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.

 fraser1191 wrote:
One thing I always wanted was guard at T3, a Sob at T4, a marine scout T4, a Tac marine T5 and finally a Termie at T6. But that would require an entire new edition...

I feel like if ap is supposed to represent the level of Armour penetration, then the Toughness value of the model should represent the entity as a whole.
Edit, The save value I would have represent more of the amours ability to shrug off the shot. Terminator Armour can clearly shrug off more than a flakk jacket

A scout has carapace Armour which more or less is modern body armour in style. A marines suit of Armour is totally enclosed with little to no gaps but he's still the same T as a scout? A Lasgun has equal odds of doing the same damage to say the shoulder?

Well I see the T as being how well the model can tank hits that gets past its armour. Sv representing both how well it covers the model and how hard it is to penetrate. A 2+ Sv represents both the areas of the armour that are nigh-on imprenetrable and the weak points and everything inbetween. A 0 AP weapon can only go through the weakest spots on the armour, eyes, joints, etc. -1 AP will cause enough damage to cause a wound when it hits more points, -3 will go through pretty much anywhere, but might not cause any damage if it's at a bad angle on the wrong spot on the armour.

36 lasgun hits will kill 9 scouts or 6 in cover, 6 marines or 3 in cover, 1,5 termies with or without cover. Why do you need toughness changes when the amount of skin the armour covers is already represented?

 vict0988 wrote:
Why do you need toughness changes when the amount of skin the armour covers is already represented?

We are just spit-balling different ideas to make Termies worthwhile. A T bump might not be thematically ideal, but it certainly makes them functionally a bit different, which it the point.
Also, with the To-wound chart being fairly different than it has been for the past decade, there is now a bit more design space available for small changes. The same goes for adding wounds to models since Instant Death no longer exists and weapon can do more damage per shot than in prior editions
All Marines no longer need to be T4 1W. Tacticals, maybe, as a baseline, but Termies and Bikes can get more than just +1W plus armour or toughness boost respectively. TEQs could easly be T5 (T6 for DG) and it really wouldn't make a HUGE difference, but certainly a noticeably (and potentially needed one)
S4/5 & S8 in particular would be affected, but all other S values would not care. But there are enough S4/5/8 weapons out there that the Termies would get a minimal defense boost.
Bikes being T6 would only really matter against S3/5/6, but again, it's a minimal, but noticeable boost

And I think that is the point. In most cases, changes should be "minimal, but noticeable".

At the end of the day, there are just so, so many potential changes to TEQs that would make them at least playable, if not competitive
Just to name a few:
- +1W
- +1T
- WS/BS+2
- 1+ armour save
- Damage -1
- or just a good ole drop in points (seems most likely via CA)

Any one of those changes would make Termies playable, and a combo of any 2 might even make them competitive

-

 Galef wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Why do you need toughness changes when the amount of skin the armour covers is already represented?

We are just spit-balling different ideas to make Termies worthwhile. A T bump might not be thematically ideal, but it certainly makes them functionally a bit different, which it the point.
Also, with the To-wound chart being fairly different than it has been for the past decade, there is now a bit more design space available for small changes. The same goes for adding wounds to models since Instant Death no longer exists and weapon can do more damage per shot than in prior editions
All Marines no longer need to be T4 1W. Tacticals, maybe, as a baseline, but Termies and Bikes can get more than just +1W plus armour or toughness boost respectively. TEQs could easly be T5 (T6 for DG) and it really wouldn't make a HUGE difference, but certainly a noticeably (and potentially needed one)
S4/5 & S8 in particular would be affected, but all other S values would not care. But there are enough S4/5/8 weapons out there that the Termies would get a minimal defense boost.
Bikes being T6 would only really matter against S3/5/6, but again, it's a minimal, but noticeable boost

And I think that is the point. In most cases, changes should be "minimal, but noticeable".

At the end of the day, there are just so, so many potential changes to TEQs that would make them at least playable, if not competitive
Just to name a few:
- +1W
- +1T
- WS/BS+2
- 1+ armour save
- Damage -1
- or just a good ole drop in points (seems most likely via CA)

Any one of those changes would make Termies playable, and a combo of any 2 might even make them competitive

-

Can I just ask why are people saying T5 terminators means that bikes have to be T6?
Really in 8th edition mechanics bikes giving +1T makes no sence
If anything they should grant +1W as while some shots might hit the bike anything like stubber etc should be putting enough round out to not care and likewise why should an anti tank weapon find a dude in normal armour with a bike harder to wound than someone in specialist armour designed to make them a walking tank?

Really the more you think about this the more the marine book looks like a 7th edition port than a written for 8th edition mechanics book.

Ice_can wrote:

Can I just ask why are people saying T5 terminators means that bikes have to be T6?
Really in 8th edition mechanics bikes giving +1T makes no sence
If anything they should grant +1W as while some shots might hit the bike anything like stubber etc should be putting enough round out to not care and likewise why should an anti tank weapon find a dude in normal armour with a bike harder to wound than someone in specialist armour designed to make them a walking tank?

Really the more you think about this the more the marine book looks like a 7th edition port than a written for 8th edition mechanics book.

Good point. 3W T5 bikes certainly make more sense than 2W T6 ones. Although for Bikes, I think a simple points drop but keeping them as-is otherwise would probably work just fine
Bikes in general are still good units (whether Marines, Eldar, Orks, whatever) they are just too expensive as a result of being too good in prior editions

-

 Galef wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Can I just ask why are people saying T5 terminators means that bikes have to be T6?
Really in 8th edition mechanics bikes giving +1T makes no sence
If anything they should grant +1W as while some shots might hit the bike anything like stubber etc should be putting enough round out to not care and likewise why should an anti tank weapon find a dude in normal armour with a bike harder to wound than someone in specialist armour designed to make them a walking tank?

Really the more you think about this the more the marine book looks like a 7th edition port than a written for 8th edition mechanics book.

Good point. 3W T5 bikes certainly make more sense than 2W T6 ones. Although for Bikes, I think a simple points drop but keeping them as-is otherwise would probably work just fine
Bikes in general are still good units (whether Marines, Eldar, Orks, whatever) they are just too expensive.

-

The more I think about the mechanics and how to represent the units qualities in the marine book the more I'm not sure what can be done as they really need to hard reset what each stat is trying to represent.

If we start with guard as a base line and work up from them

A scout should be T4 1W 4+ A1
A Tac marine T4 1W 3+ A2
Vet T4 1W 3+ A3
Primaris T4 2W 3+ A2
Biker T4 2W 3+ A2
Aggressor T5 2W 3+ A2
Terminator T5 2W 2+ A3

I'm glad to see people are mostly sticking to a proper discussion of the topic.

All the stats of marine units are not gunna be changed (so does not align with this discussion). In CA they are only gunna either adjust points value of termie armor/units or adjust points value + 1 other non complicated thing (cause has to affect many factions/armies).

Though a lot of people have commented now and has been a crap tonne of repetition of ideas, what are peoples top 2 things to happen?
(remember if it is to terminator armour, it does not just affect SM terminators, it will affect Terminator units/Characters of: Space marine codex variant chapters, Grey Knights (plus paladins), Deathwatch, Dark Angels (plus knights), Blood angels, Space wolves, Inquisition and Chaos. If more I forget).

For me is:
1. Points re-adjustment (dictated by my number 2)
2. Reduce all damage suffered by each wound by 1, to a minimum of 1

I did an assessment before on most common suggestions and this was it (of previous skim of posts etc and tbh this is what I think still should happen). We have all seen the arguments for and against certain abilities. I am asking now everyone who posts give their most wanted 2 things to happen in CA in regards to Termie armour.

Yeah sure

1. Chapter approved can go in the fire.
2. This is our tournament we'll make the rules thanks.

Sure reduce the damage to 1. But then try and apply that to special characters in any army equipped with terminator armour and see how you go at killing them. When you do this also apply a points reduction and see how your opponent feels about that too.

Subtracting ~10ppm might just do the trick and is by far the more likely change given CA.
But that doesn't mean it's the best fix, so other options are fully "on topic " if it makes Terminators worthwhile.

-

I have already explained how the extra wound/reducing damage scales badly. Did you people not even bother to read that post?

Clearly, Slayer, people either didn't read it or they didn't think it was worth mentioning. I think it might be pretty disingenuous when spectral ceramite didn't acknowledge that the have been problems raised, but maybe he legit disregarded that objection because he's more interested in finding out what's popular and then discussing it.

Either way I can' t see why you'd expect people to specifically call out your irreplaceable insights when you call them you people.

So what do you think, spectral ceramite, do you care that there's a pretty valid structure problem that you might want to talk about or has it be talked about enough?

It seems just as effective to be peremptory and make remarks about how Chapter Approved isn't very important and should get burnt. Is that wrong, Galef? You said -10ppm is more likely given Chapter Approved, but like you also said, that's probably not the best fix, because it is the process of codexes and Chapter Approved that perpetuate the problem in the first place.

CA is only going to change a limited and suboptimal range of things. Also, it's made by a flawed process. There is definitely a good set of rules for terminators to be written, and CA isn't going to do it.

What's the most playable? I think points changes have lots of drawbacks, because they mean if you're going to use them in your group then all the players using terminators would need to change their lists, and even when they do that the feedback on changes doesn't work right because they have a whole different list which isn't finely tuned yet.

Personally, I'm for 1+ SV and A3. Remove the Crux, it's never going to be used (It rarely is anyway).

This may need a points increase, but I don't think their issue is weak firepower killing them.

Sir Heckington wrote:
Personally, I'm for 1+ SV and A3. Remove the Crux, it's never going to be used (It rarely is anyway).

This may need a points increase, but I don't think their issue is weak firepower killing them.

Agreed - also let the use power fists etc at normal WS

1. T6
2. 16ppm + wargear

I disagree on T6. The way I see it, toughness is what's underneath the suit of armour, and SV is the actual suit its self.

Which follows on with plague marine's being T5.

Two of the following:
1+ Save
T5
W3

I won't field Terminators right now due to point cost. It's just not enough for the investment. They need a point drop to maybe 20ppm. Your stock Term is what? 40pt after Wargear? Terminators with a powerfist and sotrm bolter do not really strike any fear into opponents.

Do we even see them represented in tournaments? I hardly ever see them being used at the local shops.

 Karthicus wrote:
I won't field Terminators right now due to point cost. It's just not enough for the investment. They need a point drop to maybe 20ppm. Your stock Term is what? 40pt after Wargear?

Do we even see them represented in tournaments? I hardly ever see them being used at the local shops.

The cheapest possible base Terminator that exists is the basic CSM Terminator with a energysword/mace and a combibolter at 37 pts.
I belive you could confortably cut 10 pts off of the termi and still would not see them spammed to infinity.

 Galef wrote:

Bharring wrote:
-Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there.
-Primaris are weak. 2W... as above.
-Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.

Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?

Yeah, that's why I really REALLY want all MEQs and TEQ to just get +1W. Some units would clearly need to be 2-3ppm more, like Tacticals potentially. Although I'd keep Primaris at 2W, but give then T5 instead.
Overally you would get less models in an army (so things like WS/BS2+ on Termies, VV and SG would be even more needed) but the army would FEEL like you're playing "tough as nails" Marines.
D2 weapons at this point would be fine in their current multitude. Termies and Bike wouldn't get outright splatted by them, but Marines and Primaris still would

Another option is to play the Toughness game. With the change to the S vs T chart in 8E, increases in T are less dramatic. TEQs could be T5 (DG being T6) and Bikes also T6
For Termies, that would make a slight different vs Overcharged Plasma

-

This is really what we all really want, and what it should have been in the first place... But points drop is the only thing we could expect... Your picture still gives me hope that some day, we will back with our marines.
THEY SHALL KNOW NO FEAR!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Can I just ask why are people saying T5 terminators means that bikes have to be T6?
Really in 8th edition mechanics bikes giving +1T makes no sence
If anything they should grant +1W as while some shots might hit the bike anything like stubber etc should be putting enough round out to not care and likewise why should an anti tank weapon find a dude in normal armour with a bike harder to wound than someone in specialist armour designed to make them a walking tank?

Really the more you think about this the more the marine book looks like a 7th edition port than a written for 8th edition mechanics book.

Good point. 3W T5 bikes certainly make more sense than 2W T6 ones. Although for Bikes, I think a simple points drop but keeping them as-is otherwise would probably work just fine
Bikes in general are still good units (whether Marines, Eldar, Orks, whatever) they are just too expensive as a result of being too good in prior editions

-

Honestly, if we only look at bikes and termies, I think +1T for Termies and +1A for bikes should be enough (so they would have 3, 2+1 for chainsword; I just stuck knifes on them and removed all pistols). Drop maybe 1 point for the latter and 18 points base for Termies and you have two decent units.
Of course, special rules are always way more interesting when changing units, but GW isn't doing that soon. Only points drop and minor stats at best

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Karthicus wrote:
I won't field Terminators right now due to point cost. It's just not enough for the investment. They need a point drop to maybe 20ppm. Your stock Term is what? 40pt after Wargear?

Do we even see them represented in tournaments? I hardly ever see them being used at the local shops.

The cheapest possible base Terminator that exists is the basic CSM Terminator with a energysword/mace and a combibolter at 37 pts.
I belive you could confortably cut 10 pts off of the termi and still would not see them spammed to infinity.

I think its a pipe dream to see them cut below 20 (not that I would complain in the least), but 16ppm would be nice. You would have to cut costs of tac at that point I think, but given that Term's have higher cost equipment baking into the unit.... 16 base could work.

Bikers really just need a price cut. They can still do the same job.

However, them not being able to be troops anymore hurts a lot. Otherwise people actually weren't taking Bikers. They were taken because Tactical Marines were THAT bad after they met their quota for how many Scouts they needed. Gladius nipped that in the butt at the cost of being hilariously imbalanced.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bikers really just need a price cut. They can still do the same job.

However, them not being able to be troops anymore hurts a lot.

I feel the same way about my Eldar Windriders. I actually LOVE all the stat/rules changes they made to them going from 7E to 8E, but they are still priced as if they could be Troops, which they cannot be anymore . A simple points reduction would probably make them worthwhile again, but they need to be about half the cost of a Shining Spear for that to happen.

Bikes having +1A and +1T over their infantry counterparts is fair enough, but it isn't costed properly as-is.
Terminators are similar. Their armour giving +1W and better Armour save should be enough in theory, but combined with a much higher points cost and the relative ease they are killed, it just doesn't seem enough. A point reduction is a good start, but unless they end up being almost as cheap as Primaris Marines, I don't think it'll make a difference.
And if they are almost as cheap as Primaris, they step on their toes, which GW is NOT going to allow

So points changes only are not the best solution, even if it is the only realistic one we will get.

-

Honestly Windriders need to be troops again. They already took hits to their weapons and their armor. Knocking them to Fast Attack, when they've been a troop choice for quite a while, was an insult to people that really liked their bikes. They needed to be hit with the nerf bat, not the aluminum bat.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly Windriders need to be troops again. They already took hits to their weapons and their armor. Knocking them to Fast Attack, when they've been a troop choice for quite a while, was an insult to people that really liked their bikes. They needed to be hit with the nerf bat, not the aluminum bat.

While I wholeheartedly agree, I do think there would be a good portion of players that would get their 7E pitchforks out of storage if that happened.

Dropping their points cost quite a bit and making it so that Outrider detachments aren't a CP liability (or rather make Battalions no longer "required") and Windirders would be playable again.
I think the best way to do this is to lower the CPs for Battalions back down to 3CPs and start giving more CPs just for BF lists. I'd pay 2 CPs for decently priced WRs to be my "core", but as it stands, I'd be paying 4CPs for overprices units to be my "core". So I don't play them at all anymore, which is sad as they have been my core army since 4E

-

The specialist Heavy Support/Elite/Fast Attack could be 2CP and the Battalion 4 or stick to 5.

 Karthicus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Karthicus wrote:
I won't field Terminators right now due to point cost. It's just not enough for the investment. They need a point drop to maybe 20ppm. Your stock Term is what? 40pt after Wargear?

Do we even see them represented in tournaments? I hardly ever see them being used at the local shops.

The cheapest possible base Terminator that exists is the basic CSM Terminator with a energysword/mace and a combibolter at 37 pts.
I belive you could confortably cut 10 pts off of the termi and still would not see them spammed to infinity.

I think its a pipe dream to see them cut below 20 (not that I would complain in the least), but 16ppm would be nice. You would have to cut costs of tac at that point I think, but given that Term's have higher cost equipment baking into the unit.... 16 base could work.

With the 10pts cut a Termie would still be 21 without weapons, and i'd rather go slowly on the balance Meter then what gw does now, Either nerfing into the ground or buffing into the heavens.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I have already explained how the extra wound/reducing damage scales badly. Did you people not even bother to read that post?

pelicaniforce wrote:
Clearly, Slayer, people either didn't read it or they didn't think it was worth mentioning. I think it might be pretty disingenuous when spectral ceramite didn't acknowledge that the have been problems raised, but maybe he legit disregarded that objection because he's more interested in finding out what's popular and then discussing it.

Either way I can' t see why you'd expect people to specifically call out your irreplaceable insights when you call them you people.

So what do you think, spectral ceramite, do you care that there's a pretty valid structure problem that you might want to talk about or has it be talked about enough?

It seems just as effective to be peremptory and make remarks about how Chapter Approved isn't very important and should get burnt. Is that wrong, Galef? You said -10ppm is more likely given Chapter Approved, but like you also said, that's probably not the best fix, because it is the process of codexes and Chapter Approved that perpetuate the problem in the first place.

CA is only going to change a limited and suboptimal range of things. Also, it's made by a flawed process. There is definitely a good set of rules for terminators to be written, and CA isn't going to do it.

What's the most playable? I think points changes have lots of drawbacks, because they mean if you're going to use them in your group then all the players using terminators would need to change their lists, and even when they do that the feedback on changes doesn't work right because they have a whole different list which isn't finely tuned yet.

I would have read all posts if doing an analysis (though I cant remember now, been ages). My perception was, I want everyone's number 1 and 2 change to come in chapter approved. They are not going to remake a codex or change a system for 1 unit/armour type for 8th edition. They are not going to do anything drastic. The question really is what is realistic for GW to do to improve the unit/armour (in CA, is where they make changes nowadays) and what are the top 2 opinions of everyone posting. That is it, simple. You may have detailed a synopsis of why/how -1 to to dmge affect/s Dmg 2 weapons (if remember? idk if that was it cbf going back and reading), if was maybe, but the cost relevant to others... idk, -1 isnt to bad (personal opinion, the collective is what may become apparent).

Secondly, I don't expect people to do anything. I was asking for an insight for their views marginalised to a specific focus, is easier to read and probably will give more pertinent information to something that can be changed.

EDIT:

I don't think we will see a 10pts cost reduction. Cost adjustment (whether positive, negative or neutral) inline with an increase in survive-ability or something would be awesome. But who knows, any change will be good...

Bharring wrote:
-Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there.
-Primaris are weak. 2W... as above.
-Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.

Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?

This is something that's been getting me for a while, I'm starting to think jacking the cost of special weapons more or less across the board would benefit the game massively. Given the mass proliferation of them and the view of troops as a tax rather than a core of your combat capability perhaps we need to revalue the worth of having feet on the board and heavy armor against the gun that nukes those feet off the board each turn.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

Bharring wrote:
-Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there.
-Primaris are weak. 2W... as above.
-Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.

Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?

This is something that's been getting me for a while, I'm starting to think jacking the cost of special weapons more or less across the board would benefit the game massively. Given the mass proliferation of them and the view of troops as a tax rather than a core of your combat capability perhaps we need to revalue the worth of having feet on the board and heavy armor against the gun that nukes those feet off the board each turn.

My opinion (take with a grain of salt). How does this help the system? Changing the cost of special weapons across the board, will change every army atm. Think of the difference between Deathwach (which majority tbh are troops) and Imperial Guard, or Necrons (no special) and Harlequins (no special, but if change special have to change pistols etc, cascading)... Talk about small things to change (that can be changed) and addressing these issues, 1 at a time will lead to a better 8th addition and a better future addition.

Example: 40k could do better to follow the AoS format of rend or -AP to the 2 or 3 being rare or well above average but it is to late for 40k, so they have to deal with what they have. Maybe next edition.