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.

Martel732 wrote:
That's not what I meant. By the time you "fix" terminators, and then "fix" riptides, and then add every other underpowered/overpowered unit to the list, it's actually easier to rewrite the whole thing.

The malaise of T4 2+ is a mathematical phenomenon reinforced by many, many aspects of the game.

My play group is only relevant in that I can't pretend that Riptides don't exist exactly as they are.

Again, the actual solution is to trash can the entire rules set and start over. But that's a lot of work, and it not worth it as those rules would never be official.

So I ask again. Where do you get off on coming to Proposed Rules and explaining to us that this whole section of Dakka is all a waste of time because it'll never work and nobody will play with you if it does?

I'm not saying that. There are units that are much more easily altered than terminators. There's been dozens of threads about this with nothing even close to a consensus.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not saying that.

...You're not saying that any solution short of trashing the system and starting over isn't going to help, and that trashing the system and starting over isn't worth it because nobody will play against it.

Can you say what you are saying instead, then?

I'm saying that for terminators. Because gw backed itself into a mathematical corner. Not for every proposed unit. The only way i see to make terminators fit in 7th is to go all assault cannons. S6 spam. Very 7th ed. How many will agree to this? Very few.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm saying that for terminators. Because gw backed itself into a mathematical corner. Not for every proposed unit. The only way i see to make terminators fit in 7th is to go all assault cannons. S6 spam. Very 7th ed. How many will agree to this? Very few.

...Now can you describe this 'mathematical corner' in a way that doesn't involve telling us that S4 or T4 is 'bad'?

The mathematical corner involves many phenomena that have evolved concurrently.

1) AP 2 is far more common than AP 3. Everyone knows that AP 3 is the only AP value for which terminators are actually more durable than marines. GW noticed this early in 3rd and gave them the mercy 5+, but it's still not enough. I suppose cataphracti armor is getting closer.

2) T4 is easier to wound on a 2+ than it ever has been. Because normal terminators only stop 83% of AP 3 or worse fire, this is critically important. Also, cover does nothing to negate this effect. This is, in effect, the scatterlaser effect, but it was showing up in 5th was mass IG autocannons, etc. Again, because terminators are 2.5 X more expensive than power armor marines (or worse, for BA) they suffer disproportionately.

3) Stormbolters are terrible and always have been. They have been less terrible in previous editions (3rd, 4th), but defense bloat have made them a total joke. Paying 35 pts for for two S4 AP 5 24" BS4 shots is laughable in a game with a 27 pt unit that fire four S6 shots AP 6 36" with battlefocus. It's not even good compared to tac marines, who get 2.5 shots at 24" and 5 shots at 12' for the same price. The same marines who end up being more durable vs AP 2 fire. Also consider that the "fragile" Eldar are basically a 3+ army now and the newest version of Necrons.

4) Powerfists as a CC option have become progressively worse and worse. Couple this on to durability problems, and we've got serious problems. Every MC in the game ignores the 2+ armor and strikes first. Then tack on WKs, and any other AP 2 that goes ahead of init 1. Then couple on the ability that terminators can't capitalize on winning a CC in the form of sweeping a unit. They might have to charge the same unit again on their next turn!

5) T6 2+ models have triple the durability vs S4 fire and double the durability vs S3 fire. These models also don't slowly lose efficacy as the terminators do. The introduction of T6 2+ models really takes a dump on terminators' battlefield role, since they are so superior at the job that terminators were purported to be good at.

6) Poor delivery methods. Gotta run I'll get back later.

...So the 'mathematical corner' is power creep.

And you'd rather identify Terminators as the problem and start stacking buffs on them than identify Riptides as the problem and do something about them.

So we've wandered around in a circle and discovered...what, exactly? You'd rather preserve Riptides' statlines than fix anything?

It's not power creep alone. They've never functioned properly. That has nothing to do with riptides.

This isn't a riptide thread. As i have mentioned, i think that the multiple factors facing terminators make them a poor starting point for fixes.

Martel732 wrote:
It's not power creep alone. They've never functioned properly. That has nothing to do with riptides.

This isn't a riptide thread. As i have mentioned, i think that the multiple factors facing terminators make them a poor starting point for fixes.

Your bar for whether Terminators 'function properly' is based on Riptides and Scatterbikes.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's not power creep alone. They've never functioned properly. That has nothing to do with riptides.

This isn't a riptide thread. As i have mentioned, i think that the multiple factors facing terminators make them a poor starting point for fixes.

Your bar for whether Terminators 'function properly' is based on Riptides and Scatterbikes.

That is kinda what you need to base this on. Their is no point in comparing a terminator to a horrible model like a hormagaunt or it will still e trash after you buff it.

No, my bar is "would I ever take them in my army?". The answer to that is "No" in every edition that I've played. Riptides and scatterbikes just make it worse. They didn't start the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mew28 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's not power creep alone. They've never functioned properly. That has nothing to do with riptides.

This isn't a riptide thread. As i have mentioned, i think that the multiple factors facing terminators make them a poor starting point for fixes.

Your bar for whether Terminators 'function properly' is based on Riptides and Scatterbikes.

That is kinda what you need to base this on. Their is no point in comparing a terminator to a horrible model like a hormagaunt or it will still e trash after you buff it.

Not quite. Just being internally competitive in a given codex would be a step up.

Going to translate this into English.

Martel732 wrote:
The mathematical corner involves many phenomena that have evolved concurrently.

1) AP 2 is far more common than AP 3. Everyone knows that AP 3 is the only AP value for which terminators are actually more durable than marines. GW noticed this early in 3rd and gave them the mercy 5+, but it's still not enough. I suppose cataphracti armor is getting closer.

"The fact that there exist things that ignore Terminators' armour makes them bad."

Alternately "Everyone can't do math and has never played 40k before". Terminators are more durable than Tactical Marines against AP3 weapons, yes. They're also more durable against AP4, 5, 6, and - weapons. Though according to your model of the game AP4 and worse is irrelevant because it doesn't ignore Marine armour.

So yes. In a strange imaginary game wherein you only ever shoot at a unit with a weapon that ignores its armour saves Terminators are exactly as durable as Tactical Marines.

2) T4 is easier to wound on a 2+ than it ever has been. Because normal terminators only stop 83% of AP 3 or worse fire, this is critically important. Also, cover does nothing to negate this effect. This is, in effect, the scatterlaser effect, but it was showing up in 5th was mass IG autocannons, etc. Again, because terminators are 2.5 X more expensive than power armor marines (or worse, for BA) they suffer disproportionately.

"Terminators are bad because there's too much S6 in the game."

Or: "Terminators are bad because power creep."

3) Stormbolters are terrible and always have been. They have been less terrible in previous editions (3rd, 4th), but defense bloat have made them a total joke. Paying 35 pts for for two S4 AP 5 24" BS4 shots is laughable in a game with a 27 pt unit that fire four S6 shots AP 6 36" with battlefocus. It's not even good compared to tac marines, who get 2.5 shots at 24" and 5 shots at 12' for the same price. The same marines who end up being more durable vs AP 2 fire. Also consider that the "fragile" Eldar are basically a 3+ army now and the newest version of Necrons.

"Storm bolters are bad because they're worse than scatterbikes."

Or: "Terminators are bad because power creep."

4) Powerfists as a CC option have become progressively worse and worse. Couple this on to durability problems, and we've got serious problems. Every MC in the game ignores the 2+ armor and strikes first. Then tack on WKs, and any other AP 2 that goes ahead of init 1. Then couple on the ability that terminators can't capitalize on winning a CC in the form of sweeping a unit. They might have to charge the same unit again on their next turn!

"Terminators are bad because they strike after Monstrous Creatures."

So Terminators are bad because they can't take on a unit type that exists in less than half of the Codexes in the game. Obviously a melee unit that isn't the be-all and end-all against all possible targets is terrible.

5) T6 2+ models have triple the durability vs S4 fire and double the durability vs S3 fire. These models also don't slowly lose efficacy as the terminators do. The introduction of T6 2+ models really takes a dump on terminators' battlefield role, since they are so superior at the job that terminators were purported to be good at.

"Terminators are bad because they're less durable than Riptides."

Or: "Terminators are bad because power creep."

6) Poor delivery methods. Gotta run I'll get back later.

Bulls***. We know you live in the Marine player's comfortable bubble where you get to take Drop Pods and Assault Vehicles for granted, but you have zero grounds to complain about a unit that has 24"-range weapons, can Deep Strike naked, can ride into battle in an Assault Vehicle, and can sit in a 35pt Fast Attack-slot Drop Pod for risk-free turn one Deep Strike in your opponent's face. Terminators have better delivery methods than everything else in the game. Except possibly for Thunderwolves and Dreadknights.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I think in this case you are wrong. You are really pushing this power creep thing too hard.

Naked deep striking sucks. You arrive turn 2 at the soonest, and can't assault till turn 3. Terminators have practically no game effect the turn they arrive. So basically, they get to do something for four turns. You lose two turns by using deep strike. That decreases their value by another 33%. This ensures that I will never take them. Ever.

"They're also more durable against AP4, 5, 6, and - weapons."

They're not. Math. Get some.

 mew28 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's not power creep alone. They've never functioned properly. That has nothing to do with riptides.

This isn't a riptide thread. As i have mentioned, i think that the multiple factors facing terminators make them a poor starting point for fixes.

Your bar for whether Terminators 'function properly' is based on Riptides and Scatterbikes.

That is kinda what you need to base this on. Their is no point in comparing a terminator to a horrible model like a hormagaunt or it will still e trash after you buff it.

I'm going to take this to a logical extreme for a moment, because this is a STUPID argument and I'm really quite annoyed with it.

Four editions down the line when everything in the game has 10s in all stats, armour saves have disappeared entirely, an Invulnerable-save-ignoring stat has been added to weapons, and a new super-Invulnerable-save has been added that's invulnerable to even that, will you then accept that introducing controls on power creep earlier on might have been a better idea than letting the whole thing deathspiral out of control? Will you acknowledge that somewhere along the line something could have been nerfed instead of buffing the whole game every time something turns out to be too good? Or will you declare that obviously we should have been using larger dice all along and move the whole fething mess to a d10 system so you can start the cycle all over again?

I think you're getting way too excited here.

Again, loyalist terminators were terrible in 2nd. And 3rd. And 5th. Where is the creep effect?

Martel732 wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion, but I think in this case you are wrong. You are really pushing this power creep thing too hard.

Naked deep striking sucks. You arrive turn 2 at the soonest, and can't assault till turn 3. Terminators have practically no game effect the turn they arrive. So basically, they get to do something for four turns. You lose two turns by using deep strike. That decreases their value by another 33%.

"They're also more durable against AP4, 5, 6, and - weapons."

They're not. Math. Get some.

I need you to walk away and pound your head against a wall for a few minutes. Then come back and EXPLAIN to me HOW exactly you've managed to conclude that passing five in six saves is not better than passing four in six saves.

Because you paid more than twice as much to get that save. Terminators give up more points than tac marines per every type of wound EXCEPT AP 3. How can you have missed this point on Dakka? It's only been made at least two dozen times.

Martel732 wrote:
I think you're getting way too excited here.

[MOD EDIT - Rule #1 - Alpharius]

If you bothered to explain yourself instead of declaring you're obviously right and moving on I might come to another conclusion. But when you tell me things like "2+ armour performs exactly the same as 3+ armour against weapons with an AP of 4 or worse" I have to start wondering if you know what 40k is.

Power creep is bad we can all see that. However this thread is not about fixing 7th it is about bringing one unit in the SM codex up to a competitive unit. Can we just nerf all the OP stuff and give them a small/no buff? Yes, however the amount of effort that takes compared to us power creeping this one unit is massive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think you're getting way too excited here.

I think you're an idiot.

If you bothered to explain yourself instead of declaring you're obviously right and moving on I might come to another conclusion. But when you tell me things like "2+ armour performs exactly the same as 3+ armour against weapons with an AP of 4 or worse" I have to start wondering if you know what 40k is.

It is because the marines have extra wounds for the same cost.

Martel732 wrote:
Because you paid more than twice as much to get that save. Terminators give up more points than tac marines per every type of wound EXCEPT AP 3. How can you have missed this point on Dakka? It's only been made at least two dozen times.

Because obviously a discussion of the concept of Terminators in a vacuum was a fantastic time to back-fit a statement on the price-performance of one of twelve different units in Terminator armour currently legal in 40k as compared to one of the God only knows how many different units in power armour currently legal in 40k.

OBVIOUSLY the math on the specific implementation in the vanilla Space Marine Codex is a stunning indictment of Terminator armour as a whole. Good show. You've totally convinced me and I shall stop explaining to you what a stupid argument that is now.

(While we're cherry-picking let me just say that a naked Chaos Terminator is twice as durable as a Deathwatch Marine with a heavy thunder hammer against AP4 and worse attacks, and at about half the price, too. Obviously Terminator armour is just fine.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mew28 wrote:
Power creep is bad we can all see that. However this thread is not about fixing 7th it is about bringing one unit in the SM codex up to a competitive unit. Can we just nerf all the OP stuff and give them a small/no buff? Yes, however the amount of effort that takes compared to us power creeping this one unit is massive.

THIS ATTITUDE IS WHY POWER CREEP EXISTS.

We can't attack the whole game at the same time, but we don't need to. If we pick a baseline and design to that, instead of designing everything to fight the most broken units in the game, we might make progress instead of making the whole problem worse.

But yet mew28 is correct. At least in my estimation.

Martel732 wrote:
But yet mew28 is correct. At least in my estimation.

So we've learned today that in Martel's estimation the fact that GW is terrible at writing rules obligates all of us to be exactly as terrible at it in exactly the same way.

Martel, I should have done this a long time ago, but I've concluded that none of your input on any future posts I make in Proposed Rules is going to be even remotely helpful. You've earned a spot on my ignore list. Have a good day.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Going to translate this into English.

Martel732 wrote:
The mathematical corner involves many phenomena that have evolved concurrently.

1) AP 2 is far more common than AP 3. Everyone knows that AP 3 is the only AP value for which terminators are actually more durable than marines. GW noticed this early in 3rd and gave them the mercy 5+, but it's still not enough. I suppose cataphracti armor is getting closer.

"The fact that there exist things that ignore Terminators' armour makes them bad."

Alternately "Everyone can't do math and has never played 40k before". Terminators are more durable than Tactical Marines against AP3 weapons, yes. They're also more durable against AP4, 5, 6, and - weapons. Though according to your model of the game AP4 and worse is irrelevant because it doesn't ignore Marine armour.

So yes. In a strange imaginary game wherein you only ever shoot at a unit with a weapon that ignores its armour saves Terminators are exactly as durable as Tactical Marines.

2) T4 is easier to wound on a 2+ than it ever has been. Because normal terminators only stop 83% of AP 3 or worse fire, this is critically important. Also, cover does nothing to negate this effect. This is, in effect, the scatterlaser effect, but it was showing up in 5th was mass IG autocannons, etc. Again, because terminators are 2.5 X more expensive than power armor marines (or worse, for BA) they suffer disproportionately.

"Terminators are bad because there's too much S6 in the game."

Or: "Terminators are bad because power creep."

3) Stormbolters are terrible and always have been. They have been less terrible in previous editions (3rd, 4th), but defense bloat have made them a total joke. Paying 35 pts for for two S4 AP 5 24" BS4 shots is laughable in a game with a 27 pt unit that fire four S6 shots AP 6 36" with battlefocus. It's not even good compared to tac marines, who get 2.5 shots at 24" and 5 shots at 12' for the same price. The same marines who end up being more durable vs AP 2 fire. Also consider that the "fragile" Eldar are basically a 3+ army now and the newest version of Necrons.

"Storm bolters are bad because they're worse than scatterbikes."

Or: "Terminators are bad because power creep."

4) Powerfists as a CC option have become progressively worse and worse. Couple this on to durability problems, and we've got serious problems. Every MC in the game ignores the 2+ armor and strikes first. Then tack on WKs, and any other AP 2 that goes ahead of init 1. Then couple on the ability that terminators can't capitalize on winning a CC in the form of sweeping a unit. They might have to charge the same unit again on their next turn!

"Terminators are bad because they strike after Monstrous Creatures."

So Terminators are bad because they can't take on a unit type that exists in less than half of the Codexes in the game. Obviously a melee unit that isn't the be-all and end-all against all possible targets is terrible.

5) T6 2+ models have triple the durability vs S4 fire and double the durability vs S3 fire. These models also don't slowly lose efficacy as the terminators do. The introduction of T6 2+ models really takes a dump on terminators' battlefield role, since they are so superior at the job that terminators were purported to be good at.

"Terminators are bad because they're less durable than Riptides."

Or: "Terminators are bad because power creep."

6) Poor delivery methods. Gotta run I'll get back later.

Bulls***. We know you live in the Marine player's comfortable bubble where you get to take Drop Pods and Assault Vehicles for granted, but you have zero grounds to complain about a unit that has 24"-range weapons, can Deep Strike naked, can ride into battle in an Assault Vehicle, and can sit in a 35pt Fast Attack-slot Drop Pod for risk-free turn one Deep Strike in your opponent's face. Terminators have better delivery methods than everything else in the game. Except possibly for Thunderwolves and Dreadknights.

Don't blame power creep. Terminators have been garbage always except in 4th edition where they were mediocre at best.

Watch out. I got ignored for pointing that out. It's not much of a loss, given the basic lack of understanding of terminator math.

Protip: don't announce when you ignore people like a drama queen. Just do it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Don't blame power creep. Terminators have been garbage always except in 4th edition where they were mediocre at best.

So come up with an argument why that doesn't involve blaming the existence of Riptides or scatterbikes.

Someone can cut and paste this and save themselves the work. Although you might get ignored.

2nd ed: -6 armor save weapons, -3 armor save spam, and stormbolters sucked

3rd ed: AP 2 owns their face with no save, and stormbolters suck. Power weapons rape them as well.

4th ed: Kinda okay, and I didn't play this one. I imagine that stormbolters still sucked.

5th ed: AP 2 still owns them, but not as hard, rise of wound spam, power weapons still cut them to little ribbons before they can swing, deep striking is extremely hazardous. Stormbolters have a little more utility because of rapid fire rules, but overall still suck.

6/7th: Mass wound spam, mass AP2, better vs power weapons, but more nasty MCs in the mix. Stormbolters are worse than ever because of the nature of opposing lists and rapid fire buff. Deep striking less hazardous, but likely to shot to pieces before they can assault.

Martel732 wrote:
Someone can cut and paste this and save themselves the work. Although you might get ignored.

2nd ed: -6 armor save weapons, -3 armor save spam, and stormbolters sucked

3rd ed: AP 2 owns their face with no save, and stormbolters suck. Power weapons rape them as well.

4th ed: Kinda okay, and I didn't play this one. I imagine that stormbolters still sucked.

5th ed: AP 2 still owns them, but not as hard, rise of wound spam, power weapons still cut them to little ribbons before they can swing, deep striking is extremely hazardous. Stormbolters have a little more utility because of rapid fire rules, but overall still suck.

6/7th: Mass wound spam, mass AP2, better vs power weapons, but more nasty MCs in the mix. Stormbolters are worse than ever because of the nature of opposing lists and rapid fire buff. Deep striking less hazardous, but likely to shot to pieces before they can assault.

Late 3rd they were OK. After they got the 5++. Back then it was nearly impossible to project bolter fire on the move, due to how rapid fire worked. Stormbolters could actually kick out some decent fire on the go. And I don’t recall seeing that much AP2 stuff spammed.

4th with the 2xAsC they were decent. IIRC that was when you rended on to-hit, rather then to-wound. I do recall my opponents being frightened of my terminators. That said, I didn’t play a huge amount of 4th.

"And I don’t recall seeing that much AP2 stuff spammed. "

Starcannons had three shots. It was suicide.

Martel732 wrote:
"And I don’t recall seeing that much AP2 stuff spammed. "

Starcannons had three shots. It was suicide.

Eldar gona Eldar?

I don’t recall playing against many eldar back then. Not saying they didn’t exist, but they didn’t leave a lasting impression. So the ones I did play must not have been doing the broken stuff. I did play a ton of 3rd, so I’m sure I crossed paths with at least a few.

Game’s always been possible to break. You play with people who are going to, it creates a different environment.

Most units with starcannons were only BS 3, except the Wraithlord. That was the only saving grace.