Canadian 5th wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:can you give me a real reason why the hormagant costs more than a termagant though?

Because melee is improperly priced for its utility. There are two solutions to this; you've posted the one that I think most players will find unsatisfying. The other is to make melee worthwhile again, closer to on par with shooting as it used to be and less the cheap, crappy alternative.

Just slashing the points on melee-only units is going to feel really awkward when elite units like hammer+shield Terminators or specialized ones like Assault Marines become cheap cannon fodder.

I think the issue is that 'good' melee units smash everything, get exposed, and die and bad melee units just die. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground and points cuts don't help with that.

Agreed. Melee units have a definite "suicide squad/kamikaze" feel to them. I blame the fallback mechanics, but most people seem to hate the old sweeping advance rules, so there needs to be a middle ground. Possibly giving units the chance to chase fleeing units and keep them in cc but not wipe them out.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly how it worked at one point. It's been a while, but I remember back in 3rd, Sweeping Advance got patched by new 'Trial Assault Rules' to keep the losing unit trapped in combat rather than wipe them out entirely. That seemed reasonable to me.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Agreed. Melee units have a definite "suicide squad/kamikaze" feel to them. I blame the fallback mechanics, but most people seem to hate the old sweeping advance rules, so there needs to be a middle ground. Possibly giving units the chance to chase fleeing units and keep them in cc but not wipe them out.

There are a few melee units that are powerful, cheap, durable, and supported so they can reach melee... but you still wouldn't build a list around them.

That said, when my army is finally fielded again, I'm looking forward to seeing what a group of Deathwing Knights + Ancient do when dropped into something important and then what the opponent does when they have a 3++ and transhuman physiology the next turn.

 catbarf wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's exactly how it worked at one point. It's been a while, but I remember back in 3rd, Sweeping Advance got patched by new 'Trial Assault Rules' to keep the losing unit trapped in combat rather than wipe them out entirely. That seemed reasonable to me.

Yeah, iirc the unit falling back rolled 2d6 for distance, and the pursuers rolled 2d6, if they beat the fleeing units roll they stayed in combat. Jump infantry, bikes, and the like rolled 3d6 respectively. Was reasonable, and helped cut down on things like bezerkers running wild.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Agreed. Melee units have a definite "suicide squad/kamikaze" feel to them. I blame the fallback mechanics, but most people seem to hate the old sweeping advance rules, so there needs to be a middle ground. Possibly giving units the chance to chase fleeing units and keep them in cc but not wipe them out.

There are a few melee units that are powerful, cheap, durable, and supported so they can reach melee... but you still wouldn't build a list around them.

That said, when my army is finally fielded again, I'm looking forward to seeing what a group of Deathwing Knights + Ancient do when dropped into something important and then what the opponent does when they have a 3++ and transhuman physiology the next turn.

True, my double chainclaw contemptor has a pretty good kill count, but is still susceptible to being caught out in the open. I think a return to rules similar to those mentioned above would help melee quite a bit.

 Xenomancers wrote:
can you give me a real reason why the hormagant costs more than a termagant though?

- 8" move rather than 6"
- 2 attacks in melee
- In-built re-rolls of 1's to hit from scything talons (Termagants need a Tervigon for this on their Fleshborers)
- 6" consolidation move
- 20+ models = re-roll 1's to wound (though this is the same as Termgants for their fleshborers)

12" range on Fleshborers isn't going to come up a ton of times during the game and will usually be coupled with advancing / hitting on 5's

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The trick is you run before they get there. Which isn't hard to do.

How does that work when you've already attacked in the fight phase?

The point is ranged units don't stand there and get charged by melee units. The real option should be whether you want to overwatch or run away - take a test for that.

You ever played WHBF? Because nothing made me stop playing that game faster then the 'flee' charge reaction.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:can you give me a real reason why the hormagant costs more than a termagant though?

Because melee is improperly priced for its utility. There are two solutions to this; you've posted the one that I think most players will find unsatisfying. The other is to make melee worthwhile again, closer to on par with shooting as it used to be and less the cheap, crappy alternative.

Just slashing the points on melee-only units is going to feel really awkward when elite units like hammer+shield Terminators or specialized ones like Assault Marines become cheap cannon fodder.

I think the issue is that 'good' melee units smash everything, get exposed, and die and bad melee units just die. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground and points cuts don't help with that.

Agreed.

TerminatorUK wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
can you give me a real reason why the hormagant costs more than a termagant though?

- 8" move rather than 6"
- 2 attacks in melee
- In-built re-rolls of 1's to hit from scything talons (Termagants need a Tervigon for this on their Fleshborers)
- 6" consolidation move
- 20+ models = re-roll 1's to wound (though this is the same as Termgants for their fleshborers)

12" range on Fleshborers isn't going to come up a ton of times during the game and will usually be coupled with advancing / hitting on 5's

I could see them costing the same but termis costing more just goes to show how much they overvalue melee units. Really both these units are so bad they should cost 3 points. Nether is approaching the value of a 4 point guardsmen. Who has a better save and a better weapons. Not to mention better special rules.

This is a huge part of the issue with cheap melee units. They just aren't cheap enough. Strong melee units are actually some of the best units in the game so I don't think we even need to get into that. As are units that shoot good and CC good.

 Xenomancers wrote:

TerminatorUK wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
can you give me a real reason why the hormagant costs more than a termagant though?

- 8" move rather than 6"
- 2 attacks in melee
- In-built re-rolls of 1's to hit from scything talons (Termagants need a Tervigon for this on their Fleshborers)
- 6" consolidation move
- 20+ models = re-roll 1's to wound (though this is the same as Termgants for their fleshborers)

12" range on Fleshborers isn't going to come up a ton of times during the game and will usually be coupled with advancing / hitting on 5's

I could see them costing the same but termis costing more just goes to show how much they overvalue melee units. Really both these units are so bad they should cost 3 points. Nether is approaching the value of a 4 point guardsmen. Who has a better save and a better weapons. Not to mention better special rules.

This is a huge part of the issue with cheap melee units. They just aren't cheap enough. Strong melee units are actually some of the best units in the game so I don't think we even need to get into that. As are units that shoot good and CC good.

While I agree they're overvaluing melee, I feel like the game needs to push everything up by a few points. The bloat of cheap models has been getting out of hand for years now.

The game needs a rework from the ground up to better balance melee and shooting. 8th has made things better, but the mechanics of the game don't really balance things properly.

I agree. Points are too low. The difference between a 3 pt, 4 pt, or 5 pt guardmen is huge. The difference between a 13 pts and 12 pt marine is not nearly as significant.

More terrain/better terrain rules = more CC.

When models can move through things they can't see through, and the table has more of that type of terrain, close combat becomes far more valuable/viable.

Martel732 wrote:
I agree. Points are too low. The difference between a 3 pt, 4 pt, or 5 pt guardmen is huge. The difference between a 13 pts and 12 pt marine is not nearly as significant.

Move everything up 5 points at the same time. That'd crop out a single unit out of every army on average (maybe less for Knights) and give more room to breath for the game as a whole. If we keep moving points down we'll just end up falling into WFB 8th edition issue where you had stuff like 1/2ppm Skaven Slaves.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

TerminatorUK wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
can you give me a real reason why the hormagant costs more than a termagant though?

- 8" move rather than 6"
- 2 attacks in melee
- In-built re-rolls of 1's to hit from scything talons (Termagants need a Tervigon for this on their Fleshborers)
- 6" consolidation move
- 20+ models = re-roll 1's to wound (though this is the same as Termgants for their fleshborers)

12" range on Fleshborers isn't going to come up a ton of times during the game and will usually be coupled with advancing / hitting on 5's

I could see them costing the same but termis costing more just goes to show how much they overvalue melee units. Really both these units are so bad they should cost 3 points. Nether is approaching the value of a 4 point guardsmen. Who has a better save and a better weapons. Not to mention better special rules.

This is a huge part of the issue with cheap melee units. They just aren't cheap enough. Strong melee units are actually some of the best units in the game so I don't think we even need to get into that. As are units that shoot good and CC good.

While I agree they're overvaluing melee, I feel like the game needs to push everything up by a few points. The bloat of cheap models has been getting out of hand for years now.

The game needs a rework from the ground up to better balance melee and shooting. 8th has made things better, but the mechanics of the game don't really balance things properly.

It could help with balance if they increased the points on all units in the game and they would have smaller percentages to change to help with balancing similar units but overall I don't care how they correct this problem. I like having more models on the table than less which is just a personal preference. There is no excuse for trashy full melee units to cost more than trashy full shooty units.

 Insectum7 wrote:
More terrain/better terrain rules = more CC.

When models can move through things they can't see through, and the table has more of that type of terrain, close combat becomes far more valuable/viable.

We do need more indepth terrain rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It could help with balance if they increased the points on all units in the game and they would have smaller percentages to change to help with balancing similar units but overall I don't care how they correct this problem. I like having more models on the table than less which is just a personal preference. There is no excuse for trashy full melee units to cost more than trashy full shooty units.

Higher points would give the game more room to breath on allowing things to spread out a bit between the cost of shooting and non-shooting options.

I'm starting to think there should be no free guns for example due to how it makes shooting a clear cut better choice over melee.

The disembarking rules are quite clunky and frustrating, which particularly hurts close combat units.

 harlokin wrote:
The disembarking rules are quite clunky and frustrating, which particularly hurts close combat units.

I don't mind them not allowing disembark if you move the transport first, since you can gain a few extra inches disembarking the max range then moving, but assault ramps and open topped should allow you to move then disembark and then charge. The fact that this isn't a thing annoys basically everyong.

I'd rather have more predictable charge distances. Failing a 4" charge suuuuucks. D6+3 or 3D3 or something would be preferable.

Just going to throw it out there that there has never been a time in this game's history in which melee combat has been as competitively viable as shooting. Specific melee units have been good from edition to edition, sure, but the mechanic as a whole has pretty much always only been useful for tying up units or cleaning up a unit that's already been whittled down in the shooting phase.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Just going to throw it out there that there has never been a time in this game's history in which melee combat has been as competitively viable as shooting. Specific melee units have been good from edition to edition, sure, but the mechanic as a whole has pretty much always only been useful for tying up units or cleaning up a unit that's already been whittled down in the shooting phase.

Notable exception might be 3rd Ed. BA, who were amazingly irritating.

Close combat oriented armies are usually much more high risk, high reward. If they don't land their initial combats on the opponent well, a CC army can die pretty hard without doing significant damage to the opposing army. And it feels really brutal to have your army slaughtered when you haven't really made a dent. The failure of a CC army usually feels worse than the failure of a shooting army. Even if you make it "almost there", you can wind up with a pile of bodies and little to show for it.

That said, in most mixed armies I find shooting tends to shape the battle, but CC will still often swing the battle.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Just going to throw it out there that there has never been a time in this game's history in which melee combat has been as competitively viable as shooting. Specific melee units have been good from edition to edition, sure, but the mechanic as a whole has pretty much always only been useful for tying up units or cleaning up a unit that's already been whittled down in the shooting phase.

Notable exception might be 3rd Ed. BA, who were amazingly irritating.

3rd Ed is definitely the exception. Rhino Rush with practically any army turned the game into an exercise of "can I shoot enough transports off the board before you reach my lines and devastate my list". Even with "shooty armies" like DA and Guard I was getting more work done winning games in melee than shooting during 3rd.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More terrain/better terrain rules = more CC.

When models can move through things they can't see through, and the table has more of that type of terrain, close combat becomes far more valuable/viable.

We do need more indepth terrain rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It could help with balance if they increased the points on all units in the game and they would have smaller percentages to change to help with balancing similar units but overall I don't care how they correct this problem. I like having more models on the table than less which is just a personal preference. There is no excuse for trashy full melee units to cost more than trashy full shooty units.

Higher points would give the game more room to breath on allowing things to spread out a bit between the cost of shooting and non-shooting options.

I'm starting to think there should be no free guns for example due to how it makes shooting a clear cut better choice over melee.

Another aspect of poor balancing. Some weapons being free. Some weapons costing points. Twin linked weapons getting discounts. Weapons having different cost depending on what takes it (this would make sense if you didn't also pay points on the model for having a certain number of attacks for example). Most of the time it just seems like they make up the points for things.

Look at a heavy destroyer with heavy gauss 37 points for a 3 wound t5 infantry unit with fly that ignores move penalties and has reroll 1's to hit automatically. Compared to a havoc with a lascannon...(which costs 2 more points). How is it possible that the necron unit has a better weapon...better stats (significantly 3x the durability) and free reoll 1's for the same cost. Like...the game clearly makes no attempts to balance anything if you look at this situation. The game is not balanced because they don't even try.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Agreed. If you overextend your character further enough that I can target him he either gets the firing squad or gang piled.

Course I play Night Lords. It's what we do.

Ah, well that makes sense for your army! But I usually play some Space Marine army, who are big on the whole "courage and honour" thing.

"Courage and honor" translated to Nostroman is basically "doing something fething stupid, which results in you being flayed alive and then nailed up to the nearest wall so as to show everyone else what happens when you do something fething stupid".

...I like Nostomans now


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'd rather have more predictable charge distances. Failing a 4" charge suuuuucks. D6+3 or 3D3 or something would be preferable.

Or they could just do movement + D3.
Or half movement +d6.

You know, have the movement stat actually mean something in the charge phase.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More terrain/better terrain rules = more CC.

When models can move through things they can't see through, and the table has more of that type of terrain, close combat becomes far more valuable/viable.

We do need more indepth terrain rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It could help with balance if they increased the points on all units in the game and they would have smaller percentages to change to help with balancing similar units but overall I don't care how they correct this problem. I like having more models on the table than less which is just a personal preference. There is no excuse for trashy full melee units to cost more than trashy full shooty units.

Higher points would give the game more room to breath on allowing things to spread out a bit between the cost of shooting and non-shooting options.

I'm starting to think there should be no free guns for example due to how it makes shooting a clear cut better choice over melee.

Another aspect of poor balancing. Some weapons being free. Some weapons costing points. Twin linked weapons getting discounts. Weapons having different cost depending on what takes it (this would make sense if you didn't also pay points on the model for having a certain number of attacks for example). Most of the time it just seems like they make up the points for things.

Look at a heavy destroyer with heavy gauss 37 points for a 3 wound t5 infantry unit with fly that ignores move penalties and has reroll 1's to hit automatically. Compared to a havoc with a lascannon...(which costs 2 more points). How is it possible that the necron unit has a better weapon...better stats (significantly 3x the durability) and free reoll 1's for the same cost. Like...the game clearly makes no attempts to balance anything if you look at this situation. The game is not balanced because they don't even try.

I feel like most of the balancing is done relative to the other units in the same faction, but then you have stuff where all Marines share the same points costs regardless of what book they're in.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More terrain/better terrain rules = more CC.

When models can move through things they can't see through, and the table has more of that type of terrain, close combat becomes far more valuable/viable.

We do need more indepth terrain rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It could help with balance if they increased the points on all units in the game and they would have smaller percentages to change to help with balancing similar units but overall I don't care how they correct this problem. I like having more models on the table than less which is just a personal preference. There is no excuse for trashy full melee units to cost more than trashy full shooty units.

Higher points would give the game more room to breath on allowing things to spread out a bit between the cost of shooting and non-shooting options.

I'm starting to think there should be no free guns for example due to how it makes shooting a clear cut better choice over melee.

Another aspect of poor balancing. Some weapons being free. Some weapons costing points. Twin linked weapons getting discounts. Weapons having different cost depending on what takes it (this would make sense if you didn't also pay points on the model for having a certain number of attacks for example). Most of the time it just seems like they make up the points for things.

Look at a heavy destroyer with heavy gauss 37 points for a 3 wound t5 infantry unit with fly that ignores move penalties and has reroll 1's to hit automatically. Compared to a havoc with a lascannon...(which costs 2 more points). How is it possible that the necron unit has a better weapon...better stats (significantly 3x the durability) and free reoll 1's for the same cost. Like...the game clearly makes no attempts to balance anything if you look at this situation. The game is not balanced because they don't even try.

Havocs are priced like they're the grunt with a Bolter and T5 with ignoring movement penalties, and then forced to buy a weapon. Havocs at base should really be 9-10 points because of that forced bought weapon.

^Havocs are priced like they can still take big squads when they can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'd rather have more predictable charge distances. Failing a 4" charge suuuuucks. D6+3 or 3D3 or something would be preferable.

Or they could just do movement + D3.
Or half movement +d6.

You know, have the movement stat actually mean something in the charge phase.

I like the idea in theory but I think that'd be out of control when you start dealing with Jetbikes and things. Especially with units with short ranged weapons like Shining Spears or Assault troopers with Flamers. You wind up is a space where assault units are almost expected charge well beyond their weapons range, which feels weird.

BlaxicanX wrote:Just going to throw it out there that there has never been a time in this game's history in which melee combat has been as competitively viable as shooting. Specific melee units have been good from edition to edition, sure, but the mechanic as a whole has pretty much always only been useful for tying up units or cleaning up a unit that's already been whittled down in the shooting phase.

I'm not so sure about that. Tyranids did reasonably well back in 3rd, 3.5, and 4th, and they were by design reliant on melee with their short-ranged, anti-infantry, Assault-type shooting. I remember big units of Hormagaunts with 3 attacks each on the charge really doing a number on Guardsmen, and if a Carnifex got in close with a vehicle (S10+2D6 to penetrate) it was pretty much dead meat.

At the very least, even if melee was a secondary focus, it felt to me like multirole and shooting units had a harder time fighting melee specialists. If you were carrying bolters or lasguns, the inability to move and shoot twice made it harder to backpedal away from melee combatants, you couldn't move to get into Rapid Fire range and then double-tap, and even if you started at point-blank you couldn't double-tap and then charge. You had to sacrifice shooting to be mobile, so troops that sacrificed shooting altogether in favor of mobility and melee didn't feel so limited. Now everyone's mobile and everyone can move, shoot, and charge without penalty, so melee specialists have to really excel at melee to be worthwhile.

I think it's fine for the balance to lean towards shooting, with melee as support. This is sci-fi, after all. But I think it's changes specifically in 8th- increased shooting lethality, near-elimination of movement penalties to shooting, easy fall-back- that have taken melee from a niche role to largely ineffective without a first-turn or deep-strike charge gimmick.

I too have to chime in about melee and falling back. I'm sorry, but if my bloodletters or berzerkers manage to reach your guardsmen, it should be judgment day. You had your chances with your unlimited arsenal of artillery and lasguns, now you need to pit your kitchen knives against my hellblades. If you do fall back, there should be a morale test, and if you fail, the entire unit is gone, either from supposedly fleeing the battlefield or from being cutdown while fleeing. No retreat, no remorse!

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I too have to chime in about melee and falling back. I'm sorry, but if my bloodletters manage to reach your guardsmen, it should be judgment day. You had your chances with your unlimited arsenal of artillery and lasguns, now you need to pit your kitchen knives against my hellblades. If you do fall back, there should be a morale test, and if you fail, the entire unit is gone, either from supposedly fleeing the battlefield or from being cutdown while fleeing.

I completely agree with the idea of 'your opportunity to stop my melee specialists was before they hit your lines', but as a Guard player, when you hit my Guardsmen I assume they're dead anyways. Killing that 40-60pt speedbump better won't stop me from killing you in my turn, so I'm still free to use the unlimited arsenal of artillery and lasguns and have no need for the kitchen knives.

Adding the fallback penalty to melee is more beneficial for when melee units manage to catch something valuable in combat, like an expensive shooting unit. But it doesn't address the root issue of melee units being too easily killed once no longer in combat.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More terrain/better terrain rules = more CC.

When models can move through things they can't see through, and the table has more of that type of terrain, close combat becomes far more valuable/viable.

We do need more indepth terrain rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It could help with balance if they increased the points on all units in the game and they would have smaller percentages to change to help with balancing similar units but overall I don't care how they correct this problem. I like having more models on the table than less which is just a personal preference. There is no excuse for trashy full melee units to cost more than trashy full shooty units.

Higher points would give the game more room to breath on allowing things to spread out a bit between the cost of shooting and non-shooting options.

I'm starting to think there should be no free guns for example due to how it makes shooting a clear cut better choice over melee.

Another aspect of poor balancing. Some weapons being free. Some weapons costing points. Twin linked weapons getting discounts. Weapons having different cost depending on what takes it (this would make sense if you didn't also pay points on the model for having a certain number of attacks for example). Most of the time it just seems like they make up the points for things.

Look at a heavy destroyer with heavy gauss 37 points for a 3 wound t5 infantry unit with fly that ignores move penalties and has reroll 1's to hit automatically. Compared to a havoc with a lascannon...(which costs 2 more points). How is it possible that the necron unit has a better weapon...better stats (significantly 3x the durability) and free reoll 1's for the same cost. Like...the game clearly makes no attempts to balance anything if you look at this situation. The game is not balanced because they don't even try.

Havocs are priced like they're the grunt with a Bolter and T5 with ignoring movement penalties, and then forced to buy a weapon. Havocs at base should really be 9-10 points because of that forced bought weapon.

Well here we have another example. A marine with a lascannon is 39 points yet it costs the same to add that lascannon to something like a predator. The weapons don't have the same value on each platform. Yet they make character weapons cost more...it's just another inconstancy that makes melee less powerful. Like many have states the bolter costing 0 points is the issue. The weapon should probably cost 2 or 3 points and the models points reduced to reflect the same cost with a bolter. Then weapons like a lascannon become more valuable on lighter chassis and taking them on big machines ends up being less efficient.

^Well, a Lascannon doesnt shoot more on a Predator vs. a Marine. But a Thunder Hammer really does swing more (and often at a higher WS) on a Character.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Havocs are priced like they can still take big squads when they can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'd rather have more predictable charge distances. Failing a 4" charge suuuuucks. D6+3 or 3D3 or something would be preferable.

Or they could just do movement + D3.
Or half movement +d6.

You know, have the movement stat actually mean something in the charge phase.

I like the idea in theory but I think that'd be out of control when you start dealing with Jetbikes and things. Especially with units with short ranged weapons like Shining Spears or Assault troopers with Flamers. You wind up is a space where assault units are almost expected charge well beyond their weapons range, which feels weird.

Which isn't something done to begin with. Even considering you can do that with the old squad, (which is 200 points for 10 dudes with 4 Lascannons), they require too much external factors to do the same as three Heavy Destroyers at 111. Even with Mult-Damage weapons into consideration, those Havocs are NOT durable with the extra wounds.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Havocs are priced like they can still take big squads when they can't.

Which isn't something done to begin with. Even considering you can do that with the old squad, (which is 200 points for 10 dudes with 4 Lascannons), they require too much external factors to do the same as three Heavy Destroyers at 111. Even with Mult-Damage weapons into consideration, those Havocs are NOT durable with the extra wounds.

And the Heavy Destroyers are durable? I think not. Heavy multi-damage weapons knock out the Destroyers nice and quick, while a 10 man Havoc Squad you couldn't just get lucky with a few Lascannons and bring them down. Also, different armies, different factors going into pricing in general because of context.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Havocs are priced like they can still take big squads when they can't.

Which isn't something done to begin with. Even considering you can do that with the old squad, (which is 200 points for 10 dudes with 4 Lascannons), they require too much external factors to do the same as three Heavy Destroyers at 111. Even with Mult-Damage weapons into consideration, those Havocs are NOT durable with the extra wounds.

And the Heavy Destroyers are durable? I think not. Heavy multi-damage weapons knock out the Destroyers nice and quick, while a 10 man Havoc Squad you couldn't just get lucky with a few Lascannons and bring them down. Also, different armies, different factors going into pricing in general because of context.

the destroyers don't die to bolter fire.... the havocs do

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Havocs are priced like they can still take big squads when they can't.

Which isn't something done to begin with. Even considering you can do that with the old squad, (which is 200 points for 10 dudes with 4 Lascannons), they require too much external factors to do the same as three Heavy Destroyers at 111. Even with Mult-Damage weapons into consideration, those Havocs are NOT durable with the extra wounds.

And the Heavy Destroyers are durable? I think not. Heavy multi-damage weapons knock out the Destroyers nice and quick, while a 10 man Havoc Squad you couldn't just get lucky with a few Lascannons and bring them down. Also, different armies, different factors going into pricing in general because of context.

the destroyers don't die to bolter fire.... the havocs do

Different units have different optimum weapons of engagement. That's ok.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Havocs are priced like they can still take big squads when they can't.

Which isn't something done to begin with. Even considering you can do that with the old squad, (which is 200 points for 10 dudes with 4 Lascannons), they require too much external factors to do the same as three Heavy Destroyers at 111. Even with Mult-Damage weapons into consideration, those Havocs are NOT durable with the extra wounds.

And the Heavy Destroyers are durable? I think not. Heavy multi-damage weapons knock out the Destroyers nice and quick, while a 10 man Havoc Squad you couldn't just get lucky with a few Lascannons and bring them down. Also, different armies, different factors going into pricing in general because of context.

the destroyers don't die to bolter fire.... the havocs do

Different units have different optimum weapons of engagement. That's ok.

agreed, but every list should have varied types of weapons. The fact that the basic gun that comes with most troops in the games can one shot a havoc yet can't one shot a destroyer means that the destroyer are more resilient. If i pay the same cost for both models but one can get one shot by a 0pts weapon while the other one requires a 20pts weapon, isnt this a difference in resilience?

Destroyers are way harder to remove. Thats the point.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Havocs are priced like they can still take big squads when they can't.

Which isn't something done to begin with. Even considering you can do that with the old squad, (which is 200 points for 10 dudes with 4 Lascannons), they require too much external factors to do the same as three Heavy Destroyers at 111. Even with Mult-Damage weapons into consideration, those Havocs are NOT durable with the extra wounds.

And the Heavy Destroyers are durable? I think not. Heavy multi-damage weapons knock out the Destroyers nice and quick, while a 10 man Havoc Squad you couldn't just get lucky with a few Lascannons and bring them down. Also, different armies, different factors going into pricing in general because of context.

the destroyers don't die to bolter fire.... the havocs do

Different units have different optimum weapons of engagement. That's ok.

agreed, but every list should have varied types of weapons. The fact that the basic gun that comes with most troops in the games can one shot a havoc yet can't one shot a destroyer means that the destroyer are more resilient. If i pay the same cost for both models but one can get one shot by a 0pts weapon while the other one requires a 20pts weapon, isnt this a difference in resilience?

Now wait a minute, are we talking about the same thing here? Because I'm not talking about current Havocs, I'm talking about the old 10 body squad of Havocs, which would be 10 wounds vs. the 3 Destroyers 9, and four heavy weapons to the Destroyers three.

If your point is that the current Havocs are less durable than Destroyers, I'd heartily agree. But that's not the subject matter of the post you replied to.

well havocs can't take ablative wounds anymore.
A space marine dev unit can. 220 points for 10 wounds and 4 lascannons...Holy crap for 222 points you get 6 heavy destroyers.
Not only are their weapons better than lascannons due to ap-4 - they also ignore move penalties
can fall back and shoot
free reroll 1's
Also a 10" move.
has 8 more total wounds with +1 toughness.

This is a clear and outrageous balance discrepancy. It's kinda gross actually. The Destroyers are WAY more durable than havocs and WAY more durable than dev marines.

 Xenomancers wrote:
well havocs can't take ablative wounds anymore.
A space marine dev unit can. 220 points for 10 wounds and 4 lascannons...Holy crap for 222 points you get 6 heavy destroyers.
Not only are their weapons better than lascannons due to ap-4 - they also ignore move penalties
can fall back and shoot
free reroll 1's
Also a 10" move.
has 8 more total wounds with +1 toughness.

This is a clear and outrageous balance discrepancy. It's kinda gross actually. The Destroyers are WAY more durable than havocs and WAY more durable than dev marines.

And have 12" less range, benefit from fewer and worse support abilities, have basically no relevant Dynasty benefits. Also don't come whining about Heavy Destroyers being gross, they used to be 100 pts and haven't gotten better rules basically all edition, Havocs have gotten more toughness, Stratagem support and can benefit from the best type of Chapter Tactic (-1 to hit at more than 12"). It took several years before Heavy Destroyers became good, if Havocs are slightly behind the power curve March 2020 then it's nowhere near how far back Heavy Destroyers were at the start of the edition. You don't need Lascannon Havocs to be 12 pts with wargear before they start seeing competitive play, which is the relative buff Heavy Destroyers have seen since the Indexes. Cry me an absolute. Freaking. River. Damn.

Havocs also get a strat that allows them to shoot twice, iirc.
Heavy Destroyers do not have that same kind of force multiplier.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Havocs are priced like they can still take big squads when they can't.

Which isn't something done to begin with. Even considering you can do that with the old squad, (which is 200 points for 10 dudes with 4 Lascannons), they require too much external factors to do the same as three Heavy Destroyers at 111. Even with Mult-Damage weapons into consideration, those Havocs are NOT durable with the extra wounds.

And the Heavy Destroyers are durable? I think not. Heavy multi-damage weapons knock out the Destroyers nice and quick, while a 10 man Havoc Squad you couldn't just get lucky with a few Lascannons and bring them down. Also, different armies, different factors going into pricing in general because of context.

That 10 man Havoc squad was also almost twice the price of the three Heavy destroyers I listed there.

 Xenomancers wrote:
well havocs can't take ablative wounds anymore.
A space marine dev unit can. 220 points for 10 wounds and 4 lascannons...Holy crap for 222 points you get 6 heavy destroyers.
Not only are their weapons better than lascannons due to ap-4 - they also ignore move penalties
can fall back and shoot
free reroll 1's
Also a 10" move.
has 8 more total wounds with +1 toughness.

This is a clear and outrageous balance discrepancy. It's kinda gross actually. The Destroyers are WAY more durable than havocs and WAY more durable than dev marines.

I know Havocs can't take ablative wounds anymore. That was the start of this conversation.

For Devastators, it depends. As UM I get an additional -1 AP in Devastator, ignore move penalties in Tactical, and can fall back and shoot as UM.
I have access to better rerolls, have more attacks and have 12 additional bolter shots. For 5 more points I can fire one Heavy Weapon twice. One model gets a +1 to hit while the Sergeant is alive. It takes five casualties to begin degrading my heavy weapon fire, while Destroyers lose a Heavy shot with each casualty. Not to mention that Devastators have many choices of weapon, while Heavy Destroyers only have the one. Iirc, the Lascannons outrange the Heavy Gauss Cannon, too.


While vs. matches are far from the whole story, here's one anyways:
If the six Destroyers fire at the Devastators they kill 4.5 ablative bodies.

If the Devastators fire at the Destroyers under Devastator Doctrine and inevitable re-rolls because you're a smart marine player (right?) they manage 13.8 wounds with Bolters, or 12.46 without. So in this vs. match, even if the Destroyers go first, the Devastators return fire takes out four of the six Destroyers (ish, because wound rolls are wonky). Conversely, if the Marine player goes first, the Destroyers don't have a chance at retaliation because they can easily lose 50%+ of their return fire capability. And arguably, Plasma Cannons will get more reliable results, are more multirole than Lascannons, and also 9 points cheaper per gun. (so only 5 Destroyers for the cost of the squad?)

It's EASY to kill Destroyers. And there's no "gross imbalance" here.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

That 10 man Havoc squad was also almost twice the price of the three Heavy destroyers I listed there.

Are lower profile, could use a Transport, have other heavy weapon options, have bolters and more attacks in the squad, could kill that Destroyer Squad in one turn, and can fire twice. (could potentially kill two of those Destroyer squads in one turn)

You can't compare units in a vacuum in this game.

The Destroyers are better than Havocs, but the army as a whole is not. Overall factions lose and gain ground in different ways.

 Ishagu wrote:
You can't compare units in a vacuum in this game.

The Destroyers are better than Havocs, but the army as a whole is not. Overall factions lose and gain ground in different ways.

Except you totally can make these type of comparison. Lets take something even more egregious : Why does a Loyalist Predator cost the same as a Chaos predator (not the hellforged one).
Loyalists gets access to Chapter tactics and easier rerolls.
Chaos gets access to a mark of chaos.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
well havocs can't take ablative wounds anymore.
A space marine dev unit can. 220 points for 10 wounds and 4 lascannons...Holy crap for 222 points you get 6 heavy destroyers.
Not only are their weapons better than lascannons due to ap-4 - they also ignore move penalties
can fall back and shoot
free reroll 1's
Also a 10" move.
has 8 more total wounds with +1 toughness.

This is a clear and outrageous balance discrepancy. It's kinda gross actually. The Destroyers are WAY more durable than havocs and WAY more durable than dev marines.

I know Havocs can't take ablative wounds anymore. That was the start of this conversation.

For Devastators, it depends. As UM I get an additional -1 AP in Devastator, ignore move penalties in Tactical, and can fall back and shoot as UM.
I have access to better rerolls, have more attacks and have 12 additional bolter shots. For 5 more points I can fire one Heavy Weapon twice. One model gets a +1 to hit while the Sergeant is alive. It takes five casualties to begin degrading my heavy weapon fire, while Destroyers lose a Heavy shot with each casualty. Not to mention that Devastators have many choices of weapon, while Heavy Destroyers only have the one. Iirc, the Lascannons outrange the Heavy Gauss Cannon, too.


While vs. matches are far from the whole story, here's one anyways:
If the six Destroyers fire at the Devastators they kill 4.5 ablative bodies.

If the Devastators fire at the Destroyers under Devastator Doctrine and inevitable re-rolls because you're a smart marine player (right?) they manage 13.8 wounds with Bolters, or 12.46 without. So in this vs. match, even if the Destroyers go first, the Devastators return fire takes out four of the six Destroyers (ish, because wound rolls are wonky). Conversely, if the Marine player goes first, the Destroyers don't have a chance at retaliation because they can easily lose 50%+ of their return fire capability. And arguably, Plasma Cannons will get more reliable results, are more multirole than Lascannons, and also 9 points cheaper per gun. (so only 5 Destroyers for the cost of the squad?)

It's EASY to kill Destroyers. And there's no "gross imbalance" here.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

That 10 man Havoc squad was also almost twice the price of the three Heavy destroyers I listed there.

Are lower profile, could use a Transport, have other heavy weapon options, have bolters and more attacks in the squad, could kill that Destroyer Squad in one turn, and can fire twice. (could potentially kill two of those Destroyer squads in one turn)

I wasn't even bringing in army traits. Crons traits aren't great which is probably the only major factor about them not being a top tier army ATM. If they had the always counts in cover and MOA trait all marines have access to they would be better than marines.

It is not easy to kill destroyers ether...T5 3W with a 2+ in cover for 37 points is extremely durable. ESP when you come back to life on a 5+ if the squad doesn't get wiped (which is hard to do)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You can't compare units in a vacuum in this game.

The Destroyers are better than Havocs, but the army as a whole is not. Overall factions lose and gain ground in different ways.

Except you totally can make these type of comparison. Lets take something even more egregious : Why does a Loyalist Predator cost the same as a Chaos predator (not the hellforged one).
Loyalists gets access to Chapter tactics and easier rerolls.
Chaos gets access to a mark of chaos.

Chaos and Loyalists used to be mirror factions. Very dull way of designing armies, imo. This dates back to when GW couldn't design and produce as many different kits. Note how new kits aren't mirrors of loyalists, or visa versa. They tend to be more divergent and unique.

Should a chaos and a loyalist Predator have the same cost? Maybe. What benefit does a Blood Angels or Black Templar Predator get from chapter tactics?

Look at the amazing psychic powers chaos have access to, typically better and more impactful than the loyalists.

A Chaos Predator has no CT rules but has better psychic support? It can be moved in the Psychic phase, for example.

Again, compare the whole thing, not just the unit.

 Xenomancers wrote:

It is not easy to kill destroyers ether...

I just did the math in my post above, dude. A Devastator Squad can take a squad out pretty handily.

Conversely, compare Destroyers to Aggresors who also come in at 37 points at T5, 3W and a 3+. Do you feel your Aggressors are "extremely durable"? I'm guessing you don't.

They're a lot more durable than a lot of units now. 3W is magical.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You can't compare units in a vacuum in this game.

The Destroyers are better than Havocs, but the army as a whole is not. Overall factions lose and gain ground in different ways.

Except you totally can make these type of comparison. Lets take something even more egregious : Why does a Loyalist Predator cost the same as a Chaos predator (not the hellforged one).
Loyalists gets access to Chapter tactics and easier rerolls.
Chaos gets access to a mark of chaos.

Ahh yes, but that's certainly a muuuuuch more linear comparison, as it's literally the same tank. Thee's a lot more variables going on in the other one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
They're a lot more durable than a lot of units now. 3W is magical.

And yet CSM and Tacticals beat them for PPW, the only thing they're missing is a T5. Are CSM tough?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You can't compare units in a vacuum in this game.

The Destroyers are better than Havocs, but the army as a whole is not. Overall factions lose and gain ground in different ways.

Except you totally can make these type of comparison. Lets take something even more egregious : Why does a Loyalist Predator cost the same as a Chaos predator (not the hellforged one).
Loyalists gets access to Chapter tactics and easier rerolls.
Chaos gets access to a mark of chaos.

And if you think that's egregious, compare the Loyalist Predator to the Loyalist Vindicator, Stalker, or Invictor. The Predator is easily the worst of the four, but costs the most.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You can't compare units in a vacuum in this game.

The Destroyers are better than Havocs, but the army as a whole is not. Overall factions lose and gain ground in different ways.

Except you totally can make these type of comparison. Lets take something even more egregious : Why does a Loyalist Predator cost the same as a Chaos predator (not the hellforged one).
Loyalists gets access to Chapter tactics and easier rerolls.
Chaos gets access to a mark of chaos.

Ahh yes, but that's certainly a muuuuuch more linear comparison, as it's literally the same tank. Thee's a lot more variables going on in the other one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
They're a lot more durable than a lot of units now. 3W is magical.

And yet CSM and Tacticals beat them for PPW, the only thing they're missing is a T5. Are CSM tough?

Depends a squad ? No , 13 diffrent msu csm squads? Yes.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It is not easy to kill destroyers ether...

I just did the math in my post above, dude. A Devastator Squad can take a squad out pretty handily.

Conversely, compare Destroyers to Aggresors who also come in at 37 points at T5, 3W and a 3+. Do you feel your Aggressors are "extremely durable"? I'm guessing you don't.

Realistically their durability isn't huge against anti tank fire. It's not supposed to be. However they have a chance at surviving a lascannon wound and lascannon fire does a lot of overkill on them that you'd rather be on other things (like terasect vault). Plus with reanimation. If I only had say 8 LC in my army and everything else wasnt in range. There is no way I am shooting at those destroyers. Could kill 2 of them and they come back to life with full wounds. T5 is a really powerful toughness value. Plus so is 3 wounds.

Aggressors have these same stats but have an additional issue destroyers don't have. Aggressors operate at short range and practically always have to start in the open if they want to do anything during the game. Being short range in this situation is basically like having a -1 armor because you won't like be in cover (at least at some point during the game) where the destroyers would be.

However - I do use aggressors often when I have always counts in cover trait. At 111 points for the unit I feel like I get their value every game while sometimes they hit huge with the chaplain +1 W litany and ultras super doctrine. Durability wise people almost always shoot the intercessors firsts. Because they would rather wound on 4's instead of 5's - esp with flat 2 damage weapons. Basically what I am saying is while they aren't indestructible - they at least have a chance to survive things a primaris marine doesn't.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It is not easy to kill destroyers ether...

I just did the math in my post above, dude. A Devastator Squad can take a squad out pretty handily.

Conversely, compare Destroyers to Aggresors who also come in at 37 points at T5, 3W and a 3+. Do you feel your Aggressors are "extremely durable"? I'm guessing you don't.

Realistically their durability isn't huge against anti tank fire. It's not supposed to be. However they have a chance at surviving a lascannon wound and lascannon fire does a lot of overkill on them that you'd rather be on other things (like terasect vault). Plus with reanimation. If I only had say 8 LC in my army and everything else wasnt in range. There is no way I am shooting at those destroyers. Could kill 2 of them and they come back to life with full wounds. T5 is a really powerful toughness value. Plus so is 3 wounds.

Aggressors have these same stats but have an additional issue destroyers don't have. Aggressors operate at short range and practically always have to start in the open if they want to do anything during the game. Being short range in this situation is basically like having a -1 armor because you won't like be in cover (at least at some point during the game) where the destroyers would be.

However - I do use aggressors often when I have always counts in cover trait. At 111 points for the unit I feel like I get their value every game while sometimes they hit huge with the chaplain +1 W litany and ultras super doctrine. Durability wise people almost always shoot the intercessors firsts. Because they would rather wound on 4's instead of 5's - esp with flat 2 damage weapons. Basically what I am saying is while they aren't indestructible - they at least have a chance to survive things a primaris marine doesn't.

I would love to live in a meta where I didn't need a third of my points in Aggressors to have any of them left on turn 2. Everyone locally treats them as the highest priority target in the room.

...of course I was stacking the UM super-doctrine and the +3" range trait on them so they were deleting huge chunks of models turn one.

The Newman wrote:
I would love to live in a meta where I didn't need a third of my points in Aggressors to have any of them left on turn 2. Everyone locally treats them as the highest priority target in the room.

...of course I was stacking the UM super-doctrine and the +3" range trait on them so they were deleting huge chunks of models turn one.

Were they being deleted through Transhuman Physiology or were they hitting you with high volume low strength shooting where it wouldn't have helped anyway?

 Ishagu wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You can't compare units in a vacuum in this game.

The Destroyers are better than Havocs, but the army as a whole is not. Overall factions lose and gain ground in different ways.

Except you totally can make these type of comparison. Lets take something even more egregious : Why does a Loyalist Predator cost the same as a Chaos predator (not the hellforged one).
Loyalists gets access to Chapter tactics and easier rerolls.
Chaos gets access to a mark of chaos.

Chaos and Loyalists used to be mirror factions. Very dull way of designing armies, imo. This dates back to when GW couldn't design and produce as many different kits. Note how new kits aren't mirrors of loyalists, or visa versa. They tend to be more divergent and unique.

Should a chaos and a loyalist Predator have the same cost? Maybe. What benefit does a Blood Angels or Black Templar Predator get from chapter tactics?

Look at the amazing psychic powers chaos have access to, typically better and more impactful than the loyalists.

A Chaos Predator has no CT rules but has better psychic support? It can be moved in the Psychic phase, for example.

Again, compare the whole thing, not just the unit.

So you're saying that a chaos predator is equal to a loyalist one because a csm player can spend points on a separate unit, then make a roll, with the chance to perils, for a psychic ability. While the loyalist version gets improved rules through doctrines and chapter tactics just for existing. Doesn't sound equal to me.

And who the flying feth would ever waste warp time on a predator?

Chaos pred still has access to Killshot, right? Regular marine one does not now.

 bullyboy wrote:
Chaos pred still has access to Killshot, right? Regular marine one does not now.

LOL Killshot sucks because Rule of Three completely crippled it. Kill just one Predator (not hard to do) and the other two sit around and do nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You can't compare units in a vacuum in this game.

The Destroyers are better than Havocs, but the army as a whole is not. Overall factions lose and gain ground in different ways.

Except you totally can make these type of comparison. Lets take something even more egregious : Why does a Loyalist Predator cost the same as a Chaos predator (not the hellforged one).
Loyalists gets access to Chapter tactics and easier rerolls.
Chaos gets access to a mark of chaos.

Chaos and Loyalists used to be mirror factions. Very dull way of designing armies, imo. This dates back to when GW couldn't design and produce as many different kits. Note how new kits aren't mirrors of loyalists, or visa versa. They tend to be more divergent and unique.

Should a chaos and a loyalist Predator have the same cost? Maybe. What benefit does a Blood Angels or Black Templar Predator get from chapter tactics?

Look at the amazing psychic powers chaos have access to, typically better and more impactful than the loyalists.

A Chaos Predator has no CT rules but has better psychic support? It can be moved in the Psychic phase, for example.

Again, compare the whole thing, not just the unit.

What do the Black Templar, Blood Angel, and White Scars Predators get? The ability to charge easier and tie up something dangerous, much like you would a Rhino but obviously more expensive.

There ya go, and that ability is free.

So what I've learned from this is that Necrons need to be nerfed, and Marines need buffs.

Armies aren't meant to have units directly compared. We ready have a game where all factions have directly comparable units. It's called chess.

If an army specialises in shooting, close combat units come at a premium, and if an army specialises in close combat, shooty units come at a premium.

Tit for tat comparisons mean nothing when army composition and play styles vary so much.

I've never felt my IG were lacking Daemon Prince equivalents, or cared my Necrons were missing out on an entire phase of the game.

 Sentineil wrote:
So what I've learned from this is that Necrons need to be nerfed, and Marines need buffs.

OR both units actually suck. Big think time. That said Heavy Destroyers are absolutely better and I'd trade Devastators and Havocs for them in a heartbeat. Keeping in mind neither are worth writing home about, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sentineil wrote:

If an army specialises in shooting, close combat units come at a premium, and if an army specialises in close combat, shooty units come at a premium.

Tit for tat comparisons mean nothing when army composition and play styles vary so much.

I've never felt my IG were lacking Daemon Prince equivalents, or cared my Necrons were missing out on an entire phase of the game.

Premium pricing is absolutely the worst model of balance to use. That's why Ogryns and, less so, Bullgryns are just awful.

 Sentineil wrote:
If an army specialises in shooting, close combat units come at a premium, and if an army specialises in close combat, shooty units come at a premium.

I remember this design mentality was specifically called out as an example of what not to do in a game design class I took in college. When you make, say, Tau pay a premium for melee, what happens is that they lean harder into shooting and don't bother wasting points on melee to begin with. That's why the Tau lists you see nowadays are all Riptides, no Kroot.

A properly-balanced game defines an army as shooting-oriented or melee-oriented through design, not by artificially skewing the balance. Case in point, Bullgryns are fairly costed as melee units, but they still exist in an army otherwise specialized into shooting by how much of its roster is devoted entirely to shooting units, how many of its buffs apply to shooting, and how many necessary niches (eg anti-tank and especially anti-Knight) are only fulfilled by shooting. You could, theoretically, use lots of Bullgryns and Catachan traits to make a more melee-oriented AM army, but even the basic infantry are ranged-specialized, and your limited roster means you'd be fighting an uphill battle.

There is no reason you can't directly compare units across armies, as long as you're taking relevant supporting factors (like access to psychic support or stratagems) into account.

Kroot are cheap. The reason why you only see static Tau is because they can perform well in ITC with minimal movement.

They perform well in CA, too. Shoot a section of board to death then capture objective with no opposition. You really need to play vs some good Tau lists. Because I don't think you are or you would have seen this.

Kroot are very good for their cost but Firecastes are soo good.

But people will end up being surprised to what kroots can do for 4ppm. S4 shooting and meele is nothing to ignore.

 catbarf wrote:

 Sentineil wrote:
If an army specialises in shooting, close combat units come at a premium, and if an army specialises in close combat, shooty units come at a premium.

I remember this design mentality was specifically called out as an example of what not to do in a game design class I took in college. When you make, say, Tau pay a premium for melee, what happens is that they lean harder into shooting and don't bother wasting points on melee to begin with. That's why the Tau lists you see nowadays are all Riptides, no Kroot.

A properly-balanced game defines an army as shooting-oriented or melee-oriented through design, not by artificially skewing the balance. Case in point, Bullgryns are fairly costed as melee units, but they still exist in an army otherwise specialized into shooting by how much of its roster is devoted entirely to shooting units, how many of its buffs apply to shooting, and how many necessary niches (eg anti-tank and especially anti-Knight) are only fulfilled by shooting. You could, theoretically, use lots of Bullgryns and Catachan traits to make a more melee-oriented AM army, but even the basic infantry are ranged-specialized, and your limited roster means you'd be fighting an uphill battle.

There is no reason you can't directly compare units across armies, as long as you're taking relevant supporting factors (like access to psychic support or stratagems) into account.

I understand where you're coming from, but that's just not how 40k is structured, and expecting parity between two units in two different armies with entirely different play styles just isn't going to work.

Using Bullgryns as you brought them up, we see this demonstrated. Like a lot of IG players, I usually have a squad of 5 with mauls in my lists because they fill a role we don't have anything else for.

They're 42 points a model with a maul. For 35 points I could have a grey knight terminator with a halberd, who has higher AP, better save, a ranged weapon, deep strike, smite, and better leadership. Comparable points of GK terminators will outclass Bullgryns all day.

For a few points more I could have Custodes, who are better again. Bullgryns are balanced for the guard, and work well for their role, but they wouldn't feature at all in other Imperium lists, nor would I expect them to.

Orgyns unfortunately are just crap, and don't work anywhere.

Within IG though, I don't feel like Bullgryns are too expensive for what they give to the army.

Grey Knight Terminators have the same 2+ save as Bullgryn and have fewer wounds, toughness and attacks, with worse strength, with d3 instead of a flat 2. Bullgryns are much better melee units than Grey Knight Terminators.

Martel732 wrote:
They perform well in CA, too. Shoot a section of board to death then capture objective with no opposition. You really need to play vs some good Tau lists. Because I don't think you are or you would have seen this.

They don't, actually. Take a look at the GW results.

GK have the same 2+ save, but have 5++ invun along side it. Bullgryn have a choice between the 2+ or a 4++.

GK also have better AP, and shock assault is better than avalanche of muscle.

I've just always found my Bullgryns are difficult to remove, but very rarely do anything effective in combat.

LOL are we having people defend a 5++ on a 2+ model now? Unbelievable. Also you can take just 1 4++ model to tank the wounds for Bullgryns if necessary.

 Ishagu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They perform well in CA, too. Shoot a section of board to death then capture objective with no opposition. You really need to play vs some good Tau lists. Because I don't think you are or you would have seen this.

They don't, actually. Take a look at the GW results.

Link?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL are we having people defend a 5++ on a 2+ model now? Unbelievable. Also you can take just 1 4++ model to tank the wounds for Bullgryns if necessary.

Gw should drop the 5++ for terminators. Give them reroll 1s to save instead. Make them super durable to small arms so you need ap to take them out.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL are we having people defend a 5++ on a 2+ model now? Unbelievable. Also you can take just 1 4++ model to tank the wounds for Bullgryns if necessary.

Gw should drop the 5++ for terminators. Give them reroll 1s to save instead. Make them super durable to small arms so you need ap to take them out.

So...do nothing about the weapons that already kill Terminators so efficiently there's no point in using them (high-volume -1 AP shots)?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL are we having people defend a 5++ on a 2+ model now? Unbelievable. Also you can take just 1 4++ model to tank the wounds for Bullgryns if necessary.

Gw should drop the 5++ for terminators. Give them reroll 1s to save instead. Make them super durable to small arms so you need ap to take them out.

So...do nothing about the weapons that already kill Terminators so efficiently there's no point in using them (high-volume -1 AP shots)?

Rerolling 1s to save would help with that but if that's the main concern then you could instead give them a rule to ignore the first -1 or -2 ap. The problem is paying for a 5++ on a model with a 2+ save is almost always a waste. How much -4ap fire is being used on terminators?

Hellblasters? And most plasma in SM lists once the tac doctrine is in effect.

 Sentineil wrote:
Hellblasters? And most plasma in SM lists once the tac doctrine is in effect.

But that means paying for an ability that is generally only useful against a specific unit in a specific faction when facing other factions.

I'm not sure how much Terminators "pay" for that 5+ anyways. Can't be much if anything.

Actually, this gets goofy. How much more is a Terminator over an Intercessor, and what do they get for it? +1 save, +1 Ld, Deep Strike and a 5++? 4 points? Can't recall atm.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm not sure how much Terminators "pay" for that 5+ anyways. Can't be much if anything.

Actually, this gets goofy. How much more is a Terminator over an Intercessor, and what do they get for it? +1 save, +1 Ld, Deep Strike and a 5++? 4 points? Can't recall atm.

6 17ppm for intercessors vs 23ppm without wargear for terminators. Which puts the cheapest choice for heretic terminators, which are cheaper than loyalists because of more options, at 26ppm. So actually 9

But you leave out that intercessors are troops, very good ones at that, and thus fill troops slots. Almost every army needs troops. Elites, not so much. And terminators have a lot of competition for those elite slots, especially in loyalist armies.

What did you expect after SFTS nerf?

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm not sure how much Terminators "pay" for that 5+ anyways. Can't be much if anything.

Actually, this gets goofy. How much more is a Terminator over an Intercessor, and what do they get for it? +1 save, +1 Ld, Deep Strike and a 5++? 4 points? Can't recall atm.

6 17ppm for intercessors vs 23ppm without wargear for terminators. Which puts the cheapest choice for heretic terminators, which are cheaper than loyalists because of more options, at 26ppm. So actually 9

But you leave out that intercessors are troops, very good ones at that, and thus fill troops slots. Almost every army needs troops. Elites, not so much. And terminators have a lot of competition for those elite slots, especially in loyalist armies.

Possibly also that GW chronically overcharges for powerfists/doesn't bother giving loyalists the option for a power sword because the bits aren't in the kit.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm not sure how much Terminators "pay" for that 5+ anyways. Can't be much if anything.

Actually, this gets goofy. How much more is a Terminator over an Intercessor, and what do they get for it? +1 save, +1 Ld, Deep Strike and a 5++? 4 points? Can't recall atm.

6 17ppm for intercessors vs 23ppm without wargear for terminators. Which puts the cheapest choice for heretic terminators, which are cheaper than loyalists because of more options, at 26ppm. So actually 9

But you leave out that intercessors are troops, very good ones at that, and thus fill troops slots. Almost every army needs troops. Elites, not so much. And terminators have a lot of competition for those elite slots, especially in loyalist armies.

Possibly also that GW chronically overcharges for powerfists/doesn't bother giving loyalists the option for a power sword because the bits aren't in the kit.

what if you fixed terminators by giving them a 4++ invul save and have storm shields give a 5++ invul or a improvement of +1 to the present invul save if the unit already has an invul save?

this would buff non assault terminators, termy HQs that didn't have a iron Halo, I think it'd result in nerf to death watch vets, do people still favor taking them with storm bolters and storm sheilds?

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm not sure how much Terminators "pay" for that 5+ anyways. Can't be much if anything.

Actually, this gets goofy. How much more is a Terminator over an Intercessor, and what do they get for it? +1 save, +1 Ld, Deep Strike and a 5++? 4 points? Can't recall atm.

6 17ppm for intercessors vs 23ppm without wargear for terminators. Which puts the cheapest choice for heretic terminators, which are cheaper than loyalists because of more options, at 26ppm. So actually 9

But you leave out that intercessors are troops, very good ones at that, and thus fill troops slots. Almost every army needs troops. Elites, not so much. And terminators have a lot of competition for those elite slots, especially in loyalist armies.

GK termintors are troops. Although they also cost more.

BrianDavion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm not sure how much Terminators "pay" for that 5+ anyways. Can't be much if anything.

Actually, this gets goofy. How much more is a Terminator over an Intercessor, and what do they get for it? +1 save, +1 Ld, Deep Strike and a 5++? 4 points? Can't recall atm.

6 17ppm for intercessors vs 23ppm without wargear for terminators. Which puts the cheapest choice for heretic terminators, which are cheaper than loyalists because of more options, at 26ppm. So actually 9

But you leave out that intercessors are troops, very good ones at that, and thus fill troops slots. Almost every army needs troops. Elites, not so much. And terminators have a lot of competition for those elite slots, especially in loyalist armies.

Possibly also that GW chronically overcharges for powerfists/doesn't bother giving loyalists the option for a power sword because the bits aren't in the kit.

what if you fixed terminators by giving them a 4++ invul save and have storm shields give a 5++ invul or a improvement of +1 to the present invul save if the unit already has an invul save?

this would buff non assault terminators, termy HQs that didn't have a iron Halo, I think it'd result in nerf to death watch vets, do people still favor taking them with storm bolters and storm sheilds?

That would still mean they die more to massed ap-1 or ap dash weapons. Shouldn't they tank the small stuff and die to the big stuff?

lore wise they should be able to tank all stuff. And be practicaly immune to plasma considering the suits orgin.

Karol wrote:
lore wise they should be able to tank all stuff. And be practicaly immune to plasma considering the suits orgin.

All lore can't be represented 100% in the game. Unless you want all marines to be ih pre nerf of course.

 Galas wrote:
Kroot are very good for their cost but Firecastes are soo good.

But people will end up being surprised to what kroots can do for 4ppm. S4 shooting and meele is nothing to ignore.

why do you need melee when most stuff run by other armies doesn't reach it, and in a strickt gunline vs gunline natch up , it means you wasted points?

All lore can't be represented 100% in the game. Unless you want all marines to be ih pre nerf of course.

as long as my are, I care little about what happens to other armies,

Karol wrote:

All lore can't be represented 100% in the game. Unless you want all marines to be ih pre nerf of course.

as long as my are, I care little about what happens to other armies,

Wow, what a helpful and pleasant attitude.

 harlokin wrote:

Karol wrote:

All lore can't be represented 100% in the game. Unless you want all marines to be ih pre nerf of course.

as long as my are, I care little about what happens to other armies,

Wow, what a helpful and pleasant attitude.

Karol isn't incorrect though in a certain aspect. People that play haphazardly with no regard to actual balance don't care care about said balance because they play around their fluff, which is an arbitrary decision they made for themselves.

It's kinda irrelevant that we can't get perfect balance, because perfection is something to aspire to, not something that is ever actually possible.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm not sure how much Terminators "pay" for that 5+ anyways. Can't be much if anything.

Actually, this gets goofy. How much more is a Terminator over an Intercessor, and what do they get for it? +1 save, +1 Ld, Deep Strike and a 5++? 4 points? Can't recall atm.

6 17ppm for intercessors vs 23ppm without wargear for terminators. Which puts the cheapest choice for heretic terminators, which are cheaper than loyalists because of more options, at 26ppm. So actually 9

But you leave out that intercessors are troops, very good ones at that, and thus fill troops slots. Almost every army needs troops. Elites, not so much. And terminators have a lot of competition for those elite slots, especially in loyalist armies.

Possibly also that GW chronically overcharges for powerfists/doesn't bother giving loyalists the option for a power sword because the bits aren't in the kit.

what if you fixed terminators by giving them a 4++ invul save and have storm shields give a 5++ invul or a improvement of +1 to the present invul save if the unit already has an invul save?

this would buff non assault terminators, termy HQs that didn't have a iron Halo, I think it'd result in nerf to death watch vets, do people still favor taking them with storm bolters and storm sheilds?

That would still mean they die more to massed ap-1 or ap dash weapons. Shouldn't they tank the small stuff and die to the big stuff?

Blah blah blah.... They've been dying to massed fire from small stuff ever since the RT days.
It's simple. As long as the To-Wound chart says str.x could wound, you pump enough dice of at least that x into the target. Eventually the guy rolling the saves will roll a few/enough 1s....

Switch the 5+ Invulnerable save to a 5+ Feel No Pain save (changing Blightlord Terminators and the like to a 4+ Feel No Pain). Weak invulnerable saves on units with great armour are pretty pointless in 8th edition.

Terminators should have 1+ armor and 5+ FNP against mortal wounds IMO.

It would be a large change but invulnerable saves could mitigate armor lost to AP. 6++ negates AP -1 while still working against the really nasty stuff as a minimum 6+ save, 5++ negates AP -2, etc. Yes, it makes some units disgustingly hard to remove compared to what they are now, but that's no different than it used to be when AP was all or nothing and most weapons had nothing against 3+ and better.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
It would be a large change but invulnerable saves could mitigate armor lost to AP. 6++ negates AP -1 while still working against the really nasty stuff as a minimum 6+ save, 5++ negates AP -2, etc. Yes, it makes some units disgustingly hard to remove compared to what they are now, but that's no different than it used to be when AP was all or nothing and most weapons had nothing against 3+ and better.

The old system was absolute garbage. I'm glad it's gone.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
It would be a large change but invulnerable saves could mitigate armor lost to AP. 6++ negates AP -1 while still working against the really nasty stuff as a minimum 6+ save, 5++ negates AP -2, etc. Yes, it makes some units disgustingly hard to remove compared to what they are now, but that's no different than it used to be when AP was all or nothing and most weapons had nothing against 3+ and better.

The old system was absolute garbage. I'm glad it's gone.

Yes, forcing marines into the bushes so they can get their 3+ save is much better than a marine being their own cover...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
It would be a large change but invulnerable saves could mitigate armor lost to AP. 6++ negates AP -1 while still working against the really nasty stuff as a minimum 6+ save, 5++ negates AP -2, etc. Yes, it makes some units disgustingly hard to remove compared to what they are now, but that's no different than it used to be when AP was all or nothing and most weapons had nothing against 3+ and better.

The old system was absolute garbage. I'm glad it's gone.

The old system made pricing weapons according to the effect their AP had actually possible. With AP under this system being either a 0% reduction in the amount of armour saves taken or a 100% reduction in armour saves taken, weapons could be priced around the utility such AP provided most of the time much more easily than a weapon in today's system with AP-1, which is either a 20%, 25%, 33%, 50%, or 100% reduction in the amount of armour saves taken, making it far more difficult to fairly price it (and, conversely, much harder to fairly price various levels of armour saves).

Further, it really doesn't matter if you shoot something with a more powerful weapon if the increase in power isn't significant enough to cause damage. I think we'd all agree that a 6" gun on a cruiser is ridiculously more powerful than a slingshot, but the result of firing them on the main belt armour of a battleship is the same: the round breaks or bounces, depending on the angle. In the old system the cruiser gun might be AP3 and the slingshot AP-, accurately reflecting the fact that both of them had a snowball's chance in hell of getting through a 2+ rerollable armour save of the battleship despite one being much more powerful than the other. In the new system the cruiser gun might have AP-2 while the slingshot is AP-0, making the cruiser gun have a 25% chance of penetrating the armour (rerollable save, but -2 so rerollable 4+ instead of 2+) with the slingshot being the same as before (2+ rerollable). It's a simplification based on the idea that "STRONGER=BETTER, HURR!" without any consideration as to whether the additional armour piercing capacity actually should make a meaningful difference.

Yeah, I'm beginning to think the old system was actually better.

The old system was also easier, binary versus a modifier.

The old system also had less granularity. Things were basically all or nothing. Either your AP could pierce power armor, or it wasn't worth gak. Things like Heavy Bolters are the best they've ever been due to these changes, and heavy bolters are hardly overpowered.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
It would be a large change but invulnerable saves could mitigate armor lost to AP. 6++ negates AP -1 while still working against the really nasty stuff as a minimum 6+ save, 5++ negates AP -2, etc. Yes, it makes some units disgustingly hard to remove compared to what they are now, but that's no different than it used to be when AP was all or nothing and most weapons had nothing against 3+ and better.

The old system was absolute garbage. I'm glad it's gone.

I'm surprised, Slayer - we actually agree on something.

Honestly, the new system with modifiers is better, until you come to the wound chart

That is were actual tough units get shafted, units that relied on T4 +.

 Melissia wrote:
The old system also had less granularity. Things were basically all or nothing. Either your AP could pierce power armor, or it wasn't worth gak. Things like Heavy Bolters are the best they've ever been due to these changes, and heavy bolters are hardly overpowered.

Either the bullet can beat the armor or it can't. There aren't half measures when it comes to terminal ballistics.

I think the new system might be even more garbage.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The old system also had less granularity. Things were basically all or nothing. Either your AP could pierce power armor, or it wasn't worth gak. Things like Heavy Bolters are the best they've ever been due to these changes, and heavy bolters are hardly overpowered.

Either the bullet can beat the armor or it can't. There aren't half measures when it comes to terminal ballistics.

Armor generally isn't the same thickness all over. Especially something like body armor. Those Space Marine pauldrons are probably a lot stronger than the helmet.

I like granularity, but on a D6, its really hard to price -1 AP. It halves the effectiveness on expensive terminator armor and barely moves the needle on ork boyz.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The old system made pricing weapons according to the effect their AP had actually possible. With AP under this system being either a 0% reduction in the amount of armour saves taken or a 100% reduction in armour saves taken, weapons could be priced around the utility such AP provided most of the time much more easily than a weapon in today's system with AP-1, which is either a 20%, 25%, 33%, 50%, or 100% reduction in the amount of armour saves taken, making it far more difficult to fairly price it (and, conversely, much harder to fairly price various levels of armour saves).

AP2 used to increase damage by 20%, 50%, 100%, 200%, 500% depending on the targets save but I guess we're ignoring that fact. The stats you mentioned also regard increase in damage, not the amount of saves taken.

Edit: I guess it does regard the amount of saves taken.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The old system also had less granularity. Things were basically all or nothing. Either your AP could pierce power armor, or it wasn't worth gak. Things like Heavy Bolters are the best they've ever been due to these changes, and heavy bolters are hardly overpowered.

Either the bullet can beat the armor or it can't. There aren't half measures when it comes to terminal ballistics.

In that logic Autocannons shouldn't hurt Marines period since those were AP4 compared to the 3+ of a Marine.

You do know that you don't have to straight up pierce through every time right? What is your actual knowledge of terminal ballistics?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Either the bullet can beat the armor or it can't.

That's not how armor works. Nor is it how ballistics works. Nor is it how physics works.

Just look at the variety of modern weapons vs modern body armor. Some weapons you'll barely notice at all through armor. Some weapons have a better chance to hurt you through body armor than others. Some ignore the armor entirely, and sometimes the armor helps save your life even if it doesn't actually stop the bullet entirely, because it reduces the bullet's energy enough that even though it injures you, it doesn't kill you.

If you want to start arguing realism, we need MORE granularity, not less. I personally don't care much about "realism". I just find the game's balance more interesting and complex (in a good way) with the greater granularity of the new system. Which isn't to say that GW did a good job balancing it. But they didn't do a good job balancing the old system either, so...

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The old system also had less granularity. Things were basically all or nothing. Either your AP could pierce power armor, or it wasn't worth gak. Things like Heavy Bolters are the best they've ever been due to these changes, and heavy bolters are hardly overpowered.

Either the bullet can beat the armor or it can't. There aren't half measures when it comes to terminal ballistics.

Armor generally isn't the same thickness all over. Especially something like body armor. Those Space Marine pauldrons are probably a lot stronger than the helmet.

I want to quote this just because of how much I agree with it. The armor save is more than just the thickness or composition of the armor, but also coverage. An Ork boy theoretical have plenty of looted pieces of power armor, carapace armor, vehicles armor plates, ect on his body, but the reason 6+ is still appropriate is because most of his body is protected by a t-shirt and pants. Similarly vehicles are not one giant block of uniform armor (other than the land raider) , and there are weak point that while can be better defended against small arms fire but might still be pierced through by something that could do that to the more armored parts. If you think about the armor save as "The shot hits something that it can or cant get through" rather than "The shot hits the strongest part of the armor or a place that wouldn't have saved the wearer anyway", it makes a bit more sense for a modifier system.

That said, I think both systems have their pros and cons, but I always roll my eyes at these discussions because it always always revolves around which is better for power armor.

Or maybe the armor save system is just an abstraction because its a game and not a simulation?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
It would be a large change but invulnerable saves could mitigate armor lost to AP. 6++ negates AP -1 while still working against the really nasty stuff as a minimum 6+ save, 5++ negates AP -2, etc. Yes, it makes some units disgustingly hard to remove compared to what they are now, but that's no different than it used to be when AP was all or nothing and most weapons had nothing against 3+ and better.

The old system was absolute garbage. I'm glad it's gone.

Yes, forcing marines into the bushes so they can get their 3+ save is much better than a marine being their own cover...

You could easily implement the old cover system under the current rules, with cover giving you essentially an invuln save rather than an incremental bonus. The old cover system really isn't a justification for the all-or-nothing save system.

I'd love to see cover provide a FNP-type save that can stack with any other saves a model already has. Just give anything in cover a flat boost to durability, none of this statistical weirdness where Space Marines are incentivized to take cover while Guardsmen don't bother. But that's neither here nor there.

 Melissia wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Either the bullet can beat the armor or it can't.

That's not how armor works. Nor is it how ballistics works. Nor is it how physics works.

Just look at the variety of modern weapons vs modern body armor. Some weapons you'll barely notice at all through armor. Some weapons have a better chance to hurt you through body armor than others. Some ignore the armor entirely, and sometimes the armor helps save your life even if it doesn't actually stop the bullet entirely, because it reduces the bullet's energy enough that even though it injures you, it doesn't kill you.

If you want to start arguing realism, we need MORE granularity, not less. I personally don't care much about "realism". I just find the game's balance more interesting and complex (in a good way) with the greater granularity of the new system. Which isn't to say that GW did a good job balancing it. But they didn't do a good job balancing the old system either, so...

Failed saves are when you find a weak point. Finding a weakpoint doesn't mean you penetrated the armor.

I'll call my friend and tell him how much better was the old system were my Fire Warriors were wounding his IG infantry in 2+, ignoring all of his armor and most of the time also removing the cover save.

Yeah, he surely doesn't prefers the current system were I wound him on 3+, and then can save at 5+ or 4+ if hes in cover.

The old system was so much better. So good, and so interactive: I have the right amount of AP so I instantly delete you.

Yay! Fun!

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Either the bullet can beat the armor or it can't.

That's not how armor works. Nor is it how ballistics works. Nor is it how physics works.

Just look at the variety of modern weapons vs modern body armor. Some weapons you'll barely notice at all through armor. Some weapons have a better chance to hurt you through body armor than others. Some ignore the armor entirely, and sometimes the armor helps save your life even if it doesn't actually stop the bullet entirely, because it reduces the bullet's energy enough that even though it injures you, it doesn't kill you.

If you want to start arguing realism, we need MORE granularity, not less. I personally don't care much about "realism". I just find the game's balance more interesting and complex (in a good way) with the greater granularity of the new system. Which isn't to say that GW did a good job balancing it. But they didn't do a good job balancing the old system either, so...

Failed saves are when you find a weak point. Finding a weakpoint doesn't mean you penetrated the armor.

Failed saves can mean a lot of things. It could also mean the projectile hit a strong point on ther armor square enough to penetrate instead of glancing off due to the angle of impact.

 Galas wrote:
I'll call my friend and tell him how much better was the old system were my Fire Warriors were wounding his IG infantry in 2+, ignoring all of his armor and most of the time also removing the cover save.

Yeah, he surely doesn't prefers the current system were I wound him on 3+, and then can save at 5+ or 4+ if hes in cover.

The old system was so much better. So good, and so interactive: I have the right amount of AP so I instantly delete you.

Yay! Fun!

On the other side of this my termintors would be ignoring the majority of small weapon fire, while now they are being killed by -2AP bolters. That aint fun either, and unlike IG my models don't cost 4pts per model.

Karol wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I'll call my friend and tell him how much better was the old system were my Fire Warriors were wounding his IG infantry in 2+, ignoring all of his armor and most of the time also removing the cover save.

Yeah, he surely doesn't prefers the current system were I wound him on 3+, and then can save at 5+ or 4+ if hes in cover.

The old system was so much better. So good, and so interactive: I have the right amount of AP so I instantly delete you.

Yay! Fun!

On the other side of this my termintors would be ignoring the majority of small weapon fire, while now they are being killed by -2AP bolters. That aint fun either, and unlike IG my models don't cost 4pts per model.

Believe me, with only 1W terminators died to small arm fire just like they are doing now. And with grav spam they were totally decimated. Terminators have never been as resilient as they are now, specially with all the stratagems they have like Transhuman Phisiology or -1 damage for GK ones.

All the people that tries to claim that the old AP system made things more resilient is straight up lying (Or just disremembering). The changes that have make weapons more letal now are the ease to gain rerrolls and bonus to hit and to wound, and how many weapons have gained shoots to their profiles, etc... the AP system has made some cases more letal and others less, so its end up being neutral overall. (The same goes for the changes to the wound chart)

Transhuman goes on paladins. Plus it is a stragagem meaning it buffs 1 unit out of an entire army, the rest dies easy.

Also if terminators were bad before, then maybe GW should have given them rules that fix them, and not rules that make them worse primaris. And if they couldn't, then they just should have removed old marines, so people don't buy in to bad units and get stuck with them.

. the AP system has made some cases more letal and others less, so its end up being neutral overall. (The same goes for the changes to the wound chart)

you know that is like saying an age group is wrestling is better then a weight class, because just because two guys are 45kg and one is 90kg, because it all avarges out at around 60, so all is good. It really doesn't make a person with a bad army happy to hear that all is good, because other armies are having a good time now. Specially if their army were bad in prior editions too. I don't care that much, about prior editions. I didn't play in them, but termintors lore, description etc is that they are extremly resilient . Right now they are not much more resilient then a grunt primaris. specially considering the point costs.

Nothing in the game is specially resilient. That has been a thing for as 40k existed. If your opponent wants something dead they are gonna kill it unless is some broken combo (like invisibility deathstars with characters tanking everything in 7th, paladins in 5th, IH leviathan in 8th, etc...) that are always specific examples on a sea of very killable stuff.

Unless you are plaguebearers. Those damm things.

 Galas wrote:
Believe me, with only 1W terminators died to small arm fire just like they are doing now. And with grav spam they were totally decimated. Terminators have never been as resilient as they are now, specially with all the stratagems they have like Transhuman Phisiology or -1 damage for GK ones.

All the people that tries to claim that the old AP system made things more resilient is straight up lying (Or just disremembering). The changes that have make weapons more letal now are the ease to gain rerrolls and bonus to hit and to wound, and how many weapons have gained shoots to their profiles, etc... the AP system has made some cases more letal and others less, so its end up being neutral overall. (The same goes for the changes to the wound chart)

The math doesn't bear out your claim:

Old 1W terminators versus 10-tactical marines within 12":

20 shots, 13.33 hits, 6.67 wounds, 1.11 unsaved wounds

New 2W terminators versus the same:

Devastator or Assault Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 2.22 unsaved wounds

Tactical Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 4.44 unsaved wounds

If you think it's unfair to look at Marines, we can do the math for Necron warriors as well, but I can already tell you that the terminators break even on that one.

Now let us move on to midrange shooting, and look at Assault Cannons and Autocannons; again at 12" range:

1W Terminators vs 1 Assault Cannon/Storm Bolter Dreadnought:

AssCannon: 4 shots, 2.67 hits, 2.22 wounds, 0.60 unsaved wounds
Storm Bolter: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds, 0.11 unsaved wounds

2W Terminators vs 1 Assault Cannon/Storm Bolter Dreadnought:

AssCannon: 6 shots, 4 hits, 3.33 wounds, 2.22 unsaved wounds
Storm Bolter: 4 shots, 2.67 hits, 1.33 wounds, 0.22 unsaved wounds

1W Terminators vs 1 2x TL Autocannon Dreadnought:

4 shots, 3.56 hits, 2.97 wounds, 0.49 unsaved wounds

2W Terminators vs 1 2x Twin Autocannon Dreadnought:

8 shots, 5.33 hits, 4.44 wounds, 1.48 unsaved wounds (2.96 damage)

Not that these last two examples don't include doctrines which make the comparison look even worse for our poor terminators.

In nearly every scenario the terminators are either just as tough as 7th edition or worse, there may be some edge cases where they come out ahead but on the whole they're weaker than ever now in terms of durability.

 Galas wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I'll call my friend and tell him how much better was the old system were my Fire Warriors were wounding his IG infantry in 2+, ignoring all of his armor and most of the time also removing the cover save.

Yeah, he surely doesn't prefers the current system were I wound him on 3+, and then can save at 5+ or 4+ if hes in cover.

The old system was so much better. So good, and so interactive: I have the right amount of AP so I instantly delete you.

Yay! Fun!

On the other side of this my termintors would be ignoring the majority of small weapon fire, while now they are being killed by -2AP bolters. That aint fun either, and unlike IG my models don't cost 4pts per model.

Believe me, with only 1W terminators died to small arm fire just like they are doing now. And with grav spam they were totally decimated. Terminators have never been as resilient as they are now, specially with all the stratagems they have like Transhuman Phisiology or -1 damage for GK ones.

All the people that tries to claim that the old AP system made things more resilient is straight up lying (Or just disremembering). The changes that have make weapons more letal now are the ease to gain rerrolls and bonus to hit and to wound, and how many weapons have gained shoots to their profiles, etc... the AP system has made some cases more letal and others less, so its end up being neutral overall. (The same goes for the changes to the wound chart)

I've been telling people this. The number of weapons that Terminators straight gained durability to FAR outweighs anything they lost durability to, and in certain cases, stayed equal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Believe me, with only 1W terminators died to small arm fire just like they are doing now. And with grav spam they were totally decimated. Terminators have never been as resilient as they are now, specially with all the stratagems they have like Transhuman Phisiology or -1 damage for GK ones.

All the people that tries to claim that the old AP system made things more resilient is straight up lying (Or just disremembering). The changes that have make weapons more letal now are the ease to gain rerrolls and bonus to hit and to wound, and how many weapons have gained shoots to their profiles, etc... the AP system has made some cases more letal and others less, so its end up being neutral overall. (The same goes for the changes to the wound chart)

The math doesn't bear out your claim:

Old 1W terminators versus 10-tactical marines within 12":

20 shots, 13.33 hits, 6.67 wounds, 1.11 unsaved wounds

New 2W terminators versus the same:

Devastator or Assault Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 2.22 unsaved wounds

Tactical Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 4.44 unsaved wounds

If you think it's unfair to look at Marines, we can do the math for Necron warriors as well, but I can already tell you that the terminators break even on that one.

Now let us move on to midrange shooting, and look at Assault Cannons and Autocannons; again at 12" range:

1W Terminators vs 1 Assault Cannon/Storm Bolter Dreadnought:

AssCannon: 4 shots, 2.67 hits, 2.22 wounds, 0.60 unsaved wounds
Storm Bolter: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds, 0.11 unsaved wounds

2W Terminators vs 1 Assault Cannon/Storm Bolter Dreadnought:

AssCannon: 6 shots, 4 hits, 3.33 wounds, 2.22 unsaved wounds
Storm Bolter: 4 shots, 2.67 hits, 1.33 wounds, 0.22 unsaved wounds

1W Terminators vs 1 2x TL Autocannon Dreadnought:

4 shots, 3.56 hits, 2.97 wounds, 0.49 unsaved wounds

2W Terminators vs 1 2x Twin Autocannon Dreadnought:

8 shots, 5.33 hits, 4.44 wounds, 1.48 unsaved wounds (2.96 damage)

Not that these last two examples don't include doctrines which make the comparison look even worse for our poor terminators.

In nearly every scenario the terminators are either just as tough as 7th edition or worse, there may be some edge cases where they come out ahead but on the whole they're weaker than ever now in terms of durability.

Not comparable because all those TL weapons, for example, literally just doubled in shots. The non-Tactical Doctrine Marines are somehow at 40 shots instead of the 20 they SHOULD be at.

Your math is bad and you should feel bad.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Believe me, with only 1W terminators died to small arm fire just like they are doing now. And with grav spam they were totally decimated. Terminators have never been as resilient as they are now, specially with all the stratagems they have like Transhuman Phisiology or -1 damage for GK ones.

All the people that tries to claim that the old AP system made things more resilient is straight up lying (Or just disremembering). The changes that have make weapons more letal now are the ease to gain rerrolls and bonus to hit and to wound, and how many weapons have gained shoots to their profiles, etc... the AP system has made some cases more letal and others less, so its end up being neutral overall. (The same goes for the changes to the wound chart)

The math doesn't bear out your claim:

Old 1W terminators versus 10-tactical marines within 12":

20 shots, 13.33 hits, 6.67 wounds, 1.11 unsaved wounds

New 2W terminators versus the same:

Devastator or Assault Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 2.22 unsaved wounds

Tactical Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 4.44 unsaved wounds

Where can I get these Tactical Marines with 4 shots each? Which chapter should I be playing that I never noticed had this ability?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Believe me, with only 1W terminators died to small arm fire just like they are doing now. And with grav spam they were totally decimated. Terminators have never been as resilient as they are now, specially with all the stratagems they have like Transhuman Phisiology or -1 damage for GK ones.

All the people that tries to claim that the old AP system made things more resilient is straight up lying (Or just disremembering). The changes that have make weapons more letal now are the ease to gain rerrolls and bonus to hit and to wound, and how many weapons have gained shoots to their profiles, etc... the AP system has made some cases more letal and others less, so its end up being neutral overall. (The same goes for the changes to the wound chart)

The math doesn't bear out your claim:

Old 1W terminators versus 10-tactical marines within 12":

20 shots, 13.33 hits, 6.67 wounds, 1.11 unsaved wounds

New 2W terminators versus the same:

Devastator or Assault Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 2.22 unsaved wounds

Tactical Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 4.44 unsaved wounds

If you think it's unfair to look at Marines, we can do the math for Necron warriors as well, but I can already tell you that the terminators break even on that one.

Now let us move on to midrange shooting, and look at Assault Cannons and Autocannons; again at 12" range:

1W Terminators vs 1 Assault Cannon/Storm Bolter Dreadnought:

AssCannon: 4 shots, 2.67 hits, 2.22 wounds, 0.60 unsaved wounds
Storm Bolter: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds, 0.11 unsaved wounds

2W Terminators vs 1 Assault Cannon/Storm Bolter Dreadnought:

AssCannon: 6 shots, 4 hits, 3.33 wounds, 2.22 unsaved wounds
Storm Bolter: 4 shots, 2.67 hits, 1.33 wounds, 0.22 unsaved wounds

1W Terminators vs 1 2x TL Autocannon Dreadnought:

4 shots, 3.56 hits, 2.97 wounds, 0.49 unsaved wounds

2W Terminators vs 1 2x Twin Autocannon Dreadnought:

8 shots, 5.33 hits, 4.44 wounds, 1.48 unsaved wounds (2.96 damage)

Not that these last two examples don't include doctrines which make the comparison look even worse for our poor terminators.

In nearly every scenario the terminators are either just as tough as 7th edition or worse, there may be some edge cases where they come out ahead but on the whole they're weaker than ever now in terms of durability.

Not comparable because all those TL weapons, for example, literally just doubled in shots. The non-Tactical Doctrine Marines are somehow at 40 shots instead of the 20 they SHOULD be at.

Your math is bad and you should feel bad.

I'm literally doing the math at work between customers and it still works if you change the range from under 12" to over 12" so,

How the Dreadnought TL weapons not comparable? It's the same weapon on the same platform as it was last edition, and assault cannons gained 2 shots but lost rending. I also included Necron warriors which you don't need to do the math for, they generate the same hits, and wounds in each edition but in 8th they have double the unsaved wounds due to the AP rules.

How about you show the cases where terminators supposedly gained durability?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

happy_inquisitor wrote:
Where can I get these Tactical Marines with 4 shots each? Which chapter should I be playing that I never noticed had this ability?

I'm at work and misread the rule between customers. The math works out at greater than 12" but not at under 12" as I asserted.

 Galas wrote:
Nothing in the game is specially resilient. That has been a thing for as 40k existed. If your opponent wants something dead they are gonna kill it unless is some broken combo (like invisibility deathstars with characters tanking everything in 7th, paladins in 5th, IH leviathan in 8th, etc...) that are always specific examples on a sea of very killable stuff.

Unless you are plaguebearers. Those damm things.

I'd make the argument that the problem with resilience in 40k comes down to an inability to use it responsibly. As you said, if someone want to kill a unit they can. In RPGs, the role of a tank is to take hits for everyone else, but the ability to do that relies on not just being able to take hits, but to also corral the enemies so they have to attack you/manage aggro and to have a way to escape once you've taken that damage so that you yourself don't get dropped (either with a healer or another tank). The only real to do that is either character protection, screening, or special bodyguards rules to the point that all of those end up becoming the most valuable abilities to a number of lists, and when you don't have those everything in your lists is subject to being targeted by enemy shooting.

The game needs Target Priority back in some form.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

I'm at work and misread the rule between customers. The math works out at greater than 12" but not at under 12" as I asserted.

No, you're doubling their shots twice. Marines do not get 4 shots under any condition without a stratagem.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

I'm at work and misread the rule between customers. The math works out at greater than 12" but not at under 12" as I asserted.

No, you're doubling their shots twice. Marines do not get 4 shots under any condition without a stratagem.

Yes, I gathered that this was the issue... The math works at greater than 12" range because the old tacs only get 10 shots and the new one's get 20. I figured that was clear from the context.

Galas wrote:Believe me, with only 1W terminators died to small arm fire just like they are doing now.

Canadian 5th wrote:The math doesn't bear out your claim:

Old 1W terminators versus 10-tactical marines within 12":

20 shots, 13.33 hits, 6.67 wounds, 1.11 unsaved wounds

New 2W terminators versus the same:

Devastator or Assault Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 2.22 unsaved wounds

Twice as many wounds taken, but twice as many wounds on the profile, so exactly as many Terminators dead. Looks to me like that claim is borne out by the math.

 catbarf wrote:
[Twice as many wounds taken, but twice as many wounds on the profile, so exactly as many Terminators dead. Looks to me like that claim is borne out by the math.

That wasn't considering things like army-wide rerolls, doctrines, new weapons (Primaris anyone?), etc. The game as a whole is exceptionally lethal in this edition and 2W models and models with good (2+ and 3+) saves ended up in a strange spot due to multi damage weapons and save reducing AP.

Terminators sucked before because GW gave AP2 like candy. But -1 save halving their save doesn't make any sense, either.

One thing that I will say is that 2W termies are easier to 'fix' than 1W termies.

You could give them, and other 'tough as nails' 2+ save models, a special rule to reroll saves against weapons with AP -1 or worse. Call it 'Through the Storm' or some such.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
[Twice as many wounds taken, but twice as many wounds on the profile, so exactly as many Terminators dead. Looks to me like that claim is borne out by the math.

That wasn't considering things like army-wide rerolls, doctrines, new weapons (Primaris anyone?), etc. The game as a whole is exceptionally lethal in this edition and 2W models and models with good (2+ and 3+) saves ended up in a strange spot due to multi damage weapons and save reducing AP.

Okay, but those are game-wide things that are affecting everything, not just Terminators. So why were you saying specifically Terminators are too easy to kill with basic weapons and blaming the AP modifier system, if they're actually just as hard to kill, but it's unrelated buffs that are making everything too vulnerable?

 catbarf wrote:
Okay, but those are game-wide things that are affecting everything, not just Terminators. So why were you saying Terminators are too easy to kill and blaming the AP system, if it actually has nothing to do with the AP system?

If everything is easier to kill does it not follow that Terminators are also easier to kill? Is AP not a part of the across the board lethality that makes Terminators want to grab a cover save? Is it fluffy for a Terminator squad to cower in ruins rather than pressing forward?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Okay, but those are game-wide things that are affecting everything, not just Terminators. So why were you saying Terminators are too easy to kill and blaming the AP system, if it actually has nothing to do with the AP system?

If everything is easier to kill does it not follow that Terminators are also easier to kill? Is AP not a part of the across the board lethality that makes Terminators want to grab a cover save? Is it fluffy for a Terminator squad to cower in ruins rather than pressing forward?

I'll refer you back to what Galas already said:

All the people that tries to claim that the old AP system made things more resilient is straight up lying (Or just disremembering). The changes that have make weapons more letal now are the ease to gain rerrolls and bonus to hit and to wound, and how many weapons have gained shoots to their profiles, etc... the AP system has made some cases more letal and others less, so its end up being neutral overall. (The same goes for the changes to the wound chart)

I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you complaining about lethality in general and blaming the AP system? Are you specifically lamenting the performance of Terminators? Is it the cover system (which could always be revised without touching AP modifiers as a mechanic) you don't like? Your argument is all over the place

 catbarf wrote:
I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you complaining about lethality in general and blaming the AP system? Are you specifically lamenting the performance of Terminators? Is it the cover system (which could always be revised without touching AP modifiers as a mechanic) you don't like? Your argument is all over the place

The AP system makes armor saves less valuable and quizzically make gaining cover more valuable the better the armor save a unit has. Terminators got a buff (2W) to counter this making them better against AP 0, equal against AP -1, and worse against AP -2, assuming they would have been AP2 before terminators are buffed D1 weapons with AP -3 or better. You can apply this to other units as well and, generally, I would expect that all 1W units, and units with 2+ and 3+ saves fair worse in this edition (minus templates/blasts).

Also, cover is linked to the AP system as it acts as a modifier to a model's save and thus is fair game in any discussion of lethality.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you complaining about lethality in general and blaming the AP system? Are you specifically lamenting the performance of Terminators? Is it the cover system (which could always be revised without touching AP modifiers as a mechanic) you don't like? Your argument is all over the place

The AP system makes armor saves less valuable and quizzically make gaining cover more valuable the better the armor save a unit has. Terminators got a buff (2W) to counter this making them better against AP 0, equal against AP -1, and worse against AP -2, assuming they would have been AP2 before terminators are buffed D1 weapons with AP -3 or better. You can apply this to other units as well and, generally, I would expect that all 1W units, and units with 2+ and 3+ saves fair worse in this edition (minus templates/blasts).

Also, cover is linked to the AP system as it acts as a modifier to a model's save and thus is fair game in any discussion of lethality.

Wrong statement.

The new AP system makes armor saves MORE valuable in a lot of cases. Want some examples?

T-shirt save: No value in 7th, some value in 8th.
Guard save: No value in 7th, big value in 8th. We had an age of the meta dominated by 5+ models, specifically because the armor save was too good.
Necron warrior save: Almost no value in 7th, actual asset in 8th.
MEQ save: Sometimes useful in 7th but could not be dependen on due to the over abundance of AP2 and AP3 weapons, in 8th it became much harder. The old AP 6 and AP5 weapons still doesn't reduce your save, you can save against the old AP3 (now -2) and AP 2 (now -3). Still cannot save against AP1 (now -4). The only reduction in defence comes from old AP4 weapons, which reduce your save by 1.
TEQ save: Really useful in 7th, you either had the correct weapon or you were not going to do much. In 8th it is objectively worse, it got more resistant only against old AP2 and AP1, which you can save on 5+ and 6+, but the models with 2+ often have at least a small invul save. That is though before we take in consideration the Grav weapons, which were spammed on every possible platform in 7th. Now your 2+ armor save became both useless AND harmful!

As you can see, for the most part the changes in AP were an overall decrease to the lethality of the game and an increase in the value of the armor.

The game feels more lethal for a different set of reasons:

1) HQs went from tax beatsticks to models that actually support your units. Tipically in an offensive way.
2) Armies got bigger. The bigger the army, the higher the lethality/point ratio.
3) Twinlinked got changed from Reroll to hit, to actually doubling the shot output, only to then receive a reroll to hit from another source.
4) 7th was actually already pretty lethal, it wasn't hard to get tabled in a single turn against the right list. It didn't seem that lethal because the game was full of over the top defensive buffs like rerollable 2++, invisibility and stuff like that. This divided the game between those that had those buffs and could play, and those that didn't and were kindly invited to shelve the armies (played CSM against Eldar once. After turn 1 i had one demon engine left). GW learned correctly that defensive buffs (especially rerolls) can be really bad, and we no longer have any reroll save rule. We only had a rerollable 1 on TS saves given by Magnus, but it obviously became a source of issues, and it was promptly removed. That is because a defensive buff scales MUCH faster than an offensive buff, and can get out of control. Offensive buffs can be given more freely, and GW took that literally.

Spoletta wrote:

Necron warrior save: Almost no value in 7th, actual asset in 8th.
MEQ save: Sometimes useful in 7th but could not be dependen on due to the over abundance of AP2 and AP3 weapons, in 8th it became much harder. The old AP 6 and AP5 weapons still doesn't reduce your save, you can save against the old AP3 (now -2) and AP 2 (now -3). Still cannot save against AP1 (now -4). The only reduction in defence comes from old AP4 weapons, which reduce your save by 1.
.

Did I miss something in 7th? Didn't Necrons warriors & imperial power armor both have 3+ saves? Don't they both still have 3+ saves here in 8th?

ccs wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Necron warrior save: Almost no value in 7th, actual asset in 8th.
MEQ save: Sometimes useful in 7th but could not be dependen on due to the over abundance of AP2 and AP3 weapons, in 8th it became much harder. The old AP 6 and AP5 weapons still doesn't reduce your save, you can save against the old AP3 (now -2) and AP 2 (now -3). Still cannot save against AP1 (now -4). The only reduction in defence comes from old AP4 weapons, which reduce your save by 1.
.

Did I miss something in 7th? Didn't Necrons warriors & imperial power armor both have 3+ saves? Don't they both still have 3+ saves here in 8th?

IIRC necron warriors are 4+ in both 7th and 8th, but at some point before that they were 3+ - not sure which edition changed that.

Spoletta 785884 10737273 wrote:

Wrong statement.

The new AP system makes armor saves MORE valuable in a lot of cases. Want some examples?

T-shirt save: No value in 7th, some value in 8th.
Guard save: No value in 7th, big value in 8th. We had an age of the meta dominated by 5+ models, specifically because the armor save was too good.
Necron warrior save: Almost no value in 7th, actual asset in 8th.
MEQ save: Sometimes useful in 7th but could not be dependen on due to the over abundance of AP2 and AP3 weapons, in 8th it became much harder. The old AP 6 and AP5 weapons still doesn't reduce your save, you can save against the old AP3 (now -2) and AP 2 (now -3). Still cannot save against AP1 (now -4). The only reduction in defence comes from old AP4 weapons, which reduce your save by 1.
TEQ save: Really useful in 7th, you either had the correct weapon or you were not going to do much. In 8th it is objectively worse, it got more resistant only against old AP2 and AP1, which you can save on 5+ and 6+, but the models with 2+ often have at least a small invul save. That is though before we take in consideration the Grav weapons, which were spammed on every possible platform in 7th. Now your 2+ armor save became both useless AND harmful!

As you can see, for the most part the changes in AP were an overall decrease to the lethality of the game and an increase in the value of the armor.

.

to me this looks like GW is buffing options that cost little points then. what did the termintor armoured model gain from the change to armour saves. stuff that was removing the saves of terminators, still removes the save and stuff which before they saved against on a +2, now they have to save on a +3 or a +4.

Also the argument that something is really bad now, but it could be much worse, is a very weak one. Specially as the easily spamable cheap or cheaper stuff does not have the same problems. For GK for example termintors cost more points for less offensive and defensive power, and no different or better utilty. They are worse troop option for more points. And they are suppose to be good somehow because when caught in the open and shot with multi shot -3/-4AP weapons they can save on a +5? that is only good if someone uses loaded dice or sold his soul to roll stuff +5 50% of time.

ccs wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Necron warrior save: Almost no value in 7th, actual asset in 8th.
MEQ save: Sometimes useful in 7th but could not be dependen on due to the over abundance of AP2 and AP3 weapons, in 8th it became much harder. The old AP 6 and AP5 weapons still doesn't reduce your save, you can save against the old AP3 (now -2) and AP 2 (now -3). Still cannot save against AP1 (now -4). The only reduction in defence comes from old AP4 weapons, which reduce your save by 1.
.

Did I miss something in 7th? Didn't Necrons warriors & imperial power armor both have 3+ saves? Don't they both still have 3+ saves here in 8th?

Warriors were T4 3+ and Immortals were T5 3+ in 3rd, in 5th onwards Warriors have been T4 4+ and Immortals T4 3+. Moving them a little more towards the "their number is legion" kind of army. Necron Warrior save did have a large impact in 7th, it avoided the most popular AP (5) while being overkilled by the equivalently popular AP 1/2 weapons. That's not to say AP 3 and 4 weapons didn't exist and didn't counter them, but I don't believe those weapons were as popular as AP 5 and AP 1/2 weapons.

Just because mono-Marines get better AP does not mean every weapon in the game has good AP, the Crux Terminatus is really underwhelming this edition, but having 2 W is massive against D1 AP- weapons, even D3 damage weapons have a chance of flopping a kill. Maybe Intercessors should have been S5 instead of AP-1, maybe Doctrines should give a bonus other than AP, but there still exists a bazillion D1 AP- weapons in the game. You kind of have to decide which is the problem of Terminators, is it weight of fire or quality of fire? Okay now it's medium quality, medium quantity weapons.

Comparing 7th ed Warriors - an anti-light infantry/anti heavy tank unit with 8th ed Warriors an anti light infantry/anti heavy infantry unit is silly. Their role has changed to be countering Terminators instead of Land Raiders, want to try that same comparrison with Land Raiders? That's going to show the Land Raider as being absolutely OP. No the proficiency of that particular unit changed, if their rules had been carried over and their proficiencies stayed against the same types of units they'd be AP- and Terminators would be twice as tough to kill with them.

And all of the talk about what Terms are weak to and what they should be weak to ignores that they're also at a wildly incorrect price point. A five-man Terminator squad has roughly the same survivability and melee output of a three-man Aggressor squad, and trades less firepower on the move* for DS. Unfortunately a Terminator costs almost as much as an Aggressor, one or both of them is significantly off the proper power curve.

* And vastly less firepower when stationary, but GW seems to have priced Aggressors as though they didn't have ways to mitigate that.

The Newman wrote:
And all of the talk about what Terms are weak to and what they should be weak to ignores that they're also at a wildly incorrect price point. A five-man Terminator squad has roughly the same survivability and melee output of a three-man Aggressor squad, and trades less firepower on the move* for DS. Unfortunately a Terminator costs almost as much as an Aggressor, one or both of them is significantly off the proper power curve.

* And vastly less firepower when stationary, but GW seems to have priced Aggressors as though they didn't have ways to mitigate that.

GW didn't price Aggressors, it's the same it has been since CA18 and they changed their Attacks and Wounds characteristic, which is more likely:
:GW found the exact stat changes that would make Aggressors worth it at their current price point.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and found that the existing pts fit exactly with how strong they were after the update.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and were too lazy to look at how much an Aggressor with that updated profile was worth.

If Terminators got an extra wound they'd be really good, DG Termies have done well a number of times in competitive events and are still taken by some DG players, they essentially have an extra wound due to how 5+++ math works out.

If anyone is going to make Adeptus Astartes Terminators work it'd be either 5+++ Iron Hands Terminators or +1 charge Blood Angels Terminators. For Heretic Astartes you have Emperor's Children, Night Lords and World Eaters.

Heretic Astartes terminators and Thousand Sons terminators are both quite good, generally due to their ability to cut costs down in the melee department and take more powerful ranged weapons. For the same reason, as a Deathwatch player I adore terminators, and DW kill teams are functionally a terminator squad with some power armored 3++ bodies stapled on for extra firepower and exccellent protection against Disintegrator type weaponry.

The fact that the two Terminator configurations that regular loyalists have access to aren't considered particularly great would seem to suggest that the problem lies within the weapon restrictions they're placed under rather than a problem with the baseline terminator price point. Especially when looking at how effective Chainaxe/Storm Bolter chaos terminators are for their price.

Really it seems like the fault of the weapon combinations to me. Lightning Claws and Powerfists are pretty much ass across the board, nobody takes them anywhere they're not mandatory. -1 to hit and D3 damage suck, how expensive the glorified power weapon that is lightning claws is sucks, and while storm shields are good in a vacuum, they're not so fantastic when you only gain benefit from them at -2AP and youre giving up a very good ranged weapon in the SB.

In an ideal world, loyalist terminators would maybe get a weapons discount to avoid having to have differnet price points for the terminator body. But we don't live in an ideal world, so I'd be fine with tactical and assault termiantors getting a price decrease as long as chaos terminators, DW terminators and other termies who get flexible loadouts or other advantages don't get bumped into bonkers land.

Deathwing also seem to have been getting favorable rumblings though I haven't actually faced them since the new rules for DA. They seem to be basically identical in setup to tactical terminators but they've got that "teleport in outside 6" stratagem now, and it seems they can mix in Thunder Hammer/Storm Shield dudes with the regular powerfist dudes. Are people mostly taking the DW termies or the Knight guys? The knights seem pretty solid, basically a TH/SS terminator with 1 less AP for a full 6ppm off and the sergeant has the ability to shred any chaff unit in existence if they try to tie them up.

 vict0988 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
And all of the talk about what Terms are weak to and what they should be weak to ignores that they're also at a wildly incorrect price point. A five-man Terminator squad has roughly the same survivability and melee output of a three-man Aggressor squad, and trades less firepower on the move* for DS. Unfortunately a Terminator costs almost as much as an Aggressor, one or both of them is significantly off the proper power curve.

* And vastly less firepower when stationary, but GW seems to have priced Aggressors as though they didn't have ways to mitigate that.

GW didn't price Aggressors, it's the same it has been since CA18 and they changed their Attacks and Wounds characteristic, which is more likely:
:GW found the exact stat changes that would make Aggressors worth it at their current price point.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and found that the existing pts fit exactly with how strong they were after the update.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and were too lazy to look at how much an Aggressor with that updated profile was worth.

If Terminators got an extra wound they'd be really good, DG Termies have done well a number of times in competitive events and are still taken by some DG players, they essentially have an extra wound due to how 5+++ math works out.

If anyone is going to make Adeptus Astartes Terminators work it'd be either 5+++ Iron Hands Terminators or +1 charge Blood Angels Terminators. For Heretic Astartes you have Emperor's Children, Night Lords and World Eaters.

Wroooooonggggg.

Csm terminators show up in two flavours.
Alpha legion slaanesh combiplas and purge Support combiplas.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
And all of the talk about what Terms are weak to and what they should be weak to ignores that they're also at a wildly incorrect price point. A five-man Terminator squad has roughly the same survivability and melee output of a three-man Aggressor squad, and trades less firepower on the move* for DS. Unfortunately a Terminator costs almost as much as an Aggressor, one or both of them is significantly off the proper power curve.

* And vastly less firepower when stationary, but GW seems to have priced Aggressors as though they didn't have ways to mitigate that.

GW didn't price Aggressors, it's the same it has been since CA18 and they changed their Attacks and Wounds characteristic, which is more likely:
:GW found the exact stat changes that would make Aggressors worth it at their current price point.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and found that the existing pts fit exactly with how strong they were after the update.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and were too lazy to look at how much an Aggressor with that updated profile was worth.

If Terminators got an extra wound they'd be really good, DG Termies have done well a number of times in competitive events and are still taken by some DG players, they essentially have an extra wound due to how 5+++ math works out.

If anyone is going to make Adeptus Astartes Terminators work it'd be either 5+++ Iron Hands Terminators or +1 charge Blood Angels Terminators. For Heretic Astartes you have Emperor's Children, Night Lords and World Eaters.

Wroooooonggggg.

Csm terminators show up in two flavours.
Alpha legion slaanesh combiplas and purge Support combiplas.

I have 100% seen red butchers in competitive lists.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
And all of the talk about what Terms are weak to and what they should be weak to ignores that they're also at a wildly incorrect price point. A five-man Terminator squad has roughly the same survivability and melee output of a three-man Aggressor squad, and trades less firepower on the move* for DS. Unfortunately a Terminator costs almost as much as an Aggressor, one or both of them is significantly off the proper power curve.

* And vastly less firepower when stationary, but GW seems to have priced Aggressors as though they didn't have ways to mitigate that.

GW didn't price Aggressors, it's the same it has been since CA18 and they changed their Attacks and Wounds characteristic, which is more likely:
:GW found the exact stat changes that would make Aggressors worth it at their current price point.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and found that the existing pts fit exactly with how strong they were after the update.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and were too lazy to look at how much an Aggressor with that updated profile was worth.

If Terminators got an extra wound they'd be really good, DG Termies have done well a number of times in competitive events and are still taken by some DG players, they essentially have an extra wound due to how 5+++ math works out.

If anyone is going to make Adeptus Astartes Terminators work it'd be either 5+++ Iron Hands Terminators or +1 charge Blood Angels Terminators. For Heretic Astartes you have Emperor's Children, Night Lords and World Eaters.

Wroooooonggggg.

Csm terminators show up in two flavours.
Alpha legion slaanesh combiplas and purge Support combiplas.

Yeah Night Lords combiplas terminators suck. Why would anyone want overcharged plasma hitting on 2s safely? And it isn't like Night Lords have any way to give them that much vaunted -1 to hit either.

nekooni wrote:

ccs wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Necron warrior save: Almost no value in 7th, actual asset in 8th.
MEQ save: Sometimes useful in 7th but could not be dependen on due to the over abundance of AP2 and AP3 weapons, in 8th it became much harder. The old AP 6 and AP5 weapons still doesn't reduce your save, you can save against the old AP3 (now -2) and AP 2 (now -3). Still cannot save against AP1 (now -4). The only reduction in defence comes from old AP4 weapons, which reduce your save by 1.
.

Did I miss something in 7th? Didn't Necrons warriors & imperial power armor both have 3+ saves? Don't they both still have 3+ saves here in 8th?

IIRC necron warriors are 4+ in both 7th and 8th, but at some point before that they were 3+ - not sure which edition changed that.

They had 3+ saves in 3rd ed (technically 4th ed too, but Necrons never had a 4th codex)
It got changed to 4+ in 5th ed and stayed that way ever since.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Or maybe the armor save system is just an abstraction because its a game and not a simulation?

It is. And that's essentially my argument. The armor save system is an abstraction, and I think the current system is a better system gameplay-wise than the old system, with better chances for balance and more ability to adjust weapons to make them stronger or weaker as needed.

Terminators are collateral damage to a much larger problem. The AP system (i.e. - modifiers to armor saves) got out of hand; plain and simple.

I like the AP system, but it became exactly what I always feared it would. GW did an abysmal job keeping it in check.

I really like the idea of having Terminator armor reduce the AP of the weapon, but I'm not sure that's enough because they would still drop to mass small arms fire. I think perhaps a combination of AP reduction as well as re-rolling 1's would be the perfect combination.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Csm terminators show up in two flavours.
Alpha legion slaanesh combiplas and purge Support combiplas.

Interesting, I don't think I have seen Heretic Terminators doing well at tournaments and my opponents don't use them, my suggestions were just what I thought might work the best. Combiplas Alpha Legion seems really curious, do you really want to be Alpha Legion and Deep Strike within 10"? Is there some kind of Stratagem that makes Alpha Legion Termies worthwhile? You can use Slaanesh with any Legion except WE and why wouldn't you? Emperor's Children have the replace a charge dice with a 6 Stratagem which is really good, you'd probably have better Cacophony targets in an EC army, but I wasn't thinking along the lines of mono-Legion, because if you're going mono-Legion then I think it's hard to compete with Alpha Legion. Purge seems like a bad choice due to the mark of chaos required, what I've seen is Purge being used on long-ranged units, especially FW Dreadnoughts.

 oni wrote:
I really like the idea of having Terminator armor reduce the AP of the weapon, but I'm not sure that's enough because they would still drop to mass small arms fire. I think perhaps a combination of AP reduction as well as re-rolling 1's would be the perfect combination.

AP reduction is equivalent to just giving them a 1+ save. Re-rolling 1s is adding yet another bespoke special rule onto a game that is already plagued by bespoke special rules bloat.

I'd rather see a general acknowledgment that their statline, which is still really tough in a platoon-scale skirmish game, isn't quite as impressive in a company-scale game where players are deploying skyscraper-sized robots, literal ICBMs, and dozens of anti-tank weapons designed expressly to kill them.

The imagery of invulnerable Terminators doesn't work at the scale the game is now played at; they're just another flavor of heavy infantry. I have found that playing at low points levels with well-rounded armies makes them feel elite again.

Yeah. Terminators are "Elite" compared to Genestealers (they pretty much are yeah, especially in tight confines like a Space Hulk) or Guardsmen or the like.

Terminators are not "elite" compared to Leman Russ Tanks, Imperial Knights, and Hive Tyrants.

 oni wrote:
Terminators are collateral damage to a much larger problem. The AP system (i.e. - modifiers to armor saves) got out of hand; plain and simple.

I like the AP system, but it became exactly what I always feared it would. GW did an abysmal job keeping it in check.

I really like the idea of having Terminator armor reduce the AP of the weapon, but I'm not sure that's enough because they would still drop to mass small arms fire. I think perhaps a combination of AP reduction as well as re-rolling 1's would be the perfect combination.

I agree with this. Everything in 8th feels far too skewed toward offensive power over defensive power.

In 7th, there were a few situations where it felt like things were too durable, and I have a feeling the developers overcorected based on those extremely skewed examples of 2++ rerollable saves, Invisible units, free transport spam, or Res Protocol decurion buffed units.

I would urge people to take their current 2k list and play a game of 8th, then rerack as best you can and play a game of Apocalypse with the same lists. With the exception of characters who in 8th would have character protections, near everything in apoc feels 2x-3x as durable, and a typical game ends with about 1/4 to 1/3 of the units left on the board.

Besides units putting out less firepower relative to their durability overall, and the lack of stratagems allowing stuff like Smash Captains combo-killing knights or units stacking up +1 to wound reroll to hit double-taps, there is no system that allows a weapon to alter or ignore the defensive stats another unit pays for (including no mortal wounds) no invisible offensive power handed out to shooting units just for existing in the Overwatch system, no melee units charging and tying up huge swathes of the enemy army using tripointing due to the tighter unit coherency, and on top of all that no casualties at all until the end of the battle round. You have to judge as a player when you're concentrating fire on a unit when you've put in enough, because you won't know if they will die to that fire until the end of the round, so naturally you very quickly learn that there are two techniques to killing units in apoc. You either concentrate fire on an elite unit to bring it down, damn the overkill (because you DONT want a big nasty unit surviving with 1-2 wounds left thanks to its saves) or you spread your firepower to a ton of small cheapo units, drop a single small blast on each one, and rely on them failing their 10+ or 9+ saves on D12s.

Both of these make the game feel much more fair as the guy taking the hits, because you either feel like your opponent expended a large amount of fire to take your stuff out, or you get to use the stats you paid for. Having death be guaranteed for your cheapo unit that took a big blast isn't generally a big deal, because you feel like "OK, but my little dudes tanked fire from a way more expensive unit, and they still got to make their attacks during the round" and having there be no way for your opponent to totally remove your chance to save on elite units also gives you the opportunity to survive unexpectedly, or use defensive cards to turn things around.

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Csm terminators show up in two flavours.
Alpha legion slaanesh combiplas and purge Support combiplas.

Interesting, I don't think I have seen Heretic Terminators doing well at tournaments and my opponents don't use them, my suggestions were just what I thought might work the best. Combiplas Alpha Legion seems really curious, do you really want to be Alpha Legion and Deep Strike within 10"? Is there some kind of Stratagem that makes Alpha Legion Termies worthwhile?

You can abuse a lot of denfensive mechanics in combination with the new F&F, however the lists were pre F&F, another thing is, they were at the time significantly cheaper comparatively to the at the time costing 115 pts / model nublits. the combiplas fits the same area and for one is technically a nice little competition for the possessed bomb nowadays.

You can use Slaanesh with any Legion except WE and why wouldn't you? Emperor's Children have the replace a charge dice with a 6 Stratagem which is really good, you'd probably have better Cacophony targets in an EC army, but I wasn't thinking along the lines of mono-Legion, because if you're going mono-Legion then I think it's hard to compete with Alpha Legion.

Tbf, the issue with AL is not actually AL; which bases most of it's strength with a nice tactical set of options, contrary to other legions which are either too restricted in strategy influencing stratagems or are stuck with one off uses like red butchers, or just to one unit type, cue possessed WB f.e.

Purge seems like a bad choice due to the mark of chaos required, what I've seen is Purge being used on long-ranged units, especially FW Dreadnoughts.

Au contrarie, you use / used them as a full reroll without support unit. Again at the time cheaper then obliterators and more importantly the full rerolls available against wounded targets ASWELL as the purge stratagem make for a unit that unlike most other CSM units doesn't need 3 babysitters and 5 stratagems, or what feels like that. Which means that they pay true cost so to speak. ( also full hit rerolls make overcharged plasma really really dangerous.)

3+ and 2+ armor saves are less valuable because -1 AP, the old AP 4, cut their effectiveness greatly, AND these saves cost a lot to put on the table. Light armor is much better, because it apparently costs nothing and AP 0 is a thing as much as or more than AP -1.

 vict0988 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
And all of the talk about what Terms are weak to and what they should be weak to ignores that they're also at a wildly incorrect price point. A five-man Terminator squad has roughly the same survivability and melee output of a three-man Aggressor squad, and trades less firepower on the move* for DS. Unfortunately a Terminator costs almost as much as an Aggressor, one or both of them is significantly off the proper power curve.

* And vastly less firepower when stationary, but GW seems to have priced Aggressors as though they didn't have ways to mitigate that.

GW didn't price Aggressors, it's the same it has been since CA18 and they changed their Attacks and Wounds characteristic, which is more likely:
:GW found the exact stat changes that would make Aggressors worth it at their current price point.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and found that the existing pts fit exactly with how strong they were after the update.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and were too lazy to look at how much an Aggressor with that updated profile was worth.

...ok, you do make a good point. W2 A2 Aggressors are a lot closer to being on par with Terminators in a 1-to-1 comparison.

I've had people tell me that the current Aggressor profile is both under-costed and a garbage unit (different people, obviously), I'm inclined to think it needs a further errata so it's value in a Ultramarines or Salamanders list isn't so vastly different from it's value under Iron Hands or Black Templars, but that's a systemic problem with Marine units in general and Aggressors are just one of the most egregious examples.

While it's been very cool for each subfaction to have their own flavour and abilities, not charging points for it was a monstrous error.

I'd feel better if I got a points break for embracing my reroll morale trait instead of taking the obviously better options.

The disparity in Marine units effectiveness under different supplements really drives home the point to me.

I know Pandora's box is open now but I'd be totally fine with each army getting enough units to play different styles and return the paint scheme to our aesthetic and lore preference.

Give them back their 3+ on 2d6 like the last time there was armor modifiers.

The insane volume of fire now possible would make that painful to resolve.

"How do we solve these nearly invulnerable units?"

"Let's add more dice rolls to the game."

"Ok, now how do we solve how everything is dying too easily?"

"Second verse, same as the first."

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

nekooni wrote:

ccs wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Necron warrior save: Almost no value in 7th, actual asset in 8th.
MEQ save: Sometimes useful in 7th but could not be dependen on due to the over abundance of AP2 and AP3 weapons, in 8th it became much harder. The old AP 6 and AP5 weapons still doesn't reduce your save, you can save against the old AP3 (now -2) and AP 2 (now -3). Still cannot save against AP1 (now -4). The only reduction in defence comes from old AP4 weapons, which reduce your save by 1.
.

Did I miss something in 7th? Didn't Necrons warriors & imperial power armor both have 3+ saves? Don't they both still have 3+ saves here in 8th?

IIRC necron warriors are 4+ in both 7th and 8th, but at some point before that they were 3+ - not sure which edition changed that.

They had 3+ saves in 3rd ed (technically 4th ed too, but Necrons never had a 4th codex)
It got changed to 4+ in 5th ed and stayed that way ever since.

Huh. I guess I did miss something then.
By 5th I was the only person in our group that had a Necron force - but I spent 5th playing lots of Guard, Tyranids, & Eldar (Iyanden). Dark Angels/assorted Marines/Chaos Marines now & then.
By 6th we played sporadically & all I used were my Khorn Demons. Still the only guy who owned any Necrons.
7th? I'm told I played 1 game. Right at it's dawn. I wasn't even aware that the edition had changed, & apparently nobody realized (or cared?) I was using a 6e codex.... And then we all drifted away from 40k for the greener pastures of WWII etc.
8e? Haven't dug the Necrons out of storage yet (probably not going to either this ed - unless someone request a game against them), so no need to buy a new codex. And you know what? I'm still the only guy in the group who owns any Necrons.