Regarding the plasma over melta thing: most D2 weapons are in the S6-S7 range with multiple shots which makes them more reliable to hit and do damage than a S8+ weapon with only one shot and random damage.
One thing brought up is that the melta really needs to be double strength at half range instead of an extra die for damage so it can actually punch holes into things like it used to.
ClockworkZion wrote: Regarding the plasma over melta thing: most D2 weapons are in the S6-S7 range with multiple shots which makes them more reliable to hit and do damage than a S8+ weapon with only one shot and random damage.
One thing brought up is that the melta really needs to be double strength at half range instead of an extra die for damage so it can actually punch holes into things like it used to.
The current extra dice for damage is actually better vs anything the melta is wounding on 3s or better than having double S instead.
Generally, melta's problem isn't wounding, it's:
A) getting passed invul saves.
B) only averaging 3.5 to 4.5 damage depending on if you are in melta range or not. This actually isn't that much damage against a lot of targets when you compare other weapons with 2-3 flat damage, worse AP, and more shots. It also really sucks when you roll 1 or 2 damage.
3) multi-melta's are heavy but typically need to move to get into range, and -1 to hit is a massive reduction in accuracy.
I'd change melta to always do at least 3 damage, which would make it considerably less annoying to use.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for dark angels, I think they are actually in a pretty good place if you ignore all the issues that all Marines have.
Their speeders and bike have jink, which is a great rule, those units are just too expensive/not normally durable enough.
The chapter tactic means you don't need a captain or dread around for backfield units, which isn't terrible, and it would allow them to take large marine squads if the game incentivised that at all (which it doesn't die to the way detachments work).
Az is a boss, they have some very good strats (like fall back and shoot, or more damage to plasma), good powers, so if Marines in general were more durable/hit harder I think DA would be just fine. They certainly don't need a full rework right away.
Dysartes wrote: Given we've gone back to the 1st/2nd ed approach to armour, why not take Terminators back to their 2nd ed save?
It's a little finicky to use in play (unless users of Terminators bring pairs of coloured dice), but 3+-on-2d6 (I think you'd remove the invul at this point, and have a roll of 2 as an auto-fail) gives a resilience against any weapon in the game that would be unmatched in this edition.
I'd suggest a blanket Re-roll failed saves for all SM/CSM units as the simplest solution to their durability problem. In order to make sure it applies to the units needing a boost and not thiose that are already or would be potentially problematic, or that simply would notmake any sense, fluff wise, I'de word it as follows.
The Black Carapace Units in ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES Detachments (other than than PRIMARCH, SCOUT, SERVITOR, CHAOS CULTISTS, DAEMON PRINCE, WULFEN, BEAST, DAEMON ENGINE, THOUSAND SONS and DEATH GUARD units) may reroll failed Save (Sv) and Invulnerability (Inv) rolls for models in that unit.
Also,I ve done a quick mock up of the odds of shots getting through for both re-rolling failed saves and giving a +1 to saves, versus Tactical and terminators current save chance.
Tactical Marine Lasgun | BS4+|S3|AP-0 Base=5.55%|Sv+1=2.77%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=1.85%
Bolt Gun | BS3+|S4|AP-0 Base=11.11%|Sv+1=5.55%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=3.70%
Heavy Bolter | BS3+|S5|AP-1 Base=22.22%|Sv+1=14.81%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=11.11%
Disintigration Cannon| BS3+|S5|AP-3 Base=37.03%| Sv+1=29.62%|Re-roll failed Sv's=30.86%
Plasma Gun O.C | BS3+|S8|AP-3 Base=46.29%| sv+1=37.03%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=38.58%
Hellblaster O.C | BS3+|S8|AP-4 Base=55.55%| Sv+1=37.96%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=55.55%
Dysartes wrote: Given we've gone back to the 1st/2nd ed approach to armour, why not take Terminators back to their 2nd ed save?
It's a little finicky to use in play (unless users of Terminators bring pairs of coloured dice), but 3+-on-2d6 (I think you'd remove the invul at this point, and have a roll of 2 as an auto-fail) gives a resilience against any weapon in the game that would be unmatched in this edition.
I'd suggest a blanket Re-roll failed saves for all SM/CSM units as the simplest solution to their durability problem. In order to make sure it applies to the units needing a boost and not thiose that are already or would be potentially problematic, or that simply would notmake any sense, fluff wise, I'de word it as follows.
The Black Carapace Units in ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES Detachments (other than than PRIMARCH, SCOUT, SERVITOR, CHAOS CULTISTS, DAEMON PRINCE, WULFEN, BEAST, DAEMON ENGINE, THOUSAND SONS and DEATH GUARD units) may reroll failed Save (Sv) and Invulnerability (Inv) rolls for models in that unit.
Also,I ve done a quick mock up of the odds of shots getting through for both re-rolling failed saves and giving a +1 to saves, versus Tactical and terminators current save chance.
Tactical Marine Lasgun | BS4+|S3|AP-0 Base=5.55%|Sv+1=2.77%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=1.85%
Bolt Gun | BS3+|S4|AP-0 Base=11.11%|Sv+1=5.55%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=3.70%
Heavy Bolter | BS3+|S5|AP-1 Base=22.22%|Sv+1=14.81%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=11.11%
Disintigration Cannon| BS3+|S5|AP-3 Base=37.03%| Sv+1=29.62%|Re-roll failed Sv's=30.86%
Plasma Gun O.C | BS3+|S8|AP-3 Base=46.29%| sv+1=37.03%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=38.58%
Hellblaster O.C | BS3+|S8|AP-4 Base=55.55%| Sv+1=37.96%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=55.55%
A rerollable 3+ is 3 times as durable as a normal 3+ save, and 1.5 times as durable as a current 2+ save.
The problem isn't the 3+ or the 2+ save against non AP weapons. A 3+ save, with the ability to make it 2+ in cover is actually really good. That's why you cant just give all Marines a 2+ save, because theyd be way too durable against small arm fire.
The problem is that even 1 point of AP drastically reduces marine durability, so that's where the change needs to happen. If Marines ignored the first point of AP that effected their armor save, most of the power armor durability issues would go away. The other durability issues would be solved by letting all of the 2 wound Marines (primaris, bikes, etc) ignore 1 point of damage to a min of 1.
jcd386 has it exactly right. Rerollable saves become basically broken against basic weapons (which are by and large AP0). The simplest and cleanest solution is negating the first -1AP and decreasing damage by 1 (to a min of 1). This gives them durability much closer to what they used to have without breaking the game. And if you think that's too durable, it could always be given a restriction such as "Against weapons with a Strength characteristic of 8 or less..."
Dysartes wrote: Given we've gone back to the 1st/2nd ed approach to armour, why not take Terminators back to their 2nd ed save?
It's a little finicky to use in play (unless users of Terminators bring pairs of coloured dice), but 3+-on-2d6 (I think you'd remove the invul at this point, and have a roll of 2 as an auto-fail) gives a resilience against any weapon in the game that would be unmatched in this edition.
I'd suggest a blanket Re-roll failed saves for all SM/CSM units as the simplest solution to their durability problem. In order to make sure it applies to the units needing a boost and not thiose that are already or would be potentially problematic, or that simply would notmake any sense, fluff wise, I'de word it as follows.
The Black Carapace Units in ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES Detachments (other than than PRIMARCH, SCOUT, SERVITOR, CHAOS CULTISTS, DAEMON PRINCE, WULFEN, BEAST, DAEMON ENGINE, THOUSAND SONS and DEATH GUARD units) may reroll failed Save (Sv) and Invulnerability (Inv) rolls for models in that unit.
Also,I ve done a quick mock up of the odds of shots getting through for both re-rolling failed saves and giving a +1 to saves, versus Tactical and terminators current save chance.
Tactical Marine Lasgun | BS4+|S3|AP-0 Base=5.55%|Sv+1=2.77%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=1.85%
Bolt Gun | BS3+|S4|AP-0 Base=11.11%|Sv+1=5.55%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=3.70%
Heavy Bolter | BS3+|S5|AP-1 Base=22.22%|Sv+1=14.81%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=11.11%
Disintigration Cannon| BS3+|S5|AP-3 Base=37.03%| Sv+1=29.62%|Re-roll failed Sv's=30.86%
Plasma Gun O.C | BS3+|S8|AP-3 Base=46.29%| sv+1=37.03%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=38.58%
Hellblaster O.C | BS3+|S8|AP-4 Base=55.55%| Sv+1=37.96%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=55.55%
A rerollable 3+ is 3 times as durable as a normal 3+ save, and 1.5 times as durable as a current 2+ save.
A Terminator would take 108 bolter shots to kill.
The problem isn't the 3+ or the 2+ save against non AP weapons. A 3+ save, with the ability to make it 2+ in cover is actually really good. That's why you cant just give all Marines a 2+ save, because theyd be way too durable against small arm fire.
The problem is that even 1 point of AP drastically reduces marine durability, so that's where the change needs to happen. If Marines ignored the first point of AP that effected their armor save, most of the power armor durability issues would go away. The other durability issues would be solved by letting all of the 2 wound Marines (primaris, bikes, etc) ignore 1 point of damage to a min of 1.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.
I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard. Naturally that would apply to Primarchs as well since even they could use the extra protection.
Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.
The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.
I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard.
Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.
The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.
I don't think they do. Especially if they also ignore 1 point of AP, which they should IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.
Yeah I wouldn't give it to Bobby G or HQs since they have more than 3 wounds, which is typically better.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.
I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard.
Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.
The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.
I don't think they do. Especially if they also ignore 1 point of AP, which they should IMO.
Yeah, it was mostly something that came up when we were still discussing treating Terminators and other multi-wound models differently than single wound models. Making it a single rule works better and means less to keep track of.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.
I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard. Naturally that would apply to Primarchs as well since even they could use the extra protection.
Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.
The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.
I'm more concerned about the lack of consistency. Somehow all these Marines have this armor that's granting rerolling of saves yet the Primarchs, who would obviously have far more advanced armor, don't get the bonus.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.
I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard. Naturally that would apply to Primarchs as well since even they could use the extra protection.
Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.
The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.
Thats pretty much why I don't think the SM/CSM base rule should be a +1 to save, it gets needlessly complicated when you start to factor in terminators and other similar units. A +1 save essentially makes Termies 5+Invuln and HQ's 4+ Invuln redundant, necessitating another rule to be added on top to differentiate them. re-rolling saves and invulnes doesn't require that while it increases their durability to an acceptable level while leaving the invuln as a still useful ability against the highest AP attacks.
If you are afraid of the durability increase this will cause against low strength and AP weapons, I'd say that that isn't really an issue, because, as a rule, your opponent should be shooting what they can kill or finding other ways of neutralizing the threat, like tying up the unit, devoting heavy weapons fire to them or using mortal wounds,instead of relying on S3, AP-0 and similar weapons to be the solution to armored units.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.
I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard. Naturally that would apply to Primarchs as well since even they could use the extra protection.
Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.
The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.
I'm more concerned about the lack of consistency. Somehow all these Marines have this armor that's granting rerolling of saves yet the Primarchs, who would obviously have far more advanced armor, don't get the bonus.
I'm not going to write to GW and ask them to give us rerolls on all of our saves. That is so massively broken that it's not even funny. Rerollable 2+ in cover for Tacticals? Not a chance.
Well I don't think you should have captains be reducing damage by one. That makes them way too durable.
If you wanted it to be one rule for all units, it could be something like "this unit ignores the first point of AP that would reduce it's armor save to a value worse than it's unmodified save value. Additionally, as long as this model is at its original number of wounds, incoming damage is reduced by 1 to a minimum of 1."
So 2 wound models would pretty much always reduce damage or just die, 1 wound models would just die but have a slight buff against multi damage weapons of they have FNP, but characters would still die okay to lots of multi damage attacks.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.
I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard. Naturally that would apply to Primarchs as well since even they could use the extra protection.
Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.
The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.
I'm more concerned about the lack of consistency. Somehow all these Marines have this armor that's granting rerolling of saves yet the Primarchs, who would obviously have far more advanced armor, don't get the bonus.
there's no reason, regarding game mechanics, that would necessitate the Primarchs getting the buff. They are so full of abilities already that anyone should be able to develop some head cannon for to justify them not getting a buff,
jcd386 wrote: Well I don't think you should have captains be reducing damage by one. That makes them way too durable.
If you wanted it to be one rule for all units, it could be something like "this unit ignores the first point of AP that would reduce it's armor save to a value worse than it's unmodified save value. Additionally, as long as this model is at its original number of wounds, incoming damage is reduced by 1 to a minimum of 1."
So 2 wound models would pretty much always reduce damage or just die, 1 wound models would just die but have a slight buff against multi damage weapons of they have FNP, but characters would still die okay to lots of multi damage attacks.
A Captain is still a Space Marine, so not doing it would be sillier than doing it. If anything it might mean a points bump which would make it harder to spam them (which we're likely going to get in December to cut down on the Slamcaptains), but it's a fair trade for a character who doesn't wilt under fire automatically. Especially for Primaris who have trouble getting a 2+ save on characters.
And never write rules that require constant book keeping or could slow down rolls. Besides, I already mentioned a way to mitigate it a bit: gate it to S8 or less weapons so that against anything heavier it wouldn't be given the -1 treatment. This would punish lone characters who zip ahead of the army more as they could end up eating heavy weapon fire for being exposed like that.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.
I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard. Naturally that would apply to Primarchs as well since even they could use the extra protection.
Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.
The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.
I'm more concerned about the lack of consistency. Somehow all these Marines have this armor that's granting rerolling of saves yet the Primarchs, who would obviously have far more advanced armor, don't get the bonus.
there's no reason, regarding game mechanics, that would necessitate the Primarchs getting the buff. They are so full of abilities already that anyone should be able to develop some head cannon for to justify them not getting a buff,
In all fairness, the buff I want only works against S8 or less weapons meaning the big guns you aim at Magnus would be unhampered by it anyways.
jcd386 wrote: Well I don't think you should have captains be reducing damage by one. That makes them way too durable.
If you wanted it to be one rule for all units, it could be something like "this unit ignores the first point of AP that would reduce it's armor save to a value worse than it's unmodified save value. Additionally, as long as this model is at its original number of wounds, incoming damage is reduced by 1 to a minimum of 1."
So 2 wound models would pretty much always reduce damage or just die, 1 wound models would just die but have a slight buff against multi damage weapons of they have FNP, but characters would still die okay to lots of multi damage attacks.
A Captain is still a Space Marine, so not doing it would be sillier than doing it. If anything it might mean a points bump which would make it harder to spam them (which we're likely going to get in December to cut down on the Slamcaptains), but it's a fair trade for a character who doesn't wilt under fire automatically. Especially for Primaris who have trouble getting a 2+ save on characters.
And never write rules that require constant book keeping or could slow down rolls. Besides, I already mentioned a way to mitigate it a bit: gate it to S8 or less weapons so that against anything heavier it wouldn't be given the -1 treatment. This would punish lone characters who zip ahead of the army more as they could end up eating heavy weapon fire for being exposed like that.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.
I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard. Naturally that would apply to Primarchs as well since even they could use the extra protection.
Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.
The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.
I'm more concerned about the lack of consistency. Somehow all these Marines have this armor that's granting rerolling of saves yet the Primarchs, who would obviously have far more advanced armor, don't get the bonus.
there's no reason, regarding game mechanics, that would necessitate the Primarchs getting the buff. They are so full of abilities already that anyone should be able to develop some head cannon for to justify them not getting a buff,
In all fairness, the buff I want only works against S8 or less weapons meaning the big guns you aim at Magnus would be unhampered by it anyways.
There isn't any book keeping you aren't already doing. If the model is at full wounds, reduce damage. If it's not, don't.
jcd386 wrote: There isn't any book keeping you aren't already doing. If the model is at full wounds, reduce damage. If it's not, don't.
I guess bookkeeping was the wrong word. I was more thinking how it would force you to roll every save one at a time for units of Terminators or Primaris as each wound could change on if it's affected or not. Basically it's too much complexity for the game for certain unit choices and would only lead to issues in competitive scenes.
jcd386 wrote: Well I don't think you should have captains be reducing damage by one. That makes them way too durable.
If you wanted it to be one rule for all units, it could be something like "this unit ignores the first point of AP that would reduce it's armor save to a value worse than it's unmodified save value. Additionally, as long as this model is at its original number of wounds, incoming damage is reduced by 1 to a minimum of 1."
So 2 wound models would pretty much always reduce damage or just die, 1 wound models would just die but have a slight buff against multi damage weapons of they have FNP, but characters would still die okay to lots of multi damage attacks.
A Captain is still a Space Marine, so not doing it would be sillier than doing it. If anything it might mean a points bump which would make it harder to spam them (which we're likely going to get in December to cut down on the Slamcaptains), but it's a fair trade for a character who doesn't wilt under fire automatically. Especially for Primaris who have trouble getting a 2+ save on characters.
And never write rules that require constant book keeping or could slow down rolls. Besides, I already mentioned a way to mitigate it a bit: gate it to S8 or less weapons so that against anything heavier it wouldn't be given the -1 treatment. This would punish lone characters who zip ahead of the army more as they could end up eating heavy weapon fire for being exposed like that.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.
I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard. Naturally that would apply to Primarchs as well since even they could use the extra protection.
Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.
The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.
I'm more concerned about the lack of consistency. Somehow all these Marines have this armor that's granting rerolling of saves yet the Primarchs, who would obviously have far more advanced armor, don't get the bonus.
there's no reason, regarding game mechanics, that would necessitate the Primarchs getting the buff. They are so full of abilities already that anyone should be able to develop some head cannon for to justify them not getting a buff,
In all fairness, the buff I want only works against S8 or less weapons meaning the big guns you aim at Magnus would be unhampered by it anyways.
hmm, I dont really see how an Sv buff affects the Strength of an attack,other than that High strength attacks TEND to have high AP values, but whatever. If re-rolling all failed saves is too much how about this instead?
BLACK CARAPACE Units in ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES Detachments (other than than PRIMARCH, SCOUT, SERVITOR, CHAOS CULTISTS, DAEMON PRINCE, WULFEN, BEAST, DAEMON ENGINE, THOUSAND SONS and DEATH GUARD units) may reroll failed Save (Sv) and Invulnerability (Inv) rolls OF 1 for models in that unit.
I'm still not down for the rerolls. If anything one of the complaints I've seen a lot of is the game has too many rerolls right now. Call it a preference thing but I feel like modifying a roll then rolling it once is better than rerolls.
jcd386 wrote: There isn't any book keeping you aren't already doing. If the model is at full wounds, reduce damage. If it's not, don't.
I guess bookkeeping was the wrong word. I was more thinking how it would force you to roll every save one at a time for units of Terminators or Primaris as each wound could change on if it's affected or not. Basically it's too much complexity for the game for certain unit choices and would only lead to issues in competitive scenes.
You could still roll them all at once. Say you have 5 terminators that took 6 plasma wounds. You save on a 4+ because you reduce the AP3 to AP2. You fail 3. It kills 1 terminators outright with the first two, and does 1 wound to the other. You'd only have to roll things seperately if they were different weapons, which you normally do anyway.
Also Wulfen still have a Black Carapace so that's not even accurate there either. I'd argue that the Rubrics might not have a Black Carapace their sealed armour likely works just the same and the Sorcerers definitely do have a carapace meaning the rule is just arbitrarily restricting the "good stuff" regardless of lore.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm still not down for the rerolls. If anything one of the complaints I've seen a lot of is the game has too many rerolls right now. Call it a preference thing but I feel like modifying a roll then rolling it once is better than rerolls.
OK, but the +1 to save/ignore 1 ap is even more complicated and has far more consequences to units with invulnerability saves. When you contrast the tedium of re-rolling with all of the extra work that GW would need to implement (and wont do) to get everything the save and then more mechanics to fix those abilities that are made redundant by it. people really just need to get over it. roll dice and then roll more dice until someone wins.
jcd386 wrote: There isn't any book keeping you aren't already doing. If the model is at full wounds, reduce damage. If it's not, don't.
I guess bookkeeping was the wrong word. I was more thinking how it would force you to roll every save one at a time for units of Terminators or Primaris as each wound could change on if it's affected or not. Basically it's too much complexity for the game for certain unit choices and would only lead to issues in competitive scenes.
You could still roll them all at once. Say you have 5 terminators that took 6 plasma wounds. You save on a 4+ because you reduce the AP3 to AP2. You fail 3. It kills 1 terminators outright with the first two, and does 1 wound to the other. You'd only have to roll things seperately if they were different weapons, which you normally do anyway.
Speed rolling doesn't work when you have to arbitrarily switch what your saves are like that. If some are saving on 4s while others are saving on 5s you'd roll one at a time to ensure you rolled for the correct save every time. It'd be nigh on required to do it that way in tournaments to prevent possible cheating too.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm still not down for the rerolls. If anything one of the complaints I've seen a lot of is the game has too many rerolls right now. Call it a preference thing but I feel like modifying a roll then rolling it once is better than rerolls.
OK, but the +1 to save/ignore 1 ap is even more complicated and has far more consequences to units with invulnerability saves. When you contrast the tedium of re-rolling with all of the extra work that GW would need to implement (and wont do) to get everything the save and then more mechanics to fix those abilities that are made redundant by it. people really just need to get over it. roll dice and then roll more dice until someone wins.
It's not "+1 to save" it's "reduce AP by 1 to a minimum of 0".
jcd386 wrote: There isn't any book keeping you aren't already doing. If the model is at full wounds, reduce damage. If it's not, don't.
I guess bookkeeping was the wrong word. I was more thinking how it would force you to roll every save one at a time for units of Terminators or Primaris as each wound could change on if it's affected or not. Basically it's too much complexity for the game for certain unit choices and would only lead to issues in competitive scenes.
You could still roll them all at once. Say you have 5 terminators that took 6 plasma wounds. You save on a 4+ because you reduce the AP3 to AP2. You fail 3. It kills 1 terminators outright with the first two, and does 1 wound to the other. You'd only have to roll things seperately if they were different weapons, which you normally do anyway.
Speed rolling doesn't work when you have to arbitrarily switch what your saves are like that. If some are saving on 4s while others are saving on 5s you'd roll one at a time to ensure you rolled for the correct save every time. It'd be nigh on required to do it that way in tournaments to prevent possible cheating too.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm still not down for the rerolls. If anything one of the complaints I've seen a lot of is the game has too many rerolls right now. Call it a preference thing but I feel like modifying a roll then rolling it once is better than rerolls.
OK, but the +1 to save/ignore 1 ap is even more complicated and has far more consequences to units with invulnerability saves. When you contrast the tedium of re-rolling with all of the extra work that GW would need to implement (and wont do) to get everything the save and then more mechanics to fix those abilities that are made redundant by it. people really just need to get over it. roll dice and then roll more dice until someone wins.
It's not "+1 to save" it's "reduce AP by 1 to a minimum of 0".
You misunderstand me. Your saves would always ignore 1 point of AP.
The second part of the rule reduces incoming damage by 1 if you are full wounds.
So you would roll everything normally, but each terminator would take 2 failed saves to kill because the first one would only do one damage while the second did two.
It would slow down FNP on multi wound models though.
I apologize for my confusion. I still don't like it since it would slow stuff down in a game that already has trouble with that. It's not that it's bad, it's that the way the game works just slows things down too much as is so I find myself looking at keeping mechanics as simple as possible so they can't slow things down.
Also Wulfen still have a Black Carapace so that's not even accurate there either. I'd argue that the Rubrics might not have a Blac k Carapace their sealed armour likely works just the same and the Sorcerers definitely do have a carapace meaning the rule is just arbitrarily restricting the "good stuff" regardless of lore.
kinda, regarding the rubrics, they only really need a points drop to see play. they really do have amazing weapon options with AP-2 as the base line, as well as psychic powers on top of that. same goes for the Wulfen, they already have a 5+FNP with a baked in fight again, reroll 1's, 3+ invuln storm shield and all kind of stuff on top of it. they really dont need anything else.
ClockworkZion wrote: I apologize for my confusion. I still don't like it since it would slow stuff down in a game that already has trouble with that. It's not that it's bad, it's that the way the game works just slows things down too much as is so I find myself looking at keeping mechanics as simple as possible so they can't slow things down.
There are only a few Maine units that are multi wound and have FNP.
But generally I'd just not give the rule to characters and you won't have an issue. Characters don't need more durability against multi damage, only 2W models do.
If it works on S8, it might as well work on everything. If it works on S7 and below, it's mostly pointless because plasma is still dropping terminators and whatnot.
Also Wulfen still have a Black Carapace so that's not even accurate there either. I'd argue that the Rubrics might not have a Blac k Carapace their sealed armour likely works just the same and the Sorcerers definitely do have a carapace meaning the rule is just arbitrarily restricting the "good stuff" regardless of lore.
kinda, regarding the rubrics, they only really need a points drop to see play. they really do have amazing weapon options with AP-2 as the base line, as well as psychic powers on top of that. same goes for the Wulfen, they already have a 5+FNP with a baked in fight again, reroll 1's, 3+ invuln storm shield and all kind of stuff on top of it. they really dont need anything else.
Point was you basically have a rule that doesn't actual follow the logic of the lore and goes out of its way to create more arbitrary silliness on who can and can't have it despite a good potion of the models excluded HAVING the said Black Carapace.
Rubrics are about as effected by AP as normal Marines are. -1 AP would be fine on them as well. They'd just also get +1 to their saves vs 1 damage weapons.
jcd386 wrote: Rubrics are about as effected by AP as normal Marines are. -1 AP would be fine on them as well. They'd just also get +1 to their saves vs 1 damage weapons.
But they'd autofail 1s meaning they'd just get a 2+ save against damage 1 weapons with a AP of -1 or less.
Basically the current heavy bolter and bolt rifles and likely a couple others I forgot. It basically doesn't change much for most weapons shooting them though.
EDIT: That said, All is Dust only works for Rubrics, so something that buffs Sorcerers instead would be a fair trade for that army.
jcd386 wrote: Rubrics are about as effected by AP as normal Marines are. -1 AP would be fine on them as well. They'd just also get +1 to their saves vs 1 damage weapons.
But they'd autofail 1s meaning they'd just get a 2+ save against damage 1 weapons with a AP of -1 or less.
Basically the current heavy bolter and bolt rifles and likely a couple others I forgot. It basically doesn't change much for most weapons shooting them though.
Currently they only get a 3+ save.
I'd just say it ignores the AP that would modify the armor first, then adds another if it's only 1 damage. This could be made clear by the wording on their entry.
jcd386 wrote: Rubrics are about as effected by AP as normal Marines are. -1 AP would be fine on them as well. They'd just also get +1 to their saves vs 1 damage weapons.
But they'd autofail 1s meaning they'd just get a 2+ save against damage 1 weapons with a AP of -1 or less.
Basically the current heavy bolter and bolt rifles and likely a couple others I forgot. It basically doesn't change much for most weapons shooting them though.
Currently they only get a 3+ save.
I'd just say it ignores the AP that would modify the armor first, then adds another if it's only 1 damage. This could be made clear by the wording on their entry.
See how overly complicated it's becoming though? That isn't the design philosophy for this edition.
jcd386 wrote: Rubrics are about as effected by AP as normal Marines are. -1 AP would be fine on them as well. They'd just also get +1 to their saves vs 1 damage weapons.
But they'd autofail 1s meaning they'd just get a 2+ save against damage 1 weapons with a AP of -1 or less.
Basically the current heavy bolter and bolt rifles and likely a couple others I forgot. It basically doesn't change much for most weapons shooting them though.
Currently they only get a 3+ save.
I'd just say it ignores the AP that would modify the armor first, then adds another if it's only 1 damage. This could be made clear by the wording on their entry.
See how overly complicated it's becoming though? That isn't the design philosophy for this edition.
It's not really any more complicated than the rule they have now.
All marines would ignore 1 AP. That's pretty easy.
Rubrics would get do the same thing they do now on top of that.
Transhuman Physiology: Marines ignore the first -1 AP Terminators: Reduce the damage received by 1 to a minimum of 1
Land Raiders: Gain the steel behemoth and Crushing tracks special rule.
buddha wrote: Proposed Astartes rules I'm really digging:
Transhuman Physiology: Marines ignore the first -1 AP Terminators: Reduce the damage received by 1 to a minimum of 1
Land Raiders: Gain the steel behemoth and Crushing tracks special rule.
abyrn wrote: The Dark Angels chapter tactic/ravenwing special rule need help. The trade-off/benefits of either of these two special rules are lackluster compared to the special rules in other codexes.
Requiring a unit to stand still to get rerolls 1 to hit is a strict requirement which then overlaps with the Company Master buff. It should either work like the Cadia chapter tactic in that if there is a Company Master nearby you can reroll all hits if not moving, or change altogether.
The Ravenwing 4++ is really good in theory, but there are very few Ravenwing units with assault weapons on them. Most of the time a unit has to choose between shooting or getting the 4++. Ravenwing should treat rapid fire weapons as assault weapons when advancing. If it is too strong then it could be changed to a 5++ instead.
Right now it encourages taking a single Dark Talon that you can use the advance and shoot strat on and then not taking any other Ravenwing units that are not characters or Dark Knights.
I dunno the re-roll 1s for standing still means that DA can move their HQ forward up with their advance assault elements and leave their hellblaster gunline behind to handle itself. ... thats actually kinda nice.
as for the Ravenwing bonus, honestly... sounds to me like RW has a choice of shooting or additional defences, I'd rather see GW do more of that then get rid of it. I like it when decisions have a real choice to them.
The issue is the chapter tactics that are taken in competitive play are not an either or, they are a flat bonus (6+++, -1 to hit over 12 inches, rerolling missed charges, etc). While I agree that having more decisions is good, we're talking about balancing Astartes, not the entire game, and Dark Angels are in a bad spot right now.
As for the Hellblasters getting left behind... there is some merit to that idea, but they are not really a backline unit, they need Azrael anyways to get the 4++. The Dark Angel advance assault elements are Ravenwing, and taking Hellblasters without support is risking too many points into a unit that can easily get shot off the board.
I'm ready for the wall of hate, but I think it would be useful if marines had say 3 tactics points to spend. Each chapter MUST purchase their canonical tactic, but the weaker ones are 1 pt, middling 2 pts, and RG costs 3 pts, so they get nothing else. This would allow some extra customization if we let the chapters with extra points to spend them after seeing the enemy army. CSM get the exact same thing, with AL costing all 3 points.
Martel732 wrote: I'm ready for the wall of hate, but I think it would be useful if marines had say 3 tactics points to spend. Each chapter MUST purchase their canonical tactic, but the weaker ones are 1 pt, middling 2 pts, and RG costs 3 pts, so they get nothing else. This would allow some extra customization if we let the chapters with extra points to spend them after seeing the enemy army. CSM get the exact same thing, with AL costing all 3 points.
I do think it would have been cool if strategems and tactics etc were like a mini deck building game in the list building phase with some kind of limit to what/ how many you could take. It would allow for flavor but also allow for less chaos and more balance.
Also Wulfen still have a Black Carapace so that's not even accurate there either. I'd argue that the Rubrics might not have a Blac k Carapace their sealed armour likely works just the same and the Sorcerers definitely do have a carapace meaning the rule is just arbitrarily restricting the "good stuff" regardless of lore.
kinda, regarding the rubrics, they only really need a points drop to see play. they really do have amazing weapon options with AP-2 as the base line, as well as psychic powers on top of that. same goes for the Wulfen, they already have a 5+FNP with a baked in fight again, reroll 1's, 3+ invuln storm shield and all kind of stuff on top of it. they really dont need anything else.
Point was you basically have a rule that doesn't actual follow the logic of the lore and goes out of its way to create more arbitrary silliness on who can and can't have it despite a good potion of the models excluded HAVING the said Black Carapace.
I really don't think so, but lets look at this one at a time, unit by unit.
1. Rubrics: they are literally empty power armor animated by magic stuff. no nervous system for the black carapace to interface with. Admittedly, sorcerer's would make sense, but how do you word a rule to include them?
2. death guard: not much different due too the MASSIVE mutation caused by Nurgle. mechanically, a 5+ FNP is better than a reroll/ +1/-1 AP or whatever, so they are still better off than normal marines.
3. Primarchs: the black carapace is a mass manufactured solution to power armor interface. Since Custodes dont have it due to having something better, i dont see why a Primarch would.
3 Wulfen: same deal as the death guard and it does seem that part of the wulfen become so during the neonate stage of training, equivalent to the scout stage,when a trainee hasn't had the black carapace grafted into them yet, as i think is indicated by their 4+ save. But like the the DG,they already have a 5+FNP (better than anything we have considered for the fix) as well as a 3+invuln option for 5 pts.
4. Daemon Princes: Mutating until you burst out of your armor and become a literal demon should be fluff enough to rule out a black carapace.
5. Beast: Like Fenrisian Wolves or Cyber wolves.
6. Scouts, Cultists,Servitors: they dont get a black carapace in the lore, so no reason for them to get one here.
7. Daemon engines: see above.
buddha wrote: Proposed Astartes rules I'm really digging:
Transhuman Physiology: Marines ignore the first -1 AP Terminators: Reduce the damage received by 1 to a minimum of 1
Land Raiders: Gain the steel behemoth and Crushing tracks special rule.
But chaos better get those rules as well.
Once again I HAVE to point out that the Terminator damage rule that keeps getting proposed scales terribly.
buddha wrote: Proposed Astartes rules I'm really digging:
Transhuman Physiology: Marines ignore the first -1 AP Terminators: Reduce the damage received by 1 to a minimum of 1
Land Raiders: Gain the steel behemoth and Crushing tracks special rule.
But chaos better get those rules as well.
Once again I HAVE to point out that the Terminator damage rule that keeps getting proposed scales terribly.
I think you might have to make a chart to show people once and for all.
buddha wrote: Proposed Astartes rules I'm really digging:
Transhuman Physiology: Marines ignore the first -1 AP Terminators: Reduce the damage received by 1 to a minimum of 1
Land Raiders: Gain the steel behemoth and Crushing tracks special rule.
But chaos better get those rules as well.
Once again I HAVE to point out that the Terminator damage rule that keeps getting proposed scales terribly.
I think you might have to make a chart to show people once and for all.
Glad to.
You're essentially mess with the scale with what's supposed to kill Terminators and tanks and monstrous creatures as well.
1. Lascannons and Lances go from not killing them 1/6 of the time to 1/3 of the time. This doesn't take into account the FNP that Iron Hands Terminator variants, Blightlords, and Deathshroud have.
2. Force Weapons and Custodes melee weapons, which are supposed to be really not caring about that kind of defense for the most part, now only kill them 1/3 of the time as well.
3. Power Fists suffer this as well, but more importantly Thunder Hammers take a significant nerf against Iron Hands Terminator variants, Blightlords, and Deathshroud.
4. We can't forget Terminator characters too! Now any Terminator Captain/Chaos Lord can survive being hit by a Reaper Chainsword and being stomped on, and that's not to mention how silly Wraithlords/Wraithknights would feel. Granted those latter two units have other issues.
That's not to mention Calgar and Abigail getting said bonus too, because these are universal rules that would obviously apply to their Terminator armor. They already scale terribly as is (they would need to fail their save THREE times against a Chainsword already).
buddha wrote: Proposed Astartes rules I'm really digging:
Transhuman Physiology: Marines ignore the first -1 AP Terminators: Reduce the damage received by 1 to a minimum of 1
Land Raiders: Gain the steel behemoth and Crushing tracks special rule.
But chaos better get those rules as well.
Once again I HAVE to point out that the Terminator damage rule that keeps getting proposed scales terribly.
I think you might have to make a chart to show people once and for all.
Glad to.
You're essentially mess with the scale with what's supposed to kill Terminators and tanks and monstrous creatures as well.
1. Lascannons and Lances go from not killing them 1/6 of the time to 1/3 of the time. This doesn't take into account the FNP that Iron Hands Terminator variants, Blightlords, and Deathshroud have.
2. Force Weapons and Custodes melee weapons, which are supposed to be really not caring about that kind of defense for the most part, now only kill them 1/3 of the time as well.
3. Power Fists suffer this as well, but more importantly Thunder Hammers take a significant nerf against Iron Hands Terminator variants, Blightlords, and Deathshroud.
4. We can't forget Terminator characters too! Now any Terminator Captain/Chaos Lord can survive being hit by a Reaper Chainsword and being stomped on, and that's not to mention how silly Wraithlords/Wraithknights would feel. Granted those latter two units have other issues.
That's not to mention Calgar and Abigail getting said bonus too, because these are universal rules that would obviously apply to their Terminator armor. They already scale terribly as is (they would need to fail their save THREE times against a Chainsword already).
With respect but ya, isn't that a good thing? Terminators are supposed to be the ultimate heavy infantry. It should take a lascannon to get lucky and kill one.
Let's not also forget it's just a buff to their survivability as their offensive output in any format is sub-par in points to damage.
buddha wrote: Proposed Astartes rules I'm really digging:
Transhuman Physiology: Marines ignore the first -1 AP Terminators: Reduce the damage received by 1 to a minimum of 1
Land Raiders: Gain the steel behemoth and Crushing tracks special rule.
But chaos better get those rules as well.
Once again I HAVE to point out that the Terminator damage rule that keeps getting proposed scales terribly.
I think you might have to make a chart to show people once and for all.
Glad to.
You're essentially mess with the scale with what's supposed to kill Terminators and tanks and monstrous creatures as well.
1. Lascannons and Lances go from not killing them 1/6 of the time to 1/3 of the time. This doesn't take into account the FNP that Iron Hands Terminator variants, Blightlords, and Deathshroud have.
2. Force Weapons and Custodes melee weapons, which are supposed to be really not caring about that kind of defense for the most part, now only kill them 1/3 of the time as well.
3. Power Fists suffer this as well, but more importantly Thunder Hammers take a significant nerf against Iron Hands Terminator variants, Blightlords, and Deathshroud.
4. We can't forget Terminator characters too! Now any Terminator Captain/Chaos Lord can survive being hit by a Reaper Chainsword and being stomped on, and that's not to mention how silly Wraithlords/Wraithknights would feel. Granted those latter two units have other issues.
That's not to mention Calgar and Abigail getting said bonus too, because these are universal rules that would obviously apply to their Terminator armor. They already scale terribly as is (they would need to fail their save THREE times against a Chainsword already).
I trhink though this highlights one of the problems with marines isn't marines themselves but everything else on the battlefield. Marines in a low firepower enviroment are proably pretty good (assuming they're points'd right for example I'm sure they do well in an eivroment like kill team) but when you have hundreds of shots of tank killing weapons, Marines protection just ain't worth it
Slayer, I don't think what you're describing is 'scaling terribly' at all.
Most of your objections boil down to how it combines with FNP - there aren't many cases of that. Iron Hands Termis are suddenly pretty tough? Sounds great.
Lascannons only kill a termi 2/3 of the time? Right you are. Reaper can't one-shot a captain in terminator armour anymore? Sure, glad to hear it.
Terminators need to go from joke unit to scary proposition. This needs to happen. Not just ashmatically wheezing over the line into just-about-viable. This change would do nothing for their damage output (pretty poor as it stands) but would turn them into the roadblock they really should be.
ClockworkZion wrote: Regarding the plasma over melta thing: most D2 weapons are in the S6-S7 range with multiple shots which makes them more reliable to hit and do damage than a S8+ weapon with only one shot and random damage.
One thing brought up is that the melta really needs to be double strength at half range instead of an extra die for damage so it can actually punch holes into things like it used to.
Against T8 current melta hit in melta range does 2.25 wounds. Double S instead of damage boost 2.33 wounds. VS T7 3 vs 2.91. VS T9 1.5w vs 2.33w
I'm not sure is extra 0.08 wounds vs T8, bit less vs T7 and well albeit decent increase vs T9 REALLY what would help melta be actually useful. How many T9 targets you face? Against chimera etc you would NERF melta gun while only tiny increase against russ/knight etc.
Issues with melta:
a) price(more than plasma gun...)
b) melta range 6", deep strike range more than 9".
c) 1 shot so you have chance to miss, fail to wound or roll low for damage.
grouchoben wrote: Slayer, I don't think what you're describing is 'scaling terribly' at all.
Most of your objections boil down to how it combines with FNP - there aren't many cases of that. Iron Hands Termis are suddenly pretty tough? Sounds great.
Lascannons only kill a termi 2/3 of the time? Right you are. Reaper can't one-shot a captain in terminator armour anymore? Sure, glad to hear it.
Terminators need to go from joke unit to scary proposition. This needs to happen. Not just ashmatically wheezing over the line into just-about-viable. This change would do nothing for their damage output (pretty poor as it stands) but would turn them into the roadblock they really should be.
Ignoring AP and reducing damage by 1 combined totally rewrites what weapons will kill a terminators to a rediculous level.
It now takes 7 powerfist attacks to kill 1 terminator 11 for deathguard and 16 against a deathshroud.
Lascannons 3 shots to kill a terminators 5 to kill a deathguard terminator and 7 to kill a deathshroud.
That has all the hallmarks of creating problem units.
grouchoben wrote: Slayer, I don't think what you're describing is 'scaling terribly' at all.
Most of your objections boil down to how it combines with FNP - there aren't many cases of that. Iron Hands Termis are suddenly pretty tough? Sounds great.
Lascannons only kill a termi 2/3 of the time? Right you are. Reaper can't one-shot a captain in terminator armour anymore? Sure, glad to hear it.
Terminators need to go from joke unit to scary proposition. This needs to happen. Not just ashmatically wheezing over the line into just-about-viable. This change would do nothing for their damage output (pretty poor as it stands) but would turn them into the roadblock they really should be.
Well they're not a roadblock. That's the supposed point of Centurions.
Also why would you be glad to hear a Captain went die to a Reaper Chainsword? That's literally the definition for poor scaling right there. D Weapons when it came to Imperial Knights last edition made sense at least.
Ignoring AP and reducing damage by 1 combined totally rewrites what weapons will kill a terminators to a rediculous level.
It now takes 7 powerfist attacks to kill 1 terminator 11 for deathguard and 16 against a deathshroud.
Lascannons 3 shots to kill a terminators 5 to kill a deathguard terminator and 7 to kill a deathshroud.
That has all the hallmarks of creating problem units.
Where are you grabbing these numbers from?
Even currently 3 Lascannon shots will just barely deal 2 damage to terminators.
3
times
2/3 (3+ to hit)
times
5/6 (2+ to wound)
times
2/3 (5+ to save)
times
5/6 (rolling 2+ damage kills terminator)
equals
0,926 Terminators dead.
Alternatively you score 1.11 unsaved wounds but this is then subject to damage roll of 1D6 which averages 3.5 damage per roll. The average is pretty pointless when shooting low W models like terminators and not tanks because the Damage doesnt flood over to the other models as it does with Mortal Wounds.
The changes would make 3 Lascannon shots to destroy 0,555 terminators on average. The amount of shots needed to reach same value as with old rules would be 5.
I have argued before and I argue here again, many 'High Power' weapons like Meltagun and Lascannon should have more consistency in the damage. Lascannon doing 1D6 damage with every hit is nightmare. Basically you can end up super unlucky and throw 1 every single time you shoot enemy Knight, or alternatively you get lucky and throw 6 with every damage roll and the knight just melts. Meltagun getting 2D6 discard the lowest at 6" melta-range has caused many people to skip Meltaguns altogether because super-charged plasma-guns are just far more consistent and multi-purpose unless you are attacking Sv 2+ High W models where one starts to see one brief glimpse of opportunity to use Meltaguns.
My GK don't really have access to melta,other then on vehicles, but how about giving melta a fixed D at half range. Keep the 12" range, maybe lower the points, but at 6" melta blasts you with 6D to the face, and multi meltas do it at 12". Would that make melta weapons worth considering?
Of course alternative option would be to start pumping basic MEQs into 2 Wounds and Terminators into 3 Wounds. This however would have all sorts of ripple effects (Primaris marines?) and would probably demand point increases for MEQs. Atleast marines are still in point range that you can adjust their point prices in meaningful manner unlike the IG troops where +-1 presents serious problem of Zero-to-Hero and vice-versa.
buddha wrote: Proposed Astartes rules I'm really digging:
Transhuman Physiology: Marines ignore the first -1 AP Terminators: Reduce the damage received by 1 to a minimum of 1
Land Raiders: Gain the steel behemoth and Crushing tracks special rule.
But chaos better get those rules as well.
Once again I HAVE to point out that the Terminator damage rule that keeps getting proposed scales terribly.
I think you might have to make a chart to show people once and for all.
Glad to.
You're essentially mess with the scale with what's supposed to kill Terminators and tanks and monstrous creatures as well.
1. Lascannons and Lances go from not killing them 1/6 of the time to 1/3 of the time. This doesn't take into account the FNP that Iron Hands Terminator variants, Blightlords, and Deathshroud have.
2. Force Weapons and Custodes melee weapons, which are supposed to be really not caring about that kind of defense for the most part, now only kill them 1/3 of the time as well.
3. Power Fists suffer this as well, but more importantly Thunder Hammers take a significant nerf against Iron Hands Terminator variants, Blightlords, and Deathshroud.
4. We can't forget Terminator characters too! Now any Terminator Captain/Chaos Lord can survive being hit by a Reaper Chainsword and being stomped on, and that's not to mention how silly Wraithlords/Wraithknights would feel. Granted those latter two units have other issues.
That's not to mention Calgar and Abigail getting said bonus too, because these are universal rules that would obviously apply to their Terminator armor. They already scale terribly as is (they would need to fail their save THREE times against a Chainsword already).
1. I've also suggested Las and melta need to never do less than 3 damage.
2. This seems fine to me. Terminators should be more durable against 2d and 1d3d IMO.
3. This is true. Maybe those units would need to cost more, but they aren't exactly good right now as it is.
4. I don't recommend any characters get a wound reducing rule. They already have the ability to survive a 2 damage shot.
grouchoben wrote: Slayer, I don't think what you're describing is 'scaling terribly' at all.
Most of your objections boil down to how it combines with FNP - there aren't many cases of that. Iron Hands Termis are suddenly pretty tough? Sounds great.
Lascannons only kill a termi 2/3 of the time? Right you are. Reaper can't one-shot a captain in terminator armour anymore? Sure, glad to hear it.
Terminators need to go from joke unit to scary proposition. This needs to happen. Not just ashmatically wheezing over the line into just-about-viable. This change would do nothing for their damage output (pretty poor as it stands) but would turn them into the roadblock they really should be.
Ignoring AP and reducing damage by 1 combined totally rewrites what weapons will kill a terminators to a rediculous level.
It now takes 7 powerfist attacks to kill 1 terminator 11 for deathguard and 16 against a deathshroud.
Lascannons 3 shots to kill a terminators 5 to kill a deathguard terminator and 7 to kill a deathshroud.
That has all the hallmarks of creating problem units.
It would actually only need 6 on average, where right now it only takes between 3 and 4.
Don't really understand the logic of letting marines ignore all AP. Marines aren't the only elite units out there that struggle in the current meta, and they do better than most already. They don't need super special rules.
Darsath wrote: Don't really understand the logic of letting marines ignore all AP. Marines aren't the only elite units out there that struggle in the current meta, and they do better than most already. They don't need super special rules.
Who has suggested ALL AP? I have read about ignoring first point of AP.
And marines aren't doing that well apart from couple special units like slamquinus. But of course similar rule could be introduced to other struggling elites.
Darsath wrote: Don't really understand the logic of letting marines ignore all AP. Marines aren't the only elite units out there that struggle in the current meta, and they do better than most already. They don't need super special rules.
Who has suggested ALL AP? I have read about ignoring first point of AP.
And marines aren't doing that well apart from couple special units like slamquinus. But of course similar rule could be introduced to other struggling elites.
Ignoring AP and reducing damage by 1 combined totally rewrites what weapons will kill a terminators to a rediculous level.
It now takes 7 powerfist attacks to kill 1 terminator 11 for deathguard and 16 against a deathshroud.
Lascannons 3 shots to kill a terminators 5 to kill a deathguard terminator and 7 to kill a deathshroud.
That has all the hallmarks of creating problem units.
Where are you grabbing these numbers from?
Even currently 3 Lascannon shots will just barely deal 2 damage to terminators.
3
times
2/3 (3+ to hit)
times
5/6 (2+ to wound)
times
2/3 (5+ to save)
times
5/6 (rolling 2+ damage kills terminator)
equals
0,926 Terminators dead.
Alternatively you score 1.11 unsaved wounds but this is then subject to damage roll of 1D6 which averages 3.5 damage per roll. The average is pretty pointless when shooting low W models like terminators and not tanks because the Damage doesnt flood over to the other models as it does with Mortal Wounds.
The changes would make 3 Lascannon shots to destroy 0,555 terminators on average. The amount of shots needed to reach same value as with old rules would be 5.
I have argued before and I argue here again, many 'High Power' weapons like Meltagun and Lascannon should have more consistency in the damage. Lascannon doing 1D6 damage with every hit is nightmare. Basically you can end up super unlucky and throw 1 every single time you shoot enemy Knight, or alternatively you get lucky and throw 6 with every damage roll and the knight just melts. Meltagun getting 2D6 discard the lowest at 6" melta-range has caused many people to skip Meltaguns altogether because super-charged plasma-guns are just far more consistent and multi-purpose unless you are attacking Sv 2+ High W models where one starts to see one brief glimpse of opportunity to use Meltaguns.
That 5+ save becomes a 4+ save for the new rules (the 5++ becomes su0er redundant) and the avarage damage goes from 3.5 down to 2.7. For a standard terminator the changes are fine but start going to deathguard with 5+++ and T5 and it gets brutal.
That would definitely be preferable, as it also doesn't have the inadvertent nerfs to power weapons etc against marines.
Also ironically one of the armies worst effected by marines ignoring the first AP is primaris marines.
Though the more people keep suggesting increasingly complicated rules that have bizarre edge case interactions the more I think marines can't be fixed with a blanket rule and they really need a new codex, once drukari brokenness has been addressed.
buddha wrote: Proposed Astartes rules I'm really digging:
Transhuman Physiology: Marines ignore the first -1 AP Terminators: Reduce the damage received by 1 to a minimum of 1
Land Raiders: Gain the steel behemoth and Crushing tracks special rule.
But chaos better get those rules as well.
I was looking at adding the Terminator and Transhuman Physiology together and making a single rule to cut down on how many special rules that would be bandied about. Plus models with FnP rules (Iron Hands, Death Guard, I think Blood Angels near the grail) would benefit from it as well as multi-wound models.
buddha wrote: Proposed Astartes rules I'm really digging:
Transhuman Physiology: Marines ignore the first -1 AP Terminators: Reduce the damage received by 1 to a minimum of 1
Land Raiders: Gain the steel behemoth and Crushing tracks special rule.
But chaos better get those rules as well.
Once again I HAVE to point out that the Terminator damage rule that keeps getting proposed scales terribly.
I think you might have to make a chart to show people once and for all.
Glad to.
You're essentially mess with the scale with what's supposed to kill Terminators and tanks and monstrous creatures as well.
1. Lascannons and Lances go from not killing them 1/6 of the time to 1/3 of the time. This doesn't take into account the FNP that Iron Hands Terminator variants, Blightlords, and Deathshroud have.
2. Force Weapons and Custodes melee weapons, which are supposed to be really not caring about that kind of defense for the most part, now only kill them 1/3 of the time as well.
3. Power Fists suffer this as well, but more importantly Thunder Hammers take a significant nerf against Iron Hands Terminator variants, Blightlords, and Deathshroud.
4. We can't forget Terminator characters too! Now any Terminator Captain/Chaos Lord can survive being hit by a Reaper Chainsword and being stomped on, and that's not to mention how silly Wraithlords/Wraithknights would feel. Granted those latter two units have other issues.
That's not to mention Calgar and Abigail getting said bonus too, because these are universal rules that would obviously apply to their Terminator armor. They already scale terribly as is (they would need to fail their save THREE times against a Chainsword already).
That's why I was looking at putting a cap on what the rule works against. Though I'm starting to I think that instead of S8 or less I should be saying "a Strength characteristic of less than 8" or something.
buddha wrote: Proposed Astartes rules I'm really digging:
Transhuman Physiology: Marines ignore the first -1 AP Terminators: Reduce the damage received by 1 to a minimum of 1
Land Raiders: Gain the steel behemoth and Crushing tracks special rule.
But chaos better get those rules as well.
Once again I HAVE to point out that the Terminator damage rule that keeps getting proposed scales terribly.
I think you might have to make a chart to show people once and for all.
Glad to.
You're essentially mess with the scale with what's supposed to kill Terminators and tanks and monstrous creatures as well.
1. Lascannons and Lances go from not killing them 1/6 of the time to 1/3 of the time. This doesn't take into account the FNP that Iron Hands Terminator variants, Blightlords, and Deathshroud have.
2. Force Weapons and Custodes melee weapons, which are supposed to be really not caring about that kind of defense for the most part, now only kill them 1/3 of the time as well.
3. Power Fists suffer this as well, but more importantly Thunder Hammers take a significant nerf against Iron Hands Terminator variants, Blightlords, and Deathshroud.
4. We can't forget Terminator characters too! Now any Terminator Captain/Chaos Lord can survive being hit by a Reaper Chainsword and being stomped on, and that's not to mention how silly Wraithlords/Wraithknights would feel. Granted those latter two units have other issues.
That's not to mention Calgar and Abigail getting said bonus too, because these are universal rules that would obviously apply to their Terminator armor. They already scale terribly as is (they would need to fail their save THREE times against a Chainsword already).
1. I've also suggested Las and melta need to never do less than 3 damage.
2. This seems fine to me. Terminators should be more durable against 2d and 1d3d IMO.
3. This is true. Maybe those units would need to cost more, but they aren't exactly good right now as it is.
4. I don't recommend any characters get a wound reducing rule. They already have the ability to survive a 2 damage shot.
grouchoben wrote: Slayer, I don't think what you're describing is 'scaling terribly' at all.
Most of your objections boil down to how it combines with FNP - there aren't many cases of that. Iron Hands Termis are suddenly pretty tough? Sounds great.
Lascannons only kill a termi 2/3 of the time? Right you are. Reaper can't one-shot a captain in terminator armour anymore? Sure, glad to hear it.
Terminators need to go from joke unit to scary proposition. This needs to happen. Not just ashmatically wheezing over the line into just-about-viable. This change would do nothing for their damage output (pretty poor as it stands) but would turn them into the roadblock they really should be.
Ignoring AP and reducing damage by 1 combined totally rewrites what weapons will kill a terminators to a rediculous level.
It now takes 7 powerfist attacks to kill 1 terminator 11 for deathguard and 16 against a deathshroud.
Lascannons 3 shots to kill a terminators 5 to kill a deathguard terminator and 7 to kill a deathshroud.
That has all the hallmarks of creating problem units.
It would actually only need 6 on average, where right now it only takes between 3 and 4.
Honestly that seems fine to me.
1. So then certain weapons lose their appeal like the Neutron Laser. How do you intend to make sure a weapon like that keeps uniqueness or are you just going to do a severe price cut, which leads to into that same ol' cycle of price cuts everywhere?
2. Except you're making Terminators durable to weapons that shouldn't care about their armor. Force Weapons aren't relying on their armor penetration in fluff to work, and Custodes are carrying weapons meant to really kill any threat. So once again you don't look at fluff and you don't scale.
3. Then you find a way to be consistent in fixing most Terminator units. This is why I argued against the earlier Black Carapace someone tried to propose. It's inconsistent and doesn't scale. Speaking of which:
4. So why don't Characters in Terminator armor not get this magical ability? Where. Is. The. Consistency?
In fact, it's only certain D2 weapons that are an issue. This edition is the most durable Terminators have ever been, but what they lack is offense. I've tried proposing consistent ways to fix that without your super terrible sense of scale and consistency. Makes sense?
In fact, it's only certain D2 weapons that are an issue. This edition is the most durable Terminators have ever been, but what they lack is offense. I've tried proposing consistent ways to fix that without your super terrible sense of scale and consistency. Makes sense?
This. THIS. I play horde orks vs my mate's grey knights and mobbing the termies with one boyz mob renders them useless for the rest of the game. If termies make it into combat they should mince stuff. They move slow as a slug so make them actually hit like a freight train when they get there.
Make force weapons for termies deal Mortal wounds instead. Give them more attacks too..
In fact, it's only certain D2 weapons that are an issue. This edition is the most durable Terminators have ever been, but what they lack is offense. I've tried proposing consistent ways to fix that without your super terrible sense of scale and consistency. Makes sense?
This. THIS. I play horde orks vs my mate's grey knights and mobbing the termies with one boyz mob renders them useless for the rest of the game. If termies make it into combat they should mince stuff. They move slow as a slug so make them actually hit like a freight train when they get there.
Make force weapons for termies deal Mortal wounds instead. Give them more attacks too..
Actually, I was looking at mentioning that exact thing for Nemesis Force Weapons: let the damage roll over like mortal wounds. Actually, in general I feel like all Force Weapons should get that buff: allocate unsaved damage as you would mortal wounds. That'd give psykers everywhere more versatility in the game instead of just being relied on for smite caddying.
Why do you keep saying this is the most durable eddition for terminators? There is more than 1 reason that is not true though it might seem true at first because they got more durable to a bolter...which was always bad at killing terms and still is.
#1 is terms did not go down in points but a lot of things did
#2 is AP5/Ap4/Ap3 now affect terminators 2+ save
#3 is weapons with multiple damage are more numberus than AP2 weapons were in 7th and most of them have neg AP
Net result is - this is the least durable terminators and marines HAVE EVER BEEN.
Terms also lost offensive power too. They hit less with power firsts - get less attacks with power fists - they lost relentless rule so they hit like IG with weapons when they are on the move. There is basically nothing good to say about terms. Which is why they are agreed to be in the gakker. The only way to fix them is to ether make them cost the 25 points they are worth OR increase their durability and offense drastically - to CUSTODIAN levels. To be worth those points.
Xenomancers wrote: Why do you keep saying this is the most durable eddition for terminators? There is more than 1 reason that is not true though it might seem true at first because they got more durable to a bolter...which was always bad at killing terms and still is.
#1 is terms did not go down in points but a lot of things did
#2 is AP5/Ap4/Ap3 now affect terminators 2+ save
#3 is weapons with multiple damage are more numberus than AP2 weapons were in 7th and most of them have neg AP
Net result is - this is the least durable terminators and marines HAVE EVER BEEN.
Terms also lost offensive power too. They hit less with power firsts - get less attacks with power fists - they lost relentless rule so they hit like IG with weapons when they are on the move. There is basically nothing good to say about terms. Which is why they are agreed to be in the gakker. The only way to fix them is to ether make them cost the 25 points they are worth OR increase their durability and offense drastically - to CUSTODIAN levels. To be worth those points.
And yet every time I ask you to create a list of weapons Terminators are more durable against vs less durable against, you seem to fizzle out and not do the said task. You need me to hold your hand and do it for you, or are you going to actually do it?
The answer to terminators is to fix their offensive power, not defensive. This is the kill edition, not the tank damage edition. Even if you boost their defense they still have the problem of being slow and therefore limited in their scope. If you want defensive terminators, you have stormshields - that is literally the most durable a basic unit can get, a 2+/3++ save. Their problem isn't durability. It's limited offensive power & scope.
"#3 is weapons with multiple damage are more numberus than AP2 weapons were in 7th and most of them have neg AP"
That doesn't make Termies less durable than they were before. It decreases how much *more* durable they are. There are still D:1 and D:1dN weapons - and Termies are much more durable to those than they were in 7th.
Termies are less durable to weapons that were AP-1 and do D2, but just as durable to AP-1 D1 weapons as they were. They're less durable to AP-2 weapons than they were vs AP3 weapons. They are *much* more durable to anything that was AP2 and is now D1. As in, twice as durable.
For every weapon they got less durable to (Krak missiles, Power Swords, etc) there are many others they're more durable to (Lascannons, Plasma Guns outside overcharge, Tau Plas, CWEPlas, small arms, power axes, etc).
Bharring wrote: "#3 is weapons with multiple damage are more numberus than AP2 weapons were in 7th and most of them have neg AP"
That doesn't make Termies less durable than they were before. It decreases how much *more* durable they are. There are still D:1 and D:1dN weapons - and Termies are much more durable to those than they were in 7th.
Termies are less durable to weapons that were AP-1 and do D2, but just as durable to AP-1 D1 weapons as they were. They're less durable to AP-2 weapons than they were vs AP3 weapons. They are *much* more durable to anything that was AP2 and is now D1. As in, twice as durable.
For every weapon they got less durable to (Krak missiles, Power Swords, etc) there are many others they're more durable to (Lascannons, Plasma Guns outside overcharge, Tau Plas, CWEPlas, small arms, power axes, etc).
Don't forget that the Power Sword is an illusion as everyone used Power Axes. Power Mauls they're straight up more durable to because of the new wounding chart.
The answer to terminators is to fix their offensive power, not defensive. This is the kill edition, not the tank damage edition. Even if you boost their defense they still have the problem of being slow and therefore limited in their scope. If you want defensive terminators, you have stormshields - that is literally the most durable a basic unit can get, a 2+/3++ save. Their problem isn't durability. It's limited offensive power & scope.
By that arguement the entire Marine line needs to be more offensively focused and we should throw out lore about how durable they are and how they can weather blows that would fell normal men.
Being walking tanks is a large part of their identity, losing that effectively makes them slightly tankier Scions. Yes, this IS the edition with massed casualties, but I don't think that should be a point against Marines being a little better at negating wounds than less tanky models, but rather a feature of the army.
To which Termies got better:
7th ed: Power Axe wounded on a 3+, and forced Invuln saves
8th ed: Same choice is a Sword now - wounds on a 4+, forced Invuln save, but needs two unsaved wounds to kill. Less than half as good.
7th ed: Power Maul wounded on a 2+, but allowed a 2+ armor save.
8th ed: Wounds on a 3+, but reduces armor save to a 3+. However, you need 2 unsaved wounds. So this got worse too.
AP3 weapons that are now AP-2 now kill Termies faster. But how common are they.
Dissies specifically: now the perfect termie killer?
7th: Wound on a 3+, force 5++ invuln
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+ armor save
StarCannons?
7th: Wound on a 2+, force a 5++
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+, Termies survive the first wound on an additional 3+.
They aren't *less* survivable even to things like non-IoM Plasma. Even the Plasma Gun - which is one of the weapons most buffed going into 8th - isn't any better at killing Termies than it was.
Bharring wrote: "#3 is weapons with multiple damage are more numberus than AP2 weapons were in 7th and most of them have neg AP"
That doesn't make Termies less durable than they were before. It decreases how much *more* durable they are. There are still D:1 and D:1dN weapons - and Termies are much more durable to those than they were in 7th.
Termies are less durable to weapons that were AP-1 and do D2, but just as durable to AP-1 D1 weapons as they were. They're less durable to AP-2 weapons than they were vs AP3 weapons. They are *much* more durable to anything that was AP2 and is now D1. As in, twice as durable.
For every weapon they got less durable to (Krak missiles, Power Swords, etc) there are many others they're more durable to (Lascannons, Plasma Guns outside overcharge, Tau Plas, CWEPlas, small arms, power axes, etc).
Don't forget that the Power Sword is an illusion as everyone used Power Axes. Power Mauls they're straight up more durable to because of the new wounding chart.
An illusion to anyone who doesn't run all Primaris because the Power Sword is our only power weapon option. That said, adding durability to the Marines would make the Power Sword more attractive since it wouldn't be as easily negated by the "reduce weapon AP by 1" thing as much. Plus I have mentioned it could really use something like a parry rule (giving it +1 to the model's save in melee for example) which would also make it more attractive. No strength bonus, but instead a save bonus would make it more interesting to a lot of folks I bet.
Bharring wrote: "#3 is weapons with multiple damage are more numberus than AP2 weapons were in 7th and most of them have neg AP"
That doesn't make Termies less durable than they were before. It decreases how much *more* durable they are. There are still D:1 and D:1dN weapons - and Termies are much more durable to those than they were in 7th.
Termies are less durable to weapons that were AP-1 and do D2, but just as durable to AP-1 D1 weapons as they were. They're less durable to AP-2 weapons than they were vs AP3 weapons. They are *much* more durable to anything that was AP2 and is now D1. As in, twice as durable.
For every weapon they got less durable to (Krak missiles, Power Swords, etc) there are many others they're more durable to (Lascannons, Plasma Guns outside overcharge, Tau Plas, CWEPlas, small arms, power axes, etc).
Don't forget that the Power Sword is an illusion as everyone used Power Axes. Power Mauls they're straight up more durable to because of the new wounding chart.
An illusion to anyone who doesn't run all Primaris because the Power Sword is our only power weapon option. That said, adding durability to the Marines would make the Power Sword more attractive since it wouldn't be as easily negated by the "reduce weapon AP by 1" thing as much. Plus I have mentioned it could really use something like a parry rule (giving it +1 to the model's save in melee for example) which would also make it more attractive. No strength bonus, but instead a save bonus would make it more interesting to a lot of folks I bet.
Primaris have the Power fist in Boltguantlets don't they?
Reemule wrote: Primaris have the Power fist in Boltguantlets don't they?
Yeah, but you can't take that in an Intercessor Squad. Heck, you can't even take a Power Sword in a Reiver squad. I suspect the only reason we can even take Power Swords is because of the Anniversary model having something like one so they went "sure, go with it".
Automatically Appended Next Post: So if Terminators and Primaris don't need D2 protection as much, taking a step back to making it only reduce AP by 1 against weapons of S7 or less (why S7? Because Instant Death used to trigger at S8 and really something that hits at least twice as hard as you are tough would definitely overwhelm your body's ability to take damage, plus it prevents the accidental nerfing of Thunder Hammers and Power Fists and the like) seems like a very small change that could make Marines in general less likely to feel overcharged for their save (since they'd only start losing it against high strength attacks who also have high AP or against weapons with -2 or better AP).
Reemule wrote: Primaris have the Power fist in Boltguantlets don't they?
Yeah, but you can't take that in an Intercessor Squad. Heck, you can't even take a Power Sword in a Reiver squad. I suspect the only reason we can even take Power Swords is because of the Anniversary model having something like one so they went "sure, go with it".
Automatically Appended Next Post: So if Terminators and Primaris don't need D2 protection as much, taking a step back to making it only reduce AP by 1 against weapons of S7 or less (why S7? Because Instant Death used to trigger at S8 and really something that hits at least twice as hard as you are tough would definitely overwhelm your body's ability to take damage, plus it prevents the accidental nerfing of Thunder Hammers and Power Fists and the like) seems like a very small change that could make Marines in general less likely to feel overcharged for their save (since they'd only start losing it against high strength attacks who also have high AP or against weapons with -2 or better AP).
Rather screws Tau players hard, and will also impact prmaris players harshly but whatever. You seem to be set in your view point now.
Really I think the iasue is GW over valuing the better saves this edition and undervalued the bad saves.
Marines just can't throw enough dice around in 8th edition to male anything that changed work for them. Simply put throwing twice the dice is always going to be better than having an extra 16% chance here and there.
The answer to terminators is to fix their offensive power, not defensive. This is the kill edition, not the tank damage edition. Even if you boost their defense they still have the problem of being slow and therefore limited in their scope. If you want defensive terminators, you have stormshields - that is literally the most durable a basic unit can get, a 2+/3++ save. Their problem isn't durability. It's limited offensive power & scope.
Why don't GK have an option to use storm shield terminators? They can have Thunder hammers and draigo has a shield, and I saw an old codex where shields of some sort were an option for GK termintors. Yet somehow they are missing the option in the last codex.
The answer to terminators is to fix their offensive power, not defensive. This is the kill edition, not the tank damage edition. Even if you boost their defense they still have the problem of being slow and therefore limited in their scope. If you want defensive terminators, you have stormshields - that is literally the most durable a basic unit can get, a 2+/3++ save. Their problem isn't durability. It's limited offensive power & scope.
Why don't GK have an option to use storm shield terminators? They can have Thunder hammers and draigo has a shield, and I saw an old codex where shields of some sort were an option for GK termintors. Yet somehow they are missing the option in the last codex.
Because previously HQs joined units, and you could put a stormshield in with your group of terminators or whatever in the form of an HQ. In fact, pairing a Librarian with a Warding Staff and a Storm Shield with your GK terminators or Paladins would be brutally strong, because the Librarian would have a 2++/5+++ (with Cuirass of Sacrifice) to tank those wounds for a Gate-Of-Infinity deathball of Paladins. But, there are all sorts of synergies that would be really strong if this mechanic were to return. And, it won't.
Example, I used to join Draigo and Tigurius with a ball of Grav centurions. The unit had a 3++, 4+++, eternal warrior tank, which would bounce them around the field shooting whatever they want, and could only be hit on 6s. People don't enjoy that kind of thing.
The answer to terminators is to fix their offensive power, not defensive. This is the kill edition, not the tank damage edition. Even if you boost their defense they still have the problem of being slow and therefore limited in their scope. If you want defensive terminators, you have stormshields - that is literally the most durable a basic unit can get, a 2+/3++ save. Their problem isn't durability. It's limited offensive power & scope.
Why don't GK have an option to use storm shield terminators? They can have Thunder hammers and draigo has a shield, and I saw an old codex where shields of some sort were an option for GK termintors. Yet somehow they are missing the option in the last codex.
They used to be able to take the TH/SS loadout in the Daemonhunters codex. I wouldn't mind that returning for either of the Terminator options personally.
Reemule wrote: Primaris have the Power fist in Boltguantlets don't they?
Yeah, but you can't take that in an Intercessor Squad. Heck, you can't even take a Power Sword in a Reiver squad. I suspect the only reason we can even take Power Swords is because of the Anniversary model having something like one so they went "sure, go with it".
Automatically Appended Next Post: So if Terminators and Primaris don't need D2 protection as much, taking a step back to making it only reduce AP by 1 against weapons of S7 or less (why S7? Because Instant Death used to trigger at S8 and really something that hits at least twice as hard as you are tough would definitely overwhelm your body's ability to take damage, plus it prevents the accidental nerfing of Thunder Hammers and Power Fists and the like) seems like a very small change that could make Marines in general less likely to feel overcharged for their save (since they'd only start losing it against high strength attacks who also have high AP or against weapons with -2 or better AP).
Rather screws Tau players hard, and will also impact prmaris players harshly but whatever. You seem to be set in your view point now.
Really I think the iasue is GW over valuing the better saves this edition and undervalued the bad saves.
Marines just can't throw enough dice around in 8th edition to male anything that changed work for them. Simply put throwing twice the dice is always going to be better than having an extra 16% chance here and there.
Part of my worry is that by bringing the cost of Marines down to meet the new value of their saves they'll turn into just another massed infantry Imperial army. Balancing that is a definite must, which is why I was looking at durability.
And it's not like Tau had any benefit against Marines in previous editions (beyond range and wounding on 3s), so why is it so bad they don't have it this edition? Marines have always been the more durable army that may not have high numbers or high damage output turn by turn but they'd weather casualties better to allow them to have a stronger end game than more chaffe based armies at the cost of a weaker early game due to their lower offensive power.
In general, the game needs less invulns and more power into strong saves.
Weak (5++, 6++) invuls aren't hurting the game as much as acting as a pressure valve to keep the AP system in check for certain units. Even 4++ isn't too unreasonable as long as it's paid for correctly. 3++ should be the upper limit for invuls though. We don't need 2++ in the game at all.
My suggestion for rules change. Terminators get a 1+sv ibstead of 2+. marines of all sorts get a 2+sv instead of a 3+. All other stuff stays the same. Id rather see something like that than something complicated. Or a points reduction so we can field more models instead.
Gitdakka wrote: My suggestion for rules change. Terminators get a 1+sv ibstead of 2+. marines of all sorts get a 2+sv instead of a 3+. All other stuff stays the same. Id rather see something like that than something complicated. Or a points reduction so we can field more models instead.
Both have been mentioned and shot down for different reasons. A points change doesn't fix the imbalance between the cost of cheaper units who share an identical utility with more expensive units (see Scouts vs Tacticals), and the increased save just breaks the game in all the wrong ways. Mitigating AP works similarly but by pairing it with a rule instead of the save it can be capped versus strength to allow heavier weapons to hit at full tilt.
It's clear the studio has recognized that there is an issue involving Marine durability. If we aren't mucking with the save, the only thing I'd touch is how they treat damage for the purposes of taking wounds (which would be more in line with Kill Team's Transhuman Physiology).
Bharring wrote: To which Termies got better:
7th ed: Power Axe wounded on a 3+, and forced Invuln saves
8th ed: Same choice is a Sword now - wounds on a 4+, forced Invuln save, but needs two unsaved wounds to kill. Less than half as good.
7th ed: Power Maul wounded on a 2+, but allowed a 2+ armor save.
8th ed: Wounds on a 3+, but reduces armor save to a 3+. However, you need 2 unsaved wounds. So this got worse too.
AP3 weapons that are now AP-2 now kill Termies faster. But how common are they.
Dissies specifically: now the perfect termie killer?
7th: Wound on a 3+, force 5++ invuln
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+ armor save
StarCannons?
7th: Wound on a 2+, force a 5++
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+, Termies survive the first wound on an additional 3+.
They aren't *less* survivable even to things like non-IoM Plasma. Even the Plasma Gun - which is one of the weapons most buffed going into 8th - isn't any better at killing Termies than it was.
Dessie and starcannons are both ap-3. They give 5++ saves. We are talking about things that are AP2 in 7th. Which terms survive a little better about the same - comes down to a damage roll. These weapons also got cheaper. Also - dessie cannon uses to be crap - now it's awesome.
Missle pods - autocannons - rocket launchers - reaper launchers - battle cannons - venom cannons. Basically any weapon that was ap4 or ap 3 (which there are a lot of those) got better against terms.
Bharring wrote: To which Termies got better:
7th ed: Power Axe wounded on a 3+, and forced Invuln saves
8th ed: Same choice is a Sword now - wounds on a 4+, forced Invuln save, but needs two unsaved wounds to kill. Less than half as good.
7th ed: Power Maul wounded on a 2+, but allowed a 2+ armor save.
8th ed: Wounds on a 3+, but reduces armor save to a 3+. However, you need 2 unsaved wounds. So this got worse too.
AP3 weapons that are now AP-2 now kill Termies faster. But how common are they.
Dissies specifically: now the perfect termie killer?
7th: Wound on a 3+, force 5++ invuln
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+ armor save
StarCannons?
7th: Wound on a 2+, force a 5++
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+, Termies survive the first wound on an additional 3+.
They aren't *less* survivable even to things like non-IoM Plasma. Even the Plasma Gun - which is one of the weapons most buffed going into 8th - isn't any better at killing Termies than it was.
Dessie and starcannons are both ap-3. They give 5++ saves. We are talking about things that are AP2 in 7th. Which terms survive a little better about the same - comes down to a damage roll. These weapons also got cheaper. Also - dessie cannon uses to be crap - now it's awesome.
Missle pods - autocannons - rocket launchers - reaper launchers - battle cannons - venom cannons. Basically any weapon that was ap4 or ap 3 (which there are a lot of those) got better against terms.
Neato. Now go ahead and make the rest of the list I requested.
Bharring wrote: To which Termies got better:
7th ed: Power Axe wounded on a 3+, and forced Invuln saves
8th ed: Same choice is a Sword now - wounds on a 4+, forced Invuln save, but needs two unsaved wounds to kill. Less than half as good.
7th ed: Power Maul wounded on a 2+, but allowed a 2+ armor save.
8th ed: Wounds on a 3+, but reduces armor save to a 3+. However, you need 2 unsaved wounds. So this got worse too.
AP3 weapons that are now AP-2 now kill Termies faster. But how common are they.
Dissies specifically: now the perfect termie killer?
7th: Wound on a 3+, force 5++ invuln
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+ armor save
StarCannons?
7th: Wound on a 2+, force a 5++
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+, Termies survive the first wound on an additional 3+.
They aren't *less* survivable even to things like non-IoM Plasma. Even the Plasma Gun - which is one of the weapons most buffed going into 8th - isn't any better at killing Termies than it was.
Dessie and starcannons are both ap-3. They give 5++ saves. We are talking about things that are AP2 in 7th. Which terms survive a little better about the same - comes down to a damage roll. These weapons also got cheaper. Also - dessie cannon uses to be crap - now it's awesome.
Missle pods - autocannons - rocket launchers - reaper launchers - battle cannons - venom cannons. Basically any weapon that was ap4 or ap 3 (which there are a lot of those) got better against terms.
Neato. Now go ahead and make the rest of the list I requested.
I just listed a host of popular weapons they are less durable against. Essentially every mutli damage weapon that has negative AP but wasn't AP 2 in 7th is going to be better at killing terms and lots of these still wound on 2's with high rate of fire. Battle cannons kill terms at such a high rate it's laughable. it's not like AP2 was rare in 7th but if your opponent didn't have a lot you could really survive a long time with 2+ saves (thingns like scatter bikes) Now? You will never face an opponent that has trouble killing terms. I should know - I played basically 50% pure terminator GK during 7th when I wasn't playing space marines.
Reemule wrote: Primaris have the Power fist in Boltguantlets don't they?
Yeah, but you can't take that in an Intercessor Squad. Heck, you can't even take a Power Sword in a Reiver squad. I suspect the only reason we can even take Power Swords is because of the Anniversary model having something like one so they went "sure, go with it".
Automatically Appended Next Post: So if Terminators and Primaris don't need D2 protection as much, taking a step back to making it only reduce AP by 1 against weapons of S7 or less (why S7? Because Instant Death used to trigger at S8 and really something that hits at least twice as hard as you are tough would definitely overwhelm your body's ability to take damage, plus it prevents the accidental nerfing of Thunder Hammers and Power Fists and the like) seems like a very small change that could make Marines in general less likely to feel overcharged for their save (since they'd only start losing it against high strength attacks who also have high AP or against weapons with -2 or better AP).
Rather screws Tau players hard, and will also impact prmaris players harshly but whatever. You seem to be set in your view point now.
Really I think the iasue is GW over valuing the better saves this edition and undervalued the bad saves.
Marines just can't throw enough dice around in 8th edition to male anything that changed work for them. Simply put throwing twice the dice is always going to be better than having an extra 16% chance here and there.
Part of my worry is that by bringing the cost of Marines down to meet the new value of their saves they'll turn into just another massed infantry Imperial army. Balancing that is a definite must, which is why I was looking at durability.
And it's not like Tau had any benefit against Marines in previous editions (beyond range and wounding on 3s), so why is it so bad they don't have it this edition? Marines have always been the more durable army that may not have high numbers or high damage output turn by turn but they'd weather casualties better to allow them to have a stronger end game than more chaffe based armies at the cost of a weaker early game due to their lower offensive power.
I ment most Tau shooting is medium strength high volume low AP in 8th edition and their high strength AP rail weapons suffer heavily from being single shot.
It's more that they will suffer a heck of a lot to marine's, and they already suffer to -1 to hit traits even worse than guard.
I still think the answer of morale immune tactically versatile marines would be the way to go. The orders system is very well done and incredibly strong. The same concept should exist for marines. Similar to how deathwatch can switch ammunition.
Bharring wrote: To which Termies got better:
7th ed: Power Axe wounded on a 3+, and forced Invuln saves
8th ed: Same choice is a Sword now - wounds on a 4+, forced Invuln save, but needs two unsaved wounds to kill. Less than half as good.
7th ed: Power Maul wounded on a 2+, but allowed a 2+ armor save.
8th ed: Wounds on a 3+, but reduces armor save to a 3+. However, you need 2 unsaved wounds. So this got worse too.
AP3 weapons that are now AP-2 now kill Termies faster. But how common are they.
Dissies specifically: now the perfect termie killer?
7th: Wound on a 3+, force 5++ invuln
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+ armor save
StarCannons?
7th: Wound on a 2+, force a 5++
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+, Termies survive the first wound on an additional 3+.
They aren't *less* survivable even to things like non-IoM Plasma. Even the Plasma Gun - which is one of the weapons most buffed going into 8th - isn't any better at killing Termies than it was.
Dessie and starcannons are both ap-3. They give 5++ saves. We are talking about things that are AP2 in 7th. Which terms survive a little better about the same - comes down to a damage roll. These weapons also got cheaper. Also - dessie cannon uses to be crap - now it's awesome.
Missle pods - autocannons - rocket launchers - reaper launchers - battle cannons - venom cannons. Basically any weapon that was ap4 or ap 3 (which there are a lot of those) got better against terms.
Neato. Now go ahead and make the rest of the list I requested.
I just listed a host of popular weapons they are less durable against. Essentially every mutli damage weapon that has negative AP but wasn't AP 2 in 7th is going to be better at killing terms and lots of these still wound on 2's with high rate of fire. Battle cannons kill terms at such a high rate it's laughable. it's not like AP2 was rare in 7th but if your opponent didn't have a lot you could really survive a long time with 2+ saves (thingns like scatter bikes) Now? You will never face an opponent that has trouble killing terms. I should know - I played basically 50% pure terminator GK during 7th when I wasn't playing space marines.
You didn't name a host, and that isn't even what I asked.
I'm asking specifically for a list of weapons they're actually less durable against. Do that and I'll give you the list of everything they're more durable to. The results might shock you.
Bharring wrote: To which Termies got better:
7th ed: Power Axe wounded on a 3+, and forced Invuln saves
8th ed: Same choice is a Sword now - wounds on a 4+, forced Invuln save, but needs two unsaved wounds to kill. Less than half as good.
7th ed: Power Maul wounded on a 2+, but allowed a 2+ armor save.
8th ed: Wounds on a 3+, but reduces armor save to a 3+. However, you need 2 unsaved wounds. So this got worse too.
AP3 weapons that are now AP-2 now kill Termies faster. But how common are they.
Dissies specifically: now the perfect termie killer?
7th: Wound on a 3+, force 5++ invuln
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+ armor save
StarCannons?
7th: Wound on a 2+, force a 5++
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+, Termies survive the first wound on an additional 3+.
They aren't *less* survivable even to things like non-IoM Plasma. Even the Plasma Gun - which is one of the weapons most buffed going into 8th - isn't any better at killing Termies than it was.
Dessie and starcannons are both ap-3. They give 5++ saves. We are talking about things that are AP2 in 7th. Which terms survive a little better about the same - comes down to a damage roll. These weapons also got cheaper. Also - dessie cannon uses to be crap - now it's awesome.
Missle pods - autocannons - rocket launchers - reaper launchers - battle cannons - venom cannons. Basically any weapon that was ap4 or ap 3 (which there are a lot of those) got better against terms.
Neato. Now go ahead and make the rest of the list I requested.
I just listed a host of popular weapons they are less durable against. Essentially every mutli damage weapon that has negative AP but wasn't AP 2 in 7th is going to be better at killing terms and lots of these still wound on 2's with high rate of fire. Battle cannons kill terms at such a high rate it's laughable. it's not like AP2 was rare in 7th but if your opponent didn't have a lot you could really survive a long time with 2+ saves (thingns like scatter bikes) Now? You will never face an opponent that has trouble killing terms. I should know - I played basically 50% pure terminator GK during 7th when I wasn't playing space marines.
You didn't name a host, and that isn't even what I asked.
I'm asking specifically for a list of weapons they're actually less durable against. Do that and I'll give you the list of everything they're more durable to. The results might shock you.
I don't see the point in making a list. If you already want to make the half they are better against, why not go ahead and make the whole thing? Lol
Realistically, it doesn't matter if terminators are durable against 75% of the weapons in the game (quite possible) if they die very easily to the other 25%, and the enemy army is likely to have enough of those weapons to kill them, and they cost too much to take a lot of.
Without some kind of damage reduction, they will always drop dead to 2 damage guns because those weapons tend to have relatively high rates of fire.
I could see going with more of a middle ground option though and only having them ignore 1AP with the rest of Marines and then buffing their WS/BS by one. Then they'd hit a bit harder and not die to as many auto cannons.
Bharring wrote: To which Termies got better:
7th ed: Power Axe wounded on a 3+, and forced Invuln saves
8th ed: Same choice is a Sword now - wounds on a 4+, forced Invuln save, but needs two unsaved wounds to kill. Less than half as good.
7th ed: Power Maul wounded on a 2+, but allowed a 2+ armor save.
8th ed: Wounds on a 3+, but reduces armor save to a 3+. However, you need 2 unsaved wounds. So this got worse too.
AP3 weapons that are now AP-2 now kill Termies faster. But how common are they.
Dissies specifically: now the perfect termie killer?
7th: Wound on a 3+, force 5++ invuln
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+ armor save
StarCannons?
7th: Wound on a 2+, force a 5++
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+, Termies survive the first wound on an additional 3+.
They aren't *less* survivable even to things like non-IoM Plasma. Even the Plasma Gun - which is one of the weapons most buffed going into 8th - isn't any better at killing Termies than it was.
Dessie and starcannons are both ap-3. They give 5++ saves. We are talking about things that are AP2 in 7th. Which terms survive a little better about the same - comes down to a damage roll. These weapons also got cheaper. Also - dessie cannon uses to be crap - now it's awesome.
Missle pods - autocannons - rocket launchers - reaper launchers - battle cannons - venom cannons. Basically any weapon that was ap4 or ap 3 (which there are a lot of those) got better against terms.
Neato. Now go ahead and make the rest of the list I requested.
I just listed a host of popular weapons they are less durable against. Essentially every mutli damage weapon that has negative AP but wasn't AP 2 in 7th is going to be better at killing terms and lots of these still wound on 2's with high rate of fire. Battle cannons kill terms at such a high rate it's laughable. it's not like AP2 was rare in 7th but if your opponent didn't have a lot you could really survive a long time with 2+ saves (thingns like scatter bikes) Now? You will never face an opponent that has trouble killing terms. I should know - I played basically 50% pure terminator GK during 7th when I wasn't playing space marines.
You didn't name a host, and that isn't even what I asked.
I'm asking specifically for a list of weapons they're actually less durable against. Do that and I'll give you the list of everything they're more durable to. The results might shock you.
I don't see the point in making a list. If you already want to make the half they are better against, why not go ahead and make the whole thing? Lol
Realistically, it doesn't matter if terminators are durable against 75% of the weapons in the game (quite possible) if they die very easily to the other 25%, and the enemy army is likely to have enough of those weapons to kill them, and they cost too much to take a lot of.
Without some kind of damage reduction, they will always drop dead to 2 damage guns because those weapons tend to have relatively high rates of fire.
I could see going with more of a middle ground option though and only having them ignore 1AP with the rest of Marines and then buffing their WS/BS by one. Then they'd hit a bit harder and not die to as many auto cannons.
The point of the list proves it's the most durable edition for Terminators, and once again we prove their issue is their offense abilities. Which they have none of.
How? Bad list on his part, no unit priority, poor weapon choices, questionable tactical decisions
Honestly, my meta my incredibly weak compared to what I hear on here. My 2 prime units were a 10 man terminator squad and a LR crusader, good luck running them anywhere slightly competitive.
Though my Ven dread with twin auto cannons put lots of work in with Astral aim.
But the actual way I won was from the fact that he doesn't know disintegrator cannons are a thing and I'm not a good enough sport to tell him about them. Also I broke my 6 month losing streak today
If there was one good thing I had to say about GKs is this: force weapons are great as they make units that rely on FnP rolls (at least 1 wound models) moot and they can(huge can) make a single wound deal good damage. But that's kinda it....
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The point of the list proves it's the most durable edition for Terminators, and once again we prove their issue is their offense abilities. Which they have none of.
So this has been going back and forth for a minute now so I'm going to put my two thrones in:
Terminators are more heavily punished by weapon AP. Previously they only lost armour saves against power weapons and AP 1 or 2 weapons. Now they lose that save they pay heavily for against even weapons that used to be AP4. This isn't an opinion, it's basic fact. It's also fact that D2 weapons have become VERY prevelant because they cost less than heavier weapons, have more shots than heavier weapons AND have more consistent damage than heavier weapons. This makes for an environment were you're more likely to lose Terminators faster, and to weapons you used to get full saves against.
The only gain they had was against AP0, D1 weapons due to gaining an extra wound. Too bad most people weren't trying to use those weapons to kill Terminators with most of the time anyways.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The point of the list proves it's the most durable edition for Terminators, and once again we prove their issue is their offense abilities. Which they have none of.
So this has been going back and forth for a minute now so I'm going to put my two thrones in:
Terminators are more heavily punished by weapon AP. Previously they only lost armour saves against power weapons and AP 1 or 2 weapons. Now they lose that save they pay heavily for against even weapons that used to be AP4. This isn't an opinion, it's basic fact. It's also fact that D2 weapons have become VERY prevelant because they cost less than heavier weapons, have more shots than heavier weapons AND have more consistent damage than heavier weapons. This makes for an environment were you're more likely to lose Terminators faster, and to weapons you used to get full saves against.
The only gain they had was against AP0, D1 weapons due to gaining an extra wound. Too bad most people weren't trying to use those weapons to kill Terminators with most of the time anyways.
They only lost durability to previous AP4 weapons if it does more than D1. Otherwise the durability is exactly the same outside specific edge cases like Autocannons.
I've not been having too many issues as marine. Not to say that marines are great (or even good for that matter) but it's nowhere near as bad as people have been making it out to be. I'm curious how many people here have tried non-standard and non-gunline builds. This edition is really about board control, and gunline armies cede board control most of the time.
That being said some changes I'd like to see:
Every special/combi weapon (besides the plasmas) getting a point decrease.
Sniper rifles getting a point decrease
Marines getting an extra attack. With two attacks in CC (3 for sgts) marines actually become decent close quarter combatants. Over a single battle round marines with bolters would do 6 s4 attacks compared to 4 (assuming they survive the CC rounds, which varies wildly on what they're assaulting).
Predators ignoring the -1 to hit for the turret weapon only. Let fast tank be fast?
Killshot strategem retooled to +1 to wound for 2 predators, +1 for damage for 3.
Rhinos getting a minor point drop (10 points) and the firing ports back (GIMME THE FIRE PORTS)
Chapter tactics apply to vehicles. Could go the guard route with differing CT's for the vehicles (although some match vehicles pretty well already)
I don't know how to fix Termintators, but honestly I'd feel something that gives them a benefit when they first deepstrike in (every model in 12" MUST target them or take a -1 to hit if they are the closest enemy unit or something along those lines) and then TP them back using the homers.
As has been discussed endlessly terminators have no real design space for offensive/defensive output. Giving them some sort of utility might be the way to go.
It may have already been mentioned earlier in this thread (I didn't feel like reading through over a dozen pages to find out), but I think the Redemptor Dreadnought would be a more competitive choice if it was T8 instead of T7. It would feel like it's more beefy than a standard Dread then, despite its lack of an invulnerable save. Either that, or give it a 2+ armor save, although that wouldn't help it that much given how many strong weapons with good AP are out there (looking at you Knight Castellan...).
