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.

 Galas wrote:
Nothing in the game is specially resilient. That has been a thing for as 40k existed. If your opponent wants something dead they are gonna kill it unless is some broken combo (like invisibility deathstars with characters tanking everything in 7th, paladins in 5th, IH leviathan in 8th, etc...) that are always specific examples on a sea of very killable stuff.

Unless you are plaguebearers. Those damm things.

I'd make the argument that the problem with resilience in 40k comes down to an inability to use it responsibly. As you said, if someone want to kill a unit they can. In RPGs, the role of a tank is to take hits for everyone else, but the ability to do that relies on not just being able to take hits, but to also corral the enemies so they have to attack you/manage aggro and to have a way to escape once you've taken that damage so that you yourself don't get dropped (either with a healer or another tank). The only real to do that is either character protection, screening, or special bodyguards rules to the point that all of those end up becoming the most valuable abilities to a number of lists, and when you don't have those everything in your lists is subject to being targeted by enemy shooting.

The game needs Target Priority back in some form.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

I'm at work and misread the rule between customers. The math works out at greater than 12" but not at under 12" as I asserted.

No, you're doubling their shots twice. Marines do not get 4 shots under any condition without a stratagem.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

I'm at work and misread the rule between customers. The math works out at greater than 12" but not at under 12" as I asserted.

No, you're doubling their shots twice. Marines do not get 4 shots under any condition without a stratagem.

Yes, I gathered that this was the issue... The math works at greater than 12" range because the old tacs only get 10 shots and the new one's get 20. I figured that was clear from the context.

Galas wrote:Believe me, with only 1W terminators died to small arm fire just like they are doing now.

Canadian 5th wrote:The math doesn't bear out your claim:

Old 1W terminators versus 10-tactical marines within 12":

20 shots, 13.33 hits, 6.67 wounds, 1.11 unsaved wounds

New 2W terminators versus the same:

Devastator or Assault Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 2.22 unsaved wounds

Twice as many wounds taken, but twice as many wounds on the profile, so exactly as many Terminators dead. Looks to me like that claim is borne out by the math.

 catbarf wrote:
[Twice as many wounds taken, but twice as many wounds on the profile, so exactly as many Terminators dead. Looks to me like that claim is borne out by the math.

That wasn't considering things like army-wide rerolls, doctrines, new weapons (Primaris anyone?), etc. The game as a whole is exceptionally lethal in this edition and 2W models and models with good (2+ and 3+) saves ended up in a strange spot due to multi damage weapons and save reducing AP.

Terminators sucked before because GW gave AP2 like candy. But -1 save halving their save doesn't make any sense, either.

One thing that I will say is that 2W termies are easier to 'fix' than 1W termies.

You could give them, and other 'tough as nails' 2+ save models, a special rule to reroll saves against weapons with AP -1 or worse. Call it 'Through the Storm' or some such.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
[Twice as many wounds taken, but twice as many wounds on the profile, so exactly as many Terminators dead. Looks to me like that claim is borne out by the math.

That wasn't considering things like army-wide rerolls, doctrines, new weapons (Primaris anyone?), etc. The game as a whole is exceptionally lethal in this edition and 2W models and models with good (2+ and 3+) saves ended up in a strange spot due to multi damage weapons and save reducing AP.

Okay, but those are game-wide things that are affecting everything, not just Terminators. So why were you saying specifically Terminators are too easy to kill with basic weapons and blaming the AP modifier system, if they're actually just as hard to kill, but it's unrelated buffs that are making everything too vulnerable?

 catbarf wrote:
Okay, but those are game-wide things that are affecting everything, not just Terminators. So why were you saying Terminators are too easy to kill and blaming the AP system, if it actually has nothing to do with the AP system?

If everything is easier to kill does it not follow that Terminators are also easier to kill? Is AP not a part of the across the board lethality that makes Terminators want to grab a cover save? Is it fluffy for a Terminator squad to cower in ruins rather than pressing forward?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Okay, but those are game-wide things that are affecting everything, not just Terminators. So why were you saying Terminators are too easy to kill and blaming the AP system, if it actually has nothing to do with the AP system?

If everything is easier to kill does it not follow that Terminators are also easier to kill? Is AP not a part of the across the board lethality that makes Terminators want to grab a cover save? Is it fluffy for a Terminator squad to cower in ruins rather than pressing forward?

I'll refer you back to what Galas already said:

All the people that tries to claim that the old AP system made things more resilient is straight up lying (Or just disremembering). The changes that have make weapons more letal now are the ease to gain rerrolls and bonus to hit and to wound, and how many weapons have gained shoots to their profiles, etc... the AP system has made some cases more letal and others less, so its end up being neutral overall. (The same goes for the changes to the wound chart)

I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you complaining about lethality in general and blaming the AP system? Are you specifically lamenting the performance of Terminators? Is it the cover system (which could always be revised without touching AP modifiers as a mechanic) you don't like? Your argument is all over the place

 catbarf wrote:
I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you complaining about lethality in general and blaming the AP system? Are you specifically lamenting the performance of Terminators? Is it the cover system (which could always be revised without touching AP modifiers as a mechanic) you don't like? Your argument is all over the place

The AP system makes armor saves less valuable and quizzically make gaining cover more valuable the better the armor save a unit has. Terminators got a buff (2W) to counter this making them better against AP 0, equal against AP -1, and worse against AP -2, assuming they would have been AP2 before terminators are buffed D1 weapons with AP -3 or better. You can apply this to other units as well and, generally, I would expect that all 1W units, and units with 2+ and 3+ saves fair worse in this edition (minus templates/blasts).

Also, cover is linked to the AP system as it acts as a modifier to a model's save and thus is fair game in any discussion of lethality.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you complaining about lethality in general and blaming the AP system? Are you specifically lamenting the performance of Terminators? Is it the cover system (which could always be revised without touching AP modifiers as a mechanic) you don't like? Your argument is all over the place

The AP system makes armor saves less valuable and quizzically make gaining cover more valuable the better the armor save a unit has. Terminators got a buff (2W) to counter this making them better against AP 0, equal against AP -1, and worse against AP -2, assuming they would have been AP2 before terminators are buffed D1 weapons with AP -3 or better. You can apply this to other units as well and, generally, I would expect that all 1W units, and units with 2+ and 3+ saves fair worse in this edition (minus templates/blasts).

Also, cover is linked to the AP system as it acts as a modifier to a model's save and thus is fair game in any discussion of lethality.

Wrong statement.

The new AP system makes armor saves MORE valuable in a lot of cases. Want some examples?

T-shirt save: No value in 7th, some value in 8th.
Guard save: No value in 7th, big value in 8th. We had an age of the meta dominated by 5+ models, specifically because the armor save was too good.
Necron warrior save: Almost no value in 7th, actual asset in 8th.
MEQ save: Sometimes useful in 7th but could not be dependen on due to the over abundance of AP2 and AP3 weapons, in 8th it became much harder. The old AP 6 and AP5 weapons still doesn't reduce your save, you can save against the old AP3 (now -2) and AP 2 (now -3). Still cannot save against AP1 (now -4). The only reduction in defence comes from old AP4 weapons, which reduce your save by 1.
TEQ save: Really useful in 7th, you either had the correct weapon or you were not going to do much. In 8th it is objectively worse, it got more resistant only against old AP2 and AP1, which you can save on 5+ and 6+, but the models with 2+ often have at least a small invul save. That is though before we take in consideration the Grav weapons, which were spammed on every possible platform in 7th. Now your 2+ armor save became both useless AND harmful!

As you can see, for the most part the changes in AP were an overall decrease to the lethality of the game and an increase in the value of the armor.

The game feels more lethal for a different set of reasons:

1) HQs went from tax beatsticks to models that actually support your units. Tipically in an offensive way.
2) Armies got bigger. The bigger the army, the higher the lethality/point ratio.
3) Twinlinked got changed from Reroll to hit, to actually doubling the shot output, only to then receive a reroll to hit from another source.
4) 7th was actually already pretty lethal, it wasn't hard to get tabled in a single turn against the right list. It didn't seem that lethal because the game was full of over the top defensive buffs like rerollable 2++, invisibility and stuff like that. This divided the game between those that had those buffs and could play, and those that didn't and were kindly invited to shelve the armies (played CSM against Eldar once. After turn 1 i had one demon engine left). GW learned correctly that defensive buffs (especially rerolls) can be really bad, and we no longer have any reroll save rule. We only had a rerollable 1 on TS saves given by Magnus, but it obviously became a source of issues, and it was promptly removed. That is because a defensive buff scales MUCH faster than an offensive buff, and can get out of control. Offensive buffs can be given more freely, and GW took that literally.

Spoletta wrote:

Necron warrior save: Almost no value in 7th, actual asset in 8th.
MEQ save: Sometimes useful in 7th but could not be dependen on due to the over abundance of AP2 and AP3 weapons, in 8th it became much harder. The old AP 6 and AP5 weapons still doesn't reduce your save, you can save against the old AP3 (now -2) and AP 2 (now -3). Still cannot save against AP1 (now -4). The only reduction in defence comes from old AP4 weapons, which reduce your save by 1.
.

Did I miss something in 7th? Didn't Necrons warriors & imperial power armor both have 3+ saves? Don't they both still have 3+ saves here in 8th?

ccs wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Necron warrior save: Almost no value in 7th, actual asset in 8th.
MEQ save: Sometimes useful in 7th but could not be dependen on due to the over abundance of AP2 and AP3 weapons, in 8th it became much harder. The old AP 6 and AP5 weapons still doesn't reduce your save, you can save against the old AP3 (now -2) and AP 2 (now -3). Still cannot save against AP1 (now -4). The only reduction in defence comes from old AP4 weapons, which reduce your save by 1.
.

Did I miss something in 7th? Didn't Necrons warriors & imperial power armor both have 3+ saves? Don't they both still have 3+ saves here in 8th?

IIRC necron warriors are 4+ in both 7th and 8th, but at some point before that they were 3+ - not sure which edition changed that.

Spoletta 785884 10737273 wrote:

Wrong statement.

The new AP system makes armor saves MORE valuable in a lot of cases. Want some examples?

T-shirt save: No value in 7th, some value in 8th.
Guard save: No value in 7th, big value in 8th. We had an age of the meta dominated by 5+ models, specifically because the armor save was too good.
Necron warrior save: Almost no value in 7th, actual asset in 8th.
MEQ save: Sometimes useful in 7th but could not be dependen on due to the over abundance of AP2 and AP3 weapons, in 8th it became much harder. The old AP 6 and AP5 weapons still doesn't reduce your save, you can save against the old AP3 (now -2) and AP 2 (now -3). Still cannot save against AP1 (now -4). The only reduction in defence comes from old AP4 weapons, which reduce your save by 1.
TEQ save: Really useful in 7th, you either had the correct weapon or you were not going to do much. In 8th it is objectively worse, it got more resistant only against old AP2 and AP1, which you can save on 5+ and 6+, but the models with 2+ often have at least a small invul save. That is though before we take in consideration the Grav weapons, which were spammed on every possible platform in 7th. Now your 2+ armor save became both useless AND harmful!

As you can see, for the most part the changes in AP were an overall decrease to the lethality of the game and an increase in the value of the armor.

.

to me this looks like GW is buffing options that cost little points then. what did the termintor armoured model gain from the change to armour saves. stuff that was removing the saves of terminators, still removes the save and stuff which before they saved against on a +2, now they have to save on a +3 or a +4.

Also the argument that something is really bad now, but it could be much worse, is a very weak one. Specially as the easily spamable cheap or cheaper stuff does not have the same problems. For GK for example termintors cost more points for less offensive and defensive power, and no different or better utilty. They are worse troop option for more points. And they are suppose to be good somehow because when caught in the open and shot with multi shot -3/-4AP weapons they can save on a +5? that is only good if someone uses loaded dice or sold his soul to roll stuff +5 50% of time.

ccs wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Necron warrior save: Almost no value in 7th, actual asset in 8th.
MEQ save: Sometimes useful in 7th but could not be dependen on due to the over abundance of AP2 and AP3 weapons, in 8th it became much harder. The old AP 6 and AP5 weapons still doesn't reduce your save, you can save against the old AP3 (now -2) and AP 2 (now -3). Still cannot save against AP1 (now -4). The only reduction in defence comes from old AP4 weapons, which reduce your save by 1.
.

Did I miss something in 7th? Didn't Necrons warriors & imperial power armor both have 3+ saves? Don't they both still have 3+ saves here in 8th?

Warriors were T4 3+ and Immortals were T5 3+ in 3rd, in 5th onwards Warriors have been T4 4+ and Immortals T4 3+. Moving them a little more towards the "their number is legion" kind of army. Necron Warrior save did have a large impact in 7th, it avoided the most popular AP (5) while being overkilled by the equivalently popular AP 1/2 weapons. That's not to say AP 3 and 4 weapons didn't exist and didn't counter them, but I don't believe those weapons were as popular as AP 5 and AP 1/2 weapons.

Just because mono-Marines get better AP does not mean every weapon in the game has good AP, the Crux Terminatus is really underwhelming this edition, but having 2 W is massive against D1 AP- weapons, even D3 damage weapons have a chance of flopping a kill. Maybe Intercessors should have been S5 instead of AP-1, maybe Doctrines should give a bonus other than AP, but there still exists a bazillion D1 AP- weapons in the game. You kind of have to decide which is the problem of Terminators, is it weight of fire or quality of fire? Okay now it's medium quality, medium quantity weapons.

Comparing 7th ed Warriors - an anti-light infantry/anti heavy tank unit with 8th ed Warriors an anti light infantry/anti heavy infantry unit is silly. Their role has changed to be countering Terminators instead of Land Raiders, want to try that same comparrison with Land Raiders? That's going to show the Land Raider as being absolutely OP. No the proficiency of that particular unit changed, if their rules had been carried over and their proficiencies stayed against the same types of units they'd be AP- and Terminators would be twice as tough to kill with them.

And all of the talk about what Terms are weak to and what they should be weak to ignores that they're also at a wildly incorrect price point. A five-man Terminator squad has roughly the same survivability and melee output of a three-man Aggressor squad, and trades less firepower on the move* for DS. Unfortunately a Terminator costs almost as much as an Aggressor, one or both of them is significantly off the proper power curve.

* And vastly less firepower when stationary, but GW seems to have priced Aggressors as though they didn't have ways to mitigate that.

The Newman wrote:
And all of the talk about what Terms are weak to and what they should be weak to ignores that they're also at a wildly incorrect price point. A five-man Terminator squad has roughly the same survivability and melee output of a three-man Aggressor squad, and trades less firepower on the move* for DS. Unfortunately a Terminator costs almost as much as an Aggressor, one or both of them is significantly off the proper power curve.

* And vastly less firepower when stationary, but GW seems to have priced Aggressors as though they didn't have ways to mitigate that.

GW didn't price Aggressors, it's the same it has been since CA18 and they changed their Attacks and Wounds characteristic, which is more likely:
:GW found the exact stat changes that would make Aggressors worth it at their current price point.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and found that the existing pts fit exactly with how strong they were after the update.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and were too lazy to look at how much an Aggressor with that updated profile was worth.

If Terminators got an extra wound they'd be really good, DG Termies have done well a number of times in competitive events and are still taken by some DG players, they essentially have an extra wound due to how 5+++ math works out.

If anyone is going to make Adeptus Astartes Terminators work it'd be either 5+++ Iron Hands Terminators or +1 charge Blood Angels Terminators. For Heretic Astartes you have Emperor's Children, Night Lords and World Eaters.

Heretic Astartes terminators and Thousand Sons terminators are both quite good, generally due to their ability to cut costs down in the melee department and take more powerful ranged weapons. For the same reason, as a Deathwatch player I adore terminators, and DW kill teams are functionally a terminator squad with some power armored 3++ bodies stapled on for extra firepower and exccellent protection against Disintegrator type weaponry.

The fact that the two Terminator configurations that regular loyalists have access to aren't considered particularly great would seem to suggest that the problem lies within the weapon restrictions they're placed under rather than a problem with the baseline terminator price point. Especially when looking at how effective Chainaxe/Storm Bolter chaos terminators are for their price.

Really it seems like the fault of the weapon combinations to me. Lightning Claws and Powerfists are pretty much ass across the board, nobody takes them anywhere they're not mandatory. -1 to hit and D3 damage suck, how expensive the glorified power weapon that is lightning claws is sucks, and while storm shields are good in a vacuum, they're not so fantastic when you only gain benefit from them at -2AP and youre giving up a very good ranged weapon in the SB.

In an ideal world, loyalist terminators would maybe get a weapons discount to avoid having to have differnet price points for the terminator body. But we don't live in an ideal world, so I'd be fine with tactical and assault termiantors getting a price decrease as long as chaos terminators, DW terminators and other termies who get flexible loadouts or other advantages don't get bumped into bonkers land.

Deathwing also seem to have been getting favorable rumblings though I haven't actually faced them since the new rules for DA. They seem to be basically identical in setup to tactical terminators but they've got that "teleport in outside 6" stratagem now, and it seems they can mix in Thunder Hammer/Storm Shield dudes with the regular powerfist dudes. Are people mostly taking the DW termies or the Knight guys? The knights seem pretty solid, basically a TH/SS terminator with 1 less AP for a full 6ppm off and the sergeant has the ability to shred any chaff unit in existence if they try to tie them up.

 vict0988 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
And all of the talk about what Terms are weak to and what they should be weak to ignores that they're also at a wildly incorrect price point. A five-man Terminator squad has roughly the same survivability and melee output of a three-man Aggressor squad, and trades less firepower on the move* for DS. Unfortunately a Terminator costs almost as much as an Aggressor, one or both of them is significantly off the proper power curve.

* And vastly less firepower when stationary, but GW seems to have priced Aggressors as though they didn't have ways to mitigate that.

GW didn't price Aggressors, it's the same it has been since CA18 and they changed their Attacks and Wounds characteristic, which is more likely:
:GW found the exact stat changes that would make Aggressors worth it at their current price point.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and found that the existing pts fit exactly with how strong they were after the update.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and were too lazy to look at how much an Aggressor with that updated profile was worth.

If Terminators got an extra wound they'd be really good, DG Termies have done well a number of times in competitive events and are still taken by some DG players, they essentially have an extra wound due to how 5+++ math works out.

If anyone is going to make Adeptus Astartes Terminators work it'd be either 5+++ Iron Hands Terminators or +1 charge Blood Angels Terminators. For Heretic Astartes you have Emperor's Children, Night Lords and World Eaters.

Wroooooonggggg.

Csm terminators show up in two flavours.
Alpha legion slaanesh combiplas and purge Support combiplas.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
And all of the talk about what Terms are weak to and what they should be weak to ignores that they're also at a wildly incorrect price point. A five-man Terminator squad has roughly the same survivability and melee output of a three-man Aggressor squad, and trades less firepower on the move* for DS. Unfortunately a Terminator costs almost as much as an Aggressor, one or both of them is significantly off the proper power curve.

* And vastly less firepower when stationary, but GW seems to have priced Aggressors as though they didn't have ways to mitigate that.

GW didn't price Aggressors, it's the same it has been since CA18 and they changed their Attacks and Wounds characteristic, which is more likely:
:GW found the exact stat changes that would make Aggressors worth it at their current price point.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and found that the existing pts fit exactly with how strong they were after the update.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and were too lazy to look at how much an Aggressor with that updated profile was worth.

If Terminators got an extra wound they'd be really good, DG Termies have done well a number of times in competitive events and are still taken by some DG players, they essentially have an extra wound due to how 5+++ math works out.

If anyone is going to make Adeptus Astartes Terminators work it'd be either 5+++ Iron Hands Terminators or +1 charge Blood Angels Terminators. For Heretic Astartes you have Emperor's Children, Night Lords and World Eaters.

Wroooooonggggg.

Csm terminators show up in two flavours.
Alpha legion slaanesh combiplas and purge Support combiplas.

I have 100% seen red butchers in competitive lists.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
And all of the talk about what Terms are weak to and what they should be weak to ignores that they're also at a wildly incorrect price point. A five-man Terminator squad has roughly the same survivability and melee output of a three-man Aggressor squad, and trades less firepower on the move* for DS. Unfortunately a Terminator costs almost as much as an Aggressor, one or both of them is significantly off the proper power curve.

* And vastly less firepower when stationary, but GW seems to have priced Aggressors as though they didn't have ways to mitigate that.

GW didn't price Aggressors, it's the same it has been since CA18 and they changed their Attacks and Wounds characteristic, which is more likely:
:GW found the exact stat changes that would make Aggressors worth it at their current price point.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and found that the existing pts fit exactly with how strong they were after the update.
:GW changed the stats to what they felt the fluff were and were too lazy to look at how much an Aggressor with that updated profile was worth.

If Terminators got an extra wound they'd be really good, DG Termies have done well a number of times in competitive events and are still taken by some DG players, they essentially have an extra wound due to how 5+++ math works out.

If anyone is going to make Adeptus Astartes Terminators work it'd be either 5+++ Iron Hands Terminators or +1 charge Blood Angels Terminators. For Heretic Astartes you have Emperor's Children, Night Lords and World Eaters.

Wroooooonggggg.

Csm terminators show up in two flavours.
Alpha legion slaanesh combiplas and purge Support combiplas.

Yeah Night Lords combiplas terminators suck. Why would anyone want overcharged plasma hitting on 2s safely? And it isn't like Night Lords have any way to give them that much vaunted -1 to hit either.

nekooni wrote:

ccs wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Necron warrior save: Almost no value in 7th, actual asset in 8th.
MEQ save: Sometimes useful in 7th but could not be dependen on due to the over abundance of AP2 and AP3 weapons, in 8th it became much harder. The old AP 6 and AP5 weapons still doesn't reduce your save, you can save against the old AP3 (now -2) and AP 2 (now -3). Still cannot save against AP1 (now -4). The only reduction in defence comes from old AP4 weapons, which reduce your save by 1.
.

Did I miss something in 7th? Didn't Necrons warriors & imperial power armor both have 3+ saves? Don't they both still have 3+ saves here in 8th?

IIRC necron warriors are 4+ in both 7th and 8th, but at some point before that they were 3+ - not sure which edition changed that.

They had 3+ saves in 3rd ed (technically 4th ed too, but Necrons never had a 4th codex)
It got changed to 4+ in 5th ed and stayed that way ever since.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Or maybe the armor save system is just an abstraction because its a game and not a simulation?

It is. And that's essentially my argument. The armor save system is an abstraction, and I think the current system is a better system gameplay-wise than the old system, with better chances for balance and more ability to adjust weapons to make them stronger or weaker as needed.

Terminators are collateral damage to a much larger problem. The AP system (i.e. - modifiers to armor saves) got out of hand; plain and simple.

I like the AP system, but it became exactly what I always feared it would. GW did an abysmal job keeping it in check.

I really like the idea of having Terminator armor reduce the AP of the weapon, but I'm not sure that's enough because they would still drop to mass small arms fire. I think perhaps a combination of AP reduction as well as re-rolling 1's would be the perfect combination.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Csm terminators show up in two flavours.
Alpha legion slaanesh combiplas and purge Support combiplas.

Interesting, I don't think I have seen Heretic Terminators doing well at tournaments and my opponents don't use them, my suggestions were just what I thought might work the best. Combiplas Alpha Legion seems really curious, do you really want to be Alpha Legion and Deep Strike within 10"? Is there some kind of Stratagem that makes Alpha Legion Termies worthwhile? You can use Slaanesh with any Legion except WE and why wouldn't you? Emperor's Children have the replace a charge dice with a 6 Stratagem which is really good, you'd probably have better Cacophony targets in an EC army, but I wasn't thinking along the lines of mono-Legion, because if you're going mono-Legion then I think it's hard to compete with Alpha Legion. Purge seems like a bad choice due to the mark of chaos required, what I've seen is Purge being used on long-ranged units, especially FW Dreadnoughts.

 oni wrote:
I really like the idea of having Terminator armor reduce the AP of the weapon, but I'm not sure that's enough because they would still drop to mass small arms fire. I think perhaps a combination of AP reduction as well as re-rolling 1's would be the perfect combination.

AP reduction is equivalent to just giving them a 1+ save. Re-rolling 1s is adding yet another bespoke special rule onto a game that is already plagued by bespoke special rules bloat.

I'd rather see a general acknowledgment that their statline, which is still really tough in a platoon-scale skirmish game, isn't quite as impressive in a company-scale game where players are deploying skyscraper-sized robots, literal ICBMs, and dozens of anti-tank weapons designed expressly to kill them.

The imagery of invulnerable Terminators doesn't work at the scale the game is now played at; they're just another flavor of heavy infantry. I have found that playing at low points levels with well-rounded armies makes them feel elite again.

Yeah. Terminators are "Elite" compared to Genestealers (they pretty much are yeah, especially in tight confines like a Space Hulk) or Guardsmen or the like.

Terminators are not "elite" compared to Leman Russ Tanks, Imperial Knights, and Hive Tyrants.

 oni wrote:
Terminators are collateral damage to a much larger problem. The AP system (i.e. - modifiers to armor saves) got out of hand; plain and simple.

I like the AP system, but it became exactly what I always feared it would. GW did an abysmal job keeping it in check.

I really like the idea of having Terminator armor reduce the AP of the weapon, but I'm not sure that's enough because they would still drop to mass small arms fire. I think perhaps a combination of AP reduction as well as re-rolling 1's would be the perfect combination.

I agree with this. Everything in 8th feels far too skewed toward offensive power over defensive power.

In 7th, there were a few situations where it felt like things were too durable, and I have a feeling the developers overcorected based on those extremely skewed examples of 2++ rerollable saves, Invisible units, free transport spam, or Res Protocol decurion buffed units.

I would urge people to take their current 2k list and play a game of 8th, then rerack as best you can and play a game of Apocalypse with the same lists. With the exception of characters who in 8th would have character protections, near everything in apoc feels 2x-3x as durable, and a typical game ends with about 1/4 to 1/3 of the units left on the board.

Besides units putting out less firepower relative to their durability overall, and the lack of stratagems allowing stuff like Smash Captains combo-killing knights or units stacking up +1 to wound reroll to hit double-taps, there is no system that allows a weapon to alter or ignore the defensive stats another unit pays for (including no mortal wounds) no invisible offensive power handed out to shooting units just for existing in the Overwatch system, no melee units charging and tying up huge swathes of the enemy army using tripointing due to the tighter unit coherency, and on top of all that no casualties at all until the end of the battle round. You have to judge as a player when you're concentrating fire on a unit when you've put in enough, because you won't know if they will die to that fire until the end of the round, so naturally you very quickly learn that there are two techniques to killing units in apoc. You either concentrate fire on an elite unit to bring it down, damn the overkill (because you DONT want a big nasty unit surviving with 1-2 wounds left thanks to its saves) or you spread your firepower to a ton of small cheapo units, drop a single small blast on each one, and rely on them failing their 10+ or 9+ saves on D12s.

Both of these make the game feel much more fair as the guy taking the hits, because you either feel like your opponent expended a large amount of fire to take your stuff out, or you get to use the stats you paid for. Having death be guaranteed for your cheapo unit that took a big blast isn't generally a big deal, because you feel like "OK, but my little dudes tanked fire from a way more expensive unit, and they still got to make their attacks during the round" and having there be no way for your opponent to totally remove your chance to save on elite units also gives you the opportunity to survive unexpectedly, or use defensive cards to turn things around.

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Csm terminators show up in two flavours.
Alpha legion slaanesh combiplas and purge Support combiplas.

Interesting, I don't think I have seen Heretic Terminators doing well at tournaments and my opponents don't use them, my suggestions were just what I thought might work the best. Combiplas Alpha Legion seems really curious, do you really want to be Alpha Legion and Deep Strike within 10"? Is there some kind of Stratagem that makes Alpha Legion Termies worthwhile?

You can abuse a lot of denfensive mechanics in combination with the new F&F, however the lists were pre F&F, another thing is, they were at the time significantly cheaper comparatively to the at the time costing 115 pts / model nublits. the combiplas fits the same area and for one is technically a nice little competition for the possessed bomb nowadays.

You can use Slaanesh with any Legion except WE and why wouldn't you? Emperor's Children have the replace a charge dice with a 6 Stratagem which is really good, you'd probably have better Cacophony targets in an EC army, but I wasn't thinking along the lines of mono-Legion, because if you're going mono-Legion then I think it's hard to compete with Alpha Legion.

Tbf, the issue with AL is not actually AL; which bases most of it's strength with a nice tactical set of options, contrary to other legions which are either too restricted in strategy influencing stratagems or are stuck with one off uses like red butchers, or just to one unit type, cue possessed WB f.e.

Purge seems like a bad choice due to the mark of chaos required, what I've seen is Purge being used on long-ranged units, especially FW Dreadnoughts.

Au contrarie, you use / used them as a full reroll without support unit. Again at the time cheaper then obliterators and more importantly the full rerolls available against wounded targets ASWELL as the purge stratagem make for a unit that unlike most other CSM units doesn't need 3 babysitters and 5 stratagems, or what feels like that. Which means that they pay true cost so to speak. ( also full hit rerolls make overcharged plasma really really dangerous.)