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.

With the currenr ASM scheme, 2d6 saves would be far more powerful than in the past. ASM's are dramatically more restrained than in 2E when the game last had them. When Terminators took their saves on 2d6 on a 3+, a Lascannon had a -6ASM (and did 2d6 damage instead of 1d6 so a Terminator failing a save would have an additional 1/6 chance to survive in 8E that they didnt in 2E) so a Terminator was saving on a 9+, saving 1 in 3.6 times. With 8E ASM's, assuming a 3+ in 2d6, the Terminator is passing on a 6+, saving 1 in 1.7 times, basically having a "3.5++" save.

With respect to weapons like heavy bolters, you'd need 24 BS4+ heavy bolters, putting out 72 shots, to average 1 dead Terminator. You'd need as many heavy bolters to kill 3 Terminators as you would to kill a Russ tank.

Overall, I think recosting is probably a better tool than getting into messing with saves at this point unless we're talking about a potential 9E.

 bullyboy wrote:
The issue you have is one of scale. If Terminators were 3+ save on 2D6 (meaning you'd bounce a lascannon shot on a 6+, below the average), what about Dreadnoughts? land raiders. Things that should be far more resilient, wouldn't be.

Dreadnoughts already are as multi wound models and high toughness which should offset that ''resilience problem" that termies and other heavy infantry have. I might playtest though to see what happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
With the currenr ASM scheme, 2d6 saves would be far more powerful than in the past. ASM's are dramatically more restrained than in 2E when the game last had them. When Terminators took their saves on 2d6 on a 3+, a Lascannon had a -6ASM (and did 2d6 damage instead of 1d6 so a Terminator failing a save would have an additional 1/6 chance to survive in 8E that they didnt in 2E) so a Terminator was saving on a 9+, saving 1 in 3.6 times. With 8E ASM's, assuming a 3+ in 2d6, the Terminator is passing on a 6+, saving 1 in 1.7 times, basically having a "3.5++" save.

With respect to weapons like heavy bolters, you'd need 24 BS4+ heavy bolters, putting out 72 shots, to average 1 dead Terminator. You'd need as many heavy bolters to kill 3 Terminators as you would to kill a Russ tank.

Overall, I think recosting is probably a better tool than getting into messing with saves at this point unless we're talking about a potential 9E.

That works too!

Termies are a bit overcosted, and a points drop would increase their effectiveness (IE you can take more). But that still doesn't address Space Marines lack thereof of good special rules in comparision to codex creeps such as Craftworlds or other race's codexes.

Maybe we might get an incentive to play mono space marines?

I don't think recosting really touches it all that well as certain weapons will still devastate them out of proportion.

It doesn't need to be a 3+ on 2D6, either.

A 4+ is still better than a 2+ regular save. A lascannon makes that a 7+, which is 58%.

A 5+ is equivalent to a 2+ currently and give the lascannon a 42% chance - though they need better protection from small arms not something that is the same.

I'm ok with points reductions, too. I'm just skeptical for the moment.

Rolling 2d6 saves for terminators is a bit of pain, rolling them for basic marines would be a ball ache.

I assume this is why it was dropped in the first place?

I think I might have thought of a way to fix AP5 weapons. Something along the lines of "if a bolter has higher S than its target's T, gain an addition AP". Marine durability would be completely untouched while regular infantry will die much faster.

 DominayTrix wrote:
I think I might have thought of a way to fix AP5 weapons. Something along the lines of "if a bolter has higher S than its target's T, gain an addition AP". Marine durability would be completely untouched while regular infantry will die much faster.

But then marines suffer more when a disintegrator removes their save entirely.

tneva82 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Maybe next year, once the final few are out and done.

At which point they are too busy with redoing codexes completely invalidating current good builds into trash and making new ones to ensure new models are bought not fixing problems but just changing them

Congrats, you now understand the GW way.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not all units need points updates so far fewer pages will be needed there.

You don't think they'll take the opportunity to make CA18 a complete reference for any units which have had their points updated since their Index/Codex?

ccs wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Maybe next year, once the final few are out and done.

At which point they are too busy with redoing codexes completely invalidating current good builds into trash and making new ones to ensure new models are bought not fixing problems but just changing them

Congrats, you now understand the GW way.

Ha ha. Rite guys?

Remember when they made all those new Craftworld kits for those killer new rules? Oh and the new Infantry Squads are AMAZING! I particularly favor the brand new Gallant.

Oh and did anyone see them over price that really ancient Squig Buggy kit? Absolutely dreadful.

Silly GW and their corrupt greedy ways always making new kits with the best rulez.

Mutilators would've proved your point a lot better.

Karol wrote:

 Creeping Dementia wrote:


Actual changes to rules seem to mainly occur during the FAQ, which we already had.

When the FAQ came out and I asked about the lack of any GK FAQ, people said that rules changes only happen in the CA book. So which of the true is true, they change rules only in the FAQ or durning the CA. If they only change them in FAQ, this means we would have to wait to a new update till spring next year.

The truth is that these people don't know.
GW could do one or the other, both, some mix, or even neither. And even if they imply something on FB, Twitter, etc - -they aren't bound by that. On this end? There's really nothing you can do but await the day. So speculate if you want. But don't pin your hopes on it, don't let it stop you from gaming, & don't stress about it. And once the CA lands? Apply the changes & then refer back to this advice while awaiting the next FAQ. Repeat as often as needed.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Well, back in 2ed Terminators were a 3+ on 2D6 (or was it 2+?). In either case rolling one dice determines the importance of the second. Same thing with charge rolls - if I need 7" to get in and I roll a 6 I don't need to roll the second dice to know what will happen.

Mortal wounds will be fine, because you still need two of them to kill a terminator.

Not even close to the same thing. This is a very bad example (even though your point is very clear). You absolutely do want to roll the second die here because charging allows you to move up to the maximum of your charge roll. It's not a binary component (charge success/fail). You may be guaranteed to make the charge, but if you were to play it this way then you're giving up significant tactical advantage. By that I mean, I won't stop you, but its still wrong.

Lemondish wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Well, back in 2ed Terminators were a 3+ on 2D6 (or was it 2+?). In either case rolling one dice determines the importance of the second. Same thing with charge rolls - if I need 7" to get in and I roll a 6 I don't need to roll the second dice to know what will happen.

Mortal wounds will be fine, because you still need two of them to kill a terminator.

Not even close to the same thing. This is a very bad example (even though your point is very clear). You absolutely do want to roll the second die here because charging allows you to move up to the maximum of your charge roll. It's not a binary component (charge success/fail). You may be guaranteed to make the charge, but if you were to play it this way then you're giving up significant tactical advantage. By that I mean, I won't stop you, but its still wrong.

Well, yes - longer distances are always more helpful. I was just aiming for the binary aspect as a comparison.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:
I think I might have thought of a way to fix AP5 weapons. Something along the lines of "if a bolter has higher S than its target's T, gain an addition AP". Marine durability would be completely untouched while regular infantry will die much faster.

But then marines suffer more when a disintegrator removes their save entirely.

Disintegrators aren't bolters so they would not be affected. It would have to be specific to each AP5 weapon that is currently AP0.

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:
I think I might have thought of a way to fix AP5 weapons. Something along the lines of "if a bolter has higher S than its target's T, gain an addition AP". Marine durability would be completely untouched while regular infantry will die much faster.

But then marines suffer more when a disintegrator removes their save entirely.

Disintegrators aren't bolters so they would not be affected. It would have to be specific to each AP5 weapon that is currently AP0.

Oh, I see what you were saying. Still seems tough to remember.

Just give the cadre fireblade buff - boltguns and bolt rifles get another shot at half range.

Marines definitely need something. I’d like to see marines get increased durability by increasing them from a T:4 base to a T:6 base. That should increase their resistance to light weaponry while leaving them vulnerable to plasma/AT weapons. It would also boost bikes and other specialists.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not all units need points updates so far fewer pages will be needed there.

You don't think they'll take the opportunity to make CA18 a complete reference for any units which have had their points updated since their Index/Codex?

Naah. That would be too player friendly. They will be instead keeping CA17 and CA18 on sale making you buy both to have up to date points!

(with this system at least they should have put the points to datasheets. As it is there's no gain whatsoever in having points at the back)

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not all units need points updates so far fewer pages will be needed there.

You don't think they'll take the opportunity to make CA18 a complete reference for any units which have had their points updated since their Index/Codex?

Naah. That would be too player friendly. They will be instead keeping CA17 and CA18 on sale making you buy both to have up to date points!

(with this system at least they should have put the points to datasheets. As it is there's no gain whatsoever in having points at the back)

Of course there is no gain, it's by design. GW didn't want to have points at all but the playtester badger literally told them the edition would crash and burn if they didn't, so they had to patch them in at the last second for "matched" play.

Lets see....
1) nerf or rework of ynnari - wishlist, basically nerf their free actions stuff to once per turn or something
2) points reduction across the board for crons and marines
3) de points bumps or reworks of some stuff
4) knight points bumps....
5) guardsmen go up 1 point, dudes are still too good compared to other chaff options; when cultists are 4 ppm...
6) ahriman points bump, hes really damn good.
7) would love to see some demon reworks, i.e. giving codex demon tzeentch dps a second spell.
8) points drops on all greater demons. Further wishlist would guo goes to t8
9) custodes price drops for troop options, bikers points go up
10) tyranid point drops on thjngs like carnifexes, or bumping a few things to t8 (exocrine)

Gw wont address core issues, but meh

Just a few ideas, but im prepared to be dissapoint.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not all units need points updates so far fewer pages will be needed there.

You don't think they'll take the opportunity to make CA18 a complete reference for any units which have had their points updated since their Index/Codex?

Naah. That would be too player friendly. They will be instead keeping CA17 and CA18 on sale making you buy both to have up to date points!

(with this system at least they should have put the points to datasheets. As it is there's no gain whatsoever in having points at the back)

Of course there is no gain, it's by design. GW didn't want to have points at all but the playtester badger literally told them the edition would crash and burn if they didn't, so they had to patch them in at the last second for "matched" play.

Verifiable source for that, or is this just the regular garbage?

 SHUPPET wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not all units need points updates so far fewer pages will be needed there.

You don't think they'll take the opportunity to make CA18 a complete reference for any units which have had their points updated since their Index/Codex?

Naah. That would be too player friendly. They will be instead keeping CA17 and CA18 on sale making you buy both to have up to date points!

(with this system at least they should have put the points to datasheets. As it is there's no gain whatsoever in having points at the back)

Of course there is no gain, it's by design. GW didn't want to have points at all but the playtester badger literally told them the edition would crash and burn if they didn't, so they had to patch them in at the last second for "matched" play.

Verifiable source for that, or is this just the regular garbage?

40k was indeed going pointless but the utter failure of AoS showed this would not fly so the release of 8th was put back by a year is what I was told by someone, I'm not going to name them or the department they are in as they still work there.

The whole issue with points could easily be sold by hiring an in house statistician but they are too tight fisted, so instead they flail around in the dark.

So a no verifiable source, just some guy on the internet saying it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
points could definitely be improved though

 SHUPPET wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not all units need points updates so far fewer pages will be needed there.

You don't think they'll take the opportunity to make CA18 a complete reference for any units which have had their points updated since their Index/Codex?

Naah. That would be too player friendly. They will be instead keeping CA17 and CA18 on sale making you buy both to have up to date points!

(with this system at least they should have put the points to datasheets. As it is there's no gain whatsoever in having points at the back)

Of course there is no gain, it's by design. GW didn't want to have points at all but the playtester badger literally told them the edition would crash and burn if they didn't, so they had to patch them in at the last second for "matched" play.

Verifiable source for that, or is this just the regular garbage?

The initial floundering of AoS and its strong turn around with the general's handbook shows that a GW game system without points is not desired by the community and that having points is the smarter move. Don't think they needed play testers to tell them that points are desired when they had a ton of angry feedback from the fantasy community.

 SHUPPET wrote:
So a no verifiable source, just some guy on the internet saying it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
points could definitely be improved though

No ones going to put their job on the line to criticize their bosses with an official statement.

And I'm not going to throw anyone under the bus to win internet points.

But the Kirby strategy was clearly to ditch points to encourage people to get into an arms race so whoever spent more had the advantage.

Vankraken wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not all units need points updates so far fewer pages will be needed there.

You don't think they'll take the opportunity to make CA18 a complete reference for any units which have had their points updated since their Index/Codex?

Naah. That would be too player friendly. They will be instead keeping CA17 and CA18 on sale making you buy both to have up to date points!

(with this system at least they should have put the points to datasheets. As it is there's no gain whatsoever in having points at the back)

Of course there is no gain, it's by design. GW didn't want to have points at all but the playtester badger literally told them the edition would crash and burn if they didn't, so they had to patch them in at the last second for "matched" play.

Verifiable source for that, or is this just the regular garbage?

The initial floundering of AoS and its strong turn around with the general's handbook shows that a GW game system without points is not desired by the community and that having points is the smarter move. Don't think they needed play testers to tell them that points are desired when they had a ton of angry feedback from the fantasy community.

No gak it would be badly recieved, the question is for a source of them actually planning it at all.

hobojebus wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
So a no verifiable source, just some guy on the internet saying it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
points could definitely be improved though

No ones going to put their job on the line to criticize their bosses with an official statement.

And I'm not going to throw anyone under the bus to win internet points.

But the Kirby strategy was clearly to ditch points to encourage people to get into an arms race so whoever spent more had the advantage.

Okay that's really not clear at all that this was their plan for 8th. All I have to go off is you telling me it, with no verifiable source.

Right now I could say I spoke to a current employee and they told me anything in the world, it has just as much credibility as what you're saying right now. So much garbage gets passed around this community, there's sites that seem almost dedicated to spreading every false rumor, you can literally message them right now with a wishlist and tell them its an insider source and they'll post it.

There is 1 thing that makes his story credible Shuppet. The points in this game are a complete gak fest.

In terms of DG/Chaos, I hope at least the following:

Possesed with T5 and/or DR (maybe pts increase)
Chaos lord with T5 and/or DR (maybe pts increase)
Defiler with DR
Plague marines cheaper/power armor/boltgun rework.
New srategems, cause DG strats are suffering heavy from early codex syndrome and are lackluster.

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is 1 thing that makes his story credible Shuppet. The points in this game are a complete gak fest.

You say that as if we're not just coming from an edition where Space Marines were given hundreds of free points just to make them competitive. Points costs not being exactly where they should be isn't new.

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is 1 thing that makes his story credible Shuppet. The points in this game are a complete gak fest.

Sorry but its rubbish.
GW make their whole "oh, sorry, yes, we want AOS to be a thing, here are points because they are clearly required" in 2016. There is no way - except in some very early stage - that 8th edition 40k was conceived without them.
GW have got points wrong for decades and will no doubt continue to do so.