Collecting feedback on ALL Astartes codexes

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.

**Bharring**

Instead of modifying half the armies armies in the game with a convoluted workaround to the AP system, would a retune be better?

Wouldn't decreasing the AP of almost all AP-1/-2 weapons by one each accomplish basically the same thing? But with a lot less wonkiness to the rule?

**Ice_can**

That would definitely be preferable, as it also doesn't have the inadvertent nerfs to power weapons etc against marines.
Also ironically one of the armies worst effected by marines ignoring the first AP is primaris marines.

Though the more people keep suggesting increasingly complicated rules that have bizarre edge case interactions the more I think marines can't be fixed with a blanket rule and they really need a new codex, once drukari brokenness has been addressed.

**ClockworkZion**

buddha wrote:
Proposed Astartes rules I'm really digging:

Transhuman Physiology: Marines ignore the first -1 AP
Terminators: Reduce the damage received by 1 to a minimum of 1
Land Raiders: Gain the steel behemoth and Crushing tracks special rule.

But chaos better get those rules as well.

I was looking at adding the Terminator and Transhuman Physiology together and making a single rule to cut down on how many special rules that would be bandied about. Plus models with FnP rules (Iron Hands, Death Guard, I think Blood Angels near the grail) would benefit from it as well as multi-wound models.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Djangomatic82 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
buddha wrote:
Proposed Astartes rules I'm really digging:

Transhuman Physiology: Marines ignore the first -1 AP
Terminators: Reduce the damage received by 1 to a minimum of 1
Land Raiders: Gain the steel behemoth and Crushing tracks special rule.

But chaos better get those rules as well.

Once again I HAVE to point out that the Terminator damage rule that keeps getting proposed scales terribly.

I think you might have to make a chart to show people once and for all.

Glad to.

You're essentially mess with the scale with what's supposed to kill Terminators and tanks and monstrous creatures as well.
1. Lascannons and Lances go from not killing them 1/6 of the time to 1/3 of the time. This doesn't take into account the FNP that Iron Hands Terminator variants, Blightlords, and Deathshroud have.
2. Force Weapons and Custodes melee weapons, which are supposed to be really not caring about that kind of defense for the most part, now only kill them 1/3 of the time as well.
3. Power Fists suffer this as well, but more importantly Thunder Hammers take a significant nerf against Iron Hands Terminator variants, Blightlords, and Deathshroud.
4. We can't forget Terminator characters too! Now any Terminator Captain/Chaos Lord can survive being hit by a Reaper Chainsword and being stomped on, and that's not to mention how silly Wraithlords/Wraithknights would feel. Granted those latter two units have other issues.

That's not to mention Calgar and Abigail getting said bonus too, because these are universal rules that would obviously apply to their Terminator armor. They already scale terribly as is (they would need to fail their save THREE times against a Chainsword already).

That's why I was looking at putting a cap on what the rule works against. Though I'm starting to I think that instead of S8 or less I should be saying "a Strength characteristic of less than 8" or something.

**Slayer-Fan123**

jcd386 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Djangomatic82 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
buddha wrote:
Proposed Astartes rules I'm really digging:

Transhuman Physiology: Marines ignore the first -1 AP
Terminators: Reduce the damage received by 1 to a minimum of 1
Land Raiders: Gain the steel behemoth and Crushing tracks special rule.

But chaos better get those rules as well.

Once again I HAVE to point out that the Terminator damage rule that keeps getting proposed scales terribly.

I think you might have to make a chart to show people once and for all.

Glad to.

You're essentially mess with the scale with what's supposed to kill Terminators and tanks and monstrous creatures as well.
1. Lascannons and Lances go from not killing them 1/6 of the time to 1/3 of the time. This doesn't take into account the FNP that Iron Hands Terminator variants, Blightlords, and Deathshroud have.
2. Force Weapons and Custodes melee weapons, which are supposed to be really not caring about that kind of defense for the most part, now only kill them 1/3 of the time as well.
3. Power Fists suffer this as well, but more importantly Thunder Hammers take a significant nerf against Iron Hands Terminator variants, Blightlords, and Deathshroud.
4. We can't forget Terminator characters too! Now any Terminator Captain/Chaos Lord can survive being hit by a Reaper Chainsword and being stomped on, and that's not to mention how silly Wraithlords/Wraithknights would feel. Granted those latter two units have other issues.

That's not to mention Calgar and Abigail getting said bonus too, because these are universal rules that would obviously apply to their Terminator armor. They already scale terribly as is (they would need to fail their save THREE times against a Chainsword already).

1. I've also suggested Las and melta need to never do less than 3 damage.
2. This seems fine to me. Terminators should be more durable against 2d and 1d3d IMO.
3. This is true. Maybe those units would need to cost more, but they aren't exactly good right now as it is.
4. I don't recommend any characters get a wound reducing rule. They already have the ability to survive a 2 damage shot.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
grouchoben wrote:
Slayer, I don't think what you're describing is 'scaling terribly' at all.

Most of your objections boil down to how it combines with FNP - there aren't many cases of that. Iron Hands Termis are suddenly pretty tough? Sounds great.

Lascannons only kill a termi 2/3 of the time? Right you are. Reaper can't one-shot a captain in terminator armour anymore? Sure, glad to hear it.

Terminators need to go from joke unit to scary proposition. This needs to happen. Not just ashmatically wheezing over the line into just-about-viable. This change would do nothing for their damage output (pretty poor as it stands) but would turn them into the roadblock they really should be.

Ignoring AP and reducing damage by 1 combined totally rewrites what weapons will kill a terminators to a rediculous level.

It now takes 7 powerfist attacks to kill 1 terminator 11 for deathguard and 16 against a deathshroud.

Lascannons 3 shots to kill a terminators 5 to kill a deathguard terminator and 7 to kill a deathshroud.

That has all the hallmarks of creating problem units.

It would actually only need 6 on average, where right now it only takes between 3 and 4.

Honestly that seems fine to me.

1. So then certain weapons lose their appeal like the Neutron Laser. How do you intend to make sure a weapon like that keeps uniqueness or are you just going to do a severe price cut, which leads to into that same ol' cycle of price cuts everywhere?
2. Except you're making Terminators durable to weapons that shouldn't care about their armor. Force Weapons aren't relying on their armor penetration in fluff to work, and Custodes are carrying weapons meant to really kill any threat. So once again you don't look at fluff and you don't scale.
3. Then you find a way to be consistent in fixing most Terminator units. This is why I argued against the earlier Black Carapace someone tried to propose. It's inconsistent and doesn't scale. Speaking of which:
4. So why don't Characters in Terminator armor not get this magical ability? Where. Is. The. Consistency?

In fact, it's only certain D2 weapons that are an issue. This edition is the most durable Terminators have ever been, but what they lack is offense. I've tried proposing consistent ways to fix that without your super terrible sense of scale and consistency. Makes sense?

**Sluggaloo**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

In fact, it's only certain D2 weapons that are an issue. This edition is the most durable Terminators have ever been, but what they lack is offense. I've tried proposing consistent ways to fix that without your super terrible sense of scale and consistency. Makes sense?

This. THIS. I play horde orks vs my mate's grey knights and mobbing the termies with one boyz mob renders them useless for the rest of the game. If termies make it into combat they should mince stuff. They move slow as a slug so make them actually hit like a freight train when they get there.

Make force weapons for termies deal Mortal wounds instead. Give them more attacks too..

**ClockworkZion**

Sluggaloo wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

In fact, it's only certain D2 weapons that are an issue. This edition is the most durable Terminators have ever been, but what they lack is offense. I've tried proposing consistent ways to fix that without your super terrible sense of scale and consistency. Makes sense?

This. THIS. I play horde orks vs my mate's grey knights and mobbing the termies with one boyz mob renders them useless for the rest of the game. If termies make it into combat they should mince stuff. They move slow as a slug so make them actually hit like a freight train when they get there.

Make force weapons for termies deal Mortal wounds instead. Give them more attacks too..

Actually, I was looking at mentioning that exact thing for Nemesis Force Weapons: let the damage roll over like mortal wounds. Actually, in general I feel like all Force Weapons should get that buff: allocate unsaved damage as you would mortal wounds. That'd give psykers everywhere more versatility in the game instead of just being relied on for smite caddying.

**Xenomancers**

Why do you keep saying this is the most durable eddition for terminators? There is more than 1 reason that is not true though it might seem true at first because they got more durable to a bolter...which was always bad at killing terms and still is.

#1 is terms did not go down in points but a lot of things did
#2 is AP5/Ap4/Ap3 now affect terminators 2+ save
#3 is weapons with multiple damage are more numberus than AP2 weapons were in 7th and most of them have neg AP

Net result is - this is the least durable terminators and marines HAVE EVER BEEN.

Terms also lost offensive power too. They hit less with power firsts - get less attacks with power fists - they lost relentless rule so they hit like IG with weapons when they are on the move. There is basically nothing good to say about terms. Which is why they are agreed to be in the gakker. The only way to fix them is to ether make them cost the 25 points they are worth OR increase their durability and offense drastically - to CUSTODIAN levels. To be worth those points.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Xenomancers wrote:
Why do you keep saying this is the most durable eddition for terminators? There is more than 1 reason that is not true though it might seem true at first because they got more durable to a bolter...which was always bad at killing terms and still is.

#1 is terms did not go down in points but a lot of things did
#2 is AP5/Ap4/Ap3 now affect terminators 2+ save
#3 is weapons with multiple damage are more numberus than AP2 weapons were in 7th and most of them have neg AP

Net result is - this is the least durable terminators and marines HAVE EVER BEEN.

Terms also lost offensive power too. They hit less with power firsts - get less attacks with power fists - they lost relentless rule so they hit like IG with weapons when they are on the move. There is basically nothing good to say about terms. Which is why they are agreed to be in the gakker. The only way to fix them is to ether make them cost the 25 points they are worth OR increase their durability and offense drastically - to CUSTODIAN levels. To be worth those points.

And yet every time I ask you to create a list of weapons Terminators are more durable against vs less durable against, you seem to fizzle out and not do the said task. You need me to hold your hand and do it for you, or are you going to actually do it?

**Bharring**

"#2 is AP5/Ap4/Ap3 now affect terminators 2+ save "
AP5 doesn't affect Termies' 2+ save in 8th.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Bharring wrote:
"#2 is AP5/Ap4/Ap3 now affect terminators 2+ save "
AP5 doesn't affect Termies' 2+ save in 8th.

Only the Gauss Flayer would, and they're the same durability against a straight AP-1 D1 like Heavy Bolters and Flayers.

**Marmatag**

Baneblades cannot go to T9. That is dumb.

The answer to terminators is to fix their offensive power, not defensive. This is the kill edition, not the tank damage edition. Even if you boost their defense they still have the problem of being slow and therefore limited in their scope. If you want defensive terminators, you have stormshields - that is literally the most durable a basic unit can get, a 2+/3++ save. Their problem isn't durability. It's limited offensive power & scope.

**Bharring**

"#3 is weapons with multiple damage are more numberus than AP2 weapons were in 7th and most of them have neg AP"
That doesn't make Termies less durable than they were before. It decreases how much *more* durable they are. There are still D:1 and D:1dN weapons - and Termies are much more durable to those than they were in 7th.

Termies are less durable to weapons that were AP-1 and do D2, but just as durable to AP-1 D1 weapons as they were. They're less durable to AP-2 weapons than they were vs AP3 weapons. They are *much* more durable to anything that was AP2 and is now D1. As in, twice as durable.

For every weapon they got less durable to (Krak missiles, Power Swords, etc) there are many others they're more durable to (Lascannons, Plasma Guns outside overcharge, Tau Plas, CWE Plas, small arms, power axes, etc).

**Slayer-Fan123**

Bharring wrote:
"#3 is weapons with multiple damage are more numberus than AP2 weapons were in 7th and most of them have neg AP"
That doesn't make Termies less durable than they were before. It decreases how much *more* durable they are. There are still D:1 and D:1dN weapons - and Termies are much more durable to those than they were in 7th.

Termies are less durable to weapons that were AP-1 and do D2, but just as durable to AP-1 D1 weapons as they were. They're less durable to AP-2 weapons than they were vs AP3 weapons. They are *much* more durable to anything that was AP2 and is now D1. As in, twice as durable.

For every weapon they got less durable to (Krak missiles, Power Swords, etc) there are many others they're more durable to (Lascannons, Plasma Guns outside overcharge, Tau Plas, CWE Plas, small arms, power axes, etc).

Don't forget that the Power Sword is an illusion as everyone used Power Axes. Power Mauls they're straight up more durable to because of the new wounding chart.

**ClockworkZion**

Marmatag wrote:
Baneblades cannot go to T9. That is dumb.

The answer to terminators is to fix their offensive power, not defensive. This is the kill edition, not the tank damage edition. Even if you boost their defense they still have the problem of being slow and therefore limited in their scope. If you want defensive terminators, you have stormshields - that is literally the most durable a basic unit can get, a 2+/3++ save. Their problem isn't durability. It's limited offensive power & scope.

By that arguement the entire Marine line needs to be more offensively focused and we should throw out lore about how durable they are and how they can weather blows that would fell normal men.

Being walking tanks is a large part of their identity, losing that effectively makes them slightly tankier Scions. Yes, this IS the edition with massed casualties, but I don't think that should be a point against Marines being a little better at negating wounds than less tanky models, but rather a feature of the army.

**Bharring**

To which Termies got better:
7th ed: Power Axe wounded on a 3+, and forced Invuln saves
8th ed: Same choice is a Sword now - wounds on a 4+, forced Invuln save, but needs two unsaved wounds to kill. Less than half as good.

7th ed: Power Maul wounded on a 2+, but allowed a 2+ armor save.
8th ed: Wounds on a 3+, but reduces armor save to a 3+. However, you need 2 unsaved wounds. So this got worse too.

AP3 weapons that are now AP-2 now kill Termies faster. But how common are they.

Dissies specifically: now the perfect termie killer?
7th: Wound on a 3+, force 5++ invuln
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+ armor save

StarCannons?
7th: Wound on a 2+, force a 5++
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+, Termies survive the first wound on an additional 3+.

They aren't *less* survivable even to things like non-IoM Plasma. Even the Plasma Gun - which is one of the weapons most buffed going into 8th - isn't any better at killing Termies than it was.

**ClockworkZion**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote:
"#3 is weapons with multiple damage are more numberus than AP2 weapons were in 7th and most of them have neg AP"
That doesn't make Termies less durable than they were before. It decreases how much *more* durable they are. There are still D:1 and D:1dN weapons - and Termies are much more durable to those than they were in 7th.

Termies are less durable to weapons that were AP-1 and do D2, but just as durable to AP-1 D1 weapons as they were. They're less durable to AP-2 weapons than they were vs AP3 weapons. They are *much* more durable to anything that was AP2 and is now D1. As in, twice as durable.

For every weapon they got less durable to (Krak missiles, Power Swords, etc) there are many others they're more durable to (Lascannons, Plasma Guns outside overcharge, Tau Plas, CWE Plas, small arms, power axes, etc).

Don't forget that the Power Sword is an illusion as everyone used Power Axes. Power Mauls they're straight up more durable to because of the new wounding chart.

An illusion to anyone who doesn't run all Primaris because the Power Sword is our only power weapon option. That said, adding durability to the Marines would make the Power Sword more attractive since it wouldn't be as easily negated by the "reduce weapon AP by 1" thing as much. Plus I have mentioned it could really use something like a parry rule (giving it +1 to the model's save in melee for example) which would also make it more attractive. No strength bonus, but instead a save bonus would make it more interesting to a lot of folks I bet.

**Reemule**

ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote:
"#3 is weapons with multiple damage are more numberus than AP2 weapons were in 7th and most of them have neg AP"
That doesn't make Termies less durable than they were before. It decreases how much *more* durable they are. There are still D:1 and D:1dN weapons - and Termies are much more durable to those than they were in 7th.

Termies are less durable to weapons that were AP-1 and do D2, but just as durable to AP-1 D1 weapons as they were. They're less durable to AP-2 weapons than they were vs AP3 weapons. They are *much* more durable to anything that was AP2 and is now D1. As in, twice as durable.

For every weapon they got less durable to (Krak missiles, Power Swords, etc) there are many others they're more durable to (Lascannons, Plasma Guns outside overcharge, Tau Plas, CWE Plas, small arms, power axes, etc).

Don't forget that the Power Sword is an illusion as everyone used Power Axes. Power Mauls they're straight up more durable to because of the new wounding chart.

An illusion to anyone who doesn't run all Primaris because the Power Sword is our only power weapon option. That said, adding durability to the Marines would make the Power Sword more attractive since it wouldn't be as easily negated by the "reduce weapon AP by 1" thing as much. Plus I have mentioned it could really use something like a parry rule (giving it +1 to the model's save in melee for example) which would also make it more attractive. No strength bonus, but instead a save bonus would make it more interesting to a lot of folks I bet.

**ClockworkZion**

Reemule wrote:
Primaris have the Power fist in Boltguantlets don't they?

Yeah, but you can't take that in an Intercessor Squad. Heck, you can't even take a Power Sword in a Reiver squad. I suspect the only reason we can even take Power Swords is because of the Anniversary model having something like one so they went "sure, go with it".

Automatically Appended Next Post:
So if Terminators and Primaris don't need D2 protection as much, taking a step back to making it only reduce AP by 1 against weapons of S7 or less (why S7? Because Instant Death used to trigger at S8 and really something that hits at least twice as hard as you are tough would definitely overwhelm your body's ability to take damage, plus it prevents the accidental nerfing of Thunder Hammers and Power Fists and the like) seems like a very small change that could make Marines in general less likely to feel overcharged for their save (since they'd only start losing it against high strength attacks who also have high AP or against weapons with -2 or better AP).

**Ice_can**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Reemule wrote:
Primaris have the Power fist in Boltguantlets don't they?

Yeah, but you can't take that in an Intercessor Squad. Heck, you can't even take a Power Sword in a Reiver squad. I suspect the only reason we can even take Power Swords is because of the Anniversary model having something like one so they went "sure, go with it".

Automatically Appended Next Post:
So if Terminators and Primaris don't need D2 protection as much, taking a step back to making it only reduce AP by 1 against weapons of S7 or less (why S7? Because Instant Death used to trigger at S8 and really something that hits at least twice as hard as you are tough would definitely overwhelm your body's ability to take damage, plus it prevents the accidental nerfing of Thunder Hammers and Power Fists and the like) seems like a very small change that could make Marines in general less likely to feel overcharged for their save (since they'd only start losing it against high strength attacks who also have high AP or against weapons with -2 or better AP).

Rather screws Tau players hard, and will also impact prmaris players harshly but whatever. You seem to be set in your view point now.
Really I think the iasue is GW over valuing the better saves this edition and undervalued the bad saves.
Marines just can't throw enough dice around in 8th edition to male anything that changed work for them. Simply put throwing twice the dice is always going to be better than having an extra 16% chance here and there.

**Karol**

Marmatag wrote:
Baneblades cannot go to T9. That is dumb.

The answer to terminators is to fix their offensive power, not defensive. This is the kill edition, not the tank damage edition. Even if you boost their defense they still have the problem of being slow and therefore limited in their scope. If you want defensive terminators, you have stormshields - that is literally the most durable a basic unit can get, a 2+/3++ save. Their problem isn't durability. It's limited offensive power & scope.

Why don't GK have an option to use storm shield terminators? They can have Thunder hammers and draigo has a shield, and I saw an old codex where shields of some sort were an option for GK termintors. Yet somehow they are missing the option in the last codex.

**Marmatag**

Karol wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
Baneblades cannot go to T9. That is dumb.

The answer to terminators is to fix their offensive power, not defensive. This is the kill edition, not the tank damage edition. Even if you boost their defense they still have the problem of being slow and therefore limited in their scope. If you want defensive terminators, you have stormshields - that is literally the most durable a basic unit can get, a 2+/3++ save. Their problem isn't durability. It's limited offensive power & scope.

Why don't GK have an option to use storm shield terminators? They can have Thunder hammers and draigo has a shield, and I saw an old codex where shields of some sort were an option for GK termintors. Yet somehow they are missing the option in the last codex.

Because previously HQs joined units, and you could put a stormshield in with your group of terminators or whatever in the form of an HQ. In fact, pairing a Librarian with a Warding Staff and a Storm Shield with your GK terminators or Paladins would be brutally strong, because the Librarian would have a 2++/5+++ (with Cuirass of Sacrifice) to tank those wounds for a Gate-Of-Infinity deathball of Paladins. But, there are all sorts of synergies that would be really strong if this mechanic were to return. And, it won't.

Example, I used to join Draigo and Tigurius with a ball of Grav centurions. The unit had a 3++, 4+++, eternal warrior tank, which would bounce them around the field shooting whatever they want, and could only be hit on 6s. People don't enjoy that kind of thing.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Karol wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
Baneblades cannot go to T9. That is dumb.

The answer to terminators is to fix their offensive power, not defensive. This is the kill edition, not the tank damage edition. Even if you boost their defense they still have the problem of being slow and therefore limited in their scope. If you want defensive terminators, you have stormshields - that is literally the most durable a basic unit can get, a 2+/3++ save. Their problem isn't durability. It's limited offensive power & scope.

Why don't GK have an option to use storm shield terminators? They can have Thunder hammers and draigo has a shield, and I saw an old codex where shields of some sort were an option for GK termintors. Yet somehow they are missing the option in the last codex.

They used to be able to take the TH/SS loadout in the Daemonhunters codex. I wouldn't mind that returning for either of the Terminator options personally.

**Marmatag**

The game needs less 3++ saves.

**ClockworkZion**

Ice_can wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Reemule wrote:
Primaris have the Power fist in Boltguantlets don't they?

Yeah, but you can't take that in an Intercessor Squad. Heck, you can't even take a Power Sword in a Reiver squad. I suspect the only reason we can even take Power Swords is because of the Anniversary model having something like one so they went "sure, go with it".

Automatically Appended Next Post:
So if Terminators and Primaris don't need D2 protection as much, taking a step back to making it only reduce AP by 1 against weapons of S7 or less (why S7? Because Instant Death used to trigger at S8 and really something that hits at least twice as hard as you are tough would definitely overwhelm your body's ability to take damage, plus it prevents the accidental nerfing of Thunder Hammers and Power Fists and the like) seems like a very small change that could make Marines in general less likely to feel overcharged for their save (since they'd only start losing it against high strength attacks who also have high AP or against weapons with -2 or better AP).

Rather screws Tau players hard, and will also impact prmaris players harshly but whatever. You seem to be set in your view point now.
Really I think the iasue is GW over valuing the better saves this edition and undervalued the bad saves.
Marines just can't throw enough dice around in 8th edition to male anything that changed work for them. Simply put throwing twice the dice is always going to be better than having an extra 16% chance here and there.

Part of my worry is that by bringing the cost of Marines down to meet the new value of their saves they'll turn into just another massed infantry Imperial army. Balancing that is a definite must, which is why I was looking at durability.

And it's not like Tau had any benefit against Marines in previous editions (beyond range and wounding on 3s), so why is it so bad they don't have it this edition? Marines have always been the more durable army that may not have high numbers or high damage output turn by turn but they'd weather casualties better to allow them to have a stronger end game than more chaffe based armies at the cost of a weaker early game due to their lower offensive power.

**Darsath**

Marmatag wrote:
The game needs less 3++ saves.

In general, the game needs less invulns and more power into strong saves.

**ClockworkZion**

Darsath wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
The game needs less 3++ saves.

In general, the game needs less invulns and more power into strong saves.

Weak (5++, 6++) invuls aren't hurting the game as much as acting as a pressure valve to keep the AP system in check for certain units. Even 4++ isn't too unreasonable as long as it's paid for correctly. 3++ should be the upper limit for invuls though. We don't need 2++ in the game at all.

**Gitdakka**

My suggestion for rules change. Terminators get a 1+sv ibstead of 2+. marines of all sorts get a 2+sv instead of a 3+. All other stuff stays the same. Id rather see something like that than something complicated. Or a points reduction so we can field more models instead.

**ClockworkZion**

Gitdakka wrote:
My suggestion for rules change. Terminators get a 1+sv ibstead of 2+. marines of all sorts get a 2+sv instead of a 3+. All other stuff stays the same. Id rather see something like that than something complicated. Or a points reduction so we can field more models instead.

Both have been mentioned and shot down for different reasons. A points change doesn't fix the imbalance between the cost of cheaper units who share an identical utility with more expensive units (see Scouts vs Tacticals), and the increased save just breaks the game in all the wrong ways. Mitigating AP works similarly but by pairing it with a rule instead of the save it can be capped versus strength to allow heavier weapons to hit at full tilt.

It's clear the studio has recognized that there is an issue involving Marine durability. If we aren't mucking with the save, the only thing I'd touch is how they treat damage for the purposes of taking wounds (which would be more in line with Kill Team's Transhuman Physiology).

**Xenomancers**

Bharring wrote:
To which Termies got better:
7th ed: Power Axe wounded on a 3+, and forced Invuln saves
8th ed: Same choice is a Sword now - wounds on a 4+, forced Invuln save, but needs two unsaved wounds to kill. Less than half as good.

7th ed: Power Maul wounded on a 2+, but allowed a 2+ armor save.
8th ed: Wounds on a 3+, but reduces armor save to a 3+. However, you need 2 unsaved wounds. So this got worse too.

AP3 weapons that are now AP-2 now kill Termies faster. But how common are they.

Dissies specifically: now the perfect termie killer?
7th: Wound on a 3+, force 5++ invuln
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+ armor save

StarCannons?
7th: Wound on a 2+, force a 5++
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+, Termies survive the first wound on an additional 3+.

They aren't *less* survivable even to things like non-IoM Plasma. Even the Plasma Gun - which is one of the weapons most buffed going into 8th - isn't any better at killing Termies than it was.

Dessie and starcannons are both ap-3. They give 5++ saves. We are talking about things that are AP2 in 7th. Which terms survive a little better about the same - comes down to a damage roll. These weapons also got cheaper. Also - dessie cannon uses to be crap - now it's awesome.

Missle pods - autocannons - rocket launchers - reaper launchers - battle cannons - venom cannons. Basically any weapon that was ap4 or ap 3 (which there are a lot of those) got better against terms.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Xenomancers wrote:
Bharring wrote:
To which Termies got better:
7th ed: Power Axe wounded on a 3+, and forced Invuln saves
8th ed: Same choice is a Sword now - wounds on a 4+, forced Invuln save, but needs two unsaved wounds to kill. Less than half as good.

7th ed: Power Maul wounded on a 2+, but allowed a 2+ armor save.
8th ed: Wounds on a 3+, but reduces armor save to a 3+. However, you need 2 unsaved wounds. So this got worse too.

AP3 weapons that are now AP-2 now kill Termies faster. But how common are they.

Dissies specifically: now the perfect termie killer?
7th: Wound on a 3+, force 5++ invuln
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+ armor save

StarCannons?
7th: Wound on a 2+, force a 5++
8th: Wound on a 3+, allow a 4+, Termies survive the first wound on an additional 3+.

They aren't *less* survivable even to things like non-IoM Plasma. Even the Plasma Gun - which is one of the weapons most buffed going into 8th - isn't any better at killing Termies than it was.

Dessie and starcannons are both ap-3. They give 5++ saves. We are talking about things that are AP2 in 7th. Which terms survive a little better about the same - comes down to a damage roll. These weapons also got cheaper. Also - dessie cannon uses to be crap - now it's awesome.

Missle pods - autocannons - rocket launchers - reaper launchers - battle cannons - venom cannons. Basically any weapon that was ap4 or ap 3 (which there are a lot of those) got better against terms.

Neato. Now go ahead and make the rest of the list I requested.