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.

After coming back, Im afraid I still believe this is a massive overstep to the whole 'marine durability' fix. so for 13 points a model with this change, assuming you're in cover (which is very easy for marines to do, not so much my Gaunt hordes) you're 2+ -1 to wound and THEN any other faction bonuses on top (Alpha legion/Raven Guard -1, then psychic powers or other bonuses)

I just can't wrap my head around the massive leap it would give to marine durability, completely dwarfing virtually every other choice. Why should a marine never been wounded on worse than a 3+? There's infinitely more durable things out there. Hell if you want to pull the fluff card (I love the fluff in 40k, but keep it the hell out of the core rules!) Necrons are MUCH more deserving of such a change.

Marines are fine in a void by themselves, its things being too cheap and access to too much dice to drown them in that makes them feel bad, paired with seemingly anaemic firepower (then again compared to Guard/knights everything feels bad)


This change would be a cool psychic power (borrowing from Galefs earlier idea) some kind of barrier which gave models within 6" -1 to be wounded from attacks further than 12".

A blanket across the board -1 to wound for free would be crazy, hell suddenly marines are equally as tough as custodies?

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
After coming back, Im afraid I still believe this is a massive overstep to the whole 'marine durability' fix. so for 13 points a model with this change, assuming you're in cover (which is very easy for marines to do, not so much my Gaunt hordes) you're 2+ -1 to wound and THEN any other faction bonuses on top (Alpha legion/Raven Guard -1, then psychic powers or other bonuses)

I just can't wrap my head around the massive leap it would give to marine durability, completely dwarfing virtually every other choice. Why should a marine never been wounded on worse than a 3+? There's infinitely more durable things out there. Hell if you want to pull the fluff card (I love the fluff in 40k, but keep it the hell out of the core rules!) Necrons are MUCH more deserving of such a change.

Marines are fine in a void by themselves, its things being too cheap and access to too much dice to drown them in that makes them feel bad, paired with seemingly anaemic firepower (then again compared to Guard/knights everything feels bad)


This change would be a cool psychic power (borrowing from Galefs earlier idea) some kind of barrier which gave models within 6" -1 to be wounded from attacks further than 12".

A blanket across the board -1 to wound for free would be crazy, hell suddenly marines are equally as tough as custodies?

This is your typical SM blanket fix that has not even considered Chaos marines and variants.
And frankly beyond ridicoulous, imagine the following scenario but apply it to an Alpha legion plague marine. (we didn't even consider Miasma,or other psy in that case.)

A simple "Treat AP-1 as AP0" would be enough frankly... MEQ are not *that* fragile against chaff fire. Also, Cover benefits 3+ saves a lot more than it benefits 6, 5 or even 4+ saves.

Not Online!!! wrote:
This is your typical SM blanket fix that has not even considered Chaos marines and variants.
And frankly beyond ridicoulous, imagine the following scenario but apply it to an Alpha legion plague marine. (we didn't even consider Miasma,or other psy in that case.)

I agree, which I why I absolutely do not think -1 to wound is a good idea. +1 to armour saves outside 12" is much better because it can be circumvented by the right weapons a lot easier.
Let's look at that AL Plague Marine in cover under both versions. Lets also use Plasma. No need to supercharge as the T5 and 1W does not merit supercharging.

Outside 12" you get -1 to hit from AL. With -1 to wounds as the OP suggestion you go from a 67% chance to wound, to only 50/50. 5+ armour save after both cover and AP-3, so 33% chance of ignoring by armour. So just the to wound and armour = 16.5% chance the wound goes through

With +1 armour instead, you still wound on 3s for a 67% chance to wound, but not the cover + AP-3 + bonus = 4+ armour, or 50%. That's a 33.5% chance the wound gets through, which is DOUBLE the chance of -1 to wound.
It's still a bonus, but not so much that Chaos Marines such as Plague Marine and Rubric become OP unkillable.
Armour can be circumvented much easier that ignoring a -1 to wound.

+1 to Armour save rolls is just enough of a bonus to either make "weight of fire" tactics ineffective, thus requiring the use of more heavy weapons, OR it makes weight of fire need just a bit more investment to get the job done, thus making them less cost effective.
It also puts the "bonus" in the hands of the MARINE player, rather than their opponent. And rules in which MY dice get a bonus are, IMO, more fun than those that put a negative on YOUR dice.

-

 Galef wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
This is your typical SM blanket fix that has not even considered Chaos marines and variants.
And frankly beyond ridicoulous, imagine the following scenario but apply it to an Alpha legion plague marine. (we didn't even consider Miasma,or other psy in that case.)

I agree, which I why I absolutely do not think -1 to wound is a good idea. +1 to armour saves outside 12" is much better because it can be circumvented by the right weapons a lot easier.
Let's look at that AL Plague Marine in cover under both versions. Lets also use Plasma. No need to supercharge as the T5 and 1W does not merit supercharging.

Outside 12" you get -1 to hit from AL. With -1 to wounds as the OP suggestion you go from a 67% chance to wound, to only 50/50. 5+ armour save after both cover and AP-3, so 33% chance of ignoring by armour. So just the to wound and armour = 16.5% chance the wound goes through

With +1 armour instead, you still wound on 3s for a 67% chance to wound, but not the cover + AP-3 + bonus = 4+ armour, or 50%. That's a 33.5% chance the wound gets through, which is DOUBLE the chance of -1 to wound.
It's still a bonus, but not so much that Chaos Marines such as Plague Marine and Rubric become OP unkillable.
Armour can be circumvented much easier that ignoring a -1 to wound.

+1 to Armour save rolls is just enough of a bonus to either make "weight of fire" tactics ineffective, thus requiring the use of more heavy weapons, OR it makes weight of fire need just a bit more investment to get the job done, thus making them less cost effective.
It also puts the "bonus" in the hands of the MARINE player, rather than their opponent. And rules in which MY dice get a bonus are, IMO, more fun than those that put a negative on YOUR dice.

-

This is certainly a better and more competent fix, especially considering that marines due to the great new beta bolter rule now want to sit around.
I would loathe to see -1 to hit -1 to wound T5 models witha 3+/5+++ for 16 pts.

+1 to armor would also incentivice stuff with ap 1 (AC, GL, HB's, etc.)

Not Online!!! wrote:
+1 to armor would also incentivice stuff with ap 1 (AC, GL, HB's, etc.)

This is also a great point about why I really don't like the "Treat AP-1 as AP-0" It dissuades use of weapons that already have a hard time getting use.
+1 to armour has the same affect against AP-1 weapons, but don't specifically target just those weapons. It applies to things like Lascannons and Plasma just as well.

-

-1 to wound is a bit much. But let's make it -1 strength instead. I still get what I feel is enough for Marines to feel scary tough.

I don't feel +1 to save really adds any value and invalidates Marie's desiring to take cover against the majority of weapons.

The other thing is army wide -1 to hit is too good of a tactic. And shouldn't be in the game. It adds too much value to everything going away 17-50% of range shooting attack pool.

Where as I am aiming at the same thing at the wound stage. And you are all suggesting a 17% more likely to save to 50% at range on the save roll. And you prefer it because there is more modifiers on that segment and thus you can "ignore it" by purchasing more big guns.

If I were to have my -1 to wound or -1 strength I would prefer -1 to hitting to be non existent as well.

And if making power armor work for you is changing it to a 2+ that still leaves terminators sad.

-1 to hit should be +1 to cover outside 12", even while not in cover

 Galef wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
+1 to armor would also incentivice stuff with ap 1 (AC, GL, HB's, etc.)

This is also a great point about why I really don't like the "Treat AP-1 as AP-0" It dissuades use of weapons that already have a hard time getting use.
+1 to armour has the same affect against AP-1 weapons, but don't specifically target just those weapons. It applies to things like Lascannons and Plasma just as well.

-

+X to save roll mechanic already exists - see Bullgryn/slab shield.

I think it's an existing design space that would fit well for what you're trying to implement.

fraser1191 wrote:-1 to hit should be +1 to cover outside 12", even while not in cover

I feel that this is more fair.

skchsan wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
+1 to armor would also incentivice stuff with ap 1 (AC, GL, HB's, etc.)

This is also a great point about why I really don't like the "Treat AP-1 as AP-0" It dissuades use of weapons that already have a hard time getting use.
+1 to armour has the same affect against AP-1 weapons, but don't specifically target just those weapons. It applies to things like Lascannons and Plasma just as well.

-

+X to save roll mechanic already exists - see Bullgryn/slab shield.

I think it's an existing design space that would fit well for what you're trying to implement.

It is. And if the community prefers it to be in the save portion of the damage system that is fine. I was interested in taking it in the middle of the system at wounding as oppose to accuracy or saving. The resultant probability doesn't really shift. But the interaction between units of various flavors. Perhaps boosting saving is the best (least interaction mangling between units), but it bottoms out in capability, which does stop potential win able situations (read as over powered).

I am interested to see what the change is if any coming up.

Maybe marines would become 9 pts a model? who knows.

I would much rather Marines be made worth 13 PPM than dropping them to match their current poor showing.

 cormadepanda wrote:

fraser1191 wrote:-1 to hit should be +1 to cover outside 12", even while not in cover

I feel that this is more fair.

skchsan wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
+1 to armor would also incentivice stuff with ap 1 (AC, GL, HB's, etc.)

This is also a great point about why I really don't like the "Treat AP-1 as AP-0" It dissuades use of weapons that already have a hard time getting use.
+1 to armour has the same affect against AP-1 weapons, but don't specifically target just those weapons. It applies to things like Lascannons and Plasma just as well.

-

+X to save roll mechanic already exists - see Bullgryn/slab shield.

I think it's an existing design space that would fit well for what you're trying to implement.

It is. And if the community prefers it to be in the save portion of the damage system that is fine. I was interested in taking it in the middle of the system at wounding as oppose to accuracy or saving. The resultant probability doesn't really shift. But the interaction between units of various flavors. Perhaps boosting saving is the best (least interaction mangling between units), but it bottoms out in capability, which does stop potential win able situations (read as over powered).

I am interested to see what the change is if any coming up.

Maybe marines would become 9 pts a model? who knows.

If GEQ's could now roll 5+ saves against flamers and boltguns, I think marines saving on a roll of 5+ against plasma is a fair game. In fact, the way AP system works it wouldn't be a bad idea to implement more AP negation mechanic at infantry levels.

Natural roll of 1 fails anyways, so the +X to save system is one of the weaker defensive gimmick which would prevent marines becoming overly tough.

As for implementation across the game:
-T5 for CSM
-AP negation for TSon
-FNP for DG
-+X to save for SM flavors


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cormadepanda wrote:
I don't feel +1 to save really adds any value and invalidates Marie's desiring to take cover against the majority of weapons.

This is exactly it. If marines get anything it should be that they don't have to rely on cover except for against vaporizong kind of weapons.

Marines always have been the "easy to learn" army throughout the history of 40k. Less tactics required, more marine-y they'll be (at least on tabletop).

 JNAProductions wrote:
I would much rather Marines be made worth 13 PPM than dropping them to match their current poor showing.

Agreed. Marines seem "right" at 13ppm as a comparison to other Troops' "value". But the current Marine is NOT worth 13ppm.
I'll keep saying they SHOULD have been 2Ws at the start of 8E (for maybe 15ppm) until it actually happens.

But since that is unlikely to happen, we are more likely to see a points drop, or more preferably, something like a Bolter-Discipline add-on to help their 1W durability.

-

 Galef wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I would much rather Marines be made worth 13 PPM than dropping them to match their current poor showing.

Agreed. Marines seem "right" at 13ppm as a comparison to other Troops' "value". But the current Marine is NOT worth 13ppm.
I'll keep saying they SHOULD have been 2Ws at the start of 8E (for maybe 15ppm) until it actually happens.

But since that is unlikely to happen, we are more likely to see a points drop, or more preferably, something like a Bolter-Discipline add-on to help their 1W durability.

-

The thing is 1W durability isn't that terrible vrs Ap0 especially S3, they durability is really an issue because they are do so little damage your opponent can concentrate on the units that will hurt and mop up your marines later, even with Beta Bolters it doesn't make a tac marine great as it costs movement on a usually low model count army. So maximising the bonus is almost impossible.
The real issue is the AP system is kinda brutal against the better armour, the better your armour the higher the impact of -Ap.

Also, what "troops" "value" are you comparing them to?

CSM? Necron Warriors? Aspect Warriors? They should be roughly the same "eliteness" - and are, points wise.

Custodes, GK, Cult Troops? Marines should be - and are - less elite.

Guardians/Rangers/Scouts/etc? Marines are more "elite", but not overwhelmingly so.

Kabs, Guardsmen, etc? Marines should be significantly more elite, and are.

At 11ppm/12ppm, they're still well priced relative to their "fluffy" eliteness when looking at other "Elite" infantry - Custodes, Aspect Warriors, Necron Warriors, etc.

Ice_can wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I would much rather Marines be made worth 13 PPM than dropping them to match their current poor showing.

Agreed. Marines seem "right" at 13ppm as a comparison to other Troops' "value". But the current Marine is NOT worth 13ppm.
I'll keep saying they SHOULD have been 2Ws at the start of 8E (for maybe 15ppm) until it actually happens.

But since that is unlikely to happen, we are more likely to see a points drop, or more preferably, something like a Bolter-Discipline add-on to help their 1W durability.

-

The thing is 1W durability isn't that terrible vrs Ap0 especially S3, they durability is really an issue because they are do so little damage your opponent can concentrate on the units that will hurt and mop up your marines later, even with Beta Bolters it doesn't make a tac marine great as it costs movement on a usually low model count army. So maximising the bonus is almost impossible.
The real issue is the AP system is kinda brutal against the better armour, the better your armour the higher the impact of -Ap.

Which is why my +1 to armour rolls is a godo solution. It basically makes AP3 ->2, AP-2 ->1 and so on. Combined with Cover and AP weapons don't punish Marines so badly.

-

The issue is that there is not enough design space in the current system to give a realistic scale from grots to titans.

Currently a space marine has the same armour save as a tank. A terminator (unless I'm mistaken) has a better save than a dreadnaught - even though it is "Tactical Dreadnaught Armour".

The only way I can see there being sufficient space is to do a fair bit of shunting;

Shunt all AP down 1 - meaning that AP - is now AP+1 (adds 1 to saves).
Shunt all saves down 1 - meaning that marines are now 4+, orks are 7+, and so on

These 2 will essentially cancel out - you will still get the same save as you do now. However, it will allow a little more design space to tweak things.

Then, I suggest that we split vehicles and infantry again. They should have different profiles, it shouldn't require the same mechanic to cut someones throat as it does to stab your little blade into an armoured battle-tank (which presumably has a little "off" button on the back so that it's fair to gretchin).

I think that yes, there should be things which you cannot hurt, and those should be vehicles. a gretchin should not be able to hurt a landraider.

I also think that the vehicles should get easier to hurt the more you damage ethem - once there's a hole in the side, a gretchin will find it very easy to cause some havoc!

As such, I think that vehicles should go into the realm of 1+, 0+, -1+ etc. saves, and that natural rolls of 1 should not fail (have a rule specifically for vehicles, and certain massive monsters). Then you will need to bring anti tank, to hurt a tank. I really don't think that this is a bad thing!

Then you just have the reducing profile, which a lot of vehicles have already, but have the save reduce dramatically after the first tier - once it's damaged, you can hurt it with mostly anything.


Now that you've got the scope to make vehicles as good as they should be, you've left a vacuum in the "hard to wound, but always possible" section, which can be filled by the elites. Give Marines and terminators a higher toughness and a normal save, and they will be more survivable, without encroaching onto a tanks domain (a marine should be easier to kill than a rhino, otherwise they wouldn't need rhinos!)

so a marine with T6 and 4+ save, where lasguns give +1 to saves, is very hard to kill with a lasgun. However, it's not comparable to a rhino, which would be T7 and have a 0+ save - meaning you need AP-2 to actually hurt it.

Looking at that, you would probably need a bit of a jump for true anti-tank - but it's fairly reasonable that a lascannon should do a damn-sight more damage than a lasgun. marines and termies shouldn't get saves from them at all, and they should bring vehicles down to 4+ or worse.

Gauss can then be implemented as negating the "natural rolls of a 1 do not fail for vehicle saves" rule, much like the old "glances on a 6" rule they used to have. They still have to hit and wound, so it's just a little bit of help, and adds flavour to the army.

Vehicles would also have to have a "+1 to hit" rule, as they are large targets and hitting them with a lascannon is a lot more crucial if your bolters are useless.

General guidelines:

Weak vehicles (trukks, buggies, landspeeders etc) would have 2+ save, and so can be hurt by anything currently AP-1 or better.
Medium vehicles (chimeras, rhinos, big trakks) would have a 1+ save, and so will need what is currently AP-2 to hurt them.
Heavy vehicles (Russes, Battlewagons) will have a 0+ save, and so need what is currently AP-3 to hurt them.
Superheavy vehicles (Landraiders, knights, most superheavies) will have a -1+ save, and so need what is currently AP-4 to hurt them.

Again, lascannons, missiles and meltaguns etc. would get a big buff to AP, and would get +1 to hit vehicles (everything would) so they will still inflict damage. They would also need a boost to damage as well. such things can be ironed out.

Points will have to be adjusted to reflect increased survivability, but this would work well I think - and leave a gap for marines to fit in to where they are supposed to be.

Give them a reroll of 1s for armour saves if the attacking ranged weapon is str 3 or below. Now, they can be movie marines and terminators will be almost unkillable to lasguns.

Given the "simplicitiy" and "immediate availabilitity of reference by having everything wirrten down on datasheet" approach, it wouldn't be bad to fully implement and dish out "improve X characteristic/roll by N if target has Y keyword" mechanics much like how poisoned weapons and sniper have against infantries.

It would provide the granularity we'd need to holistically tone down AP.

Until I started playing with my terminators frequently, I hadn't realized just how many DMG 2 or DMG D3 weapons are out there in the wild.

As it currently stands, I'm not sure that giving them + X AS will do much to mitigate the issues they face.

I think I would rather see Toughness 5 or +1 additional wound so as to not get instant gibbed by over charged plasma.

Here is the real question on this issue:

Are models like terminators and primaris in the spot where they have too few wounds?

Or, is plasma too effective for its points cost?

Plasma used to be a flat S7 with Get's Hot.

Now, you have to overcharge to 8 to get that, but you gain the added benefit of 2 dmg.

Why not change plasma to be S6, over charge to S7 2DMG so as not to invalidate the T4 on power armor.

 Togusa wrote:
Until I started playing with my terminators frequently, I hadn't realized just how many DMG 2 or DMG D3 weapons are out there in the wild.

As it currently stands, I'm not sure that giving them + X AS will do much to mitigate the issues they face.

I think I would rather see Toughness 5 or +1 additional wound so as to not get instant gibbed by over charged plasma.

Here is the real question on this issue:

Are models like terminators and primaris in the spot where they have too few wounds?

Or, is plasma too effective for its points cost?

Plasma used to be a flat S7 with Get's Hot.

Now, you have to overcharge to 8 to get that, but you gain the added benefit of 2 dmg.

Why not change plasma to be S6, over charge to S7 2DMG so as not to invalidate the T4 on power armor.

Finally someone else see's it.
Unfortunately with hellblasters GW seems to have doubled down and lent into plasma must be OP as feth to make up for how terrible primaris marines are.

Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.

Bharring wrote:
Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.

Tau doesn't have D2 plasma its S6 1D. If you mean Ion it's-1AP Dd3, nothing like as bad as -3/-4AP D2.

Ice_can wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Until I started playing with my terminators frequently, I hadn't realized just how many DMG 2 or DMG D3 weapons are out there in the wild.

As it currently stands, I'm not sure that giving them + X AS will do much to mitigate the issues they face.

I think I would rather see Toughness 5 or +1 additional wound so as to not get instant gibbed by over charged plasma.

Here is the real question on this issue:

Are models like terminators and primaris in the spot where they have too few wounds?

Or, is plasma too effective for its points cost?

Plasma used to be a flat S7 with Get's Hot.

Now, you have to overcharge to 8 to get that, but you gain the added benefit of 2 dmg.

Why not change plasma to be S6, over charge to S7 2DMG so as not to invalidate the T4 on power armor.

Finally someone else see's it.
Unfortunately with hellblasters GW seems to have doubled down and lent into plasma must be OP as feth to make up for how terrible primaris marines are.

Yeah, I deepstruck 6 termies on Sunday in a game, shot, killed 4 Hellblasters. With a banner with the 3+ relic, he shot back and killed 4 Terminataors (Because why not over charge?) and that was it. I lost all my great cc potential. Plasma is absolutely over powered at its current stats and price zone. There is no reason for meltas, flamers or gravity guns to exist. At all. Ever. Plasma kills tanks, it kills elite infantry, heavy armored infantry. Multi-wound models. Custodes. All of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.

Tau doesn't have D2 plasma its S6 1D. If you mean Ion it's-1AP Dd3, nothing like as bad as -3/-4AP D2.

I still don't understand why hellblasters are rapidfire and ap -4. If anything they should at the very least be HEAVY 1.

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.

Tau doesn't have D2 plasma its S6 1D. If you mean Ion it's-1AP Dd3, nothing like as bad as -3/-4AP D2.

As almost all Plasma should be. It's not the only 1D plasma out there, but I meant almost all Plasma should be D1, not that all plasma was currenlty D2+.

 Togusa wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Until I started playing with my terminators frequently, I hadn't realized just how many DMG 2 or DMG D3 weapons are out there in the wild.

As it currently stands, I'm not sure that giving them + X AS will do much to mitigate the issues they face.

I think I would rather see Toughness 5 or +1 additional wound so as to not get instant gibbed by over charged plasma.

Here is the real question on this issue:

Are models like terminators and primaris in the spot where they have too few wounds?

Or, is plasma too effective for its points cost?

Plasma used to be a flat S7 with Get's Hot.

Now, you have to overcharge to 8 to get that, but you gain the added benefit of 2 dmg.

Why not change plasma to be S6, over charge to S7 2DMG so as not to invalidate the T4 on power armor.

Finally someone else see's it.
Unfortunately with hellblasters GW seems to have doubled down and lent into plasma must be OP as feth to make up for how terrible primaris marines are.

Yeah, I deepstruck 6 termies on Sunday in a game, shot, killed 4 Hellblasters. With a banner with the 3+ relic, he shot back and killed 4 Terminataors (Because why not over charge?) and that was it. I lost all my great cc potential. Plasma is absolutely over powered at its current stats and price zone. There is no reason for meltas, flamers or gravity guns to exist. At all. Ever. Plasma kills tanks, it kills elite infantry, heavy armored infantry. Multi-wound models. Custodes. All of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.

Tau doesn't have D2 plasma its S6 1D. If you mean Ion it's-1AP Dd3, nothing like as bad as -3/-4AP D2.

I still don't understand why hellblasters are rapidfire and ap -4. If anything they should at the very least be HEAVY 1.

It's really more like - terminators should have a better save.

Plasma is actually pretty under powered. It is the only weapon worth taking for space marines AND it just so happens to slay your models when you use it. Even with rerolls...you lose a good chunk of points every time you shoot. Realistically. You should have shot the hellblasters down with something before they got within 15" of anything. They have no mobility - no gimmick to get in range and cost just about as much as a terminator. Hellblasters aren't even good enough to make my all primaris list. Plasma inteceptors are superior IMO.

Bharring wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.

Tau doesn't have D2 plasma its S6 1D. If you mean Ion it's-1AP Dd3, nothing like as bad as -3/-4AP D2.

As almost all Plasma should be. It's not the only 1D plasma out there, but I meant almost all Plasma should be D1, not that all plasma was currenlty D2+.

Without getting too far off topic, I agree. Plasma should be aces at ignoring armor, but not at killing whats inside of it. To do both at such a cheap cost is not healthy for the game.

Bharring wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.

Tau doesn't have D2 plasma its S6 1D. If you mean Ion it's-1AP Dd3, nothing like as bad as -3/-4AP D2.

As almost all Plasma should be. It's not the only 1D plasma out there, but I meant almost all Plasma should be D1, not that all plasma was currenlty D2+.

Man you must think blasters are OP.

Bharring wrote:
Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.

There's too many others. Those crazy spike rifles the nids have, GSC demo charges, most of the IG codex, etc. Nerfing plasma just puts a new king on the throne. It won't help at all.

I don't use plasma at all as it is. It's instalose vs Alaitoc and Drukhari.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Until I started playing with my terminators frequently, I hadn't realized just how many DMG 2 or DMG D3 weapons are out there in the wild.

As it currently stands, I'm not sure that giving them + X AS will do much to mitigate the issues they face.

I think I would rather see Toughness 5 or +1 additional wound so as to not get instant gibbed by over charged plasma.

Here is the real question on this issue:

Are models like terminators and primaris in the spot where they have too few wounds?

Or, is plasma too effective for its points cost?

Plasma used to be a flat S7 with Get's Hot.

Now, you have to overcharge to 8 to get that, but you gain the added benefit of 2 dmg.

Why not change plasma to be S6, over charge to S7 2DMG so as not to invalidate the T4 on power armor.

Finally someone else see's it.
Unfortunately with hellblasters GW seems to have doubled down and lent into plasma must be OP as feth to make up for how terrible primaris marines are.

Yeah, I deepstruck 6 termies on Sunday in a game, shot, killed 4 Hellblasters. With a banner with the 3+ relic, he shot back and killed 4 Terminataors (Because why not over charge?) and that was it. I lost all my great cc potential. Plasma is absolutely over powered at its current stats and price zone. There is no reason for meltas, flamers or gravity guns to exist. At all. Ever. Plasma kills tanks, it kills elite infantry, heavy armored infantry. Multi-wound models. Custodes. All of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Dropping all Plasma (IoM, T'au, and Eldar) to D1 would help Termies and Primaris a *ton*.

Tau doesn't have D2 plasma its S6 1D. If you mean Ion it's-1AP Dd3, nothing like as bad as -3/-4AP D2.

I still don't understand why hellblasters are rapidfire and ap -4. If anything they should at the very least be HEAVY 1.

It's really more like - terminators should have a better save.

Plasma is actually pretty under powered. It is the only weapon worth taking for space marines AND it just so happens to slay your models when you use it. Even with rerolls...you lose a good chunk of points every time you shoot. Realistically. You should have shot the hellblasters down with something before they got within 15" of anything. They have no mobility - no gimmick to get in range and cost just about as much as a terminator. Hellblasters aren't even good enough to make my all primaris list. Plasma inteceptors are superior IMO.

He hid his Plasma dudes quite well, there really wasn't any way for me to get at them without deepstriking in front of them for all the terrain in the way. Unfortunately Chaos Marines do not get snipers that ignore LoS, add +2 to their hit rolls when they shoot.

As for Hellblasters and Plasma Marines, you only die should you choose to over charge, and if you're running them next to a cappy and a lieutenant, they almost never die to their own folly. Then, with your relic banner, you still get to shoot, sans penalty at whatever kills you, overcharged!

It's a little ridiculous.