Fixing Daemonhunters

[Grand Master Tyrak]

Hurricane Bolters with psy-bolts would be sick! Maybe allow it, but charge 20pts to put it on a crusader? After all, with 6 twin-linked bolters and possibly a pintle storm bolter, that's a LOT of AP4, inv-ignoring goodness!

 

Yeah, that would be good. Hurricane Bolters should be paying double not because of power issues, not because they're a main weapon, but simply because there are two of them.

[Wolf's Bane]

1) Special Rules

 

Deep Strike:

Grey Knights are commonly teleported into position where they are needed most. Any unit or character with the Grey Knight special rule may be held in Reserve and enter play by Deep Strike even in missions which do not normally allow Deep Strike or Reserves.

 

Grey Knight Terminators and Heros are centuries-old veterans, and have teleported into battle countless times, making them the most experienced teleporters in the galaxy. When they enter play using their Deep Strike rule, they roll 3D6 and pick the two lowest to determine how far they scatter.

 

Why don't let the Termi to reroll the scatter dice instead of rolling 3D6 and pick the two lowest? Probably this will be more like having teleported into battle countless time, but just my opinion!

 

The Shrouding:

The combined psychic prayers of Grey Knights are focussed in battle to constantly confuse and wrong-foot their enemies, blinding their corrupted senses with the shining light of their faith and resolution.

 

Each time an enemy unit fires at a unit of Grey Knights it must check if it can see them. Roll 4D6 and multiply this result by 2, giving a number between 8 and 48. This is the number of inches the Grey Knights can be spotted at, and if the unit is within this range then firing is conducted normally. A unit which fails to detect Grey Knights misses its chance to fire at an alternative tarted in the confusion. Barrage weapons fire as normal, but never count as having line of sight if the Grey Knight targets are outside the spotting range. Normaly Night Fight skills and equipment such as searchlights have no effect on this power, but units which include a psyker can re-roll the dice and accept the second result instead. Actual Night Fight conditions override this rule.

 

I have think about this a lot of time. I think this is going to be very powerful for us and no more armies have it. Either, you have to roll a lot of extra dices each turn, making the game slower.

 

What about getting a 4+ cover save and counting as defensive granades?

[Grand Master Tyrak]

I have think about this a lot of time. I think this is going to be very powerful for us and no more armies have it. Either, you have to roll a lot of extra dices each turn, making the game slower.

 

What about getting a 4+ cover save and counting as defensive granades?

 

I agree with you, a straight 4+ would be so much simpler. How about we use the old 4th ed. Feel No Pain rules for the Shrouding? So in this case it would be an 'extra' 4+ save against all shooting, and unlike the current Feel No Pain rules it worked against all weapons.

 

So, in a proper format, that would be:

 

"The Shrouding: The combined psychic prayers of Grey Knights are focussed in battle to constantly confuse and wrong-foot their enemies, blinding their corrupted senses with the shining light of their faith and resolution.

 

Units with this rule benefit from an additional 4+ save against all shooting directed against them. This save can be taken as well as any armour or invulnerable saves that would be taken normally."

 

Simple, effective, doesn't mean it's down to your opponent to know your rules, and brings the rule up to the power level of recent codicies.

[FunkyEntropy]

"The Shrouding: The combined psychic prayers of Grey Knights are focussed in battle to constantly confuse and wrong-foot their enemies, blinding their corrupted senses with the shining light of their faith and resolution.

 

Units with this rule benefit from an additional 4+ save against all shooting directed against them. This save can be taken as well as any armour or invulnerable saves that would be taken normally."

 

A better, more ruleslawyerly-proof wording would be,

 

"The Shrouding: The combined psychic prayers of Grey Knights are focused in battle to constantly confuse and wrong-foot their enemies, blinding their corrupted senses with the shining light of their faith and resolution.

 

Units with this rule benefit from an additional 4+ save against all shooting directed against them. This save can always be taken, and may be used in addition to any armor, cover, or invulnerable saves that would be taken normally."

 

That I think succinctly lays out that you always get the shrouding save, plus get to take the armor/inv/cover save as normal.

[Prathios]

I have to say getting two separate saves is going to jack the point cost of GK up by a bunch, like with that rule I can see paying 35+ points per guy... Its a good rule and I like it but its too good IMO. Two separate saves like that will cut down on casualties by a ton thus increasing our point cost per model by an equal ton.

[Shunch]

Personally, I like the cover save + defensive grenades a lot more than the current double save idea. Not only is it not as powerful, but I feel as if that the fluff of what the Shrouding is would fit better with a cover save, rather than a pseudo FnP save. As Prathios said, the increase in cost would be even worse, and the ratio you could expect to be outnumbered by would go up an uncomfortable amount.

 

Cheers,

Shunch

[Aidoneus]

I have to say getting two separate saves is going to jack the point cost of GK up by a bunch, like with that rule I can see paying 35+ points per guy... Its a good rule and I like it but its too good IMO. Two separate saves like that will cut down on casualties by a ton thus increasing our point cost per model by an equal ton.

I have to agree with Prathios here, and Shunch after him. One thing neither of them mentioned though, and which is the most important issue for me, is that it changes the in-game implications for the rule. As many people know, Shrouding does almost nothing when the enemy is up close. What it's good for is keeping off long-range fire support, really letting the GKs isolate and overwhelm specific parts of the battlefield. A straight-up save, either cover or something else, would not accomplish that. That's why I like the rules Shrouding has now. I just happen to want to lower the range by a little bit, making it a small bit better. As I've pointed out, my version lowers the minimum range by 1", the average by 3.5", and the maximum by 6". And honestly, I have never had trouble with Shrouding, other than me just plain forgetting it sometimes. It's just one more roll, and a very quick bit of math. If anyone over the age of 12 can't add four numbers under 6 and then double the result in less than thirty seconds, perhaps they need to practice their arithmetic some more. ;) One alternative is to roll 2D6 and multiply the result by 4, giving the same min, max, and med as my version, but more grouped towards the middle. I don't know if the math would be easier or harder (I think addition is easier than multiplying some number by 4, but that's just me).

 

 

This isn't a bad idea. All daemon Troop units killed may enter play their next turn from their own board edge. They give Kill Points, and may contest objectives, but do not count as Scoring. Sound decent?

Sounds good to me. :P Obviously it'll need rewording for a proper formal printed rule (ie rules-lawyer proof), but that can come much later.

How about this:

 

Daemonic Infestation: Whenever an enemy unit of Daemons taken as Troops is killed, the opponent may bring it back into play during his next turn by moving it on from his table edge exactly as if it were coming in from reserves. Daemon units brought back this way do not count as Scoring units, although they may contest objectives, and if they are killed again they give the Grey Knight player another Kill Point. Players should use common sense when determining what units count as daemons.

 

Jakehunter makes a strong case. While we are not going to be able to keep our Nemesis Force Weapons (those are big guns we're lugging around), points reductions are eminently doable. What would people say to 5pts off each?

That sounds ok. Nowhere near enough discount for PAGKs, but it's high enough so that we don't break Purgation Squads and can keep the special weapon costs as standard across the board.

Out of curiosity, how much do you think PAGK special weapons ought to cost?

 

 

Why don't let the Termi to reroll the scatter dice instead of rolling 3D6 and pick the two lowest? Probably this will be more like having teleported into battle countless time, but just my opinion!

Yeah, I like that. Sort of a twin-linked deep-strike. :P I'll go make the change.

 

 

Also, quick update. I'm going through our (and the Witch Hunters') FAQs, as well as the IA2 update, and will incorporate those changes into my project. This will probably mean the inclusion of a couple corrections from the FAQs, as well as some price decreases and extra weapon options for our vehicles from IA. I'll give you all a heads up on the specifics when I've finished making the changes.

 

Edit: Oh yeah, and I'm letting Crusaders take Psycannon Bolts for 20pts

[FunkyEntropy]

Considering how easy it is to get a cover save in 5th, just having the shrouding as a cover save would actually be a pretty substantial nerf.

[Grand Master Tyrak]

I have to say getting two separate saves is going to jack the point cost of GK up by a bunch, like with that rule I can see paying 35+ points per guy... Its a good rule and I like it but its too good IMO. Two separate saves like that will cut down on casualties by a ton thus increasing our point cost per model by an equal ton.

 

To be honest, whatever reworked stuff I'm suggesting shouldn't increase the cost of Grey Knights, merely upping the power level so that we're getting our money's worth. If you think doing that would increase the points cost, then ultimately that option loses out to one that doesn't increase our points cost. If going with the cover saves keeps our points cost as it is, I'll go with that.

 

Players should use common sense when determining what units count as daemons.

 

:P :) :) :) Good man. Just the sort of advice GW should put into all of its codicies.

 

Out of curiosity, how much do you think PAGK special weapons ought to cost?

Well, I'm used to 7eAL's project, so there Incinerators and Psycannons were reduced to 10pts and 15pts respectively, but the Purgation Squad had a lot done to it: it was moved to Fast Attack, they gained the Swooping Hawk 'jump out' rule, and were instead equipped with a loyalist version of the Kai Gun in place of incinerators & psycannons.

Obviously, that doesn't apply here, so I'm making a rough guess at either 15pts/20pts per special weapon, or 20pts/25pts per special weapon.

[Lungboy]

Am i missing it, or have you not put anything in about the GM NFW "outright killing" things? Some clarification on this might be handy, if only to spell out that it does still kill everything, even Eternal Warriors etc.

[Aidoneus]

Am i missing it, or have you not put anything in about the GM NFW "outright killing" things? Some clarification on this might be handy, if only to spell out that it does still kill everything, even Eternal Warriors etc.

I haven't really put in anything in the way of clarification, only changes. This was brought up a while ago, briefly. Basically, yes, I left it as written on purpose, because I feel it should still work against daemons. I guess I figured we all know how our NFW works differently than other force weapons, so a clarification wasn't strictly necessary, but I could certainly put one in if we decide it's necessary.

[Grand Master Tyrak]

Am i missing it, or have you not put anything in about the GM NFW "outright killing" things? Some clarification on this might be handy, if only to spell out that it does still kill everything, even Eternal Warriors etc.

I haven't really put in anything in the way of clarification, only changes. This was brought up a while ago, briefly. Basically, yes, I left it as written on purpose, because I feel it should still work against daemons. I guess I figured we all know how our NFW works differently than other force weapons, so a clarification wasn't strictly necessary, but I could certainly put one in if we decide it's necessary.

 

I don't think we need to clarify it, GW have shown their support for the wording by re-using it for the Eldar Diresword, and their codex does contain units with Eternal Warrior.

[FunkyEntropy]

I have to say getting two separate saves is going to jack the point cost of GK up by a bunch, like with that rule I can see paying 35+ points per guy... Its a good rule and I like it but its too good IMO. Two separate saves like that will cut down on casualties by a ton thus increasing our point cost per model by an equal ton.

I have to agree with Prathios here, and Shunch after him. One thing neither of them mentioned though, and which is the most important issue for me, is that it changes the in-game implications for the rule. As many people know, Shrouding does almost nothing when the enemy is up close. What it's good for is keeping off long-range fire support, really letting the GKs isolate and overwhelm specific parts of the battlefield. A straight-up save, either cover or something else, would not accomplish that. That's why I like the rules Shrouding has now. I just happen to want to lower the range by a little bit, making it a small bit better. As I've pointed out, my version lowers the minimum range by 1", the average by 3.5", and the maximum by 6". And honestly, I have never had trouble with Shrouding, other than me just plain forgetting it sometimes. It's just one more roll, and a very quick bit of math. If anyone over the age of 12 can't add four numbers under 6 and then double the result in less than thirty seconds, perhaps they need to practice their arithmetic some more. :blink: One alternative is to roll 2D6 and multiply the result by 4, giving the same min, max, and med as my version, but more grouped towards the middle. I don't know if the math would be easier or harder (I think addition is easier than multiplying some number by 4, but that's just me).

 

I haven't had to do any significant math in years, so my math-fu is a little weak, but my best guess is that the more dice you roll, the more likely you are to have an average roll.

 

IE, you have a 1 in 36 chance of rolling snake eyes (two dice, two ones), and a 1 in 1296 chance of rolling 4 ones, or a 1 in 1,679,616 chance of rolling 8 ones.

 

Again, it's been a while since I've had to do any significant math, so I might be completely wrong on this. But from what I remember of high school math regarding probability, the more times you flip a coin the closer you get to the 1:1 ratio - eg, more rolls dilutes the effects of lucky streaks.

 

[edit: some wording changes in the last paragraph to hopefully eliminate any confusion.]

[Melissia]

Honestly... I find it rather odd that you say "We're just fixing DH, not adding to them", because I think that to fix DH you NEED to add to them, give them more options, give them mroe to make them worth their cost.

[Born of Iron]

well I think the limitinng the jump infantry weapons to 18 inches isnt fair due to expensive point cost already, besides what the reason given for this? They still have the same old gun and their just fly at the speed of sound. I think instead of bikes we should due land speeders, mayber with some special weapons like psycannons. The reason I say that is because land speeders can withdraw easier, cant remember but dont they enter orbitally and exit? Bikes seem that they would require more trouble removing on the battle field,since grey knight like to do lightining strikes to kill the baddies leader. Well thats my two cents.

[Grand Master Tyrak]

Again, it's been a while since I've had to do any significant math, so I might be completely wrong on this. But from what I remember of high school math regarding probability, the more times you flip a coin the closer you get to the the statistical probability of 50/50.

 

Nope. You've always got a 50/50 chance when you flip a coin, no matter how many times you have flipped it before.

 

Unless of course you can see how many times the coin spins when flipped. If the person always does it the same way, you can work out what the result will be. Very useful for getting free drinks after guessing correctly 50 times in a row. :lol:

[Twin .44]

Unless of course you can see how many times the coin spins when flipped. If the person always does it the same way, you can work out what the result will be. Very useful for getting free drinks after guessing correctly 50 times in a row.

You're my hero.

 

anyway, I agree with melissia. GK are rather expensive for their cost as it is. The double points for a Justicar for an additional attack and a power NFW are rather astronomical. A GK terminator costs less... My main issue with the codex is the massive points cost for this stuff, otherwise I'm fine with it.

 

Now if NFW were all power weapons in a regular GK squad but got rid of true grit (but maybe an additinal attack per profile) I'd be willing to pay the normal points, although it may be quite a leap.

[FunkyEntropy]

Again, it's been a while since I've had to do any significant math, so I might be completely wrong on this. But from what I remember of high school math regarding probability, the more times you flip a coin the closer you get to the the statistical probability of 50/50.

 

Nope. You've always got a 50/50 chance when you flip a coin, no matter how many times you have flipped it before.

 

Sorry for confusion. What I meant was that the more flips you have the more likely you are to have a 1:1 ratio of heads to tails by diluting the effects of lucky streaks.

 

[edit: not sure how I'm running into the gambler's fallacy (Darn you Melissia for making me look it up!). I'm not saying that additional rolls will be more likely to nix a (un)lucky streak, but that the more dice you roll in sum, the less likely you'll have a particularly spectacular roll. Being nearly 10 years separated from my last math class certainly isn't helping my trying to explain it.]

[Melissia]

Again, that's just appearance, not actuality.

 

It's called the Gambler's Fallacy.

[FunkyEntropy]

Getting back on topic, I like a lot of the changes Aidoneus has on the first page.

 

What I'd like to see is some incentives for players to use some of the frequently overlooked wargear options.

 

For example, psycannon bolts. Not a lot of players take this option, prefering to arm their ICs with psycannons. Perhaps if we had a slight points reduction? Perhaps knock it down to 7~8 points? I feel like if it was 5 it would be a no-brainer to slap it onto every justicar, and 10 is often too expensive. A 7~8 point price means you're still wondering if it's worth it, but it's now a more attractive option.

 

[edit: Just throwing this out there: what if we gave the option for models taking psycannon bolts to upgrade their ranged weapon to a stormbolter for free or at a significant discount? This to make it an attractive option to ISTs (who often avoid the leader upgrade), and cheap Inquisitor setups. Hopefully this will make it more competitive with combi-weapons.]

 

Same deal with the Holy Relic. Nobody takes it. Nobody. What if we dropped the price down to 15~20 points?

[Grand Master Tyrak]

Same deal with the Holy Relic. Nobody takes it. Nobody. What if we dropped the price down to 15~20 points?

 

<_< My GM takes it as standard. It's very useful for withstanding a particularly hard charge, especially back in 4th ed when the GM could get up to 6 attacks.

[FunkyEntropy]

Go figure :lol: . Do a targeted search in the army lists subsection - come up with nothing.

 

Make a post saying how nobody uses it - immediately get a reply from someone who uses it.

 

Exception that proves the rule, maybe?

[Grand Master Iapetus]

After reading all of the deep striking back & forth, I had another idea. I think heroic intervetion is the solution, but many have said it is too powerful. I don't know that rolling an extra scatter really gets us all that much considering in the fluff deep striking is our preferred mode of transportation.

 

What about something in the middle: All GKs that enter play via deep strike do not scatter. They still can't shoot / assault in the same turn they arrive, they do get the standard option of shooting or running, but they are greatly enhanced.

[FunkyEntropy]

To add even more versatility, why not give GKs the option to assault the same turn they deep strike, provided they give up their shooting?

 

So a GK squad that teleports in can shoot or run or assault.

 

I'm not completely comfortable with having deepstriking GK having pinpoint accuracy (especially if they can assault), but what if we significantly reduced the amount by which they deviated?

[Aidoneus]

For Deep Strike, I have made the following changes:

 

1) gave it to every GK squad in the 'dex

2) gave termies a re-roll

3) neglected to up the price of tele homers to the new standard, to keep them attractive

4) gave us bikes, assault marines, and drop pods that can all get homers into good locations

5) gave us Teleport Assault

 

Seriously guys, that's enough. It's covered. Let's move on.

 

 

Special Weapons Costs: Tyrak has suggested 10pt incinerators and 15pt psycannons for our PAGK squads. This actually has a certain appeal to me. The incinerator gets taken quite often as it is, and works well with our CC abilities, so doesn't need any reduction. The psycannon, however, forces us to stay back at range to be really useful. I think this would make both options more attractive. And for Purgation squads, I honestly wouldn't mind letting them have the cheap psycannon, just to make the unit choice more attractive (alternatively, we could charge them 20pts) The one thing I worry about is that this would be quite a large points reduction for the psycannon. Overall, I'm definitely keeping the incinerator where it is. What do people think of the psycannon? 15pts or 20pts?

 

Melissa: I'm not sure if you've read through all my changes. I actually have given them a lot of new stuff, just not flashy stuff. For example, all PAGK units now have frag grenades, defensive grenades, and teleport, plus Shrouding and Rites of Exorcism have been improved. Basically, what I meant by minimalism is that I'm keeping the structure the same, the playstyle roughly the same, and trying not to significantly alter the units or options available to us. But obviously we do need changes like the ones I mentioned to make our units worth their cost.

 

Born of Iron: The idea with limiting jump infantry's shooting distance was that we want them to be slightly more assault-oriented, so I wanted to force them in closer, while still giving them the range to kite against most foes. The in-game explanation would be something like the speed and angle of their movements makes it harder to aim, so their effective range is decreased somewhat. Of course, I'm not completely tied to that range, so if you have a convincing reason why, from a rules perspective, we should let them keep their 24" range, I'd certainly be willing to change it back.

 

As for land speeders, I'm not particularly keen on the idea. The Grey Knights really don't seem to use many vehicles. They don't use transports, including drop pods, they don't have predators or whirlwinds... pretty much all they have is the land raider (I think mostly because GW wanted to throw them a bone, honestly) and the dreadnough, which is a sort of Grey Knight Plus. Besides, I'm pretty sure Land Speeders are just skimmers; they can't get up any higher than a few meters, much less into orbit (hence, land speeder :) ).

 

Twin .44: Points cost for the Justicar, huh? Interesting. I can definitely see the argument about him being more expensive than a GKT, who seems to be significantly better (1 fewer attack when not charging, and no armoury access, being the only downsides). I think GW went a little multiple-of-25 crazy when writing the PAGK entry. Of course, the flip side of this argument is that to look at the Space Marine equivalent, the Sergeant. A Sergeant costs 15pts more than a regular spacie, and then pays an additional 15pts for a power weapon (same with Chaos, by the way). That's 30pts more than a regular member of his squad. In our case, we get the exact same benefits, for only 25pts, and that's on a WS5, S6 model to boot. So I can see both sides of the argument here. What do other people think?

 

Funky Entropy: I agree, encouraging infrequently-used wargear is a good idea. I've started by making storm shields and digital weapons better, and tele homers got better indirectly because of all our teleporting now. That's a start. I'm going to go look through our armoury and jot down some ideas. I'll post again in a little while.

 

 

Thanks for all the help guys. Still coming along nicely. Keep those ideas flowing!