Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Slayer,
Do you have a source on the retcon that Vanguard Vets (or Sternguard Vets) are no longer bearers of the Crux Terminatus?

I haven't read the 8th Ed Codex cover-to-cover like the previous ones, but previously a Vet squad could be deployed in either Power Armor or Tactical Dreadnaught Armor. You'd see Crux Terminatuses frequently displayed on their Power Armor, too.

Further, GW used to split WS/BS stats more. As pointed out above, Tau used to vary between units. But GW has since removed that, SM Scouts vs Marines, CWE militia vs Aspects, and Aspects vs Exarchs. I haven't been a fan of this flattening, but it's a clear trend.

Should SM really be the 'special snowflake' where their experts are WS/BS2+, but not other factions? There are exceptions, but most equivelents in other factions do *not* have increased WS/BS.

Non-compliant chapters might be different, but of the ten squads in 1st company, they could each be deployed in PA or Termy armor. All vet squads were 1st Company.

A crux terminatous it its true original form was only ever found as part of terminator armour. Terminator honours is a smaller copy of the crux without the "magical retconned invulnerable save". It had a points cost and gave vets and vet sargemts an additional attack.

Ergo all terminators where veterans, but not all veterans have been given the honour of wearing terminator armour.

The reason for this as a suggestion is that as has veen covered so many times already is that marine close combat unita don't justify their points cost ever. To the point that even non marine players agree they are over costed.

Do you turn marines into 10 point or less models a d vets into 11-12 point models, which just adds to the already bad 2k games and 3 hours per round of tournaments or actually make they just goodnenough to justify their 20-30points a model price.
Slayer is suggesting how we make Vanguard stern guard and terminators actually convey in the rules some form of value for their points cost. In all honesty its better than what I've seen other people suggest. It scales well and doesn't really matter if they are as good as HQ units in CC etc especially as some of the HQ units could really do with being 1+ as they would still fail on ones but wouldn't be effected by -1 to hit shenanigans.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Between 3+ and 2+ there is 3+ rerolling 1s.

In this way a veteran would be better than a brethren but less than an officer

Which makes Captains even more redundant compared to Chapter Masters. I don't think that should be the goal.

I dunno they are vets. they dont really need to be baby sat by a captain. 1s to reroll helps out on the plasma side of things which im sure people would like.

 Desubot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Between 3+ and 2+ there is 3+ rerolling 1s.

In this way a veteran would be better than a brethren but less than an officer

Which makes Captains even more redundant compared to Chapter Masters. I don't think that should be the goal.

I dunno they are vets. they dont really need to be baby sat by a captain. 1s to reroll helps out on the plasma side of things which im sure people would like.

I think the ultimate goal should be that our units don't need to be babysat but, if they are, gain a decent benefit from it.

Hell, frickin Infantry squads don't even need Orders to function.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So I propose that the following changes be made. Be warned. There is only 4.
1. Vanguard Veterans gain WS2+
2. Sternguard gain BS2+
3. Special Issue Bolters are 1 Point
4. Terminators gain WS/BS2+

Fun fact. Back in 2nd edition before the terms Vanguard and sternguard were used, all three of these units had BS and WS 5, which is 2+ in today's rules.
Captains, if memory serves, had BS and WS 7.

It irritates me that 3rd edition and 8th edition have both created rules complication by trying to simplify stat lines.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm surprised how little opposition there is to this. Good stuff. I'll make it part of my final iteration for the codex fixes.

I actually really like your solution, and I like your reasoning too.

I might add that personally I think Termies should be able to choose their weapons like regular vets. It would remove the dual entry for regular and assault termies, and you would just have one terminator entry. Mix match your weapons in the squad, as in power weapons and combi-bolters added to the current options, like even a tac sarge gets access to. (Keep a HW limit though, as 5 Ultramarine termies with SS and AC/HFs that continually fall back and dump shots sounds a bit much)

D10?...yes?...yes?.....(keeps hand raised)....please....pretty please.....But I know it won't happen

I'd rather make all Vets BS/WS5 than make some BS5 some WS5 and some BS/WS5.

But I seem to be alone in thinking a Vet is a Vet who could be a Van, Sternie, or Termie based on equipment.

The issue I see is that everyone will make an argument for buffing their elite choices. I don’t think anyone wants to see dark reapers hitting on 2s. Would you accept berserkers hitting on 2s as well?

The D10 would be a great variance but it would be a nightmare to roll for large numbers of shots.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
The issue I see is that everyone will make an argument for buffing their elite choices. I don’t think anyone wants to see dark reapers hitting on 2s. Would you accept berserkers hitting on 2s as well?

The D10 would be a great variance but it would be a nightmare to roll for large numbers of shots.

Reapers hitting on a 3+ made sense when they used to be Vets compared to Guardians, who were always BS/WS4+ until Kelly did his thing again.

People might make the argument for Marine Scouts, but that was only an edition or two.

Of course I'm never going to see it in my group and there are so many vectors for why.

One is ws/bs 2+ is not a strong buff. If I've got wolf guard with basic bolters, or chosen with bolters, or celestians with bolters, or company vets with basic bolters, then 2+ to hit doesn't get them far enough to take them over tactical types with basic bolters. It doesn't really make a difference to how much they kill and I don't care.

There's other problems that will get fixed and those obviate some of the need. You've still got crusaders, assault marines, and grey hunters with power weapon or eviscerator option that are pointless because they have only one attack. So if you look at any of the fixes to that - power swords/axes/mauls give +1 attack just like chainswords, or marines all get 2 attacks and three for vets - then you don't have the problem anymore because you either have three pf attacks which is better than a better ws but only two attacks, or you can drop the ws modifier from fists, which is just a good thing to eliminate. There are several units and unit types that could get a relentless style mechanic, if there's just a heavy or stable platform keyword brought in for global game resons, then bs2+ isn't called for. ws/bs2+ is bad, there are plenty of fixes for other, more important problems, that will obviate the need for ws/bs on just marine vets.

Then when you recruit marines, there are going to be several who are way more talented at shooting than their fellows or take to it better. These are marines who are going to stay in their basic companies for their entire careers, being sharp shooters or marksmen, winning the marksman award, drilling the rest of the company, not usually becoming veterans. If you got a hundred odd people to role play every marine in a company with tabletop stats, then there'd be some with bs2+ and some with +1a about to be promoted to veteran, and those groups would not 100% overlap.

Veterans are the ones with exceptional heroism, grit, determination, gumption, experience, cunning, whether they came in with it an got kicked up almost right away, or because they've been seasoned in tough fighting and apprenticed to senior marines for decades. This is not the same thing at all as weapon skill or ballistic skill, and if anything number of marines who have both exceptional skill and exceptional cunning is likely to be low, and could mean proportionally fewer bs2+ marines in the veteran companies than in the others. There are pretty clear selection criteria for veterans, those are attacks and Ld, as in cunning, seasoning, heroism; talent and technique aren't the criterion, that's for other stuff.

Veteran units should be able to get the drop on regular units and lay them out, regardless of whether their weapons are better or not. bs/ws2+ doesn't do that. With upgraded weapons like assault cannons, SIA, and thunder hammers, they should do kill basic units with prejudice, and bs/ws2+ doesn't do that either.

ws/bs2+ isn't big enough, and it isn't fluffy. It's worth thinking about enough to see all the inadequacies and end up doing something else.

1. I already said in the OP that there's several units that need fixing and that this thread was just for these units.
2. If it isn't a big enough buff, what would you suggest?
3. Having several more years of experience goes hand in hand with an increased WS/BS (, and I don't see how you can honestly say otherwise. Talent is pretty frickin obvious for a qualification.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
The issue I see is that everyone will make an argument for buffing their elite choices. I don’t think anyone wants to see dark reapers hitting on 2s. Would you accept berserkers hitting on 2s as well?

The D10 would be a great variance but it would be a nightmare to roll for large numbers of shots.

I've done it for other games. It's fine. That's a GW-esque excuse.

Martel732 wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
The issue I see is that everyone will make an argument for buffing their elite choices. I don’t think anyone wants to see dark reapers hitting on 2s. Would you accept berserkers hitting on 2s as well?

The D10 would be a great variance but it would be a nightmare to roll for large numbers of shots.

I've done it for other games. It's fine. That's a GW-esque excuse.

Agreed, d10 isn't hard to read in mass. D18 and d20 now, thats is hard to read but d10 would be pretty easy to throw in bunches. D12 isn't THAT bad either and it would be a factor of the D6 system as a lot of times you roll 2D6 in certain cases. Creating more granularity might also remove a few special rules that try to add granularity to the d6 system. Like orks used to be S3 but S4 on charge when they could just be strength 4 and marines could be S5. Or this odd event where Catachans are the same strength as marines now in 8th. I'm sure there are a few more instances where there is a rule that tries to inject granularity in cases where units have the same stat number. Granted this would all require a total relaunch and won't happen anytime soon.

I would go with Terminators WS/BS2+, but keep the vets at 3+. The Vets already have very flexible options, 2 A, etc.and function fine. Terminators are the guys who come off a bit lacklustre, and traditionally their suits had Targeters. Why better WS than a Vet? *Shug. Weapons are integrated better/whatever, or just remove the -1 from heavy CC weapons, since it amounts to about the same thing and makes more sense lore-wise.

Additionally I would remove the -1 for heavy weapons when moving.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zustiur wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So I propose that the following changes be made. Be warned. There is only 4.
1. Vanguard Veterans gain WS2+
2. Sternguard gain BS2+
3. Special Issue Bolters are 1 Point
4. Terminators gain WS/BS2+

Fun fact. Back in 2nd edition before the terms Vanguard and sternguard were used, all three of these units had BS and WS 5, which is 2+ in today's rules.
Captains, if memory serves, had BS and WS 7.

It irritates me that 3rd edition and 8th edition have both created rules complication by trying to simplify stat lines.

Yessir, and Dreads were BS WS 6, plus Targeters for amazing overwatch capability .

But what I really miss is the wargear flexibility of Assault Squads.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I would go with Terminators WS/BS2+, but keep the vets at 3+. The Vets already have very flexible options, 2 A, etc.and function fine. Terminators are the guys who come off a bit lacklustre, and traditionally their suits had Targeters. Why better WS than a Vet? *Shug. Weapons are integrated better/whatever, or just remove the -1 from heavy CC weapons, since it amounts to about the same thing and makes more sense lore-wise.

Additionally I would remove the -1 for heavy weapons when moving.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zustiur wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So I propose that the following changes be made. Be warned. There is only 4.
1. Vanguard Veterans gain WS2+
2. Sternguard gain BS2+
3. Special Issue Bolters are 1 Point
4. Terminators gain WS/BS2+

Fun fact. Back in 2nd edition before the terms Vanguard and sternguard were used, all three of these units had BS and WS 5, which is 2+ in today's rules.
Captains, if memory serves, had BS and WS 7.

It irritates me that 3rd edition and 8th edition have both created rules complication by trying to simplify stat lines.

Yessir, and Dreads were BS WS 6, plus Targeters for amazing overwatch capability .

But what I really miss is the wargear flexibility of Assault Squads.

Removing the -1 from everything only makes the other options less attractive in the long run. You can't tell me you'd actually bother with Lightning Claw Terminators when the TH/SS ones exist for only a moderate price increase and HIT AT THE SAME RATE.

Also the Vets outside Command Squads hardly function fine. You know what is barely hitting that level? Double Chainsword Vanguard and that's it. I can't even bother to defend the LC ones anymore.

The only other option is the Lighting Claws. The Power Sword is mandatory for the Tac-Term Sarge, and the Chainfist suffers the same -1.

Lightning Claws would still connect 50 more since they have an additional attack, and you could shuffle points around depending on what you want.

. . .

I thought you were all big on Sternguard?

 Insectum7 wrote:
The only other option is the Lighting Claws. The Power Sword is mandatory for the Tac-Term Sarge, and the Chainfist suffers the same -1.

Lightning Claws would still connect 50 more since they have an additional attack, and you could shuffle points around depending on what you want.

. . .

I thought you were all big on Sternguard?

I'm very big on Sternguard. That doesn't mean they're great.

Also gotta remember I'm for giving pretty much all Terminators the universal WS/BS2+. So this helps Chaos Terminators with Power Weapons, Paladins without the Hammers, Blightlord and Deathshroud, Scarab Occult, Deathwing Knights...

Basically all of them besides the troop Grey Knights, which just need a solid price decrease.

Imo Sternguard/VV are already good enough. Giving them WS/BS 2+ is basically just power creep, and unnecessary.


As for Terminators, fair point, if you're giving them all the 2+ bonus. I'm not up on every iteration of them, but I don't see many Terminators on the tables and it would be nice to see them again. Bumping them to 2+ is a big jump in 40K terms, but the actual percentage difference in successes isn't huge and I think it's fairly universally accepted that Terminators don't feel like they should.

However, I'd also say that at least the Chaos Terminators have a plethora of options making it less necessary for a boost, in which case removing the -1 for "heavy" CC/Shooting could still be a viable measure. I don't recall specifics about the other Terminator types off the top of my head. (As I rarely see any).

Chaos Terminators are taken solely for Combi-Plasma + the Slannesh Strategem. That's basically out the window with the Deep Strike rules in place.

Martel732 wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
The issue I see is that everyone will make an argument for buffing their elite choices. I don’t think anyone wants to see dark reapers hitting on 2s. Would you accept berserkers hitting on 2s as well?

The D10 would be a great variance but it would be a nightmare to roll for large numbers of shots.

I've done it for other games. It's fine. That's a GW-esque excuse.

What system have you used where you’re rolling 40+ D10s? Honestly I’m just curious. I’m less worried about reading the dice rolls and more concerned with getting that many d10s rolled on a table. The average D10 will need a lot more space to roll in and has a greater chance of knocking over units on the table. Also if my reasoning sound similar to GW’s, maybe there’s some amount of reason to that thought. GW can have sound ideas.

Babylon 5 wars during damage resolution.

D10s don't take up much more room and it's moot in a rolling box.

 Galas wrote:
I actually really like this change. I doubt it will happen, GW hasn't changed the BS or WS of any model since the Index.

They don't seem very willingly to change stats, and even lest for units as clasic as this ones. Something I find really stupid but ey, YO SPACE MRINES MUST BE 4444443+!

They changed the weapon skill on slaanesh exalted seeker chariots.

But they *also* changed the stats of:
-Exarchs
-Scouts
-Guardians
-Suits

All to regress to the standard WS/BS for the army.

And the fluff argument of a "a few extra years" (probably actually "a few extra centuries") falls flat in front of the options with "a few extra millenium" without the +1 WS/BS.

Although, backing away from the balance, maybe they should tie Vets to Exarchs. Why do Vets cost more when Exarchs don't?