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.

Make elites very focused, make troops almost as good as an elite in their focus and all the other potential focuses at the same time. i.e. the Tactical Squad should be 75% or so as fighty as an Assault Squad (Potentially represented by their disparate movement- I'd even entertain moving the Assault Squad to the Troops Choice as Firstborn only have one now), and 75% as shooty (Bolter Discipline) as a Heavy Bolter Dev Squad, and 75% as Tank Killy (Krak Grenades) as a Lascannon Dev Squad for 75%-100% of the price. These numbers are illustration/example not hard and fast mathhammer results.

I'd like to see each (sub) faction have at least two distinct list building paths to success - Like Infantry and Tank Companies for Guard and Ultramarines, Infantry and -Wing lists for DA. Big Bugs and Little Bugs and Mixed for Nids. and on and on.

I'd like to see them create Objective Denial as another counter to Objective Secured - Objective Denial prevents anything opponent owned from Securing, if Objective Secured meets Objective Denial, they both cancel out and Your ObSec triumphs OR count models if you don't have it either.. Tanks, walkers, Greater Demons, Primarchs, LOW's and stuff in this vein would have Objective Denial. Just about all infantry, walkers, Bikes should have ObSec. The value in troops should be in their all-around kitchen sink performance, not in ObSec. Nor should people who spent years of their life knowing how to secure an objective forget because they're now a stormtrooper or a Terminator instead of a Tactical Marine or a Guardsman. It makes sense for Tanks to not have it because if the crew jumps out of the tank, the tank is useless, conversely, if the tank is sitting there, nobody from the other team is going to run up to the computer terminal and start pushing buttons.

I'd like to see SM Apothecaries be able to heal Monsters as well as Bikes and Infantry so they can heal their Primarch on the table top as well as in the books.

I'd like to know who thought Veteran Intercessors should be in the Elites Slot instead of just a more expensive Troop Choice. Additionally, as they (sort of) came later, a nice little upgrade option for Heavy Intercessors into Veteran Heavy Intercessors for Wolf Guard and Deathwing should have been a no-brainer.

A free Lieutenant for each Lieutenant you already have was not the way to go. A free Lieutenant for each Captain or Chaplain was the way to go. Lieutenants do not work with other lieutenants - they work with Captains and Chaplains of the Demi company.

All the 3-and-only-3 or 3-6 models-per-unit Space Marine Squad units should become 5-and-only-5 or 5-10 100 does not divide by 3. OK this one is mostly a personal pet peeve - and one could argue the extra 2 from half a Fast Attack Squad not riding around on Outrider Bikes are instead piloting a Stormstrike Speeder (Even though pilots/crew are supposedly drawn from the Reserves Companies). Also because many of the 3-and-only-3 units are just not worth the FOC slot no matter the points. Firestrikes usually over Suppresors or Las Fusil, sniper scouts over Sniper Eliminators. 3 Sniper Rifles per Chart Choice given how many you need to trigger a payoff from the chasing-6's sniper rifle special rules is just not enough. It's even more obvious now that you get 10 chances to chase that 6 in a scout squad for 12 points a piece compared to 3 chances for 25 points each.

Characters shouldn't count in (most)Transport totals - OR Transport Totals should take characters into account. Impulsors limited to 6 is silly, it should be 10 + characters, and MAYBE drop to 5 + characters if you put a gun or missile but not the dome or comms array on top. Transports where characters count? First one I can think of is Drop Pods, but it also wouldn't bother me if GW hand-waved an Grav Operated Bracing Linked Inertial Netting Officer Immobilization Device or GOBLINOID that drops from the ceiling thus immobilizing the character(s) going on a ride along next to the map display center column, so they stay completely up to date until the moment of landing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also: Get the stick out and finish the Primaris Roll out. Gravis Lieutenants. Primaris Bike Captains and Lieutenants. Primaris Aircraft, Primaris Jump Fighters.

Transition the rest of the characters to either cross the Rubicon or fail to cross the Rubicon. And yes, they're not going to kill off Bjorn, but they're also unlikely to resurrect him to the fully living. Maybe if they bring Russ back too, but unlikely. So cross the Rubicon, run into surgical complications, enter Bjorn the Redemptor Handed.

Bring back the rest of the Primarchs that can be brought back on both sides. Extend this sort of central defining model/character to each faction when applicable - Giant Battle Suit for a Tau character or two, some really big Nid Monster Characters, Ghaz the Prime Ork (Someone else gets credit for that one but its a good idea and fair).

Breton wrote:
Make elites very focused, make troops almost as good as an elite in their focus and all the other potential focuses at the same time. i.e. the Tactical Squad should be 75% or so as fighty as an Assault Squad (Potentially represented by their disparate movement- I'd even entertain moving the Assault Squad to the Troops Choice as Firstborn only have one now), and 75% as shooty (Bolter Discipline) as a Heavy Bolter Dev Squad, and 75% as Tank Killy (Krak Grenades) as a Lascannon Dev Squad for 75%-100% of the price. These numbers are illustration/example not hard and fast mathhammer results.

I think most people would dislike this. It's already a complaint that S4 can wound T7 pretty easily, you're suggesting the Tactical Squads becoming several times better against vehicles.

I'd like to see each (sub) faction have at least two distinct list building paths to success - Like Infantry and Tank Companies for Guard and Ultramarines, Infantry and -Wing lists for DA. Big Bugs and Little Bugs and Mixed for Nids. and on and on.

Do you want rules to support this? Like an Infantry list Detachment and a Tank list Detachment like what I believe 30k has going on? I think Wyldhunt is a proponent of that sort of thing. The alternative which I am in favour of is trying to make internal balance as good as possible and leaving people the freedom to build pretty much whatever they want and hoping that you get a more or less infinite number of paths to success.

I'd like to know who thought Veteran Intercessors should be in the Elites Slot instead of just a more expensive Troop Choice. Additionally, as they (sort of) came later, a nice little upgrade option for Heavy Intercessors into Veteran Heavy Intercessors for Wolf Guard and Deathwing should have been a no-brainer.

Would you say the same thing for Terminators and Sternguard? What should a Troops choice be? GW is taking it to mean the most common fighters the faction has. So for Grey Knights Terminators are pretty common, but for Space Marines they're less common. I previously held the belief that if it doesn't present a balance problem that Grey Knights could spam Terminators then it wouldn't be a problem if Space Marines could spam Terminators either. I'm not so sure of my own opinion anymore, because I would like fluffy armies being very viable and I think doing that through the Troops battlefield role is a fine idea. It's not that armies with Veteran Intercessors are unfluffy, it's just that I think I want to see more armies with Intercessors than armies with Veteran Intercessors.

Characters shouldn't count in (most)Transport totals - OR Transport Totals should take characters into account. Impulsors limited to 6 is silly, it should be 10 + characters, and MAYBE drop to 5 + characters if you put a gun or missile but not the dome or comms array on top. Transports where characters count? First one I can think of is Drop Pods, but it also wouldn't bother me if GW hand-waved an Grav Operated Bracing Linked Inertial Netting Officer Immobilization Device or GOBLINOID that drops from the ceiling thus immobilizing the character(s) going on a ride along next to the map display center column, so they stay completely up to date until the moment of landing.

I think that'd take me out of the game.

Breton wrote:
Make elites very focused, make troops almost as good as an elite in their focus and all the other potential focuses at the same time. i.e. the Tactical Squad should be 75% or so as fighty as an Assault Squad (Potentially represented by their disparate movement- I'd even entertain moving the Assault Squad to the Troops Choice as Firstborn only have one now), and 75% as shooty (Bolter Discipline) as a Heavy Bolter Dev Squad, and 75% as Tank Killy (Krak Grenades) as a Lascannon Dev Squad for 75%-100% of the price. These numbers are illustration/example not hard and fast mathhammer results.

This seems like more of a rule of thumb than a hard goal for design. It also doesn't seem like it fits all factions. My eldar rangers are there for deepstriking/scoring/harassment/maybe getting sniping a character if they're lucky. I don't expect them to 75% as good as my dark reapers at dealing ranged damage, and I certainly don't expect them to be 75% as good as my scorpions at chopping things up in melee. I don't even expect my guardians to live up to those standards except *maybe* when comparing their shooting to dire avengers.

But also, I'm not really a fan of force org slots in general. What is and isn't a troop is arbitrary and doesn't necessarily serve army fluff or the game experience. I'd be more inclined to nix the concept of "troops" entirely than to require they all possess a monotonous level of lethality.

I'd like to see each (sub) faction have at least two distinct list building paths to success - Like Infantry and Tank Companies for Guard and Ultramarines, Infantry and -Wing lists for DA. Big Bugs and Little Bugs and Mixed for Nids. and on and on.

Do you want rules to support this? Like an Infantry list Detachment and a Tank list Detachment like what I believe 30k has going on? I think Wyldhunt is a proponent of that sort of thing. The alternative which I am in favour of is trying to make internal balance as good as possible and leaving people the freedom to build pretty much whatever they want and hoping that you get a more or less infinite number of paths to success.

Yeah, something like that! But instead of saying, "Ultramarines have these two list styles," I'd instead say, "Marines have these 8 list styles, and your army's fluff may make you inclined to use one of them over another." So if you want to field a bunch of marines on bikes and in vehicles, you can take the Mounted Assault army rules to let you field lots of bikers, have troops disembark after transports move, etc. And that option would be available to all chapters, not just to white scars or smurfs or whomever.

I'd like to see them create Objective Denial as another counter to Objective Secured - Objective Denial prevents anything opponent owned from Securing, if Objective Secured meets Objective Denial, they both cancel out and Your ObSec triumphs OR count models if you don't have it either.. Tanks, walkers, Greater Demons, Primarchs, LOW's and stuff in this vein would have Objective Denial. Just about all infantry, walkers, Bikes should have ObSec. The value in troops should be in their all-around kitchen sink performance, not in ObSec. Nor should people who spent years of their life knowing how to secure an objective forget because they're now a stormtrooper or a Terminator instead of a Tactical Marine or a Guardsman. It makes sense for Tanks to not have it because if the crew jumps out of the tank, the tank is useless, conversely, if the tank is sitting there, nobody from the other team is going to run up to the computer terminal and start pushing buttons.

I may be missing something. How is giving a unit Objective Denial any different from giving that same unit Objective Secured? In both cases, the rule lets a unit that has the rule "steal" objectives out from under enemies who don't have it. In both cases, having two units with the same rule clash for control of an objective makes you count up models to see who controls the objective.

I'd like to see SM Apothecaries be able to heal Monsters as well as Bikes and Infantry so they can heal their Primarch on the table top as well as in the books.

It probably makes sense narratively, but I'd be reluctant to make primarchs more durabls. Primarchs are already kind of a balance nightmare because they're either durable (and powerful) enough to win the game on their own, OR they die so fast that your army struggles to deal with their loss. So letting apothecaries heal them seems like it would either not do enough to help primarchs when they're a bad choice or make primarchs even more oppressive when they're a good choice.

I'd like to know who thought Veteran Intercessors should be in the Elites Slot instead of just a more expensive Troop Choice.

I mean, having an elite version of a troop unit is nothing new in 40k. See: celestians, sternguard/vanguard/company vets, trueborn, blood brides, nobz, chosen, and probably tons of other units I'm not calling to mind. Though reasonable people can believe that having such units is sub-optimal game design.

A free Lieutenant for each Lieutenant you already have was not the way to go. A free Lieutenant for each Captain or Chaplain was the way to go. Lieutenants do not work with other lieutenants - they work with Captains and Chaplains of the Demi company.

Makes sense to me. I like this change.

All the 3-and-only-3 or 3-6 models-per-unit Space Marine Squad units should become 5-and-only-5 or 5-10

I know it's a little weird for fluff reasons, but the 3-man squads are actually one of the things I like about the primaris line. Being fewer in number but with scary good gear seems like it fits the marine elevator pitch a lot better than tac marines have for years. Also, I'd worry that some units might see the table less often if you forced people to overspend on what they bring to the table. If three eliminators get the job done, then being forced to buy 5 makes the unit as a whole less efficient and forces you to carve a bigger slot in your army for them.

Characters shouldn't count in (most)Transport totals - OR Transport Totals should take characters into account. Impulsors limited to 6 is silly, it should be 10 + characters

Pretty much agree with this. Drukhari players were very happy to finally be able to fit their characters in the same transport as their squad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also: Get the stick out and finish the Primaris Roll out. Gravis Lieutenants. Primaris Bike Captains and Lieutenants. Primaris Aircraft, Primaris Jump Fighters.

Transition the rest of the characters to either cross the Rubicon or fail to cross the Rubicon. And yes, they're not going to kill off Bjorn, but they're also unlikely to resurrect him to the fully living. Maybe if they bring Russ back too, but unlikely. So cross the Rubicon, run into surgical complications, enter Bjorn the Redemptor Handed.

Am fine with releasing more primaris over time, but man was I sick of the nonstop marine releases a couple years back. Personally, I find the primaris fluff really awkward. Rather than verifying that everyone successfully went through primaris surgery, I'd rather they just quietly consolidate firstborn/primaris into the same datasheets. A tac marine and an intercessor can use the same rules. An assault marine and an assault intercessor can use the same rules. We all know primaris were just truescale marines that GW waited too long to roll out so the scale creep felt awkward.

Bring back the rest of the Primarchs that can be brought back on both sides. Extend this sort of central defining model/character to each faction when applicable - Giant Battle Suit for a Tau character or two, some really big Nid Monster Characters, Ghaz the Prime Ork (Someone else gets credit for that one but its a good idea and fair).

I understand the appeal of this, but I really hope they don't go this direction. Not everyone wants to buy a giant centerpiece model, and not everyone plays a chapter with close ties to their primarch. Plus, every primarch released so far has suffered from being horribly overpowered followed by being nerfed into oblivion. They're just not very well suited to the scale of 40k, imho. If you're imperial or chaos and you want a jumbo-sized model, ally in a knight. (Not that *those* are a good fit for 40k's scale either.)

 vict0988 wrote:

Breton wrote:
Make elites very focused, make troops almost as good as an elite in their focus and all the other potential focuses at the same time. i.e. the Tactical Squad should be 75% or so as fighty as an Assault Squad (Potentially represented by their disparate movement- I'd even entertain moving the Assault Squad to the Troops Choice as Firstborn only have one now), and 75% as shooty (Bolter Discipline) as a Heavy Bolter Dev Squad, and 75% as Tank Killy (Krak Grenades) as a Lascannon Dev Squad for 75%-100% of the price. These numbers are illustration/example not hard and fast mathhammer results.

I think most people would dislike this. It's already a complaint that S4 can wound T7 pretty easily, you're suggesting the Tactical Squads becoming several times better against vehicles.

With Grenades. I said grenades right? There it is, I did. I even specified the Krak Grenade so it wouldn't be confused with the Frag Grenade. I'm also suggesting Gaunts become better at it with something suitably dressed up for bugs. Boyz with Stikkbombz, Guardians with Haywire, and on and on. I'm saying (most of) the basic troops of whichever faction should have some sort of anti tank and anti infantry weapon statline in their basic model makeup not that S4 Bolters should kill tanks.

I'd like to see each (sub) faction have at least two distinct list building paths to success - Like Infantry and Tank Companies for Guard and Ultramarines, Infantry and -Wing lists for DA. Big Bugs and Little Bugs and Mixed for Nids. and on and on.

Do you want rules to support this? Like an Infantry list Detachment and a Tank list Detachment like what I believe 30k has going on? I think Wyldhunt is a proponent of that sort of thing. The alternative which I am in favour of is trying to make internal balance as good as possible and leaving people the freedom to build pretty much whatever they want and hoping that you get a more or less infinite number of paths to success.

I think its pretty much required to have rules support for non-standard FOC based armies. The AOO Det is a pretty good start there but it still fails for the Double-Wing Dark Angels for example. Their Codex likely needs a FAQ/Balance Tweak to account for it. Adding a Bubble to the Detachment Abilities that says if your Det has only Ravenwing or Deathwing keywords then the qualifying Ravenwing units get their boosts, and the qualifying Deathwing units get their boost. Some of the other non-standard theme armies either already pass muster under this Det, or need rules support in the first place - like Wild Riders. Beyond that each faction would need a balance pass to make sure there are enough viable units - that synergize in each of the two ways - to support the idea. Given the confusion over bolters and krak grenades earlier - I will further point out that doesn't mean the SAME units synergize in both lists. But that X number of Data sheets synergize with pattern A, and X number of units synergize with Pattern B, and while some overlap not all do, nor should they.

I'd like to know who thought Veteran Intercessors should be in the Elites Slot instead of just a more expensive Troop Choice. Additionally, as they (sort of) came later, a nice little upgrade option for Heavy Intercessors into Veteran Heavy Intercessors for Wolf Guard and Deathwing should have been a no-brainer.

Would you say the same thing for Terminators and Sternguard? What should a Troops choice be? GW is taking it to mean the most common fighters the faction has. So for Grey Knights Terminators are pretty common, but for Space Marines they're less common. I previously held the belief that if it doesn't present a balance problem that Grey Knights could spam Terminators then it wouldn't be a problem if Space Marines could spam Terminators either. I'm not so sure of my own opinion anymore, because I would like fluffy armies being very viable and I think doing that through the Troops battlefield role is a fine idea. It's not that armies with Veteran Intercessors are unfluffy, it's just that I think I want to see more armies with Intercessors than armies with Veteran Intercessors.

To be honest I'd like to take another more educated swing at the 2E version of FOC. Characters, Squads, and Support. In some ways yes, Terminators, Sternguard, Vanguard, and Veteran Intercessors should be Troops. Your most veteran Tactical Marine becomes a Terminator and suddenly forgets how to secure an objective? The Synapse linked Tyranid Warriors know how to tap on a keyboard for the Troops Only Download Data secondary, and so do the Instinctively Behaving Ripper Swarms, but the Hive Guard standing next to a Synapse Linked Hive Tyrant do not? Part of the problem is linked to the one above. They gave Objective Secured to Troops regardless of whether it made sense, and didn't give it to the Elites, FA, etc even if it would have made more sense. OBsec should have been given based on Type keywords like Walker, Infantry, Monster etc. and they should have created its mirror image Objective Denial and given to Monsters, Tanks, Dreads. That could overlap occaisionaly and should, but it should be rarer than straight keyword checking would make it, so go into individual units and negate one or the other as/when appropriate i.e.Servitors cannot secure. A Techmarine counts as X number models where X = the number of Servitors in range +1 - written in such a way that two techmarines can't count 8 Servitors twice.

Characters shouldn't count in (most)Transport totals - OR Transport Totals should take characters into account. Impulsors limited to 6 is silly, it should be 10 + characters, and MAYBE drop to 5 + characters if you put a gun or missile but not the dome or comms array on top. Transports where characters count? First one I can think of is Drop Pods, but it also wouldn't bother me if GW hand-waved an Grav Operated Bracing Linked Inertial Netting Officer Immobilization Device or GOBLINOID that drops from the ceiling thus immobilizing the character(s) going on a ride along next to the map display center column, so they stay completely up to date until the moment of landing.

I think that'd take me out of the game.

They've already done that somewhat for quite some time. Tactical etc Squads are 5. Razorbacks carry six. The Crusader Squad was originally what a 10? 15 model box? The Land Raider Crusader carries 16.

Whether it is done by grenades or not doesn't really matter. You're still massively elevating how much damage Tactical Squads do to vehicles. A boltgun deals x damage to a Predator. A krak grenade deals 1,5 x damage to a Predator. A lascannon deals 4,4 x damage to a Predator. 5 Tactical Marines deal 5,5 x damage to a Predator. 4 Devastators deal 22 x damage to a Predator. 22*0,75/5,5=3. You're suggesting at least tripling the damage output of Tacticals against vehicles.

I also don't think it's logical to say that a unit is 75% as effective at killing vehicles if the unit deals 25% less damage and has much less range.

I think unit X being unviable unless it is included in one specific Detachment seems like a failure in balance to me, not a success.

Moving Raiders and Venoms to 11 and 6 capacity is super if it makes the game more fun, getting infinite free room for HQs feels silly to me. If I can fit 10 HQs in addition to 10 Warriors on a Ghost Ark then why can't I just put 20 Warriors on the Ghost Ark without the HQs?

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Breton wrote:

This seems like more of a rule of thumb than a hard goal for design. It also doesn't seem like it fits all factions. My eldar rangers are there for deepstriking/scoring/harassment/maybe getting sniping a character if they're lucky. I don't expect them to 75% as good as my dark reapers at dealing ranged damage, and I certainly don't expect them to be 75% as good as my scorpions at chopping things up in melee. I don't even expect my guardians to live up to those standards except *maybe* when comparing their shooting to dire avengers.

But also, I'm not really a fan of force org slots in general. What is and isn't a troop is arbitrary and doesn't necessarily serve army fluff or the game experience. I'd be more inclined to nix the concept of "troops" entirely than to require they all possess a monotonous level of lethality.

I thought I said most but it looks like I missed that one. There are exceptions to every rule. In your case the rule would adjust to the two different Guardian types, and the Corsairs. Like the Nids having Hormaguants and Termagants - or the Orks possibly/hopefully going back to Choppa and Shoota Boys as different units. You'd have to adjust for split troops and one-offs. In your case Both types of Guardians and the Corsairs should be (relatively speaking) good at killing "tanks" and the Corsairs should be a little good at shooting and fighting, while the Guardians would then be really good at Shooting OR Fighting as applicable.

I'd like to see each (sub) faction have at least two distinct list building paths to success - Like Infantry and Tank Companies for Guard and Ultramarines, Infantry and -Wing lists for DA. Big Bugs and Little Bugs and Mixed for Nids. and on and on.

Do you want rules to support this? Like an Infantry list Detachment and a Tank list Detachment like what I believe 30k has going on? I think Wyldhunt is a proponent of that sort of thing. The alternative which I am in favour of is trying to make internal balance as good as possible and leaving people the freedom to build pretty much whatever they want and hoping that you get a more or less infinite number of paths to success.

Yeah, something like that! But instead of saying, "Ultramarines have these two list styles," I'd instead say, "Marines have these 8 list styles, and your army's fluff may make you inclined to use one of them over another." So if you want to field a bunch of marines on bikes and in vehicles, you can take the Mounted Assault army rules to let you field lots of bikers, have troops disembark after transports move, etc. And that option would be available to all chapters, not just to white scars or smurfs or whomever.

I don't know about that. I mean sure any faction should be able to make almost any kind of list. At a certain point you have to say No, that's completely alien to your faction of.. aliens, like GSC wanting to make a Big Bugs LOW list or something - but and important part of what I said was "viable". Each Chapter Tactic, Kulture, Sept or what have you should feed into at least two list types. I mean sure, the Ultramarines should be able to make a 7th Company Bike force, and they should get a lesser but still required rule shenanigan to make it POSSIBLE, but the Scars, Wolves, and DA should be what makes it viable.

I'd like to see them create Objective Denial as another counter to Objective Secured - Objective Denial prevents anything opponent owned from Securing, if Objective Secured meets Objective Denial, they both cancel out and Your ObSec triumphs OR count models if you don't have it either.. Tanks, walkers, Greater Demons, Primarchs, LOW's and stuff in this vein would have Objective Denial. Just about all infantry, walkers, Bikes should have ObSec. The value in troops should be in their all-around kitchen sink performance, not in ObSec. Nor should people who spent years of their life knowing how to secure an objective forget because they're now a stormtrooper or a Terminator instead of a Tactical Marine or a Guardsman. It makes sense for Tanks to not have it because if the crew jumps out of the tank, the tank is useless, conversely, if the tank is sitting there, nobody from the other team is going to run up to the computer terminal and start pushing buttons.

I may be missing something. How is giving a unit Objective Denial any different from giving that same unit Objective Secured? In both cases, the rule lets a unit that has the rule "steal" objectives out from under enemies who don't have it. In both cases, having two units with the same rule clash for control of an objective makes you count up models to see who controls the objective.

Because ObSec cancels Both. Objective Denial cancels only the other guy. Say you've got 5 Marines standing on Objective C out there in no man's land. They're standing right next to a Land Raider that has Object Denial. Even if 7 Gretchen run up to Objective C you still control it because your Tactical Marines have Objective Secured, and the Gretechin don't - Because the Land Raider Denied their Objective Secured. Now if 7 Grots and a Stompa run up, then the Orks get the objective because you cancelled their ObSec with the Land Raider, he cancelled yours with the Stompa, and they outnumber you. Additionally because we build armies with points or power level, securing objectives should be based on points or powerlevel, not model count.

I'd like to see SM Apothecaries be able to heal Monsters as well as Bikes and Infantry so they can heal their Primarch on the table top as well as in the books.

It probably makes sense narratively, but I'd be reluctant to make primarchs more durabls. Primarchs are already kind of a balance nightmare because they're either durable (and powerful) enough to win the game on their own, OR they die so fast that your army struggles to deal with their loss. So letting apothecaries heal them seems like it would either not do enough to help primarchs when they're a bad choice or make primarchs even more oppressive when they're a good choice.

I'd like to know who thought Veteran Intercessors should be in the Elites Slot instead of just a more expensive Troop Choice.

I mean, having an elite version of a troop unit is nothing new in 40k. See: celestians, sternguard/vanguard/company vets, trueborn, blood brides, nobz, chosen, and probably tons of other units I'm not calling to mind. Though reasonable people can believe that having such units is sub-optimal game design.

I don't object to the unit, in fact I think they should add Heavy Intercessors to the options, and make them all Troops, with the Deathwing/WolfGuard tag if taken in a Dark Angels/Wolfguard army. The poor sucker trying to make the First (And Second) Company of their all Primaris Grey Shield Dark Angel Successor Chapter is just absolutely boned right now. My objection is more that the only difference is the statline. At least when they tried Veteran Tactical Squads in Second Edition, they still counted as "Squads" that editions version of Troops. Terminators, Sternguard, Vanguard etc have different equipment (options) too. And Company Vets are completely different with gear options, squad size, A Bodyguard rule and Slot-Free Elite Characters because they're the remnants of the old Command Squad.

A free Lieutenant for each Lieutenant you already have was not the way to go. A free Lieutenant for each Captain or Chaplain was the way to go. Lieutenants do not work with other lieutenants - they work with Captains and Chaplains of the Demi company.

Makes sense to me. I like this change.

All the 3-and-only-3 or 3-6 models-per-unit Space Marine Squad units should become 5-and-only-5 or 5-10

I know it's a little weird for fluff reasons, but the 3-man squads are actually one of the things I like about the primaris line. Being fewer in number but with scary good gear seems like it fits the marine elevator pitch a lot better than tac marines have for years. Also, I'd worry that some units might see the table less often if you forced people to overspend on what they bring to the table. If three eliminators get the job done, then being forced to buy 5 makes the unit as a whole less efficient and forces you to carve a bigger slot in your army for them.

Why do you think 3 Eliminators get the job done? Honest question, do you see a lot of 3 Eliminators? If I have to take two sets of 3 for 2 Slots, and 150 vs 1 set of 5 for 1 slot and 125 - which is more efficient and needs a bigger slot carved? I want to like them, but I just can't, they're not too expensive, they're just too small. Not enough chances to chase 6's, even with the added damage potential from normal shots. And if you swap to Light Lascannons, there are a number of platforms for stat band that I like better. Let me take 5 for 125, and it starts getting interesting.

Characters shouldn't count in (most)Transport totals - OR Transport Totals should take characters into account. Impulsors limited to 6 is silly, it should be 10 + characters

Pretty much agree with this. Drukhari players were very happy to finally be able to fit their characters in the same transport as their squad.

Sure there also needs to be some sort of top-end like 1 character per 3 Transport Capacity or something so you don't see 6 Bladeguard and a 7 different characters (Bladeguard Captain, Lieutenant, Chaplain, Judiciar, Ancient, Apothecary and a something else) in one 6 seat Impulsor.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also: Get the stick out and finish the Primaris Roll out. Gravis Lieutenants. Primaris Bike Captains and Lieutenants. Primaris Aircraft, Primaris Jump Fighters.

Transition the rest of the characters to either cross the Rubicon or fail to cross the Rubicon. And yes, they're not going to kill off Bjorn, but they're also unlikely to resurrect him to the fully living. Maybe if they bring Russ back too, but unlikely. So cross the Rubicon, run into surgical complications, enter Bjorn the Redemptor Handed.

Am fine with releasing more primaris over time, but man was I sick of the nonstop marine releases a couple years back. Personally, I find the primaris fluff really awkward. Rather than verifying that everyone successfully went through primaris surgery, I'd rather they just quietly consolidate firstborn/primaris into the same datasheets. A tac marine and an intercessor can use the same rules. An assault marine and an assault intercessor can use the same rules. We all know primaris were just truescale marines that GW waited too long to roll out so the scale creep felt awkward.

I'm not a fan of consolidating them. Some of the artificial separation is ridiculous (Think a DA Repulsor driver telling Azrael and 10 Terminators they can't get in.) And don't think this was some sort of true scale, I think this was a gigantic merch swap. They weren't going to sell many Marine kits unless they made new ones with good rules. Or invalidated all the old ones. I was sick of it too. Heck I'm even sick of everything being Ultramarine Centric, even as I still get a sense of schadenfreude when people complain about it while I remember Azrael and Dante causing Terror while Marneus was just.. Fearful. But if you're gonna do it do it right, and finish it. Cross the Rubicon(Azrael, Dante), kill off the ones you wanted to phase out. (Captain Lysander? A few of the Wolves?) and finally get off the fence and pull the trigger on the few weird ones (Tycho, Cassius) Provide a Special Character to each chapter for each slot - Chapter Master, Iconic Company Captain, Chief Libby, Master of Sancitity, and one or two other flavor characters.

Bring back the rest of the Primarchs that can be brought back on both sides. Extend this sort of central defining model/character to each faction when applicable - Giant Battle Suit for a Tau character or two, some really big Nid Monster Characters, Ghaz the Prime Ork (Someone else gets credit for that one but its a good idea and fair).

I understand the appeal of this, but I really hope they don't go this direction. Not everyone wants to buy a giant centerpiece model, and not everyone plays a chapter with close ties to their primarch. Plus, every primarch released so far has suffered from being horribly overpowered followed by being nerfed into oblivion. They're just not very well suited to the scale of 40k, imho. If you're imperial or chaos and you want a jumbo-sized model, ally in a knight. (Not that *those* are a good fit for 40k's scale either.)

In some ways that boat has already sailed and sank. They already did it too many times to stop, so again if you're going to do it, do it right. And yeah I already pointed out that it wouldn't always be applicable. Its not really in keeping for the GSC - though a Genestealer Primiarch has potential. But most factions already have something that could/should be in this class. The Avatar SHOULD be in this category. A big Tau suit for the Commander COULD be in this category. An Exceptionally Large Tyranid Prime, Guard already have a ton of Super Heavy Tanks just begging for a Tank Commander - Sergeant Chronus Style. Sisters and Custodes are probably not going to see something. Chaos Demons can easily get a Prime Demon Prince. Drukhari probably miss out. Most of the rest already have them, or are waiting for them. Even the chapters who lost their Primarch potentially have some sort of path to getting one. Abby gets rewarded and buffed by the chaos gods. Ferrus Manus built a gigiantic Dreadnought infused with his own conciousness before his death as a failsafe. A little hand waving and a puff of smoke, and we find out the Sanguinor is the psychic remains of Sanguinius himself, and the Sanguinor grows in power and size as his brothers return and resonate with his rage and grief.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
Whether it is done by grenades or not doesn't really matter.

Which is why you tried to make it about S4 Bolters against T7?

You're still massively elevating how much damage Tactical Squads do to vehicles.

Well, yeah? That's the point. That was the entire point. The Basic Troop(s) should be qualified but not preferred for any/all given specializations for a cheaper price point per specialization skill (whatever you want to call their overall quality) than the elite(note the lower case "e") in their single specialization focus. You still want the Elites (upper case "E"), Heavy Support and Fast Attack because they do whatever specialization better and you're still on a 5 turn time crunch.

A boltgun deals x damage to a Predator. A krak grenade deals 1,5 x damage to a Predator. A lascannon deals 4,4 x damage to a Predator. 5 Tactical Marines deal 5,5 x damage to a Predator. 4 Devastators deal 22 x damage to a Predator. 22*0,75/5,5=3. You're suggesting at least tripling the damage output of Tacticals against vehicles.

I also don't think it's logical to say that a unit is 75% as effective at killing vehicles if the unit deals 25% less damage and has much less range.

Didn't I say the numbers were just for an example and not some hard and fast mathhammered result? I thought I did.

I think unit X being unviable unless it is included in one specific Detachment seems like a failure in balance to me, not a success.

Moving Raiders and Venoms to 11 and 6 capacity is super if it makes the game more fun, getting infinite free room for HQs feels silly to me. If I can fit 10 HQs in addition to 10 Warriors on a Ghost Ark then why can't I just put 20 Warriors on the Ghost Ark without the HQs?

Yeah, I figured after your bolter/grenade problem it was just a matter of time before you tried this.

Sure there also needs to be some sort of top-end like 1 character per 3 Transport Capacity or something so you don't see 6 Bladeguard and a 7 different characters (Bladeguard Captain, Lieutenant, Chaplain, Judiciar, Ancient, Apothecary and a something else) in one 6 seat Impulsor.

Breton wrote:
I thought I said most but it looks like I missed that one. There are exceptions to every rule. In your case the rule would adjust to the two different Guardian types, and the Corsairs. Like the Nids having Hormaguants and Termagants - or the Orks possibly/hopefully going back to Choppa and Shoota Boys as different units. You'd have to adjust for split troops and one-offs. In your case Both types of Guardians and the Corsairs should be (relatively speaking) good at killing "tanks" and the Corsairs should be a little good at shooting and fighting, while the Guardians would then be really good at Shooting OR Fighting as applicable.

It sounds like you're basically saying that units whose shtick is to be more lethal than troops should be designed to be about X% more cost efficient in that role than their troop counterparts. I can get behind having units in general stay within a reasonable range of cost efficiency for intended roles (one army's shooting specialists probably shouldn't be majorly more cost efficient than another army's shooting specialists). That's just a good rule of thumb in general. Tying it to force org roles just seems like it might get messy or be too limiting in game design. Some armies have work horse troops, for instance, who are among the most lethal units in the their faction with non-troops being designed to perform more specific jobs.

I don't know about that. I mean sure any faction should be able to make almost any kind of list. At a certain point you have to say No, that's completely alien to your faction of.. aliens, like GSC wanting to make a Big Bugs LOW list or something - but and important part of what I said was "viable". Each Chapter Tactic, Kulture, Sept or what have you should feed into at least two list types. I mean sure, the Ultramarines should be able to make a 7th Company Bike force, and they should get a lesser but still required rule shenanigan to make it POSSIBLE, but the Scars, Wolves, and DA should be what makes it viable.

If I understand what you're saying, it sounds like you think that Scars and Ravenwing (and SW?) should just have better bike armies than other marine factions. If that's the case, I have to disagree with you there. At that point, you're punishing people for having the wrong paint job, which is the problem with the current system that I'd want to solve by divorcing the chapter tactic equivalents from subfactions.

No one's arguing for giving GSC a big bug LoW build. I basically just want a handful of different "army themes" per codex that change up the way you can play your army. One marine army theme might let you deploy your dudes as blips (GSC style) to represent a stealthy ambush, while another might add a mechanic that rewards keeping your bikes and vehicles moving. That sort of thing.

I'd like to see them create Objective Denial as another counter to Objective Secured - Objective Denial prevents anything opponent owned from Securing, if Objective Secured meets Objective Denial, they both cancel out and Your ObSec triumphs OR count models if you don't have it either.. Tanks, walkers, Greater Demons, Primarchs, LOW's and stuff in this vein would have Objective Denial. Just about all infantry, walkers, Bikes should have ObSec. The value in troops should be in their all-around kitchen sink performance, not in ObSec. Nor should people who spent years of their life knowing how to secure an objective forget because they're now a stormtrooper or a Terminator instead of a Tactical Marine or a Guardsman. It makes sense for Tanks to not have it because if the crew jumps out of the tank, the tank is useless, conversely, if the tank is sitting there, nobody from the other team is going to run up to the computer terminal and start pushing buttons.

I may be missing something. How is giving a unit Objective Denial any different from giving that same unit Objective Secured? In both cases, the rule lets a unit that has the rule "steal" objectives out from under enemies who don't have it. In both cases, having two units with the same rule clash for control of an objective makes you count up models to see who controls the objective.

Because ObSec cancels Both. Objective Denial cancels only the other guy. Say you've got 5 Marines standing on Objective C out there in no man's land. They're standing right next to a Land Raider that has Object Denial. Even if 7 Gretchen run up to Objective C you still control it because your Tactical Marines have Objective Secured, and the Gretechin don't - Because the Land Raider Denied their Objective Secured. Now if 7 Grots and a Stompa run up, then the Orks get the objective because you cancelled their ObSec with the Land Raider, he cancelled yours with the Stompa, and they outnumber you. Additionally because we build armies with points or power level, securing objectives should be based on points or powerlevel, not model count.

Obsec already essentially cancels out obsec. So Objective Denied is functionally Objective Secured, but they stack?

I'd be all for basing who controls an objective on the power of the units in the area if 40k were a computer game or something. But I don't think you'd want to take the time to calculate how many points individual models cost every time you're trying to determine who controls an objective. And power level gets even weirder given how abstract it is. And if you base it on pre-casualty values, you end up with weird situations. Like my 10 man terminator squad that's down to 2 survivors stealing control of an objective from your 5 man terminator squad with no casualties. You could maybe introduce a Control stat that scales up based on the bodies in the squad or something, but I'm not sure it would add enough to the game (for me personally) to warrant the added complication.

Why do you think 3 Eliminators get the job done? Honest question, do you see a lot of 3 Eliminators? If I have to take two sets of 3 for 2 Slots, and 150 vs 1 set of 5 for 1 slot and 125 - which is more efficient and needs a bigger slot carved? I want to like them, but I just can't, they're not too expensive, they're just too small. Not enough chances to chase 6's, even with the added damage potential from normal shots. And if you swap to Light Lascannons, there are a number of platforms for stat band that I like better. Let me take 5 for 125, and it starts getting interesting.

Apologies. I meant to say eradicators. I haven't gotten around to actually using my eliminators yet. With las fusils, they seem like they'd be more of an anti-big-infantry unit (think gravis or tyranid warriors) than an anti-tank unit. Although even then, they'd still contribute reasonably well against tanks; they're just not going to be killing tanks on their own. The sniper profile seems okayish for hunting low Wounds characters. In general, I think that more sniper units could stand to have fewer models in the unit and better quality shots. Maybe let them perform an "Aim" action to put out a higher quality attack on the following turn. So you shoot half as often, but you're a genuine threat to something hardier than a commissar.

Sure there also needs to be some sort of top-end like 1 character per 3 Transport Capacity or something so you don't see 6 Bladeguard and a 7 different characters (Bladeguard Captain, Lieutenant, Chaplain, Judiciar, Ancient, Apothecary and a something else) in one 6 seat Impulsor.

The drukhari solution was just to add a single extra seat to the transport capacity, and that works out pretty well. You don't have to deny yourself those extra special weapons that come from taking a 10 man squad, but you also don't have to buy a separate transport just for the characters.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Breton wrote:
I thought I said most but it looks like I missed that one. There are exceptions to every rule. In your case the rule would adjust to the two different Guardian types, and the Corsairs. Like the Nids having Hormaguants and Termagants - or the Orks possibly/hopefully going back to Choppa and Shoota Boys as different units. You'd have to adjust for split troops and one-offs. In your case Both types of Guardians and the Corsairs should be (relatively speaking) good at killing "tanks" and the Corsairs should be a little good at shooting and fighting, while the Guardians would then be really good at Shooting OR Fighting as applicable.

It sounds like you're basically saying that units whose shtick is to be more lethal than troops should be designed to be about X% more cost efficient in that role than their troop counterparts. I can get behind having units in general stay within a reasonable range of cost efficiency for intended roles (one army's shooting specialists probably shouldn't be majorly more cost efficient than another army's shooting specialists). That's just a good rule of thumb in general. Tying it to force org roles just seems like it might get messy or be too limiting in game design. Some armies have work horse troops, for instance, who are among the most lethal units in the their faction with non-troops being designed to perform more specific jobs.

Close enough. Lets say there are three dedicated "Roles". Anti Infantry, Anti Light Vehicle, Anti Heavy Vehicle. I'm saying your troops units should - collectively/on average if you have shoota/Choppa Troops for example- be 75% as good at all three simultaneously, while a Dedicated Role Elite/HS/FA might only be 100% at one or two.

I don't know about that. I mean sure any faction should be able to make almost any kind of list. At a certain point you have to say No, that's completely alien to your faction of.. aliens, like GSC wanting to make a Big Bugs LOW list or something - but and important part of what I said was "viable". Each Chapter Tactic, Kulture, Sept or what have you should feed into at least two list types. I mean sure, the Ultramarines should be able to make a 7th Company Bike force, and they should get a lesser but still required rule shenanigan to make it POSSIBLE, but the Scars, Wolves, and DA should be what makes it viable.

If I understand what you're saying, it sounds like you think that Scars and Ravenwing (and SW?) should just have better bike armies than other marine factions. If that's the case, I have to disagree with you there. At that point, you're punishing people for having the wrong paint job, which is the problem with the current system that I'd want to solve by divorcing the chapter tactic equivalents from subfactions.

No one's arguing for giving GSC a big bug LoW build. I basically just want a handful of different "army themes" per codex that change up the way you can play your army. One marine army theme might let you deploy your dudes as blips (GSC style) to represent a stealthy ambush, while another might add a mechanic that rewards keeping your bikes and vehicles moving. That sort of thing.

Yes, and Space Wolves too. Individual factions should find it easier/stronger to make an alternative list they're famous form. Saim Hann bikers. Iyanden Wraith contstructs. Ravenwing Bikers, Deathwing Terminators, Raven Guard Jump and Infiltrating forces. Ultramarine Armored Companies.

I'd like to see them create Objective Denial as another counter to Objective Secured - Objective Denial prevents anything opponent owned from Securing, if Objective Secured meets Objective Denial, they both cancel out and Your ObSec triumphs OR count models if you don't have it either.. Tanks, walkers, Greater Demons, Primarchs, LOW's and stuff in this vein would have Objective Denial. Just about all infantry, walkers, Bikes should have ObSec. The value in troops should be in their all-around kitchen sink performance, not in ObSec. Nor should people who spent years of their life knowing how to secure an objective forget because they're now a stormtrooper or a Terminator instead of a Tactical Marine or a Guardsman. It makes sense for Tanks to not have it because if the crew jumps out of the tank, the tank is useless, conversely, if the tank is sitting there, nobody from the other team is going to run up to the computer terminal and start pushing buttons.

I may be missing something. How is giving a unit Objective Denial any different from giving that same unit Objective Secured? In both cases, the rule lets a unit that has the rule "steal" objectives out from under enemies who don't have it. In both cases, having two units with the same rule clash for control of an objective makes you count up models to see who controls the objective.

Because ObSec cancels Both. Objective Denial cancels only the other guy. Say you've got 5 Marines standing on Objective C out there in no man's land. They're standing right next to a Land Raider that has Object Denial. Even if 7 Gretchen run up to Objective C you still control it because your Tactical Marines have Objective Secured, and the Gretechin don't - Because the Land Raider Denied their Objective Secured. Now if 7 Grots and a Stompa run up, then the Orks get the objective because you cancelled their ObSec with the Land Raider, he cancelled yours with the Stompa, and they outnumber you. Additionally because we build armies with points or power level, securing objectives should be based on points or powerlevel, not model count.

Obsec already essentially cancels out obsec. So Objective Denied is functionally Objective Secured, but they stack?

No, Objective Denial Pre-empts opponent ObSec. If you run ObSec up next to ObDenial, you lose your ObSec. Unless you do it with something else that has ObDenial, the opponent gets to keep their ObSec. Lets try it this way: Right now, A Repulsor is sitting on Objective A. A single Grot runs up, in the game the Grot secures the objective, After ObDenial, the grot loses ObSec, the Repulsor never had it, so we go to model count where the grot is 1, and the Repulsor as a vehicle with some sort of wound count- whatever they made that rule I'm forgetting - counts as 5, Repulsor wins. In "reality" the grot is a puff of green mist because the Runtherd had to shoot it for refusing to go anywhere near the big giant tank. Now you have 5 Heavy Intercessors and a Repulsor sitting on Objective A. 7 Grots run up. Because of the Repulsor the grots lose ObSec. Because the Grots lost their ObSec, the Heavy Intercessors keep theirs. The Objective belongs to the Heavy Intercessors. 6 Grots and a Stompa runs up. Both sides lose their ObSec, it goes to model count, the Orks win. We fix it to work on Points instead of Model count. 5 Heavy Intercessors is worth 115, a Repulsor is worth 240, or whatever it is now. 6 grots is worth not quite 20. The stompa is worth... ding ding ding 800, so the Stompa swings it to the Orks again.

I'd be all for basing who controls an objective on the power of the units in the area if 40k were a computer game or something. But I don't think you'd want to take the time to calculate how many points individual models cost every time you're trying to determine who controls an objective. And power level gets even weirder given how abstract it is. And if you base it on pre-casualty values, you end up with weird situations. Like my 10 man terminator squad that's down to 2 survivors stealing control of an objective from your 5 man terminator squad with no casualties. You could maybe introduce a Control stat that scales up based on the bodies in the squad or something, but I'm not sure it would add enough to the game (for me personally) to warrant the added complication.

Why do you think 3 Eliminators get the job done? Honest question, do you see a lot of 3 Eliminators? If I have to take two sets of 3 for 2 Slots, and 150 vs 1 set of 5 for 1 slot and 125 - which is more efficient and needs a bigger slot carved? I want to like them, but I just can't, they're not too expensive, they're just too small. Not enough chances to chase 6's, even with the added damage potential from normal shots. And if you swap to Light Lascannons, there are a number of platforms for stat band that I like better. Let me take 5 for 125, and it starts getting interesting.

Apologies. I meant to say eradicators. I haven't gotten around to actually using my eliminators yet. With las fusils, they seem like they'd be more of an anti-big-infantry unit (think gravis or tyranid warriors) than an anti-tank unit. Although even then, they'd still contribute reasonably well against tanks; they're just not going to be killing tanks on their own. The sniper profile seems okayish for hunting low Wounds characters. In general, I think that more sniper units could stand to have fewer models in the unit and better quality shots. Maybe let them perform an "Aim" action to put out a higher quality attack on the following turn. So you shoot half as often, but you're a genuine threat to something hardier than a commissar.

Sure there also needs to be some sort of top-end like 1 character per 3 Transport Capacity or something so you don't see 6 Bladeguard and a 7 different characters (Bladeguard Captain, Lieutenant, Chaplain, Judiciar, Ancient, Apothecary and a something else) in one 6 seat Impulsor.

The drukhari solution was just to add a single extra seat to the transport capacity, and that works out pretty well. You don't have to deny yourself those extra special weapons that come from taking a 10 man squad, but you also don't have to buy a separate transport just for the characters.

The Drukhari also pay more for their squad than the transport. I think the only time SM pay more for the squad is Terminators in a LRC. In theory after the free upgrades 6 intercessors/etc cost more than one Impulsor, but who is buying 6 intercessors/etc vs who is buying multiple squads and multiple Raiders/Venoms/etc? Heck, who's putting Terminators in a Land Raider when they can Teleport Strike? The two issues for SM Mechanized Infantry are: There are only three Metal Box options. at least two Metal Boxes are too small. Two Metal Boxes are not Dedicated Transports. At least two are too expensive to be used as transports. Most of the units that you want to transport only fit in the most expensive ones that are also too small. Lets say you're making a prototypical White Scars Mechanized Infantry force but in Primaris. A couple outride squads - they're too small, but easy enough. A few squads of Assault Intercessors inside Impulsors? Easy. Your smash captain unit? 5 Bladeguard to stay just under BLAST, and a Bladeguard Cap and LT. For a total of... 7. Now you don't fit in an Impulsor. And there isn't a Rhino equivalent. So you have to get a Repulsor. Because you don't fit in a Repulsor Executioner either.

If you want to take a Lieutenant, a Captain, and BGV in a single Impulsor, you could just take four BGV.

I really don't think it's better to change how transports function universally to fix a non-issue than it is to go by and tweak individual transport capacities or unit sizes to make them work better.

 JNAProductions wrote:
If you want to take a Lieutenant, a Captain, and BGV in a single Impulsor, you could just take four BGV.

I really don't think it's better to change how transports function universally to fix a non-issue than it is to go by and tweak individual transport capacities or unit sizes to make them work better.

Oh I'll disagree. In the first place "Take Less Boys, and more Characters" isn't really the solution to "Ork Boys are bad". The universal no-charging-out-of-transports needs to be changed and Impulsors as a whole need to be changed. Drop Pods have the same/similar issue with different results. I'm pretty conviced the whole reason Impuslors are Transport:6 is because Indomitus came with 3 Bladeguard, a Captain, Lt, and Judiciar (6) and 1 Chaplain + 5 Assault Intercessors (6).

Close enough. Lets say there are three dedicated "Roles". Anti Infantry, Anti Light Vehicle, Anti Heavy Vehicle. I'm saying your troops units should - collectively/on average if you have shoota/Choppa Troops for example- be 75% as good at all three simultaneously, while a Dedicated Role Elite/HS/FA might only be 100% at one or two.

Sure. Put another way, it sounds like you're basically saying:
A.) Specialists should exist.
B.) They should be be roughly 33% better at their specialization than a non-specialist or a specialized "non-elite" unit.

I'd just also add that assuming troops are non-specialists or that they aren't your work horse damage dealers isn't necessarily true. Harlequin troupes are one of the most lethal units in their faction, for instance. What is and isn't a troop is quite arbitrary in 40k and doesn't necessarily represent an army's fluff. Nor does arbitrarily limiting the offense of troops necessarily serve gameplay. But I'm probably dragging the discussion towards a personal pet peeve.

Yes, and Space Wolves too.

Nbd, but I'm curious about this one. Are SW known for their bikers? I know they have blood claws on bikes (basically the same as scout bikers in the sense that you're putting the newbies on bikes), but I don't think of them as being known for their biker forces like RG or Scars. I think I've read... seven(?) BL novels that focus on SW, and I don't think an on-screen character has gotten on a bike once.

Individual factions should find it easier/stronger to make an alternative list they're famous form. Saim Hann bikers. Iyanden Wraith contstructs. Ravenwing Bikers, Deathwing Terminators, Raven Guard Jump and Infiltrating forces. Ultramarine Armored Companies.

Eh. I get where you're coming from, but I don't agree. If I want to play, let's say, a BA bike company list, and you want to play a WS bike company list, I feel like we should both have access to the rules that represent and support armies themed around bikes/transports. You shouldn't have a game advantage over me just because of your paint scheme/fluff. Which is why I'd like to divorce "bonus mechanics" from subfaction. If only WS and RW are allowed to have the "good rules" for bike armies, then any other chapter trying to run a bike list is just a relatively crummy inferior option. Or everyone just uses WS and RW rules to represent their dudes regardless of fluff, in which case we end up in basically the same place that I'm suggesting.

Iyanden is known for their wraith armies, but you shouldn't feel like you're playing at a disadvantage when fielding a non-Iyanden wraith army. So don't make the good wraith rules an Iyanden thing. Make them a "Wraith Host" thing and note that Iyanden is more likely to field wraith hosts than any other force. This has the added benefit of undoing some of the flanderization some people dislike. Iyanden is known for wraith hosts, but they don't exclusively field wraith hosts; they're presumably capable of deploying a small force of jetbikes and falcons from time to time as the situation demands.

No, Objective Denial Pre-empts opponent ObSec. If you run ObSec up next to ObDenial, you lose your ObSec. Unless you do it with something else that has ObDenial, the opponent gets to keep their ObSec. Lets try it this way: Right now, A Repulsor is sitting on Objective A. A single Grot runs up, in the game the Grot secures the objective, After ObDenial, the grot loses ObSec, the Repulsor never had it, so we go to model count where the grot is 1, and the Repulsor as a vehicle with some sort of wound count- whatever they made that rule I'm forgetting - counts as 5, Repulsor wins.

Right. So say the repulsor has Obsec instead of Obdenial. The repulsor's obsec and the grot's obsec cancel each other out. Same result.

. Now you have 5 Heavy Intercessors and a Repulsor sitting on Objective A. 7 Grots run up. Because of the Repulsor the grots lose ObSec. Because the Grots lost their ObSec, the Heavy Intercessors keep theirs.

Maybe I'm misremembering obsec? Say the repulsor has obsec instead of obdenial. The presence of obsec on both sides of the equation means that you count up models. Repulsor counts as 5. Intercessors count as 5. So 10 marines to the grots' 7. Same result.

The Objective belongs to the Heavy Intercessors. 6 Grots and a Stompa runs up. Both sides lose their ObSec, it goes to model count, the Orks win.

The intercessors have obsec. The grots or the stompa have obsec. It goes to model count. The orks win. Same result.

We fix it to work on Points instead of Model count. 5 Heavy Intercessors is worth 115, a Repulsor is worth 240, or whatever it is now. 6 grots is worth not quite 20. The stompa is worth... ding ding ding 800, so the Stompa swings it to the Orks again.

Sure. Again, I'm okay with the idea of ditching obsec and basic objective control on the power of the units. But again, I think that pausing to count up the points value of your surviving dudes would be a bit of a hassle, and I think that basing your "power" on your pregame unit size gets weird. See above about 1 terminator stealing an objective from 5 enemy terminators because his squad size started at 10. Do we even know the individual points costs for all models these days? Aren't there some units where the starting unit is implied to have a base cost that reflects the squad leader, but the cost of the leader isn't explicit.


I think you're overthinking the transport thing. 5 is the starting size for a lot of units. 10 is the size at which you get additional special weapons for a lot of units. If you up the capacity of capcity 5 and 10 transports to 6 and 11 respectively, you can now fit your captain in with your 10 man tactical squad or whatever. That works reasonably well for drukhari. It seems like it should work reasonably well for other factions too. Otherwise we're just arguing over the exact number of lieutenants you should be able to squeeze into a rhino.

An idea I've had for objectives is to add a stat.
Call it Control or something, or just ObSec. Doesn't matter too much.

A model with ObSec X is worth X models on the objective-so a Guard Squad with ObSec 2, with all ten models on the objective, is worth 20. A min Space Marine squad with ObSec 3 is only worth 15.

The exact numbers would need work, but I think the concept is clear. And it lets you make units that are designed to kill rather than hold be worth a lot of points, but not hold objectives well.
A Leman Russ might only be ObSec 1 (without a subfaction to change that) because its job to shoot stuff dead. The Infantry are who hold the ground.

 JNAProductions wrote:
An idea I've had for objectives is to add a stat.
Call it Control or something, or just ObSec. Doesn't matter too much.

A model with ObSec X is worth X models on the objective-so a Guard Squad with ObSec 2, with all ten models on the objective, is worth 20. A min Space Marine squad with ObSec 3 is only worth 15.

The exact numbers would need work, but I think the concept is clear. And it lets you make units that are designed to kill rather than hold be worth a lot of points, but not hold objectives well.
A Leman Russ might only be ObSec 1 (without a subfaction to change that) because its job to shoot stuff dead. The Infantry are who hold the ground.

Yeah, that seems like decent approach. I guess it could get a little messy counting up a ton of different values if you have two hordes swarming an objective, but that's basically true already provided that both hordes are obsec or non-obsec.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Close enough. Lets say there are three dedicated "Roles". Anti Infantry, Anti Light Vehicle, Anti Heavy Vehicle. I'm saying your troops units should - collectively/on average if you have shoota/Choppa Troops for example- be 75% as good at all three simultaneously, while a Dedicated Role Elite/HS/FA might only be 100% at one or two.

Sure. Put another way, it sounds like you're basically saying:
A.) Specialists should exist.
B.) They should be be roughly 33% better at their specialization than a non-specialist or a specialized "non-elite" unit.

I'd just also add that assuming troops are non-specialists or that they aren't your work horse damage dealers isn't necessarily true. Harlequin troupes are one of the most lethal units in their faction, for instance. What is and isn't a troop is quite arbitrary in 40k and doesn't necessarily represent an army's fluff. Nor does arbitrarily limiting the offense of troops necessarily serve gameplay. But I'm probably dragging the discussion towards a personal pet peeve.

Universal is not general.

Yes, and Space Wolves too.

Nbd, but I'm curious about this one. Are SW known for their bikers? I know they have blood claws on bikes (basically the same as scout bikers in the sense that you're putting the newbies on bikes), but I don't think of them as being known for their biker forces like RG or Scars. I think I've read... seven(?) BL novels that focus on SW, and I don't think an on-screen character has gotten on a bike once.

Yes, Spacewolves on bikes are called Swiftclaws. I'm not sure SW even had Jump Pack troops originally, I'd have to dig out the codex and look. Also there's some quote out there from a Spacewolf that basically went something like "Running to battle was good enough for Russ, it's good enough for me.".

Individual factions should find it easier/stronger to make an alternative list they're famous form. Saim Hann bikers. Iyanden Wraith contstructs. Ravenwing Bikers, Deathwing Terminators, Raven Guard Jump and Infiltrating forces. Ultramarine Armored Companies.

Eh. I get where you're coming from, but I don't agree. If I want to play, let's say, a BA bike company list, and you want to play a WS bike company list, I feel like we should both have access to the rules that represent and support armies themed around bikes/transports. You shouldn't have a game advantage over me just because of your paint scheme/fluff. Which is why I'd like to divorce "bonus mechanics" from subfaction. If only WS and RW are allowed to have the "good rules" for bike armies, then any other chapter trying to run a bike list is just a relatively crummy inferior option. Or everyone just uses WS and RW rules to represent their dudes regardless of fluff, in which case we end up in basically the same place that I'm suggesting.

Where's the line? And what's the point of picking a subfaction then? Or even a faction? Why shouldn't GSC be able to make a list with 60 marines just because they chose a different box at the cash register? Part of the point about giving RW/WS/SW better access to bike rules is so that the subfaction rules can both boost them for the downsides of a fluffy army, and prevent some min-maxing. An Ultramarine Bike army should be possible, but it should not get the same fluff based tabletop bonus as those other chapters - partially because their Chapter Tactics/Traits/etc would be too good to start with. I already want to camp out in Tactical Doctrine, and I can fall back and shoot, and I can fall back and shoot without additional penalty while in Tactical Doctrine.

Iyanden is known for their wraith armies, but you shouldn't feel like you're playing at a disadvantage when fielding a non-Iyanden wraith army. So don't make the good wraith rules an Iyanden thing. Make them a "Wraith Host" thing and note that Iyanden is more likely to field wraith hosts than any other force. This has the added benefit of undoing some of the flanderization some people dislike. Iyanden is known for wraith hosts, but they don't exclusively field wraith hosts; they're presumably capable of deploying a small force of jetbikes and falcons from time to time as the situation demands.

No, Objective Denial Pre-empts opponent ObSec. If you run ObSec up next to ObDenial, you lose your ObSec. Unless you do it with something else that has ObDenial, the opponent gets to keep their ObSec. Lets try it this way: Right now, A Repulsor is sitting on Objective A. A single Grot runs up, in the game the Grot secures the objective, After ObDenial, the grot loses ObSec, the Repulsor never had it, so we go to model count where the grot is 1, and the Repulsor as a vehicle with some sort of wound count- whatever they made that rule I'm forgetting - counts as 5, Repulsor wins.

Right. So say the repulsor has Obsec instead of Obdenial. The repulsor's obsec and the grot's obsec cancel each other out. Same result.

. Now you have 5 Heavy Intercessors and a Repulsor sitting on Objective A. 7 Grots run up. Because of the Repulsor the grots lose ObSec. Because the Grots lost their ObSec, the Heavy Intercessors keep theirs.

Maybe I'm misremembering obsec? Say the repulsor has obsec instead of obdenial. The presence of obsec on both sides of the equation means that you count up models. Repulsor counts as 5. Intercessors count as 5. So 10 marines to the grots' 7. Same result.

The Objective belongs to the Heavy Intercessors. 6 Grots and a Stompa runs up. Both sides lose their ObSec, it goes to model count, the Orks win.

The intercessors have obsec. The grots or the stompa have obsec. It goes to model count. The orks win. Same result.

OK. Now make it 20 Grots, 10 Marines and a Rhino. 10 Marines by themselves SHOULD beat out 20 Grots on Obsec, but that's a different argument. With just Obsec they cancel and the Grots win. With ObDen, the Grots lose Obsec AND the Tacticals keep theirs, AND the Tacs win.

We fix it to work on Points instead of Model count. 5 Heavy Intercessors is worth 115, a Repulsor is worth 240, or whatever it is now. 6 grots is worth not quite 20. The stompa is worth... ding ding ding 800, so the Stompa swings it to the Orks again.

Sure. Again, I'm okay with the idea of ditching obsec and basic objective control on the power of the units. But again, I think that pausing to count up the points value of your surviving dudes would be a bit of a hassle, and I think that basing your "power" on your pregame unit size gets weird. See above about 1 terminator stealing an objective from 5 enemy terminators because his squad size started at 10. Do we even know the individual points costs for all models these days? Aren't there some units where the starting unit is implied to have a base cost that reflects the squad leader, but the cost of the leader isn't explicit.

I don't know of one we don't. I'm sure there could be one out there somewhere. Its going to be the exception not the rule. I would suspect most people know their army's PPM for their squads. Even before the "free wargear everywhere" that isn't quite everywhere, I wasn't going to include wargear. So you get a tape out, measure to the models, and add 33 points for each Terminator in range.

I think you're overthinking the transport thing. 5 is the starting size for a lot of units. 10 is the size at which you get additional special weapons for a lot of units. If you up the capacity of capcity 5 and 10 transports to 6 and 11 respectively, you can now fit your captain in with your 10 man tactical squad or whatever. That works reasonably well for drukhari. It seems like it should work reasonably well for other factions too. Otherwise we're just arguing over the exact number of lieutenants you should be able to squeeze into a rhino.

To some extent we are. I think they should be looking at each faction, figuring out what their expected contents would be with characters, and setting it there. 5 Bladeguard, a Chap/Cap, and a Lieutenant in an Impulsor feels pretty basic. 5 Assault intercessors with nobody in a second one feels pretty basic. 5/10 Sternguard in a Pod with a Cap/LT doesn't feel out of the ordinary. Part of the problem is they split the Force Multiplier bubbles, and created a rather large disparity in units that can benefit from it. Part of it is they made the command squads so bad. AND split off the specialist role characters into IC's themselves further weakening the unit in their bodyguard role. I don't really think the Captain and the Lieutenant would necessarily hang out together on the battlefield - fluff wise I could see some chapters doing that and many not, but that's fluff handwaving more than some sort of benefit. Ironically, the Deathwing Command squad is one of the few places where a Land Raider isn't completely ridiculous on multiple levels. 5 Deathwings, Belial, a Strikemaster, Apothecary, Ancient, and Champion make 10, fit in the Land Raider perfectly and are only ridiculous because that's somewhere well north of 500 points worth of eggs in one easily broken basket when you could just as easily teleport them in and skip the Land Raider. Meanwhile we don't have a Gravis Command Squad, but we do have 5 Aggressors. But they completely fill a Repulsor and Overfill an Executioner. And they can't teleport. Of course they also have to figure out how to put fight-based squads into transports without either A) Costing them at least one Fight Turn, or B) making them automatic, or C) Making them a greasy smoke stain.

JNAProductions wrote:An idea I've had for objectives is to add a stat.
Call it Control or something, or just ObSec. Doesn't matter too much.

A model with ObSec X is worth X models on the objective-so a Guard Squad with ObSec 2, with all ten models on the objective, is worth 20. A min Space Marine squad with ObSec 3 is only worth 15.

The exact numbers would need work, but I think the concept is clear. And it lets you make units that are designed to kill rather than hold be worth a lot of points, but not hold objectives well.
A Leman Russ might only be ObSec 1 (without a subfaction to change that) because its job to shoot stuff dead. The Infantry are who hold the ground.

That helps with ObSec and the vagaries of Points vs Model Count, but one of the things I like about Object Denial is that it gives the units that don't/Shouldn't have ObSec a way of playing/altering/affecting the Objective Game too, as well as providing at least one more set of shenanigans. I think just about all the Infantry, Walkers, and Bikes should have some level of ObSec. I think Tanks or Tank Like Things (think: Doomsday Arks, Anhilation Barges, Battlewagons, Bonebreakas, etc) and potentially Aircraft should have Objective Denial. Most people won't be securing an objective while they're being strafed, and if the crew gets out of the tank to secure the objective the tank is just a fancy empty building. A few but not many things could/should have both. Dreads, Knights, Stompas, -Naughts, some of the Monsters. They could probably have the most fun with this on Nids - Almost everything connected to the Hive Mind is ObSec, almost any monster is ObDen Thus a Carnifex acting instinctively is ObDen, while one connected to the Hive Mind is both. One of the factions this change would most likely fail on is Drukhari - simply because they don't have that many vehicles I would call a "tank". Of course, they also need more/new models so win-win if the former results in the latter.