an AP1 weapon made it more likely than not that said vehicle was dead in a single hit, especially if that AP1 weapon was also Ordnance.

AP2 only mattered in 6th and 7th, it didn't matter in 5th or 4th. And as noted above, the HP system meant that the damage table didn't really matter in those editions anyway.

But really my issue with all of this is that calls for the return of armor facings are usually based on its realism, because true tanks tend to have thicker front armor. But if we are talking about realistic armor, then AP matters arguably more than strength, e.g the mechanism that allow a hellgun to penetrate power armor should also allow it to penetrate tank armor, yet under the AV system it was useless against tanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Under a more "realistic" system, AP would be the main characteristics to determine armor penetration, and then Strength would be the main characteristic to determine the damage inflicted on the vehicle.

Removed. No, just no.