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.

We could also just use the epic rules for simplicity's sake and to expedite the shooting phase. AP is combined with your hit role and doesn't effect armor saves at all unless it's a really big gun.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Combine some infantry squads, wrap around and you will get to fight twice. It exists. If you run into a squad of 20 and kill 10, you'll eat 90 S4 attacks before you swing again.

*Does math* So Catachan in a Straken bubble have +1 attack, with another +1 for a priest, for 3 attacks each, 4 on the Sergeant. 10 Guardsmen (assuming the Combined Squad kept both sergeants alive) is 8 Guardsmen plus two Sergeants, or 16 attacks plus eight attacks, for 24 attacks.

That happens once after you kill the ten, once in their shooting phase, and once in their fight phase, for a total of ... 72 attacks. Hardly 90.

Is there a buff I am missing?

Frankly, being able to stack all those buffs on 4 point models is crazy and shouldn't be allowed. Marmatag of might be is exaggerating (EDIT: he wasn't), but it is still quite ludicrous in the reality too.

Oh wait, I did the Imperial Guardsmen's math wrong, it's not 16 per fight time, it's 24, giving you 32 attacks, which is actually 96 before the opponent fights again.

You were right, Marmatag, the fight twice order is bonkers when paired with Straken and a Priest, and needs a good hard look. I'd say it should just be removed, honestly. Fix Bayonets! is a cool thing to shout, but should really just give a bonus to charge distances in exchange for not shooting or something. It doesn't make sense to me they'd be fixing bayonets while someone's already trying to stab them anyways.

Crimson, I did my math wrong. He's not even exaggerating; I was off by 8 attacks per swing, which actually gives them something like 96 attacks... the Fight Twice order is ridiculous, in that light.

As is, a naked marine delivers about twice the firepower against other marines and about 1.8 times the firepower against GEQ's relative to a Guardsmen for three times the cost, and requires about 2.66 times as many BS3+ bolter shots to kill as a Guardsmen does and 3x the number of BS4+ lasgun shots to kill as a Guardsmen does. So, in the broad scheme of things, at the infantry vs infantry level, marines are a bit pillow-fisted next to the current champion of efficiency, but are about where they should be in terms of resiliency.


I don't think there's a case for RF3 Bolters unless we're assuming Guardsmen have always-on, no-cost FRFSRF, and are assuming that should be the optimal balance point to work around.

Now, there's a case for increasing Space Marine killing power in some regards, particularly in this comparison, but not to RF3 levels. A simple cost reduction to 10/11ppm would really solve a lot of issues.

More to the point though, I think the scale of the game (particularly coupled with the terrain/cover rules) is such that the firepower available means infantry of almost any kind often just evaporate. Infantry are largey priced in relation to other similar units, but we're playing with stuff operating at very different scales, with basically no force composition restrictions, and so even if we perfectly match Marines to Guardsmen, we're still going to run into issues where the firepower being thrown about doesn't care and wipes either off the board just as easily as the other, almost regardless of AP issues. To a Knight, a Space Marine, Guardsman, Kabalite, Ork Boy, Dire Avenger, Termagant, Sister, Necron Warrior, etc all go "squish" the same.

Also, lets be real, Plasma should probably be more expensive across the board, GW has really made most alternate weapons pointless by comparison between the alternate fire modes and cheap costing, and Plasma works jus as well at killing GEQ's, MEQ's, TEQ's and Monsters/Tanks, so why take anything else? Why Meltaguns cost more is beyond me when they're only marginally better at tank hunting under half range than an overcharged plasma and worse in every other way, while Flamers need to be like 5pts and Heavy Flamers no more than 10pts and both should ignore cover.

 Asherian Command wrote:

What do you think would be best for marines? That would be a tide over buff for marines in general?

A special rule?

Making tactical ten mans more valuable?

Factionwide space marine rules?

Mono army buffs if you play marines entirely by themselves?

Start small, from two different directions.

Direction 1. Increase base firefight performance.
1a: +1 Bolter (Storm Bolter, Bolt Pistol) shot per number of shots in profile. Bolter becomes Rapid Fire 1 +1. Something like that.
1b: Improve Flamers into an anti-horde weapon effective for it's niche. (opposite of Grav, confer more hits against units with 5+ armor or worse)

Direction 2. Increase viability of vehicles by. . .
2a: Take a hard look at Knights, kill the potential for a 3++ on them.
2b: Land Raider be able to either shoot out of combat, or fall back and shoot. Two LR variants are specifically intended for CQB, so let allow them to keep shooting.

Then see where we're at.

Pet peeve: Aura Buffs. I use them because I have to, but I dislike how the blob plays.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

More to the point though, I think the scale of the game (particularly coupled with the terrain/cover rules) is such that the firepower available means infantry of almost any kind often just evaporate.

This is also very true. It even makes sense that it works this way. But just a little bit of tuning the terrain rules/density could go a long way. Personally I'm looking forward to trying the new Cityfight rules, as well as trying more games with more Rhinos being used as mobile bunkers/walls.

I was off by 8 attacks per swing, which actually gives them something like 96 attacks... the Fight Twice order is ridiculous, in that light.

thats way too many attacks and my marines get.... maybe 12 attacks?

Direction 1. Increase base firefight performance.
1a: +1 Bolter (Storm Bolter, Bolt Pistol) shot per number of shots in profile. Bolter becomes Rapid Fire 1 +1. Something like that.
1b: Improve Flamers into an anti-horde weapon effective for it's niche. (opposite of Grav, confer more hits against units with 5+ armor or worse)

Direction 2. Increase viability of vehicles by. . .
2a: Take a hard look at Knights, kill the potential for a 3++ on them.
2b: Land Raider be able to either shoot out of combat, or fall back and shoot. Two LR variants are specifically intended for CQB, so let allow them to keep shooting.

Then see where we're at.

Pet peeve: Aura Buffs. I use them because I have to, but I dislike how the blob plays.

All valid points. I think aura buffs should just be removed, or bring back templates... I really think they helped players with spacing and yeah you had moments where they weren't effective or players played around them completely, but in normal games that was pretty uncommon. Especially after they got rid of partial templates.

What about combat squads? Should that be kept at all or just outright replaced with Angels of death?

 Marmatag wrote:
Combine some infantry squads, wrap around and you will get to fight twice. It exists. If you run into a squad of 20 and kill 10, you'll eat 90 S4 attacks before you swing again.

So when you say 'fight twice' you don't really mean 'fight twice' in the sense of every other faction with a similar ability, where you pay 3CP and a unit gets to fight again immediately.

Instead, you mean paying a CP to permanently combine two units, which has to be done well before they get into melee. This renders them extremely vulnerable to morale loss, especially if for one reason or another they don't get into melee. You need both favorable terrain and a good charge roll to surround the target so it can't disengage, which has to be done on the charge in your turn, as a 3" pile in after getting charged isn't nearly enough. You then need to survive your opponent's entire turn (again, there is no way on earth you cut off their retreat with a pile in) in which you each fight another round of melee with no buff. And then, if you still have Straken and a Priest within 6", whoever's still alive can get an extra chance to fight in the Shooting phase.

The difference between the two is why the Fix Bayonets order is almost universally regarded as useless. Guard are never in a position where it's beneficial to use it, unlike an actual 'fight twice' stratagem that is useful to anything that fights in melee.

If it were anyone else I would assume they just don't know the army all that well, but I know this has been explained to you before, yet you're still repeating 'fight twice' in your list of hyperbolic bullet points about why the army you coincidentally face most often is the most OP thing to exist. It's disingenuous, and frankly it's baffling, since it's not hard to make the case that the Catachan+Straken+Priest combo is overpowered (it is!) even ignoring Fix Bayonets entirely. I don't see how you expect anyone to take your balance suggestions seriously when you twist everything you dislike into a complete exaggeration.

Bolters should be AP-1, to get them closer to the killing power they used to demonstrate against basic infantry. Throw on a cost reduction to Tacticals and/or Fury Of The Legion type rule. Give Flamers a rule to scale their hits to the number of enemies in a unit. Simple tweaks. None of this absurd pearl-clutching about all the armies you fight needing to be outright doubled in price.

 Vaktathi wrote:


More to the point though, I think the scale of the game (particularly coupled with the terrain/cover rules) is such that the firepower available means infantry of almost any kind often just evaporate. Infantry are largey priced in relation to other similar units, but we're playing with stuff operating at very different scales, with basically no force composition restrictions, and so even if we perfectly match Marines to Guardsmen, we're still going to run into issues where the firepower being thrown about doesn't care and wipes either off the board just as easily as the other, almost regardless of AP issues. To a Knight, a Space Marine, Guardsman, Kabalite, Ork Boy, Dire Avenger, Termagant, Sister, Necron Warrior, etc all go "squish" the same.

Also, lets be real, Plasma should probably be more expensive across the board, GW has really made most alternate weapons pointless by comparison between the alternate fire modes and cheap costing, and Plasma works jus as well at killing GEQ's, MEQ's, TEQ's and Monsters/Tanks, so why take anything else? Why Meltaguns cost more is beyond me when they're only marginally better at tank hunting under half range than an overcharged plasma and worse in every other way, while Flamers need to be like 5pts and Heavy Flamers no more than 10pts and both should ignore cover.

I completely agree with the fact that plasma an alternatively more powerful weapon to melta is somehow less expensive is ludicrous.

Plasma is supposed to be rare! Melta isn't rare its actually far more common! Flamers are supposed to be everywhere yet marines will not take it because flamers just suck.

I think a great idea would be to increase the effectiveness of flame weapons so that they retain their 'template' ability. Maybe they increase the number of shots from the flamer based on unit size? (Sorta like the grav bombard). Increasing it by an additional d6 (guaranteed 3 at a minimum in total).

The big thing i don't like is how variable the D6 is currently. I wish that there was a rule to prevent it from being so variable, so that a lascannon and a flamer always has a minimum amount of dice thrown (not just 1!) Cause currently that uncertainity is a bit too much.

Flamers should be less expensive, as should meltas, rockets, and freaking anything but plasma.
Plasma should be 12pts, and and plasma cannons are fine at 16pts.... but rockets costing more than a plasma cannon? Oh give me a break.

All plasma for the imperium should EXPLODE on 1s!

And people seriously told me that "Fight Twice, reroll failed charges" would be a broken Chapter Tactic for Black Templars. Jesus.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And people seriously told me that "Fight Twice, reroll failed charges" would be a broken Chapter Tactic for Black Templars. Jesus.

Black templars suck in combat compared to guardsmen god that is rich

Sorry correction Marines are supposed to suck they are the baseline army /sarcasm

Even my scorpions cannot put out that much damage!

 Asherian Command wrote:

I was off by 8 attacks per swing, which actually gives them something like 96 attacks... the Fight Twice order is ridiculous, in that light.

thats way too many attacks and my marines get.... maybe 12 attacks?

Here is a comparative analysis:

Imperial Guard spend 1 HQ, 1 Elite, and 2 Troops choices, 1 CP, an army trait, and 190 points to do this.

Space Marines can spend 1 troops choice on 10 Intercessors for somewhat cheaper than that price (170 points), giving them 22 attacks per fight phase; if they charge you and keep you pinned (somehow) for the entire length that the Catachans had you pinned for, they could achieve 88 attacks, but it costs 6 CP and assumes 0 Casualties, while the guard lost half the unit before swinging.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

I was off by 8 attacks per swing, which actually gives them something like 96 attacks... the Fight Twice order is ridiculous, in that light.

thats way too many attacks and my marines get.... maybe 12 attacks?

Here is a comparative analysis:

Imperial Guard spend 1 HQ, 1 Elite, and 2 Troops choices, 1 CP, an army trait, and 190 points to do this.

Space Marines can get 10 Intercessors for somewhat cheaper than that price (170 points), giving them 22 attacks per fight phase; if they charge you and keep you pinned (somehow) for the entire length that the Catachans had you pinned for, they could achieve 88 attacks, but it costs 6 CP and assumes 0 Casualties, while the guard lost half the unit before swinging.

Compared to a tactical squad, thats just 11 attacks... for 130pts.

Also can a single squad now target multiple units in a single fight phase? Or is it you choose one squad to fight and that is what that current squad fights?

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

I was off by 8 attacks per swing, which actually gives them something like 96 attacks... the Fight Twice order is ridiculous, in that light.

thats way too many attacks and my marines get.... maybe 12 attacks?

Here is a comparative analysis:

Imperial Guard spend 1 HQ, 1 Elite, and 2 Troops choices, 1 CP, an army trait, and 190 points to do this.

Space Marines can get 10 Intercessors for somewhat cheaper than that price (170 points), giving them 22 attacks per fight phase; if they charge you and keep you pinned (somehow) for the entire length that the Catachans had you pinned for, they could achieve 88 attacks, but it costs 6 CP and assumes 0 Casualties, while the guard lost half the unit before swinging.

Compared to a tactical squad, thats just 11 attacks... for 130pts.

Well, tacticals are bad. Primaris marines are what I would base my Marines off of. Hence how the Primaris Marines achieve 88 attacks. However, the 6 CP cost is absolutely prohibitive.

However, if you are curious the math for Tacticals is:
195 points buys you 15. 12 attacks from the 10-man, 7 attacks from the 5 man, (for a total of 19) or 7 attacks per 3 five man (for 21 total). If you pin the enemy in the same place (somehow) and spend the 6 CP on one of the units, you get 62 attacks for 1 ten man and 1 five man, or 56 for the 3 five-man squads. So yes, WAY worse than the Primaris, and WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY worse than the IG.

EDIT:
You can, and always could split the squad's attacks by model, or even a model's attack, to strike whomever you wish so long as they are in range.

Then whats the point in taking 10 man space marine units!?!

Personally I'd rather just remove rapid fire from bolters altogether. Just make them assault 2 and storm bolters assault 4. That right there would solve a lot of problems for mariness as they wouldn't have to get within the maximum effectiveness of FRFSRF to get shots off.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Then whats the point in taking 10 man space marine units!?!

To laugh at someone who takes 10 necron warriors?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Yes, and it should not be. Marines need a buff (as I mentioned above...).

Shifting focus...
What do you think would be best for marines? That would be a tide over buff for marines in general?

A special rule?

Making tactical ten mans more valuable?

Factionwide space marine rules?

Mono army buffs if you play marines entirely by themselves?

I'm not really sure, exactly, because I don't play them (and unlike Marmatag, I am reluctant to prognosticate about armies I don't play).

My experience with Marine players tends to be that their good units are actually pretty good (e.g. smash captains), but most of their other units aren't good (e.g. BA tacticals). But I'm not sure what's wrong other than points costs; every time I think of a thing someone else says another army has that is OP, I realize some flavor of Marines already has it, except for cheapness (e.g. +1 strength for Sororitas on the charge is less good than +1 To-Wound from BA, but BA aren't good, and apparently +1 Strength totally is).

So probably I would drop their points costs by a good bit. Start with 11ppm tactical marines, then like 12-13 pt veteran marines. But that's just a guess from someone who doesn't play the army.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Is that the metric for what makes an army good? Winning a major? Basically first place means you're good, otherwise, all arguments are bad and the army is bad?

There is a vast gulf between "overpowered" and "bad." You can not come in first at a GT and have an army that is just fine. Because remember, "just fine" is the goal, not "Bad" nor "too good". Sisters are not bad. I don't think they're good, either. I think they're adequate, balanced, just fine. I don't expect them to win any major tournaments, nor do I expect them to be as badly off as GK or Necrons.

And yes, any argument that sisters are too good is bad if sisters aren't too good. I figure that'd be self-evident.

You guys are citing majors and other tournaments as an indicator of balance. Fine. Then you really can't also come back with arguments that say "well you can't assume Celestine because clownshoes format #12 doesn't allow named characters." You're wishy washy and inconsistent.

Right. I conceded the Celestine argument, by saying "alright, sure, they can bring Celestine." But my criterion for Sisters actually being an army that's too good is whether or not they can win several tournaments, as the powerful armies have done (yes, including IG, whom I readily concede are very powerful right now. I think we disagree on the reasons why).

Actually the Sisters get the +1S and an extra attack, whether charged or charging. It's strictly better than World Eaters (which is only an additional attack IF they charge).

 Wyzilla wrote:
Personally I'd rather just remove rapid fire from bolters altogether. Just make them assault 2 and storm bolters assault 4. That right there would solve a lot of problems for mariness as they wouldn't have to get within the maximum effectiveness of FRFSRF to get shots off.

Primaris marines already have that. Auto Bolt Rifle and Reiver Bolt Carbine are both assault 2 bolters. Though they're considered bad. But I think it would be fine if normal bolters became bolt carbines, as they look pretty much the same. Then Auto Bolt Rifles could get old Stormbolter rules and Stormbolters would get Assault 4. This would improve the Tacticals, the GK and the worst Intercessor weapon (though it would become flat out better than the standard Bolt Rifle in most situations.) Now DW veterans would become even crazier, but that could be fixed by giving all SIA weapons a boint bump that they should have gotten anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Actually the Sisters get the +1S and an extra attack, whether charged or charging. It's strictly better than World Eaters (which is only an additional attack IF they charge).

Sisters are not good in melee naturally. Their melee trait must be pretty strong to make it worth considering over others which better synergise with their playstyle.

 Asherian Command wrote:

What about combat squads? Should that be kept at all or just outright replaced with Angels of death?

What is Angles of Death?

Personally I like the Combat Squads rule, I hope it stays. It makes deployment more flexible.

 MarsNZ wrote:
I find it pretty funny how marine armour is supposedly modified to uselessness by every gun in the game but the same people claim guard armour saves have gotten so much better in the new edition.

Also I'm probably having a stroke because I agree with Peregrine's original response 100%.

I guess we need to go back to AP weapons of 3E, which fixed the ASM problem of 2E.

Hold on, what?!?!?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I think a great idea would be to increase the effectiveness of flame weapons so that they retain their 'template' ability. Maybe they increase the number of shots from the flamer based on unit size?

Flamers automatically hit ALL models in a unit.
Small blasts hit EACH model in a unit on a 4+
Large blasts hit EACH model in a unit on a 2+.

You're welcome.

 Crimson wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Personally I'd rather just remove rapid fire from bolters altogether. Just make them assault 2 and storm bolters assault 4. That right there would solve a lot of problems for mariness as they wouldn't have to get within the maximum effectiveness of FRFSRF to get shots off.

Primaris marines already have that. Auto Bolt Rifle and Reiver Bolt Carbine are both assault 2 bolters. Though they're considered bad. But I think it would be fine if normal bolters became bolt carbines, as they look pretty much the same. Then Auto Bolt Rifles could get old Stormbolter rules and Stormbolters would get Assault 4. This would improve the Tacticals, the GK and the worst Intercessor weapon (though it would become flat out better than the standard Bolt Rifle in most situations.) Now DW veterans would become even crazier, but that could be fixed by giving all SIA weapons a boint bump that they should have gotten anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Actually the Sisters get the +1S and an extra attack, whether charged or charging. It's strictly better than World Eaters (which is only an additional attack IF they charge).

Sisters are not good in melee naturally. Their melee trait must be pretty strong to make it worth considering over others which better synergise with their playstyle.

Auto bolters are only bad because they're competing with a literally free rapid fire 1 weapon that's got AP-1. Although I'd rather differentiate auto bolters by just replacing them in rules with storm bolters (because we need to consolidate the bloody boltguns profiles, it's getting ridiculous) so you have an assault 4 bolter with no AP versus and assault 2 bolter with -1 ap. Just slap some more points on the "auto bolters" to balance out the difference between the free AP -1 assault 2 bolt rifle with longer range.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Flamers automatically hit ALL models in a unit.
Small blasts hit EACH model in a unit on a 4+
Large blasts hit EACH model in a unit on a 2+.
You're welcome.

Those are terrible ideas.

Auto bolters are only bad because they're competing with a literally free rapid fire 1 weapon that's got AP-1. Although I'd rather differentiate auto bolters by just replacing them in rules with storm bolters (because we need to consolidate the bloody boltguns profiles, it's getting ridiculous) so you have an assault 4 bolter with no AP versus and assault 2 bolter with -1 ap. Just slap some more points on the "auto bolters" to balance out the difference between the free AP -1 assault 2 bolt rifle with longer range.

Marines badly need a squash in their profiles, so many entries for captains... Just give me 1 entry and an armory section!

Flamers automatically hit ALL models in a unit.
Small blasts hit EACH model in a unit on a 4+
Large blasts hit EACH model in a unit on a 2+.

You're welcome.

Thats broken.

Didn't marines get a big buff in 2nd edition?

 fraser1191 wrote:
Didn't marines get a big buff in 2nd edition?

Is this a joke

Cause marines haven't recieved a buff this edition, unless people are wearing rose tinted glasses and forgot what year it was.

 Crimson wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Personally I'd rather just remove rapid fire from bolters altogether. Just make them assault 2 and storm bolters assault 4. That right there would solve a lot of problems for mariness as they wouldn't have to get within the maximum effectiveness of FRFSRF to get shots off.

Primaris marines already have that. Auto Bolt Rifle and Reiver Bolt Carbine are both assault 2 bolters. Though they're considered bad. But I think it would be fine if normal bolters became bolt carbines, as they look pretty much the same. Then Auto Bolt Rifles could get old Stormbolter rules and Stormbolters would get Assault 4. This would improve the Tacticals, the GK and the worst Intercessor weapon (though it would become flat out better than the standard Bolt Rifle in most situations.) Now DW veterans would become even crazier, but that could be fixed by giving all SIA weapons a boint bump that they should have gotten anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Actually the Sisters get the +1S and an extra attack, whether charged or charging. It's strictly better than World Eaters (which is only an additional attack IF they charge).

Sisters are not good in melee naturally. Their melee trait must be pretty strong to make it worth considering over others which better synergise with their playstyle

Well, believe it or not, most Marine units (and a surprising amount of CSM) are garbage for melee. Yet, Loyalists get support via Black Templars, White Scars, Blood Angels, and Space Wolves. The latter two really don't do much better. Then you have World Eaters and Emperors Children, so make of those as you will.

So what's your point?

 fraser1191 wrote:
Didn't marines get a big buff in 2nd edition?

They got a few things like an upgrade from T3 to T4, the early ATSKNF rule called "Shaken" and I think "Rapid Fire", which only they had at that time. If they stood still they could fire twice with their bolters. There may have been something else, but a number of Stats also got consolidated from RT to 2nd.

At that time they also had some interesting detailed differences too, like every model had "auto-senses", which allowed them to see through smoke grenades and gave them resistance to blinding weapons like Photon Grenades. Every Heavy Weapon came with a targeter for +1 to hit. They all had sealed suits and rebreathers, and were therefore resistant to gas attacks. Terminators could ignore the fact that they were on fire. Fun details that made them more "elite" while not being straight stat-boosted, and it allowed for some cheeky tactics.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Well, believe it or not, most Marine units (and a surprising amount of CSM) are garbage for melee. Yet, Loyalists get support via Black Templars, White Scars, Blood Angels, and Space Wolves. The latter two really don't do much better. Then you have World Eaters and Emperors Children, so make of those as you will.

So what's your point?

You reinforced my point. They didn't want to repeat the mistake they did with the BT. If you give an army that is mediocre in melee and mostly a shooty army a tame melee trait, no one in their right mind will ever pick it. And sisters suck in mlee even more than marines. If the trait goes against the preferred playsyle of the army, it needs to be relatively stronger or it will get ignored.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Didn't marines get a big buff in 2nd edition?

They got a few things like an upgrade from T3 to T4, the early ATSKNF rule called "Shaken" and I think "Rapid Fire", which only they had at that time. If they stood still they could fire twice with their bolters. There may have been something else, but a number of Stats also got consolidated from RT to 2nd.

At that time they also had some interesting detailed differences too, like every model had "auto-senses", which allowed them to see through smoke grenades and gave them resistance to blinding weapons like Photon Grenades. Every Heavy Weapon came with a targeter for +1 to hit. They all had sealed suits and rebreathers, and were therefore resistant to gas attacks. Terminators could ignore the fact that they were on fire. Fun details that made them more "elite" while not being straight stat-boosted, and it allowed for some cheeky tactics.

Ah thank you!

I've never played 2nd edition before (or anything before 7th) but all those little special rules makes it seem more interesting than 8th!

It wasn't. Turn 1 tablings were a thing.