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.

Assault terms were good in 5th...if you were salamanders. Because Vulkan was like the first gladius.

Terminators in 2nd died to -6 armor save weapons like krak missiles (back when they worked) or to mass -2 or -3 fire from sonic blasters or shuriken catapults. Or they got drowned in 100 metal hormagaunts. Back when hormagaunts were broken.

Martel732 wrote:
Terminators in 2nd died to -6 armor save weapons like krak missiles (back when they worked) or to mass -2 or -3 fire from sonic blasters or shuriken catapults. Or they got drowned in 100 metal hormagaunts. Back when hormagaunts were broken.

Now they are literally the worst unit in the game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sorry but that never happened.

Whatever helps you feel better at night. If you're just going to call me a liar when I describe my own personal experiences, then your spastic posts aren't really worth commenting on.

I'm sure it happened, but the person saying that was a pinhead. There's a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Terminators in 2nd died to -6 armor save weapons like krak missiles (back when they worked) or to mass -2 or -3 fire from sonic blasters or shuriken catapults. Or they got drowned in 100 metal hormagaunts. Back when hormagaunts were broken.

Now they are literally the worst unit in the game.

Hormagaunts? Still better than land raiders.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ AllSeeingSkink

That's more like it. I'd have a system were AP reduces the save instead of the current nonsense, but having that is rare enough to begin with. Then instead of instant death, powerful weapons just inflict multiple wounds.

feth it, I'll say it. I'd go all AoS.

That stuff existed back in 2nd edition.

Instant death is one of the rules which was an attempt at simplification (removing the wounds inflicted stat that weapons previously had) but actually just makes the game more of a mess.

Martel732 wrote:
Terminators in 2nd died to -6 armor save weapons like krak missiles (back when they worked) or to mass -2 or -3 fire from sonic blasters or shuriken catapults. Or they got drowned in 100 metal hormagaunts. Back when hormagaunts were broken.

I'm an advocate for going back to a save modifier system, though with much reduced modifiers compared to 2nd ed.

It didn't work in 2nd and it wouldn't work now while still on the D6 system. Expensive power armor becomes very useless very quickly.

Martel732 wrote:
It didn't work in 2nd and it wouldn't work now while still on the D6 system. Expensive power armor becomes very useless very quickly.

As I said....

"though with much reduced modifiers compared to 2nd ed."

It didn't work in 2nd edition because modifiers were given out too liberally, but the system as a whole wasn't flawed, it was just the implementation. I'd argue the AP system on the other hand IS a fundamentally flawed system.

Although I'd have to think about it, but in my mind you'd have things like Bolters with no modifier, Heavy Bolters would be -1, and only things that are currently AP2 or maybe AP3 would have a -3 modifier.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It didn't work in 2nd and it wouldn't work now while still on the D6 system. Expensive power armor becomes very useless very quickly.

As I said....

"though with much reduced modifiers compared to 2nd ed."

It didn't work in 2nd edition because modifiers were given out too liberally, but the system as a whole wasn't flawed, it was just the implementation. I'd argue the AP system on the other hand IS a fundamentally flawed system.

Although I'd have to think about it, but in my mind you'd have things like Bolters with no modifier, Heavy Bolters would be -1, and only things that are currently AP2 or maybe AP3 would have a -3 modifier.

Also, armor save for certain armors could be adjusted below 2+ like in WHFB. Terminators might have a 0+ armor save.

And if cover improved armors saves rather than replacing it with invulnerable saves that would also benefit units with good armor saves. A terminator in ruins might have a -2 armor save.

Maybe there could be an invulnerable "concealment" save that is not normally as good as a cover save, but represents the sight blocking nature of terrain more than the actual physical barrier. That might be too beardy.

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sorry but that never happened.

Whatever helps you feel better at night. If you're just going to call me a liar when I describe my own personal experiences, then your spastic posts aren't really worth commenting on.

Says the literal stereotype of the bitter SoB player.

Martel732 wrote:
Terminators in 2nd died to -6 armor save weapons like krak missiles (back when they worked) or to mass -2 or -3 fire from sonic blasters or shuriken catapults.

Not in my group they didn't. I took Terminators to tournaments and did well with them.

Likewise in 4th, Terminators were the linchpin to my counterattacks during 4th.

I can understand if other people preferred other units, but they were great for me.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It didn't work in 2nd and it wouldn't work now while still on the D6 system. Expensive power armor becomes very useless very quickly.

As I said....

"though with much reduced modifiers compared to 2nd ed."

It didn't work in 2nd edition because modifiers were given out too liberally, but the system as a whole wasn't flawed, it was just the implementation. I'd argue the AP system on the other hand IS a fundamentally flawed system.

Although I'd have to think about it, but in my mind you'd have things like Bolters with no modifier, Heavy Bolters would be -1, and only things that are currently AP2 or maybe AP3 would have a -3 modifier.

I don't think heavy bolters should decrease the effectiveness of power armor by 25%. But that's the smallest increment available. In my head, it's easier to cost weapons in the AP system. But maybe that's just what I'm used to.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Terminators in 2nd died to -6 armor save weapons like krak missiles (back when they worked) or to mass -2 or -3 fire from sonic blasters or shuriken catapults.

Not in my group they didn't. I took Terminators to tournaments and did well with them.

Likewise in 4th, Terminators were the linchpin to my counterattacks during 4th.

I can understand if other people preferred other units, but they were great for me.

I likewise remember termies being g ood in both fourth and fifth. It was sixth that really made people drop them.

They weren't good in 5th. Any old power weapon ignored their armor. Their firepower was a little better compared to tac marines, but it was still really poor compared to the field. They were up against IG leafblower and guided scatterwalkers.

That's on top of 5th being super mech heavy, and the mech can just drive away.

I might drop this in Proposed Rules later. These are mostly notes at this point, obviously a WIP.

Just looking at SM units:


Getting rid of the T5 bikes means there will be a linear weapons progression.

Weapons role :



Issues to solve :

- Cover can be made a bit less influential by simply modifying the BS value, which also helps blasts (cover = -1BS, stealth + shrouded = same)
- Grav needs a more discrete role... maybe targeting primarily superheavies + GMCs?
- Volume of fire can be tweaked too. Eliminate Rapidfire, instead both RF and Assault weapons reroll misses within 12" (this helps mitigate poor BS due to cover)

Current System

TLDR --> Terminators are the least resilient in pretty much all situations.

Proposed System

TLDR --> Terminators only really get hard-countered by Melta, they become far more survivable against the other damage types. AP isn't neutralized by cover, with less volume of fire (even bolters) it's critical to match AP to target. Scatterlasers are now hindered by cover and lose some of their punch. Better cover degrades BS, which means sending in RF/Assault shooting units that benefit from rerolls within 12".

I haven't completely solved the volume of fire issue, but it's not nearly as bad. I don't like Marines being more resilient than Terminators to Scatterlasers and Bolters. Maybe FNP can be tied to the strength of the attack -- so at S6 and below Terminators get a FNP, and anything S7+ simply turns it off.

This is just brainstorming so feel free to poke holes in this.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think heavy bolters should decrease the effectiveness of power armor by 25%. But that's the smallest increment available. In my head, it's easier to cost weapons in the AP system. But maybe that's just what I'm used to.

It's true that Heavy Bolters would be more effective against Power Armor, but they might no longer decrease the effectiveness of 'Eavy Armor, Carapace Armor, etc. by 100%. On the flip side, power weapons, plasma weapons, etc. might no longer decrease the effectiveness of Power Armor by 100%.

So it would change a lot, and it might only be possible as part of a major reboot of the rules where all point values have to be readjusted anyway.

I like the idea of AP not being all-or-nothing, personally.

It depends on what codex. Grey Knight Terminators are extremely viable, in-fact I'd say they're the only competitive way to play Grey Knights. Being cheaper than most terminators helps a lot too.

Other codices aren't as lucky though.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It depends on what codex. Grey Knight Terminators are extremely viable, in-fact I'd say they're the only competitive way to play Grey Knights. Being cheaper than most terminators helps a lot too.

Other codices aren't as lucky though.

They still need fixes though (S5 Storm Bolters and 2 Heavy Weapons at 5 guys and an extra one at 10). They still function closer to intended compared to Tactical Terminators.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It depends on what codex. Grey Knight Terminators are extremely viable, in-fact I'd say they're the only competitive way to play Grey Knights. Being cheaper than most terminators helps a lot too.

Other codices aren't as lucky though.

They still need fixes though (S5 Storm Bolters and 2 Heavy Weapons at 5 guys and an extra one at 10). They still function closer to intended compared to Tactical Terminators.

For sure. Its not as good as it should be, but its functional. And I always enjoyed a challenge. I'm still rocking a good ~80% win rate with my Grey Knights, and undefeated in the current league I'm in. The psychic alpha strike is real good, but its a tricky beast to manage.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think heavy bolters should decrease the effectiveness of power armor by 25%. But that's the smallest increment available. In my head, it's easier to cost weapons in the AP system. But maybe that's just what I'm used to.

It's true that Heavy Bolters would be more effective against Power Armor, but they might no longer decrease the effectiveness of 'Eavy Armor, Carapace Armor, etc. by 100%. On the flip side, power weapons, plasma weapons, etc. might no longer decrease the effectiveness of Power Armor by 100%.

So it would change a lot, and it might only be possible as part of a major reboot of the rules where all point values have to be readjusted anyway.

I like the idea of AP not being all-or-nothing, personally.

In my modified D10 system, AP that equals the armor save ie AP 2 vs 2+ armor, the armor is halved in effectiveness. This was my way of killing off the 5++ on the terminator armor and giving a similar bonus to all armor. Maybe modifiers are better, but the community as a whole has a lot more experience with the AP system and it would probably be easier to balance because we have so many more games played with it.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
I like the idea of AP not being all-or-nothing, personally.

The counter-argument is that matching AP to Armor is very fast and intuitive.

You could also split the difference here, and use both AP values and a Rending modifier at the same time.

Well, honestly the best way to fix the situation would be to resurrect the way it worked in Fantasy.

For every point of Strength above 3, an attack modifies the armor roll by -1. So a Str5 shot does -2 to the save roll.

Armor saves could be better than 2+. Armor saves of better than 2+ would still fail on rolls of 1, but they would be able to suffer more modifiers before the safe was reduced.

We could then add the Armor Piercing rule with a scale of vaules. So say a weapon with Armor Piercing(2) would modify saves by -2. A weapon with Armor Piercing(1) would be -1 to saves, etc... Armor piercing could also be what gives a weapon a bonus on the vehicle damage chart, equal to the amount of the armor piercing value. So Armor Piercing 2 would give +2 on the damage chart. Armor Piercing 1 would give +1.

You could also have a rule which says that the Strength of the attack does not modify the save. So that some attacks could be high strength, but always allow saves.

I would also suggest this would need to allow for models to make multiple saves vs the same wound as Fantasy also had. Allow a model to make both armor saves, and then choose between Cover or Invuln saves. And only if both of these rolls fail does the wound get suffered.

It would allow for some more granularity, as well as make cover more important for armored troops.


If you did this, I would change power armor to give a 2+ save and Terminator armor to give a 0+ save and 5+ invuln. So a Terminator could suffer a total of -2 modifier and still pass armor saves on 2+.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
I like the idea of AP not being all-or-nothing, personally.

The counter-argument is that matching AP to Armor is very fast and intuitive.

You could also split the difference here, and use both AP values and a Rending modifier at the same time.

The rend system has always seemed basically just as fast and pretty simple to me, but it could be that I'm just a weirdo.

How would having both work? Like, if AP doesn't totally negate the armor save the Rend modifier is then applied?

I'm still going with "no, under the current system, terminators will never be viable". T4 W1 is not likely change and is such a liability. The 83% save chance only goes so far in a game where Eldar can force 70+ armor saves a turn. That's 12 dead terminators a turn from 24-36" on fast platforms. Game over man, game over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, honestly the best way to fix the situation would be to resurrect the way it worked in Fantasy.

For every point of Strength above 3, an attack modifies the armor roll by -1. So a Str5 shot does -2 to the save roll.

Armor saves could be better than 2+. Armor saves of better than 2+ would still fail on rolls of 1, but they would be able to suffer more modifiers before the safe was reduced.

We could then add the Armor Piercing rule with a scale of vaules. So say a weapon with Armor Piercing(2) would modify saves by -2. A weapon with Armor Piercing(1) would be -1 to saves, etc...

I would also suggest this would need to allow for models to make multiple saves vs the same wound as Fantasy also had. Allow a model to make both armor saves, and then choose between Cover or Invuln saves. And only if both of these rolls fail does the wound get suffered.

It would allow for some more granularity, as well as make cover more important for armored troops.

I hate this for a D6 based system. Str 5 will mow down marines like kibble. Just like in 2nd.

Well thats why I would up the save of power armor to 2+. Up terminator armor to 0+.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well thats why I would up the save of power armor to 2+. Up terminator armor to 0+.

So power armor is still failing on 3's vs heavy bolters and pulse rifles, and needs a 5+ to save vs scatterlasers? That sounds like a nightmare to balance and cost units.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm still going with "no, under the current system, terminators will never be viable". T4 W1 is not likely change and is such a liability. The 83% save chance only goes so far in a game where Eldar can force 70+ armor saves a turn. That's 12 dead terminators a turn from 24-36" on fast platforms. Game over man, game over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, honestly the best way to fix the situation would be to resurrect the way it worked in Fantasy.

For every point of Strength above 3, an attack modifies the armor roll by -1. So a Str5 shot does -2 to the save roll.

Armor saves could be better than 2+. Armor saves of better than 2+ would still fail on rolls of 1, but they would be able to suffer more modifiers before the safe was reduced.

We could then add the Armor Piercing rule with a scale of vaules. So say a weapon with Armor Piercing(2) would modify saves by -2. A weapon with Armor Piercing(1) would be -1 to saves, etc...

I would also suggest this would need to allow for models to make multiple saves vs the same wound as Fantasy also had. Allow a model to make both armor saves, and then choose between Cover or Invuln saves. And only if both of these rolls fail does the wound get suffered.

It would allow for some more granularity, as well as make cover more important for armored troops.

I hate this for a D6 based system. Str 5 will mow down marines like kibble. Just like in 2nd.

on the elder front that is also 648 points for 24 scat laser bikes but yea scat bikes are probably point for point among the best unit in the game and should cost more or be 1 heavy per 3 bikes

Martel732 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well thats why I would up the save of power armor to 2+. Up terminator armor to 0+.

So power armor is still failing on 3's vs heavy bolters and pulse rifles, and needs a 5+ to save vs scatterlasers? That sounds like a nightmare to balance and cost units.

Well, as I said in my edited post, there could be a rule a weapon has that it does not modify the armor save based on its strength.

Scatter lasers, pulse rifles, and other lower quality weapons could have this rule. Not sure what you would call it. Poor Penetration or something.

Heavy Bolters would actually be failed on 4s(str5 is -2) with power armor. Bolters would fail it on 3s. This of course would need some re-balancing, but it would make some of the mid tier weapons more attractive. You might actually see people use heavy bolters if they had these rules.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
How would having both work? Like, if AP doesn't totally negate the armor save the Rend modifier is then applied?

Sure.

Saying you have a AP- melee weapon with Rending (-2). You simply apply this to the armor save.

Meanwhile you have an AP4 Heavy Bolter, which cues the player to shoot at 4+ targets.

You could also combine the two in one profile. say you had a AP4 Heavy Bolter with Rending (-1). In that case, shooting a 3+ Marine would produce a 4+ armor save, while shooting a 4+ Carapace Vet would deny any save at all.

Martel732 wrote:
The 83% save chance only goes so far in a game where Eldar can force 70+ armor saves a turn.

This is why you can adjust with cover that degrade BS and a reworked FNP.

1) 70 saves = 105 shots.
2) In cover that affects BS by -2 : 105(1/3) = 35 hits.
3) 35 hits at S6 = 35(5/6) = 29.16W.
4) 29 wounds with a 2+ save = 4.86 unsaved.
5) 4.86 unsaved with FNP (6) = 3.24W.

So in this case, 700+ points of Scatterbikes are killing about 110pts of Terminators. We've made them almost 4x as tough, even at T4 1W.

Is that not effective enough?

I don't care for BS modifiers on the D6, either.

But I get the point.

Tau can drown terminators in Str 5 in a similar fashion. Especially from anchored Stormsurges, etc.