You can take your armor -or- your invuln -or- your cover save
Then any wound negate stuff, like Feel No Pain
And then any other shenanigans the work outside the normal system.
It’s one reason I like the idea of changing the TDA invuln to a FNP save. Or just give them FNP straight up on top of their invuln. Layered saves is pretty much the only way to stay alive out there.
Oh. I watched a few battle reports before I started playing where they took armor saves and then invulns. I play that way. Makes them far better.
Martel732 wrote: "All Land Raider variants are 190 points base. "
It's still sketchy at that price, but I'll take it.
190 points base and come stock with the Land raider spearhead rules.
"ignore all damage results but explodes and weapon destroyed"
+
Have the move through cover rule and on a 4+ count a penetrating hit as a glancing hit.
Now you have a tank that can at least deal with a few melta guns - if you have 5 meltas it's still toast. Ignores the grav cannon immobilized results and can drive right through cover not giving a gak about hurting it's massive treds with a pebble.
Martel732 wrote: I don't know. I think terminators are more elite than sternguard.
And it is this type of thinking that has people in here suggesting to fix Terminators by upping their defense a ridiculous amount because they "think" that's how it should be.
Leave things to the roles they were meant to have. Special Ammo is a Sternguard thing; if you give Special Ammo to Terminators you'd need to figure out a way to differentiate Sternguard even more.
Not really. Sternguard will still have much more firepower than Terminators thanks to their combi bolters and heavy weapons. And they'll be cheaper, won't be able to teleport and won't be as hard in close combat. There's enough differences there. Tactical Marines and Scout Marines both have bolt guns, but they're very different from each other in their tactical applications.
And I still think that Terminators should have their Toughness and Wounds increased. I'm just not so sure to what level.
Not by a lot if we are keeping everything at the same price. 8 Sternguard is 176 and 5 Terminators is 175. At 18-24", Terminators have 2 more shots and at 12 and below they only have 6 more shots on top of Terminators being more durable than Sternguard for the price. And even though Sternguard aren't durable, they always made up for it with firepower and customization. Special Ammo is THEIR thing and Deathwatch's thing. Let them have it.
Another pendulum push back to "no, they will never be viable". At least, on a D6 system. They only soak 83% of incoming fire while being T4 1W and can't affect anything at range. It's the killer combo that no one seems to be able to overcome.
Martel732 wrote: Another pendulum push back to "no, they will never be viable". At least, on a D6 system. They only soak 83% of incoming fire while being T4 1W and can't affect anything at range. It's the killer combo that no one seems to be able to overcome.
Terminators are meant to be tough, but so are marines in general. Marines are already meant to be hard as nails on the tabletop, and terminators are just another step up from that. Its just unfortunate that the game has had a run-away on offense and increases in gamesize.
Changing their stats or giving them goodies just continues that run-away and it shafts other players in the process (if termies get two wounds, what do meganobs get?)
The reasonable solution is to have points cost for things not be fixed in stone once a codex is released. If gw put up a page where they could reduce or increase a units points cost when it gets unreasonable, just about everything would see play.
Martel732 wrote: Marines might as well be grots vs Tau and Eldar.
Grots might as well be paladins against a space marine vindicator.
so what? there's nothing wrong with a game having units that obliterate anything they touch. The solution is to adjust the points until the opportunity cost of taking that unit outweighs the benefit of being able to delete whatever you want. Not to further skew the game by bulking up one thing at the expense of everything else.
The vindicator isn't seen very often because for its points, what it does isn't super fantastic. If they were 27 points I promise you'd see them in every space marine list ever.
Terminator rules are fine; just like most other rules. Their points cost is out of whack.
The rules should be adjusted when they no longer work; not when things are no longer balanced well. That's why points and costs exist.
Martel732 wrote: "All Land Raider variants are 190 points base. "
It's still sketchy at that price, but I'll take it.
190 points base and come stock with the Land raider spearhead rules.
"ignore all damage results but explodes and weapon destroyed"
+
Have the move through cover rule and on a 4+ count a penetrating hit as a glancing hit.
Now you have a tank that can at least deal with a few melta guns - if you have 5 meltas it's still toast. Ignores the grav cannon immobilized results and can drive right through cover not giving a gak about hurting it's massive treds with a pebble.
Martel732 wrote:Okay, that's fine. The amount of patching that took was frickin ridiculous, though.
The quick and dirty fix to the LR is just to make it a super heavy. Don’t need to change anything but it’s type. Still not perfect, but solves a bunch of it’s problems. It does cause a few new issues, but frankly when has GW fixed something without breaking a few other things in the process?
You can make it immune to terrain for starters. Otherwise, the single assault you are trying to squeeze out of the thing just isn't worth it. TWC do it 5X better than terminators in LRs.
The problem here is that people can't agree on how they should be used.
It has *nothing* to do with the dice system involved.
If we cannot agree on what their purpose should be, we can't effectively balance them. I've already stated my opinion on the matter but I feel that terminators make sense as tanky units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: You can make it immune to terrain for starters. Otherwise, the single assault you are trying to squeeze out of the thing just isn't worth it. TWC do it 5X better than terminators in LRs.
Aside from movement what is the primary difference between TWC and Terminators in melee combat? Why are TWC good?
S5, T5 2W, can take stormshields and powerfists as options. They become true S10 with a powerfist which lets them double out OTHER T5 units. Huge. Absolutely huge. The power fists on terminators are toys in comparison.
"It has *nothing* to do with the dice system involved. "
I disagree. There is mathematical niche to put them in even if we agree on a role. Those niches are taken by TWC and grav centurions.
It can't be durable enough on a 2+ save vs weapons that are high ROF wounding on 2's. The only layered save available can also be negated by S8.
They can't be shooty enough because their canonical weapon is a dumpster fire.
They can't punch enough because the game has moved past S8 AP2 at init 1.
People usually give me the "But Centurions..." argument when I say "give them an additional wound" so I guess that goes out the window. (Centurions were a bad idea for this very reason but that's another thread)
So beyond that? I'd say make Storm Bolters Assault 4 and or AP 4. Upgrading the assault cannon is kind of hard considering it would apply to far more models. Deathwing getting TL on the turn they deepstrike makes them much better but even then...
Honestly, I think it's best to just wait and see what they do with 8th. Maybe they'll bring back the old 2nd edition Terminator armor. 3+ on 2d6. (not really)
They do need to be more survivable though. That's really just the long and the short of it.
Lusall wrote: People usually give me the "But Centurions..." argument when I say "give them an additional wound" so I guess that goes out the window. (Centurions were a bad idea for this very reason but that's another thread)
So beyond that? I'd say make Storm Bolters Assault 4 and or AP 4. Upgrading the assault cannon is kind of hard considering it would apply to far more models. Deathwing getting TL on the turn they deepstrike makes them much better but even then...
Honestly, I think it's best to just wait and see what they do with 8th. Maybe they'll bring back the old 2nd edition Terminator armor. 3+ on 2d6. (not really)
They do need to be more survivable though. That's really just the long and the short of it.
You give them more defense without more offense, I'l just ignore them more.
Lusall wrote: People usually give me the "But Centurions..." argument when I say "give them an additional wound" so I guess that goes out the window. (Centurions were a bad idea for this very reason but that's another thread)
So beyond that? I'd say make Storm Bolters Assault 4 and or AP 4. Upgrading the assault cannon is kind of hard considering it would apply to far more models. Deathwing getting TL on the turn they deepstrike makes them much better but even then...
Honestly, I think it's best to just wait and see what they do with 8th. Maybe they'll bring back the old 2nd edition Terminator armor. 3+ on 2d6. (not really)
They do need to be more survivable though. That's really just the long and the short of it.
You give them more defense without more offense, I'l just ignore them more.
Hence the idea I threw out about buffing storm bolters. Just to start. I've honestly never understood why terminators couldn't take Las Canons myself. Of course now the answer is "But centurions..."
Martel732 wrote: "It has *nothing* to do with the dice system involved. "
I disagree. There is mathematical niche to put them in even if we agree on a role. Those niches are taken by TWC and grav centurions.
Not really, TWC can be faster, punchier and more expensive while Terminators can be cheaper and on a per-point basis harder to kill. Grav Cents can be shootier, less mobile and harder to transport (though honestly I think Cents can just feth off completely, Terminators should fill the role that Cents fill.... but if you want to make a distinction between them you can).
Terminators don't really suffer from the D6 system, they suffer from poor rules design and offensive power creep. You could just as easily make them suck in a D10 system.
After reading all the debate, my vote would be +1w, fnp, special issue ammo and 2 heavies per 5 whilst reducing the cost of The heavy weapons.
The special issue ammo and 2 heavies fixes the damage output issue.
1 extra wound is in the vast majority of circumstances more durable than +1T, yet the termies can still be ID'd by anti-tank weapons. The fnp and extra wound will help tremendously against small arms too and gives a layered save without giving precedent to an invuln being a layered save.
Against plasma for instance a termi will have a 5++ followed by a 5+++ on 2 wounds making them more durable but not immune, against most small arms they will get 2+ followed by a 5+++ on 2 wounds making them around 3 times more durable. Whilst against say a lascannon they still only get that 5++ and will be ID'd so that the anti-tank weapons will still do a job against them.
Also keeping the toughness at 4 prevents any Nurgle silliness taking them to T6.
Of course Deathguard termis will need a 4+++ to compensate since they get 5+++ anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In fact doing the maths, fnp and +1w makes them exactly 3 times more durable against anything less than st8. Even against plasma. So anything not anti-tank will require 3 times more shots/hits. Whilst they remain as (un)durable against anything above st8.
I also like the idea mentioned about the 190pt Land Raiders.
Poly Ranger wrote: After reading all the debate, my vote would be +1w, fnp, special issue ammo and 2 heavies per 5 whilst reducing the cost of The heavy weapons.
The special issue ammo and 2 heavies fixes the damage output issue.
1 extra wound is in the vast majority of circumstances more durable than +1T, yet the termies can still be ID'd by anti-tank weapons. The fnp and extra wound will help tremendously against small arms too and gives a layered save without giving precedent to an invuln being a layered save.
Against plasma for instance a termi will have a 5++ followed by a 5+++ on 2 wounds making them more durable but not immune, against most small arms they will get 2+ followed by a 5+++ on 2 wounds making them around 3 times more durable. Whilst against say a lascannon they still only get that 5++ and will be ID'd so that the anti-tank weapons will still do a job against them.
Also keeping the toughness at 4 prevents any Nurgle silliness taking them to T6.
Of course Deathguard termis will need a 4+++ to compensate since they get 5+++ anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In fact doing the maths, fnp and +1w makes them exactly 3 times more durable against anything less than st8. Even against plasma. So anything not anti-tank will require 3 times more shots/hits. Whilst they remain as (un)durable against anything above st8.
I also like the idea mentioned about the 190pt Land Raiders.
Martel732 wrote: "All Land Raider variants are 190 points base. "
It's still sketchy at that price, but I'll take it.
190 points base and come stock with the Land raider spearhead rules.
"ignore all damage results but explodes and weapon destroyed"
+
Have the move through cover rule and on a 4+ count a penetrating hit as a glancing hit.
Now you have a tank that can at least deal with a few melta guns - if you have 5 meltas it's still toast. Ignores the grav cannon immobilized results and can drive right through cover not giving a gak about hurting it's massive treds with a pebble.
Martel732 wrote:Okay, that's fine. The amount of patching that took was frickin ridiculous, though.
The quick and dirty fix to the LR is just to make it a super heavy. Don’t need to change anything but it’s type. Still not perfect, but solves a bunch of it’s problems. It does cause a few new issues, but frankly when has GW fixed something without breaking a few other things in the process?
I've suggested a superheavy rule for a LR - it seems to create more problems than it solves. Mainly super-heavies kill everything inside when they die basically.
this is a systemic problem with vehicle sin general needing fixing and is not limited to Landraiders
for cheap transports vehicle rules make sense carry 10 models av11 3 hp and 35 points for a single storm bolter ... great. add a few AV and weapons suddenly that vehicle spikes in points costs.
but if you wanted to just bandage the land raider reinforced treads and reinforced hull special rules. reinforced tread ignore dangerous terrain tests, reinforced hull ignore explode and immobilize results instead lose an extra hull point
Poly Ranger wrote: After reading all the debate, my vote would be +1w, fnp, special issue ammo and 2 heavies per 5 whilst reducing the cost of The heavy weapons.
We really need to theorycraft these changes to see if they work.
TLDR : Terminators lose 1x Power Sword Sgt, Wraiths wiped out in 3 turns despite getting the charge.
Meanwhile, how are Terminators going to perform against CC units that don't define the meta, like Incubi or Bullgryns? Or hey, even Eldar... why would you ever take a CC unit other than a Wraithknight, who cancels out the Terminator 2W/FNP and isn't vulnerable to Poison? Doesn't 2W/FNP encourage an even greater reliance on D-Weapons and "remove from play" effecfs like Stomp?
Martel732 wrote: S5, T5 2W, can take stormshields and powerfists as options. They become true S10 with a powerfist which lets them double out OTHER T5 units. Huge. Absolutely huge. The power fists on terminators are toys in comparison.
"It has *nothing* to do with the dice system involved. "
I disagree. There is mathematical niche to put them in even if we agree on a role. Those niches are taken by TWC and grav centurions.
It can't be durable enough on a 2+ save vs weapons that are high ROF wounding on 2's. The only layered save available can also be negated by S8.
They can't be shooty enough because their canonical weapon is a dumpster fire.
They can't punch enough because the game has moved past S8 AP2 at init 1.
Well we're moving in the right direction. You and I agree that 5T, 2W is a good addition. I do like the 5STR as well. To me they should also get something in terms of ranged. Either (a) remove their relentless platform so they can sweep or (b) give them enhanced firepower - my personal preference would be rending on their storm bolter profile (terminator storm bolter).
In regards to the mathematical point - illustrate to me what you'd like, from a probability standpoint, and we can make it happen, or something close to it, with 6 sided dice.
The reason I proposed lowering their save to 3+, is that it would change their role considerably. Immediately they become way more survivable against grav, but at the same time, they have *no reduction in survivability against AP2*. There's not a whole lot of long-ranged, mass-firing AP3.
Lastly, I would also suggest that terminators strike at initiative 2 with unwieldy weapons. As it stands right now, terminators with thunder hammers and storm shields versus veterans with power fists and storm shields is a total wash, yet the cost for the terminators is considerably higher. And both have a 3++, except the vets can also take jump packs for a more reliable charge. Yeah you lose the ability to ride in a land raider but does anyone realistically care.
Martel732 wrote: So, like foot TWC? That's a lot of changes, but that might be necessary. It's very messy.
My personal preference is:
1. Deep strike should be preserved. It's iconic and a very useful ability, very unique to terminator armour. That means we can't sweep - fine - but we need something to make up for that.
2. Enhanced survivability. I think we're on the same page here, mostly. If I had total control their stat line would be: WS5 BS4 S5 T5 I4 W2 3+/4++
3. Better melee. Up their initiative to 2 with unwieldy weapons. This (i think) would be totally unique to units in terminator armour. They'd be the kings of high str weaponry.
4. Slightly better ranged. Storm bolters wielded by terminators get the rending special rule.
My idea of terminators is deep strike in, tank some shots, and do damage in melee before they die. They still fall quickly to high initiative swarms of attacks, they're vulnerable to the instant death special rule. but they don't get blasted off the board before they do anything.
Important note: you should never see turn 1 charges with terminators via formation with my proposed changes. So for instance, that BA drop pod terminator assault should not happen. They're way too strong with these changes for a guaranteed charge coming from deep strike.
Poly Ranger wrote: After reading all the debate, my vote would be +1w, fnp, special issue ammo and 2 heavies per 5 whilst reducing the cost of The heavy weapons.
We really need to theorycraft these changes to see if they work.
TLDR : Terminators lose 1x Power Sword Sgt, Wraiths wiped out in 3 turns despite getting the charge.
Meanwhile, how are Terminators going to perform against CC units that don't define the meta, like Incubi or Bullgryns? Or hey, even Eldar... why would you ever take a CC unit other than a Wraithknight, who cancels out the Terminator 2W/FNP and isn't vulnerable to Poison? Doesn't 2W/FNP encourage an even greater reliance on D-Weapons and "remove from play" effecfs like Stomp?
But you are entirely looking at this in a vacume of two units, no offence. Wraiths still get a 3++ against anything ap2 or better that termis don't (even ignoring potential RP), they also can't be ID'd by st8 or 9. So in the wider picture that is a major weakness that terims will still suffer with this buff that Wraiths won't suffer from.
Then take into account the speed of each unit. In most circumstances, the Necron player will just deny the unfavourable combat. With the speed of Wraiths and the lack of speed of termis, why would it be any other way the majority of the time? If a player who has termis can catch Wraiths in combat then fair play - they should be able to give a fair show against them!
Wraiths aren't a unit with ap2 anyway, they rely on their rending, so why should they decimate termis like they currently do? Especially since they get so much more for their points in comparison.
Poly Ranger wrote: After reading all the debate, my vote would be +1w, fnp, special issue ammo and 2 heavies per 5 whilst reducing the cost of The heavy weapons.
The special issue ammo and 2 heavies fixes the damage output issue.
1 extra wound is in the vast majority of circumstances more durable than +1T, yet the termies can still be ID'd by anti-tank weapons. The fnp and extra wound will help tremendously against small arms too and gives a layered save without giving precedent to an invuln being a layered save.
Against plasma for instance a termi will have a 5++ followed by a 5+++ on 2 wounds making them more durable but not immune, against most small arms they will get 2+ followed by a 5+++ on 2 wounds making them around 3 times more durable. Whilst against say a lascannon they still only get that 5++ and will be ID'd so that the anti-tank weapons will still do a job against them.
Also keeping the toughness at 4 prevents any Nurgle silliness taking them to T6.
Of course Deathguard termis will need a 4+++ to compensate since they get 5+++ anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In fact doing the maths, fnp and +1w makes them exactly 3 times more durable against anything less than st8. Even against plasma. So anything not anti-tank will require 3 times more shots/hits. Whilst they remain as (un)durable against anything above st8.
I also like the idea mentioned about the 190pt Land Raiders.
I like all of this.
They'll still get two 5+ saves against gav right?
Thanks. Yeh that would be a 5++ then a 5+++ against grav
The entire above argument does nothing to fix terminators, it just adds them to the list of gak thats broken.
Leave them as is, drop their points, and give some love to special rules that allow you to change the way the behave (tyberos, first company etc) similar to what DA got.
Their rules are fine, their cost isnt. When I mishap with assault termies its devasting, not because if hav eto footslog, but rather such a huge chunk of points is not out of the game. Make it so that loosing them to a stomp isnt as painful to your army, and they work as intended.
Poly Ranger wrote: After reading all the debate, my vote would be +1w, fnp, special issue ammo and 2 heavies per 5 whilst reducing the cost of The heavy weapons.
The special issue ammo and 2 heavies fixes the damage output issue.
1 extra wound is in the vast majority of circumstances more durable than +1T, yet the termies can still be ID'd by anti-tank weapons. The fnp and extra wound will help tremendously against small arms too and gives a layered save without giving precedent to an invuln being a layered save.
Against plasma for instance a termi will have a 5++ followed by a 5+++ on 2 wounds making them more durable but not immune, against most small arms they will get 2+ followed by a 5+++ on 2 wounds making them around 3 times more durable. Whilst against say a lascannon they still only get that 5++ and will be ID'd so that the anti-tank weapons will still do a job against them.
Also keeping the toughness at 4 prevents any Nurgle silliness taking them to T6.
Of course Deathguard termis will need a 4+++ to compensate since they get 5+++ anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In fact doing the maths, fnp and +1w makes them exactly 3 times more durable against anything less than st8. Even against plasma. So anything not anti-tank will require 3 times more shots/hits. Whilst they remain as (un)durable against anything above st8.
I also like the idea mentioned about the 190pt Land Raiders.
Rarely do I think proposed rules are any good, but your +1 W and FnP breakdown is well thought out. Nicely done.
I don't agree on the special ammunition, I like that Sternguard have their special something. I think going for Rending or an extra shot/s would be better for Terminators. Aesthetically I feel that MOAR BULLETS is more appropriate for them than doing anything fancy. Sternguard the scalpel, Terminators the hammer, in my opinion.
Interesting -- Melta now becomes a better anti-Terminator weapon. Meanwhile the rest of a 10-man Tac Squad can currently bolter down a Terminator, amended defense might take one down over 3 turns. They certainly won't be firing that long! Can we no longer tone down Grav Cannons because it's the only weapon that Tac Squads stand a chance with?
So, you will have a ton of cascading effects if Teminators become one of the strongest units, in the most popular faction in the game. I'm not looking at this in a vacuum. You need to address every. single. faction. to ask how each will counter Terminators, that are suddenly 3x tougher against everything except S8+.
Wraiths are only one example. But good question -- what should and should not counter Terminators? That's thinking from a design perspective, instead of just throwing out ideas and seeing what sticks.
This is perhaps the most fascinating problem in the whole game. Terminators are iconic, but the loyalist versions have never had sufficient crunch to back up their fluff. The CSM versions haven't in a long time, although they find life as suicide troops. Also not very fluffy.
The range of opinions about what they should be able to do and what needs to be done to get them there is incredibly diverse.
Martel732 wrote: This is perhaps the most fascinating problem in the whole game. Terminators are iconic, but the loyalist versions have never had sufficient crunch to back up their fluff. The CSM versions haven't in a long time, although they find life as suicide troops. Also not very fluffy.
The range of opinions about what they should be able to do and what needs to be done to get them there is incredibly diverse.
That's usually why you write a design document whenever you have a collaborative project. Otherwise people tend to go in their own directions!
My greyknight terms do quite well when I take them. Why? Because they get to fill the troop function in the army - yeah - they are expensive but they are also the lowest unit on the totem-poll of threats. Dreadknights/imperialknights are what has my opponents attention. On top of all this - mobility is not a concern because each term unit will have a libby which can give them mobility if needed. PE Daemons is just icing.
With loyalist terms - you still have a troop tax - which means you still need to fill your troops and pay for terms and less scary things because you don't have any points left.
Let people take terms as troops and they will be fielded over tacticals (outside of a gladius). Even for it's points I would much prefer 5 terms to 10 tactical marines. I make this decision without even thinking about it in the greykngiht codex. In comparison strike squad marines are better point per point than a tactical marine as well.
Even when you consider this - all it does is highlight the fact that tactical marines are in even worse shape than terminators. Both units need buffs for them to be viable. Then we can talk about removing formations that give marines free points just so they can hang with actually good units. I just laugh inside when I hear people complaining about marines being super OP - they need a points handicap just to compete and still lose half the time.
Imagine if eldar had a formation that gave them 55 point discounts on their wave serpents/Falcons for taking min dire avenger squads. How do you think gladius would stack up against that?
Back to terminators - you want to fix them - you need to fix the tactical marine first. Making them fill the troop function is not the right idea.
Tac marine
Relentless (base)
Bolter (shred standard*heavy bolter too*)
power armor 6++ save and 5+ FNP Vet Sargents get +1 WS and BS and +1 attack and an additional +1 attack in a challange (this should be a standard rule for all spacemarine characters) in a challange
+chapter tactics
16 points. (same stats for chaos marines too)
terminators
vet sargent line
Terminator armor +1S+1T 2+ 5++/4+FNP Storm bolters 2/3 salvo + shred (can trade for thunder hammer)
Standard power weapon of your choice - can upgrade to a powerfist or a storm sheild for +5 points
2 heavies per 5
38 points
Points I could be wrong on - both options might need to cost more but I believe this is the power level they should have in order to be considered good units. (This is actually pretty light IMO when you have 81 point scatter bike units running around).
Wraiths are only one example. But good question -- what should and should not counter Terminators?
So, as a guy who got into this thing in 2nd Ed, I always look at three "core" factions for balance against Space Marines: Eldar, Guard and Tyranids. Each of them is sufficiently different than SM, and most other races fall somewhere between them in terms of capability and "strategic poise".
Eldar don't seem to have any problem with the +1W and FnP Terminators. Fire Dragons bring the Melta, Wraithguard bring the D, and Shuriken weapons are (imo) a little too lethal against Terminators right now. Not surprisingly, I think Eldar can handle them fine.
Guard: Besides waves of guys, Guard are the army of Ordinance. Most Ordinance is S 8 and up, so the FnP and extra wound will be ignored by their cannons. Terminators getting caught in in the sights of a Demolisher cannon will still get blasted to pieces. If the 2+ isn't made vs. a Battlecannon (ie. the Terminator catches the shell in the chest), the marine is still turned to paste inside his armor. Seems appropriate to me.
Tyranids: Making Terminators more protected against the Swarms of little guys is great, but imo Genestealers ought to be a real threat to them. Admittedly I think that's a little more of Genestealer problem these days. Terminatos Vs. Tyranid MCs should strike a nuanced balance IMO. Both sides should be very lethal to each other. What's sad is that I don't know a Carnifex's Strength these days. Is it 8 or better? Or is it a sad 6? Poor Tyranids. Honestly I'd push through the change to Terminators and then work the Tyranids to balance correctly with some high S MCs, and the option for the old Toxin Sacs (is that right?) rules where they did two wounds to the victim instead of one.
Wraiths are only one example. But good question -- what should and should not counter Terminators?
So, as a guy who got into this thing in 2nd Ed, I always look at three "core" factions for balance against Space Marines: Eldar, Guard and Tyranids. Each of them is sufficiently different than SM, and most other races fall somewhere between them in terms of capability and "strategic poise".
Eldar don't seem to have any problem with the +1W and FnP Terminators. Fire Dragons bring the Melta, Wraithguard bring the D, and Shuriken weapons are (imo) a little too lethal against Terminators right now. Not surprisingly, I think Eldar can handle them fine.
Guard: Besides waves of guys, Guard are the army of Ordinance. Most Ordinance is S 8 and up, so the FnP and extra wound will be ignored by their cannons. Terminators getting caught in in the sights of a Demolisher cannon will still get blasted to pieces. If the 2+ isn't made vs. a Battlecannon (ie. the Terminator catches the shell in the chest), the marine is still turned to paste inside his armor. Seems appropriate to me.
Tyranids: Making Terminators more protected against the Swarms of little guys is great, but imo Genestealers ought to be a real threat to them. Admittedly I think that's a little more of Genestealer problem these days. Terminatos Vs. Tyranid MCs should strike a nuanced balance IMO. Both sides should be very lethal to each other. What's sad is that I don't know a Carnifex's Strength these days. Is it 8 or better? Or is it a sad 6? Poor Tyranids. Honestly I'd push through the change to Terminators and then work the Tyranids to balance correctly with some high S MCs, and the option for the old Toxin Sacs (is that right?) rules where they did two wounds to the victim instead of one.
Genstealers blow massively these days - they have to make rules to have them setup right next to you and be able to assault turn 1 to give them any play. Steelers used to wreck terms - like obliterate them.
" Steelers used to wreck terms - like obliterate them"
Which isn't fluffy either. I hated tyranids in 2nd. They still might be the most obnoxious thing GW has never made. The Hive Tyrant was always 1" behind the carnifex, they had strategy cards that would wipe half a list before the game, etc.
Martel732 wrote: " Steelers used to wreck terms - like obliterate them"
Which isn't fluffy either. I hated tyranids in 2nd. They still might be the most obnoxious thing GW has never made. The Hive Tyrant was always 1" behind the carnifex, they had strategy cards that would wipe half a list before the game, etc.
that was then... now the tyranids are in a bad place wishing they had something as good as tactical terminators in the elites slot
fluff just does not work on a table though. Eldar and space marines would have no more than 10 models on a table in large games while some armies like orks would nnot be abel to fit on the table as it would be full of models.
Martel732 wrote: " Steelers used to wreck terms - like obliterate them"
Which isn't fluffy either. I hated tyranids in 2nd. They still might be the most obnoxious thing GW has never made. The Hive Tyrant was always 1" behind the carnifex, they had strategy cards that would wipe half a list before the game, etc.
that was then... now the tyranids are in a bad place wishing they had something as good as tactical terminators in the elites slot
fluff just does not work on a table though. Eldar and space marines would have no more than 10 models on a table in large games while some armies like orks would nnot be abel to fit on the table as it would be full of models.
I don't think the fluff is that extreme. I just don't think it's appropriate for a genestealer to be able to do what they could in 2nd.
TLDR: Terminators win with approx 50-60% casualties. To actually win at points, the only option is successfully charging out of DS.
Carnifex would get removed by 2+ poison in 2 rounds of shooting. Special Issue Ammo is probably a little too much, especially given how Storm Bolters reach out to 24" better.
Martel732 wrote: " Steelers used to wreck terms - like obliterate them"
Which isn't fluffy either. I hated tyranids in 2nd. They still might be the most obnoxious thing GW has never made. The Hive Tyrant was always 1" behind the carnifex, they had strategy cards that would wipe half a list before the game, etc.
that was then... now the tyranids are in a bad place wishing they had something as good as tactical terminators in the elites slot
fluff just does not work on a table though. Eldar and space marines would have no more than 10 models on a table in large games while some armies like orks would nnot be abel to fit on the table as it would be full of models.
I don't think the fluff is that extreme. I just don't think it's appropriate for a genestealer to be able to do what they could in 2nd.
aye, it was meant as a bit of hyperbole but the point would stand that a base marine would cost much more than 14 points and a ork boy just a few. I usually choose fluffwise to think of it as a model representing so many of a squad. perhaps a ork boy is 4 orks working together, or a gaunt being 3-4 gaunts and a space marine squad might not be 5 men, but 2 and the heavy weapon guy means the weapon itself was damaged... why else would nobody else know how to pick it up and fire it.
I still think of all this CSM and SM of the imperioum need squads to be min 3 not 5, 1 heavy weapon per 3, and troops then be done with it
The quick and dirty fix to the LR is just to make it a super heavy. Don’t need to change anything but it’s type. Still not perfect, but solves a bunch of it’s problems. It does cause a few new issues, but frankly when has GW fixed something without breaking a few other things in the process?
I've suggested a superheavy rule for a LR - it seems to create more problems than it solves. Mainly super-heavies kill everything inside when they die basically.
My slightly less quick and dirty suggestion is to make LRs superheavies, but without the giant boom at the end, just wrecked/blow up like a normal tank. That way you get to shoot your guns at whoever you want, ignore terrain, and fight at full until the last HP is gone. Which is the bulk of the LR’s problems, and might actually make them worth the points.
Poly Ranger wrote: After reading all the debate, my vote would be +1w, fnp, special issue ammo and 2 heavies per 5 whilst reducing the cost of The heavy weapons.
The special issue ammo and 2 heavies fixes the damage output issue.
1 extra wound is in the vast majority of circumstances more durable than +1T, yet the termies can still be ID'd by anti-tank weapons. The fnp and extra wound will help tremendously against small arms too and gives a layered save without giving precedent to an invuln being a layered save.
Against plasma for instance a termi will have a 5++ followed by a 5+++ on 2 wounds making them more durable but not immune, against most small arms they will get 2+ followed by a 5+++ on 2 wounds making them around 3 times more durable. Whilst against say a lascannon they still only get that 5++ and will be ID'd so that the anti-tank weapons will still do a job against them.
Also keeping the toughness at 4 prevents any Nurgle silliness taking them to T6.
Of course Deathguard termis will need a 4+++ to compensate since they get 5+++ anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In fact doing the maths, fnp and +1w makes them exactly 3 times more durable against anything less than st8. Even against plasma. So anything not anti-tank will require 3 times more shots/hits. Whilst they remain as (un)durable against anything above st8.
I also like the idea mentioned about the 190pt Land Raiders.
Rarely do I think proposed rules are any good, but your +1 W and FnP breakdown is well thought out. Nicely done.
I don't agree on the special ammunition, I like that Sternguard have their special something. I think going for Rending or an extra shot/s would be better for Terminators. Aesthetically I feel that MOAR BULLETS is more appropriate for them than doing anything fancy. Sternguard the scalpel, Terminators the hammer, in my opinion.
Thank you. Yeh considering Yoyoyo's breakdowns I agree that special issue ammunition would be a step too far maybe. Do you agree with the 2 heavies per 5 though?
Interesting -- Melta now becomes a better anti-Terminator weapon. Meanwhile the rest of a 10-man Tac Squad can currently bolter down a Terminator, amended defense might take one down over 3 turns. They certainly won't be firing that long! Can we no longer tone down Grav Cannons because it's the only weapon that Tac Squads stand a chance with?
So, you will have a ton of cascading effects if Teminators become one of the strongest units, in the most popular faction in the game. I'm not looking at this in a vacuum. You need to address every. single. faction. to ask how each will counter Terminators, that are suddenly 3x tougher against everything except S8+.
Wraiths are only one example. But good question -- what should and should not counter Terminators? That's thinking from a design perspective, instead of just throwing out ideas and seeing what sticks.
I like the fact that melta would be an anti-termi weapon, as it literally burns a hole through tanks so should do the same through term is. As mentioned above, all factions have access to st8+ and that will be what deals with termis. They also become 3x more resistant to grav, so it won't encourage more grav against them over other weapons.
Being able to weather shots below st8 will be their shtick. They will have a role whilst still having obvious counters. Plasma and grav will still be an effective weapon against them as well, just not an auto delete. 4.5 plasma/grav wounds will kill 1 termi compared to 3. So 8.1 shots from a bs4 model will wipe one rather than 2.7 shots (which you've got to agree 2.7 shots from cheap rapid fire weapons or moderately priced HRoF weapons taking down a termi for it's points is insane). Plus terminator suits are designed to handle things like radiation and plasma leaks encountered on space hulks.
As mentioned above, they will still melt to things like demolisher cannons and are still as vulnerable to st8+ that doesn't ignore their armour too so will still get outright killed on that roll of 1.
They still suffer from another major weakness too and that is their mobility, which sucks still, this can't be taken into account with straight out mathammer fights. So I reckon with +1w and FnP, they will be pretty balanced.
Another idea. In addition to T5 2W and FNP (with a pretty substantial price increase for MoN terminators ) allow them to mix and match weapons the same way wolfstar do. Assault cannon and SS? If you want an 80+ point model sure. Missile launcher and lightening claws? Be my guest. I'm not suggesting termies get ALL these buffs, but 2 or 3 would make them what they are supposed to be. I mean never again do I want to see S5 storm bolters. That's more or less bringing back psy bolt for GK.
Genestealers still wreck terminators. when you're throwing 40+ dice at a squad of 5 terms the expected casualties is easily 5... Not sure where this Genestealers suck stuff is coming from.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dantes_Baals wrote: Another idea. In addition to T5 2W and FNP (with a pretty substantial price increase for MoN terminators ) allow them to mix and match weapons the same way wolfstar do. Assault cannon and SS? If you want an 80+ point model sure. Missile launcher and lightening claws? Be my guest. I'm not suggesting termies get ALL these buffs, but 2 or 3 would make them what they are supposed to be. I mean never again do I want to see S5 storm bolters. That's more or less bringing back psy bolt for GK.
S5 storm bolters on GK wouldn't help them be more viable.
Dantes_Baals wrote: Another idea. In addition to T5 2W and FNP (with a pretty substantial price increase for MoN terminators ) allow them to mix and match weapons the same way wolfstar do. Assault cannon and SS? If you want an 80+ point model sure. Missile launcher and lightening claws? Be my guest. I'm not suggesting termies get ALL these buffs, but 2 or 3 would make them what they are supposed to be. I mean never again do I want to see S5 storm bolters. That's more or less bringing back psy bolt for GK.
Dantes_Baals wrote: Another idea. In addition to T5 2W and FNP (with a pretty substantial price increase for MoN terminators ) allow them to mix and match weapons the same way wolfstar do. Assault cannon and SS? If you want an 80+ point model sure. Missile launcher and lightening claws? Be my guest. I'm not suggesting termies get ALL these buffs, but 2 or 3 would make them what they are supposed to be. I mean never again do I want to see S5 storm bolters. That's more or less bringing back psy bolt for GK.
So you want them to be Centurions.
I don't see why terminators need heavy firepower.
For those who feel terminators should be ranged damage per turn - why? Why pay the overhead for terminator armor on a ranged platform?
I agree with the above - they should be distinct from Centurions.
The quick and dirty fix to the LR is just to make it a super heavy. Don’t need to change anything but it’s type. Still not perfect, but solves a bunch of it’s problems. It does cause a few new issues, but frankly when has GW fixed something without breaking a few other things in the process?
I've suggested a superheavy rule for a LR - it seems to create more problems than it solves. Mainly super-heavies kill everything inside when they die basically.
My slightly less quick and dirty suggestion is to make LRs superheavies, but without the giant boom at the end, just wrecked/blow up like a normal tank. That way you get to shoot your guns at whoever you want, ignore terrain, and fight at full until the last HP is gone. Which is the bulk of the LR’s problems, and might actually make them worth the points.
I know for a fact that AV14 is tough to kill as a superheavy as I face Typhons on a regular basis. If they went to super heavies that didn't kill the dude's inside - they would be worth their points at 240 points.
Poly Ranger wrote: I like the fact that melta would be an anti-termi weapon, as it literally burns a hole through tanks so should do the same through term is. As mentioned above, all factions have access to st8+ and that will be what deals with termis.
It works well enough for Meganobz, the only problem is the variety of support that Imperium and Chaos have available. Aside from ICs and psychic powers, even just Mark of Nurgle will remove anything below S10 as an effective option.
Instant Death is just not a very good mechanic by itself, adding a wounding value might be an alternative.
Lack of granularity has been mentioned, a Bolter and Lasgun wound really shouldn't be equal. Plus maybe we could eliminate the saving throw in some circumstances, and just work off modifiers and effects. Layered saves do work but they've also created some unfortunate mechanics.
Anyway, just food for thought. 40k is held together with spit and duct tape at this point. A comprehensive fix will need to address some of the core mechanics.
Thank you. Yeh considering Yoyoyo's breakdowns I agree that special issue ammunition would be a step too far maybe. Do you agree with the 2 heavies per 5 though?
If Terminator heavy weapons (Mostly the Assault Cannon) weren't shared by other units then I would say no. I'd prefer the traditional 1 per 5 but with better stats on the weapons. However, since Land Speeders and Razorbacks can have Assault Cannons, it's less appropriate to buff them, and more appropriate to add more to the Terminator Squad.
That said, if Storm Bolters got buffed, then it's less of an issue since what we're really looking for is the squad to have better ranged damage output. Or you could give Terminators BS 5 and they'd be more effective with it/them too, without changing weapon stats that affect other units.
If we can't differentiate wounds, it favors quantity over quality -- you're just searching out 1's to force failed saves. Layered saves really exaggerate this effect.
Versus a 3++ Terminator :
150pts of Lascannons --> 4(2/3)(5/6)(1/3) = 0.74W
150pts of Lasguns --> 60(1/2)(1/3)(1/6) = 1.67W
So in this case, Lasguns are nearly twice as effective. All questions of durability aside, how 40k allocates damage is questionable.
And your point is? A T6 target with power armor equivalent isn't meant to be taken down by boltgun style weapons.
Also, your comparison is silly because it's attempting to take points cost in to consideration when those points buy you far more than merely a boltgun, in spite of the whiny complaints of many Marine players who like to pretend otherwise.
And your point is? A T6 target with power armor equivalent isn't meant to be taken down by boltgun style weapons.
Also, your comparison is silly because it's attempting to take points cost in to consideration when those points buy you far more than merely a boltgun, in spite of the whiny complaints of many Marine players who like to pretend otherwise.
Oh yes, those wonderful Krak Grenades and ATSKNF that are super bonkers!
Melissia wrote: Nor has he apparently had to play without Toughness 4, or without BS4, or without S4 or I4, or without a 3+ armor save, or Ld9, or chapter tactics....
I use Scions and pure Skitarii on a semi-regular basis. Your move.
420pts of Bolters : 30(2/3)(1/6)(1/3) = 1.11
420pts of Lasguns : 70(2/3)(1/6)(1/3) = 2.59W
In this case -- their ability to generate wounds is identical. Isn't it?
It's just one of those weird glitches that occurs because of how 40k calculates damage.
Except you aren't buying 420pts worth of Bolters and Lasguns, you are buying 420pts of Space Marine and Guardsmen. If you have 70 Guardsmen they are much harder to bring to bear against a single target because of the sheer amount of table space they take up.
You also picked the absolute worst case to compare Bolters to Lasguns because it's the only case where the strength and AP bonus of a Bolter is irrelevant.
Dantes_Baals wrote: Another idea. In addition to T5 2W and FNP (with a pretty substantial price increase for MoN terminators ) allow them to mix and match weapons the same way wolfstar do. Assault cannon and SS? If you want an 80+ point model sure. Missile launcher and lightening claws? Be my guest. I'm not suggesting termies get ALL these buffs, but 2 or 3 would make them what they are supposed to be. I mean never again do I want to see S5 storm bolters. That's more or less bringing back psy bolt for GK.
So you want them to be Centurions.
Not centurions. They serve completely different purposes. A centurions is a half-assed IoM battlesuits that provides a 2+ save and stat mods and allows for a regular marine wearing the armor to wield heavy weapons. If they get caught in combat they're role in the game is over. CC centurions have use, but only with certain CTs. They're supposed to tear down enemy fortifications and strong points instead of wielding heavy ranged weapons.
What I'm suggesting is merely expand wold guard options to all termies while making them much tougher (as they flippin should be). Keep their options limited to terminator weapons, but fold the CC and tac terminators into one profile. Let them mix and match upgrades to CC and/or ranged weapons. FNP for sure, and I would say 2 wounds. Leave T5 to the cents wearing layered armor. Instead perhaps give terminators WS/BS5 and or Rending storm bolters. I really think Terminators should have Centurions state, FNP and 2 heavy weapons per 5 with Rending stormbolters. That fits the fluff but game play wise centurions really stole terminator Thunder as far as toughness goes. Honestly I don't see why it can't be like that, either a HS mobile heavy weapons platform, or an Elites slot that focuses on taking down MC/GMC/Fortifications /Super heavies or a really tough, elite all rounder that deep strikes and doesn't take up as much space in transports.
Yoyoyo wrote: If we can't differentiate wounds, it favors quantity over quality -- you're just searching out 1's to force failed saves. Layered saves really exaggerate this effect.
If you had layered saves it'd reduce the effect of mass shooting vs low AP single shot weapons, because the lascannon would negate the first save and only have to deal with the 2nd save, the lasgun would require the Terminator to fail 2 saves.
But with the current rules the Lascannon is wasting points on S9 if all it's doing is shooting Terminators, you only need S6 to force a 2+ to wound roll so you're wasting 3 increments worth of strength. So it's not really a surprise the same amount of points of Lascannons are less effective against Terminators, it's an inefficient use of points.
That's partly what 40k is about, discovering the most efficient way of killing things. A Lascannon is better pointed at a high T or vehicular target while a Lasgun is better pointed at a Terminator.
Now if you made Terminators T5 and 2W, the Lascannon becomes much more effective because you've actually pushed Terminators in to the "tank-like" category.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But with the current rules the Lascannon is wasting points on S9 if all it's doing is shooting Terminators, you only need S6 to force a 2+ to wound roll so you're wasting 3 increments worth of strength.
This is exactly why you end up with S6 spam.
I mean, don't a lot of people see that as proof of a broken mechanic?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Now if you made Terminators T5 and 2W, the Lascannon becomes much more effective because you've actually pushed Terminators in to the "tank-like" category.
It actually becomes half as effective (or three times less effective with FNP).
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But with the current rules the Lascannon is wasting points on S9 if all it's doing is shooting Terminators, you only need S6 to force a 2+ to wound roll so you're wasting 3 increments worth of strength.
This is exactly why you end up with S6 spam.
I mean, don't a lot of people see that as proof of a broken mechanic?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Now if you made Terminators T5 and 2W, the Lascannon becomes much more effective because you've actually pushed Terminators in to the "tank-like" category.
It actually becomes half as effective (or three times less effective with FNP).
Actually I'd give Lascannon's a "multiple wounds" rule and feth off the "instant death" rule, so Lascannons would do something like D3 wounds in the rulebook of Skink.
That's more like it. I'd have a system were AP reduces the save instead of the current nonsense, but having that is rare enough to begin with. Then instead of instant death, powerful weapons just inflict multiple wounds.
Terminators should be about precision strikes to create local superiority of firepower (and melee power).
Keep the cost as is, but give them either...
(1) a precision deep strike: no scatter, or minimal scatter; arrive on the turn you choose on a 3+ or next turn on a 1-2.
(2) a heavily discounted Land Rover (any variant) as a dedicated transport. If you pick this option they can still potentially deep strike but don't get the benefits as above.
Melissia wrote: Nor has he apparently had to play without Toughness 4, or without BS4, or without S4 or I4, or without a 3+ armor save, or Ld9, or chapter tactics....
I use Scions and pure Skitarii on a semi-regular basis. Your move.
Both of which get armor saves against boltguns and have BS4.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...Oh yes, those wonderful Krak Grenades and ATSKNF that are super bonkers!
Spoken like someone who's never had to try and play a game without them.
I have. ATSKNF has never been weaker, since Xenos are killing units enmasse with no morale check.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Nor has he apparently had to play without Toughness 4, or without BS4, or without S4 or I4, or without a 3+ armor save, or Ld9, or chapter tactics....
None of those things really make marines good. If they did, BA would be good. Marines are propped up purely by gimmicks. Their firepower/pt is not good, and their durability/pt goes down substantially once you start giving them equipment.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But with the current rules the Lascannon is wasting points on S9 if all it's doing is shooting Terminators, you only need S6 to force a 2+ to wound roll so you're wasting 3 increments worth of strength.
This is exactly why you end up with S6 spam.
I mean, don't a lot of people see that as proof of a broken mechanic?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Now if you made Terminators T5 and 2W, the Lascannon becomes much more effective because you've actually pushed Terminators in to the "tank-like" category.
It actually becomes half as effective (or three times less effective with FNP).
Actually I'd give Lascannon's a "multiple wounds" rule and feth off the "instant death" rule, so Lascannons would do something like D3 wounds in the rulebook of Skink.
In my proposal, I gave lascannons a flat 2 wounds/hull points.
Dantes_Baals wrote: Another idea. In addition to T5 2W and FNP (with a pretty substantial price increase for MoN terminators ) allow them to mix and match weapons the same way wolfstar do. Assault cannon and SS? If you want an 80+ point model sure. Missile launcher and lightening claws? Be my guest. I'm not suggesting termies get ALL these buffs, but 2 or 3 would make them what they are supposed to be. I mean never again do I want to see S5 storm bolters. That's more or less bringing back psy bolt for GK.
So you want them to be Centurions.
Not centurions. They serve completely different purposes. A centurions is a half-assed IoM battlesuits that provides a 2+ save and stat mods and allows for a regular marine wearing the armor to wield heavy weapons. If they get caught in combat they're role in the game is over. CC centurions have use, but only with certain CTs. They're supposed to tear down enemy fortifications and strong points instead of wielding heavy ranged weapons.
What I'm suggesting is merely expand wold guard options to all termies while making them much tougher (as they flippin should be). Keep their options limited to terminator weapons, but fold the CC and tac terminators into one profile. Let them mix and match upgrades to CC and/or ranged weapons. FNP for sure, and I would say 2 wounds. Leave T5 to the cents wearing layered armor. Instead perhaps give terminators WS/BS5 and or Rending storm bolters. I really think Terminators should have Centurions state, FNP and 2 heavy weapons per 5 with Rending stormbolters. That fits the fluff but game play wise centurions really stole terminator Thunder as far as toughness goes. Honestly I don't see why it can't be like that, either a HS mobile heavy weapons platform, or an Elites slot that focuses on taking down MC/GMC/Fortifications /Super heavies or a really tough, elite all rounder that deep strikes and doesn't take up as much space in transports.
You can claim Centurions stole the Terminators thunder in the defense department all you want, but math says that Terminators were never durable in the first place. Hence why my only objective is buffing their offense. They weren't ever meant for defense. Thinking so is just silly at this point.
Melissia wrote: Nor has he apparently had to play without Toughness 4, or without BS4, or without S4 or I4, or without a 3+ armor save, or Ld9, or chapter tactics....
I use Scions and pure Skitarii on a semi-regular basis. Your move.
Both of which get armor saves against boltguns and have BS4.
I've been proxying Gemestealer Cults for a few games as well.
Seriously, ATSKNF isn't any much a benefit and Krak Grenades are wasted points in almost all the Marine entries (especially now with the 1 grenade attack thing going on). Who cares about getting saves vs Bolters? Cover is super easy to obtain unless you play on open tables all the time or you're a bad player (which is always a possibility).
Dantes_Baals wrote: Another idea. In addition to T5 2W and FNP (with a pretty substantial price increase for MoN terminators ) allow them to mix and match weapons the same way wolfstar do. Assault cannon and SS? If you want an 80+ point model sure. Missile launcher and lightening claws? Be my guest. I'm not suggesting termies get ALL these buffs, but 2 or 3 would make them what they are supposed to be. I mean never again do I want to see S5 storm bolters. That's more or less bringing back psy bolt for GK.
So you want them to be Centurions.
Not centurions. They serve completely different purposes. A centurions is a half-assed IoM battlesuits that provides a 2+ save and stat mods and allows for a regular marine wearing the armor to wield heavy weapons. If they get caught in combat they're role in the game is over. CC centurions have use, but only with certain CTs. They're supposed to tear down enemy fortifications and strong points instead of wielding heavy ranged weapons.
What I'm suggesting is merely expand wold guard options to all termies while making them much tougher (as they flippin should be). Keep their options limited to terminator weapons, but fold the CC and tac terminators into one profile. Let them mix and match upgrades to CC and/or ranged weapons. FNP for sure, and I would say 2 wounds. Leave T5 to the cents wearing layered armor. Instead perhaps give terminators WS/BS5 and or Rending storm bolters. I really think Terminators should have Centurions state, FNP and 2 heavy weapons per 5 with Rending stormbolters. That fits the fluff but game play wise centurions really stole terminator Thunder as far as toughness goes. Honestly I don't see why it can't be like that, either a HS mobile heavy weapons platform, or an Elites slot that focuses on taking down MC/GMC/Fortifications /Super heavies or a really tough, elite all rounder that deep strikes and doesn't take up as much space in transports.
You can claim Centurions stole the Terminators thunder in the defense department all you want, but math says that Terminators were never durable in the first place. Hence why my only objective is buffing their offense. They weren't ever meant for defense. Thinking so is just silly at this point.
Melissia wrote: Nor has he apparently had to play without Toughness 4, or without BS4, or without S4 or I4, or without a 3+ armor save, or Ld9, or chapter tactics....
I use Scions and pure Skitarii on a semi-regular basis. Your move.
Both of which get armor saves against boltguns and have BS4.
I've been proxying Gemestealer Cults for a few games as well.
Seriously, ATSKNF isn't any much a benefit and Krak Grenades are wasted points in almost all the Marine entries (especially now with the 1 grenade attack thing going on). Who cares about getting saves vs Bolters? Cover is super easy to obtain unless you play on open tables all the time or you're a bad player (which is always a possibility).
TERMINATOR ARMOR WAS DESIGNED TO BE TOUGH! IN THE FLUFF IT IS A VIABLE TACTIC TO USE A SQUAD OF ITAS MOVING COVER!
Look at the durability of a RW Black Knight, a rerollable 3+ Jink means they've actually got a better save than Terminators (even without the bike toughness boost).
Two Plasmaguns will inflict 0.25W, in comparison Terminators suffer 1.48W despite their Invul save.
This is a little messed up. Just to add to the hilarity, versus Lasguns:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...Oh yes, those wonderful Krak Grenades and ATSKNF that are super bonkers!
Spoken like someone who's never had to try and play a game without them.
Yeah, I sometimes wonder if marine players realize how absolutely AMAZING ATSKNF is, especially for free.
It's not. Because 7th ed is about high firepower. My units don't live to get to use ATSKNF. I'm not imagining this.
You're the one who's constantly advocating for all the balance changes that make Space Marines into cannon fodder in the first place to be accepted/encouraged.
Well, I'm forced to accept what GW has written in the codices every time I play. Maybe I'm just adaptable. I realize that S6/7 spam and mass AP2 aren't going anywhere. No reason to pretend that ATSKNF is a critical rule at that point.
Yes, things would be different if I were writing the whole system. But that's not happening. No reason to pretend it is.
And make no mistake. Tac marines weren't good in 2nd, 5th, or 6th. Maybe in 3rd in the stripped down codex and 4th I don't know. As it stand now, they have above average durability until you equip them. Then they dip down to mediocre at best.
Martel732 wrote: Well, I'm forced to accept what GW has written in the codices every time I play. Maybe I'm just adaptable. I realize that S6/7 spam and mass AP2 aren't going anywhere. No reason to pretend that ATSKNF is a critical rule at that point.
Yes, things would be different if I were writing the whole system. But that's not happening. No reason to pretend it is.
And make no mistake. Tac marines weren't good in 2nd, 5th, or 6th. Maybe in 3rd in the stripped down codex and 4th I don't know.
You could make up your mind as to whether your Space Marines should be useless or their uselessness is something worth griping about constantly.
Extra wounds, modified toughness, etc is awful fixing from a game design perspective, as well as mutilating the fluff.
The problem is Terminator armour is just that, a type of armour. Its also found across multiple armies, Chaos, Space Marine, Grey Knights, Inquisitors. It's also found across varied statted units including multi wound and multi toughness ones, from Captains, Paladins, Inquisitors, Nurgle Marked CSM, and so on. Some of these changes simply don't work well outside of regular SM Tactical Terms.
Bikes already modify toughness and that mechanic should be left there.
The good fix from a game AND fluff perspective was already quietly mentioned once, then promptly ignored. Make Terminator armour confer a 1+ save, where a roll of 1 always fails. Strip the Invulnerable save. Characters in Terminator armour cannot 'Look Out Sir' wounds (they're just too heavy and ponderous to move out of the way)
This gives Terminator Armour it's 2+ save against Plasma themed weapons, Grav (either wound automatically or on 2+) Rending, Bladestorm, Monstrous creatures, Lascannons and Bright/Dark Lances, Demolisher shells, Powerfists/Thunderhammers etc. These sorts of weapons and rules are everywhere in all armies and that's the reason Terminators are awful.
Tactical Terminators would be no save against Melta, Fusion guns, Heat Lances, Servo Arms, Conversion Beamers, Deathrays and Doomsday cannons, Fire Prisms, Heavy Rail Guns/NeutronLasers/Eradication Beamers, Exorcist Missle Launchers. These sorts of weapons are far less spammable and not seen even close to the extent of the others. Melta is commonly available but short ranged and almost always single shot, rarely do units exceed 2 per except specialists like FDs, Sternguard. Melee AP1 is rare outside of poor characters like Lylyth and Fuegan.
This also has a positive effect of increasing the value of small arms fire/bog standard infantry, as it's now needed far more in bulk to generate weight of wounds to force the 1's on Terminator armoured units and heroes. It increases the competitive value of poorly rated Terminator armoured commanders to the more popular support type HQ characters. Yes Librarians can also take Terminator armour, but the 3 wound vs 2 wound gap increases in importance to favour the 3W hero.
It makes the penalties for Terminator Armour in the form of no sweeping advance and limited transport a balanced tradeoff. It restores the iconic place of Terminator armour in the setting as the toughest form of protection in the galaxy able to shrug off blows from all but the biggest, rarest guns. It restores underperforming armies like Grey Knights, Deathwing, Chaos Marines.
It makes so much sense to fix it this way (1+ save) I'd be shocked if it wasn't a blanket patch update across all TDA in 8th, assuming the rest of the core game mechanics stay the same.
I've accepted the helplessness of the basic marine. Primarily what I lament is lack of empowering gimmicks that vanilla and DA received. The only true marine list that functions as they should crunch wise is the SW. But that's because they can field a lot of non-marines. Don't forget marines were useless in 2nd, as well. They have a long history of uselessness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Halfpast_Yellow wrote: Extra wounds, modified toughness, etc is awful fixing from a game design perspective, as well as mutilating the fluff.
The problem is Terminator armour is just that, a type of armour. Its also found across multiple armies, Chaos, Space Marine, Grey Knights, Inquisitors. It's also found across varied statted units including multi wound and multi toughness ones, from Captains, Paladins, Inquisitors, Nurgle Marked CSM, and so on. Some of these changes simply don't work well outside of regular SM Tactical Terms.
Bikes already modify toughness and that mechanic should be left there.
The good fix from a game AND fluff perspective was already quietly mentioned once, then promptly ignored. Make Terminator armour confer a 1+ save, where a roll of 1 always fails. Strip the Invulnerable save. Characters in Terminator armour cannot 'Look Out Sir' wounds (they're just too heavy and ponderous to move out of the way)
This gives Terminator Armour it's 2+ save against Plasma themed weapons, Grav (either wound automatically or on 2+) Rending, Bladestorm, Monstrous creatures, Lascannons and Bright/Dark Lances, Demolisher shells, Powerfists/Thunderhammers etc. These sorts of weapons and rules are everywhere in all armies and that's the reason Terminators are awful.
Tactical Terminators would be no save against Melta, Fusion guns, Heat Lances, Servo Arms, Conversion Beamers, Deathrays and Doomsday cannons, Fire Prisms, Heavy Rail Guns/NeutronLasers/Eradication Beamers, Exorcist Missle Launchers. These sorts of weapons are far less spammable and not seen even close to the extent of the others. Melta is commonly available but short ranged and almost always single shot, rarely do units exceed 2 per except specialists like FDs, Sternguard. Melee AP1 is rare outside of poor characters like Lylyth and Fuegan.
This also has a positive effect of increasing the value of small arms fire/bog standard infantry, as it's now needed far more in bulk to generate weight of wounds to force the 1's on Terminator armoured units and heroes. It increases the competitive value of poorly rated Terminator armoured commanders to the more popular support type HQ characters. Yes Librarians can also take Terminator armour, but the 3 wound vs 2 wound gap increases in importance to favour the 3W hero.
It makes the penalties for Terminator Armour in the form of no sweeping advance and limited transport a balanced tradeoff. It restores the iconic place of Terminator armour in the setting as the toughest form of protection in the galaxy able to shrug off blows from all but the biggest, rarest guns. It restores underperforming armies like Grey Knights, Deathwing, Chaos Marines.
It makes so much sense to fix it this way (1+ save) I'd be shocked if it wasn't a blanket patch update across all TDA in 8th, assuming the rest of the core game mechanics stay the same.
Then the T4 just gets exploited even more. I'm already mostly killing terminators with weight of fire. This only really helps vs the ion accelerator and grav.
Halfpast_Yellow wrote: Extra wounds, modified toughness, etc is awful fixing from a game design perspective, as well as mutilating the fluff...
Or...you could take the 30k approach. Start all of them at 30pts with power weapons, give them more useful guns, and let special fancy Terminators run around with two Wounds and/or better basic armament.
Seriously, how much more would you like to play Terminators if you could get the Grave Warden grenade launcher as a free upgrade on the current models' prices/statline/armament?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...Oh yes, those wonderful Krak Grenades and ATSKNF that are super bonkers!
Spoken like someone who's never had to try and play a game without them.
Yeah, I sometimes wonder if marine players realize how absolutely AMAZING ATSKNF is, especially for free.
On a 30 man tarpit with low initiative it's a good rule. On a 5 to 10 man elite units that sucks donkey balls in CC - it is usually more helpful to your enemies than to you. If you stay locked in combat with 2 marine your opponent is getting free invulnerability to your firepower - THIS IS VERY BAD.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...Oh yes, those wonderful Krak Grenades and ATSKNF that are super bonkers!
Spoken like someone who's never had to try and play a game without them.
Yeah, I sometimes wonder if marine players realize how absolutely AMAZING ATSKNF is, especially for free.
On a 30 man tarpit with low initiative it's a good rule. On a 5 to 10 man elite units that sucks donkey balls in CC - it is usually more helpful to your enemies than to you. If you stay locked in combat with 2 marine your opponent is getting free invulnerability to your firepower - THIS IS VERY BAD.
So...automatic regroups and the ability to act normally after regrouping are...what...chopped liver?
If you aren't killing marine squads to the man, that's on you. Most lists have the tools. Even BA can do it pretty readily. BA aren't weak vs generic marine lists. Just the gimmicks.
Martel732 wrote: If you aren't killing marine squads to the man, that's on you. Most lists have the tools. Even BA can do it pretty readily. BA aren't weak vs generic marine lists. Just the gimmicks.
You're the one who's arguing that this needs to be the natural and default state of the game, and encouraged in both design and list-building.
Which you don't get to use because you play in a meta that is 100% wall to wall Riptides.
SOME OF US DON'T.
Anything can look good when nobody builds good lists and people make decisions that bad tactically just for gaks and giggles. What's YOUR point is the question. Terminators and ATSKNF is good when you both don't play the game well at all?
It's a massive benefit. Tyranids would love to get ATSKNF or something like it over Synapse, and Mob Rule is much-derided as it is right now compared to ATSKNF.
People who don't get them. If you don't want your power armor, give them to Orks. I'm sure they'd love to get power armor for basically 2-3 points per model.
Which you don't get to use because you play in a meta that is 100% wall to wall Riptides.
SOME OF US DON'T.
Anything can look good when nobody builds good lists and people make decisions that bad tactically just for gaks and giggles. What's YOUR point is the question. Terminators and ATSKNF is good when you both don't play the game well at all?
My point is that there's a vast continuum of space in between "nobody builds good lists" and "everybody plays only Riptides and Titans" in which 2+ armour isn't a joke and ATSKNF is extremely relevant. There also may exist play environments in which you're building an army under more restrictions than "play anything in any rulebook precisely as written".
Every single argument I've seen that ATSKNF and Terminators are fundamentally bad also works as an argument that infantry is fundamentally bad. And if you're playing in an environment where infantry exists in the game as a tax so you can take more Titans then yes. ATSKNF and Terminators are bad.
But most of us aren't playing in an environment in which infantry exists only as a tax so you can take more Titans, and it seems rather unpleasant of you to declare that the one true measure of 'viable' or 'effective' is how you play the game and that people who use units that don't work in your meta are a sign of not playing the game well at all.
If you'd really rather 40k die off and have to get replaced with 'Age of Guilliman' with a four-page rulebook because nobody's playing it, feel free to keep telling everyone that they can't play the models they like because they don't work in your meta. And obviously nobody in the world can be playing 40k and having fun unless they're either throwing dice without caring what happens or playing your best-unit-in-the-game-or-GTFO meta.
I'm sorry you think Terminators and ATSKNF are wastes of time. The issue here is that that isn't true of 40k. That is true of 40k as played by your playgroup. And the vast quantities of people playing 40ksomewhere else in the world with a different group of people may find a different answer. And their answer may be perfectly valid for their play environment. Which doesn't seem to warrant a judgement from you that their play environment is composed solely of people not playing the game well because the things they're doing in it wouldn't work at YOUR table.
It's a massive benefit. Tyranids would love to get ATSKNF or something like it over Synapse, and Mob Rule is much-derided as it is right now compared to ATSKNF.
People who don't get them. If you don't want your power armor, give them to Orks. I'm sure they'd love to get power armor for basically 2-3 points per model.
Tyranids are LD5 almost across the entire board. Of course they'd want something like it. Otherwise Fearless does what they need but better. You're also pointing out the issue with Tyranids in general in that in order to use Swarms you NEED Synapse. Synapse ought to provide other benefits depending on the Synapse creature rather than just providing Fearless.
Also people don't care about getting saves vs Bolters because there's plenty of ways to mitigate it. The Orks example is the silliest as any big blob will have a Pain Boy and/or a Field. Nobody has cared about the Bolter for a LONG time. Nobody.
Which you don't get to use because you play in a meta that is 100% wall to wall Riptides.
SOME OF US DON'T.
Anything can look good when nobody builds good lists and people make decisions that bad tactically just for gaks and giggles. What's YOUR point is the question. Terminators and ATSKNF is good when you both don't play the game well at all?
My point is that there's a vast continuum of space in between "nobody builds good lists" and "everybody plays only Riptides and Titans" in which 2+ armour isn't a joke and ATSKNF is extremely relevant. There also may exist play environments in which you're building an army under more restrictions than "play anything in any rulebook precisely as written".
Every single argument I've seen that ATSKNF and Terminators are fundamentally bad also works as an argument that infantry is fundamentally bad. And if you're playing in an environment where infantry exists in the game as a tax so you can take more Titans then yes. ATSKNF and Terminators are bad.
But most of us aren't playing in an environment in which infantry exists only as a tax so you can take more Titans, and it seems rather unpleasant of you to declare that the one true measure of 'viable' or 'effective' is how you play the game and that people who use units that don't work in your meta are a sign of not playing the game well at all.
If you'd really rather 40k die off and have to get replaced with 'Age of Guilliman' with a four-page rulebook because nobody's playing it, feel free to keep telling everyone that they can't play the models they like because they don't work in your meta. And obviously nobody in the world can be playing 40k and having fun unless they're either throwing dice without caring what happens or playing your best-unit-in-the-game-or-GTFO meta.
I'm sorry you think Terminators and ATSKNF are wastes of time. The issue here is that that isn't true of 40k. That is true of 40k as played by your playgroup. And the vast quantities of people playing 40ksomewhere else in the world with a different group of people may find a different answer. And their answer may be perfectly valid for their play environment. Which doesn't seem to warrant a judgement from you that their play environment is composed solely of people not playing the game well because the things they're doing in it wouldn't work at YOUR table.
THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD THAN YOU.
Terminators have ALWAYS been a waste of time because we get folks like you insisting they need to be a wall when that wasn't ever their job to begin with.
The only play environment to discuss is the one with the most hardcore lists, as that's what makes units show their true colors and potential. I don't care about your happy happy joy joy meta. It sounds horrible quite frankly. People need to be punished for bringing bad units and combos and making bad decisions.
Martel732 wrote: There is no correct way to use boltguns vs a gundam list. That's the point.
And my point is that "there is no correct way to use boltguns vs. a gundam list" != (DOES NOT EQUAL) "there is no correct way to use boltguns".
Some people may not see solely gundam lists. Some people may see no gundam lists at all. Yet you're telling them that gundam lists are the start and end of 40k and anything that's not good against them is garbage. Ignoring the fact that 90-95% of the game isn't good against a gundam list, because some people play units that aren't Monstrous Creatures and take different tools to kill and because GW screwed up when designing the Riptide and made it too good.
Melissia wrote: Given that I saw people ranting about Sisters bolter shock being somehow uber-powerful even in to sixth edition, I disagree that "nobody has cared".
Nobody thought that. The codex works off spamming Melta Guns and Flamers (and Exorcists) in a list.
That's why the Sisters codex is midtier but severely monobuild. Anybody trying to use swarms of Sisters won't get any results because that's not how the army functions, as much as the fluff tells you otherwise.
My experience disagrees. In fact it was Marine players who whined about it the most, how Sisters were CLEARLY the better army because they were cheaper ways to get more boltguns.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...Terminators have ALWAYS been a waste of time because we get folks like you insisting they need to be a wall when that wasn't ever their job to begin with.
The only play environment to discuss is the one with the most hardcore lists, as that's what makes units show their true colors and potential. I don't care about your happy happy joy joy meta. It sounds horrible quite frankly. People need to be punished for bringing bad units and combos and making bad decisions.
I'm not the one insisting Terminators need to be a 'wall'. I'm the one insisting they need to be cheaper and have more useful weapons rather than forcing every single Terminator to pay for a *bleep*ing powerfist regardless of whether you have any interest in using it or not.
I'm not talking about my "happy happy joy joy" meta. I'm talking about your insistence on justifying a bad position with a stupid false dichotomy.
40k is not divided into my happy happy joy joy meta and your hardcore meta where everything gets to show its true potential. You may want to consider the following list of factors:
*Budget. Some players have less money than others, some players may be just starting. Your reason for not putting $400 worth of Riptides on the table could be "I don't want to spend $400 on Riptides" rather than "I'm not playing the game properly."
*Who's playing what army. You may walk into a gamestore where nobody plays Daemons. Do the players in that store need to be punished for not coming equipped to deal with a Flying Circus list they never see?
*Format. The competitiveness of a unit isn't a constant. It changes depending on list-building restrictions, mission, FAQs, any number of things. A unit that's good if you're playing 1850pts GW-rules-as-written core-book missions may be useless or outright not allowed in Kill-Team. A unit that's good in 1,000pts ITC may be more or less good in 10,000pt Apocalypse. You may think that everything must be judged by its performance in an 1850pt unrestricted core-book-missions game, but that is not the start and end of 40k. Sometimes people might want to play another points level. Another mission. A set of list-building restrictions. Are those people not playing properly because they choose not to play the points level you like to play?
*Sportsmanship. If someone tells you "I'm new, would you mind toning your list down?" is your response going to be "No, you must be punished for bringing bad units! Your 'happy-happy-joy-joy' game sounds horrible!"?
I agree that there need to be consequences for bad decisions. If there's no way to tell decisions apart there's no reason to play the game, because the outcome is going to be the same whatever you do. Where I disagree with you is on how incredibly broadly you've chosen to define 'bad decisions'. A 'bad decision' on your table could be a much better decision on my table or vice versa for reasons completely independent from whether the player is any good at the game.
I'm sorry you think that the only two ways to play 40k are your way (in which people must be PUNISHED for bringing anything outside the top 5% of units in the game) and a "happy happy joy joy meta" populated by people who don't know how to play. I'd really like to know, however, are you thinking other people are going to be more or less likely to want to play against you in particular and to play the game in general if you tell them that?
Martel732 wrote: There is no correct way to use boltguns vs a gundam list. That's the point.
The way to use Boltguns against Gundams is to holster them and get your ATSKNF guys into assault, while some Invisible Terminators do the real damage with Powerfists.
My experience disagrees. In fact it was Marine players who whined about it the most, how Sisters were CLEARLY the better army because they were cheaper ways to get more boltguns.
Just because an idiot whines about it does not make it good. Sisters bring more BODIES, which is very relevant when xenos are gunning down marines like grots. You want the cheapest grots possible.
Martel732 wrote: There is no correct way to use boltguns vs a gundam list. That's the point.
And my point is that "there is no correct way to use boltguns vs. a gundam list" != (DOES NOT EQUAL) "there is no correct way to use boltguns".
Some people may not see solely gundam lists. Some people may see no gundam lists at all. Yet you're telling them that gundam lists are the start and end of 40k and anything that's not good against them is garbage. Ignoring the fact that 90-95% of the game isn't good against a gundam list, because some people play units that aren't Monstrous Creatures and take different tools to kill and because GW screwed up when designing the Riptide and made it too good.
Boltguns just don't cause enough aggregate damage vs a variety of popular linsts (necrons, gundam, other marines, etc) to be considered as a major factor when list building. I'm sorry that's just the game.
AnomanderRake wrote: If you'd really rather 40k die off and have to get replaced with 'Age of Guilliman' with a four-page rulebook
This isn't necessarily bad.
Concise and streamlined rules, with discrete and intuitive counters, are very good design.
If 40k's rules were a little less convoluted and byzantine, you wouldn't have skirmisher bike units that are more resilient than elite heavy infantry.
I'm very tired of having this fight so I'm going to say this exactly once and then stop.
Age of Sigmar is infinitely more convoluted and less streamlined than everyone advocating it be used for other things seem to think.
If I want to play 40k I have to learn nine numbers per unit, four numbers per weapon, and two relatively straightforward tables. If I want to play Age of Sigmar I have to learn four numbers per unit, six numbers per weapon-unit combination, and an extra 25-30 numbers for every monster. In 40k right now I need to know 34 numbers to understand both a Battle Sisters squad with a flamer and a multi-melta and a Space Marine Tactical Squad with the same armament (18 for two nine-number statlines and 16 for four weapons (bolter, bolt pistol, flamer, multi-melta). If you translated this over into Age of Sigmar I'd need to learn 56 numbers to understand the same two units (8 for two four-number statlines and 48 for two sets of four six-number statlines for each weapon as used by each unit).
It is easier to look things up in Age of Sigmar. It is not easier to learn to play Age of Sigmar.
Age of Sigmar has the exact same level of convoluted extra special rules 40k has. They've chosen to write them all in the Warscrolls so they can brag about how short the rulebook is without actually cutting any bloat and ensure that everyone has to read every single army book to avoid getting blindsided by things they could not have known were possible from reading one book and the core book.
Taking the Age of Sigmar approach to 40k would consist of magnifying the rules bloat and lying about it.
The only effective unit that I can count on predictably good results from (that uses small arms) is a scout squad in a LSS. Thats mostly the LSS doing the work but 10 str 4 shots is enough to make a str 4 largeblast and a heavy bolter sting vs some units. Heck - if I can't hurt it I can blind it - maybe.
Point im making is that bolters are a decent weapon when you can get them cheaply on an open topped fast transport - that can infiltrate/scout/ and has 2 heavy weapons already for 40 points. When you cost 14 points/have crap transport options and can't get in possition without a suicide machine (drop pod) then bolters are worthless.
Storm bolters are the same - if you could take storm bolters on Vets for 4 points. They would be spammed. On terminators? Useless.
Are all of us playing 40k at your table, with the same missions, the same opponents, the same collection of models, and the same army-building restrictions you are?
Does the fact that you can't get much use out of a Tactical Marine with a boltgun mean that he's worthless everywhere?
My experience disagrees. In fact it was Marine players who whined about it the most, how Sisters were CLEARLY the better army because they were cheaper ways to get more boltguns.
Sorry but that never happened. They're a cheaper way to bring special weapons which makes them better than a Tactical Marine but that's about it. Otherwise I got Bikers or Scouts to use as Troops.
Martel732 wrote: There is no correct way to use boltguns vs a gundam list. That's the point.
The way to use Boltguns against Gundams is to holster them and get your ATSKNF guys into assault, while some Invisible Terminators do the real damage with Powerfists.
Definitely untrue. They shone in 2nd and 4th for sure, and in 5th the Thunder Hammer guys were incredibly popular for good reason.
4th edition was mediocre at best. I won't speak about 2nd as I didn't play it, but Loyalist Terminators were still garbage at that point per most people here that played 2nd.
5th edition? Nah. They were more popular than the Tactical variant, but that doesn't say much. Being more popular doesn't mean it is any good. It simply means it is better than the alternative.
Army wide leadership-ignoring rules should be gone. I can count on one hand the number of times I've been happy ATSKNF has kicked in, and army wide Fearless ruins like 90% of all cool morale affecting abilities.
It's a massive benefit. Tyranids would love to get ATSKNF or something like it over Synapse, and Mob Rule is much-derided as it is right now compared to ATSKNF.
People who don't get them. If you don't want your power armor, give them to Orks. I'm sure they'd love to get power armor for basically 2-3 points per model.
Tyranids are LD5 almost across the entire board. Of course they'd want something like it. Otherwise Fearless does what they need but better. You're also pointing out the issue with Tyranids in general in that in order to use Swarms you NEED Synapse. Synapse ought to provide other benefits depending on the Synapse creature rather than just providing Fearless.
Also people don't care about getting saves vs Bolters because there's plenty of ways to mitigate it. The Orks example is the silliest as any big blob will have a Pain Boy and/or a Field. Nobody has cared about the Bolter for a LONG time. Nobody.
unbound you might see a painboy in every blob of ork boyz but hard to pull off in CAD barring taking some grots or using the
You need one HQ slot minimum for the warboss or no waaghh. even using the ork horde detachment for 3 hq and 3 troop min you will have 2 painboys max for 3 squads. sure you can take grots for one group, but once you throw in the necessary nobz and power claws you have 672 points for 2 groups of 30 boyz, one has a warboss, and each has fnp. but with a 6+ 5fnp plus some go to ground objective holders that will disappear to bolter fire and templates. trust me, as an ork player SM bolters do just fine to make me pick up models with a shovel. With our terrible leadership they easily make us take tests which will either cost us bodies or just make us run/pinned, and ocne we are sub 10 models we are pretty much useless and running away
jreilly89 wrote: Army wide leadership-ignoring rules should be gone. I can count on one hand the number of times I've been happy ATSKNF has kicked in, and army wide Fearless ruins like 90% of all cool morale affecting abilities.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...Terminators have ALWAYS been a waste of time because we get folks like you insisting they need to be a wall when that wasn't ever their job to begin with.
The only play environment to discuss is the one with the most hardcore lists, as that's what makes units show their true colors and potential. I don't care about your happy happy joy joy meta. It sounds horrible quite frankly. People need to be punished for bringing bad units and combos and making bad decisions.
I'm not the one insisting Terminators need to be a 'wall'. I'm the one insisting they need to be cheaper and have more useful weapons rather than forcing every single Terminator to pay for a *bleep*ing powerfist regardless of whether you have any interest in using it or not.
I'm not talking about my "happy happy joy joy" meta. I'm talking about your insistence on justifying a bad position with a stupid false dichotomy.
40k is not divided into my happy happy joy joy meta and your hardcore meta where everything gets to show its true potential. You may want to consider the following list of factors:
*Budget. Some players have less money than others, some players may be just starting. Your reason for not putting $400 worth of Riptides on the table could be "I don't want to spend $400 on Riptides" rather than "I'm not playing the game properly."
*Who's playing what army. You may walk into a gamestore where nobody plays Daemons. Do the players in that store need to be punished for not coming equipped to deal with a Flying Circus list they never see?
*Format. The competitiveness of a unit isn't a constant. It changes depending on list-building restrictions, mission, FAQs, any number of things. A unit that's good if you're playing 1850pts GW-rules-as-written core-book missions may be useless or outright not allowed in Kill-Team. A unit that's good in 1,000pts ITC may be more or less good in 10,000pt Apocalypse. You may think that everything must be judged by its performance in an 1850pt unrestricted core-book-missions game, but that is not the start and end of 40k. Sometimes people might want to play another points level. Another mission. A set of list-building restrictions. Are those people not playing properly because they choose not to play the points level you like to play?
*Sportsmanship. If someone tells you "I'm new, would you mind toning your list down?" is your response going to be "No, you must be punished for bringing bad units! Your 'happy-happy-joy-joy' game sounds horrible!"?
I agree that there need to be consequences for bad decisions. If there's no way to tell decisions apart there's no reason to play the game, because the outcome is going to be the same whatever you do. Where I disagree with you is on how incredibly broadly you've chosen to define 'bad decisions'. A 'bad decision' on your table could be a much better decision on my table or vice versa for reasons completely independent from whether the player is any good at the game.
I'm sorry you think that the only two ways to play 40k are your way (in which people must be PUNISHED for bringing anything outside the top 5% of units in the game) and a "happy happy joy joy meta" populated by people who don't know how to play. I'd really like to know, however, are you thinking other people are going to be more or less likely to want to play against you in particular and to play the game in general if you tell them that?
The Power Fist is part of the legacy loadout, and what differentiates the Tactical Terminator from other Terminator variants, hence I have no interest in leaving them with regular power weapons. 30k does that anyway.
Now to your other points...
1. I do not have a great budget and have been rebuilding all my armies for a while since a fire. Hell I used to use Tyberos because I liked the model. That doesn't mean anything though. I'm punished when I bring him and that's fine. Everybody has the same choices and they can either save up, scourge eBay, use leftover bitz for converting (which I primarily did for any Marine character I used to have), trade, etc.
2. If your list is not prepared for specific threats, that's your own fault. TAC is still a thing. Either make sure you can sorta handle Flying Circus or build a list that doesn't care.
3. My group doesn't use house rules and you can't consider house rules when talking about armies. That's because house rules aren't universal but the rulebook is. Super simple.
4. I bring whatever list I feel like. It isn't up to me to tone it down or tone it up. I don't expect my opponent to compromise for me, and I won't compromise for my opponent. Only thing we need to decide on is mission and point limit. That's it.
It's a massive benefit. Tyranids would love to get ATSKNF or something like it over Synapse, and Mob Rule is much-derided as it is right now compared to ATSKNF.
People who don't get them. If you don't want your power armor, give them to Orks. I'm sure they'd love to get power armor for basically 2-3 points per model.
Tyranids are LD5 almost across the entire board. Of course they'd want something like it. Otherwise Fearless does what they need but better. You're also pointing out the issue with Tyranids in general in that in order to use Swarms you NEED Synapse. Synapse ought to provide other benefits depending on the Synapse creature rather than just providing Fearless.
Also people don't care about getting saves vs Bolters because there's plenty of ways to mitigate it. The Orks example is the silliest as any big blob will have a Pain Boy and/or a Field. Nobody has cared about the Bolter for a LONG time. Nobody.
unbound you might see a painboy in every blob of ork boyz but hard to pull off in CAD barring taking some grots or using the
You need one HQ slot minimum for the warboss or no waaghh. even using the ork horde detachment for 3 hq and 3 troop min you will have 2 painboys max for 3 squads. sure you can take grots for one group, but once you throw in the necessary nobz and power claws you have 672 points for 2 groups of 30 boyz, one has a warboss, and each has fnp. but with a 6+ 5fnp plus some go to ground objective holders that will disappear to bolter fire and templates. trust me, as an ork player SM bolters do just fine to make me pick up models with a shovel. With our terrible leadership they easily make us take tests which will either cost us bodies or just make us run/pinned, and ocne we are sub 10 models we are pretty much useless and running away
It is VERY easy to get multiple CAD for Orks. Grots are a super minimal investment to get your Painboy fix.
Terminators in 2nd died to -6 armor save weapons like krak missiles (back when they worked) or to mass -2 or -3 fire from sonic blasters or shuriken catapults. Or they got drowned in 100 metal hormagaunts. Back when hormagaunts were broken.
Martel732 wrote: Terminators in 2nd died to -6 armor save weapons like krak missiles (back when they worked) or to mass -2 or -3 fire from sonic blasters or shuriken catapults. Or they got drowned in 100 metal hormagaunts. Back when hormagaunts were broken.
Now they are literally the worst unit in the game.
Whatever helps you feel better at night. If you're just going to call me a liar when I describe my own personal experiences, then your spastic posts aren't really worth commenting on.
Martel732 wrote: Terminators in 2nd died to -6 armor save weapons like krak missiles (back when they worked) or to mass -2 or -3 fire from sonic blasters or shuriken catapults. Or they got drowned in 100 metal hormagaunts. Back when hormagaunts were broken.
Now they are literally the worst unit in the game.
That's more like it. I'd have a system were AP reduces the save instead of the current nonsense, but having that is rare enough to begin with. Then instead of instant death, powerful weapons just inflict multiple wounds.
feth it, I'll say it. I'd go all AoS.
That stuff existed back in 2nd edition.
Instant death is one of the rules which was an attempt at simplification (removing the wounds inflicted stat that weapons previously had) but actually just makes the game more of a mess.
Martel732 wrote: Terminators in 2nd died to -6 armor save weapons like krak missiles (back when they worked) or to mass -2 or -3 fire from sonic blasters or shuriken catapults. Or they got drowned in 100 metal hormagaunts. Back when hormagaunts were broken.
I'm an advocate for going back to a save modifier system, though with much reduced modifiers compared to 2nd ed.
Martel732 wrote: It didn't work in 2nd and it wouldn't work now while still on the D6 system. Expensive power armor becomes very useless very quickly.
As I said....
"though with much reduced modifiers compared to 2nd ed."
It didn't work in 2nd edition because modifiers were given out too liberally, but the system as a whole wasn't flawed, it was just the implementation. I'd argue the AP system on the other hand IS a fundamentally flawed system.
Although I'd have to think about it, but in my mind you'd have things like Bolters with no modifier, Heavy Bolters would be -1, and only things that are currently AP2 or maybe AP3 would have a -3 modifier.
Martel732 wrote: It didn't work in 2nd and it wouldn't work now while still on the D6 system. Expensive power armor becomes very useless very quickly.
As I said....
"though with much reduced modifiers compared to 2nd ed."
It didn't work in 2nd edition because modifiers were given out too liberally, but the system as a whole wasn't flawed, it was just the implementation. I'd argue the AP system on the other hand IS a fundamentally flawed system.
Although I'd have to think about it, but in my mind you'd have things like Bolters with no modifier, Heavy Bolters would be -1, and only things that are currently AP2 or maybe AP3 would have a -3 modifier.
Also, armor save for certain armors could be adjusted below 2+ like in WHFB. Terminators might have a 0+ armor save.
And if cover improved armors saves rather than replacing it with invulnerable saves that would also benefit units with good armor saves. A terminator in ruins might have a -2 armor save.
Maybe there could be an invulnerable "concealment" save that is not normally as good as a cover save, but represents the sight blocking nature of terrain more than the actual physical barrier. That might be too beardy.
Whatever helps you feel better at night. If you're just going to call me a liar when I describe my own personal experiences, then your spastic posts aren't really worth commenting on.
Says the literal stereotype of the bitter SoB player.
Martel732 wrote: Terminators in 2nd died to -6 armor save weapons like krak missiles (back when they worked) or to mass -2 or -3 fire from sonic blasters or shuriken catapults.
Not in my group they didn't. I took Terminators to tournaments and did well with them.
Likewise in 4th, Terminators were the linchpin to my counterattacks during 4th.
I can understand if other people preferred other units, but they were great for me.
Martel732 wrote: It didn't work in 2nd and it wouldn't work now while still on the D6 system. Expensive power armor becomes very useless very quickly.
As I said....
"though with much reduced modifiers compared to 2nd ed."
It didn't work in 2nd edition because modifiers were given out too liberally, but the system as a whole wasn't flawed, it was just the implementation. I'd argue the AP system on the other hand IS a fundamentally flawed system.
Although I'd have to think about it, but in my mind you'd have things like Bolters with no modifier, Heavy Bolters would be -1, and only things that are currently AP2 or maybe AP3 would have a -3 modifier.
I don't think heavy bolters should decrease the effectiveness of power armor by 25%. But that's the smallest increment available. In my head, it's easier to cost weapons in the AP system. But maybe that's just what I'm used to.
Martel732 wrote: Terminators in 2nd died to -6 armor save weapons like krak missiles (back when they worked) or to mass -2 or -3 fire from sonic blasters or shuriken catapults.
Not in my group they didn't. I took Terminators to tournaments and did well with them.
Likewise in 4th, Terminators were the linchpin to my counterattacks during 4th.
I can understand if other people preferred other units, but they were great for me.
I likewise remember termies being g ood in both fourth and fifth. It was sixth that really made people drop them.
They weren't good in 5th. Any old power weapon ignored their armor. Their firepower was a little better compared to tac marines, but it was still really poor compared to the field. They were up against IG leafblower and guided scatterwalkers.
That's on top of 5th being super mech heavy, and the mech can just drive away.
- Cover can be made a bit less influential by simply modifying the BS value, which also helps blasts (cover = -1BS, stealth + shrouded = same)
- Grav needs a more discrete role... maybe targeting primarily superheavies + GMCs?
- Volume of fire can be tweaked too. Eliminate Rapidfire, instead both RF and Assault weapons reroll misses within 12" (this helps mitigate poor BS due to cover)
TLDR --> Terminators only really get hard-countered by Melta, they become far more survivable against the other damage types. AP isn't neutralized by cover, with less volume of fire (even bolters) it's critical to match AP to target. Scatterlasers are now hindered by cover and lose some of their punch. Better cover degrades BS, which means sending in RF/Assault shooting units that benefit from rerolls within 12".
I haven't completely solved the volume of fire issue, but it's not nearly as bad. I don't like Marines being more resilient than Terminators to Scatterlasers and Bolters. Maybe FNP can be tied to the strength of the attack -- so at S6 and below Terminators get a FNP, and anything S7+ simply turns it off.
This is just brainstorming so feel free to poke holes in this.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think heavy bolters should decrease the effectiveness of power armor by 25%. But that's the smallest increment available. In my head, it's easier to cost weapons in the AP system. But maybe that's just what I'm used to.
It's true that Heavy Bolters would be more effective against Power Armor, but they might no longer decrease the effectiveness of 'Eavy Armor, Carapace Armor, etc. by 100%. On the flip side, power weapons, plasma weapons, etc. might no longer decrease the effectiveness of Power Armor by 100%.
So it would change a lot, and it might only be possible as part of a major reboot of the rules where all point values have to be readjusted anyway.
I like the idea of AP not being all-or-nothing, personally.
It depends on what codex. Grey Knight Terminators are extremely viable, in-fact I'd say they're the only competitive way to play Grey Knights. Being cheaper than most terminators helps a lot too.
Grey Templar wrote: It depends on what codex. Grey Knight Terminators are extremely viable, in-fact I'd say they're the only competitive way to play Grey Knights. Being cheaper than most terminators helps a lot too.
Other codices aren't as lucky though.
They still need fixes though (S5 Storm Bolters and 2 Heavy Weapons at 5 guys and an extra one at 10). They still function closer to intended compared to Tactical Terminators.
Grey Templar wrote: It depends on what codex. Grey Knight Terminators are extremely viable, in-fact I'd say they're the only competitive way to play Grey Knights. Being cheaper than most terminators helps a lot too.
Other codices aren't as lucky though.
They still need fixes though (S5 Storm Bolters and 2 Heavy Weapons at 5 guys and an extra one at 10). They still function closer to intended compared to Tactical Terminators.
For sure. Its not as good as it should be, but its functional. And I always enjoyed a challenge. I'm still rocking a good ~80% win rate with my Grey Knights, and undefeated in the current league I'm in. The psychic alpha strike is real good, but its a tricky beast to manage.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think heavy bolters should decrease the effectiveness of power armor by 25%. But that's the smallest increment available. In my head, it's easier to cost weapons in the AP system. But maybe that's just what I'm used to.
It's true that Heavy Bolters would be more effective against Power Armor, but they might no longer decrease the effectiveness of 'Eavy Armor, Carapace Armor, etc. by 100%. On the flip side, power weapons, plasma weapons, etc. might no longer decrease the effectiveness of Power Armor by 100%.
So it would change a lot, and it might only be possible as part of a major reboot of the rules where all point values have to be readjusted anyway.
I like the idea of AP not being all-or-nothing, personally.
In my modified D10 system, AP that equals the armor save ie AP 2 vs 2+ armor, the armor is halved in effectiveness. This was my way of killing off the 5++ on the terminator armor and giving a similar bonus to all armor. Maybe modifiers are better, but the community as a whole has a lot more experience with the AP system and it would probably be easier to balance because we have so many more games played with it.
Well, honestly the best way to fix the situation would be to resurrect the way it worked in Fantasy.
For every point of Strength above 3, an attack modifies the armor roll by -1. So a Str5 shot does -2 to the save roll.
Armor saves could be better than 2+. Armor saves of better than 2+ would still fail on rolls of 1, but they would be able to suffer more modifiers before the safe was reduced.
We could then add the Armor Piercing rule with a scale of vaules. So say a weapon with Armor Piercing(2) would modify saves by -2. A weapon with Armor Piercing(1) would be -1 to saves, etc... Armor piercing could also be what gives a weapon a bonus on the vehicle damage chart, equal to the amount of the armor piercing value. So Armor Piercing 2 would give +2 on the damage chart. Armor Piercing 1 would give +1.
You could also have a rule which says that the Strength of the attack does not modify the save. So that some attacks could be high strength, but always allow saves.
I would also suggest this would need to allow for models to make multiple saves vs the same wound as Fantasy also had. Allow a model to make both armor saves, and then choose between Cover or Invuln saves. And only if both of these rolls fail does the wound get suffered.
It would allow for some more granularity, as well as make cover more important for armored troops.
If you did this, I would change power armor to give a 2+ save and Terminator armor to give a 0+ save and 5+ invuln. So a Terminator could suffer a total of -2 modifier and still pass armor saves on 2+.
I'm still going with "no, under the current system, terminators will never be viable". T4 W1 is not likely change and is such a liability. The 83% save chance only goes so far in a game where Eldar can force 70+ armor saves a turn. That's 12 dead terminators a turn from 24-36" on fast platforms. Game over man, game over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Well, honestly the best way to fix the situation would be to resurrect the way it worked in Fantasy.
For every point of Strength above 3, an attack modifies the armor roll by -1. So a Str5 shot does -2 to the save roll.
Armor saves could be better than 2+. Armor saves of better than 2+ would still fail on rolls of 1, but they would be able to suffer more modifiers before the safe was reduced.
We could then add the Armor Piercing rule with a scale of vaules. So say a weapon with Armor Piercing(2) would modify saves by -2. A weapon with Armor Piercing(1) would be -1 to saves, etc...
I would also suggest this would need to allow for models to make multiple saves vs the same wound as Fantasy also had. Allow a model to make both armor saves, and then choose between Cover or Invuln saves. And only if both of these rolls fail does the wound get suffered.
It would allow for some more granularity, as well as make cover more important for armored troops.
I hate this for a D6 based system. Str 5 will mow down marines like kibble. Just like in 2nd.
Grey Templar wrote: Well thats why I would up the save of power armor to 2+. Up terminator armor to 0+.
So power armor is still failing on 3's vs heavy bolters and pulse rifles, and needs a 5+ to save vs scatterlasers? That sounds like a nightmare to balance and cost units.
Martel732 wrote: I'm still going with "no, under the current system, terminators will never be viable". T4 W1 is not likely change and is such a liability. The 83% save chance only goes so far in a game where Eldar can force 70+ armor saves a turn. That's 12 dead terminators a turn from 24-36" on fast platforms. Game over man, game over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Well, honestly the best way to fix the situation would be to resurrect the way it worked in Fantasy.
For every point of Strength above 3, an attack modifies the armor roll by -1. So a Str5 shot does -2 to the save roll.
Armor saves could be better than 2+. Armor saves of better than 2+ would still fail on rolls of 1, but they would be able to suffer more modifiers before the safe was reduced.
We could then add the Armor Piercing rule with a scale of vaules. So say a weapon with Armor Piercing(2) would modify saves by -2. A weapon with Armor Piercing(1) would be -1 to saves, etc...
I would also suggest this would need to allow for models to make multiple saves vs the same wound as Fantasy also had. Allow a model to make both armor saves, and then choose between Cover or Invuln saves. And only if both of these rolls fail does the wound get suffered.
It would allow for some more granularity, as well as make cover more important for armored troops.
I hate this for a D6 based system. Str 5 will mow down marines like kibble. Just like in 2nd.
on the elder front that is also 648 points for 24 scat laser bikes but yea scat bikes are probably point for point among the best unit in the game and should cost more or be 1 heavy per 3 bikes
Grey Templar wrote: Well thats why I would up the save of power armor to 2+. Up terminator armor to 0+.
So power armor is still failing on 3's vs heavy bolters and pulse rifles, and needs a 5+ to save vs scatterlasers? That sounds like a nightmare to balance and cost units.
Well, as I said in my edited post, there could be a rule a weapon has that it does not modify the armor save based on its strength.
Scatter lasers, pulse rifles, and other lower quality weapons could have this rule. Not sure what you would call it. Poor Penetration or something.
Heavy Bolters would actually be failed on 4s(str5 is -2) with power armor. Bolters would fail it on 3s. This of course would need some re-balancing, but it would make some of the mid tier weapons more attractive. You might actually see people use heavy bolters if they had these rules.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: How would having both work? Like, if AP doesn't totally negate the armor save the Rend modifier is then applied?
Sure.
Saying you have a AP- melee weapon with Rending (-2). You simply apply this to the armor save.
Meanwhile you have an AP4 Heavy Bolter, which cues the player to shoot at 4+ targets.
You could also combine the two in one profile. say you had a AP4 Heavy Bolter with Rending (-1). In that case, shooting a 3+ Marine would produce a 4+ armor save, while shooting a 4+ Carapace Vet would deny any save at all.
Martel732 wrote: The 83% save chance only goes so far in a game where Eldar can force 70+ armor saves a turn.
This is why you can adjust with cover that degrade BS and a reworked FNP.
1) 70 saves = 105 shots.
2) In cover that affects BS by -2 : 105(1/3) = 35 hits.
3) 35 hits at S6 = 35(5/6) = 29.16W.
4) 29 wounds with a 2+ save = 4.86 unsaved.
5) 4.86 unsaved with FNP (6) = 3.24W.
So in this case, 700+ points of Scatterbikes are killing about 110pts of Terminators. We've made them almost 4x as tough, even at T4 1W.
That's why I like the D10. With a D10BS roll, modifiers are far more viable from cover, and you can have the terminators soak 90% of damage from light/medium weapons without having a single reroll or extra roll.
I think it's harder to design a D6 system. But I don't think it's impossible to work around it.
For instance:
Veteran unit (BS7) = 2(7/10) = 1.4 hits
Average unit (BS6) = 2(6/10) = 1.2 hits
Clearly there's more granularity now... but there's not a big range of difference. The average unit actually shoots worse, and the veteran unit can't go up any further without getting perilously close to the current BS5.
Alternatively... we can give the veteran unit an extra ranged shot. In this case there's a more pronounced difference, which maybe justifies a Vet Sgt upgrade, especially if you're carrying a 15pt pistol.
Vet unit (BS4) : 3(2/3) = 2 hits
Average unit (BS4) : 2(2/3) = 1.3 hits
More granularity will help refine probabilities. But there's only so far you can go on that alone. A D10 system won't correct mechanics that don't exist or don't work. Modifying BS might be easier to implement on a D10, but as it doesn't exist under *any* system at present, it's more important to address the mechanic than the probabilities thereof.
Terminators are in need of a lot more than a 7% survivability boost (83% --> 90%).
Woah that got really heavy from page 13!
Just responding to the terminators go to a 1+ (failing on a 1) and lose their invuln...
That makes terminators awful against any ap1 and any ignores armour save weapons which are both reasonably common enough for it to actually matter. Furthermore it does literally nothing against small arms fire, scatter lasers, etc. Termis still die in droves to these things. That change will do absolutely nothing to make them more viable which is what this thread is asking.
Currently termis may die too much to grav/plasma/rending etc, but they die even more commonly to a minor amount of small arms fire. This is why 2W and fnp is actually fluffier by what it represents - they are 3 times tougher against small arms/grav/plasma/rending/scatter lasers etc, but don't become any tougher aginst melta, krak missiles getting through their normal save, demolisher cannons wiping a squad, D mutilating them etc. The result of that is FAR fluffier than them still dropping like flies to grot blasters.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think heavy bolters should decrease the effectiveness of power armor by 25%. But that's the smallest increment available. In my head, it's easier to cost weapons in the AP system. But maybe that's just what I'm used to.
It's true that Heavy Bolters would be more effective against Power Armor, but they might no longer decrease the effectiveness of 'Eavy Armor, Carapace Armor, etc. by 100%. On the flip side, power weapons, plasma weapons, etc. might no longer decrease the effectiveness of Power Armor by 100%.
So it would change a lot, and it might only be possible as part of a major reboot of the rules where all point values have to be readjusted anyway.
I like the idea of AP not being all-or-nothing, personally.
Yeah it'd definitely be a shuffle up to the game, you'd be getting rid of a lot of current rules, introducing some new ones and reshuffling the power levels of a lot of weapons and thus a lot of things would need to be repriced.
I have no problem with a Heavy Bolter reducing a Spehss Marine's save effectiveness by 25%.
IMO it's easier to price and balance a save modifier system because with an all or nothing system the effectiveness of weapons scales massively depending on what you shoot at. Now, I know earlier in this thread I said "40k is partly about choosing the right weapon to shoot at the right target" but the problem with the AP system is the swings in effectiveness are way too huge when you consider entire armies are made up of models that have an "X+ or better" save.
Space Marines are the most common and obvious example, if you don't take Scouts the entire army is made up of 3+ or better save weapons. That immediately makes all AP4 weapons worth less against Space Marines than any other army. It also immediately makes AP3 worth more against Space Marines than any other army. It's not just a case of "shoot the right gun at the right enemy" it's a case of weapons being worth fundamentally different amounts depending on what army your opponent chose.
Grey Templar wrote:Well, honestly the best way to fix the situation would be to resurrect the way it worked in Fantasy.
For every point of Strength above 3, an attack modifies the armor roll by -1. So a Str5 shot does -2 to the save roll.
Armor saves could be better than 2+. Armor saves of better than 2+ would still fail on rolls of 1, but they would be able to suffer more modifiers before the safe was reduced.
We could then add the Armor Piercing rule with a scale of vaules. So say a weapon with Armor Piercing(2) would modify saves by -2. A weapon with Armor Piercing(1) would be -1 to saves, etc... Armor piercing could also be what gives a weapon a bonus on the vehicle damage chart, equal to the amount of the armor piercing value. So Armor Piercing 2 would give +2 on the damage chart. Armor Piercing 1 would give +1.
You could also have a rule which says that the Strength of the attack does not modify the save. So that some attacks could be high strength, but always allow saves.
I would also suggest this would need to allow for models to make multiple saves vs the same wound as Fantasy also had. Allow a model to make both armor saves, and then choose between Cover or Invuln saves. And only if both of these rolls fail does the wound get suffered.
It would allow for some more granularity, as well as make cover more important for armored troops.
If you did this, I would change power armor to give a 2+ save and Terminator armor to give a 0+ save and 5+ invuln. So a Terminator could suffer a total of -2 modifier and still pass armor saves on 2+.
I feel the problem with using WHFB's strength based system word for word is that too many weapons have S4+ and in general the offensive power of armies is much higher. In WHFB you rarely had to kill every model in a unit like you do frequently in 40k. So I think the strength based modifier system WHFB uses would result in modifiers being way too high.
I think it's better just to give weapons a modifier value, after that there's maybe a few units that you'd need to sort out modifiers for (creatures that don't use weapons but are still big and scary enough to have a modifier, or weapons like Tyranid's Scything Talons which should really confer a modifier based on the unit that is using them).
In general I think S4 shouldn't cause any modifier unless it's a specifically armour piercing S4 weapon.
Poly Ranger wrote: Woah that got really heavy from page 13!
Just responding to the terminators go to a 1+ (failing on a 1) and lose their invuln...
That makes terminators awful against any ap1 and any ignores armour save weapons which are both reasonably common enough for it to actually matter. Furthermore it does literally nothing against small arms fire, scatter lasers, etc. Termis still die in droves to these things. That change will do absolutely nothing to make them more viable which is what this thread is asking.
Currently termis may die too much to grav/plasma/rending etc, but they die even more commonly to a minor amount of small arms fire. This is why 2W and fnp is actually fluffier by what it represents - they are 3 times tougher against small arms/grav/plasma/rending/scatter lasers etc, but don't become any tougher aginst melta, krak missiles getting through their normal save, demolisher cannons wiping a squad, D mutilating them etc. The result of that is FAR fluffier than them still dropping like flies to grot blasters.
Hahah true about the heavy conversation!
I dont mind Terminators as single wound 30-40 point models being 1'd out by small arms fire or a swarm of attacks in melee. That's not what's making them unviable. The current unviabilty is purely the amount of AP2 available which has ballooned in the meta. In comparison, AP1 is far more of a rarity.
Poly Ranger wrote: Woah that got really heavy from page 13!
Just responding to the terminators go to a 1+ (failing on a 1) and lose their invuln...
That makes terminators awful against any ap1 and any ignores armour save weapons which are both reasonably common enough for it to actually matter. Furthermore it does literally nothing against small arms fire, scatter lasers, etc. Termis still die in droves to these things. That change will do absolutely nothing to make them more viable which is what this thread is asking.
Currently termis may die too much to grav/plasma/rending etc, but they die even more commonly to a minor amount of small arms fire. This is why 2W and fnp is actually fluffier by what it represents - they are 3 times tougher against small arms/grav/plasma/rending/scatter lasers etc, but don't become any tougher aginst melta, krak missiles getting through their normal save, demolisher cannons wiping a squad, D mutilating them etc. The result of that is FAR fluffier than them still dropping like flies to grot blasters.
Hahah true about the heavy conversation!
I dont mind Terminators as single wound 30-40 point models being 1'd out by small arms fire or a swarm of attacks in melee. That's not what's making them unviable. The current unviabilty is purely the amount of AP2 available which has ballooned in the meta. In comparison, AP1 is far more of a rarity.
Gotta identify the correct problem to fix.
I do agree with you that the amount of ap2 is a big problem to their viability, but disagree that it is the main problem. Imo it is the issue that they drop incredibly quickly to cheap high rate of fire weaponry is the primary problem. Ap2 prevalence second. Lack of damage output 3rd. All 3 need to be adressed to make them viable.
I feel the problem with using WHFB's strength based system word for word is that too many weapons have S4+ and in general the offensive power of armies is much higher. In WHFB you rarely had to kill every model in a unit like you do frequently in 40k. So I think the strength based modifier system WHFB uses would result in modifiers being way too high.
Actually in WHFB you did indeed have to kill the entire unit. All scenarios were kill point scenarios and you only got points if a unit was totally destroyed. 1 guy survives and goes and hides in a corner and his entire unit gives you nothing.
It would indeed have to have some major rebalancing for sure.
I still think the #1 problem is the stormbolter. They deep strike in, nothing happens, and only then they get massacred. If they could take out some models, say some that have the AP 2 weapons, they might live. Even the centurion needs invis to be survivable.
They could put special ammo types in for storm bolters.
Like let them purchase a special issue ammunition for the entire squad.
20 points: The terminator squad may swap their regular Storm bolter ammunition for Vengeance(Str4 AP3, Gets Hot Assault 2), Helfire(StrX, AP5, Fleshbane Assault 2), or Dragonfire(Str4, AP5, ignores cover Assault 2) ammunition. The entire squad must choose the same ammo type.
Martel732 wrote: I still think the #1 problem is the stormbolter. They deep strike in, nothing happens, and only then they get massacred. If they could take out some models, say some that have the AP 2 weapons, they might live. Even the centurion needs invis to be survivable.
Not in total agreement there. I agree it's a problem but not #1. Survivability is #1. If you deepstrike them in and they survive you now have a 6" plus charge range threat radius with those powerfists. That can severley disrupt an oponents plan. Maybe not if they are all on jetbikes or have JSJ, but against most opponents. Survivability is the key issue, so they can bring the heavy hitting afterwards. And if they do end up getting wiped with fnp and 2 wounds, they will have distracted a much larger amount of the opponents firepower.
Martel732 wrote: I still think the #1 problem is the stormbolter. They deep strike in, nothing happens, and only then they get massacred. If they could take out some models, say some that have the AP 2 weapons, they might live. Even the centurion needs invis to be survivable.
Not in total agreement there. I agree it's a problem but not #1. Survivability is #1. If you deepstrike them in and they survive you now have a 6" plus charge range threat radius with those powerfists. That can severley disrupt an oponents plan. Maybe not if they are all on jetbikes or have JSJ, but against most opponents. Survivability is the key issue, so they can bring the heavy hitting afterwards. And if they do end up getting wiped with fnp and 2 wounds, they will have distracted a much larger amount of the opponents firepower.
Kinda like Jancoran's mutilators. And no, I'm not joking.
I still couldn't use FNP 2W terminators in my meta because too many ion accelerators. WKs still turn them into paste in CC. The problems are legion.
Offense, defense, mobility, firepower, CC power, costing, leadership, formation interactions and FOC status, synergy, internal/external ballance, fluff and intended game role -- these are all important to consider.
I understand the thread is 16 pages long, but balance issues really aren't that simple if you're balancing with other units in mind.
Yoyoyo wrote: Incidentally, good point -- where do Mutilators and Oblits stand once we make CSM Termies 2W?
They already have extra utility because they come in squads of one. If I could field my DC as each model being it's own squad, they'd be good too. But I guess they'd have to get 3 W.
Martel732 wrote: I still think the #1 problem is the stormbolter. They deep strike in, nothing happens, and only then they get massacred. If they could take out some models, say some that have the AP 2 weapons, they might live. Even the centurion needs invis to be survivable.
Not in total agreement there. I agree it's a problem but not #1. Survivability is #1. If you deepstrike them in and they survive you now have a 6" plus charge range threat radius with those powerfists. That can severley disrupt an oponents plan. Maybe not if they are all on jetbikes or have JSJ, but against most opponents. Survivability is the key issue, so they can bring the heavy hitting afterwards. And if they do end up getting wiped with fnp and 2 wounds, they will have distracted a much larger amount of the opponents firepower.
Except offensive output IS the primary issue. If you want durability we got Centurions now. Terminators never had the wall role and people need to quit hamfisting them into it simply because they read fluff that fits what they want.
I'm not sure how many people are willing to accept that interpretation, though. GW's got quite the little mess here. I think in GW's mind, the 5++ invuln reflects the legendary toughness of the armor. Which is just.... mind boggling.
I still couldn't use FNP 2W terminators in my meta because too many ion accelerators
This is where you theoretically want to use multiwound infantry like Assault Centurions, since their T5/2W is going to shake off a S8 hit (especially if we also back it with FNP that works up to S8).
WK still turn them into paste in CC.
This is where you should want to use 1W units, since you're losing less combat power every time you take an unsaved wound. It's a general consensus that WKs are undercosted. Scrapping with 10x Terminators (350pts) cannot be that great for a WK, it only takes 55x attacks to kill a Sword/Shield WK. That's even less if we increase the wounding values of specialist gear like a Chainfist.
---
Seems like we have the chance to distinguish the utility of 1W and 2W units, rather than simply making a 2W unit better. If Centurions can be insta-killed by 2W weapons like Lascannons and Chainfists, but shake off damage better from less damaging weapons -- great, we've actually made the 1W versus 2W choice meaningful. We're adding tactical choice to the game and encouraging diversity. Hard counters become more effective than wound spam.
Yes, Terminators then don't get 2W -- but they are infantry and that means the same general rules of use. Cross open ground in transports and use cover to survive. Since you have Centurions and full-size Dreadnoughts as small-arms bullet sponges, I don't think slightly more Terminator vulnerability is bad. Players might be a little reluctant to cross open ground on foot, but that's actually a tactical choice. And against small arms in good cover, they can be made 2-3x as resilient without touching their statline at all.
I feel the problem with using WHFB's strength based system word for word is that too many weapons have S4+ and in general the offensive power of armies is much higher. In WHFB you rarely had to kill every model in a unit like you do frequently in 40k. So I think the strength based modifier system WHFB uses would result in modifiers being way too high.
Actually in WHFB you did indeed have to kill the entire unit.
I meant you didn't have to individually kill each and every model in the unit, you just had to break them and run them down. You didn't have to kill each model through the process of hitting, wounding and them failing a save.
The units that were damned near impossible to break and had to be wiped out to a man were few and far between (Temple Guard for example).
All scenarios were kill point scenarios and you only got points if a unit was totally destroyed.
Actually that was only the most recent version of WHFB and IMO it was one of the crappier changes to the WHFB rules. Prior editions of WHFB you got points for half strength units and you also got points for capturing standards simply by breaking a unit in close combat.
Yup as is without rend they are now four times tougher than a tac marine, to a minimum of 2 times tougher with stupid amounts of rend (5+). I'm guessing they will average at about three times tougher in most situations. Depending on how effective storm bolters become they could be a pretty viable at three times the points of marines, which is a little cheaper than they are now.
ILegion wrote: I'm pretty excited about this, especially the S6, T7, W8, 3+ dreads. I love those models. I might be able to play them AND a Land Raider in 8e.
No more getting three shot by autocannons.. NO MORE!.. Maybe.
Note: Assuming that is the standard terminator stat line. Paladins should have 3 wounds each. Which will make them extremely tough to kill without using heavy weapons.
Jaxler wrote: To those of f you saying terminators were never viable, I'd like to remind you about grey Knights in 5th/6th.
I hear a lot about that edition Grey Knight codex.
But all I can think was it was utterly wrecked by my Dark Eldar (Wych based) army consistently.
GK Terminators were just regular terminators that wounded on 3's rather than 2's
PAGK were as effective as tactical marines per model (but there were less of them)
And NDK died easily to agonisers and/or splinter weapons.
Ahh I miss the days when Dark Eldar were decent.....
Now, the question comes in: Will eldar rangers sniper rifles wound everything on a 2+. And if so, my box with 50 rangers might actually become small gods.
Jaxler wrote: To those of f you saying terminators were never viable, I'd like to remind you about grey Knights in 5th/6th.
They weren't good; they just happened to slot into wht gw has lovingly just reffered to as 'loopholes'.
Taking GK termies only worked when you started building broke deathstars, exploiting wound allocation and delivered characters. Both them and bikenobs were 'nerfed to gak because of it when they fixed wound allocation.
I certainly hope the changes to IC's mean that we can game wounds on expensive units again.
Jaxler wrote: To those of f you saying terminators were never viable, I'd like to remind you about grey Knights in 5th/6th.
I don't recall terminators being the reason GK were good in 5th ed. And GK were not that great in 6th. Paladins were good in late 5th, but still were not the major reason for GK nonsense. GK in 5th used almost no actual GK, but instead ran henchman spam, dreadnaught spam, and Razorback Spam. Tons of S6 and 8 Shooting, that shrugged off most damage.
There was a short window in 5th where deathwing were an anti-meta army and performed decently. But typically they were not great due to low mobility, damage output, and only so-so durability.
Yeah, basically that. 6e kiboshed those tricks, then the one-two punch of Eldar, now with Bladestorm, and Tau, now with more plasma, kiboshed most of the rest of it.
Jaxler wrote: To those of f you saying terminators were never viable, I'd like to remind you about grey Knights in 5th/6th.
They weren't good; they just happened to slot into wht gw has lovingly just reffered to as 'loopholes'.
Taking GK termies only worked when you started building broke deathstars, exploiting wound allocation and delivered characters. Both them and bikenobs were 'nerfed to gak because of it when they fixed wound allocation.
I certainly hope the changes to IC's mean that we can game wounds on expensive units again.
terminators in general were pretty good in 5th where D weapons were not a thing let alone common and there were only a few ap2 weapons around
jade_angel wrote: Yeah, basically that. 6e kiboshed those tricks, then the one-two punch of Eldar, now with Bladestorm, and Tau, now with more plasma, kiboshed most of the rest of it.
The loss of decent invuls, usable psychic powers, psybolt, free hammers, Grand Strategy, and the 2++ challenge tank in the 7e GK book didn't help either.
Rippy wrote: It's good to know that the answer to OP looks like a "yes"
Well, no one should jump the gun yet. A lot of this now hinges on:
* What do they cost?
* Is the storm bolter a decent gun? (i.e. will bolt weapons have a -1 save mode)
* What is the range of expected ASM's?
* Do they retain additional save shenanigans (ignoring certain amounts of ASM, re-rolls, unmodified saves, AoS-style mortal wound saves, etc.)?
And probably a few others.
If high-end weapons still have a -6 ASM ala 2nd Edition then they'll need more than a 2+ to survive. If the storm bolter is still a wet noodle then they are still just a glorified heavy weapons team that can take a punch. If they have no other save tricks beyond a 2+ then high ASM's will eat them alive. If they make them more expensive then it sort of undoes that second wound.
I wont count my chickens yet. But if GW can make terminators and Dreadnaughts good, then my DW will be happy.
Not for the Space Wolves it won't.
33ppm comes standard with Storm Bolter and every Power Weapon except the Powerfist.
On the bright side I can nab a TH/SS combo for 15 points, on the downside just about every other Space Wolf unit does melee better.
Wolf Guard 18ppm + bike 7ppm + Shield 15ppm + Thunder Hammer 30ppm
Terminator costs 48 points, has a 2+ and 3++ and a jink save, moves six inches + d6 run or 2d6 charge or deepstrikes in 2nd turn at the earliest (Void Claws hit first turn but only have twin Wolf Claws).
Bike Guard costs a steep 70 points but has 3+ and 3++, +1 toughness, relentless twinlinked boltgun, Hammer of Wrath, moves twelve inches + twelve inch turbo boost or 2d6 charge and can sweep.
Martel732 wrote: No, they weren't because every power weapon in the game was AP2. Plus, plasma was a VERY common sight.
metas certainly varied, but you saw a whole lot more terminators in 5th edition tournament lists than you do now.
I didn't consider them viable at all. Weight of fire was a thing in 5th as well.
They've been bad in standard 40k for a while but do are a lot of success in 30k. Gw are essentially getting rid of super friends via keywords which was basically what they said in the livetsream. Meaning with less powerful deathstats tankier terminators who are also promised more survival rules. I think they could become usable. 8th will flip most units on their head and I think this is the first time they can truly shine.
Admittedly in 5th the only way they worked was design and 20 paladins for 1850. Normal gk terminators were pretty bad in comparison. And even then purifiers in razorbacks was far stronger.
Given that it looks like it will be tough to kill a Land Raider, its possible. My guess is with the massive increase in number of wounds, we will see multi-wound weapons come back like Fantasy used to have. With 1 unsaved wound multiplying into D3, D6, D3+1, etc... But even with that, a 20 wound T10* Landraider will likely survive a few turns.
*just a guess at their statline, they could have more wounds.
Grey Knight Terminators look like they'll be even better. I just hope they don't dumb down psychic powers and make them uninteresting ranged weapons with a "psychic power" skin on them.
First, from facebook (with regards to the Terminator's save):
Just the 1 D6, but with 2 wounds and a few other special rules to help keep them alive too...
So that's a good sign.
Further, we have some good showings with the weapons preview today. Unlike 2nd Edition it doesn't look like small arms will possess an inherent AP value for the most part (hurray!) and better yet, it looks like they're sticking to the AoS-style -1 to -3 range. We may see a -4, but I'm not too nervous on that (more likely we will get something like AoS mortal wounds).
So this means before any special rules, terminators are only likely to ever get dumped down to a 5+ save from the heaviest man-portable anti-tank weapons. Hell, this means marines in normal power armour actually get a save vs. LasCannons now. So currently, at worst, terminators are quite a bit more survivable than they were. With variable damage and two wounds, they will even survive one-in-six hits from a LasCannon that they fail to save.
Unfortunately, this is a bit of a double-edged sword. If bolters have no AP, then storm bolters likely wont have them either. So chances are, terminators will still be a bit light on firepower unless other changes occur.
On the other, other hand, tactical terminators are actually looking a lot better in hand-to-hand now. Base 3+ to hit with two attacks, power fists, good saves and multiple wounds? Even being 1" slower, that is a pretty good combo. If they can get a charge off it will be pretty devastating.
So now all that's left is seeing the rest of their special rules and equipment alongside what they cost now. But things are looking better for them than it has in a great many editions.
Yeah, it definitely looks like terminators may be at a good spot durabilitywise, which was really the only problem they had.
Sure, stormbolters aren't amazing or anything, but they're not awful either. They weren't the problem terminators had previously. The problem was that they didn't have the firepower for how durable they were. Now that they have durability, their firepower isn't a real issue.
The fact that terminators can potentially strike first in combat is already awesome. Everything else is gravy.
Also, I would bet money that stormbolters will be improved. See how terminators carry them one handed? What if they had pistol rules allowing to be used in cc or something? They can do this now.
I guess there's still hope that storm bolters get a higher ROF i guess?
I'm cautiously optimistic that they will do something to make the storm bolter differ from a regular bolter just because they seem to be trying to make every weapon useful and all the units more usable.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, it definitely looks like terminators may be at a good spot durabilitywise, which was really the only problem they had.
Sure, stormbolters aren't amazing or anything, but they're not awful either. They weren't the problem terminators had previously. The problem was that they didn't have the firepower for how durable they were. Now that they have durability, their firepower isn't a real issue.
The firepower is a huge issue. Stormbolters are awful currently and will probably be awful in 8th as well.
ILegion wrote: I guess there's still hope that storm bolters get a higher ROF i guess?
I'm cautiously optimistic that they will do something to make the storm bolter differ from a regular bolter just because they seem to be trying to make every weapon useful and all the units more usable.
Well if the Rapid Fire type is changed the way most are theorising (RF X = X Shots times 2 under half range)
Then the Storm bolter may be RF 2
Maybe the combi-bolter too (Never made sense to me that chaos had a weapon that was modelled virtually the same but with different rules)
If Terminators have 2 wounds, a 2+ save that at best will be reduced to 5+ or 6+ by anti tank weapons and maybe another fnp style save on top of that, will they finally be tough enough? I feel like they will.
So long as they can increase their attack power things will be looking up.
Well, we have the new to-wound chart and now things are getting interesting.
Against traditional S6-7 foils, T4 stuff has seen a boost in toughness. So while we can't assume stats for terminator-bane yet (S7 AP2 in previous editions) and we don't know what other rules they have to help survival out, this is another baked-in (in terms of it just being part of the rules) buff to T4 armies in general.
It will be interesting to see what the new stats for plasma weaponry is. My hunch is that it will be getting a downgrade to AP -2 to give more room in the scale for dedicated anti-tank stuff (assuming a 0 to -3 range like AoS, roughly half the scale we had back in 2nd Edition). But even at -3 only wounding on a 3+ and possibly not being able to kill in one hit (depends on if it warrants a d3 or not) if a pretty big boon for teminators.
Storm bolters will also get a boost vs. T6 and T7 units as well, but that isn't super huge. I'm still holding out for them becoming Assault 3-4 or something. But we also don't know what fists will be like (some are hypothesizing a -1 WS mod, which sounds reasonable) so they may work out really well as a hybrid shoot-assault unit. Hell, if the storm bolter becomes a pistol when they wield it that has some interesting implications for them as well. And of course we still need to know what deep strike looks like (and whether you can shoot before assaulting).
Still too many variables to tell, but this edition has definitely made terminators tougher so far.
I'm kind of intrigued to see what becomes of Deathwing Knights now.
Ronin_eX wrote: Well, we have the new to-wound chart and now things are getting interesting.
Against traditional S6-7 foils, T4 stuff has seen a boost in toughness. So while we can't assume stats for terminator-bane yet (S7 AP2 in previous editions) and we don't know what other rules they have to help survival out, this is another baked-in (in terms of it just being part of the rules) buff to T4 armies in general.
It will be interesting to see what the new stats for plasma weaponry is. My hunch is that it will be getting a downgrade to AP -2 to give more room in the scale for dedicated anti-tank stuff (assuming a 0 to -3 range like AoS, roughly half the scale we had back in 2nd Edition). But even at -3 only wounding on a 3+ and possibly not being able to kill in one hit (depends on if it warrants a d3 or not) if a pretty big boon for teminators.
Storm bolters will also get a boost vs. T6 and T7 units as well, but that isn't super huge. I'm still holding out for them becoming Assault 3-4 or something. But we also don't know what fists will be like (some are hypothesizing a -1 WS mod, which sounds reasonable) so they may work out really well as a hybrid shoot-assault unit. Hell, if the storm bolter becomes a pistol when they wield it that has some interesting implications for them as well. And of course we still need to know what deep strike looks like (and whether you can shoot before assaulting).
Still too many variables to tell, but this edition has definitely made terminators tougher so far.
I'm kind of intrigued to see what becomes of Deathwing Knights now.
power fists like lascannons and the like will likely do more wounds, my bet is d3 per hit to the model.
Ronin_eX wrote: Well, we have the new to-wound chart and now things are getting interesting.
Against traditional S6-7 foils, T4 stuff has seen a boost in toughness. So while we can't assume stats for terminator-bane yet (S7 AP2 in previous editions) and we don't know what other rules they have to help survival out, this is another baked-in (in terms of it just being part of the rules) buff to T4 armies in general.
It will be interesting to see what the new stats for plasma weaponry is. My hunch is that it will be getting a downgrade to AP -2 to give more room in the scale for dedicated anti-tank stuff (assuming a 0 to -3 range like AoS, roughly half the scale we had back in 2nd Edition). But even at -3 only wounding on a 3+ and possibly not being able to kill in one hit (depends on if it warrants a d3 or not) if a pretty big boon for teminators.
Storm bolters will also get a boost vs. T6 and T7 units as well, but that isn't super huge. I'm still holding out for them becoming Assault 3-4 or something. But we also don't know what fists will be like (some are hypothesizing a -1 WS mod, which sounds reasonable) so they may work out really well as a hybrid shoot-assault unit. Hell, if the storm bolter becomes a pistol when they wield it that has some interesting implications for them as well. And of course we still need to know what deep strike looks like (and whether you can shoot before assaulting).
Still too many variables to tell, but this edition has definitely made terminators tougher so far.
I'm kind of intrigued to see what becomes of Deathwing Knights now.
I wonder if they'll seperate the Grey Knight wrist-mounted jobbie? Not exactly a pistol that.
Ronin_eX wrote: Well, we have the new to-wound chart and now things are getting interesting.
Against traditional S6-7 foils, T4 stuff has seen a boost in toughness. So while we can't assume stats for terminator-bane yet (S7 AP2 in previous editions) and we don't know what other rules they have to help survival out, this is another baked-in (in terms of it just being part of the rules) buff to T4 armies in general.
It will be interesting to see what the new stats for plasma weaponry is. My hunch is that it will be getting a downgrade to AP -2 to give more room in the scale for dedicated anti-tank stuff (assuming a 0 to -3 range like AoS, roughly half the scale we had back in 2nd Edition). But even at -3 only wounding on a 3+ and possibly not being able to kill in one hit (depends on if it warrants a d3 or not) if a pretty big boon for teminators.
Storm bolters will also get a boost vs. T6 and T7 units as well, but that isn't super huge. I'm still holding out for them becoming Assault 3-4 or something. But we also don't know what fists will be like (some are hypothesizing a -1 WS mod, which sounds reasonable) so they may work out really well as a hybrid shoot-assault unit. Hell, if the storm bolter becomes a pistol when they wield it that has some interesting implications for them as well. And of course we still need to know what deep strike looks like (and whether you can shoot before assaulting).
Still too many variables to tell, but this edition has definitely made terminators tougher so far.
I'm kind of intrigued to see what becomes of Deathwing Knights now.
I wonder if they'll seperate the Grey Knight wrist-mounted jobbie? Not exactly a pistol that.
Back in the day Grey Knights had a rule that treated their Storm Bolters as Pistols in melee, so that they would get a bonus attack. I think the trade-off was no extra attacks on the charge.
I'd like them to get their old Shrouding rule back.
Grey Templar wrote: They could very well have 3 wounds, or even 4! Most stuff seems to be getting a lot more wounds if they had more than 1 before.
I'm thinking 4 wounds.
This would make them viable, if and only if instant death is no longer a thing.
If instant death is a thing, it doesn't matter how many wounds they have, since strength 8 is EVERYWHERE.
At this point, if ID is still around, that would be all kinds of silly. That doesn't mean it is gone. But I'm not holding my breath, I'm basically 99% certain at this point that it's dead, dead, dead.
Multi-wound does what it did, but with less wild swing depending on target toughness. It was another one of those throwing out the baby with the bath water situations that 3rd Edition created. Sure, rolling d8's and d12's for damage was daft in a game what otherwise just used d6's. The solution was not to wipe the whole thing out and institute the ill-advised ID system that made T3-4 characters useless. The solution was to do what WFB did and just use d3's and d6's for damage.
So I wouldn't expect ID to stick around considering it was a poorly-implemented stopgap caused by an overreaction to the less than stellar multi-wound implementation in 2nd. But just like ASM's (and mods in general), what it needed was a lighter touch than a ground-up re-design.
I certainly hope Terminators become useful in 8th edition.
My modest collection of 40K models is includes a very high percentage of Terminators. Granted they are spread out over my two actual 40K factions (Black Legion and Fallen Dark Angel) as well as my more recent addition of Blood Angels via Space Hulk. Though, the Space Hulk ones aren't likely to see anything more than the board game.
All told, I have some 28 Terminators. To put that in perspective for my collection, I only have 25 cultists; 30 if you count 5 guardsmen I painted up as traitors.
After everything I've read in the previews I've doubled down on my terminators and now have almost 2k of Deathwing As for how many that is, it's 3 five man squads, 2 assault squads, a squad of Deathwing knights (may get more), a Deathwing command squad, Belial, chaplain, librarian, and a captain, plus a few extra heavy weapons. I don't think they will be OP, but the idea of them being in the same ballpark of everyone else is exciting. Today's announcement just validates that decision, with every model having split fire and the new wound chart.
If Plasma goes down to AP -2 (as seems likely) and stays at S7 a terminator goes from a (1 - (5/6 * 2/3)) 45% chance of not taking a wound from a plasma weapon hit to a (1-(2/3 * 1/2) to a 66% chance of not taking a wound. On top of that, they now have 2+ wounds. To put it another way, before it took about 2 plasma shots to down a terminator, now it will take 6. That's a stellar improvement.
Ronin_eX wrote: Well, we have the new to-wound chart and now things are getting interesting.
Against traditional S6-7 foils, T4 stuff has seen a boost in toughness. So while we can't assume stats for terminator-bane yet (S7 AP2 in previous editions) and we don't know what other rules they have to help survival out, this is another baked-in (in terms of it just being part of the rules) buff to T4 armies in general.
It will be interesting to see what the new stats for plasma weaponry is. My hunch is that it will be getting a downgrade to AP -2 to give more room in the scale for dedicated anti-tank stuff (assuming a 0 to -3 range like AoS, roughly half the scale we had back in 2nd Edition). But even at -3 only wounding on a 3+ and possibly not being able to kill in one hit (depends on if it warrants a d3 or not) if a pretty big boon for teminators.
Storm bolters will also get a boost vs. T6 and T7 units as well, but that isn't super huge. I'm still holding out for them becoming Assault 3-4 or something. But we also don't know what fists will be like (some are hypothesizing a -1 WS mod, which sounds reasonable) so they may work out really well as a hybrid shoot-assault unit. Hell, if the storm bolter becomes a pistol when they wield it that has some interesting implications for them as well. And of course we still need to know what deep strike looks like (and whether you can shoot before assaulting).
Still too many variables to tell, but this edition has definitely made terminators tougher so far.
I'm kind of intrigued to see what becomes of Deathwing Knights now.
I wonder if they'll seperate the Grey Knight wrist-mounted jobbie? Not exactly a pistol that.
Back in the day Grey Knights had a rule that treated their Storm Bolters as Pistols in melee, so that they would get a bonus attack. I think the trade-off was no extra attacks on the charge.
I'd like them to get their old Shrouding rule back.
Huh...semi-related - ever seen RWBY? Bit like Yang's gauntlet guns. Punch and trigger.
Grimgold wrote: So the last question in the terminator puzzle is, what do storm shields do.
Well, I think we're also still waiting on what storm bolters do, what all of their close combat weapons do, as well as what storm shields do, and most importantly what do they cost.
From the FB comments, they imply the storm bolter is going to fire "oh, so many shots" but that could mean anything. Considering that SM bikes are now likely sporting Rapid Fire 2 "twin boltguns" the storm bolter is going to either need to become just another "twin boltgun" or it will need an upgrade. Because I would take a weapon that pumps out 4 shots at 12" (and 2 at 24") any day of the week over the current storm bolter.
Other close combat weapons? That is still another big chunk of the puzzle, with fists being an incredibly important part of it.
Storm shields (and invulnerable saves in general) are still a big unknown.
And above all, even if they're improved, if they're too expensive for what we get they still wont hit the field.
Oh, and they still haven't told us what other defensive abilities terminators have (because they said they have a few more tricks up their sleeves).
So yeah, still a ton of missing context here, but that things are changing is at least promising. It's a damn sight better than we've had for a long while, even if it ends up all being for nought.
Grimgold wrote: So the last question in the terminator puzzle is, what do storm shields do.
Moreover, how do invulnerable saves work?
If calculating invlun save works *exactly the same* as it did in 7th edition, where you just apply the better save and roll, the most cost effective weapons for shooting storm shield terminators would be heavy bolters. Lots of dice, -1 save mod to drop them to 3+/3++, wounding on 3's.
Of course the second they're in cover you'd want a -2 AP, but still, with those shields they're not so much worried about cover anymore.
Assuming, of course, Grav isn't around anymore, and wounding on 2s.
Storm bolters are almost assuredly rapid fire 2 bolters, Maybe they get up to assault 3. We know this because we know the rules for combi-bolters (literally rapid fire 2 bolters), and we know they are pretty close to parity.
Power Fist are str x2, AP -3, and do a d3 damage. So two terminators in CC will do about as much damage as a battle cannon. Lighting claws and thunder hammers are a little less clear, but we know their zip code if not their street address.
We also know invul saves are still around, they mentioned Magnus has one in the characters preview. At a guess, it will be a AoS style ethereal save which ignores rend.
Grimgold wrote: Storm bolters are almost assuredly rapid fire 2 bolters, Maybe they get up to assault 3. We know this because we know the rules for combi-bolters (literally rapid fire 2 bolters), and we know they are pretty close to parity.
Well that is the rub.
The game currently has three different weapons whose concept is "two boltguns duct taped together".
Bikes have twin-linked bolters. Chaos terminators wield the combi-bolter (identical to a twin-linked bolter). Loyalist terminators use the storm bolter, which while it is supposed to be basically two bolt guns strapped together, it currently functions like one and a half.
Now, if GW simplified and crunched all these weapons down in to one profile, I wouldn't complain. Getting 4 shots at 12" basically plays in to the CQB nature of terminators and plays well with the SB+Fist loadout that wants to be in close and getting stuck in.
But with that said, this doesn't mean they will be the same. The storm bolter has long had a distinct profile, and with 8th edition re-introducing classic combi-weapons and distinct twin-linked weapon rules it is the first time that a biker's twin boltgun and Chaos terminator's combi-bolter have a chance at being distinct weapons since 2nd Edition exited stage left.
Given that, I think GW may actually stick with the storm bolter having its own profile in order to make it a proper upgrade over the thing Chaos terminators will be using (and given the new combi rules, chaos terminators just got a massive potential firepower boost).
Either way is a win. Rapid Fire 2 storm bolters are nifty, but a hypothetical Assault 3-4 one would be pretty great as well. We'll have to wait and see.
Starting with current vanilla marine termies and prices:
Hard to kill - may reroll any innate armour saves or invulnerable saves. This wouldn't apply to storm shields.
Special ammo - storm bolters and combi bolters can use sternguard special ammo.
Lightning claws - still cheaper than thunder hammers, but ap2 (or equivalent in the new system) to encourage a reason to take anything but th/ss termies.
Price reductions - depending on how the above worked out, i'd be looking at their costs for heavy weapons to start with, and of course their base price.
Remember everyone, its possible that they may go back to the old Fantasy methods of saves. Where you got multiple saves vs wounds. So you could get your armor, and then either choice of invuln or feel no pain(or whatever it's replacement is). Sort of compensating for the fact that armor gets made much less effective than it looks on paper.
Storm Shields would probably no longer give a 3+ invuln if this is the case, but might be something like +2 to your invuln saves. So terminators with storm shields would have a 3+ invuln still, but a regular dude with no invuln would only get a 5+ with a Storm shield. but he would get both his armor and his invuln save vs any wounds.
Storm Shields could also be something else entirely. Like reduce the Rend value of any wounds by 2. So effectively giving you +2 to your armor.
Torga_DW wrote: Where i would have looked at fixing terminators:
Starting with current vanilla marine termies and prices:
Hard to kill - may reroll any innate armour saves or invulnerable saves. This wouldn't apply to storm shields.
Special ammo - storm bolters and combi bolters can use sternguard special ammo.
Lightning claws - still cheaper than thunder hammers, but ap2 (or equivalent in the new system) to encourage a reason to take anything but th/ss termies.
Price reductions - depending on how the above worked out, i'd be looking at their costs for heavy weapons to start with, and of course their base price.
Just my 2 cents though.
with the new way of doing armor now, lightning claws are going to be an attractive option.
BrianDavion wrote: with the new way of doing armor now, lightning claws are going to be an attractive option.
More attractive than before, sure. But i don't think we have enough info yet (do we? i haven't followed every rumour/preview that's come out) to say that they'll be an attractive alternative to the th/ss combo. Remember with the new rules, th won't be striking last all the time anymore. Basically i'd just like the different options to be viable and meaningful, instead of the obvious no-brainer choices that we've had for quite some time now, in which case lightning claws need a buff.
First, we have seen that a chaos terminator (sans equipment) is 31 points or so. Marines are likely to be in the ballpark. Next, we've seen enough stuff in terminator armour at this point that their traditional 5+ invulnerable is sticking around. Further, it doesn't look like they're getting any additional saves. So no ignoring mortal wounds or the like that I can see.
So where does that leave us?
First, the Stormbolter got a buff. It is now a twin-linked boltgun. So that is 4 shots at 12" now, meaning the rest of the squad will be providing a torrent of fire alongside their specialist brethren.
Second, the powerfist is vastly improved. It will strike first on a charge but now suffers a -1 to hit. But as marines used to basically always hit on a 4, this isn't a massive issue. That said, it is pricey now. A tactical terminator now looks like it might be more expensive than it used to be (but that is kind of expected now that they are quite a bit more survivable than they used to be (two wounds, no more insta-death making T4 a bad breakpoint). In return, its firepower is effectively doubled at range (compared to a tactical marine), and in hand-to-hand it is a beast against just about everything.
Third, the heavy weapons got a boost. The assault cannon is now Heavy 6 and S7. For Deathwing, the plasma cannon is now worth taking since it isn't saddled to the crappy small blast anymore and overheating is voluntary. The heavy flamer getting a -1 AP means that it is quite a bit more valuable against a variety of targets while remaining cheap. The only thing we haven't seen yet are whether that reaper autocannon in the marine list is something terminators can take, and what the CML does now (sure is expensive though).
So tactical terminators got a much needed firepower boost and are actually pretty decent in hand-to-hand now as well. Popping a tactical terminator squad in to a standard pattern land raider might not be a terrible idea anymore. Expensive still, but possibly worth the expense for once.
Still need to see a whole lot more. But this is starting to look promising.
Edit - Looks like basic terminators are 26 points!
So that is 48 points for a basic tactical terminator with a storm bolter and a power fist. Not too shabby at all considering the other costs we've seen.
Don't forget free split fire, and the new AP mechanic helping out Missiles and Assault Cannons. Storm Bolters got the fix I thought was most appropriate.
Reliable DS and improved Land Raiders solve the delivery problem.
The extra wound is nice but Melta, Grav, and Supercharged Plasma will still one-shot Terminators. However the new toughness mechanic means a S6 or S7 weapon wounds on a 3+, which is significant. They finally benefit from cover which is awesome.
All in all, a pretty good balance solution. They covered almost every glaring issue, while not making a 2W unit better in all situations.
Yoyoyo wrote: Don't forget free split fire, and the new AP mechanic helping out Missiles and Assault Cannons. Storm Bolters got the fix I thought was most appropriate.
Reliable DS and improved Land Raiders solve the delivery problem.
The extra wound is nice but Melta, Grav, and Supercharged Plasma will still one-shot Terminators. However the new toughness mechanic means a S6 or S7 weapon wounds on a 3+, which is significant. They finally benefit from cover which is awesome.
All in all, a pretty good balance solution. They covered almost every glaring issue, while not making a 2W unit better in all situations.
Though what I love about the changes (as well as S6-7 wounding on 3+ now) is that it isn't as cut and dry.
Plasma is a real risk going overcharged for some units now. Unless you have a handy re-roll around, a 1-in-6 chance of losing the model is pretty nasty.
Grav? It does 1d3 wounds now. So a 1-in-3 chance that it only does one wound and you survive (in addition to wounding on 3+ instead of 2+).
Melta is arguably still an issue, but it remains short ranged and quite expensive now. And with drop pods moving to 107 points and rhinos bumping to 70 points, cheap ways of getting to point blank are few and far between. A combi-melta Sternguard unit in a pod is now massively expensive. 35 points per model and a 107 point transport. They hit like a ton of bricks, but even a 5-man in a pod costs 282 points now.
So the counters of terminators are still around, but less cut and dry than they were previously. Plasma is riskier to get that second wound, grav wont always deal 2+ wounds, and melta got a sort of meta-nerf by making traditional delivery methods quite a bit more expensive than before.
It will take more than juggling a bunch of stray scans and rumours to tell if terminators finally get to be good. But many of the changes they've needed to make them good choices appear to be falling in to place. So it is promising to say the least.
but the point would stand that a base marine would cost much more than 14 points and a ork boy just a few. I usually choose fluffwise to think of it as a model representing so many of a squad. perhaps a ork boy is 4 orks working together, or a gaunt being 3-4 gaunts and a space marine squad might not be 5 men, but 2 and the heavy weapon guy means the weapon itself was damaged... why else would nobody else know how to pick it up and fire it.
