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

But I get the point.

If well-armored units don't get any benefit from cover, it devalues their armor save. They need to benefit in some manner. I think that's unavoidable.

As for Tau, I haven't done the math yet. But Markerlights do cost points to field, and heavy infantry like TEQ can cut high-volume with a FNP (6).

HYMP might be a better option then. But I consider it a small victory if Terminators (and Cents) force a shift away from S5/S6 into heavier weapons.

That's why I like the D10. With a D10 BS roll, modifiers are far more viable from cover, and you can have the terminators soak 90% of damage from light/medium weapons without having a single reroll or extra roll.

I think it's harder to design a D6 system. But I don't think it's impossible to work around it.

For instance:

Veteran unit (BS7) = 2(7/10) = 1.4 hits
Average unit (BS6) = 2(6/10) = 1.2 hits

Clearly there's more granularity now... but there's not a big range of difference. The average unit actually shoots worse, and the veteran unit can't go up any further without getting perilously close to the current BS5.

Alternatively... we can give the veteran unit an extra ranged shot. In this case there's a more pronounced difference, which maybe justifies a Vet Sgt upgrade, especially if you're carrying a 15pt pistol.

Vet unit (BS4) : 3(2/3) = 2 hits
Average unit (BS4) : 2(2/3) = 1.3 hits

More granularity will help refine probabilities. But there's only so far you can go on that alone. A D10 system won't correct mechanics that don't exist or don't work. Modifying BS might be easier to implement on a D10, but as it doesn't exist under *any* system at present, it's more important to address the mechanic than the probabilities thereof.

Terminators are in need of a lot more than a 7% survivability boost (83% --> 90%).

Yoyoyo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't care for BS modifiers on the D6, either.

But I get the point.

If well-armored units don't get any benefit from cover, it devalues their armor save. They need to benefit in some manner. I think that's unavoidable.

As for Tau, I haven't done the math yet. But Markerlights do cost points to field, and heavy infantry like TEQ can cut high-volume with a FNP (6).

HYMP might be a better option then. But I consider it a small victory if Terminators (and Cents) force a shift away from S5/S6 into heavier weapons.

Yes, I hate how putting my Termies in cover does nothing for them; cover save should just be rolled for separately.

Cover should improve your save like in AoS. It's very intuitive and keeps it useful to everyone.

Woah that got really heavy from page 13!
Just responding to the terminators go to a 1+ (failing on a 1) and lose their invuln...
That makes terminators awful against any ap1 and any ignores armour save weapons which are both reasonably common enough for it to actually matter. Furthermore it does literally nothing against small arms fire, scatter lasers, etc. Termis still die in droves to these things. That change will do absolutely nothing to make them more viable which is what this thread is asking.
Currently termis may die too much to grav/plasma/rending etc, but they die even more commonly to a minor amount of small arms fire. This is why 2W and fnp is actually fluffier by what it represents - they are 3 times tougher against small arms/grav/plasma/rending/scatter lasers etc, but don't become any tougher aginst melta, krak missiles getting through their normal save, demolisher cannons wiping a squad, D mutilating them etc. The result of that is FAR fluffier than them still dropping like flies to grot blasters.

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.

Yeah it'd definitely be a shuffle up to the game, you'd be getting rid of a lot of current rules, introducing some new ones and reshuffling the power levels of a lot of weapons and thus a lot of things would need to be repriced.

I have no problem with a Heavy Bolter reducing a Spehss Marine's save effectiveness by 25%.

IMO it's easier to price and balance a save modifier system because with an all or nothing system the effectiveness of weapons scales massively depending on what you shoot at. Now, I know earlier in this thread I said "40k is partly about choosing the right weapon to shoot at the right target" but the problem with the AP system is the swings in effectiveness are way too huge when you consider entire armies are made up of models that have an "X+ or better" save.

Space Marines are the most common and obvious example, if you don't take Scouts the entire army is made up of 3+ or better save weapons. That immediately makes all AP4 weapons worth less against Space Marines than any other army. It also immediately makes AP3 worth more against Space Marines than any other army. It's not just a case of "shoot the right gun at the right enemy" it's a case of weapons being worth fundamentally different amounts depending on what army your opponent chose.

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... 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+.

I feel the problem with using WHFB's strength based system word for word is that too many weapons have S4+ and in general the offensive power of armies is much higher. In WHFB you rarely had to kill every model in a unit like you do frequently in 40k. So I think the strength based modifier system WHFB uses would result in modifiers being way too high.

I think it's better just to give weapons a modifier value, after that there's maybe a few units that you'd need to sort out modifiers for (creatures that don't use weapons but are still big and scary enough to have a modifier, or weapons like Tyranid's Scything Talons which should really confer a modifier based on the unit that is using them).

In general I think S4 shouldn't cause any modifier unless it's a specifically armour piercing S4 weapon.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Woah that got really heavy from page 13!
Just responding to the terminators go to a 1+ (failing on a 1) and lose their invuln...
That makes terminators awful against any ap1 and any ignores armour save weapons which are both reasonably common enough for it to actually matter. Furthermore it does literally nothing against small arms fire, scatter lasers, etc. Termis still die in droves to these things. That change will do absolutely nothing to make them more viable which is what this thread is asking.
Currently termis may die too much to grav/plasma/rending etc, but they die even more commonly to a minor amount of small arms fire. This is why 2W and fnp is actually fluffier by what it represents - they are 3 times tougher against small arms/grav/plasma/rending/scatter lasers etc, but don't become any tougher aginst melta, krak missiles getting through their normal save, demolisher cannons wiping a squad, D mutilating them etc. The result of that is FAR fluffier than them still dropping like flies to grot blasters.

Hahah true about the heavy conversation!

I dont mind Terminators as single wound 30-40 point models being 1'd out by small arms fire or a swarm of attacks in melee. That's not what's making them unviable. The current unviabilty is purely the amount of AP2 available which has ballooned in the meta. In comparison, AP1 is far more of a rarity.

Gotta identify the correct problem to fix.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Woah that got really heavy from page 13!
Just responding to the terminators go to a 1+ (failing on a 1) and lose their invuln...
That makes terminators awful against any ap1 and any ignores armour save weapons which are both reasonably common enough for it to actually matter. Furthermore it does literally nothing against small arms fire, scatter lasers, etc. Termis still die in droves to these things. That change will do absolutely nothing to make them more viable which is what this thread is asking.
Currently termis may die too much to grav/plasma/rending etc, but they die even more commonly to a minor amount of small arms fire. This is why 2W and fnp is actually fluffier by what it represents - they are 3 times tougher against small arms/grav/plasma/rending/scatter lasers etc, but don't become any tougher aginst melta, krak missiles getting through their normal save, demolisher cannons wiping a squad, D mutilating them etc. The result of that is FAR fluffier than them still dropping like flies to grot blasters.

Hahah true about the heavy conversation!

I dont mind Terminators as single wound 30-40 point models being 1'd out by small arms fire or a swarm of attacks in melee. That's not what's making them unviable. The current unviabilty is purely the amount of AP2 available which has ballooned in the meta. In comparison, AP1 is far more of a rarity.

Gotta identify the correct problem to fix.

I do agree with you that the amount of ap2 is a big problem to their viability, but disagree that it is the main problem. Imo it is the issue that they drop incredibly quickly to cheap high rate of fire weaponry is the primary problem. Ap2 prevalence second. Lack of damage output 3rd. All 3 need to be adressed to make them viable.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I feel the problem with using WHFB's strength based system word for word is that too many weapons have S4+ and in general the offensive power of armies is much higher. In WHFB you rarely had to kill every model in a unit like you do frequently in 40k. So I think the strength based modifier system WHFB uses would result in modifiers being way too high.

Actually in WHFB you did indeed have to kill the entire unit. All scenarios were kill point scenarios and you only got points if a unit was totally destroyed. 1 guy survives and goes and hides in a corner and his entire unit gives you nothing.

It would indeed have to have some major rebalancing for sure.

I still think the #1 problem is the stormbolter. They deep strike in, nothing happens, and only then they get massacred. If they could take out some models, say some that have the AP 2 weapons, they might live. Even the centurion needs invis to be survivable.

They could put special ammo types in for storm bolters.

Like let them purchase a special issue ammunition for the entire squad.

20 points: The terminator squad may swap their regular Storm bolter ammunition for Vengeance(Str4 AP3, Gets Hot Assault 2), Helfire(StrX, AP5, Fleshbane Assault 2), or Dragonfire(Str4, AP5, ignores cover Assault 2) ammunition. The entire squad must choose the same ammo type.

And give Grey Knights Psybolts back!

Martel732 wrote:
I still think the #1 problem is the stormbolter. They deep strike in, nothing happens, and only then they get massacred. If they could take out some models, say some that have the AP 2 weapons, they might live. Even the centurion needs invis to be survivable.

Not in total agreement there. I agree it's a problem but not #1. Survivability is #1. If you deepstrike them in and they survive you now have a 6" plus charge range threat radius with those powerfists. That can severley disrupt an oponents plan. Maybe not if they are all on jetbikes or have JSJ, but against most opponents. Survivability is the key issue, so they can bring the heavy hitting afterwards. And if they do end up getting wiped with fnp and 2 wounds, they will have distracted a much larger amount of the opponents firepower.

Poly Ranger wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I still think the #1 problem is the stormbolter. They deep strike in, nothing happens, and only then they get massacred. If they could take out some models, say some that have the AP 2 weapons, they might live. Even the centurion needs invis to be survivable.

Not in total agreement there. I agree it's a problem but not #1. Survivability is #1. If you deepstrike them in and they survive you now have a 6" plus charge range threat radius with those powerfists. That can severley disrupt an oponents plan. Maybe not if they are all on jetbikes or have JSJ, but against most opponents. Survivability is the key issue, so they can bring the heavy hitting afterwards. And if they do end up getting wiped with fnp and 2 wounds, they will have distracted a much larger amount of the opponents firepower.

Kinda like Jancoran's mutilators. And no, I'm not joking.

I still couldn't use FNP 2W terminators in my meta because too many ion accelerators. WKs still turn them into paste in CC. The problems are legion.

Offense, defense, mobility, firepower, CC power, costing, leadership, formation interactions and FOC status, synergy, internal/external ballance, fluff and intended game role -- these are all important to consider.

I understand the thread is 16 pages long, but balance issues really aren't that simple if you're balancing with other units in mind.

I never said it was simple. In fact, I'm the one saying that they'll likely never be viable under the current system.

Incidentally, good point -- where do Mutilators and Oblits stand once we make CSM Termies 2W?

Yoyoyo wrote:
Incidentally, good point -- where do Mutilators and Oblits stand once we make CSM Termies 2W?

They already have extra utility because they come in squads of one. If I could field my DC as each model being it's own squad, they'd be good too. But I guess they'd have to get 3 W.

Poly Ranger wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I still think the #1 problem is the stormbolter. They deep strike in, nothing happens, and only then they get massacred. If they could take out some models, say some that have the AP 2 weapons, they might live. Even the centurion needs invis to be survivable.

Not in total agreement there. I agree it's a problem but not #1. Survivability is #1. If you deepstrike them in and they survive you now have a 6" plus charge range threat radius with those powerfists. That can severley disrupt an oponents plan. Maybe not if they are all on jetbikes or have JSJ, but against most opponents. Survivability is the key issue, so they can bring the heavy hitting afterwards. And if they do end up getting wiped with fnp and 2 wounds, they will have distracted a much larger amount of the opponents firepower.

Except offensive output IS the primary issue. If you want durability we got Centurions now. Terminators never had the wall role and people need to quit hamfisting them into it simply because they read fluff that fits what they want.

I'm not sure how many people are willing to accept that interpretation, though. GW's got quite the little mess here. I think in GW's mind, the 5++ invuln reflects the legendary toughness of the armor. Which is just.... mind boggling.

I want to go back to another point.

I still couldn't use FNP 2W terminators in my meta because too many ion accelerators

This is where you theoretically want to use multiwound infantry like Assault Centurions, since their T5/2W is going to shake off a S8 hit (especially if we also back it with FNP that works up to S8).

WK still turn them into paste in CC.

This is where you should want to use 1W units, since you're losing less combat power every time you take an unsaved wound. It's a general consensus that WKs are undercosted. Scrapping with 10x Terminators (350pts) cannot be that great for a WK, it only takes 55x attacks to kill a Sword/Shield WK. That's even less if we increase the wounding values of specialist gear like a Chainfist.

---

Seems like we have the chance to distinguish the utility of 1W and 2W units, rather than simply making a 2W unit better. If Centurions can be insta-killed by 2W weapons like Lascannons and Chainfists, but shake off damage better from less damaging weapons -- great, we've actually made the 1W versus 2W choice meaningful. We're adding tactical choice to the game and encouraging diversity. Hard counters become more effective than wound spam.

Yes, Terminators then don't get 2W -- but they are infantry and that means the same general rules of use. Cross open ground in transports and use cover to survive. Since you have Centurions and full-size Dreadnoughts as small-arms bullet sponges, I don't think slightly more Terminator vulnerability is bad. Players might be a little reluctant to cross open ground on foot, but that's actually a tactical choice. And against small arms in good cover, they can be made 2-3x as resilient without touching their statline at all.

 Grey Templar wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I feel the problem with using WHFB's strength based system word for word is that too many weapons have S4+ and in general the offensive power of armies is much higher. In WHFB you rarely had to kill every model in a unit like you do frequently in 40k. So I think the strength based modifier system WHFB uses would result in modifiers being way too high.

Actually in WHFB you did indeed have to kill the entire unit.

I meant you didn't have to individually kill each and every model in the unit, you just had to break them and run them down. You didn't have to kill each model through the process of hitting, wounding and them failing a save.

The units that were damned near impossible to break and had to be wiped out to a man were few and far between (Temple Guard for example).

All scenarios were kill point scenarios and you only got points if a unit was totally destroyed.

Actually that was only the most recent version of WHFB and IMO it was one of the crappier changes to the WHFB rules. Prior editions of WHFB you got points for half strength units and you also got points for capturing standards simply by breaking a unit in close combat.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/04/40k-breaking-new-unit-profiles-teased.html

Well...looks like they gave termies 2 wounds after all.

Yup as is without rend they are now four times tougher than a tac marine, to a minimum of 2 times tougher with stupid amounts of rend (5+). I'm guessing they will average at about three times tougher in most situations. Depending on how effective storm bolters become they could be a pretty viable at three times the points of marines, which is a little cheaper than they are now.

I'm pretty excited about this, especially the S6, T7, W8, 3+ dreads. I love those models. I might be able to play them AND a Land Raider in 8e.

 ILegion wrote:
I'm pretty excited about this, especially the S6, T7, W8, 3+ dreads. I love those models. I might be able to play them AND a Land Raider in 8e.

No more getting three shot by autocannons.. NO MORE!.. Maybe.

To those of f you saying terminators were never viable, I'd like to remind you about grey Knights in 5th/6th.

Note: Assuming that is the standard terminator stat line. Paladins should have 3 wounds each. Which will make them extremely tough to kill without using heavy weapons.

 Jaxler wrote:
To those of f you saying terminators were never viable, I'd like to remind you about grey Knights in 5th/6th.

I hear a lot about that edition Grey Knight codex.
But all I can think was it was utterly wrecked by my Dark Eldar (Wych based) army consistently.
GK Terminators were just regular terminators that wounded on 3's rather than 2's
PAGK were as effective as tactical marines per model (but there were less of them)
And NDK died easily to agonisers and/or splinter weapons.


Ahh I miss the days when Dark Eldar were decent.....

Now, the question comes in: Will eldar rangers sniper rifles wound everything on a 2+. And if so, my box with 50 rangers might actually become small gods.