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.

 Ordana wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Terminators can be significantly beefed by just needing saves on 2d6. Like they used to.

You want to roll 30+ saves individually, be my guest. I don’t. And that can be from ONE unit-and at AP-1, so you can’t even use the reroll trick to get the same math.

there are ways to sorta fast roll 2d6 if the -AP isn't to high.
If you need to roll 30 saves you roll 30 dice and any that are not high enough to already be saved you individually (or in groups) add another dice.

So...you want to give Terminators a FNP that's dependent not only on the AP of the attack but on what their armor save rolled?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Terminators can be significantly beefed by just needing saves on 2d6. Like they used to.

You want to roll 30+ saves individually, be my guest. I don’t. And that can be from ONE unit-and at AP-1, so you can’t even use the reroll trick to get the same math.

there are ways to sorta fast roll 2d6 if the -AP isn't to high.
If you need to roll 30 saves you roll 30 dice and any that are not high enough to already be saved you individually (or in groups) add another dice.

So...you want to give Terminators a FNP that's dependent not only on the AP of the attack but on what their armor save rolled?

I mentioned how you might somewhat fast roll a 2d6 save, nothing more.
You seem to have quoted the wrong person. Please try again.

 Ordana wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Terminators can be significantly beefed by just needing saves on 2d6. Like they used to.

You want to roll 30+ saves individually, be my guest. I don’t. And that can be from ONE unit-and at AP-1, so you can’t even use the reroll trick to get the same math.

there are ways to sorta fast roll 2d6 if the -AP isn't to high.
If you need to roll 30 saves you roll 30 dice and any that are not high enough to already be saved you individually (or in groups) add another dice.

So...you want to give Terminators a FNP that's dependent not only on the AP of the attack but on what their armor save rolled?

I mentioned how you might somewhat fast roll a 2d6 save, nothing more.
You seem to have quoted the wrong person. Please try again.

They’re pointing out that that’s STILL a huge hassle to do.

No to more dice rolling, or alternatives that involve the same amount of dice rolling of the current version of terminators.

If you want to make termies durable but without rolling thousands of dice, I think the right solution could be making them T4 2W but 1+ save. Of course getting rid of the whole "rolls of 1 always fail". Maybe even ignoring AP-1 vs low S weapons, for example S4 or S5. This way they'll be extremely durable against light firepower but still vulnerable to weapons with high AP and/or high S.

Of course same solution would apply for other armored infantries and even vehicles. 1+ saves worked well for WHFB years ago and there's no need to differentiate infantries/bikes/cavarly/monsters and vehicles with two different systems, like the AV system of older editions of 40k.

Firing AP0 weapons against stuff like termis or LRs is already quite pointless in most of the circumstances, but 1+ saves would help against those units/armies that can have a massive amount of those shots for cheap which is the reason why termies went for the route of stats creep in the first place.

 Blackie wrote:
No to more dice rolling, or alternatives that involve the same amount of dice rolling of the current version of terminators.

If you want to make termies durable but without rolling thousands of dice, I think the right solution could be making them T4 2W but 1+ save. Of course getting rid of the whole "rolls of 1 always fail". Maybe even ignoring AP-1 vs low S weapons, for example S4 or S5. This way they'll be extremely durable against light firepower but still vulnerable to weapons with high AP and/or high S.

Of course same solution would apply for other armored infantries and even vehicles. 1+ saves worked well for WHFB years ago and there's no need to differentiate infantries/bikes/cavarly/monsters and vehicles with two different systems, like the AV system of older editions of 40k.

Firing AP0 weapons against stuff like termis or LRs is already quite pointless in most of the circumstances, but 1+ saves would help against those units/armies that can have a massive amount of those shots for cheap which is the reason why termies went for the route of stats creep in the first place.

So feth Nurgle Daemons, right? They don’t ever need to handle Terminators.

I think that the current defensive profile for terminators is fine. If you want to kill them, you either need to bring some "big guns", or a LOT of small ones. That feels right.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
No to more dice rolling, or alternatives that involve the same amount of dice rolling of the current version of terminators.

If you want to make termies durable but without rolling thousands of dice, I think the right solution could be making them T4 2W but 1+ save. Of course getting rid of the whole "rolls of 1 always fail". Maybe even ignoring AP-1 vs low S weapons, for example S4 or S5. This way they'll be extremely durable against light firepower but still vulnerable to weapons with high AP and/or high S.

Of course same solution would apply for other armored infantries and even vehicles. 1+ saves worked well for WHFB years ago and there's no need to differentiate infantries/bikes/cavarly/monsters and vehicles with two different systems, like the AV system of older editions of 40k.

Firing AP0 weapons against stuff like termis or LRs is already quite pointless in most of the circumstances, but 1+ saves would help against those units/armies that can have a massive amount of those shots for cheap which is the reason why termies went for the route of stats creep in the first place.

So feth Nurgle Daemons, right? They don’t ever need to handle Terminators.

Well, Nurgle daemons do have access to mortal wound output, so it's not like the only tool they have is low strength, low ap weapons...

They have Mortal Wounds from psychic powers.

And GUOs can cause them on the charge.

Outside that? Low strength, no-you can get S6 +1 to-wound on Plaguebearers. But they have no AP. In fact, outside of GUOs and Heralds, they don’t have AP at all.

 JNAProductions wrote:
They have Mortal Wounds from psychic powers.

And GUOs can cause them on the charge.

Outside that? Low strength, no-you can get S6 +1 to-wound on Plaguebearers. But they have no AP. In fact, outside of GUOs and Heralds, they don’t have AP at all.

It's almost like designing tiny one-dimensional armies that can't engage with large portions of the game severely restricts how you design everything else!

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
They have Mortal Wounds from psychic powers.

And GUOs can cause them on the charge.

Outside that? Low strength, no-you can get S6 +1 to-wound on Plaguebearers. But they have no AP. In fact, outside of GUOs and Heralds, they don’t have AP at all.

It's almost like designing tiny one-dimensional armies that can't engage with large portions of the game severely restricts how you design everything else!

To which I say, given GW’s history, Nurgle Daemons (and other gods too) should get more varied support.

Especially since Daemons in one fight can outnumber all Loyalist Marines across the entire galaxy.

It would make sense to me that termies in space worthy suits might be resistant to infectious disease, which might be represented with high strength low ap, or poison I guess something like that.

Then there might be mental or emotional disease or contagion, which might be represented with mortal wounds or other mechanics as psychic powers, something like that.

So, Nurgle may have have to be resourceful facing termies, highly armoured space suited dudes… why should every army be equally good at every thing?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
They have Mortal Wounds from psychic powers.

And GUOs can cause them on the charge.

Outside that? Low strength, no-you can get S6 +1 to-wound on Plaguebearers. But they have no AP. In fact, outside of GUOs and Heralds, they don’t have AP at all.

It's almost like designing tiny one-dimensional armies that can't engage with large portions of the game severely restricts how you design everything else!

To which I say, given GW’s history, Nurgle Daemons (and other gods too) should get more varied support.

Especially since Daemons in one fight can outnumber all Loyalist Marines across the entire galaxy.

Space Marines have nukes.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Terminators can be significantly beefed by just needing saves on 2d6. Like they used to.

I dunno. I really like the W1/W2/W3 dynamic.

Gadzilla666 wrote: I think that the current defensive profile for terminators is fine. If you want to kill them, you either need to bring some "big guns", or a LOT of small ones. That feels right.

Agreed. I feel the same way about vehicles. The dedicated anti-armor stuff is more efficient at killing them, but the weaker, low-AP stuff is still allowed to chip away at them.

jeff white wrote:
So, Nurgle may have have to be resourceful facing termies, highly armoured space suited dudes… why should every army be equally good at every thing?

We're not talking about being "equally good at everything," though. We're talking about how it would stink for the majority of your army to not be allowed to hurt portions of your opponent's army. In the same way 7th edition imperial knights were a pain because they were immune to everything with a bolter or lasgun, making terminators immune to anything without AP-1 or better risks creating very frustrating skew matchups.

Some people are okay with having units that are literally immune to big chunks of their opponent's army. Reasonable people can feel that way. Some of us think it sounds miserable.

Yeah - I don't really see why Terminators (or other things) having multiple wounds is a problem.

I can sort of understand the dislike that "Marines" have been set on this pedestal above lots of other factions. But by degree, that ship has sailed. Its good I think for the game to try and drive people towards TAC lists, rather than highly skewed ones. The best way to do that is to have a variety of different defensive profiles that should, in theory, encourage a variety of offensive profiles.

I'm not sure GW have managed this yet - and indeed I think made some obvious errors in points - but I think its progress in the right direction.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote: I think that the current defensive profile for terminators is fine. If you want to kill them, you either need to bring some "big guns", or a LOT of small ones. That feels right.

Agreed. I feel the same way about vehicles. The dedicated anti-armor stuff is more efficient at killing them, but the weaker, low-AP stuff is still allowed to chip away at them.

jeff white wrote:
So, Nurgle may have have to be resourceful facing termies, highly armoured space suited dudes… why should every army be equally good at every thing?

We're not talking about being "equally good at everything," though. We're talking about how it would stink for the majority of your army to not be allowed to hurt portions of your opponent's army. In the same way 7th edition imperial knights were a pain because they were immune to everything with a bolter or lasgun, making terminators immune to anything without AP-1 or better risks creating very frustrating skew matchups.

Some people are okay with having units that are literally immune to big chunks of their opponent's army. Reasonable people can feel that way. Some of us think it sounds miserable.

Yeah. And two things to note:

1) These attacks can, potentially, be wounding them on 2s for two, three, or even five damage. These aren't chump change hits-they just lack AP.
2) I have, not once, ever seen someone propose "Make Terminators immune to AP0 weapons!" alongside "And here's how to make it work for armies that'd be screwed by that!" This is not the first time this suggestion has shown up.

 JNAProductions wrote:
...2) I have, not once, ever seen someone propose "Make Terminators immune to AP0 weapons!" alongside "And here's how to make it work for armies that'd be screwed by that!" This is not the first time this suggestion has shown up.

AP0 weapons aren't Terminators' problem. The problem is overly-generous access to easily spammable AP-1/-2.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
...2) I have, not once, ever seen someone propose "Make Terminators immune to AP0 weapons!" alongside "And here's how to make it work for armies that'd be screwed by that!" This is not the first time this suggestion has shown up.

AP0 weapons aren't Terminators' problem. The problem is overly-generous access to easily spammable AP-1/-2.

Which is all the more reason that proposal is dumb then, wouldn't you say?

Daedalus81 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Terminators can be significantly beefed by just needing saves on 2d6. Like they used to.

I dunno. I really like the W1/W2/W3 dynamic.

Agreed. Anything that makes it more difficult to just spam the "best weapon" is a good thing.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote: I think that the current defensive profile for terminators is fine. If you want to kill them, you either need to bring some "big guns", or a LOT of small ones. That feels right.

Agreed. I feel the same way about vehicles. The dedicated anti-armor stuff is more efficient at killing them, but the weaker, low-AP stuff is still allowed to chip away at them.

Some of the "new" AT weapons are a bit too efficient though. Not in their actual profiles, a tank should be terrified of a multi-melta or Dark Lance, but in their price. They're just too cheap on some platforms, while many vehicles are overpriced.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote: I think that the current defensive profile for terminators is fine. If you want to kill them, you either need to bring some "big guns", or a LOT of small ones. That feels right.

Agreed. I feel the same way about vehicles. The dedicated anti-armor stuff is more efficient at killing them, but the weaker, low-AP stuff is still allowed to chip away at them.

Some of the "new" AT weapons are a bit too efficient though. Not in their actual profiles, a tank should be terrified of a multi-melta or Dark Lance, but in their price. They're just too cheap on some platforms, while many vehicles are overpriced.

I'm not in the loop enough to agree or disagree with that sentiment, but it sounds like it's pretty easily addressed with some point adjustments rather than more complicated rule changes.

GW took 9th to readjust the profiles from the Index era.

They changed the profiles of Many weapons, good. (The only problemátic one being multimeltas)

And the defensive profiles of Many units (also good)

But they díd not changed the defensive profile of a single vehicle for some reason.

That has to change.

Remove all access to rerolls, to bonus to hit and to wound, AP and damage and just playing with baseline 9th profiles (and stratagems with other, more interesting effects than raw firepower) youll find a much better Game.

 jeff white wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Spoiler:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Hiding your army is the only thing that prevents damage in an IGOUGO system. You can make everything hit like a wet noodle and have long games that favor large numbers of models, because everything takes so much to kill. I don't know that it would be fun.

It's amazing to me how you can make a statement then immediately refute it in your very next sentence.

Nothing about IGOUGO means hiding is the only way to prevent damage. Even just using 40k as an example we've seen in previous editions that reducing overall range, effective range and volume of fire/attacks do a pretty good job of reducing damage. Previous editions have made it impossible to shoot from one deployment zone to the other with anything other than heavy weapons, for example. They also generally didn't have re-rolls except for twin-linked weapons. If you really wanted to have your basic troops do anything other than plink away with the odd plasma gun or missile launcher you had to actually move them up the board to engage the enemy at closer range, which carried obvious risks that you had to work to mitigate.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

People want tactics, but what kind of tactic is it where you can put your guys in the open and it doesn't matter than your opponent went first? That seems antithetical.

If you're standing out of effective range it's not a bad tactic to be in the open to give you more movement options.

Spoiler:

Again, this happened in previous editions of 40k where you had the trade-off between moving through cover at a potentially slower rate or being in the open and being more vulnerable to shooting. Generally, once you got to about turn 2 you wanted to be in cover for the most part but starting out of cover had some tactical advantages.

The problem with 9th, and in 8th, is that if you don't literally completely hide everything there's a very good chance that whatever isn't 100% hidden will die because 9th is just far too lethal.

Spoiler:

As the LGT final demonstrated, even being hidden or in cover doesn't help when you can have 4 planes behind your lines in turn 1, along with a teleporting blob of infantry buffed up so much they can take down Dreadnoughts. If you look at the AdMech players movement in that game he had restricted targets for 2 of his infantry units but those units basically either killed their targets in one turn or cleaned up after they'd been softened up. There were then two Ironstriders that had to work a bit to get some shots at a good target but that didn't matter since the bulk of his firepower could shoot whatever it wanted.

One of the smartest posts I have read since probably something that unit wrote… exalted.

The Prohammer phenom is amazing. Encyclopaedic… yeah I agree about the split fire limitation. Never made sense. I mean, why not have most of the unit tie down the infantry with cover fire while the missile launcher takes aim at the turret of the predator poking over the ruined wall, the very turret of the tank that the targeted infantry may be supporting? Just… weird.

Basically my only problem with it is just...not every unit is designed to have one single weapon that doesnt want to shoot the same target as the rest of the squad.

You're just kind of kicking the can down the road a little ways, and going "problem solved, now your 4 boltgun 1 missile launcher squad can function usefully" but the second someone goes "say, what about my Special Weapon Squad with 3 lasguns and 3 melta guns?" you just have to go 'welp, sucks for them!'

Split firing restriction is not something that the game did better in previous editions. Many, many, many builds were so laughably unviable because of it that you'd never choose to arm units a particular way unless you had a railroad spike through your head. It exacerbated the problem of the game being shoved into the strategy layer rather than the tactical layer, it didnt reduce it.

Heres a leman russ.

OK, i'll put this heavy bolter, storm bolter, battlecannon and plasma cannons on it like the kit allows me to....

no not like that.

OK I'll put this demolisher cannon, these plasma cannons,

no not like that, that's an ordnance weapon and now your plasma cannons wont even work, idiot.

OK i guess a combi-melta, a vanquisher cannon, a lascannon and multi-meltas, all anti-tank

those weapons all have different ranges, so it still sucks, also the vanquisher cannon is just weaker than all the others.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote: I think that the current defensive profile for terminators is fine. If you want to kill them, you either need to bring some "big guns", or a LOT of small ones. That feels right.

Agreed. I feel the same way about vehicles. The dedicated anti-armor stuff is more efficient at killing them, but the weaker, low-AP stuff is still allowed to chip away at them.

Some of the "new" AT weapons are a bit too efficient though. Not in their actual profiles, a tank should be terrified of a multi-melta or Dark Lance, but in their price. They're just too cheap on some platforms, while many vehicles are overpriced.

I'm not in the loop enough to agree or disagree with that sentiment, but it sounds like it's pretty easily addressed with some point adjustments rather than more complicated rule changes.

Agreed.

Galas wrote:GW took 9th to readjust the profiles from the Index era.

They changed the profiles of Many weapons, good. (The only problemátic one being multimeltas)

And the defensive profiles of Many units (also good)

But they díd not changed the defensive profile of a single vehicle for some reason.

That has to change.

Remove all access to rerolls, to bonus to hit and to wound, AP and damage and just playing with baseline 9th profiles (and stratagems with other, more interesting effects than raw firepower) youll find a much better Game.

Ummm....they've changed quite a few vehicle's defensive profiles. Every vehicle that I currently use was changed in some way defensively. They don't seem interested in helping stuff like basic Land Raiders and Predators though.

 Galas wrote:

But they díd not changed the defensive profile of a single vehicle for some reason.

That has to change.

I have a gut feeling 10th edition will do something for that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I have a gut feeling 10th edition will do something for that.

Not on a Codex level. We're too deep into the cross-compatible rabbit hole for the Codices to make any worthwhile changes, unless they make a complete paradigm shift in the way they design them. That would be worse, as now we'd have two distinct 'eras' of Codex - pre-change and after-change - both simultaneously trying to work with the same base ruleset whilst also trying to jury rig a solution to vehicles in some of the books, but not all. This, in turn, would just leave AdMech/DE atop the pile against Codices that have been written to fix a problem that exists with the core rules.

It would have to be at the core rules level, and in a way that works with all existing Codices. If it's something like "Units with the 'Vehicle' Keyword reduce all damage by 1 to a minimum of 1", I'm not sure that'll help.

And yes, I know, someone is going to come along and say "They could just do Indices again!". Yeah. Everyone wants to buy an Index at the start of 10th, completely invalidating their only-recently-bought 9th Ed books. Indices are for when your core rules change so much that your existing books no longer work with the game. It made sense at the start of 3rd, and the start of 8th. You can't (or shouldn't) do it between compatible editions.

 JNAProductions wrote:
They have Mortal Wounds from psychic powers.

And GUOs can cause them on the charge.

Outside that? Low strength, no-you can get S6 +1 to-wound on Plaguebearers. But they have no AP. In fact, outside of GUOs and Heralds, they don’t have AP at all.

Then yes. Literally by design it sounds like Nurgle daemons should struggle against high armor units if they don't use magic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:
We're not talking about being "equally good at everything," though. We're talking about how it would stink for the majority of your army to not be allowed to hurt portions of your opponent's army.

...

Some people are okay with having units that are literally immune to big chunks of their opponent's army. Reasonable people can feel that way. Some of us think it sounds miserable.

Then why are you playing mono-Nurgle daemons in this scenario? It doesn't sound like the issue is with the Terminators here, it sounds like the issue is that you expect to be able to take like 4 distinct units out of the codex' 20+ and be able to handle every scenario equally.

If you choose to ignore 75% of a book's options and skew your list, then you kind of forfeit the right to have a tactically flexible army.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I have a gut feeling 10th edition will do something for that.

Not on a Codex level. We're too deep into the cross-compatible rabbit hole for the Codices to make any worthwhile changes, unless they make a complete paradigm shift in the way they design them. That would be worse, as now we'd have two distinct 'eras' of Codex - pre-change and after-change - both simultaneously trying to work with the same base ruleset whilst also trying to jury rig a solution to vehicles in some of the books, but not all. This, in turn, would just leave AdMech/DE atop the pile against Codices that have been written to fix a problem that exists with the core rules.

It would have to be at the core rules level, and in a way that works with all existing Codices. If it's something like "Units with the 'Vehicle' Keyword reduce all damage by 1 to a minimum of 1", I'm not sure that'll help.

And yes, I know, someone is going to come along and say "They could just do Indices again!". Yeah. Everyone wants to buy an Index at the start of 10th, completely invalidating their only-recently-bought 9th Ed books. Indices are for when your core rules change so much that your existing books no longer work with the game. It made sense at the start of 3rd, and the start of 8th. You can't (or shouldn't) do it between compatible editions.

I'm thinking core rules. Something like a hybrid of the old facing rules where they get something like +1 save to the front and -1 to the rear. I'm not super imaginative on what else though.

You don't have to "be imaginative", they just need to fix the points. At the end of 8th a 1 shot S8, AP-4, Dd6 multi-melta was 22 points. Fast forward to 9th, and they doubled the shots, which doubled the output, and they're now 20 PPM for INFANTRY, and 25 PPM for VEHICLES. That's nuts.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You don't have to "be imaginative", they just need to fix the points. At the end of 8th a 1 shot S8, AP-4, Dd6 multi-melta was 22 points. Fast forward to 9th, and they doubled the shots, which doubled the output, and they're now 20 PPM for INFANTRY, and 25 PPM for VEHICLES. That's nuts.

Yea, but how many lists that are a problem are packing MM? People are getting plinked by incidental dark lances and then tons of pointy melee or lots and lots of infantry weapons and super lascannons.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea, but how many lists that are a problem are packing MM? People are getting plinked by incidental dark lances and then tons of pointy melee or lots and lots of infantry weapons and super lascannons.

Super Lascannons and Dark Lances are too cheap as well. Dark Lances not as much, because DE can't pack in as many per points/units, but going from Dd6 at 15 PPM to Dd3+3 at.....15 PPM, is a bit silly.

As for "pointy melee" and infantry weapons: you mean DE melee and Admech infantry weapons? Well, yeah. But that isn't just a problem for vehicles. Fixing those two factions won't help vehicles much if every Imperial faction is still running around with underpriced multi-meltas.