1. Change bolters and combibolters from rapid fire 1 and 2 to assault 3 and 6. Marines are expensive and their guns should have at least a little bite. Pink horrors can be assault 3, fire warriors can have three shots per model, and both cost about half of a marine.
2. Ws and bs 2 for terminators. If you're in terminator armor, you're good at killing stuff.
3. Upon deployment from the teleportarium, roll d6. What you roll is the number of inches closer than 9 you may deploy. Maybe meltas are worth taking now? Maybe you can make a charge and not get blasted off the table?
Still probably not worth the 60 points per model a fully kitted terminator costs, but close.
If overhauling the entire marine 'dex to be less numerous and more potent on a model-by-model basis is off the table, I'd say a 3rd wound feels about right. Terminators put out 4 strength 4 shots and a copule power fist attacks per turn. That isn't terrible offense. Making them 3 wounds lets their 2+ save matter a little more as you need to roll 3 1s against small arms fire and take two wounds against D2 weapons before you drop.
I've been debating this with my friend for a one month narrative campaign we're having in August. We both have marines as our primary armies and love termies. Our rule when proposing changes is fixing the "worst" of the problems with minimum changes. So, when looking at termies I see two: survivavility for points cost and damage capability. The second is imo the "worst" because armor in general (specially marines) has recieved a nerf with 8th edition's fp system. This means they lack damage output. We discussed many ways of fixing this, and tried a few. In the end, looking at points cost, we decided ws2+/bs2+ was the most efficient solution. Might change as we test it
This issue comes up quite a bit, personally I think they need both 3 wounds and a 1+ save to give them more resistance to AP, this fixes their durability.
In terms of damage output I think they're generally okay; the only thing I'd maybe change is to make a specific Terminator Storm Bolter that can be fired either as Rapid Fire 2, or as Pistol 2, enabling it to be fired in close combat for a few extra S4 attacks when outnumbered.
No, but then what else should? Heavier units usually have higher Toughness and/or wounds; I think 1+ for terminators makes sense given they're still normal sized (for marines) but wearing what is essentially tank armour, without being a tank.
Since natural 1's should always fail, having a 1+ save just means you can ignore a point of AP without it having to be made an ability.
No, but then what else should? Heavier units usually have higher Toughness and/or wounds; I think 1+ for terminators makes sense given they're still normal sized (for marines) but wearing what is essentially tank armour, without being a tank.
Since natural 1's should always fail, having a 1+ save just means you can ignore a point of AP without it having to be made an ability.
No, but then what else should? Heavier units usually have higher Toughness and/or wounds; I think 1+ for terminators makes sense given they're still normal sized (for marines) but wearing what is essentially tank armour, without being a tank.
Since natural 1's should always fail, having a 1+ save just means you can ignore a point of AP without it having to be made an ability.
Give them back 3+ on 2D6.
Hell no. Hell no.
If for no other reason than that'd be tedious as all get-out to roll. Can you imagine taking, say, 10 wounds and having to roll each 2d6 separately? Every single time?
My Plaguebearers (one squad, mind you) can easily whip out anywhere from 15 to 40+ wounds on Terminators, depending on how Epidemius is doing. Do you want to roll 40 sets of 2d6 every combat phase?
I think BS/WS2+ and reduce all wounds taken by 1 to a minimum of 1 is the way to do it.
They need to be more powerful damage wise, so the BS/WS does that. They don't need to be more durable to 1 damage guns, so 3W is too much, but they need to be more resilient against 2 damage guns.
They might also need a points change, but i'd be willing to see what these changes did first.
This isn't just a Codex Space Marines problem guys. Whatever it is, it needs to be something that can be applied to the TERMINATOR keyword. Otherwise you'd have to go back and errata all the codexes that have terminator armoured guys(i.e most of them). Too much hard work from GW's POV. If its a global rule, it needs to be simple. Nothing that alters the statline or results in tedious amounts of rolling. I see too many ideas that a too fantastical, which makes them too difficult to implement and will therefore never happen this edition.
I think "add one to all armour save rolls" is a good simple addition, same with "reduce all damage results by 1 to a minimum of 1". Combo either of those with price adjustments in chapter approved to fine tune different iterations of Terminator armour in different codexes.
Also, what about a variation of the "Grinding advance" rule that GW seems to dish out to battletank type units. Each model can fire one weapon twice when moving under half speed? Fits the theme of terminators being walking tanks. Could probably be applied to many DREADNOUGHT units also.
If for no other reason than that'd be tedious as all get-out to roll. Can you imagine taking, say, 10 wounds and having to roll each 2d6 separately? Every single time?
You mean you don't have 20+ pairs of differently coloured dice? What kind of weirdo are you?
Completely agree though; even using D12's or such doesn't really work for larger sized 40k games where it would become a nuisance to have to keep enough different dice types handy, fine for smaller games but not 40k. Besides, 3+ on 2D6 really just means you effectively halve AP with a very slightly better save, so it's kind of redundant when you could just… well, halve AP.
After a discussion with my group, we're going to start simple with Terminators (since we own tons of them). We're doing two very simple things.
1) Reducing the cost of each Terminator model by 8 points (-40 per squad of five)
2) Increasing wounds to three.
We're only applying these to Terminator squads, no HQ's, etc (as they seem tough enough). It's our beta test, but we're just trying to make them not so fething awful. At the moment they're proving to be a tremendous handicap for anyone who takes them, mainly due to cost.
Elbows wrote: After a discussion with my group, we're going to start simple with Terminators (since we own tons of them). We're doing two very simple things.
1) Reducing the cost of each Terminator model by 8 points (-40 per squad of five)
2) Increasing wounds to three.
We're only applying these to Terminator squads, no HQ's, etc (as they seem tough enough). It's our beta test, but we're just trying to make them not so fething awful. At the moment they're proving to be a tremendous handicap for anyone who takes them, mainly due to cost.
Id like to see ws2+ bs2+ on terminators with possibly an extra attack. I dont think the durability is actually as much of an issue as the fact its so easy for them to just miss and do little to no damage.
jcd386 wrote: reduce all wounds taken by 1 to a minimum of 1 is the way to do it.
This would be a huge help for their Durability, and it doesn't improve their durability vs single wound attacks. It doubles their resistance to Plasma, and they require 3 Damage weapons to one shot, which still exist but aren't as common. There is also prior precedent as this is basically the Wave Serpent Rule.
Otherwise I think terminators just need a bit more flexibility and let players streamline their options more. I don't think adjusting weapon skill / ballistic skill is the way to do it, but rather let them all take specialist equipment if you want (to pay for it), and for loyalists start them with Power Weapons and let them upgrade their melee from there. You want to run a "classic" Storm Bolter + Power Fist, sure, knock yourself out. You want to run an entire squad with Power Swords and Assault Cannons. Have fun. TH+SS sure. Slap Cyclone Missile on everybody, why not? Let each man be as expensive or as cheap as you want. You want to spend the points for an entire squad with Assault Cannons and Cyclone Missile Launchers and Storm Shields? Go for it.
jcd386 wrote: reduce all wounds taken by 1 to a minimum of 1 is the way to do it.
This would be a huge help for their Durability, and it doesn't improve their durability vs single wound attacks. It doubles their resistance to Plasma, and they require 3 Damage weapons to one shot, which still exist but aren't as common. There is also prior precedent as this is basically the Wave Serpent Rule.
Otherwise I think terminators just need a bit more flexibility and let players streamline their options more. I don't think adjusting weapon skill / ballistic skill is the way to do it, but rather let them all take specialist equipment if you want (to pay for it), and for loyalists start them with Power Weapons and let them upgrade their melee from there. You want to run a "classic" Storm Bolter + Power Fist, sure, knock yourself out. You want to run an entire squad with Power Swords and Assault Cannons. Have fun. TH+SS sure. Slap Cyclone Missile on everybody, why not? Let each man be as expensive or as cheap as you want. You want to spend the points for an entire squad with Assault Cannons and Cyclone Missile Launchers and Storm Shields? Go for it.
Terminator equipment is seperate right? Why not lowering the points there? often times this is were terminator pointcost gets bloated.
Also their profile does not really represent the fact that these are supposed to be (in most cases) THE VETERANS of the chapter/Legion/Warband and basically the second in commands right behind their Lords/ Chapter masters.
Also dmg output for the price is to low, that is the main reason in my opinion.
I like the 1+ idea. I’m also a fan of the 2d6 idea too. Maybe 3+ would be too good now that AP isn’t as high as it was. When terminators first came out they had the highest armour save in the game. Bring it back. Extra wound, 2+ hits and 1+ save. And new model that’s not shorter than a primaries marine.
Honestly, I feel like the best solution for ALL MARINES is to give the +1W. Tactical? 2Ws. Terminators? 3Ws. Bikes? 3Ws and so on. Maybe Primaris Marines stay at 2Ws and get T5 instead?
After that, a few points drops here and there would be good. I'm also OK with the 1+ armour save idea as well
Galef wrote: Honestly, I feel like the best solution for ALL MARINES is to give the +1W. Tactical? 2Ws. Terminators? 3Ws. Bikes? 3Ws and so on.
Maybe Primaris Marines stay at 2Ws and get T5 instead?
After that, a few points drops here and there would be good.
-
But then what do Primaris in Gravis Armor get? T6? They're nearly as tough as a Dreadnought, and tougher than a Custodian!
Galef wrote: Honestly, I feel like the best solution for ALL MARINES is to give the +1W. Tactical? 2Ws. Terminators? 3Ws. Bikes? 3Ws and so on. Maybe Primaris Marines stay at 2Ws and get T5 instead?
After that, a few points drops here and there would be good.
-
But then what do Primaris in Gravis Armor get? T6? They're nearly as tough as a Dreadnought, and tougher than a Custodian!
Well, there would definitely need some tweaks, which is why I ending with a "?" I forget, is Gravis Armour just T5, or is it also 2+ armour? If it doesn't have 2+, we could give it 2+ instead of T6
Also, I would not necessarily give all Characters +1W, but some could.
Galef wrote: Honestly, I feel like the best solution for ALL MARINES is to give the +1W. Tactical? 2Ws. Terminators? 3Ws. Bikes? 3Ws and so on.
Maybe Primaris Marines stay at 2Ws and get T5 instead?
After that, a few points drops here and there would be good.
-
But then what do Primaris in Gravis Armor get? T6? They're nearly as tough as a Dreadnought, and tougher than a Custodian!
Well, there would definitely need some tweaks, which is why I ending with a "?"
I forget, is Gravis Armour just T5, or is it also 2+ armour? If it doesn't have 2+, we could give it 2+
Also, I would not necessarily give all Characters +1W, but some could.
-
Gravis is T5, 3+.
And honestly, I'd rather see, if we were gonna make Marines tougher, a complete rework of most units' Toughness and Strength values.
Make Marines T6, Guardsmen T4, Dreadnoughts T10, Land Raiders T12 or 14. We can have stats over 10 now-use that.
As has already been said, it needs to be a rule that can be applied to the TERMINATOR keyword or a points reduction. Statline changes aren't going to make it into CA.
The problems with termies are lack of offensive output and limited mobility, IMHO.
Regular termies, replace regular powerfist stats with +1 attack, +2 str, -2 ap, 1d, let them mount 2x storm bolters, let the heavy use grav/plasma (1mw on overheat)/melta,AC,dual HB, 2+WS/BS, invlun to a 4++, 3rd wound and allow them to teleport shunt for 1 cp (basic deepstrike but can do it from on the table, not a strat so multiple units can do it?)
Assault termies add 1-2 to movement and charge/advance rolls. Can charge after advancing. No negatives to hit rolls for melee weapons. +1 str, 3w, 4++, 3rd wound, teleport shunt and maybe a native -1 to hit vs shooting attacks outside of 12.
With all that at current cost I think they'd see the table (they may even need a couple more points). I don't want them cheaper as the race to the bottom isn't a war that marines should try to win (leave that to guard).
And honestly, I'd rather see, if we were gonna make Marines tougher, a complete rework of most units' Toughness and Strength values.
Make Marines T6, Guardsmen T4, Dreadnoughts T10, Land Raiders T12 or 14. We can have stats over 10 now-use that."
I can't disagree strongly enough...but merely because the suggestion you make would require a re-do of every single weapon in the game. Should they have used the stats more fluidly when creating 8th edition? Probably, but weapons and unit toughness, etc. are all quite cleverly aligned at the moment. Certain silly changes which don't look big, are much bigger than they often appear. Do you want a Toughness 4 Guardsman who is wounded by lasguns on a 5+, or bolters on a 4+? I doubt it. The kind of change you're asking for would require an entire game re-write, not a simple buff in stat lines.
Dreadnoughts at T10 would also be a 5+ to wound with a lascannon, etc. You will not see those kind of changes in 8th edition, I can guarantee.
The race to bottom is 8th ed. There is no design space for marines after they published Custodes. The only thing left is to get cheaper. Dissy cannons pick us up like grots. We need to be priced closer to grots. Period.
And honestly, I'd rather see, if we were gonna make Marines tougher, a complete rework of most units' Toughness and Strength values.
Make Marines T6, Guardsmen T4, Dreadnoughts T10, Land Raiders T12 or 14. We can have stats over 10 now-use that."
I can't disagree strongly enough...but merely because the suggestion you make would require a re-do of every single weapon in the game. Should they have used the stats more fluidly when creating 8th edition? Probably, but weapons and unit toughness, etc. are all quite cleverly aligned at the moment. Certain silly changes which don't look big, are much bigger than they often appear. Do you want a Toughness 4 Guardsman who is wounded by lasguns on a 5+, or bolters on a 4+? I doubt it. The kind of change you're asking for would require an entire game re-write, not a simple buff in stat lines.
Dreadnoughts at T10 would also be a 5+ to wound with a lascannon, etc. You will not see those kind of changes in 8th edition, I can guarantee.
bananathug wrote: The problems with termies are lack of offensive output and limited mobility, IMHO.
Regular termies, replace regular powerfist stats with +1 attack, +2 str, -2 ap, 1d, let them mount 2x storm bolters, let the heavy use grav/plasma (1mw on overheat)/melta,AC,dual HB, 2+WS/BS, invlun to a 4++, 3rd wound and allow them to teleport shunt for 1 cp (basic deepstrike but can do it from on the table, not a strat so multiple units can do it?)
Assault termies add 1-2 to movement and charge/advance rolls. Can charge after advancing. No negatives to hit rolls for melee weapons. +1 str, 3w, 4++, 3rd wound, teleport shunt and maybe a native -1 to hit vs shooting attacks outside of 12.
With all that at current cost I think they'd see the table (they may even need a couple more points). I don't want them cheaper as the race to the bottom isn't a war that marines should try to win (leave that to guard).
Rather than a lack of offensive/defensive capabilities, it's just that there are far more viable/efficient platforms for what termies do.
Currently, termies don't have a niche they excel at, so one never bothers looking at termies to fill a specific role. If they were good at/better than other units at even one aspect of the game, they would be worth looking at despite the cost. Yet, termies fail to do anything meaningful for it's point cost.
It would be cool to see if asstermies have some sort of charge based benefits (i.e. roll 3, use highest two; reroll dice)
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it agin, problem with terminators is that so many other things do what they did and do it better. When first introduced they were the only 2+ save, marines were 4+, they were the only deep striking unit and their weapons were unique. Now so many units do the same or better so a complete rework is prob needed or a unique rule, like 1+.
Spartacus wrote: This isn't just a Codex Space Marines problem guys. Whatever it is, it needs to be something that can be applied to the TERMINATOR keyword. Otherwise you'd have to go back and errata all the codexes that have terminator armoured guys(i.e most of them).
THIS right here is why I always propose WS/BS2+ and then seeing where points are to be adjusted for appropriate durability. This is for a few reasons:
1. This makes them much more independent from being, well, dependent on HQ units
2. It represents the Vet status even more of only the most elite troops getting access to these rare suits
3. It helps all weapon loadouts instead of just a few of them
Now the only Terminator that just needs to be stupidly cheaper is the troop Grey Knight variant, as those dudes are still pretty new. However there are several issues with the Grey Knight codex so...
Spartacus wrote: This isn't just a Codex Space Marines problem guys. Whatever it is, it needs to be something that can be applied to the TERMINATOR keyword. Otherwise you'd have to go back and errata all the codexes that have terminator armoured guys(i.e most of them).
THIS right here is why I always propose WS/BS2+ and then seeing where points are to be adjusted for appropriate durability. This is for a few reasons:
1. This makes them much more independent from being, well, dependent on HQ units
2. It represents the Vet status even more of only the most elite troops getting access to these rare suits
3. It helps all weapon loadouts instead of just a few of them
Now the only Terminator that just needs to be stupidly cheaper is the troop Grey Knight variant, as those dudes are still pretty new. However there are several issues with the Grey Knight codex so...
Not to rain on your parade, but even if they would just buff their profile, like you said, i would still pay on the low pts. end (CSM Terminators) 37pts per terminator. I have to run 5 of them so in the end you pay minimum 185 pts. Remember this is the cheapest possible terminator of regular CSM/SM terminators there is to my knowledge.
Their loadout for that is lackluster, either beeing equipped with energy swords or energy maces and a combibolter. Now let's do the math. for 185 pts i get 14.23.... regular CSM or 46 cultists or 11.5 chosen, etc
And this there is the problem: just a comparision with other basic troop choices respectively another elite choice with similiar anti infantery loadouts shows that i can do their job on the cheaper side and profit from CSM stratagems more. Because doubleshooting is still vastly superior on more base shots than on a better "elite" unit.
Now you could argue that their equipment makes them better suited for melee, except their Attack statistic let's them down harder then a sack of bricks fall from a skyscraper. Yes they still out punch the regular chaos marines with a A2 but 14 csm have more attacks, the 46 cultists will anyways have more attacks, the chosen have also 2 attacks each and get double the numbers, infact if i cut the 1,5 chosen i can throw in equally if not better melee wepon choices.
And since Plague marines are also a possible Elite/troop choice that is nearly equally as durable i don't even need to explain why their durability and their 2+ armor is often overrated in pts.
Spartacus wrote: This isn't just a Codex Space Marines problem guys. Whatever it is, it needs to be something that can be applied to the TERMINATOR keyword. Otherwise you'd have to go back and errata all the codexes that have terminator armoured guys(i.e most of them).
THIS right here is why I always propose WS/BS2+ and then seeing where points are to be adjusted for appropriate durability. This is for a few reasons:
1. This makes them much more independent from being, well, dependent on HQ units
2. It represents the Vet status even more of only the most elite troops getting access to these rare suits
3. It helps all weapon loadouts instead of just a few of them
Now the only Terminator that just needs to be stupidly cheaper is the troop Grey Knight variant, as those dudes are still pretty new. However there are several issues with the Grey Knight codex so...
Not to rain on your parade, but even if they would just buff their profile, like you said, i would still pay on the low pts. end (CSM Terminators) 37pts per terminator. I have to run 5 of them so in the end you pay minimum 185 pts. Remember this is the cheapest possible terminator of regular CSM/SM terminators there is to my knowledge.
Their loadout for that is lackluster, either beeing equipped with energy swords or energy maces and a combibolter. Now let's do the math. for 185 pts i get 14.23.... regular CSM or 46 cultists or 11.5 chosen, etc
And this there is the problem: just a comparision with other basic troop choices respectively another elite choice with similiar anti infantery loadouts shows that i can do their job on the cheaper side and profit from CSM stratagems more. Because doubleshooting is still vastly superior on more base shots than on a better "elite" unit.
Now you could argue that their equipment makes them better suited for melee, except their Attack statistic let's them down harder then a sack of bricks fall from a skyscraper. Yes they still out punch the regular chaos marines with a A2 but 14 csm have more attacks, the 46 cultists will anyways have more attacks, the chosen have also 2 attacks each and get double the numbers, infact if i cut the 1,5 chosen i can throw in equally if not better melee wepon choices.
And since Plague marines are also a possible Elite/troop choice that is nearly equally as durable i don't even need to explain why their durability and their 2+ armor is often overrated in pts.
At no point did slayer say that points shouldn't go down, he is pointing out that currently marine vets gain very little for their increased pointa cost especially terminators. Making them WS2+,BS2+ Actually allows them to leverage their expensive power weapons etc to better effect and less aura dependent.
GW doesn't have design space to make terminators 3W as your just making custodes at that point. The only other option is to make them cheaper but at the points cost where a WS3+, BS3+ model with 2 wounds works is silly low. Look at primaris marines, so they need to be shock troops doing lots of damage and to force the enemy to deal with them. Without going mad with complicated rules (GW won't in 8th edition) you need a simple quick way to up their damage output that does that meaning the probably only need to drop to 30 somthing points instead of the 20 something range which GW wouldn't allow.
Not Online!!! wrote: "Now the ONLY Terminator that just needs to be stupidly cheaper is the troop Grey knight variant....."
I am sorry? Is that not exclusive? I also regard a price cut of 7-10pts for regular termis to be 30pts with equipment as quite massive.
To me stupidly cheaper is in the 40to 50% range. 20 to 25% isn't unheard of, GW have already dropped some units that sort of points heck intercessors went for 22 to 18 thats 20% drop and they're still meh. When they hit 16 points they might be viable. So about a 30% price drop just to make a basic troops choice competitive.
The long story short is GW40k designers arn't too good at maths.
Just for curiosity, if we don't change the unit profile where would you realisticly set up my exemple CSM Terminators?
Also would minimum Squadsize for Terminators of 3 be a good thing? Along the line of the old suicide Termis?
Not Online!!! wrote: Just for curiosity, if we don't change the unit profile where would you realisticly set up my exemple CSM Terminators?
Also would minimum Squadsize for Terminators of 3 be a good thing? Along the line of the old suicide Termis?
GW style number from thin air without weapons 25ppm.
With special terminators costed as they are above current terminators above that new baseline.
With WS2+,BS2+ that might be a bit too good but for WS3+,BS3+ it is probably a tad conservative.
But you need a start point for play testing, whats your thoughts?
Not Online!!! wrote: Just for curiosity, if we don't change the unit profile where would you realisticly set up my exemple CSM Terminators?
Also would minimum Squadsize for Terminators of 3 be a good thing? Along the line of the old suicide Termis?
GW style number from thin air without weapons 25ppm.
With special terminators costed as they are above current terminators above that new baseline.
With WS2+,BS2+ that might be a bit too good but for WS3+,BS3+ it is probably a tad conservative.
But you need a start point for play testing, whats your thoughts?
With the gakky above loadout (Energy mace and combibolter 6pts.) and with a lot of margin of error and say they are worth the 6 pts and the base model is the reason for the overcosting, i'd say inbetween 20-24 pts per terminator without equipment. The aim would be that Terminators would cost around 30 pts a piece with basic equipment. Still on the low ROF end but atleast workable.
I'd probably also allow min 3 Terminator squads again and allow them to take a heavy weapon and another one if they are 6 or more. because let's be honest. Nobody ever used a 10 man Terminator squad probably.
I like all of the following (some proposed earlier, some not):
-Reduce points by ~8ppm
-Allow 2 per 5 Heavys on Tac Termies
-Drop minimum squad to 3
-Allow a la carte CC weapons for Assault Termies
I don't think this would make them super powerful, but it would make them more viable. I think they'd be fair, but due to role concerns they'd see more use in casual games than competitive games. Competitive list building just doesn't need a 'rook' style unit short of a LoW, due to how they play.
Bharring wrote: I like all of the following (some proposed earlier, some not):
-Reduce points by ~8ppm
-Allow 2 per 5 Heavys on Tac Termies
-Drop minimum squad to 3
-Allow a la carte CC weapons for Assault Termies
I don't think this would make them super powerful, but it would make them more viable. I think they'd be fair, but due to role concerns they'd see more use in casual games than competitive games. Competitive list building just doesn't need a 'rook' style unit short of a LoW, due to how they play.
Allow ALL Termis to chose a la carte period. Seriously there is no reason that my CSMIW splinter can do it and a SM chapter can't.
I don't like the WS/BS2+ idea. In the absence of initiative, WS seems to have some reflection of "speed". That's why Powerfists are -1 to hit.
Terminators are big bulky hulks. They shouldn't be "fast", which means WS2+ should be out of the question unless you are a Character.
However, I do think Termies should ignore the -1 to hit with their fists, as the armour aids in "lifting" it. So keep Termies at WS3+, but give them "Terminator Power fists" that are exactly like regular fists, but do not have -1 to hit.
I also like the idea of all Terminator equivalents having a min squad size of 3. But sadly GW will not do this as all Termie boxes include 5 models, so the squad size will always be min 5.
Galef wrote: I don't like the WS/BS2+ idea. In the absence of initiative, WS seems to have some reflection of "speed". That's why Powerfists are -1 to hit.
Terminators are big bulky hulks. They shouldn't be "fast", which means WS2+ should be out of the question unless you are a Character.
However, I do think Termies should ignore the -1 to hit with their fists, as the armour aids in "lifting" it. So keep Termies at WS3+, but give them "Terminator Power fists" that are exactly like regular fists, but do not have -1 to hit.
I also like the idea of all Terminator equivalents having a min squad size of 3. But sadly GW will not do this as all Termie boxes include 5 models, so the squad size will always be min 5.
-
Wasn't always the case my friend. Sometime back CSM termies could be taken in min 3 squads, normally you gave them combimelta, shocked behind a tank and watched the fireworks for i belive 105/pts.
Granted it was a cheesy tournament strategy, but if we could nowadays take a min 3 squad it might be worth it for a tactical reserve to get that reaper autocannon and combi plasma at the right time in the right position.
Not Online!!! wrote: Wasn't always the case my friend. Sometime back CSM termies could be taken in min 3 squads, normally you gave them combimelta, shocked behind a tank and watched the fireworks for i belive 105/pts. Granted it was a cheesy tournament strategy, but if we could nowadays take a min 3 squad it might be worth it for a tactical reserve to get that reaper autocannon and combi plasma at the right time in the right position.
Oh yes, I remember those days well. My point is that since 8th dropped, GW has made very specific changes to ensure min unit sizes match the models in the box in many case. Chaos Termie box has 5 models, so they bumped the min unit size to 5 and are unlikely to go back.
I'd love if Termie equivalents went to min size 3. It would make sense and make them easier to play. GW could even keep the restriction that you need 5 to take the special weapons like Reaper Autocannons or Typhoon Missiles. This could even extend to Eldar Wraithguard, making it possible to put a unit in a Falcon, which gives them more reason to be taken (although not much) I just don't see it happening
Squad size of terminators is ideally 3 - 5, yes. That makes the minimum points to take them lower, also the background is that their codes standard size is 5, so there should be an option for under- strength squads. I would say 3 with one or two heavy weapons and five with two or three, as long as they are all different heavy weapons, and then drop the heavy weapon points to five since they have to be mixed.
However, instead of making lists of things that GW might change speculatively, it’s easier to actually play games by making tournament packs with the ch aged rules. I don’t want to make points or unit comp changes when people are bringing their standard tournament or store game night TAC lists, which barely have terminators anyway. So unit size or points changes are ideal to me but practically they are only a little important because I want the changes to work without a casual player having to change their army list.
That’s also why the power fist, ws and bs changes in the thread don’t work for me. Most armies don’t have the option for terminators and marine armies that are competitive don’t take them, so it’s sort of obscure to make a rule for terminators when you might see them in one game out of three. To fix the power fist problem you can just drop the -1 from all power fists in imperial and chaos armies, and all power klaws. That makes it much more worth the space to put that rule in the tournament pack.
I’d also like to buff power weapons, to compensate for power fists being puffed like that beyond the existing price difference, but that is more space in the tournament pack, so it’s tempting to let the imbalance remain.
Then there’s this ws/ bs change, that would let heavy weapons hit on 3+. Terminators have been hitting on 3+ with shooting and against guardsmen since 1999, and they have been bad while they were doing that. As a change to a single unit among many, that just isn’t major enough.
With just the game wide power fist change, terminators are still bad. So they need a rule that buffs termie and that affects more than just terminators or marine armies.
In the shooting phase, models add -1 to their shooting attack if they have more attacks on their profile than the saving model.
In the shooting phase, units that fail their save may re-roll it as a 5+ invulnerable save, as long as they are in cover and have more attacks on their profile than the model that shot them.
That’s a tournament pack as it applies to terminators, that also helps nobs and flash gits (currently bad), chosen (bad), basic crisis suits (bad), IG characters (buff machines), and solo shooting characters (bad and nonexistent). That’s much bette than saying here try these house rules, they are buffs for a niche/minority unit from already-popular armies. That’s what you have to think about when you don’t want to just speculate about GW and you’re in an environment where people care about things other than terminators.
This is 8th edition having 2 versions of the same weapon with different points and stats isn't going to happen outside of relics.
So thats the powerfists without a -1 idea dead, also how would that help LC, chain fist, Thunderhammers & power weapon terminators? It doesn't, so you haven't actually adressed the terminator problem your fiddling with the level of sucky.
Flat WS2+ with the -1 from the fists and hammers gets you back to the 3+ you wanted, but helps every weapon.
Same with BS2+ these are supposed to be the most trusted veterans if they aren't good enough to be 2+,2+ then we need to ditch the D6 system as a space marine vet and a guard vetran shooting the same is crazy.
I'm not infavour of the 3man squad size. It goes against everything GW is designing 8th around. It's 1 box equals a unit.
Also reducing the overhead so Chaos can cram in more combi and heavy weapons deepstriking is just going to be seen as trying to create the next plasma scion unit and will have people complaining and terminators stay in the suck to bad to play pile.
And heck no. Powerfists imperium wide should NOT lose the -1 to hit it is fair trade for the strength and AP bonus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pelicaniforce wrote: Squad size of terminators is ideally 3 - 5, yes. That makes the minimum points to take them lower, also the background is that their codes standard size is 5, so there should be an option for under- strength squads. I would say 3 with one or two heavy weapons and five with two or three, as long as they are all different heavy weapons, and then drop the heavy weapon points to five since they have to be mixed.
However, instead of making lists of things that GW might change speculatively, it’s easier to actually play games by making tournament packs with the ch aged rules. I don’t want to make points or unit comp changes when people are bringing their standard tournament or store game night TAC lists, which barely have terminators anyway. So unit size or points changes are ideal to me but practically they are only a little important because I want the changes to work without a casual player having to change their army list.
That’s also why the power fist, ws and bs changes in the thread don’t work for me. Most armies don’t have the option for terminators and marine armies that are competitive don’t take them, so it’s sort of obscure to make a rule for terminators when you might see them in one game out of three. To fix the power fist problem you can just drop the -1 from all power fists in imperial and chaos armies, and all power klaws. That makes it much more worth the space to put that rule in the tournament pack.
I’d also like to buff power weapons, to compensate for power fists being puffed like that beyond the existing price difference, but that is more space in the tournament pack, so it’s tempting to let the imbalance remain.
Then there’s this ws/ bs change, that would let heavy weapons hit on 3+. Terminators have been hitting on 3+ with shooting and against guardsmen since 1999, and they have been bad while they were doing that. As a change to a single unit among many, that just isn’t major enough.
With just the game wide power fist change, terminators are still bad. So they need a rule that buffs termie and that affects more than just terminators or marine armies.
In the shooting phase, models add -1 to their shooting attack if they have more attacks on their profile than the saving model.
In the shooting phase, units that fail their save may re-roll it as a 5+ invulnerable save, as long as they are in cover and have more attacks on their profile than the model that shot them.
That’s a tournament pack as it applies to terminators, that also helps nobs and flash gits (currently bad), chosen (bad), basic crisis suits (bad), IG characters (buff machines), and solo shooting characters (bad and nonexistent). That’s much bette than saying here try these house rules, they are buffs for a niche/minority unit from already-popular armies. That’s what you have to think about when you don’t want to just speculate about GW and you’re in an environment where people care about things other than terminators.
Orks codex isn't out yet so you have no way of know what is or isn't going to be good. Index at this point is an joke due to codex creep and can't be used for discussion of future balance.
Crisis suits just need BS3 or a points drop that's it, simple.
IG charictors don't need buffs they exsist to shout orders and recycle CP.
You mean assasins they were in a lot of lists untill the batlle brothers rule made including them in a detachment borderline impossible.
You realise that trash rules are the main reason people don't play marine terminators. Same with crisis suits. Righting rules that effect units no-one plays is what is needed to make them playable.
Buffing units people already play aswell still leaves the unplayable units unplayable.
Galef wrote: I don't like the WS/BS2+ idea. In the absence of initiative, WS seems to have some reflection of "speed". That's why Powerfists are -1 to hit.
Terminators are big bulky hulks. They shouldn't be "fast", which means WS2+ should be out of the question unless you are a Character.
However, I do think Termies should ignore the -1 to hit with their fists, as the armour aids in "lifting" it. So keep Termies at WS3+, but give them "Terminator Power fists" that are exactly like regular fists, but do not have -1 to hit.
I also like the idea of all Terminator equivalents having a min squad size of 3. But sadly GW will not do this as all Termie boxes include 5 models, so the squad size will always be min 5.
-
WS would be a reflection of both. So it doesn't make sense that the Power Fist is hitting at the same rate as a Lightning Claw or Power Sword, and on top of that you're ignoring ALL the other loadouts that need help. It isn't just the Power Fist that isn't good.
Plus their Power Fist would end up having to cost differently, as you're stupid not to pay 7-8 points for a weapon that hits at the same rate but does drastically more towards larger targets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: "Now the ONLY Terminator that just needs to be stupidly cheaper is the troop Grey knight variant....."
I am sorry? Is that not exclusive? I also regard a price cut of 7-10pts for regular termis to be 30pts with equipment as quite massive.
Outside Terminator Grey Knight troops, all other Terminator variants are basically the best of the best of the best (with honors), and trusted with those suits. The basic Grey Knight Terminator is actually more new to everything.
Remember I'm for this proposed change on Paladins, so with an appropriate cost Paladins can be Custodes lite!
WS/BS2+ would certainly help from a balance standpoint. I won't deny that. I just don't know how anyone can justify it from a fluff standpoint.
And yes, fluff needs to matter. It's why Termies have a 2+ armour in the first place, because they have more armour IN THE FLUFF than a standard Marine. It's also why Termies move 5" instead of 6", because the armour is heavy and bulky
So unless we retcon Terminator armour to somehow enhance a standard Marine's speed and accuracy, WS/BS2+ would purely be a game-play change that has no respect or regard for the fluff. There has to be a way to do both.
Galef wrote: WS/BS2+ would certainly help from a balance standpoint. I won't deny that. I just don't know how anyone can justify it from a fluff standpoint.
And yes, fluff needs to matter. It's why Termies have a 2+ armour in the first place, because they have more armour IN THE FLUFF than a standard Marine. It's also why Termies move 5" instead of 6", because the armour is heavy and bulky
So unless we retcon Terminator armour to somehow enhance a standard Marine's speed and accuracy, WS/BS2+ would purely be a game-play change that has no respect or regard for the fluff. There has to be a way to do both.
-
They're very advanced vets and the suits are pretty advanced. You can easily argue for WS/BS2+
I'm also for WS2+ on Vanguard and BS2+ on Sternguard to actually give them a niche instead of being inferior to a bunch of units, but that's a different topic of conversation.
Yeah, I'd be ok with it overall, since it is a really good game-play change for them. And at the very least, they still have slow movement to reflect the bulky armour.
So what are we thinking overall? WS/BS2+ and about -5ppm? I'm also for min squad size 3 with 1 heavy weapon option, and 2 heavies at 5+ models. All those changes should make Termies quite appealing.
Galef wrote: Yeah, I'd be ok with it overall, since it is a really good game-play change for them. And at the very least, they still have slow movement to reflect the bulky armour.
So what are we thinking overall? WS/BS2+ and about -5ppm?
I'm also for min squad size 3 with 1 heavy weapon option, and 2 heavies at 5+ models.
All those changes should make Termies quite appealing.
-
I dunno about 5 points but 3-4.
Grey Knights troop Terminators need 5 points off full stop though.
Galef wrote: WS/BS2+ would certainly help from a balance standpoint. I won't deny that. I just don't know how anyone can justify it from a fluff standpoint.
And yes, fluff needs to matter. It's why Termies have a 2+ armour in the first place, because they have more armour IN THE FLUFF than a standard Marine. It's also why Termies move 5" instead of 6", because the armour is heavy and bulky
So unless we retcon Terminator armour to somehow enhance a standard Marine's speed and accuracy, WS/BS2+ would purely be a game-play change that has no respect or regard for the fluff. There has to be a way to do both.
-
LOL. Fluff matters not at all. 8th ed has already diverged so far from fluff, that it's a non-factor.
Martel732 wrote: LOL. Fluff matters not at all. 8th ed has already diverged so far from fluff, that it's a non-factor.
Poor execution of the rules is not the same as ignorance of the background. Fluff is still THE driving force when GW makes rules. They might suck at it, but that doesn't mean fluff doesn't matter.
Fluff might be the vague "idea" behind something, but fluff has always been disregarded in the game itself...where you simply don't have marines from the novels/movies, etc. It would make for a poor game. Terminators haven't been tough since 2nd edition - and they've never probably been represented as they would be in the fluff.
There's a reason we don't have Space Marine armies consisting of 8-12 models, etc.
Elbows wrote: Fluff might be the vague "idea" behind something, but fluff has always been disregarded in the game itself...where you simply don't have marines from the novels/movies, etc. It would make for a poor game. Terminators haven't been tough since 2nd edition - and they've never probably been represented as they would be in the fluff.
There's a reason we don't have Space Marine armies consisting of 8-12 models, etc.
Because that doesn't sell models?
I kid. Some fluff is absolutely over the top, but the thing with the Space Marine fluff is that even the lower end of that is STILL over the top.
I'm not talking about the fluff that 1 Marine can take on 100 Orks by himself. I'm talking about the fluff that a Marine is better than an Ork in general. The rules do indeed capture this. Marine have better BS and armour and access to better weapons.
Terminators, likewise, have better armour than a Marine in the fluff. Hence the 2+ over 3+. Whether that translates into "true" improved durability in the game has no barring on whether the fluff was the driving force behind that decision.
I could see an argument be made that since Terminators are veteran Marines, that they could in fact have WS/BS2+. I was merely pointing out that there is contradiction to this rationale if you think about heavier weapons like powerfists, which have -1 to hit for being bulky and slow. But since Termies would also get this -1 to hit while using these kinds of weapons, I can agree that suffering the -1 to hit twice wouldn't make sense.
If you want to say the GW isn't very good at translating rules from fluff, I agree with that. But saying "fluff has never mattered" is just nonsense. Stats and special abilities exist because a unit can do X in the fluff, so they need a rule/stat that can do X in the game.
There's always been an argument for Terminators to be proper veterans - they were just one of many (many!) units who got dumped on by the start of 3rd edition and never recovered from it.
They originally shared the same stats as Veterans, who in turn enjoyed the following advantages over a normal marine: +1 WS, +1 BS, +1 Initiative, and +1 Leadership.
They were originally WS/BS 5 which translated into 2+ before modifiers. What's important though is that a normal squad of Terminators (5 models) with power fists and stormbolters cost 315 points, where a normal 10 man Tactical Squad (bolters, bolt pistol, etc.) was 300 points.
So they had doubly tough armour, better stats but also didn't cost the crazy cost they are now (when compared to normal marines). They were still one wound models at this point.
Galef wrote: I'm not talking about the fluff that 1 Marine can take on 100 Orks by himself.
I'm talking about the fluff that a Marine is better than an Ork in general. The rules do indeed capture this. Marine have better BS and armour and access to better weapons.
Terminators, likewise, have better armour than a Marine in the fluff. Hence the 2+ over 3+. Whether that translates into "true" improved durability in the game has no barring on whether the fluff was the driving force behind that decision.
I could see an argument be made that since Terminators are veteran Marines, that they could in fact have WS/BS2+. I was merely pointing out that there is contradiction to this rationale if you think about heavier weapons like powerfists, which have -1 to hit for being bulky and slow.
But since Termies would also get this -1 to hit while using these kinds of weapons, I can agree that suffering the -1 to hit twice wouldn't make sense.
If you want to say the GW isn't very good at translating rules from fluff, I agree with that. But saying "fluff has never mattered" is just nonsense.
Stats and special abilities exist because a unit can do X in the fluff, so they need a rule/stat that can do X in the game.
-
Ok then explain why an Imperial guard veteran having a BS3+ yet a standard squad is BS4+ is ok and fluffy
But a marine veteran hand chosen for the honour of wearing terminator armour due to his experience and skill has to stay WS3+, BS3+ like a scout, tac marine.
So guardsmen get as good as spacemarines with experience but marines who life longer and fight more don't show any improvement in skill?
Terminator armour isn't slow as in you can't move or block in it, it's slow as in you can't run, jump in it.
Also the old 2nd edition style fluff basically said it was so armoured you didn't need to and could fight better as you just concentrate on fighting and trust the armour.
Ok then explain why an Imperial guard veteran having a BS3+ yet a standard squad is BS4+ is ok and fluffy
But a marine veteran hand chosen for the honour of wearing terminator armour due to his experience and skill has to stay WS3+, BS3+ like a scout, tac marine.
So guardsmen get as good as spacemarines with experience but marines who life longer and fight more don't show any improvement in skill?
Because if you continue with that logic, chapter masters would have WS/BS -5, meaning they could never miss regardless of modifiers.
You cannot simply say X is better than Y, so it gets +1 stat.
You should think of it like this: A Guard Veteran is far better than an average guardsman who has little to no training.
A Space marine veteran is better than a regular Marine, but that regular marine does have training, so the "gap" is not a wide.
Not enough for a full stat upgrade, at least.
Having said that, I am really starting to want Termies to be WS/BS2+ now. The idea is growing on me
Ice_can wrote: This is 8th edition having 2 versions of the same weapon with different points and stats isn't going to happen outside of relics.
Unless you're AM, which then makes you eligible for all kinds of special treatments like budget plasmas and meltas.
Well originally scions only payed the BS4+ prices. But plasma scions weren't broken honest
Before the BS+3 plasma pt increase, 1-for-1 officer to command squad and rule of three hot-fix, they were broken as you can possibly get. You could literally run 18 MT CMS with 4 plasmagun, deepstirke into double tap range and it could easily take out 1500 pt's worth of stuff in 1 turn, with no chance of retaliation. The ONLY way was to box yourself in with enough screens so that the scions couldn't get into <12" range, which frankly at the time, was a feat only AM was capable of doing without paying 400~500 pts of TAX aka cannon fodder troops with no defensive OR offensive capabilities.
This was 144 overcharged plasmashots with reroll 1's for most - so that's
144 shots @ BS3+ = 96 Hits, 48 Misses
of 48 Misses, statistically there are 24 1's; reroll 24's 1's = 16 additional hits
So that's 112 hits, of which wounds T4's on 2+ = 93.33 successfully wounds
93.33 successful wounds against Sv+3 = 77.78 saves rolls failed
which translates to 155.56 damage incurred in a single turn.
And this shenanigans only costed 1,152 pts (16 ppm for plas cms x 4 per unit x 18 units) back then when plasmas costed 7 pts per pop.
IF the stormtrooper doctrine came out before the nerfs....
130.67 overcharged plasma hits against T4, Sv+3:
-108.89 successful wounds
-90.74 saves rolls failed
Total damage = 181.48 damage incurred in a single turn.
Ok then explain why an Imperial guard veteran having a BS3+ yet a standard squad is BS4+ is ok and fluffy
But a marine veteran hand chosen for the honour of wearing terminator armour due to his experience and skill has to stay WS3+, BS3+ like a scout, tac marine.
So guardsmen get as good as spacemarines with experience but marines who life longer and fight more don't show any improvement in skill?
Because if you continue with that logic, chapter masters would have WS/BS -5, meaning they could never miss regardless of modifiers.
You cannot simply say X is better than Y, so it gets +1 stat.
You should think of it like this: A Guard Veteran is far better than an average guardsman who has little to no training.
A Space marine veteran is better than a regular Marine, but that regular marine does have training, so the "gap" is not a wide.
Not enough for a full stat upgrade, at least.
Having said that, I am really starting to want Termies to be WS/BS2+ now. The idea is growing on me
-
Primarchs maybe but actually fluff wise (historical) the fighting skill of 1st company veterans vrs company comanders and chaptor masters isn't really as big as it might appear.
Chaptor masters ect tend to be better leaders, tacticians and more politically suave than straight up better fighters.
Also to some extent their improved skill is showen in the increase in the number of attacks they have.
Once you can kill someone with a single blow the increase in skill is doing it faster with less effort usually not actually being straight up better, hence why higher levels of fighting arts tend to use multiple opponents to train rather than more skilled opponents, they also tend to become very thin on the ground.
Ice_can wrote: This is 8th edition having 2 versions of the same weapon with different points and stats isn't going to happen outside of relics.
Unless you're AM, which then makes you eligible for all kinds of special treatments like budget plasmas and meltas.
Well originally scions only payed the BS4+ prices. But plasma scions weren't broken honest
Before the BS+3 plasma pt increase, 1-for-1 officer to command squad and rule of three hot-fix, they were broken as you can possibly get. You could literally run 18 MT CMS with 4 plasmagun, deepstirke into double tap range and it could easily take out 1500 pt's worth of stuff in 1 turn, with no chance of retaliation. The ONLY way was to box yourself in with enough screens so that the scions couldn't get into <12" range, which frankly at the time, was a feat only AM was capable of doing without paying 400~500 pts of TAX aka cannon fodder troops with no defensive OR offensive capabilities.
This was 144 overcharged plasmashots with reroll 1's for most.
Sorry if it wasn't clear but scions paying BS4+ prices being fire was pure sarcasm. How even GW couldn't see that was broken before they shipped the codex I don't know.
I think terminators are generally decent - they picked up a second wound, got double shots (typically), and can assault after deep striking, which is now risk free, all for about the same price. That's a hell of an improvement in my book.
If there's one thing I think that needs fixing on terminators, it's the invlun save. It's largely useless, as few things that you shoot at terminators will cause their 2+ armor save to be worse than a 5++. I mean, anti-personnel AP4 weapons are rare, so the only time the base terminator invlun is helpful is when people are shooting melta at them, which is infrequent.
I'd probably change the terminator invlun to negate an enemy's AP value, (Or add 1 to their save, whichever you like).
Cost reduction in necessary, 2+ armour are no efficient as they were in previous edition, maybe a -8 pts reduction would be appropriated.
Termies armour allows to ignore the -1 penalty to hit for fists and the like melee weapons
Storm bolter may have special issue ammunition
2 heavy weapons per 5 model
T armour allows to ignore the -1 to hit for move and shoot with heavy weapons.
I think this would fix terminators without breaking the lore.
Honestly,
3 + terminator squads would be better.
A point reduction on the base Terminator modell, if it stays around 6pts, if it get's buffed i'd say around 4pts.
A la Carte weaponry for all Terminators, not just CSM.
Heavy Weapon 1 in 3 and another 1 when the squad is 5 + in size.
For those who cry plasma spam, let me remind you:
A) they are combi weapons, therefore -1 applies on shooting.
B) A combiplasma is 15pts. even at a 6 pts reduced Terminator that would cost you per terminator 43 pts.
C) even with min 3 squads such a squad would clock in at 129 pts.
D) Rule of three is in 90% of the cases a thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kap'n Krump wrote: I think terminators are generally decent - they picked up a second wound, got double shots (typically), and can assault after deep striking, which is now risk free, all for about the same price. That's a hell of an improvement in my book.
If there's one thing I think that needs fixing on terminators, it's the invlun save. It's largely useless, as few things that you shoot at terminators will cause their 2+ armor save to be worse than a 5++. I mean, anti-personnel AP4 weapons are rare, so the only time the base terminator invlun is helpful is when people are shooting melta at them, which is infrequent.
I'd probably change the terminator invlun to negate an enemy's AP value, (Or add 1 to their save, whichever you like).
That is all fine and Dandy, but plasma is everywhere. Overwatch is a thing. Melee stats are Shiet on Terminators.
There are more units that can do the same thing as Terminators far cheaper and better.
The second wound matters not because all weaponry fired at them does either d3 or flat 2 damage, therfore insta removing a modell that costs nearly a base squad.
They are easily bubblewrapped, to the point where you can basically ignore them after you tied them down in squad in melee.
Movement of 5.
Terminators come in boxes of 5 I can't see GW not following it's rule of 1 box equals minimum unit size.
I don't see GW allowing alacart weapons given they are two seperate squad entries and boxes
I don't think 2 HW at 5 man is likely but no objection. Though I could see it being 1 terminator (not sargent) may replace his storm bolter with either a heavy flamour or assualt cannon. Addition Another terminator may be equipped with a cyclone missile launcher. As you can buil all of those options from the basic terminator kit.
I wasn't suggesting that they are I'm more warning that people may start breaking out that comparison.
Also you only get the -1 if you fire botg if your only shooting the plasma no -1.
Ice_can wrote: Terminators come in boxes of 5 I can't see GW not following it's rule of 1 box equals minimum unit size.
I don't see GW allowing alacart weapons given they are two seperate squad entries and boxes
I don't think 2 HW at 5 man is likely but no objection. Though I could see it being 1 terminator (not sargent) may replace his storm bolter with either a heavy flamour or assualt cannon. Addition Another terminator may be equipped with a cyclone missile launcher. As you can buil all of those options from the basic terminator kit.
I wasn't suggesting that they are I'm more warning that people may start breaking out that comparison.
Also you only get the -1 if you fire botg if your only shooting the plasma no -1.
Honestly their new one box one min squad policy is actually still not upheld.Khonre berzerkers come still in bigger squads. GSC come with a hwt and 10 dudes, etc.
Also this leads to stuff like the massively overpriced, moneywise, nurgle Terminators.
Indeed the -1 only applies when you use both, but frankly why wouldn't you use both on a unit that allready suffers ROF deficites like no other?
Terminators come in boxes of 5 I can't see GW not following it's rule of 1 box equals minimum unit size.
Ok, and? I have these models at my house. What does GW not making rules have to do with me playing this game?
Read the whole thread and its clear enough.
People are saying GW should make the minimum unit size smaller.
GW made minimum unit size equal one box of mini's or half a box of mini's for basic troops.
Why would they not right the rules around how they sell their miniatures as the point is to sell mini's and rules to make money.
Random squad size that doesn't match the mini's they sell isn't likely.
What elbows said. What about allowing them to reroll their saves. Helps against low AP massed fire and they keep the invulnerable save. Hell, re roll that too.
Andykp wrote: What elbows said. What about allowing them to reroll their saves. Helps against low AP massed fire and they keep the invulnerable save. Hell, re roll that too.
Heavy Weapon 1 in 3 and another 1 when the squad is 5 + in size.
Though I could see it being 1 terminator (not sargent) may replace his storm bolter with either a heavy flamour or assualt cannon. Addition Another terminator may be equipped with a cyclone missile launcher.
I think mixed heavies is most fluffy, and it’s good because of the modern box. In the real world a fire team could have a machine gun, a grenade launcher, a marksman, and a TOW, but it wouldn’t usually have 2x machine gun. For me it really breaks the fourth wall of the game to always have 2x assault cannons, or whatever, because that’s the most gaming efficient thing to do.
Mixed heavy weapons do have to be cheap since you won’t use them optimally.
A la Carte weaponry for all Terminators, not just CSM.
One consideration is that especially for Ultramarines and their friends it’s pretty clear these squad members are supposed to ha e regimented military functions, like the basic four storm bolters are supposed to give cover to the squad’s main weapon that does the real killing, they have to be kind of ordinary and just have lots of snap-fire suitable ammo.
So for when a la carte is available I want to make sure 3x - 4x storm bolters with 1-2 heavies are still good. That’s why I’d like them to situationally get -1 ap against less elite enemies.
I think that the power fist, which is mandotory for many terminators, may be one of the main problems when it comes to costing terminators.
In 7th, two terminators were (almost) guaranteed to kill any vehicle that was not a land raider.
In 8th, they have 11 attacks hitting on 4+, wounding most vehicles on 3+ some tanks on 4+ and leaving them with a 6+ armor save or 5+ invulnerable save. That's about 2 wounds for 4 dmg average.
Heavy infantry might be different, but not that much.
Nah I don’t want any more special rules on the basic tactical squad, to say nothing of the marines with even more rules. I want anyone with two attacks to get -1 ap against anyone with one attack, and anyone with three attacks to get -1 always against anyone with one or two attacks, etcetera.
That way it’s not a special rule, it’s just a rule in the game that everyone knows is always in effect.
Trollbert wrote: I think that the power fist, which is mandotory for many terminators, may be one of the main problems when it comes to costing terminators.
In 7th, two terminators were (almost) guaranteed to kill any vehicle that was not a land raider.
In 8th, they have 11 attacks hitting on 4+, wounding most vehicles on 3+ some tanks on 4+ and leaving them with a 6+ armor save or 5+ invulnerable save. That's about 2 wounds for 4 dmg average.
Heavy infantry might be different, but not that much.
Yeah we can drop the -1 to hit for PFs. At this point if you have four power fists in a marine list they’re probably all in a TDA squad, so there’s no point in having a special exception to the exception. Power weapons can get buffed to compensate, they need it when you’ve got 1 attack or even 2 attack models keeping their chainswords instead of upgrading.
pelicaniforce wrote: Nah I don’t want any more special rules on the basic tactical squad, to say nothing of the marines with even more rules. I want anyone with two attacks to get -1 ap against anyone with one attack, and anyone with three attacks to get -1 always against anyone with one or two attacks, etcetera.
That way it’s not a special rule, it’s just a rule in the game that everyone knows is always in effect.
Trollbert wrote: I think that the power fist, which is mandotory for many terminators, may be one of the main problems when it comes to costing terminators.
In 7th, two terminators were (almost) guaranteed to kill any vehicle that was not a land raider.
In 8th, they have 11 attacks hitting on 4+, wounding most vehicles on 3+ some tanks on 4+ and leaving them with a 6+ armor save or 5+ invulnerable save. That's about 2 wounds for 4 dmg average.
Heavy infantry might be different, but not that much.
Yeah we can drop the -1 to hit for PFs. At this point if you have four power fists in a marine list they’re probably all in a TDA squad, so there’s no point in having a special exception to the exception. Power weapons can get buffed to compensate, they need it when you’ve got 1 attack or even 2 attack models keeping their chainswords instead of upgrading.
I don't think dropping the -1 to hit is enough. If you successfully charge from 9" (27% before rerolls) and get your ~200 points terminator squad into melee with a 150 point Leman Russ, you absolutely want it to be dead. That would mean the average damage per attack of the power fist has to be tripled. If we considered shooting, because melters are gak, it should at least be increased by a factor of ~2.5.
It’s definitely not enough and I think dropping -1 is barely a start. I just try not to not be exhaustive.
I think +1 attack for terminators and normal marines goes almost the whole rest of the way especially combined with the -1 shooting ap for having more attacks that’s up there. Hitting on 3s that’s fairly astoundingly better, although it’s changing the damage by 183%, not the 300% you asked for. I hope your change powerfists to 1+d3 damage, that gets you to 250% damage.
There’s no reason to fix terminators vs vehicles all the way perfectly, because most of the problem comes from the vehicle damage system and the idea of d3 damage in the first place.
pelicaniforce wrote: Nah I don’t want any more special rules on the basic tactical squad, to say nothing of the marines with even more rules. I want anyone with two attacks to get -1 ap against anyone with one attack, and anyone with three attacks to get -1 always against anyone with one or two attacks, etcetera.
That way it’s not a special rule, it’s just a rule in the game that everyone knows is always in effect.
Trollbert wrote: I think that the power fist, which is mandotory for many terminators, may be one of the main problems when it comes to costing terminators.
In 7th, two terminators were (almost) guaranteed to kill any vehicle that was not a land raider.
In 8th, they have 11 attacks hitting on 4+, wounding most vehicles on 3+ some tanks on 4+ and leaving them with a 6+ armor save or 5+ invulnerable save. That's about 2 wounds for 4 dmg average.
Heavy infantry might be different, but not that much.
Yeah we can drop the -1 to hit for PFs. At this point if you have four power fists in a marine list they’re probably all in a TDA squad, so there’s no point in having a special exception to the exception. Power weapons can get buffed to compensate, they need it when you’ve got 1 attack or even 2 attack models keeping their chainswords instead of upgrading.
This has been covered so many times but if you change PF Catachan with PF, Admech with PF all get buffed and aggressors already considered a good unit get buffed removing another of the distinctions between agressors and terminators. Make vets WS2+ BS2+ and its a simple one stop shop buff for terminators both loyalist and Chaos and even grey knights, though they probably need more work like most of GK codex.
pelicaniforce wrote: Nah I don’t want any more special rules on the basic tactical squad, to say nothing of the marines with even more rules. I want anyone with two attacks to get -1 ap against anyone with one attack, and anyone with three attacks to get -1 always against anyone with one or two attacks, etcetera.
That way it’s not a special rule, it’s just a rule in the game that everyone knows is always in effect.
Trollbert wrote: I think that the power fist, which is mandotory for many terminators, may be one of the main problems when it comes to costing terminators.
In 7th, two terminators were (almost) guaranteed to kill any vehicle that was not a land raider.
In 8th, they have 11 attacks hitting on 4+, wounding most vehicles on 3+ some tanks on 4+ and leaving them with a 6+ armor save or 5+ invulnerable save. That's about 2 wounds for 4 dmg average.
Heavy infantry might be different, but not that much.
Yeah we can drop the -1 to hit for PFs. At this point if you have four power fists in a marine list they’re probably all in a TDA squad, so there’s no point in having a special exception to the exception. Power weapons can get buffed to compensate, they need it when you’ve got 1 attack or even 2 attack models keeping their chainswords instead of upgrading.
This has been covered so many times but if you change PF Catachan with PF, Admech with PF all get buffed and aggressors already considered a good unit get buffed removing another of the distinctions between agressors and terminators. Make vets WS2+ BS2+ and its a simple one stop shop buff for terminators both loyalist and Chaos and even grey knights, though they probably need more work like most of GK codex.
And don't forget this helps Blightlords, Shrouds, and Scarab Occults too without being terribly over the top.
This has been covered so many times but if you change PF Catachan with PF, Admech with PF all get buffed
Are those units going to start facing down and killing terminators? are they going to replace terminators in the meta as high strength infantry melee units? Is that what you're saying? because if they were, then that might matter, but they're not, so it really doesn't matter. Terminators account for way more than half of the pfs that see the table, with -1ws or with no -1, and they don't need two special rules that cancel each other out, leaving the only use of one of those rules to Catachan IG officers, who fight with pfs in about one round of close combat per 40k player per year.
and aggressors already considered a good unit get buffed removing another of the distinctions between agressors and terminators.
aggressors are not a primary close combat unit now and they aren't one if they hit on 3+ either. The difference between the two units is that terminators are elite troops for special missions, and aggressors are support troopers who aren't any different in status than their other primaris colleagues. Terminators do not distinguish themselves from aggressors based on having a better set of powerfist attachments.
WS2+ BS2+
We also know that terminators and veterans do not have ws2+, and we know it from more than one perspective. One, we know that marines select recruits and veterans for determination, reliability, and heroism, which you can call grit, not for natural talent. Two, we know that there are marine units that are chosen for having really high ws or bs, and they are not line terminator or veteran units.
All marines recruit fro grit, not weapon skill. The Ultramarines are a regimented system, so they recruit people who can thrive and be creative within a regimented barracks system for five to fourteen year-olds. Space Wolves recruit young warriors who are mortally wounded from charging superior enemies, because they want marines who are ambitious. Blood Angels recruit people who can drag themselves across a radiation scorched desert to compete in a tournament and then see it through.
These things also apply to the first company. They have +1 a and +1 Ld, They select for grit and heroism. We can definitely assume that in a whole chapter, there are really good marksmen, there's a marksman's honor award, and really good melee fighters. These would make really good snipers in the companies or maybe even company champions, which we even have had rules for since at latest fifth edition, when he had ws5.
The first company has a specific mission profile, which isn't snipers or duelist champions, and it's not simply a special place for putting the best marines. Normally, a marine mission assumes you can use at least a demi-company, five squads of ten who can support each other. However, there are missions where circumstances mean you can only fit, say, five largeish marines in a space, or for some reason five squads wouldn't be able to effectively support each other. So you need a set of units that have enough resilience and reliability and heroism that five TDA marines or ten veterans will be enough to get it done. That means +1 A and +1 Ld, and since high BS and high grit aren't connected in a 1:1 ratio, the proportion of high BS marines might even be lower in the first company than in the rest of the chapter.
Then yes, there are high skilled units out there, so you can't compare directly to captains and lieutenants. The codex chapters and ultramarines have honor guard, the blood angels have sanguinary guard, the companies have company champions, and in the HH every legion has at least one special ws2+/bs2+ unit like the Justaerin. Those are your duelists, those are your ws2+ units, those are units that can beat up standard terminators, because standard terminators are required to have exceptional experience and wiles and ingenuity and resilience and lots of thing but skill is kind of less of a priority for those specific elite units called standard terminators, as opposed to elite praetorian guards or whatever who do indeed get ws2+.
And that's why terminators need a3, basic marines need a2, and the whole game needs a rule that you get -1 ap for shooting enemies who have fewer attacks than you, because increasing bs by +1 does not adequately power up any unit over hordes or other weaker units.
And don't forget this helps Blightlords, Shrouds, and Scarab Occults too without being terribly over the top.
See, 40k already has numerous elite terminators who should have better ws than basic terminators, as well as guilliman's ws/bs 2+ veteran formation from seventh edition, and the various ws2+ paladins in the grey knights. What's more, it's not even as powerful as getting -1 ap, you kill more marines with 4+ ap -1 than you do with 3+ ap-.
You definitely kill more of everything with ws3+ and three attacks than you do with ws3+ and two attacks.
What's more, when it comes to house rules it helps to give all the players something new to use, and something that doesn't require them to account for tweaks to one unit they might not even use themselves.
And don't forget this helps Blightlords, Shrouds, and Scarab Occults too without being terribly over the top.
See, 40k already has numerous elite terminators who should have better ws than basic terminators, as well as guilliman's ws/bs 2+ veteran formation from seventh edition, and the various ws2+ paladins in the grey knights. What's more, it's not even as powerful as getting -1 ap, you kill more marines with 4+ ap -1 than you do with 3+ ap-.
You definitely kill more of everything with ws3+ and three attacks than you do with ws3+ and two attacks.
What's more, when it comes to house rules it helps to give all the players something new to use, and something that doesn't require them to account for tweaks to one unit they might not even use themselves.
Three attacks and the S5 and all that is scaling badly though is more my point. Until we go on a D8/D10 system, one of the best ways we can really show that only the most skilled get the Terminator suits and that they're slightly more advanced than their other 1st Company counterparts (along with the high tech systems in those suits) is logically WS/BS2+.
Strapping on a Terminator suit shouldn't just grant an extra attack, after all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also currently Paladins don't have the WS2+. Only their Sergeant does, which is silly. They also already have 3 attacks, and with your proposal would have 4. That's bad scaling.
veterans and terminators, as well as Paladins and other elite+ honor guard get three attacks. Basic marines get two attacks. Every army gets ap-1 when they have more attack’s than their opponents. Elite+ units can have better skills
Terminators aren’t more skilled, there are a bunch of reasons why. You can talk about it but rn veterans have more attacks/experience/wiles, and they’re not much more skilled.
I didn’t say anything about TDA giving attacks or paladins getting +1, that’s not a problem.
ie power armor ignores the first point of AP Terminator armor ignores the first two points of AP
Something.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But really power fists suck these days. I miss when terminators used to be able to rip a tank apart in one turn of hand to hand. It was amazing. How the mighty have fallen
Ultimately, the problem with Terminators is that they are not worth 192 points.
You're not going to see 2+ WS/BS Terminators, because 2+'s are reserved for heroes (and that army of heroes know as the Adeptus Custodes).
You're not going to see a special bonus to their resilience because that will step on the rules for other especially resilient units (like Thousand Sons with their All is Dust Rule).
So the real question to ask is how many points are they actually worth? Certainly 192 (nearly the cost of 15 bare bone Tactical Marines or 10 Bolt Rifle Intercessors) is wrong. What should it really be? That's how you make them worthwile.
Terminators are a squad of heroes. And should be 2+/2+ A space marine with decades of combat experience at a minimum should easily have a superior skill level than a standard marine. Not to mention they have superior equipment
warpedpig wrote: Terminators are a squad of heroes. And should be 2+/2+ A space marine with decades of combat experience at a minimum should easily have a superior skill level than a standard marine. Not to mention they have superior equipment
Marines all have decades of combat experience - they are not scouts for a short period. However not saying that Veterans shouldn't get it - most "veteran" units get a similar bonus.
Terminator armour is all about durability hence the 2+/5++ save.
In the transition from 7th to 8th, the cost of a Terminator didn't change significantly.
IMOGW failed to realize that the reduction of melee attacks for most units paired with the change of vehicles using Toughness, Wounds and Saves instead of Armor and Hull Points made Terminators overcosted.
Another thing that I think makes the point cost too high is the invulnerable save. When AP was all or nothing, the invulnerable save was valuable against plasma and lascannons, but in 8th many armies don't have weapons with AP -4 and most of the weapons that have are antitank, so those will probably shoot at tanks first.
This means you rarely profit from the invulnerable save even though you pay some points for it.
warpedpig wrote: Terminators are a squad of heroes. And should be 2+/2+ A space marine with decades of combat experience at a minimum should easily have a superior skill level than a standard marine. Not to mention they have superior equipment
Marines all have decades of combat experience - they are not scouts for a short period. However not saying that Veterans shouldn't get it - most "veteran" units get a similar bonus.
Terminator armour is all about durability hence the 2+/5++ save.
You have a point about Scouts, which is why people were annoyed with the iteration two editions ago giving them giving them WS3 and BS3 (so basically fighting and well as Guard Infantry).
The suits have durability, but the suits are mostly used for the shock strike and reserved only for the best of the best (with honors). WS/BS2+ isn't a lot to ask for and then we can see what other fixes each individual squad needs after that. We need to see what works with the best versions of Terminators right now, which is why other blanket fixes have been pretty silly.
- Minimum unit size 3
- Grant 1+ rerollable armor (still fails on a 1)
- Grant +1 wound
- Any model can replace Storm Bolter with a Special or Heavy weapon.
warpedpig wrote: Terminators are a squad of heroes. And should be 2+/2+ A space marine with decades of combat experience at a minimum should easily have a superior skill level than a standard marine. Not to mention they have superior equipment
Terminators are not heroes. They are Veterans, one and all. That's why they have +1 Attack and +1 Leadership over normal marines. The exact same stats as all the other veteran units, which is also the same stats as unit Sergeants, who are also "veterans" assigned to lead less experienced marines.
Add to that that there are numerous Space Marine characters who are not 2+/2+ and it seems a bit unreasonable to think this is the right solution to Terminator's lack of effectiveness.
IMHO, the best solutions are proper point values along with a speciality Stratagem to allow you to get a nice "shock and awe" action on them at some point in the game.
And that’s not just veteran space marines, it’s veteran dark eldar, the trueborn and blood brides, it’s veteran Sisters, the celestians, it’s veteran tau, the shas’ui who command fire warrior squads are the same rank as basic crisis pilots and they don’t get skill bonuses they get +1 a and +1 Ld. Imperial guard sergeants also have +1 Ld and A, and the guard veteran squad, unlike every other veteran squad already named, are not a specially recruited unit they are remnants of destroyed platoons andncinoanies, or at least they explicitly were that when they first got their +1 bs with no +1 A.
warpedpig wrote: Terminators are a squad of heroes. And should be 2+/2+ A space marine with decades of combat experience at a minimum should easily have a superior skill level than a standard marine. Not to mention they have superior equipment
Terminators are not heroes. They are Veterans, one and all. That's why they have +1 Attack and +1 Leadership over normal marines. The exact same stats as all the other veteran units, which is also the same stats as unit Sergeants, who are also "veterans" assigned to lead less experienced marines.
Add to that that there are numerous Space Marine characters who are not 2+/2+ and it seems a bit unreasonable to think this is the right solution to Terminator's lack of effectiveness.
IMHO, the best solutions are proper point values along with a speciality Stratagem to allow you to get a nice "shock and awe" action on them at some point in the game.
I'd argue that Librarians and Chaplains in Terminator being granted the WS/BS2+ as well if my fix is agreed on (it doesn't give a lot of incentive to run Terminator HQ, but it is a bonus), but neither of those guys are actually Veterans in the same sense, as they clearly branched off in a different path. Librarians especially so.
They die a little too easily to specialized weapons.
Improving their save to +1 would help them slightly against all weapons.
Alternately, giving them a special rule that means they take only half damage (rounded down to a minimum of 1) would make them a little bit tougher against specialized weapons.
Tylendal wrote: They die a little too easily to specialized weapons.
Improving their save to +1 would help them slightly against all weapons.
Alternately, giving them a special rule that means they take only half damage (rounded down to a minimum of 1) would make them a little bit tougher against specialized weapons.
Why would you make them more durable to weapons that were designed to kill them? That makes no sense.
Tylendal wrote: They die a little too easily to specialized weapons.
Improving their save to +1 would help them slightly against all weapons.
Alternately, giving them a special rule that means they take only half damage (rounded down to a minimum of 1) would make them a little bit tougher against specialized weapons.
Why would you make them more durable to weapons that were designed to kill them? That makes no sense.
Because as it is right now, weapons designed to kill Terminators are too good at their job. Anti-terminator weapons should be fairly effective against terminators, yeah, but right now, they basically just evaporate them.
Tylendal wrote: They die a little too easily to specialized weapons.
Improving their save to +1 would help them slightly against all weapons.
Alternately, giving them a special rule that means they take only half damage (rounded down to a minimum of 1) would make them a little bit tougher against specialized weapons.
Why would you make them more durable to weapons that were designed to kill them? That makes no sense.
Because as it is right now, weapons designed to kill Terminators are too good at their job. Anti-terminator weapons should be fairly effective against terminators, yeah, but right now, they basically just evaporate them.
Agreed plasma guns kill termies with just one shot, with only a 5+ save protecting them. If terminators had 3W they would become 100% more resistant to plasma while becoming only 50% more resistant to small arms fire as a consequence. Giving them an additional +1A would also go a long way towards upping their damage output too. That way you don't have to reduce their points. The only other way to balance terminators is reduce their points cost, and I personally would like to see marines get BETTER as opposed to CHEAPER.
Marines are supposed to be the most "elite" army, behind custodes and GK.
A few simple ideas based on what others have said too
- Increase BS/WS to 2+. These are supposed to be veterans so why not the skillset to match.
- Decrease base points cost from 26 to 22 or maybe 20. Deathwing knights are currently 50 points! They need to be 35-40 at least.
- Special rule where they ignore AP-1 attacks.
- +1 Wound.
- More weapon options. Deathwatch Terminators are currently the most versatile as 3 can have heavy weapons in squads of 3 as well as all of them having power swords instead of fists.
+1 A
Remove 5++ and give them a 4+ roll on any damage received to reduce damage by 1 (minimum 1)
This way you make them much scarier in the fight, and make them a bit less reliably taken down by D2 and Dd3 weapons. Still properly countered by D3+ and multiple high rend single damage shots.
+1 A
Remove 5++ and give them a 4+ roll on any damage received to reduce damage by 1 (minimum 1)
This way you make them much scarier in the fight, and make them a bit less reliably taken down by D2 and Dd3 weapons. Still properly countered by D3+ and multiple high rend single damage shots.
First off: Movement of 5--> slow---> not good for melee. +1 attack is not good enough ergo
Secondly: That would make Terminators even worse. If anything give them a 4+ invuln save and call it a day, which is a really bad solution imo.
Thirdly: Meleethreat that allready get's shot out of town and still can't manage to get enough melee attacks for their points is no meleethreat.
Martel732 wrote: Gotta go horde-like to be any good in 8th. Elites are dead.
I see no reason why elite armies couldn't work if pointed appropriately. They would still need chaff screens like every army does, but you can still have a space marine army with cheaper chaff units... like say 9 point scouts with 1W?
Martel732 wrote: Gotta go horde-like to be any good in 8th. Elites are dead.
I see no reason why elite armies couldn't work if pointed appropriately. They would still need chaff screens like every army does, but you can still have a space marine army with cheaper chaff units... like say 9 point scouts with 1W?
Also there are Eldar and Dark Eldar, which do well enough now, don't they?
Martel732 wrote: Gotta go horde-like to be any good in 8th. Elites are dead.
I see no reason why elite armies couldn't work if pointed appropriately. They would still need chaff screens like every army does, but you can still have a space marine army with cheaper chaff units... like say 9 point scouts with 1W?
Also there are Eldar and Dark Eldar, which do well enough now, don't they?
Tylendal wrote: They die a little too easily to specialized weapons.
Improving their save to +1 would help them slightly against all weapons.
Alternately, giving them a special rule that means they take only half damage (rounded down to a minimum of 1) would make them a little bit tougher against specialized weapons.
Why would you make them more durable to weapons that were designed to kill them? That makes no sense.
Terminators should be resilient to everything. They pay enough points to need to reduce all incoming damage significantly.
Mr Morden wrote: So armour 1+ Terminators - would that make enough difference?
At their current price point? That would basically give them 4+ saves against plasma in the open. Seems pretty reasonable. After that - Probably give them +1 attack base and give them a rule like (Always hits on 3's).
Also - QOL fixes like 2/5 assault for heavy weapons. Sargent ability to take storm sheild. That kind of stuff.
My only issue with 1+ armour is that it really makes their Invul save situational. I like it, but it creates another problem.
I do like the "always hits on 3+" for WS and BS. I like that better than WS/BS2+. Along with an extra melee attack. ---------------
This is what I am currently thinking:
All Terminator equivalents get +1 wound (really all Marine equivalents too) as this will reflect their resilience to small arms fire, as well as balancing for Plasma. Also give them a minimum of 3 melee attacks, Sgts get 4. Receive a rule like "Stable platform: units with this rule always hit on 3+ regardless of modifiers" Give Leader equivalents like Sergeants WS/BS2+
Finally, I would make the minimum unit size 3, but you wouldn't get access to the special weapon unless you take 5, but you can take 2 per 5. So you can take 3, but you'll want 5 in most cases to get 2 Reaper launchers, or Typhoon Missile Launchers or Assault cannons, etc. Chaos Termies might still do only 3 as they can take all Combi-weapons.
The main thing is that by giving them a rule to "always hit on 3+" you give them back a "niche" that few other units can do. Especially in the meta of -1 to hit army traits
I oppose the ignore -1ap or +1sv suggestions since it makes terminators too durable against moderate counters like heavy bolter, reaper ac, invalidates Necron infantry point value etc. A 3+ against 10 to 15pt low quantity weapons, or 2+ in cover is plenty good.
I do think the invuln save can be traded for a more relevant option like reducing dmg by 1. This option would hurt autocannons and overcharged plas but the overcharge would still have benefits. The next question is would custodes get it by association? Do they need it? Death guard?
Fixing power fists and plasma balance would also benefit them.
Always Hits On 3's doesn't make any of the regular Power Weapons perform better nor does it help non-Scarab Occult and Deathwatch Terminators with being armed with just a Storm Bolter. You guys can't ignore every Terminator besides the Storm Bolter/Power Fist variant. There. Are. Others.
Tylendal wrote: They die a little too easily to specialized weapons.
Improving their save to +1 would help them slightly against all weapons.
Alternately, giving them a special rule that means they take only half damage (rounded down to a minimum of 1) would make them a little bit tougher against specialized weapons.
Why would you make them more durable to weapons that were designed to kill them? That makes no sense.
Terminators should be resilient to everything. They pay enough points to need to reduce all incoming damage significantly.
You're trying to make them, point for point, more resilient than several vehicles. Just...no.
Shas'O'Ceris wrote: I do think the invuln save can be traded for a more relevant option like reducing dmg by 1. This option would hurt autocannons and overcharged plas but the overcharge would still have benefits. The next question is would custodes get it by association? Do they need it? Death guard?
Actually this isn't bad at all. I still like +1 wound for its simplicity, but trading the Invul for a rule that outright lowers Damage by 1 (to min 1) not only has precedence from other units, but it really sticks it to Plasma, which is a major reason Termies suck right now.
So what do you all think of this for Termies, with no other changes at all (aside from +1 attack, which will help with standard melee weapons): Trade 5+ Invul for this rule: "Models with this rule reduce Damage by 1 to a minimum of 1" And this rule: "Units with this rule always hit on 3+ regardless of modifiers in the Shooting and Fight phases. Note that this does not include Overwatch"
Those 2 changes alone will make Termies far more durable and gives them a purpose in the meta. And there actually IS a fluff reason to give them "Always hits on 3+". It's the same reason in prior editions that they could shoot Heavy weapons while moving: they are a stable platform.
Tylendal wrote: They die a little too easily to specialized weapons.
Improving their save to +1 would help them slightly against all weapons.
Alternately, giving them a special rule that means they take only half damage (rounded down to a minimum of 1) would make them a little bit tougher against specialized weapons.
Why would you make them more durable to weapons that were designed to kill them? That makes no sense.
Because as it is right now, weapons designed to kill Terminators are too good at their job. Anti-terminator weapons should be fairly effective against terminators, yeah, but right now, they basically just evaporate them.
Terminators have become more durable to several weapons rather than becoming weaker. Feel free to create a list. I will if you won't.
What you're experiencing is that suddenly you have weapons that aren't complete junk at hitting 2+ armor, OR even 3+ armor because of the old silly "all or nothing" AP system last time around. Yeah they're weaker to Battle Cannons, but they're also stronger against Shuriken Catapults and such.
Galef wrote: My only issue with 1+ armour is that it really makes their Invul save situational. I like it, but it creates another problem.
I do like the "always hits on 3+" for WS and BS. I like that better than WS/BS2+. Along with an extra melee attack.
---------------
This is what I am currently thinking:
All Terminator equivalents get +1 wound (really all Marine equivalents too) as this will reflect their resilience to small arms fire, as well as balancing for Plasma. Also give them a minimum of 3 melee attacks, Sgts get 4.
Receive a rule like "Stable platform: units with this rule always hit on 3+ regardless of modifiers"
Give Leader equivalents like Sergeants WS/BS2+
Finally, I would make the minimum unit size 3, but you wouldn't get access to the special weapon unless you take 5, but you can take 2 per 5.
So you can take 3, but you'll want 5 in most cases to get 2 Reaper launchers, or Typhoon Missile Launchers or Assault cannons, etc.
Chaos Termies might still do only 3 as they can take all Combi-weapons.
The main thing is that by giving them a rule to "always hit on 3+" you give them back a "niche" that few other units can do. Especially in the meta of -1 to hit army traits
-
Yeah +1 wound works too. It would help make them just about as durable as a +1 save to. This is enough to solve their durability problem.
The main thing is people need to understand their problem is two fold. They aren't durable enough - and their close combat ability pathetic for their cost.
All I'm saying is that +1 wound and +1 attack solves their durability (i.e. not being 1 shotted by Plasma) and melee effectiveness problems in the simplest manner possible.
Adding to this an "Always hits on 3+" rule can solve SEVERAL problems as well: 1) They are stable platforms that didn't suffer negatives for Heavy weapons in prior editions. 2) They are "Veterans" and should have some level of skill above other Marines. 3) They need something that makes them stand out in 8E.
All 3 problems can be addressed with this 2 simple rule. You don't need to bump their WS/BS to 2+. It can help with 1 & 2, but doesn't do much for 3.
Please note that I am not intending to apply the +1 wound to Characters, as they already have plenty of wounds
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Always Hits On 3's doesn't make any of the regular Power Weapons perform better nor does it help non-Scarab Occult and Deathwatch Terminators with being armed with just a Storm Bolter. You guys can't ignore every Terminator besides the Storm Bolter/Power Fist variant. There. Are. Others.
Tylendal wrote: They die a little too easily to specialized weapons.
Improving their save to +1 would help them slightly against all weapons.
Alternately, giving them a special rule that means they take only half damage (rounded down to a minimum of 1) would make them a little bit tougher against specialized weapons.
Why would you make them more durable to weapons that were designed to kill them? That makes no sense.
Terminators should be resilient to everything. They pay enough points to need to reduce all incoming damage significantly.
You're trying to make them, point for point, more resilient than several vehicles. Just...no.
First of all - they are vehicles. They are tactical dreadnoughts. Plus - if the suggested changes still keep them well below the durability of a custode.
Would they be more durable per point than grots? NOPE.
What vehicles are you talking about anyways?
Martel732 wrote: Gotta go horde-like to be any good in 8th. Elites are dead.
I see no reason why elite armies couldn't work if pointed appropriately. They would still need chaff screens like every army does, but you can still have a space marine army with cheaper chaff units... like say 9 point scouts with 1W?
Because they will always suffer disproportionately from any amount of AP. And 2 damage weapons if you go the "tack on a wound" route. You need 3 wounds minimum to be "elite" in 8th.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Hey guys, repeat after me:
They're. More. Durable. Against. More. Weapons. Than. Being. Weaker. To. More. Weapons.
Give them another wound, and suddenly Occult and Blightlords are silly durable. Paladins are then point for point more durable than Custodes.
I'd give Custodes 5 wounds, since grotesques have 4. And then go from there. The entire design space needs to be expanded a bit, I think.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Hey guys, repeat after me:
They're. More. Durable. Against. More. Weapons. Than. Being. Weaker. To. More. Weapons.
Give them another wound, and suddenly Occult and Blightlords are silly durable. Paladins are then point for point more durable than Custodes.
We get it - their durability was a joke and they got slightly better vs light firepower and less durable vs lots of weapons too. AP3 weapons now rek them in droves when they used to laugh them off. What you are left with is a trash unit.
What is wrong with a paladin being more durable than a custode? Custode terminators are T5 with 4 wounds anyways...so they aren't more durable.
Galef wrote: All I'm saying is that +1 wound and +1 attack solves their durability (i.e. not being 1 shotted by Plasma) and melee effectiveness problems in the simplest manner possible.
Adding to this an "Always hits on 3+" rule can solve SEVERAL problems as well:
1) They are stable platforms that didn't suffer negatives for Heavy weapons in prior editions.
2) They are "Veterans" and should have some level of skill above other Marines.
3) They need something that makes them stand out in 8E.
All 3 problems can be addressed with this 2 simple rule. You don't need to bump their WS/BS to 2+. It can help with 1 & 2, but doesn't do much for 3.
Please note that I am not intending to apply the +1 wound to Characters, as they already have plenty of wounds
-
Anyone saying their issues is that they were one-shot by Plasma is flatly lying. There were two issues with Terminators since forever:
1. They don't do jack offensively. We ALL agree on this, but we all have different manners of trying to handle it.
2. They died easily to small arms for the cost as well with the AP2 weapons being prolific.
The latter problem was fixed via that second wound a bunch of you wanted in previous editions, and now they are more durable to most weapons (Bolters, Grav Guns, Scatterlasers, Shuriken Catapults, Lascannons), have the same durability because of the AP system (Gauss Flayers, Heavy Bolters, Gatling Cannon) or did end up having worse durability (Gauss weapons outside the Flayer, Autocannon, Battlecannon). That's just people not understanding how much better the AP system is with being mods instead though.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Always Hits On 3's doesn't make any of the regular Power Weapons perform better nor does it help non-Scarab Occult and Deathwatch Terminators with being armed with just a Storm Bolter. You guys can't ignore every Terminator besides the Storm Bolter/Power Fist variant. There. Are. Others.
Tylendal wrote: They die a little too easily to specialized weapons.
Improving their save to +1 would help them slightly against all weapons.
Alternately, giving them a special rule that means they take only half damage (rounded down to a minimum of 1) would make them a little bit tougher against specialized weapons.
Why would you make them more durable to weapons that were designed to kill them? That makes no sense.
Terminators should be resilient to everything. They pay enough points to need to reduce all incoming damage significantly.
You're trying to make them, point for point, more resilient than several vehicles. Just...no.
First of all - they are vehicles. They are tactical dreadnoughts. Plus - if the suggested changes still keep them well below the durability of a custode.
Would they be more durable per point than grots? NOPE.
What vehicles are you talking about anyways?
Rhinos are the biggest offender here once you've tacked on as many defensive rules as you want.
Actually I rip up terminators with goddamn Stalkers. I only need to leak through a couple wounds to remove 80 pts. Terminators should NOT be weak to AA guns. Meanwhile, I have all the time in the world because terminators shoot so poorly.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Hey guys, repeat after me:
They're. More. Durable. Against. More. Weapons. Than. Being. Weaker. To. More. Weapons.
Give them another wound, and suddenly Occult and Blightlords are silly durable. Paladins are then point for point more durable than Custodes.
We get it - their durability was a joke and they got slightly better vs light firepower and less durable vs lots of weapons too. AP3 weapons now rek them in droves when they used to laugh them off. What you are left with is a trash unit.
What is wrong with a paladin being more durable than a custode? Custode terminators are T5 with 4 wounds anyways...so they aren't more durable.
They're twice as durable to the small arms that actually made them a joke, and the list of thing they became more durable against exceeds the list they became less durable against.
Also you do realize that regular Custodes are W3 and the Terminators W4. Basically your Custodes Terminator is paying like 20+ points for +1T and the 4++. You can't scale, time and time again.
Obviously, specific units would need specific alterations. For example, if regular GK Termies get 3 wounds, Paladins could stay at 3 wounds, but gain WS/BS2+. They already have access to 2 Heavy Weapons per 5 (compared to 1 per 5 for the GKTs). Paladins also have Apothecaries still, correct?
So Paladins wouldn need the +1 wound, but could still receive the +1 attack (as most Termies with this change), but would get WS/BS2+ to reflect their "Elite of the Elite" status.
That's just 1 example.
Occult and Death Guard Termies would be adjusted similarly.
But for "Standard" Termies, +1 wound and +1 attack would be enough. The "Always hit on 3+" rule is to add the cherry on top to give them a "niche"
Martel732 wrote: Actually I rip up terminators with goddamn Stalkers. I only need to leak through a couple wounds to remove 80 pts. Terminators should NOT be weak to AA guns. Meanwhile, I have all the time in the world because terminators shoot so poorly.
They shouldn't be weak to guns designed to destroy aircraft?
I get the impression that terminator armor is much thicker than aircraft armor. Also, the point yield per failed save is just too high. They're not just weak, it's catastrophic. On the right board, it's worse than plasma because of range.
For the current "elite" infantry to work, 2 damage weapons need to be rare and valuable. Instead, they're cheap and plentiful. That means that elites need more than 2 wounds. To me, this is not negotiable in the current game.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Hey guys, repeat after me:
They're. More. Durable. Against. More. Weapons. Than. Being. Weaker. To. More. Weapons.
Give them another wound, and suddenly Occult and Blightlords are silly durable. Paladins are then point for point more durable than Custodes.
We get it - their durability was a joke and they got slightly better vs light firepower and less durable vs lots of weapons too. AP3 weapons now rek them in droves when they used to laugh them off. What you are left with is a trash unit.
What is wrong with a paladin being more durable than a custode? Custode terminators are T5 with 4 wounds anyways...so they aren't more durable.
They're twice as durable to the small arms that actually made them a joke, and the list of thing they became more durable against exceeds the list they became less durable against.
Also you do realize that regular Custodes are W3 and the Terminators W4. Basically your Custodes Terminator is paying like 20+ points for +1T and the 4++. You can't scale, time and time again.
Yeah I realize it.
The custode terms are overcosted anyways. For like 5 more points they can be on a jetbike with twice the firepower t6 and double the movement. It's pretty obvious they are overcosted.
Lots of units need fixing. The thread is "how to make terms worthwhile" not how do we fix every unit in the game.
Fixing plasma, in other words fixing the over abundance of S8 AP-3 D2 shots, in the game and MOST things begin to balance out. Of course, the pricing on special weapons need to be revised overall as well.
The fact that a weapon that costs 13 pts has 37.04% chance to kill a 42 pt model @ >12" and 74.07% chance at @ <12" is a serious game breaker when it comes to list building.
2W's just don't cut it at any level in the game currently. Statistically two 1W model is more durable than a single 2W model.
It's a serious problem the designers just can't seem to grasp at the moment - perhaps they're waiting on larger overhaul to bring in these changes.
This leads back to exactly why SM players are so whiny about 8th ed - majority of other faction's "durable" unit are often T based or has 3W. This application of "make marines appear tougher by giving them 2W's instead of 1W, which in comparison to other units that fill similar role that only has 1W, are TWICE more durable" idea is seriously hurting marines and almost singularly marines alone.
Martel732 wrote: I get the impression that terminator armor is much thicker than aircraft armor. Also, the point yield per failed save is just too high. They're not just weak, it's catastrophic. On the right board, it's worse than plasma because of range.
For the current "elite" infantry to work, 2 damage weapons need to be rare and valuable. Instead, they're cheap and plentiful. That means that elites need more than 2 wounds. To me, this is not negotiable in the current game.
Well honestly...If we look at history. Anti aircraft weapons are anti tank weapons. They just have the wrong stats in this game. They should have battle cannon stats - not autocannon stats.
German 88mm anti aircraft weapon was the main armament of the Tiger 1. Which was probably the best anti tank weapon in WW2.
Stalkers quite literally should have 2d6str 8 ap-2 d3 damage for the purpose of your discussion. They should rek tanks.
Martel732 wrote: I get the impression that terminator armor is much thicker than aircraft armor. Also, the point yield per failed save is just too high. They're not just weak, it's catastrophic. On the right board, it's worse than plasma because of range.
For the current "elite" infantry to work, 2 damage weapons need to be rare and valuable. Instead, they're cheap and plentiful. That means that elites need more than 2 wounds. To me, this is not negotiable in the current game.
I agree. At the very least Termies need one of 2 changes:
A) +1 wound. This is simple, prevents being 1 shot by overcharge Plasma. Downside is that it cannot be applied wholesale to all TEQs because some would end up with 4+ wounds.
OR
B) A special rule for all Terminator Armour that replaces the Invul save with an Damage Reduction by 1. Not as elegant as +1 wound, but could potentially be applied to all TEQs
Martel732 wrote: I get the impression that terminator armor is much thicker than aircraft armor. Also, the point yield per failed save is just too high. They're not just weak, it's catastrophic. On the right board, it's worse than plasma because of range.
For the current "elite" infantry to work, 2 damage weapons need to be rare and valuable. Instead, they're cheap and plentiful. That means that elites need more than 2 wounds. To me, this is not negotiable in the current game.
I agree. At the very least Termies need one of 2 changes:
A) +1 wound. This is simple, prevents being 1 shot by overcharge Plasma. Downside is that it cannot be applied wholesale to all TEQs because some would end up with 4+ wounds.
OR
B) A special rule for all Terminator Armour that replaces the Invul save with an Damage Reduction by 1. Not as elegant as +1 wound, but could potentially be applied to all TEQs
-
Well the problem I have with is - plasma is supposed to be good at killing terms. A change like this quite literally makes the weapon the worst choice for killing TEQ. +1 wound is a much better fix as it only nerfs plasma wounds by 50% - not 100%.
Galef wrote: Downside is that it cannot be applied wholesale to all TEQs because some would end up with 4+ wounds.
-
Having 3W vs 4W would equal same durability against 2 OC plasmas though, so it wouldn't matter as much as you currently believe it would.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: I too am more for +1 wound not only for the reason you mention, but it also helps vs D1 weapons.
-
Yeah but in the past (not tha tit matters in 8th ed but) anything short of plasma would bounce off termies on 2+, so I'd say it's a pretty valid translation.
Galef wrote: Downside is that it cannot be applied wholesale to all TEQs because some would end up with 4+ wounds.
-
Having 3W vs 4W would equal same durability against 2 OC plasmas though, so it wouldn't matter as much as you currently believe it would.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: I too am more for +1 wound not only for the reason you mention, but it also helps vs D1 weapons.
-
Yeah but in the past (not tha tit matters in 8th ed but) anything short of plasma would bounce off termies on 2+, so I'd say it's a pretty valid translation.
And then you just forget about other weapons conveniently. Now Lascannons only kill them 1/3 of the time!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: I too am more for +1 wound not only for the reason you mention, but it also helps vs D1 weapons.
-
They're already twice as durable to almost all D1 weapons. What more could you want?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Hey guys, repeat after me:
They're. More. Durable. Against. More. Weapons. Than. Being. Weaker. To. More. Weapons.
Give them another wound, and suddenly Occult and Blightlords are silly durable. Paladins are then point for point more durable than Custodes.
We get it - their durability was a joke and they got slightly better vs light firepower and less durable vs lots of weapons too. AP3 weapons now rek them in droves when they used to laugh them off. What you are left with is a trash unit.
What is wrong with a paladin being more durable than a custode? Custode terminators are T5 with 4 wounds anyways...so they aren't more durable.
They're twice as durable to the small arms that actually made them a joke, and the list of thing they became more durable against exceeds the list they became less durable against.
Also you do realize that regular Custodes are W3 and the Terminators W4. Basically your Custodes Terminator is paying like 20+ points for +1T and the 4++. You can't scale, time and time again.
Yeah I realize it.
The custode terms are overcosted anyways. For like 5 more points they can be on a jetbike with twice the firepower t6 and double the movement. It's pretty obvious they are overcosted.
Lots of units need fixing. The thread is "how to make terms worthwhile" not how do we fix every unit in the game.
When you're doing blanket fixes on "Terminators" like this thread is, you need to include all of them. The Custodes ones at least have sorta defined role but are just too expensive for what it is. Then we have the issue of Jetbikes also just being too good.
That's why I made the change I did and then say to adjust price as necessary with the WS/BS2+. It affects the following positively without scaling horribly:
1. Tactical Terminators gain a bit more offense with their Storm Bolters and gives them pseudo Relentless on the move with their Heavy Weapons, and makes those weapons even better if they stood still.
2. Assault Terminators hit more often with their Claw variants and Hammers are now hitting at a rate of average 8 Thunder Hammer hits instead of 5, while not making rerolls act absurd.
3. Deathwing Knights hit more often and can be more independent from Belial while not becoming absurd under him
4. Scarab Occult Terminators don't become even more durable and they gain the offense with range that they lack
5. This applies to Blightlords as well as Shroud, the latter being already way too expensive as is for their job
6. Chaos and Space Wolf Terminators get their Power Weapons hitting more often while not being absurd under a reroll aura
7. Paladins already have these basic changes you want, and one of the things they're lacking is still offense. This changes that
8. Cat and Tar armor Terminators aren't left out either
The only Terminators who need total rework are the Custodes ones (80+ points is just silly) and the troop Grey Knight dudes (who are basically at the same skill level as Strike Squads).
Of course you're right that there are several things in the game that need rework, I obviously can't put them all in the thread and lay out my thoughts like such.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Plasma would still be good at killing 3 w terminators.
Not really. Paladins are noted as being mediocre for the most part because of taking twice the shots of D2 weapons alone. So imagine cheaper models gaining that all the sudden.
Plasma can and should be good at killing TEQs. But it should have to work for it. Currently, you only need to just be in Rapid Fire Range, or Overcharge for a single Plasma to kill a single TEQ, but not really both. By giving TEQs 3 wounds, it forces Plasma to work for a living. You now have to get close AND Overcharge.
Yes, re-roll 1s makes this much less risky, but fundamentally the risk is there.
At the end of the day, there is no single change that will fix TEQs. But I filmily believe 3 simple changes will address 99% of their issues: +1 wound for durability +1 attack for added melee efficiency "Always hits on 3+" for shooting efficiency and a counter-meta "niche"
Slayer - your fix would be acceptable if it came with something like a 10 points drop across the board for every terminator you are suggesting. 2 W with a 5+ save against special weapons is not worth 40 points no matter how you slice it. All special weapons do multi damage.
Plasma still wounds on 2+ and bypasses the armor. That's still really good. I can imagine cheaper models getting that. It would be fine. Lots of multi-damage options out there.
Galef wrote: At the end of the day, there is no single change that will fix TEQs. But I filmily believe 3 simple changes will address 99% of their issues:
+1 wound for durability
+1 attack for added melee efficiency
"Always hits on 3+" for shooting efficiency and a counter-meta "niche"
-
I've been play-testing the first two of those and it makes terminators a very good option. I don't know if 'the always hits on 3+' is needed, because part of their offensive output is through melee and they're better off with a stratagem that allows them to get close enough to shoot more with rapid fire weaponry, or attain more shots which can be gained through stratagems.
Though the problem with the above is how do these changes interact with characters in terminator armor that don't and shouldn't gain those bonuses, and how does it change non-standard terminators that would become incredibly good or over-powered with those bonuses--such as death guard terminators or custodes. If they don't receive them, what's the reasoning behind it. But that's more on the immersion level than balance and the game has already broken much of its previous immersion anyway.
Spoiler:
Example stratagems;
Bolter Drill 2CP (for all chapters)
Use this Stratagem in any phase before an INFANTRY unit shoots. That unit adds 1 to the number of shots on bolt weapons until the end of that phase. For example: rapid fire 1 becomes rapid fire 2 on a boltgun. For the purposes of this Stratagem, a bolt weapon is any weapon profile whose name includes the word ‘bolt’ (e.g. boltgun, bolt rifle, heavy bolter, boltstorm gauntlet). Pedro Kantor’s Dorn’s Arrow is also a bolt weapon. Bolter Drill cannot be used with special issue ammunition.
Teleport Shunt 2CP
Use this Stratagem before moving a unit with the TERMINATOR keyword in the movement phase. Instead of moving normally, move that unit up to 24” and more than 9” away from any enemy models. That unit may not move afterwards, but may still declare a charge in the charge phase.
Martel732 wrote: I get the impression that terminator armor is much thicker than aircraft armor. Also, the point yield per failed save is just too high. They're not just weak, it's catastrophic. On the right board, it's worse than plasma because of range.
For the current "elite" infantry to work, 2 damage weapons need to be rare and valuable. Instead, they're cheap and plentiful. That means that elites need more than 2 wounds. To me, this is not negotiable in the current game.
I agree. At the very least Termies need one of 2 changes:
A) +1 wound. This is simple, prevents being 1 shot by overcharge Plasma. Downside is that it cannot be applied wholesale to all TEQs because some would end up with 4+ wounds.
OR
B) A special rule for all Terminator Armour that replaces the Invul save with an Damage Reduction by 1. Not as elegant as +1 wound, but could potentially be applied to all TEQs
-
Well the problem I have with is - plasma is supposed to be good at killing terms. A change like this quite literally makes the weapon the worst choice for killing TEQ. +1 wound is a much better fix as it only nerfs plasma wounds by 50% - not 100%.
This, which is why i suggested that the crux does not flat out reduce damage by 1, but reduces damage by 1 on a roll of 4+. Now plasma and disintegrators are good against them, but not THAT good.
Martel732 wrote: I get the impression that terminator armor is much thicker than aircraft armor. Also, the point yield per failed save is just too high. They're not just weak, it's catastrophic. On the right board, it's worse than plasma because of range.
For the current "elite" infantry to work, 2 damage weapons need to be rare and valuable. Instead, they're cheap and plentiful. That means that elites need more than 2 wounds. To me, this is not negotiable in the current game.
I agree. At the very least Termies need one of 2 changes:
A) +1 wound. This is simple, prevents being 1 shot by overcharge Plasma. Downside is that it cannot be applied wholesale to all TEQs because some would end up with 4+ wounds.
OR
B) A special rule for all Terminator Armour that replaces the Invul save with an Damage Reduction by 1. Not as elegant as +1 wound, but could potentially be applied to all TEQs
-
Well the problem I have with is - plasma is supposed to be good at killing terms. A change like this quite literally makes the weapon the worst choice for killing TEQ. +1 wound is a much better fix as it only nerfs plasma wounds by 50% - not 100%.
This, which is why i suggested that the crux does not flat out reduce damage by 1, but reduces damage by 1 on a roll of 4+. Now plasma and disintegrators are good against them, but not THAT good.
This is effectively the same thing as +1W against plasma. Except it doesn't address their weakness vs other weapons - which they are also too weak against (like battle cannons). So far - +1 wound seems to be the best solution for them.
If you go the +1 wound route you are impacting too many models. That alteration to the crux that i suggested can be applied to all existing terminator models without excessive impacts or need to touch other models (like custodes).
That said, battle cannons suffer a lot from that rule, i would have to do some math, but i suspect that it is really close to having a third wound. If you give them 3 wounds then they are basically impossible to kill with too many weapons.
We can raise that to 3+ though, if you think that's not enough.
Spoletta wrote: If you give them 3 wounds then they are basically impossible to kill with too many weapons.
Wraithguard (Eldar's version of Terminators) have 3 wounds and they die just fine to plenty of weapons. They may not have 2+/5++, but they are T6, so they take less wounds overall.
Even with 3 wounds, TEQs would still die to focused fire. Plasma would still be a go-to option to delete them. +1 wound makes them more durable vs. D1 or D2 weapons, but anything D3+ still drops them. This is how Termies should work.
Now, trading their 5++ for a rule that reduces damage by 1 is a great second choice, but it does nothing to change how TEQs die to small arms fire (yes having 2 wounds vs prior editions is meant to cover this, but it sadly doesn't). Having +1W accomplishes both. It's elegant and uncomplicated.
Remember, Termies are slow and rely on other means to get close, none of which work on the first turn (beta rules prevent arriving outside deployment on T1 and transports would have to move for 1 turn). So you are spending a lot of points to do nothing for 1 turn or more.
They should be durable enough to foot-slog. Being "all but immune" to small arms fire helps.
But even being more durable and having +1 attack doesn't help them "stand out". They need something extra. "Always hits on 3+" makes that happen.
Spoletta wrote:If you go the +1 wound route you are impacting too many models. That alteration to the crux that i suggested can be applied to all existing terminator models without excessive impacts or need to touch other models (like custodes).
Too many models like the super TDA units, but also far too few models because their siblings the chaos chosen and PA wolf guard are still completely forgotten. They should all get a 5++ save after their armor save if the model that shot them has fewer attacks. Yeah it buffs custodes and nurgle, but it also buffs people who are absolutely forgettable and bad.
Galef wrote:
Remember, Termies are slow and rely on other means to get close, none of which work on the first turn (beta rules prevent arriving outside deployment on T1 and transports would have to move for 1 turn). So you are spending a lot of points to do nothing for 1 turn or more.
They should be durable enough to foot-slog. Being "all but immune" to small arms fire helps.
-
Yes this is how they are supposed to work.
Always hits on threes
See I would suggest that except I expect people to point out that terminators can't have relentless if land raiders and hammerheads don't get it too.
lets see...how well does a 5 man termiantor for 200 points survive against an IG batallion of equal points. Thats 2 CC and 4 Infantry squads. Or in other words....its 4x40 (FRFSRF) las gun shots. Which averages 5 wounds to the terms.
That is 100 points of damage to the terminator unit. (this from a unit that is supposedly useless and only brought to generate command points)
The terms average 6 wounds with 20 bolter shots - that is 24 points of damage to the IG - maybe 2-3 will die from morale but...this is still basically over from the stand point of attrition. Plus we aren't even facotiring the potential cover save on the IG...which the terms can't even benefit from in this scenario.
Again - terminators are way to easy to kill per their points with basically every weapon in the game. It is the first thing that needs to be fixed.
Now...that is pretty pathetic that a unit that is supposed to be functionally immune to small arms. Loses half of it's value to equal points of small arms. It's beyond pathetic.
Spoletta wrote:If you go the +1 wound route you are impacting too many models. That alteration to the crux that i suggested can be applied to all existing terminator models without excessive impacts or need to touch other models (like custodes).
Too many models like the super TDA units, but also far too few models because their siblings the chaos chosen and PA wolf guard are still completely forgotten. They should all get a 5++ save after their armor save if the model that shot them has fewer attacks. Yeah it buffs custodes and nurgle, but it also buffs people who are absolutely forgettable and bad.
Galef wrote:
Remember, Termies are slow and rely on other means to get close, none of which work on the first turn (beta rules prevent arriving outside deployment on T1 and transports would have to move for 1 turn). So you are spending a lot of points to do nothing for 1 turn or more.
They should be durable enough to foot-slog. Being "all but immune" to small arms fire helps.
-
Yes this is how they are supposed to work.
Always hits on threes
See I would suggest that except I expect people to point out that terminators can't have relentless if land raiders and hammerheads don't get it too.
Land raiders do get it. Hammerheads? Sure - lots of vehicles should flat out ignore penalties for moving and shooting. 100% agree with that. long-strike does (and hes auto include) so taking a few hammerheads with him the are also equally relentless with the bonus of hitting on 2's if they stay still.
See I would suggest that except I expect people to point out that terminators can't have relentless if land raiders and hammerheads don't get it too.
But you can still rationalize it in 2 ways.
1) Terminators are "Veteran" Marines, so their is additional skill to account for
2) TDA is not "piloted". It's a suit you wear. Pilots and crew have a degree of separation from the vehicle itself. A suit acts more like an extension of the wearer.
So an experienced warrior wearing a sophisticated suit makes more sense to be "relentless" than a somewhat trained pilot in a big bulky warmachine.
Also keep in mind, I am suggesting this particular change as a way to give TEQs something special that other options in their armies do not have
But if the "Always hit on 3+" doesn't work for you, I'd still be ok with WS/BS2+ as a second choice.
I'm not a SM player, but reading that Tactical Squads have only 1 wound is crazy. Crazy that's its been so for as long as I can remember. These are the poster-boys, the Emperor's avenging angels, acid spitting muscle bound super warriors and the pinnacle of mankind's fighting ability. Terminator armour should be absolutely tough as nails. I don't think they especially need better weapon or ballistic skills, these are ponderous and cumbersome suits, but certainly something to indicate their unmatched durability as they plod forward. All weapon damage being reduced to one is a great suggestion. If there isn't one already, perhaps negate the BS reduction for moving with Heavy weaponry?
It used to be that Terminators mainly arrived via teleporter and designed to fight in relatively confined spaces as space hulk, hive spires rather than plod across a battelfield.
sphynx wrote: I'm not a SM player, but reading that Tactical Squads have only 1 wound is crazy. Crazy that's its been so for as long as I can remember. These are the poster-boys, the Emperor's avenging angels, acid spitting muscle bound super warriors and the pinnacle of mankind's fighting ability. Terminator armour should be absolutely tough as nails. I don't think they especially need better weapon or ballistic skills, these are ponderous and cumbersome suits, but certainly something to indicate their unmatched durability as they plod forward. All weapon damage being reduced to one is a great suggestion. If there isn't one already, perhaps negate the BS reduction for moving with Heavy weaponry?
Yes, I have suggested several times that all standard Marines, Chaos and Loyalist, should receive +1wound across the board (except Characters). It just makes too much sense in this edition.
But if the "Always hit on 3+" doesn't work for you,
always hits on 3+ works for me personally, in a vacuum. I just try to a) come up with the most selective rules for my play group with the fewest special cases, and b) anticipate the criticism that it'll get from discussions like this.
For example I'm not sure it powers them up much and I'd definitely need to drop some other rules, like the invulnerable save. The flat skill boost is unacceptable from the get go, that's for sanguinary guard and paladins.
I'm not a SM player, but reading that Tactical Squads have only 1 wound is crazy. Crazy that's its been so for as long as I can remember. These are the poster-boys, the Emperor's avenging angels, acid spitting muscle bound super warriors and the pinnacle of mankind's fighting ability.
it's pretty simple, I don't want to have two wounds on every one of 45 models that only carry bolters and a couple of plinky heavy weapons.
sphynx wrote: I'm not a SM player, but reading that Tactical Squads have only 1 wound is crazy. Crazy that's its been so for as long as I can remember. These are the poster-boys, the Emperor's avenging angels, acid spitting muscle bound super warriors and the pinnacle of mankind's fighting ability. Terminator armour should be absolutely tough as nails. I don't think they especially need better weapon or ballistic skills, these are ponderous and cumbersome suits, but certainly something to indicate their unmatched durability as they plod forward. All weapon damage being reduced to one is a great suggestion. If there isn't one already, perhaps negate the BS reduction for moving with Heavy weaponry?
Yes, I have suggested several times that all standard Marines, Chaos and Loyalist, should receive +1wound across the board (except Characters). It just makes too much sense in this edition.
But if the "Always hit on 3+" doesn't work for you,
always hits on 3+ works for me personally, in a vacuum. I just try to a) come up with the most selective rules for my play group with the fewest special cases, and b) anticipate the criticism that it'll get from discussions like this.
For example I'm not sure it powers them up much and I'd definitely need to drop some other rules, like the invulnerable save. The flat skill boost is unacceptable from the get go, that's for sanguinary guard and paladins.
I'm not a SM player, but reading that Tactical Squads have only 1 wound is crazy. Crazy that's its been so for as long as I can remember. These are the poster-boys, the Emperor's avenging angels, acid spitting muscle bound super warriors and the pinnacle of mankind's fighting ability.
it's pretty simple, I don't want to have two wounds on every one of 45 models that only carry bolters and a couple of plinky heavy weapons.
I already do it on 40+ models in my full primaris army. It is insanely easy to do. It's not difficult to track. Wounded models are required to take the damage first so you never need more than 1 wound counter per squad. Half the time you don't even need one because you take an even number of damage...plus lots of weapons kill you outright even with 2 wounds. bolter being too weak is another issue that basically everyone will agree...The bolter should be better. So should a lot of weapons though. Ap -1 seems to be the best fix or reroll wounds vs infantry. Something like that.
sphynx wrote: I'm not a SM player, but reading that Tactical Squads have only 1 wound is crazy. Crazy that's its been so for as long as I can remember. These are the poster-boys, the Emperor's avenging angels, acid spitting muscle bound super warriors and the pinnacle of mankind's fighting ability. Terminator armour should be absolutely tough as nails. I don't think they especially need better weapon or ballistic skills, these are ponderous and cumbersome suits, but certainly something to indicate their unmatched durability as they plod forward. All weapon damage being reduced to one is a great suggestion. If there isn't one already, perhaps negate the BS reduction for moving with Heavy weaponry?
Yes, I have suggested several times that all standard Marines, Chaos and Loyalist, should receive +1wound across the board (except Characters). It just makes too much sense in this edition.
-
Same points cost? Seems a bit extreme.
Hummm - it's not that extreme. They are insanely overcosted as is. It is hard to really figure exactly if they need a points adjustment with the changes.
My suggested adjustment has been that secondis marines get 2 wounds and go to 14 points base. Primaris gets 3 wounds and goes to 20 points base. Gravis and Term units go to 3 wounds and have a 5 point increase and get 4++ saves.
2 wound Tactical Marines would probably need a cost bump, but no more than 1-2ppm. There are currently overcosted and +1 wound is only going to help against some weapons, but be wholly irrelevant vs others. But the point is to make them more durable to small arms fire, which +1 wound would do.
TEQs going from 2W to 3W is similar, but also protects them slightly from D2 weapons as well.
"Special" MEQs and TEQs like Deathwing Knights, Paladins, Occult Termies, etc need to be handled individually as to whether they get +1W or something different, but Tac Marines, Bikes, Assault Marines, Chaos Marines, regular Termies, etc. Yeah, those all can get +1W for little to no points increase.
Keep in mind that I do not play Marines, but play against them often enough
The problem with Terminators is a systemic problem with Elites choices throughout the game.
For most Elites choices, they appear to be priced against their Troop analogue with a % increase for their "betterness" and then an extra % is tacked on top of that. The problem with that second % is it goes the wrong way.
Elites should be relatively cheaper than Troops, not relatively more expensive.
If you somehow had an Elites choice that was exactly twice as tough and exactly twice the offense, it would still be the worse choice even if it were exactly twice the cost.
There are two reasons:
1. Troops is a better slot. They give both more command points and score objectives easier.
2. More models is always better than fewer models. In a game of randomness, you want more chances for the randomness to come out even.
Terminators are already substantially better than their Troop analogues outside of cost (even against Intercessors): better offense, better toughness, better deployment option.
But not only are they more expensive than the percent they are better, they also aren't Troops. That's doubling down on cost inefficiency.
If any unequipped Terminator were 18 points (which is roughly what they're worth compared to the things they are most similar to in their own armies), you wouldn't see threads like this.
They don't need any significant rules rewrite, they just need internal consistency on their cost.
The same goes for nearly every Elite in the game that is essentially a "better" Troop.
Xenomancers wrote: Slayer - your fix would be acceptable if it came with something like a 10 points drop across the board for every terminator you are suggesting. 2 W with a 5+ save against special weapons is not worth 40 points no matter how you slice it. All special weapons do multi damage.
I'm for a small price drop too. I simply don't want extreme fixes like most of these when we are working with a D6 system.
Why give Terminators +1 Attack? They already have an extra attack above their tactical brethren, and I don’t really see them being able to swing power fists like a madman. Is this really a change designed for the melee terminators swinging swords, hammer and claws?
Stormonu wrote: Why give Terminators +1 Attack? They already have an extra attack above their tactical brethren, and I don’t really see them being able to swing power fists like a madman. Is this really a change designed for the melee terminators swinging swords, hammer and claws?
Because 2 attacks is pathetic for an elite unit. 1 attack is equally pathetic for a space marine.
Xenomancers wrote: Slayer - your fix would be acceptable if it came with something like a 10 points drop across the board for every terminator you are suggesting. 2 W with a 5+ save against special weapons is not worth 40 points no matter how you slice it. All special weapons do multi damage.
I'm for a small price drop too. I simply don't want extreme fixes like most of these when we are working with a D6 system.
I would prefer a fix that puts marine elites like terminators in the neighborhood of custodes performance on the table top - costing slightly less to be slightly weaker. Any fix which allows terms to be fielding efficiently I am all for.
Stormonu wrote: Why give Terminators +1 Attack? They already have an extra attack above their tactical brethren, and I don’t really see them being able to swing power fists like a madman. Is this really a change designed for the melee terminators swinging swords, hammer and claws?
Xenomancers wrote: Slayer - your fix would be acceptable if it came with something like a 10 points drop across the board for every terminator you are suggesting. 2 W with a 5+ save against special weapons is not worth 40 points no matter how you slice it. All special weapons do multi damage.
I'm for a small price drop too. I simply don't want extreme fixes like most of these when we are working with a D6 system.
I would prefer a fix that puts marine elites like terminators in the neighborhood of custodes performance on the table top - costing slightly less to be slightly weaker. Any fix which allows terms to be fielding efficiently I am all for.
So to get my thoughts kinda altogether, I made a thread a while ago, my way to kinda differentiate the Marine elites without touching the point costs yet:
1. Sternguard become BS2+
2. Vanguard become WS2+
3. Terminators become both
4. Honour Guard get larger squad sizes and an extra attack
5. Command Squad dudes get touched on price by dropping a point
And of course I have SEVERAL more thoughts about what I would do to the Vanilla Codex and the CSM codex, but that's neither here or there.
Stormonu wrote: Why give Terminators +1 Attack? They already have an extra attack above their tactical brethren, and I don’t really see them being able to swing power fists like a madman. Is this really a change designed for the melee terminators swinging swords, hammer and claws?
Xenomancers wrote: Slayer - your fix would be acceptable if it came with something like a 10 points drop across the board for every terminator you are suggesting. 2 W with a 5+ save against special weapons is not worth 40 points no matter how you slice it. All special weapons do multi damage.
I'm for a small price drop too. I simply don't want extreme fixes like most of these when we are working with a D6 system.
I would prefer a fix that puts marine elites like terminators in the neighborhood of custodes performance on the table top - costing slightly less to be slightly weaker. Any fix which allows terms to be fielding efficiently I am all for.
So to get my thoughts kinda altogether, I made a thread a while ago, my way to kinda differentiate the Marine elites without touching the point costs yet:
1. Sternguard become BS2+
2. Vanguard become WS2+
3. Terminators become both
4. Honour Guard get larger squad sizes and an extra attack
5. Command Squad dudes get touched on price by dropping a point
And of course I have SEVERAL more thoughts about what I would do to the Vanilla Codex and the CSM codex, but that's neither here or there.
Even with these changes each one of those units is still significantly overcosted. Though they are much more effective changes for the PA guys with your ideas. BS2 sterngaurd are almost at the point where they are useable. IMO the place marines really struggle the most is durability.
Our local group played with our simple Terminator changes (3 Wounds, -8 Points per model). Feedback was generally positive, but it was an odd game (they teleported into the backfield and chased tanks around the board). Will continue to update you guys with our feedback. We'll be rolling with these changes until we decide yay or nay. The nice thing is it's a very simple change which doesn't fundamentally change any core concepts/rules applied to them.
Martel732 wrote: The D6 really makes it so there is no design space for terminators.
If GW had made use of the change that profile values are not capped at 10 in 8th, there'd be enough for terminators. But then they decided that no non-titanic vehicle should have more than 8 Toughness.
Our local group played with our simple Terminator changes (3 Wounds, -8 Points per model). Feedback was generally positive, but it was an odd game (they teleported into the backfield and chased tanks around the board). Will continue to update you guys with our feedback. We'll be rolling with these changes until we decide yay or nay. The nice thing is it's a very simple change which doesn't fundamentally change any core concepts/rules applied to them.
That personally reminds me to strong of the suicide terminator days long gone.
Ehh, i guess atleast they are usefull is that case?
Stormonu wrote: Why give Terminators +1 Attack? They already have an extra attack above their tactical brethren, and I don’t really see them being able to swing power fists like a madman. Is this really a change designed for the melee terminators swinging swords, hammer and claws?
Xenomancers wrote: Slayer - your fix would be acceptable if it came with something like a 10 points drop across the board for every terminator you are suggesting. 2 W with a 5+ save against special weapons is not worth 40 points no matter how you slice it. All special weapons do multi damage.
I'm for a small price drop too. I simply don't want extreme fixes like most of these when we are working with a D6 system.
I would prefer a fix that puts marine elites like terminators in the neighborhood of custodes performance on the table top - costing slightly less to be slightly weaker. Any fix which allows terms to be fielding efficiently I am all for.
So to get my thoughts kinda altogether, I made a thread a while ago, my way to kinda differentiate the Marine elites without touching the point costs yet:
1. Sternguard become BS2+
2. Vanguard become WS2+
3. Terminators become both
4. Honour Guard get larger squad sizes and an extra attack
5. Command Squad dudes get touched on price by dropping a point
And of course I have SEVERAL more thoughts about what I would do to the Vanilla Codex and the CSM codex, but that's neither here or there.
Even with these changes each one of those units is still significantly overcosted. Though they are much more effective changes for the PA guys with your ideas. BS2 sterngaurd are almost at the point where they are useable. IMO the place marines really struggle the most is durability.
Marines are okay already for durability. If you want more than that, you have options (Iron Hands and Raven Guard, Alpha Legion). My issue is offense entirely.
Stormonu wrote: Why give Terminators +1 Attack? They already have an extra attack above their tactical brethren, and I don’t really see them being able to swing power fists like a madman. Is this really a change designed for the melee terminators swinging swords, hammer and claws?
I can imagine a 3-punch combo - a hook to backhand to a haymaker.
For hammers, a diagonal front swing, horizontal back swing, to a vertical 12-to-6 slam
For swords, cross-slash to full slash
For claws, even two swings seem unlikely however.
Martel732 wrote: The D6 really makes it so there is no design space for terminators.
If GW had made use of the change that profile values are not capped at 10 in 8th, there'd be enough for terminators. But then they decided that no non-titanic vehicle should have more than 8 Toughness.
I've got issues with this too. They had a system where they could be creative with the stats and basically chickened out by keeping everything the same basically.
Stormonu wrote: Why give Terminators +1 Attack? They already have an extra attack above their tactical brethren, and I don’t really see them being able to swing power fists like a madman. Is this really a change designed for the melee terminators swinging swords, hammer and claws?
Xenomancers wrote: Slayer - your fix would be acceptable if it came with something like a 10 points drop across the board for every terminator you are suggesting. 2 W with a 5+ save against special weapons is not worth 40 points no matter how you slice it. All special weapons do multi damage.
I'm for a small price drop too. I simply don't want extreme fixes like most of these when we are working with a D6 system.
I would prefer a fix that puts marine elites like terminators in the neighborhood of custodes performance on the table top - costing slightly less to be slightly weaker. Any fix which allows terms to be fielding efficiently I am all for.
So to get my thoughts kinda altogether, I made a thread a while ago, my way to kinda differentiate the Marine elites without touching the point costs yet:
1. Sternguard become BS2+
2. Vanguard become WS2+
3. Terminators become both
4. Honour Guard get larger squad sizes and an extra attack
5. Command Squad dudes get touched on price by dropping a point
And of course I have SEVERAL more thoughts about what I would do to the Vanilla Codex and the CSM codex, but that's neither here or there.
Even with these changes each one of those units is still significantly overcosted. Though they are much more effective changes for the PA guys with your ideas. BS2 sterngaurd are almost at the point where they are useable. IMO the place marines really struggle the most is durability.
Marines are okay already for durability. If you want more than that, you have options (Iron Hands and Raven Guard, Alpha Legion). My issue is offense entirely.
They really aren't man. The are the most fragile army in the game.
Stormonu wrote: Why give Terminators +1 Attack? They already have an extra attack above their tactical brethren, and I don’t really see them being able to swing power fists like a madman. Is this really a change designed for the melee terminators swinging swords, hammer and claws?
Xenomancers wrote: Slayer - your fix would be acceptable if it came with something like a 10 points drop across the board for every terminator you are suggesting. 2 W with a 5+ save against special weapons is not worth 40 points no matter how you slice it. All special weapons do multi damage.
I'm for a small price drop too. I simply don't want extreme fixes like most of these when we are working with a D6 system.
I would prefer a fix that puts marine elites like terminators in the neighborhood of custodes performance on the table top - costing slightly less to be slightly weaker. Any fix which allows terms to be fielding efficiently I am all for.
So to get my thoughts kinda altogether, I made a thread a while ago, my way to kinda differentiate the Marine elites without touching the point costs yet:
1. Sternguard become BS2+
2. Vanguard become WS2+
3. Terminators become both
4. Honour Guard get larger squad sizes and an extra attack
5. Command Squad dudes get touched on price by dropping a point
And of course I have SEVERAL more thoughts about what I would do to the Vanilla Codex and the CSM codex, but that's neither here or there.
Even with these changes each one of those units is still significantly overcosted. Though they are much more effective changes for the PA guys with your ideas. BS2 sterngaurd are almost at the point where they are useable. IMO the place marines really struggle the most is durability.
Marines are okay already for durability. If you want more than that, you have options (Iron Hands and Raven Guard, Alpha Legion). My issue is offense entirely.
They really aren't man. The are the most fragile army in the game.
Agreed. Fix the durability of the army and the offense will follow (because more models will be alive to contribute).
Martel732 wrote: Because they will always suffer disproportionately from any amount of AP. And 2 damage weapons if you go the "tack on a wound" route. You need 3 wounds minimum to be "elite" in 8th.
Yes, I agree. I was supporting 3W and +1A terminators.
Stormonu wrote: Why give Terminators +1 Attack? They already have an extra attack above their tactical brethren, and I don’t really see them being able to swing power fists like a madman. Is this really a change designed for the melee terminators swinging swords, hammer and claws?
Xenomancers wrote: Slayer - your fix would be acceptable if it came with something like a 10 points drop across the board for every terminator you are suggesting. 2 W with a 5+ save against special weapons is not worth 40 points no matter how you slice it. All special weapons do multi damage.
I'm for a small price drop too. I simply don't want extreme fixes like most of these when we are working with a D6 system.
I would prefer a fix that puts marine elites like terminators in the neighborhood of custodes performance on the table top - costing slightly less to be slightly weaker. Any fix which allows terms to be fielding efficiently I am all for.
So to get my thoughts kinda altogether, I made a thread a while ago, my way to kinda differentiate the Marine elites without touching the point costs yet:
1. Sternguard become BS2+
2. Vanguard become WS2+
3. Terminators become both
4. Honour Guard get larger squad sizes and an extra attack
5. Command Squad dudes get touched on price by dropping a point
And of course I have SEVERAL more thoughts about what I would do to the Vanilla Codex and the CSM codex, but that's neither here or there.
Even with these changes each one of those units is still significantly overcosted. Though they are much more effective changes for the PA guys with your ideas. BS2 sterngaurd are almost at the point where they are useable. IMO the place marines really struggle the most is durability.
Marines are okay already for durability. If you want more than that, you have options (Iron Hands and Raven Guard, Alpha Legion). My issue is offense entirely.
They really aren't man. The are the most fragile army in the game.
Agreed. Fix the durability of the army and the offense will follow (because more models will be alive to contribute).
Least durable? Definitely with some units, but compare to armies like Necrons (destroy the squad and their durability they pay for doesnt actually exist), Deathwatch and Grey Knights (the latter needing obvious fixes but both being Marines +1 makes them more fragile, though the former actually functions to an extent), and Eldar/Dark Eldar (where their offense kinda fixes the matter that they aren't durable) I never bought the argument. I say that as someone who has been defending Marine players on this forum from the pestering of people not properly understanding the army's core issues.
Martel732 wrote: DE ARE durable. Do the math. It's depressing as hell.
The vehicles and the Haemonculus stuff are. The rest of the army isn't.
Not really, i belive what Martel wants to point out is that the durability of a SM is not worth it compared to other units with mostly similar stats. Or in the same category of tasks.
That can be best shown with CSM:
for one regular marine i get 3 1/4 cultist.
that are 2 1/4 W more then the marine, they vomit out more bullets and are overall better at filling troop taxes.
Take rawdmg output for exemple:
1 marine genereates one bolter shot. Hits in 2/3 of the cases and against a t3 unit wounds 2/3 of the time basically 4/9 or 0,44444444
3 cultists hit 1,5 times and wound 0,750 the same t3 target.
With cabalists it is even worse for the marine.
2 shots 2/3 of the time and then against infantery half the time. which gives a chance of wounding of 2/3 rds of the time.
Guardsmen are even worse for a marine comparison: FRFSRF 3x2 lasgun shots. 3 guaranteed hits and 1.5 wounds on a t3 target.
The simple fact that i have more W on diffrent models makes them more durable against high d and ap weaponry and ulitmately requires more shots overall to get these units of the battlefield.
Terminators are even worse in that regard.
one CSM Terminator with Energy mace and combibolter is 37 pts.
that are 9.25 cultists.
---> i won't go over the math again but simply put the dmg output is skewed and because terminators are supposed to be killers of infantery in most cases of the loadout, they can't bring in the points with their dmg, however their durability is significantly overpriced.
Edit: really should stop writting with such low ammounts of coffeine in my veins...
Marines: "The are the most fragile army in the game."
GK.
Harlies.
Corsairs.
CWE (better, but not more durable).
Sure, the average army is more durable per point right now. But they are *not* the most fragile army in the game. I'd argue that's Harlies, but it could also be GK depending on how you look at it.
Bharring wrote: Marines: "The are the most fragile army in the game."
GK.
Harlies.
Corsairs.
CWE (better, but not more durable).
Sure, the average army is more durable per point right now. But they are *not* the most fragile army in the game. I'd argue that's Harlies, but it could also be GK depending on how you look at it.
But doesnt "most fragile" imply ppm basis? 13pt for 8M, advance and shoot, pseudo fly and 4++ is hardly fragile ppm.
Marines are indeed the most fragile per point. They pay for the privilege of power armour, but have very few "tricks" to reinforce it. GK are lumped into the "Marine" category here, but it is worse for them because they pay more
I might agree that Harlies may be more fragile, but they have speed and other tricks to make their fragility largely irrelevant.
CWE? You're kidding right? CWE have some of the hardest to kill units in the game. Even Guardians can be hard to shift with the right stratagem/psychic buffs.
It's the same with DE. Per point, the vehicles are pretty tough BECAUSE they are fragile. 5++ and being cheap is a good answer to traditional anti-tank weaponry. And the infantry rarely leave the transports, so you can't really take their fragility into account here.
In order to better represent the fluff and balance Marines to be competitive, standard Marines NEED to have +1W.
Scouts should be the only 1W models in the Astartes Codices.
Tac Marines - 2W
Bikes - 3W (Attack bikes - 4W)
Terminators - 3W
Assault Marines - 2W
"Special" Terminators like Paladins, Scarab Occult, DW Knights, etc should still only have 3W but can get WS/BS2+ to represent that they are Elite even amongst regular Termies. Obliterators are probably fine as they are.
'But doesnt "most fragile" imply ppm basis? 13pt for 8M, advance and shoot, pseudo fly and 4++ is hardly fragile ppm.'
Certainly. If it weren't on a PPM basis, the list would look like this:
-Everybody but GK, IK, and Custodes
And that 13pt model is certainly even more durable to Lascannons in the open than Tacs, per point. But for anything less than S8 *or* less than AP-3, 13pt T3 4++ is much more fragile than 13pt T4 3+.
There is a hell of a lot more firepower that kills T3 4++ faster than T4 3+ than vice versa.
Stormonu wrote: Why give Terminators +1 Attack? They already have an extra attack above their tactical brethren, and I don’t really see them being able to swing power fists like a madman. Is this really a change designed for the melee terminators swinging swords, hammer and claws?
Xenomancers wrote: Slayer - your fix would be acceptable if it came with something like a 10 points drop across the board for every terminator you are suggesting. 2 W with a 5+ save against special weapons is not worth 40 points no matter how you slice it. All special weapons do multi damage.
I'm for a small price drop too. I simply don't want extreme fixes like most of these when we are working with a D6 system.
I would prefer a fix that puts marine elites like terminators in the neighborhood of custodes performance on the table top - costing slightly less to be slightly weaker. Any fix which allows terms to be fielding efficiently I am all for.
So to get my thoughts kinda altogether, I made a thread a while ago, my way to kinda differentiate the Marine elites without touching the point costs yet:
1. Sternguard become BS2+
2. Vanguard become WS2+
3. Terminators become both
4. Honour Guard get larger squad sizes and an extra attack
5. Command Squad dudes get touched on price by dropping a point
And of course I have SEVERAL more thoughts about what I would do to the Vanilla Codex and the CSM codex, but that's neither here or there.
Even with these changes each one of those units is still significantly overcosted. Though they are much more effective changes for the PA guys with your ideas. BS2 sterngaurd are almost at the point where they are useable. IMO the place marines really struggle the most is durability.
Marines are okay already for durability. If you want more than that, you have options (Iron Hands and Raven Guard, Alpha Legion). My issue is offense entirely.
They really aren't man. The are the most fragile army in the game.
Agreed. Fix the durability of the army and the offense will follow (because more models will be alive to contribute).
Least durable? Definitely with some units, but compare to armies like Necrons (destroy the squad and their durability they pay for doesnt actually exist), Deathwatch and Grey Knights (the latter needing obvious fixes but both being Marines +1 makes them more fragile, though the former actually functions to an extent), and Eldar/Dark Eldar (where their offense kinda fixes the matter that they aren't durable) I never bought the argument. I say that as someone who has been defending Marine players on this forum from the pestering of people not properly understanding the army's core issues.
Necrons have a gimic though - fail to kill a unit - and they can all get up! True - I rarely let that happen but sometimes it's out of your control. Dice fail sometimes. Plus - I'd much rather be a destroyer than a hell-blaster. More toughness - more wounds - more mobility. Wraiths are super durable. Plus really...Warriors are too if you are willing to invest in a 20 man with ghost arc. Doomsday arc? Just forget about it. Literally will never die.
DE are certainly more durable per point. Kabs are dirt cheap. Wracks and Grots are super durable. No argument there.
Are you saying that T3 5+ are more durable than T4 3+, even per point at 8ppm vs 13ppm, because CWE can spend several command points and psykic powers and such to make them more durable? Well, sure, if you don't count the psker points and consider CP free. Before powers/CP, they die a lot faster per point to most weapons. As in, more than twice as fast to Boltguns and Lasguns.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "They can all get up"? No more roll? I'm way behind on my Necrons. I didn't realize that they could do that. Or that only their opponents' dice can fail sometimes.
Bharring wrote: 'But doesnt "most fragile" imply ppm basis? 13pt for 8M, advance and shoot, pseudo fly and 4++ is hardly fragile ppm.'
Certainly. If it weren't on a PPM basis, the list would look like this:
-Everybody but GK, IK, and Custodes
And that 13pt model is certainly even more durable to Lascannons in the open than Tacs, per point. But for anything less than S8 *or* less than AP-3, 13pt T3 4++ is much more fragile than 13pt T4 3+.
There is a hell of a lot more firepower that kills T3 4++ faster than T4 3+ than vice versa.
harlequins always have at least 1 damage reduction mechanic going on. -1 to wound or hit usually. Plus the ability to buff invo saves and go -1 to hit on demand. Realistically - they are expensive ppw models but they aren't fragile like marines. At the very least you are rolling 4++ saves where my marines are probably rolling 5+ or 6+ saves. Not to mention the protection their mobility gives them.
Marines in general do not have invo saves on anything but their heros. Which basically just means vs a lot of weapons - you are just picking up models after they roll to wound.
We also aren't specifically comparing units, we are comparing the army as a whole. Aeldari have better transports, and the DE and Harlies have transports that do not degrade with damage. Unlike Marines who can have their Transports/Tanks crippled and then ignored. Venoms and Starweavers have to be outright killed to remove them as a threat. And they are about as cheap as a Rhino. Having to dedicate more firepower to fewer units means other units may go untouched. Aeldari also have the speed to be out of range of specific threats and the range to remove those threats before they actually are a threat.
Marines have decent rules for 8E. I really like how their vehicles and weapons translated from other editions. But now that "Instant Death" is not a rule and so many weapons cause multiple damage per shot, basic Marines should really have 2W and units with more "bulk" than a basic Marine should have 3Ws.
Bharring wrote: DE are certainly more durable per point. Kabs are dirt cheap. Wracks and Grots are super durable. No argument there.
Are you saying that T3 5+ are more durable than T4 3+, even per point at 8ppm vs 13ppm, because CWE can spend several command points and psykic powers and such to make them more durable? Well, sure, if you don't count the psker points and consider CP free. Before powers/CP, they die a lot faster per point to most weapons. As in, more than twice as fast to Boltguns and Lasguns.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "They can all get up"? No more roll? I'm way behind on my Necrons. I didn't realize that they could do that. Or that only their opponents' dice can fail sometimes.
Yeah ofc they have to roll. Slayer was trying to completely dismiss reanimation protocols. Reanimation makes crons more durable than marines - there is no question about it. Point is - if you have some bad dice against marines - the things you killed stay dead. Vs crons - you can lose a whole turn if that happens.
Then ofc - quantum shielding. Overall the most powerful defensive ability in the game.
Lets actually look into the Guardian shifting vs Marine shifting.
Out of cover unbuffed has been done to death. Guardians survive like Guardsmen. So out of cover they'd be a little tougher per point if they cost 4ppm. So they're a little tougher than half as durable as Marines per point this way.
In cover, you've got, vs small arms (S4 AP0), you get:
Guardians: (2/3)(1/2) = 1/3 hits kill 8pts
Marines: (1/2)(1/6) = 1/12 kills 13 pts
Marines win at above double the durabiltiy/pt
Now, give them Protect. Because you've got nothing more important to use it on / holding the point is super critical / whatever:
Guardians: (2/3)(1/3) = 16/9 pts/hit
Marines: 13/12 pts/hit
So with a "free" Protect, not paying for the psyker or CP to ensure it or whatever, Marines are still much more durable per point. Very biased.
Without substantial buffs (Alaitoc with Lightning Reflexes and Conceal outside 12", for example), Guardians are not more durable than Marines without buffs per point. Even when throwing in Protect for *free*.
Bharring wrote: Lets actually look into the Guardian shifting vs Marine shifting.
Out of cover unbuffed has been done to death. Guardians survive like Guardsmen. So out of cover they'd be a little tougher per point if they cost 4ppm. So they're a little tougher than half as durable as Marines per point this way.
In cover, you've got, vs small arms (S4 AP0), you get: Guardians: (2/3)(1/2) = 1/3 hits kill 8pts Marines: (1/2)(1/6) = 1/12 kills 13 pts Marines win at above double the durabiltiy/pt
Now, give them Protect. Because you've got nothing more important to use it on / holding the point is super critical / whatever: Guardians: (2/3)(1/3) = 16/9 pts/hit Marines: 13/12 pts/hit So with a "free" Protect, not paying for the psyker or CP to ensure it or whatever, Marines are still much more durable per point. Very biased.
Without substantial buffs (Alaitoc with Lightning Reflexes and Conceal outside 12", for example), Guardians are not more durable than Marines without buffs per point. Even when throwing in Protect for *free*.
There is a stratagem that gives them a 4++ against shooting. Throw on Protect and they instantly have the same or better save as Marines They can also be in the Webway, meaning they do not get shot at unless the Eldar player lets you. Math is great, but there is more that affects durability than Stats alone.
A Marine unit is almost always twice the cost per model due to weapon upgrades. 5 Marines with a special/heavy weapon and a combi-weapon is gonna run ~100pts 10 Guardains with 1 weapon platform is also ~100pts
That weapon platform is also a 3+ armour (2+ in cover) with 2W and is often allocated to first. Does your math account for that?
The Wave Serpent is more durable than the Rhino. It is not more durable per point, outside heavily contrived scenarios. It's got better firepower, and better rules, no doubt. But not as durable per point.
"harlequins always have at least 1 damage reduction mechanic going on.". Good. They pay Marine prices for t3 4++. Have you ever wondered why so many non-Marine armies actually do think the Boltgun isn't worthless?
"my marines are probably rolling 5+ or 6+ saves"
So you never face any army that uses:
-Pulse weapons
-Lasguns
-Boltguns
-Gauss
-Shuriken
-Spinter
Or anything else? Your opponents rarely use weapons that aren't AP-3 or better? Even against AP-2, you should still get a 4+ at times.
Looking at top lists, sure lots of heavy weapons, but small arms still outnumber the kind of AT weapons that make a mockery of the 3+.
I mean, try fielding T3 4+ at 12ppm in volume, then try telling me Marines are the most fragile army per point again.
CWE infantry are more fragile probably than naked tacs. Once you start giving tacs equipment, it goes down hill fast. If course, if you don't equip them, they have the worst firepower/pt i think. It's a bad situation.
Bharring wrote: The Wave Serpent is more durable than the Rhino. It is not more durable per point, outside heavily contrived scenarios. It's got better firepower, and better rules, no doubt. But not as durable per point.
You need to compare Serpents to Razorbacks, not Rhinos. Or, can you get a Razorback AND a Rhino for the same cost as a Serpent? Cuz that's about the equivalent durability/damage output.
"Gaurdians are a glass cannon unit. You are selling them short though. When used properly they are very hard to destroy even without stratagems"
You know what else has a 2+ save for it's first two wounds in cover and costs less than the Guardian squad with the platform? A Tac squad with a heavy weapon. Cheaper for the same firepower. More durable to most weapons in the game. Has that 2+ for the entire time. And doesn't lose it's heavy after two wounds the way Platform-tanking Guardians do.
If only Marines could field a Tac squad to have the same durability as a Platform-tanking Guardian squad! But, alas, they have to pay a full 65 points for the same thing CWE gets for only 95 points!
Bharring wrote: "Gaurdians are a glass cannon unit. You are selling them short though. When used properly they are very hard to destroy even without stratagems"
You know what else has a 2+ save for it's first two wounds in cover and costs less than the Guardian squad with the platform? A Tac squad with a heavy weapon. Cheaper for the same firepower. More durable to most weapons in the game. Has that 2+ for the entire time. And doesn't lose it's heavy after two wounds the way Platform-tanking Guardians do.
If only Marines could field a Tac squad to have the same durability as a Platform-tanking Guardian squad! But, alas, they have to pay a full 65 points for the same thing CWE gets for only 95 points!
And hardly anyone is taking 5 Marines with a HB, but loads of players are filling their lists with Guardians. You are not looking at the big picture and seem intent on focusing on a very specific and wholly irrelevant unit to unit comparison.
Guardians have more OPTIONS for durability than Tac Marines do within their respective armies. THAT'S THE POINT. The ARMY is more durable overall due to these options.
Galef,
A Razorback *and* a Rhino are in the ~150 pt range.
A Serpent is marginally cheaper.
Razor/Rhino have 20 wounds total. Serpent has 13. Even with Shield, the Razor/Rhino is surviving a ton more outside contrived examples. Further, Razor/Rhino are two seperate vehicles, which helps against overkill and degradation.
Don't get me wrong, the Serpent is the better vehicle. Much better firepower. But both the Razorback and Rhino are more durable per point than the Serpent. Not as much more durable than most other SM vs CWE comparisons, though.
Also, hiding in cover is rarely viable in a game wjth any kind of maelstrom objective. Between that and that de obsession, please don't ever assume marines get 2+.
Nobody is taking Guardians to not die. They're taking Guardians to kill things. 20-man blob WWP'ed in.
I'm not arguing that CWE aren't better than SM. I'm pointing out that, per point, they're typically more fragile. They're just better at other things (mostly, killing and moving).
It's not that I don't see the big picture. It's that I'm not disagreeing with the big picture. Marines need help. They've made it to the bottom half.
I'm attempting to help the big picture by steering the conversation away from fallacies. Pretending that Marines get removed top of 1 automagically every time doesn't help analyse the problem, or what should be done about it. To properly discuss the problem, we need to identify the problem clearly. Because, if we're trying to solve the problem based on faulty understandings (such as "Marines are the most fragile per point"), we're going to do the wrong things.
Bharring wrote: "Gaurdians are a glass cannon unit. You are selling them short though. When used properly they are very hard to destroy even without stratagems"
You know what else has a 2+ save for it's first two wounds in cover and costs less than the Guardian squad with the platform? A Tac squad with a heavy weapon. Cheaper for the same firepower. More durable to most weapons in the game. Has that 2+ for the entire time. And doesn't lose it's heavy after two wounds the way Platform-tanking Guardians do.
If only Marines could field a Tac squad to have the same durability as a Platform-tanking Guardian squad! But, alas, they have to pay a full 65 points for the same thing CWE gets for only 95 points!
First of all - you are comparing a glass cannon unit to a unit that pays a premium for armor and toughness increase. The Marine unit should be significantly more durable per point. IT IS NOT. There is no question the gardian unit's firepower is significantly better than the tac squad. They also move faster with the ability to advance and shoot with no penalty so they move A LOT faster. The only place the tac squad is better defensively is in a 0 support situation (which does not exist in the game) If I am taking gardians - I am taking them in a 20 man unit and I am going to buff them to a 3++ save for a marginal investment of resources.
What are you going to do with your tac squad? Absolutely nothing - they do nothing in this game - they don't even survive well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Galef,
A Razorback *and* a Rhino are in the ~150 pt range.
A Serpent is marginally cheaper.
Razor/Rhino have 20 wounds total. Serpent has 13. Even with Shield, the Razor/Rhino is surviving a ton more outside contrived examples. Further, Razor/Rhino are two seperate vehicles, which helps against overkill and degradation.
Don't get me wrong, the Serpent is the better vehicle. Much better firepower. But both the Razorback and Rhino are more durable per point than the Serpent. Not as much more durable than most other SM vs CWE comparisons, though.
A razorback and a rhino is in the 200 point range.
A wave serpant is under 130 points....
Lets also not forget the serpent shield makes plasma useless and the army trait the serpent gains benefit from that SM vehicals do not. This is all included in the general statement. Space marines are the most fragile army in the game.
I am just trying to adequately communicate why Marines, as an army, are far more fragile than Aeldari due to things far more complex than simple math.
Yes, A Marine is more durable than A Guardian. But considering a single failed save for either takes out far more points to the Marine that the Guardian, clearly the Marine "loses" more. A unit of Guardians also does more that a minimum Tac Squad, meaning they can remove threats better, thereby TAKING less damage in the course of the game.
This is why Marines need +1W. Because they are SUPPOSED to be more durable, but they are not due to so many other factors BESIDES simple mathhammer.
"First of all - you are comparing a glass cannon unit to a unit that pays a premium for armor and toughness increase." Of course.
"The Marine unit should be significantly more durable per point." Of course.
"IT IS NOT." Difference in 'significantly' here. I think T4 3+ vs T3 4+ is significant.
"I am taking them in a 20 man unit and I am going to buff them to a 3++ save for a marginal investment of resources."
-Black Guardians - Spending CP every turn to give them a 4++
-Protect - getting the same power off on the Warlock every time. Assuming no denies, you'll be spending CP every other turn to get it to happen ~80% of the time.
That many CP (~10 a game) is not what I'd call "marginal".
"What are you going to do with your tac squad? Absolutely nothing - they do nothing in this game" Hasn't been recently refuted. Not impactful.
"they don't even survive well." We have different ideas of 'survive well'. Sure, there are units that are designed to be even more immovable who outperform them per point. But they still outperform many armies in durability per point. Whether Marines can do enough to be worth their points even if they do survive is a completely different subject than whether they can survive better than units that can do things.
Martel:
About cover, it was in response to the idea that Guardians are super durable because they can tank 2 wounds on a 2+ in cover if they pay a bunch of points for it (weapons platform). Either the platform has a 2+ and the Marines have a 2+, or neither do.
As for "Its not fair to compare tacs to just troops when they are the template for all marine infantry slots."
When talking about durability, it is fair in this case for most of these. Tac durability informs Dev durability and ASM durability. Dire Avenger durability informs Reaper durability and Banshee durability. Harliquen Troop durability informs Harliquen Troop durability and Harliquen Troop durability. PAGK durability informs Strike Squad durability and... well, they're PAGK...
So, just looking at a durability/pt perspective, Marines aren't alone in the "This one profile informs the durability of my other units". Again, those other units (aside from PAGK) can do things Marines can't. And, to your more general point, Tac firepower does inform non-Tac Marine firepower (devs and ASM, for instance) whereas that's not as true in other factions. But the specific claim beign discussed is whether Marines are the most fragile army per point in the game.
Bharring wrote: Nobody is taking Guardians to not die. They're taking Guardians to kill things. 20-man blob WWP'ed in.
I'm not arguing that CWE aren't better than SM. I'm pointing out that, per point, they're typically more fragile. They're just better at other things (mostly, killing and moving).
It's not that I don't see the big picture. It's that I'm not disagreeing with the big picture. Marines need help. They've made it to the bottom half.
I'm attempting to help the big picture by steering the conversation away from fallacies. Pretending that Marines get removed top of 1 automagically every time doesn't help analyse the problem, or what should be done about it. To properly discuss the problem, we need to identify the problem clearly. Because, if we're trying to solve the problem based on faulty understandings (such as "Marines are the most fragile per point"), we're going to do the wrong things.
There is no faulty information here. There is only deflection. Should guardians be anywhere near tac marines in terms of survivability? No...So why are we even talking about it?
Lets also just ignore the fact you can buff a 20 man gardian to be practically indestructible but a 10 man marine unit dies to any combination of low AP attacks no matter what you do?
Bharring wrote: DE are certainly more durable per point. Kabs are dirt cheap. Wracks and Grots are super durable. No argument there.
Are you saying that T3 5+ are more durable than T4 3+, even per point at 8ppm vs 13ppm, because CWE can spend several command points and psykic powers and such to make them more durable? Well, sure, if you don't count the psker points and consider CP free. Before powers/CP, they die a lot faster per point to most weapons. As in, more than twice as fast to Boltguns and Lasguns.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "They can all get up"? No more roll? I'm way behind on my Necrons. I didn't realize that they could do that. Or that only their opponents' dice can fail sometimes.
Yeah ofc they have to roll. Slayer was trying to completely dismiss reanimation protocols. Reanimation makes crons more durable than marines - there is no question about it. Point is - if you have some bad dice against marines - the things you killed stay dead. Vs crons - you can lose a whole turn if that happens.
Then ofc - quantum shielding. Overall the most powerful defensive ability in the game.
You literally discredit yourself once you say RP makes Necrons durable.
"A razorback and a rhino is in the 200 point range." What? Sure, if you bling them out with everything. Extra Storm Bolters, Hunter Killers, etc. Unless somehow the Razorback now costs more than the Serpent alone - did I miss that FAQ?
"A wave serpant is under 130 points" Sure, naked.
If those were the points the Serpent would marginally win (same W, but Serpent Shield is really good. Two chasis is also very good, but not quite as good as Serpent Shield).
They seem like the most fragile in practice because they remove enemy threats so slowly. Eldar knock down incoming fire much more quickly. Forget grandiose claims about magnitude. Tac marines don't provide 13 points of value and this gets propagated through every unit based off it.
Bharring wrote: DE are certainly more durable per point. Kabs are dirt cheap. Wracks and Grots are super durable. No argument there.
Are you saying that T3 5+ are more durable than T4 3+, even per point at 8ppm vs 13ppm, because CWE can spend several command points and psykic powers and such to make them more durable? Well, sure, if you don't count the psker points and consider CP free. Before powers/CP, they die a lot faster per point to most weapons. As in, more than twice as fast to Boltguns and Lasguns.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "They can all get up"? No more roll? I'm way behind on my Necrons. I didn't realize that they could do that. Or that only their opponents' dice can fail sometimes.
Yeah ofc they have to roll. Slayer was trying to completely dismiss reanimation protocols. Reanimation makes crons more durable than marines - there is no question about it. Point is - if you have some bad dice against marines - the things you killed stay dead. Vs crons - you can lose a whole turn if that happens.
Then ofc - quantum shielding. Overall the most powerful defensive ability in the game.
You literally discredit yourself once you say RP makes Necrons durable.
Bharring wrote: DE are certainly more durable per point. Kabs are dirt cheap. Wracks and Grots are super durable. No argument there.
Are you saying that T3 5+ are more durable than T4 3+, even per point at 8ppm vs 13ppm, because CWE can spend several command points and psykic powers and such to make them more durable? Well, sure, if you don't count the psker points and consider CP free. Before powers/CP, they die a lot faster per point to most weapons. As in, more than twice as fast to Boltguns and Lasguns.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "They can all get up"? No more roll? I'm way behind on my Necrons. I didn't realize that they could do that. Or that only their opponents' dice can fail sometimes.
Yeah ofc they have to roll. Slayer was trying to completely dismiss reanimation protocols. Reanimation makes crons more durable than marines - there is no question about it. Point is - if you have some bad dice against marines - the things you killed stay dead. Vs crons - you can lose a whole turn if that happens.
Then ofc - quantum shielding. Overall the most powerful defensive ability in the game.
You literally discredit yourself once you say RP makes Necrons durable.
I really don't...Necrons have an ability with the potential to remove all losses from a shooting phase. Provided they can't sink the final wound.
In this situation - you are at the very least forced to shoot weapons you need to shoot somewhere else to make sure they don't get back up.
"Lets also not forget the serpent shield makes plasma useless" Still wounds on 4s not overcharged. Even against non-OC'ed Plas, the Serpent is 30% more durable per model than a Razorback. For more than 30% more.
Bharring wrote: "Lets also not forget the serpent shield makes plasma useless" Still wounds on 4s not overcharged. Even against non-OC'ed Plas, the Serpent is 30% more durable per model than a Razorback. For more than 30% more.
Except you are shooting overcharged plasma at the razor...and not overcharged against the serpant. This means the serpant has 13 (4+ to wound) wounds to the razors 5 (3+ to wound) - they have the exact same toughness and saves. Plus - the serpant is likely -1 to hit OR 6+ FNP or both (this is significant because the razor does not get it's trait). Realistcally - this puts the serapnt at about 3x the number of plasma shots to kill...They aren't even close in durability.
I agree that now primaris marines get 2 wounds anyway and fancy weapons Terminators have become a bit of an afterthought.
2 ways you can go about it I think.
1. Major points decrease. say around 20 points for a terminator
2. Increase stats as others have been saying.
I think the biggest thing you could give them would be a 4+ inv save.
should have ability to ignore wounds that aren't from power weapons..
All I'm sayin is I have played and watched games vs Marines and often they lose half their army by turn 3 in most games, whether they win or lose. I can count on 1 hand the number of games I've played as Eldar in which I've lost more than 1/3 of my army by the end. Win or lose, doesn't matter, it is rare that I lose nearly as much of my army as I have seen Marines lose on a regular basis
"Yes, A Marine is more durable than A Guardian. But considering a single failed save for either takes out far more points to the Marine that the Guardian, clearly the Marine "loses" more."
A minimum unit of Guardians costs more than a minimum unit of Marines. 80pts vs 65 pts. It survives Lascannons better. But survives small arms worse per unit. Much worse per point.
Per model lost, Marines lose more. But Guardians lose models at a faster rate than Marines, and that rate is more than the points ratio between them.
'A unit of Guardians also does more that a minimum Tac Squad, meaning they can remove threats better, thereby TAKING less damage in the course of the game. " Arguing that you kill stuff therefore you're durable? It's a logical argument that they're probably more likely to survive. Not sure I'd disagree with that. But I thought I was being clear I was only talking about durability directly. Otherwise, we're just talking about what's better, not what's more durable. Still, no disagreement that Guardians are better than Marines.
"This is why Marines need +1W. Because they are SUPPOSED to be more durable, but they are not due to so many other factors BESIDES simple mathhammer. " I'd agree that other factors make them less viable despite being more durable than certain other armies as discussed here. I don't agree that being less viable therefore makes you inherently less durable, as per above.
"Lets also just ignore the fact you can buff a 20 man gardian to be practically indestructible but a 10 man marine unit dies to any combination of low AP attacks no matter what you do?"
Even if we accept that you can give your 20man a 3++ the whole game (Black Guardians + Protect). The 10 Marines are 130pts. The 20 Guardians are 160. Assumiing "Any combination of low AP attacks" is the S4AP0 profile:
(1/2)(1/3) = 1/6 hits kill 13pts, or just north of 2 pts a hit
(2/3)(1/3) = 2/9 hits kill 8pts, or just south of 2 pts a hit
CWE can spend a Warlock all game and multiple CP every turn to make Guardians as durable as Marines to small arms per point. That's not counting the Warlock points, even. So how are those Marines less durable to "any combination of low AP attacks no matter what you do" than Guardians, per point?
Martel732 wrote: That's because eldar neutralize the threats much more effectively.
Exactly. So while a Marine might be more "durable" than a Guardian, it also takes about twice as much damage over the course of the game.
So to do a proper comparison between Tac Marines and Guardians, you need to allocate twice the damage to the Marines.
Do that math and see which is more durable.
Terminators, at minimum, need +1 wound, as do standard Marines.
Galef wrote: All I'm sayin is I have played and watched games vs Marines and often they lose half their army by turn 3 in most games, whether they win or lose.
I can count on 1 hand the number of games I've played as Eldar in which I've lost more than 1/3 of my army by the end. Win or lose, doesn't matter, it is rare that I lose nearly as much of my army as I have seen Marines lose on a regular basis
-
It's because a standard eldar army does not show Any infantry turn 1. Every infantry unit is going to be a serpant (which is really hard to kill in 1 turn for most armies).
2 Serpants (when I play eldar) Hides my 10 dire avengers and whatever infantry aspect I've decided to run that game and I deep strike 20 guardians.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyways - none of this has to do with terminators.
Terminators weakness is well illustrated by their durability by IG shooting an IG batallion (220 points) at them. 4 infantry squads firing FRFSRF kills 100 points of terminators - mind you that is only 5 wounds. It just proves statement that they are immune to small arms fire is absurd. They are vulnerable to everything - they need to be more resilient to everything. +1 Wound is the best solution.
I had forgotten how many times the TLAC Razorback was upped in points. Sure, in that one case, the most glass-cannon SM transport is less durable than the least glass-cannon CWE transport, per point. You found an example in one of the CWE units built for durability vs one of the Marine units built for firepower.
TLLC Razorbacks are 115. TLBL Falcons are 150. Falcons have 12 wounds to Razors 10, but cost 30% more.
DAs less durable than tacs per points vs anything not S8+ *AND* AP-5.
Guardians less durable than tacs per points vs anything small arms.
Scorpions and Banshees less durable per point than ASM.
Reapers less durable (but otherwise much better) per point than Devs.
Serpent less durable per point than Rhinos.
Falcons less durable per point than Razorbacks.
And that's just CWE.
PAGK pay more for the same defenses as Marines. How are they less fragile per point?
Harlequins have some nice defensive abilities such that they're not removed by the bucketload, but even with -1 to hit or wound, most things remove t3 4++ faster than t4 3+.
I'm *still* not arguing that Marines don't need a buff. I'm not arguing that their durability means they're fine. I'm specifically refuting that they are the least durable army in the game.
Marines pay 65 for a min squad then 25 for a LasCannon.
Guardians pay 90 for a min squad then 25 for a Brighlance.
So you've got 90 points of Marines shooting a LC or 115 points of Guardians shooting a Brightlance. The Marine unit is still more durable outside heavy AT weapons, despite costing quite a bit less. And a LasCannon is better than a Brightlance.
There's equipment other than lascannons, however. Grav, melta, flamers. They are all outrageously costed for marines. Basically you've got overcosted models equipping with overcosted equipment. It's double trouble.
Given the defensive profiles of xeno units now, I'd even argue lascannons aren't worth 25 pts anymore.
Also, please quit using Eldar as the point of comparsion. Let's talk guardsmen and Drukhari. Eldar have many of the same problems as marines. The truly efficient infantry armies don't.
Martel732 wrote: There's equipment other than lascannons, however. Grav, melta, flamers. They are all outrageously costed for marines. Basically you've got overcosted models equipping with overcosted equipment. It's double trouble.
Given the defensive profiles of xeno units now, I'd even argue lascannons aren't worth 25 pts anymore.
To add to your point, the basic Gaurdian has a better gun too, so they don't necessarily need the Weapon platform for the bulk of it's damage. It's really just there for wound allocation Marines, otoh, can barely do jack with Bolters alone, so not only are you paying for the Lascannon or Heavy Bolter or whatever, you likely also want a Combi-weapon on the Sgt.
5 Marines with Plasma and Combi-plasma (an "optimum" build for a unit in a transport) is ~100pts (97pts, I think) for 5 wounds are 3+ 10 Guardians with a Shuricannon platform (the "optimum" build to have in a serpent or the Webway) is 95pt for 2 wounds at 3+ and 10 wounds at 5+ (but really 4++)
But again, those Guardian will only be taking about half the damage that the Marine will take, because the Eldar player can use them more efficiently and place them where there are less threats. Marines kinda have to take it on the chin. Marines will be force to take far more saves than the Guardians ever will.
Because "Marines are the most fragile army in the game" should only be discussed using armies that aren't more fragile than Marines?
Do Marine meltaguns at 17pts cost more than CWE meltaguns at 17pts? That's some funky math. How bout the 9pt flamer vs the 9pt flamer?
It costs 25pts for a Tac squad to add a ML. It costs 35pts for a Guardian squad. Heavy bolter costs 10. Scatter Laser costs 20. Shuriken Cannon costs 20.
I don't disagree that Marines are more fragile than Guardsmen in many situations. Or Kabs. Or many things. I disagree that there aren't armies that are more fragile than Marines.
Can we please drop this point? I think one guy claimed this. Maybe two?
Please quit using Eldar as the point for comparison. I don't consider their infantry strong, either.
Marines don't deliver 13 points of value. Hard stop. Meltaguns don't deliver 17 pts of value in the hands of said marine. Hard stop. Combining the two is how we get where we are with marines.
Martel732 wrote: Can we please drop this point? I think one guy claimed this. Maybe two?
Please quit using Eldar as the point for comparison. I don't consider their infantry strong, either.
Marines don't deliver 13 points of value. Hard stop. Meltaguns don't deliver 17 pts of value in the hands of said marine. Hard stop. Combining the two is how we get where we are with marines.
"many situations"
Nearly every.
Dop Meltaguns deliver at 17pts in the hands of anyone when Plasma guns exist?
So to get back on track, Terminators either need +1W to be worthwhile, or about a 10ppm drop. At less than 30ppm, then might be ok with only 2W, but they'd still suffer hugely to Plasma and Autocannon spam. With their Invul being largely redundant, it might be cool to swap that for a rule the reduces damage by 1 as mentioned.
Edit: I give up. Sure, Marines are less durable per point than the armies that have to pay more for models with the same or worse defensive stats. Sure. I'll back out of this thread.
Bharring wrote: Edit: I give up. Sure, Marines are less durable per point than the armies that have to pay more for models with the same or worse defensive stats. Sure. I'll back out of this thread.
Bharring wrote: Edit: I give up. Sure, Marines are less durable per point than the armies that have to pay more for models with the same or worse defensive stats. Sure. I'll back out of this thread.
I never said that. But sure.
Yeah. And I never said that "A" Marine was less durable. I was arguing the "Marines as an army" have been proven to be the least durable and that needs to be fixed.
As a marine player I agree with the points that Bharring is trying to make. Not that I agree wholly because the durability of marines is problematic (it feels like our tanks are made of paper and anything a competitive enemy wants dead dies).
The problem with marines isn't only their defense, our offense is really bad. Bolters don't work to fight hordes/elites/vehicles so the tac marine has no point and that futility flows through the whole codex.
Most marine units are too slow to do anything worth while. Pods are crazy over priced, with the increase of CP for armies and the ubiquitous deepstrike strats they serve next to no purpose and not at the price they are (what 2 of them will get you a guard CP battery that gives you 5 cp + the ones they regen allow some armies to deepstrike 3 units at least + 2+ CP remaining not to mention the utility of the guard bodies...)
Increasing the termie ws/bs to 2 doesn't help because they are still armed with bolters (which have anemic offensive out-put > 12" and get 2 attacks each with mediocre and expensive CCW weapon.
The "good" units combine mobility or long range with out sized offensive output (ravagers, de transports, grots, shining spears, reapers, eldar/de flyers, custode bikers, knights, princes with wings, oblits, genestealers, tau commanders, flyrants, hive guard, guard artillery, hell-hounds) the common theme is good movement/range, strat/spell support and unit killing offensive out-put. There are outliers who rely on out sized durability (deathguard, custode bike captains)
The marine book is lacking units that do these things. Termies could be them but they need their mobility changed (i.e. my teleport strike rule suggestion) and offensive output (double their shots w/ a -1 ap, special/heavy weapon saturation) changes to assault marines (3 attacks +1 on charge or whatever).
Another problem is all the bespoke rules tacked onto the basic SM units. Balancing a codex space marine terminator is one thing but then you start giving them rules like BA or Chaos and now you have an entirely different beast. I think this requires thinking of the marine+1 armies as different and not just porting the vanilla marine to their codexes. Either that or the power for vanilla marines needs to be implemented through unique strats...
Can anyone argue against the fact that 220 points of supported gaurdsmen shooting nothing but lasguns at terminators kill 100 points of terminators?
220 points of firewarriors + cadre does similar damage
220 points of guardians almost wipes the squad
Oh surprise surprise 220 points of marines with bolters kills 40 points of terms.
So 2 things are clear here.
#1 Terminators are not durable vs small arms.
#2 Unless they are being shot at by tactical marines.
I am convinced we can make space for a unit like terminators. They just need to be sufficiently priced for what they do.
+1W gives them much better durability. That is still not enough for them. +1 attack and ether bsws 2+ or always hit on 3's is also needed. Then they are close to their actual value.
Custodes are +1s +1T and have a 4++ save and +1move. For the 12 more points they pay - it is absolutely fair.
The custode still wins in CC and shooting as well - plus the ability to take storm sheilds.
They will hit and wound on the same numbers against each other with the term being dropped to a 5+ save in CC but the custode getting a 4++ / both do d3 damage.
In shooting we are talking 4 str 4 shots ap 0 vs 2 shots str 4 ap-1 d2.
Like seriously...A term will have a better time vs t6-t8 targets but ultimately custodian guards are troop choices - there has to be some trade off here. Custodian terminators that have the str 8 weapons should get a proper buff because they are underpowered - these changes would make terms worth it.
In this comparison I think the always hit on 3's rule is better than 2+ WS and BS because it allows more elite units to be represented when they fight against terms but it allows terms to have reasonable damage with a powerfist which hitting on 4's is worthless.
Xenomancers wrote: I am convinced we can make space for a unit like terminators. They just need to be sufficiently priced for what they do.
+1W gives them much better durability. That is still not enough for them. +1 attack and ether bsws 2+ or always hit on 3's is also needed. Then they are close to their actual value.
Agreed. Alternatively, we leave them as-is and drop their points dramatically (by about half). This alternative "feels" wrong but it would better represent what they are actually worth.
Xenomancers wrote: I am convinced we can make space for a unit like terminators. They just need to be sufficiently priced for what they do.
+1W gives them much better durability. That is still not enough for them. +1 attack and ether bsws 2+ or always hit on 3's is also needed. Then they are close to their actual value.
Agreed. Alternatively, we leave them as-is and drop their points dramatically (by about half). This alternative "feels" wrong but it would better represent what they are actually worth.
-
Well then we run into another issue. We run out of room to improve other units that need fixing (even outside of the marine codex) Like Tyranid warriors for example. Properly armed they are 27 points and clearly inferior to a 25 point terminator. They probably deserve a decent price cutt too but I feel like buffs work better because they give you more space to work with.
Martel732 wrote: I'm always going to favor cheaper, weaker models in 8th. Being in more places at once and losing less to failed saves dominates 8th.
I agree from a "what is tactically better" standpoint. But these are Terminators for Emperor's sake. They are supposed to be few, but hard to kill.
Marines too, in general. Marines aren't meant to "horde". Giving all Marines +1W, including Termies, at no additional cost should be the compromise between making them live up to their fluff and being balanced for what they do.
Marines should be quality, not quantity, even if 8E prefers quantity
Quantity is quality in 8th. Quality is completely short-circuited by 15 pt disintegrators and 13 pt plasmas. It's too widespread to fight against in general, I think.
Martel732 wrote: Quantity is quality in 8th. Quality is completely short-circuited by 15 pt disintegrators and 13 pt plasmas.
Well - disse cannons are clearly under-costed...they are better at killing tanks than dark lances...it's pretty obvious the weapon needs adjustment - like straight up Nerf to 1 damage would still leave them as a great choice for 15 points and give it a clear anti infantry roll. Or increase it's cost to 25.
Plasma I don't have such a huge problem with. Except that too many models are paying a premium for 2 wounds. Remove that by giving the majority of the suffering 2 wound models 3 wounds. There we go. Plasma will fall out of favor quickly with the prevalence of on demand -1 to hit which turns plasma into a weapon equally likely to kill yourself compared to your opponents models. Mainly it should probably be more limited in number on really cheap units like sions....
Martel732 wrote: Quantity is quality in 8th. Quality is completely short-circuited by 15 pt disintegrators and 13 pt plasmas.
And that is a problem. So while discussing proposed rules to make something better, shouldn't we address multiple problems, rather than accepting them? Clearly Dissies need to be D1 or 20+pts. This is another reason why I am so adamant about Marines needing +1W. It addresses super efficient weapons for Marines without overcorrecting for all those weapons.
There should be a gap. If every faction has 5ppm Troops, than what is the point of diversity? Some things need to be more expensive, but should also be worth that extra expense. Having multiple wounds solves this. GW started to move in this direction when they gave all Termies 2W. They just didn't go far enough (or went too far with multi-damage weapons?)
Bharring wrote: DE are certainly more durable per point. Kabs are dirt cheap. Wracks and Grots are super durable. No argument there.
Are you saying that T3 5+ are more durable than T4 3+, even per point at 8ppm vs 13ppm, because CWE can spend several command points and psykic powers and such to make them more durable? Well, sure, if you don't count the psker points and consider CP free. Before powers/CP, they die a lot faster per point to most weapons. As in, more than twice as fast to Boltguns and Lasguns.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "They can all get up"? No more roll? I'm way behind on my Necrons. I didn't realize that they could do that. Or that only their opponents' dice can fail sometimes.
Yeah ofc they have to roll. Slayer was trying to completely dismiss reanimation protocols. Reanimation makes crons more durable than marines - there is no question about it. Point is - if you have some bad dice against marines - the things you killed stay dead. Vs crons - you can lose a whole turn if that happens.
Then ofc - quantum shielding. Overall the most powerful defensive ability in the game.
You literally discredit yourself once you say RP makes Necrons durable.
I really don't...Necrons have an ability with the potential to remove all losses from a shooting phase. Provided they can't sink the final wound.
In this situation - you are at the very least forced to shoot weapons you need to shoot somewhere else to make sure they don't get back up.
I more than welcome you to go into the Necron Tactica with us and talk about how powerful RP is, especially when it doesnt work with models that run away either.
Please. I insist. I need a reason to get out the popcorn.
Bharring wrote: DE are certainly more durable per point. Kabs are dirt cheap. Wracks and Grots are super durable. No argument there.
Are you saying that T3 5+ are more durable than T4 3+, even per point at 8ppm vs 13ppm, because CWE can spend several command points and psykic powers and such to make them more durable? Well, sure, if you don't count the psker points and consider CP free. Before powers/CP, they die a lot faster per point to most weapons. As in, more than twice as fast to Boltguns and Lasguns.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "They can all get up"? No more roll? I'm way behind on my Necrons. I didn't realize that they could do that. Or that only their opponents' dice can fail sometimes.
Yeah ofc they have to roll. Slayer was trying to completely dismiss reanimation protocols. Reanimation makes crons more durable than marines - there is no question about it. Point is - if you have some bad dice against marines - the things you killed stay dead. Vs crons - you can lose a whole turn if that happens.
Then ofc - quantum shielding. Overall the most powerful defensive ability in the game.
You literally discredit yourself once you say RP makes Necrons durable.
I really don't...Necrons have an ability with the potential to remove all losses from a shooting phase. Provided they can't sink the final wound.
In this situation - you are at the very least forced to shoot weapons you need to shoot somewhere else to make sure they don't get back up.
I more than welcome you to go into the Necron Tactica with us and talk about how powerful RP is, especially when it doesnt work with models that run away either.
Please. I insist. I need a reason to get out the popcorn.
It's better than ATSKNF - I will trade them.
Necrons are practically immune to leadership with LD10 anyways. Then there is always the 2 CP to auto pass - which is practically factored into your battle plan when using a huge unit of warriors or something with a ghost arc. What usually happens is...instead of shooting at your 20 man - people just ignore it because they know 20 warriors rerolling RP they might as well surrender the game if they shoot at it and fail to kill it.
Necrons have their own issues - I am not exactly sure why they don't do better than they do. They have stuff that is pretty broken...like transcendent ctans and doomsday arcs.
Martel732 wrote: Quantity is quality in 8th. Quality is completely short-circuited by 15 pt disintegrators and 13 pt plasmas.
Well - disse cannons are clearly under-costed...they are better at killing tanks than dark lances...it's pretty obvious the weapon needs adjustment - like straight up Nerf to 1 damage would still leave them as a great choice for 15 points and give it a clear anti infantry roll. Or increase it's cost to 25.
Plasma I don't have such a huge problem with. Except that too many models are paying a premium for 2 wounds. Remove that by giving the majority of the suffering 2 wound models 3 wounds. There we go. Plasma will fall out of favor quickly with the prevalence of on demand -1 to hit which turns plasma into a weapon equally likely to kill yourself compared to your opponents models. Mainly it should probably be more limited in number on really cheap units like sions....
Then maybe just some models get a readjustment. I don't think most people are opposed to 17 point Intercessors, but we shouldn't just give them 3 wounds because.
The Disintegration is a whole other issue and we both know most people agree it needs a point bump.
Bharring wrote: DE are certainly more durable per point. Kabs are dirt cheap. Wracks and Grots are super durable. No argument there.
Are you saying that T3 5+ are more durable than T4 3+, even per point at 8ppm vs 13ppm, because CWE can spend several command points and psykic powers and such to make them more durable? Well, sure, if you don't count the psker points and consider CP free. Before powers/CP, they die a lot faster per point to most weapons. As in, more than twice as fast to Boltguns and Lasguns.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "They can all get up"? No more roll? I'm way behind on my Necrons. I didn't realize that they could do that. Or that only their opponents' dice can fail sometimes.
Yeah ofc they have to roll. Slayer was trying to completely dismiss reanimation protocols. Reanimation makes crons more durable than marines - there is no question about it. Point is - if you have some bad dice against marines - the things you killed stay dead. Vs crons - you can lose a whole turn if that happens.
Then ofc - quantum shielding. Overall the most powerful defensive ability in the game.
You literally discredit yourself once you say RP makes Necrons durable.
I really don't...Necrons have an ability with the potential to remove all losses from a shooting phase. Provided they can't sink the final wound.
In this situation - you are at the very least forced to shoot weapons you need to shoot somewhere else to make sure they don't get back up.
I more than welcome you to go into the Necron Tactica with us and talk about how powerful RP is, especially when it doesnt work with models that run away either.
Please. I insist. I need a reason to get out the popcorn.
It's better than ATSKNF - I will trade them.
Necrons are practically immune to leadership with LD10 anyways. Then there is always the 2 CP to auto pass - which is practically factored into your battle plan when using a huge unit of warriors or something with a ghost arc. What usually happens is...instead of shooting at your 20 man - people just ignore it because they know 20 warriors rerolling RP they might as well surrender the game if they shoot at it and fail to kill it.
Necrons have their own issues - I am not exactly sure why they don't do better than they do. They have stuff that is pretty broken...like transcendent ctans and doomsday arcs.
Now you're really out of touch if you think Doomsday Arks and any variant of the C'Tan is broken.
Out of touch how? D6str 10 shots with ap-5 and D6 damage 72" range is amazing. 14 W is amazing. Quantum sheilding is amazing. The price is undercosted.
Ctans are some of the best mortal wound generators in the game. Uncounterable also.
Also - you aren't fully appreciating the problem if you think a 1 point drop on an intercessor is a solution.
Xenomancers wrote: Out of touch how? D6str 10 shots with ap-5 and D6 damage 72" range is amazing. 14 W is amazing. Quantum sheilding is amazing. The price is undercosted.
Ctans are some of the best mortal wound generators in the game. Uncounterable also.
Also - you aren't fully appreciating the problem if you think a 1 point drop on an intercessor is a solution.
I'm also not trying to propose giving everyone under the sun 2 wounds like you guys want.
Can anyone argue against the fact that 220 points of supported gaurdsmen shooting nothing but lasguns at terminators kill 100 points of terminators?
220 points of firewarriors + cadre does similar damage
220 points of guardians almost wipes the squad
Oh surprise surprise 220 points of marines with bolters kills 40 points of terms.
So 2 things are clear here.
#1 Terminators are not durable vs small arms.
#2 Unless they are being shot at by tactical marines.
Since you asked I will argue, though it won't disprove your point. To get into rf range the terminators would need to teleport in the round prior, getting the opportunity to shoot down a few guards/Shas. Not all that many since storm bolters aren't awe inspiring, and they might even get into melee which prevents a few units from shooting however unlikely the 9"charge is.
I'm still very opposed to giving terminators the dark reaper rule, or even 2+ offence. If marines and terminators don't do enough damage maybe they need more shots per body. These threads are rife with feature creep though.
I do think that cheap bodies need a reason to be relevant, such as wounds not spilling, weight of dice, low cost of taking mw. And agree that cp on top of it is a bit too much. There are obviously many things to adjust in the codex, but going heavy handed on buffs first might not be the way.
Plas and fists need adjustment. Glass cannons could use some tempering, the game as a whole could get more active with less killiness. So ok, give terminators some points off and the wide spread changes then see how it goes. Maybe I'll do a few skirmishes to see how it feels tonight.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think tac marines should have primaris stats and be pointed at ~16 ppm, including having "bolt rifles" that are str4 ap-1 d1. Keep the standard str4 ap0 boltguns for sisters and imperial guard as they are the smaller, human sized bolters and it makes sense as they should have less stopping power. Then the other models in the marine line can go up from there. Tac sergeants should have +1L and +1A. Terminators should have 3W, 3A... but +2 WS and BS might be a bit much though, although I do think their shooting damage output is low.
I am an IG player. From a purely outside perspective I acknowledge marines are weak and need buffs. Also from an outsider perspective I'd like to see marines get stronger instead of cheaper. It fits the faction's theme better. Contrary to what Martel thinks I do think elite armies can work in 8th if they are pointed appropriately. Custodes are proof of that. Looking at GK and current space marines and assuming that all elite armies will turn out like them is a bad assumption to make IMO.
Can anyone argue against the fact that 220 points of supported gaurdsmen shooting nothing but lasguns at terminators kill 100 points of terminators?
220 points of firewarriors + cadre does similar damage
220 points of guardians almost wipes the squad
Oh surprise surprise 220 points of marines with bolters kills 40 points of terms.
So 2 things are clear here.
#1 Terminators are not durable vs small arms.
#2 Unless they are being shot at by tactical marines.
Since you asked I will argue, though it won't disprove your point. To get into rf range the terminators would need to teleport in the round prior, getting the opportunity to shoot down a few guards/Shas. Not all that many since storm bolters aren't awe inspiring, and they might even get into melee which prevents a few units from shooting however unlikely the 9"charge is.
I'm still very opposed to giving terminators the dark reaper rule, or even 2+ offence. If marines and terminators don't do enough damage maybe they need more shots per body. These threads are rife with feature creep though.
I do think that cheap bodies need a reason to be relevant, such as wounds not spilling, weight of dice, low cost of taking mw. And agree that cp on top of it is a bit too much. There are obviously many things to adjust in the codex, but going heavy handed on buffs first might not be the way.
Plas and fists need adjustment. Glass cannons could use some tempering, the game as a whole could get more active with less killiness. So ok, give terminators some points off and the wide spread changes then see how it goes. Maybe I'll do a few skirmishes to see how it feels tonight.
Would be interested to know how it goes with your skirmishes. I'd really like to know how everyone terminator house rules are going. I am going to try my ideas out too. Lets see if it breaks the game.
10 Marines with +1W. Naked vs Naked, vs 10 Banshees:
Shooting:
Marines:
10x2x(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 20x(2/9), or ~ 4.5 dead Banshees
Banshees:
10x1x(2/3)[(1/3)(1/3) + (1/6)(5/6)] = 10x(1/6), or ~ 2 wounds, or 1 dead Marine.
Marines being nearly 5 times as good at shooting isn't really a problem, as Banshee are glass CC units.
CC:
Marines:
10x1(1/2)(2/3)(1/2) = 10x(1/6), or ~ 2 dead Banshees
Banshees:
(10x2+1)(2/3)(1/3)(5/6) = 21(5/27), or ~ 2 dead Marines
So we have a super glass cannon CC unit that gives up a ton of shooting to hit hard in melee, who specializes in killing Tacs. And it's about tied with it's intended target in CC. While getting destroyed 4-5 times as hard in shooting best-case by the same unit.
And they're the same points. And Banshees go from half the durability of Marines pre-change to a quarter of it, for the same price.
Do you see why Marines with +1W might not be ideal?
All you are doing is showing that aspect warriors need help to - which everyone will agree with. Also - banshees don't specialize at killing anything with str 3 - they need a redesign. Honestly a witch at 8 points is better than a banshee. They should have stats more like Incubi but cost more like what they cost now.
All that math proves is that Banshees @ 13ppm are equal to Marines with 2W @ 13ppm. Because the casualties even out. And a 1v1 comparison isn't very fair when you consider that Marines are meant to be more or less self-sufficient and Eldar units are meant to ALWAYS have support.
10 Banshees will never be assaulting 10 Marines, nor would they be charging without some kind of buff. The Eldar codex is built specifically in this manner. Marines, while buffs exist in their faction, are not built this way.
Bharring wrote: 10 Marines with +1W. Naked vs Naked, vs 10 Banshees:
Shooting:
Marines:
10x2x(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 20x(2/9), or ~ 4.5 dead Banshees
Banshees:
10x1x(2/3)[(1/3)(1/3) + (1/6)(5/6)] = 10x(1/6), or ~ 2 wounds, or 1 dead Marine.
Marines being nearly 5 times as good at shooting isn't really a problem, as Banshee are glass CC units.
CC:
Marines:
10x1(1/2)(2/3)(1/2) = 10x(1/6), or ~ 2 dead Banshees
Banshees:
(10x2+1)(2/3)(1/3)(5/6) = 21(5/27), or ~ 2 dead Marines
So we have a super glass cannon CC unit that gives up a ton of shooting to hit hard in melee, who specializes in killing Tacs. And it's about tied with it's intended target in CC. While getting destroyed 4-5 times as hard in shooting best-case by the same unit.
And they're the same points. And Banshees go from half the durability of Marines pre-change to a quarter of it, for the same price.
Do you see why Marines with +1W might not be ideal?
Your rounding is absolutely atrocious and your math is slightly wrong... So if marines had two wounds...
Shooting:
Marines:
20(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 4.44 dead banshees
Banshees:
10(2/3)[(1/3)(1/3) + (1/6)(5/6)] = .83 dead marines
CC:
Marines:
(10+1)(1/2)(2/3)(1/2) = 1.83 dead banshees
Banshees:
(10*2+1)(2/3)(1/3)(5/6) + 10(2/3)[(1/2)(1/3) + (1/6)(5/6)] = 2.77 dead marines
Banshees can fire their pistols before the charge, and then fire them in melee in subsequent rounds. Banshees also get other goodies that marines don't get, such as a 22" threat range (on average, marines have average 13" threat range for comparison), -1 to hit vs everything, and immunity to overwatch. So, yea, I actually think that makes tac marines somewhat balanced with howling banshees, a unit that to my knoweldge is so UP that no eldar player that I know uses them.
Martel732 wrote: Again, please quit using eldar infantry as the comparison standard.
I completely agree. Eldar are in a completely different ball game, and if you end up comparing their "worst" units to say 2W Marines would be OP, you actually end up hurting your own argument. Marines should have 2W for 8E. PERIOD. This also means Bikes and Termies should have 3W. It better reflects the "durability" they are SUPPOSED to have in a meta in which multi-damage weapons run rampant. Scouts are probably the only "Marines" that could stay at 1W.
Wizard,
Yes, my rounding was very broad. But it cut both ways (rounded up .83 both times).
Did you factor in the Tac pistol? I don't recall them losing it in 8th. The Tac pistol is scarier to Banshees than the Banshee pistol is to Marines, even with Marines having only 1W - much moreso with 2. Also, the pistols only fire every other round (you can shoot in your shooting phase, not theirs).
Marines, when firinig pistols:
(10+1)(1/2)(2/3)(1/2) = 1.83 wounds from CC attacks
10x(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 10x(2/9), or 2.22 dead Banshees,
2.77 dead Marines per pistol-firing round vs 4.05 dead Banshees. Still very strongly in Marine favor.
Banshees do have a 22" threat range for charging. They have a 20-inch threat range for shooting.
Marines only have a 13" threat range for charging. And only an 18" threat range for rapid fire. But they have a *30*" threat range to shoot the banshees - and even shooting outside rapidfire will outshoot what Banshees can do by *two and a half* times (2.66).
Banshees are bad. But the whole 'We kill half your squad at 12", or a quarter at 24"' thing should be reserved for units that can't kick their asses in CC.
Pistols make 2W Marines outperform vs Banshees by even more.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 10 Marines vs 18.6 Fire Warrors:
Marines:
20x(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 20x(2/9) = 4.444 wounds/dead FIre Warriors, or 31.1 points.
FW:
18.6x(1/2)(2/3)(1/3) =37.2x(1/9) = 4.13 wounds/2.06 dead Marines, or 26.78 points.
2W Marines win pitched firefights against *Fire Warriors*. Slightly, but holding their own vs FW is crazy.
YOu're not sacrificing one unit: you're sacrificing about 15 codexes to make the remaining 5 "function" again. What troops would still be even on the same page as Marines?
Bharring wrote: 2W Marines win pitched firefights against *Fire Warriors*. Slightly, but holding their own vs FW is crazy.
They are friggin Space Marines. It is not crazy to hold their own vs FW. Marines are the Imperium's "elite". FWs are the T'au s rank-n-file schmoes.
I don't disagree that 13ppm for 2W Marines is powerful and could probably be upped to 15ppm
But as it stands, 13ppm for a 1W Marine is pretty garbage.
Hold their own 1v1? They already do that. Eliteism vs redshirtism is managed by points - otherwise, you're asking for the 'elite' armies to actually be more powerful on the tabletop, which is obviously unbalanced. T'au rank-and-file per point *should* outshoot Marines: it's their schtick.
I don't disagree with buffing Marines. I think we agree that 13ppm for 2W marines with no other change is going too far, though.
Bharring wrote: YOu're not sacrificing one unit: you're sacrificing about 15 codexes to make the remaining 5 "function" again. What troops would still be even on the same page as Marines?
We already have 18 point primaris with 2 wounds....did it invalidate all other troops? I mean come on man...Not even close. They are so bad they don't show up in anyone's list unless they are just playing for fun (much like tactical marines or anything in power armor) - that's not a few points off kind of bad - it's holy crap this unit is 25% over-costed at least. I can tell you why too - the additional wound almost NEVER matters.
Pretty sure the game is dominated right now by 4 point infantry 6 point kabalites and 7 point firewarriors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Hold their own 1v1? They already do that. Eliteism vs redshirtism is managed by points - otherwise, you're asking for the 'elite' armies to actually be more powerful on the tabletop, which is obviously unbalanced. T'au rank-and-file per point *should* outshoot Marines: it's their schtick.
I don't disagree with buffing Marines. I think we agree that 13ppm for 2W marines with no other change is going too far, though.
I say 14 points but that would also include an additional CC attack as well.
Sure, those Primaris are overcosted, but saying they're at least 25% overcosted means you think they're worth only 13 points. How would they not be OP at 13ppm? I think you're way off.
The addtional wound never matters? The 4pt Guardsmen, 6pt Kabs, and 7pt Firewarriors have one important thing in common: the additional wound *always* matters against those models. In fact, it matters against *most* of the weapons in the game. It'll be rare you'll run into a DE list with more Dissies than Splinter. Or CWE with more Spears/Reapers than Shuriken.
What troops are supposed to hold their own against 14ppm Marines with 2W with or without an extra CC attack?
14-5ppm 2W Marines are about on par with two 7ppm FW, or two Kabs. Both is points, and number of wounds total. The Marines have better armour and T, but this is offset by the better weapons of the other choices and the fact that 2 FWs will have 2 weapons against that 1 Marine Compare 5 2W Marines (10 wounds, 70-75pts) with 10 FWs (10 wounds, 70pts). It's about even, with the advantage STILL on the FWs side, especially in RF range.
Yes, Marines need better offense. but their defense is just sad.
My standpoint is that +1W to all Marines is where you START making them work. Points per model can follow later, but 13ppm is far more appropriate for 2W than for only 1W. 15ppm feels right overall though, for the Primaris Stat line but just a regular bolter. Actual Primaris Marines need something different, like a special ability that all <Primaris> models share. Maybe their armour reduces damage by 1? Or maybe the bolt rifle becomes S5, AP-1, 30". Primaris can fill the "offensive" gap in the Marine line. That would, afterall, be consistant with why Guililman created them in the first place.
Oh I just realized how to make them good. Let them fo what they actually we're intested for, vanguard stike units. Introduce a new strat for now deathwing terminators
Teleportarium lightning strike 1/3cp: use this stratigem before the battle begins. Select 1/2 units that are in deep strike reserve and have the terminator key word, these units my perform a lightnings strike. They maybe set up within 6 inches of an enemy unit but roll a d6, on 5+ the unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.
Deathwing lighting strike 1/3cp: use this stratigem before the battle begins, select 1/2 units in deep strike with the deathwing and terminator key word, along with 1/2 charters with the terminator and deathwing keyword. They may deep strike within 6 inches of an enemy unit, in doing so roll a d6 on a 5+ that unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.
Boom you can now use them as they should have been, shock troopers.
Backspacehacker wrote: Oh I just realized how to make them good. Let them fo what they actually we're intested for, vanguard stike units. Introduce a new strat for now deathwing terminators
Teleportarium lightning strike 1/3cp: use this stratigem before the battle begins. Select 1/2 units that are in deep strike reserve and have the terminator key word, these units my perform a lightnings strike. They maybe set up within 6 inches of an enemy unit but roll a d6, on 5+ the unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.
Deathwing lighting strike 1/3cp: use this stratigem before the battle begins, select 1/2 units in deep strike with the deathwing and terminator key word, along with 1/2 charters with the terminator and deathwing keyword. They may deep strike within 6 inches of an enemy unit, in doing so roll a d6 on a 5+ that unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.
Boom you can now use them as they should have been, shock troopers.
Their issue isn't making it into CC though - their issue is hitting like wet noodels when they get there and dying to a swift breeze after. Pretty bad for a 40 point model. They can deep strike near guilliman and a libby - +1 to charge distance with a reroll charge from a psychic power. Or can just be black templars to get reroll charge for free.
Honestly with their current statline and basic logic. One can tell they are worth 25-27 points currently. Compared to other good units.
13 pt intercessors still lose to drukhari handily. They still are paying 13 pts for at most two s4 shots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Sure, those Primaris are overcosted, but saying they're at least 25% overcosted means you think they're worth only 13 points. How would they not be OP at 13ppm? I think you're way off.
The addtional wound never matters? The 4pt Guardsmen, 6pt Kabs, and 7pt Firewarriors have one important thing in common: the additional wound *always* matters against those models. In fact, it matters against *most* of the weapons in the game. It'll be rare you'll run into a DE list with more Dissies than Splinter. Or CWE with more Spears/Reapers than Shuriken.
What troops are supposed to hold their own against 14ppm Marines with 2W with or without an extra CC attack?
Other troops aren't supposed to hold their own. Marine troops are also their elites, fast attack, and heavy support. Marines have to be able to handle grotesques and dark reapers and carnifexes and riptides, because marines don't get distinct choices in their other slots. They get marines with different gear. The fact that marines are comparable to and in fact inferior to most other troops is what's killing them.
Bharring wrote: 10 Marines with +1W. Naked vs Naked, vs 10 Banshees:
Shooting:
Marines:
10x2x(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 20x(2/9), or ~ 4.5 dead Banshees
Banshees:
10x1x(2/3)[(1/3)(1/3) + (1/6)(5/6)] = 10x(1/6), or ~ 2 wounds, or 1 dead Marine.
Marines being nearly 5 times as good at shooting isn't really a problem, as Banshee are glass CC units.
CC:
Marines:
10x1(1/2)(2/3)(1/2) = 10x(1/6), or ~ 2 dead Banshees
Banshees:
(10x2+1)(2/3)(1/3)(5/6) = 21(5/27), or ~ 2 dead Marines
So we have a super glass cannon CC unit that gives up a ton of shooting to hit hard in melee, who specializes in killing Tacs. And it's about tied with it's intended target in CC. While getting destroyed 4-5 times as hard in shooting best-case by the same unit.
And they're the same points. And Banshees go from half the durability of Marines pre-change to a quarter of it, for the same price.
Do you see why Marines with +1W might not be ideal?
None of that matters.
Don't compare to something everyone agrees is already terrible.
Bharring wrote: "The fact that marines are comparable to and in fact inferior to most other troops is what's killing them."
I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I want Marines to be as viable as other armies, not more viable.
Well if you are just of the opinion that the whole game needs to be toned down to tac marines and dire avengers power level then just say so.
It's my opinion that - that is nearly impossible. The real outliers in power are those that are exceptionally weak. It's much easier to buff a few weak units to make a the few really weak armies viable than to nerf the entire game.
Such as space marines (practically entire codex including lots of CSM elements too) / eldar aspects / admech detroyers / Necron warriors / entire GK codex/ Tau Crisis suits / ect.
Martel732 wrote: 13 pt intercessors still lose to drukhari handily. They still are paying 13 pts for at most two s4 shots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Sure, those Primaris are overcosted, but saying they're at least 25% overcosted means you think they're worth only 13 points. How would they not be OP at 13ppm? I think you're way off.
The addtional wound never matters? The 4pt Guardsmen, 6pt Kabs, and 7pt Firewarriors have one important thing in common: the additional wound *always* matters against those models. In fact, it matters against *most* of the weapons in the game. It'll be rare you'll run into a DE list with more Dissies than Splinter. Or CWE with more Spears/Reapers than Shuriken.
What troops are supposed to hold their own against 14ppm Marines with 2W with or without an extra CC attack?
Other troops aren't supposed to hold their own. Marine troops are also their elites, fast attack, and heavy support. Marines have to be able to handle grotesques and dark reapers and carnifexes and riptides, because marines don't get distinct choices in their other slots. They get marines with different gear. The fact that marines are comparable to and in fact inferior to most other troops is what's killing them.
Intercessors would be fine at 16 points. Anything lower than that is just bad writing on your end.
Also you're right about the Elite and Fast Attack slots. Due to other armies just getting more specialized units, Marinea have to rely on their stats more instead. That's why I'm for BS2+ Sternguard, WS2+ Vanguard, and WS/BS2+ Terminators.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also you're right about the Elite and Fast Attack slots. Due to other armies just getting more specialized units, Marinea have to rely on their stats more instead. That's why I'm for BS2+ Sternguard, WS2+ Vanguard, and WS/BS2+ Terminators.
I support this. But it does not help Tactical Marines at all, nor does it prevent Terminators for being outright deleted (as they are now) before even getting to use that fancy WS/BS2+, nor does it affect Assault Marines or Devs. They all NEED the +1W to make a real difference in how they play. Points increases for this would be acceptable, but really only 1-2ppm would be needed.
It probably wouldn't be as noticeable if Assault Marines and Devs had 2W to represent the added bulk of the large weapon/jump pack, but the fact that they don't suggests that wounds don't always represent added bulk, but rather additional endurance to being wounded, which all Marines should have. This USED to be represented by Toughness, but with the change to the To Wound chart in 8E, slight variations in T are less relevant. T3 and T4 are not different enough to merit such a high point difference (especially when so many T3 troops have better weapons). +1W would represent it far better.
At the very least, this discussion has convinced me to always apply +1W to Marines in my games at home
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also you're right about the Elite and Fast Attack slots. Due to other armies just getting more specialized units, Marinea have to rely on their stats more instead. That's why I'm for BS2+ Sternguard, WS2+ Vanguard, and WS/BS2+ Terminators.
I support this.
But it does not help Tactical Marines at all, nor does it prevent Terminators for being outright deleted (as they are now) before even getting to use that fancy WS/BS2+, nor does it affect Assault Marines or Devs.
They all NEED the +1W to make a real difference in how they play. Points increases for this would be acceptable, but really on 1-2ppm.
It probably wouldn't be as noticeable if Assault Marines and Devs had 2W to represent the added bulk of the large weapon/jump pack, but the fact that they don't suggests that wounds don't always represent added bulk, but rather additional endurance to being wounded, which all Marines should have.
This USED to be represented by Toughness, but with the change to the To Wound chart in 8E, slight variations in T are less relevant. T3 and T4 are not different enough to merit such a high point difference (especially when so many T3 troops have better weapons). +1W would represent it far better.
At the very least, this discussion has convinced me to always apply +1W to Marines in my games at home
-
Tactical Marines have the following issues:
1. The Bolter sucks, full stop. At least in previous editions it forced some opponents into cover, but now you get that 5+/6+ the whole time so who cares?
2. The weapon selection options is bad. Tons of options aren't good if those options cannot be used in bulk. That's why Plasma Scions work so well (on top of the cheap cost and stuff).
3. The refusal to experiment with fixing any of those items. Yeah free Rhinos WAS a fix...and it was definitely the worst possible idea ever in the game.
4. Those Rhinos having firing points was actually partly important and they shouldn't have lost it.
So my fixes to the Tactical Marine itself doesn't actually involve a total overhaul of the profile, but rather try and fix what they want that Marine to be.
1. Make the Bolter be less bad. Everyone has had different ideas on how to make Bolt weapons fit more akin to fluff. One suggestion I liked was Tesla-Lite with a roll of 6 to hit was counted as two hits. Someone else suggested a wound roll of 6 force two saves. I previously suggested a wound roll of 6 force rerolls of successful saves. Whatever it is, something for Bolt Weapons ought to be there.
2. Tactical Marines get +1LD. This is mostly for fluff reasons (they're not newbies like Scouts and Assault Marines and Devastators), but also helps with anything above minimum size.
3. You get the 1 Special/Heavy at 5 man squads, the opposite one at 7 man squads, and then your choice of another at 10 man squads. So at 10 man squads you have either 2 Specials/1 Heavy or 2 Heavy/1 Special.
4. To better reflect their actual worth make them 11 points base and then the Bolter cost 1 point, or 12 points and pay for the Bolter. It seems silly that the cost of the Bolter is with the model, but they don't get slightly cheaper when they lose it and buy a new weapon.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Make the Bolter be less bad. Everyone has had different ideas on how to make Bolt weapons fit more akin to fluff. One suggestion I liked was Tesla-Lite with a roll of 6 to hit was counted as two hits. Someone else suggested a wound roll of 6 force two saves. I previously suggested a wound roll of 6 force rerolls of successful saves. Whatever it is, something for Bolt Weapons ought to be there.
Agreed, bolters need work. I personally would have liked Bolt weapons to get what Eldar Shuriken weapons have now: AP-3 on a to-wound roll of 6 to represent the additional damage the exploding round would do. Shuriken weapons should have just been AP-1 standard, with +1 shot and -1Str. So a Catapult would be Assault 3, S3 Ap-1, Cannon would be Assault 4, S5, AP-1. No special ability needed Make them slightly better vs infantry (although harder to wound), but very much worse against vehicles (again, harder to wound and no chance of AP-3)
2. Tactical Marines get +1LD. This is mostly for fluff reasons (they're not newbies like Scouts and Assault Marines and Devastators), but also helps with anything above minimum size.
All unit leaders should have higher LD, yes, but giving them +1W also reduces casualties. With ATSKNF, even 10-man units would be hard to force Morale.
3. You get the 1 Special/Heavy at 5 man squads, the opposite one at 7 man squads, and then your choice of another at 10 man squads. So at 10 man squads you have either 2 Specials/1 Heavy or 2 Heavy/1 Special.
A simpler option would be 1 Special/Heavy at 5, or 3 Special/Heavy at 10. It encourages full 10-man squads more, as well as Combat Squad shenanigans
4. To better reflect their actual worth make them 11 points base and then the Bolter cost 1 point, or 12 points and pay for the Bolter. It seems silly that the cost of the Bolter is with the model, but they don't get slightly cheaper when they lose it and buy a new weapon.
But no other unit is costed this way. No unit can take a Bolter as an "option". It's always mandatory on every unit that an take a Bolter. Every codex puts a 0 cost on mandatory wargear, which makes sense. You need to think of the other options as 1-2pts less. A melta, for example is actually 18-19ppm, but it takes out the Bolter cost.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also you're right about the Elite and Fast Attack slots. Due to other armies just getting more specialized units, Marinea have to rely on their stats more instead. That's why I'm for BS2+ Sternguard, WS2+ Vanguard, and WS/BS2+ Terminators.
I support this.
But it does not help Tactical Marines at all, nor does it prevent Terminators for being outright deleted (as they are now) before even getting to use that fancy WS/BS2+, nor does it affect Assault Marines or Devs.
They all NEED the +1W to make a real difference in how they play. Points increases for this would be acceptable, but really only 1-2ppm would be needed.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Make the Bolter be less bad. Everyone has had different ideas on how to make Bolt weapons fit more akin to fluff. One suggestion I liked was Tesla-Lite with a roll of 6 to hit was counted as two hits. Someone else suggested a wound roll of 6 force two saves. I previously suggested a wound roll of 6 force rerolls of successful saves. Whatever it is, something for Bolt Weapons ought to be there.
Agreed, bolters need work. I personally would have liked Bolt weapons to get what Eldar Shuriken weapons have now: AP-3 on a to-wound roll of 6 to represent the additional damage the exploding round would do.
Shuriken weapons should have just been AP-1 standard, with +1 shot and -1Str. So a Catapult would be Assault 3, S3 Ap-1, Cannon would be Assault 4, S5, AP-1. No special ability needed
Make them slightly better vs infantry (although harder to wound), but very much worse against vehicles (again, harder to wound and no chance of AP-3)
2. Tactical Marines get +1LD. This is mostly for fluff reasons (they're not newbies like Scouts and Assault Marines and Devastators), but also helps with anything above minimum size.
All unit leaders should have higher LD, yes, but giving them +1W also reduces casualties. With ATSKNF, even 10-man units would be hard to force Morale.
3. You get the 1 Special/Heavy at 5 man squads, the opposite one at 7 man squads, and then your choice of another at 10 man squads. So at 10 man squads you have either 2 Specials/1 Heavy or 2 Heavy/1 Special.
A simpler option would be 1 Special/Heavy at 5, or 3 Special/Heavy at 10. It encourages full 10-man squads more, as well as Combat Squad shenanigans
4. To better reflect their actual worth make them 11 points base and then the Bolter cost 1 point, or 12 points and pay for the Bolter. It seems silly that the cost of the Bolter is with the model, but they don't get slightly cheaper when they lose it and buy a new weapon.
But no other unit is costed this way. No unit can take a Bolter as an "option". It's always mandatory on every unit that an take a Bolter. Every codex puts a 0 cost on mandatory wargear, which makes sense. You need to think of the other options as 1-2pts less. A melta, for example is actually 18-19ppm, but it takes out the Bolter cost.
-
1. While I'm not adverse to doing the weapons like you want, it requires more rewriting and therefore more needing of rebalancing.
2. Yeah multiple wounds help everything. Not having multiple wounds last edition though wasn't their issue, nor was it the issue in 6th or 5th or 4th. It was always strictly offense. If you want more defense, there ARE options (Raven Guard and Alpha Legion, Iron Hands and Death Guard, Thousand Sons, 6+++ various auras).
3. That kinda just makes them Crusader Squads. I'm looking to try and do something creative here, while appeasing to the silly fluffbunnies that insist that Tactical Marines work. At all.
4. You're probably right. I was more thinking about how Sternguard mostly work, but it's probably simpler to just ignore that part. So I'd have my buffs keep them at 12 point models, and Vets would be 15 I guess?
Bolters do have a pricetag, you'll find it in the IG and IG-wannabees books. 1pt.
Shouldn't we technically allow Marines to buy a Bolt Rifle for 1pt.? I mean Cawl pulled Primaris Marines out of his cavern, but certainly he will have enough Boltrifles stockpiled to spread the love no?
Additionally we should be allowed to buy additional weaponry for tac marines for another point, like a chainsword.Ergo be able to give the full Allrounder-kit to marines? (Bolter, Boltpistol, Chainsword).
The only problem would be that CSM don't have Boltrifles. What about something more thematic along the side of the warcrime weaponry? Phosephex greanades? Diffrent ammo types?
A 2w profile would surely help, scalling that with the Terminators to 3w would also help most likely.
I don't want Tactical Marines to get Chainswords as that's stepping on the toes of Grey Hunters and Chaos Marines. I'd rather try and keep them all different.
Bharring wrote: "The fact that marines are comparable to and in fact inferior to most other troops is what's killing them."
I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I want Marines to be as viable as other armies, not more viable.
They'd only be better than xeno troops, not their specialists/ vehicles. For the army to be viable, the marines have to outstrip xeno troops by a lot.
Marines should beat firewarriors in firefight; badly in fact, because marines are taking it up the ass in every other slot matchup.
I don't want a repeat of 3rd ed, but this is three editions in a row that 90% of my models are unfieldable. This is fething nuts.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I was being hyperbolic about intercessors. Altough i think 16ppm is still too high.
Yeah I agree - That's why I want them to be 20 points with 3 wounds and 3 attacks.
With their weapons changing slightly. Stalkers gain the sniper rule and +2 points. The assault bolters become assault 3 18" range. Bolt rifles remain the same.
Then - for an elite slot I hope we eventually get primaris vetren squads attacks goes to 4 with their cost being like 24 - 28 depending on their weapons loadouts...where everyone has master crafted bolt guns or mast crafted auto bolt rifles or master crafted stalkers also with the options for melle loadouts - axes/ swords and shields.
and get 2 attacks each with mediocre and expensive 