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.

The +1 save was actually possible at one time (loot it stratagem with mega armoured nobs in orks) GW actually ERRATA'D the ruling of Loot it (capped the save to 2+) because they realised that a 1+ save with negative modifiers to a minimum of 1 would mean that a 1+ would only fail on a 1.

GW knew that this strat can break the game, and have acknowledge it can break the game.

By changing the actually strat, GW are indeed confirming that a 1+ save is equivalent to a 2++ because of how their own mechanics in their game works. And how each clarification on this rule based on the different mechanics (1+ WS for DE, any modifier below 1 is a 1, ect.) shows that they actually do see that their game system is not wholy understood by their own playerbase. (people still think AP modifies the save possitively, which would actually work. Rather it actually modifies the roll negatively so that the modified result is actually less than the actual roll)

and AP of -1 actually makes the dice roll D6 -1
-2 doing D6 -2 and ect.

a D6-6 actually makes the modified roll have a minimum roll of -5 and a maximum roll of 0

But this is where their rule clarifying that a roll cannot be modified below one kicks in, which leads into the modified 1, which is fundamentally different than an unmodified 1.

a 1+ save means that on any modified roll of a 1, the save is passed, note that this does not apply to unmodified 1's because the rules have a catch for this which makes it instantly fail.

hense a 1+ save, no matter the AP, will only be failed on a 1 unmodified.

Hense, 1+ save is the equivalent of a 2++.

In order to change this, you would have to change the fundamental mechanics of modifiers for 40k, and put in a statement saying a modified and unmodified 1 is a fail, regardless of save.

But then this would lead to some weird scenarios where modifiers would clash, sometimes in spectacular ways.

Or you just didn't put in the FAQ that says a result can never be modified to less than 1 and then a 1+ Sv vrs a D6-3 still fails.

Its the nothing can be less than 1 FAQ that started the problem.
A 1+ Sv without that rule would work.
As a D6-3, gives results between -2 and +3.
-2,-1 and 0 would all fail vrs a 1+ Sv

Ice_can wrote:
Or you just didn't put in the FAQ that says a result can never be modified to less than 1 and then a 1+ Sv vrs a D6-3 still fails.

Its the nothing can be less than 1 FAQ that started the problem.
A 1+ Sv without that rule would work.
As a D6-3, gives results between -2 and +3.
-2,-1 and 0 would all fail vrs a 1+ Sv

but then plasma doesn't overheat, and there are currently more plasma style weapons than terminators, so one faq would be needed but then an errata on ALL plasma style weapons in the game

Oh no. Not this discussion again.

The rule can be rewritten as "substract one to AP for all incoming damage". Basically same thing and you avoid all fuss on natural 1s and modifiers.

A +1 modifier to armour save rolls for Astartes vs ranged weapons would have the same net affect as 1+ armour Characteristic for Termies without conflicting with the FAQ ruling.
It really is the best option AND easiest to implement via Chapter Approved rule. Changing Characteristics isn't something GW seems interested in doing in 8E anyway

-

All they had to say was that plasma blows up on 1 or less. And the other thread wonders why I think I could write better rules.

Martel732 wrote:
All they had to say was that plasma blows up on 1 or less. And the other thread wonders why I think I could write better rules.

While you and I don't always agree, I 100% feel the frustration here. So many posters want to shoot down a suggestion because it doesn't work because X exists, rather than IDK, changing X to fit the proposal.

-

I'm still going with GW puts in minimal effort and it shows. They could have an intern check for bad interactions with every unit on a checklist.

Meganobz had a 1+ save for about a week before the FAQ came out.

Termies should just be changed to ignore ap -1 and -2.

mhalko1 wrote:
Meganobz had a 1+ save for about a week before the FAQ came out.

Termies should just be changed to ignore ap -1 and -2.

That's dangerously close to the awful AP system of 3rd edition, which no one should ever go back to ever again.

While it was simplistic, 3rd ed marines were far more functional than 2nd ed or 8th ed marines.

mhalko1 wrote:
Meganobz had a 1+ save for about a week before the FAQ came out.

Termies should just be changed to ignore ap -1 and -2.

You mean they should reduce incoming AP by 2? That would be cool. Remove the 5++ save and give them -2 to all AP. They'd have a 3+ against plasma (like a custodian) but against melta drops to 4+ and vs SAG only a 5+ vs MRC on a 6 to wound only a 6+! LOL. We do have ap-5 and -6 weapons....shouldn't they have a purpose?

Because weapons with AP are the wrong tool to use against Termies?

Bharring wrote:
Because weapons with AP are the wrong tool to use against Termies?

In this edition they are.
Quite frankly I still think the noting can be less than 1 needs to be rescinded and the overheat rules changed to 1 or less would free up so many addition solutions to problems within 8th edition.

Custodes are 4++ against plasma

Terminators are immune to ST5 and lower weapons, in addition, any weapon with an AP of -1 or -2 count as having AP 0 when shooting at terminators.

This is an absurd rule(s) I agree, but it would force opponents to treat them like walking tanks. Hell blasters will still melt them (as they should) as will lascannons and basically, all weapons that should give them trouble.

They can keep the 5++ save as well.

Alternatively, rather than have them be immune to ST5 and lower weapons, give them a 2+ FNP save against them. So if you fire 1000 lasgun shots against them, they are going to start dropping like flies.

No change to points, no change to load outs etc for terminators, just make them hard to kill for grubs and be able to cause damage by pure bloody nosed attrition with their storm boaters. Maybe bring back the limit on the amount of squads you can have outside of special army/formations.

Deathguard would be a huge problem with this rule.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Terminators are immune to ST5 and lower weapons, in addition, any weapon with an AP of -1 or -2 count as having AP 0 when shooting at terminators.

This is an absurd rule(s) I agree, but it would force opponents to treat them like walking tanks. Hell blasters will still melt them (as they should) as will lascannons and basically, all weapons that should give them trouble.

They can keep the 5++ save as well.

Alternatively, rather than have them be immune to ST5 and lower weapons, give them a 2+ FNP save against them. So if you fire 1000 lasgun shots against them, they are going to start dropping like flies.

No change to points, no change to load outs etc for terminators, just make them hard to kill for grubs and be able to cause damage by pure bloody nosed attrition with their storm boaters. Maybe bring back the limit on the amount of squads you can have outside of special army/formations.

Deathguard would be a huge problem with this rule.

I agree-that rule is absolutely absurd.

For reference, it would take against the 2+++...
162 BS 3+ Heavy Bolter Shots
216 BS 3+ Bolter Shots
432 BS 4+ Lasgun Shots
To kill a single Terminator.

Against an Imperial Knight, those do...
18 wounds
8 wounds
12 wounds

Or, to put another way, at best, the firepower it takes to down three Terminators can down an Imperial Knight. At worst, the amount of firepower it takes to down one and half Terminators kills an IK.

Of course, but look at equivalent damage output? Those terminators are not going to get anywhere near the damage output of a knight.

Whilst I'm not fully advocating this rule, your response does highlight a huge issue in the game. Just because a Knight is weaker in some regards if this rule was implemented, and whilst it may seem weird, that doesn't mean a terminator shouldn't get such a rule. In other words, just because a terminator gets this rule, does not mean a knight should. The terminators are getting it as a game mechanic, it doesn't necessarily need to make sense (and there are plenty of rules that don't, especially when compared to fluff), it is getting it for the good of the game in some regards, to add variety and to add different methods and requirements for the opponent. I mean, do knights need a buff? No, do terminators? Yes.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Of course, but look at equivalent damage output? Those terminators are not going to get anywhere near the damage output of a knight.

Whilst I'm not fully advocating this rule, your response does highlight a huge issue in the game. Just because a Knight is weaker in some regards if this rule was implemented, and whilst it may seem weird, that doesn't mean a terminator shouldn't get such a rule. In other words, just because a terminator gets this rule, does not mean a knight should. The terminators are getting it as a game mechanic, it doesn't necessarily need to make sense (and there are plenty of rules that don't, especially when compared to fluff), it is getting it for the good of the game in some regards, to add variety and to add different methods and requirements for the opponent. I mean, do knights need a buff? No, do terminators? Yes.

Terminators do not need a buff that huge. I'm perfectly fine with suggesting buffs for them-but leaving them at less than 40 points with a 2+++ against a wide variety of weapons is positively insane.

1 plus save for terminators and equivalents I.e custodes with 1s always failing. Regular power armour for marines goes to 2 plus. Sisters stays at 3 plus. I can always dream

 JNAProductions wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Of course, but look at equivalent damage output? Those terminators are not going to get anywhere near the damage output of a knight.

Whilst I'm not fully advocating this rule, your response does highlight a huge issue in the game. Just because a Knight is weaker in some regards if this rule was implemented, and whilst it may seem weird, that doesn't mean a terminator shouldn't get such a rule. In other words, just because a terminator gets this rule, does not mean a knight should. The terminators are getting it as a game mechanic, it doesn't necessarily need to make sense (and there are plenty of rules that don't, especially when compared to fluff), it is getting it for the good of the game in some regards, to add variety and to add different methods and requirements for the opponent. I mean, do knights need a buff? No, do terminators? Yes.

Terminators do not need a buff that huge. I'm perfectly fine with suggesting buffs for them-but leaving them at less than 40 points with a 2+++ against a wide variety of weapons is positively insane.

I don't see it as a huge buff, in fact the more I think about it, the less absurd it is.

Yeah lasguns and bolters will be all but useless, but your big weapons won't. You'll just need to prioritise them, or ignore them depending on how much of a threat you see them as. Their damage output will still be relatively poor, a 5 man squad will still only be killing a a guard squad a turn with shooting, a lot less than that in combat.

Maybe I'd consider some limitations on them, back to only 1 of each squad type, back to only 5x man squads.

With the current AP system I'd make power armour 2+ (all power armour, so sisters etc included)

The lack of durability of terminators isn't a problem with the terminators themselves so much as it is the same problem that primaris have with survivalbilty - D2 weapons are to cheap and/or readily available.

I'd suggest that the terminators are T5 instead of T4, which would improve there durability versus small arms fire (obviously S3 weapons would be the same, but at least the S4 weapons would be less damaging) but that might be too similar to Gravis armour.

If the number of D2 weapons isn't fixed then go one step further and give them T5 and W3, but that is essentially the Centurion profile. I don't think more special rules or 1+ saves is the way forward. Not sure where this would leave Centurions though. I don't personally care for them, but I'm sure plenty of people do like them, so pushing them out in favour of terminators might not be popular.

Edit- It seems to me that Terminators and Old marines are likley to be left by the wayside as the Primaris range grows. There doesn't seem to be enough design space for Terminators between Gravis armour and Centurions.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Of course, but look at equivalent damage output? Those terminators are not going to get anywhere near the damage output of a knight.

Whilst I'm not fully advocating this rule, your response does highlight a huge issue in the game. Just because a Knight is weaker in some regards if this rule was implemented, and whilst it may seem weird, that doesn't mean a terminator shouldn't get such a rule. In other words, just because a terminator gets this rule, does not mean a knight should. The terminators are getting it as a game mechanic, it doesn't necessarily need to make sense (and there are plenty of rules that don't, especially when compared to fluff), it is getting it for the good of the game in some regards, to add variety and to add different methods and requirements for the opponent. I mean, do knights need a buff? No, do terminators? Yes.

Terminators do not need a buff that huge. I'm perfectly fine with suggesting buffs for them-but leaving them at less than 40 points with a 2+++ against a wide variety of weapons is positively insane.

I don't see it as a huge buff, in fact the more I think about it, the less absurd it is.

Yeah lasguns and bolters will be all but useless, but your big weapons won't. You'll just need to prioritise them, or ignore them depending on how much of a threat you see them as. Their damage output will still be relatively poor, a 5 man squad will still only be killing a a guard squad a turn with shooting, a lot less than that in combat.

Maybe I'd consider some limitations on them, back to only 1 of each squad type, back to only 5x man squads.

If you're going to buff them like this to represent them being "walking tanks", what about actual tanks, or walkers? Infantry shouldn't be harder to kill than tanks or walkers.

 Blndmage wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Of course, but look at equivalent damage output? Those terminators are not going to get anywhere near the damage output of a knight.

Whilst I'm not fully advocating this rule, your response does highlight a huge issue in the game. Just because a Knight is weaker in some regards if this rule was implemented, and whilst it may seem weird, that doesn't mean a terminator shouldn't get such a rule. In other words, just because a terminator gets this rule, does not mean a knight should. The terminators are getting it as a game mechanic, it doesn't necessarily need to make sense (and there are plenty of rules that don't, especially when compared to fluff), it is getting it for the good of the game in some regards, to add variety and to add different methods and requirements for the opponent. I mean, do knights need a buff? No, do terminators? Yes.

Terminators do not need a buff that huge. I'm perfectly fine with suggesting buffs for them-but leaving them at less than 40 points with a 2+++ against a wide variety of weapons is positively insane.

I don't see it as a huge buff, in fact the more I think about it, the less absurd it is.

Yeah lasguns and bolters will be all but useless, but your big weapons won't. You'll just need to prioritise them, or ignore them depending on how much of a threat you see them as. Their damage output will still be relatively poor, a 5 man squad will still only be killing a a guard squad a turn with shooting, a lot less than that in combat.

Maybe I'd consider some limitations on them, back to only 1 of each squad type, back to only 5x man squads.

If you're going to buff them like this to represent them being "walking tanks", what about actual tanks, or walkers? Infantry shouldn't be harder to kill than tanks or walkers.

I explained this above. The mechanic is for the purpose of giving them something niche. Just because they get it does not mean other units automatically should as well, it’s a way to make them different.

Should a 40- point Terminator be more durable than a Leman Russ?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Should a 40- point Terminator be more durable than a Leman Russ?

Is it more durable? Does it have as many wounds? Will it be guaranteed to survive a lascannon, or a meltagun like a russ? Can it put out anywhere near as much damage as a lemon russ?

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Should a 40- point Terminator be more durable than a Leman Russ?

Is it more durable? Does it have as many wounds? Will it be guaranteed to survive a lascannon, or a meltagun like a russ? Can it put out anywhere near as much damage as a lemon russ?

Against literally anything S5 down, yes, it is more durable with your proposed changes.

Again, Terminators aren't in a good spot-they deserve buffs. But not THAT much.

Also, think outside the Imperium. What options do, say, my Nurgle Daemons have for killing Terminators with that rule? I can only field up to three Princes.

Edit: And my bad-against S4 AP0, they're actually slightly less durable. 1.5 Terminators die for each Russ that gets killed.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Custodes are 4++ against plasma

And that Custodes, not Terminators.

I'll pose the challenge again because I love the fact everyone doesn't do it:
For anyone complaining that Terminators aren't as durable as they used to be or aren't durable now, list all the weapons they're less durable compared to the ones they're more durable to now. I'll wait.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Custodes are 4++ against plasma

And that Custodes, not Terminators.

I'll pose the challenge again because I love the fact everyone doesn't do it:
For anyone complaining that Terminators aren't as durable as they used to be or aren't durable now, list all the weapons they're less durable compared to the ones they're more durable to now. I'll wait.

Battle cannons - disintegrator cannons - losses from morale - autocannons- Costode bolters - Avenger gat cannons. Could basically save a bunch of time here and just state that if it was AP 3 or 4 and does multi damage it is now WAY more effective against terminators than it was before. I wonder why these weapons get spammed....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Should a 40- point Terminator be more durable than a Leman Russ?

Is it more durable? Does it have as many wounds? Will it be guaranteed to survive a lascannon, or a meltagun like a russ? Can it put out anywhere near as much damage as a lemon russ?

Against literally anything S5 down, yes, it is more durable with your proposed changes.

Again, Terminators aren't in a good spot-they deserve buffs. But not THAT much.

Also, think outside the Imperium. What options do, say, my Nurgle Daemons have for killing Terminators with that rule? I can only field up to three Princes.

Edit: And my bad-against S4 AP0, they're actually slightly less durable. 1.5 Terminators die for each Russ that gets killed.

Mortal wounds?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Custodes are 4++ against plasma

And that Custodes, not Terminators.

I'll pose the challenge again because I love the fact everyone doesn't do it:
For anyone complaining that Terminators aren't as durable as they used to be or aren't durable now, list all the weapons they're less durable compared to the ones they're more durable to now. I'll wait.

Battle cannons - disintegrator cannons - losses from morale - autocannons- Costode bolters - Avenger gat cannons. Could basically save a bunch of time here and just state that if it was AP 3 or 4 and does multi damage it is now WAY more effective against terminators than it was before. I wonder why these weapons get spammed....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Should a 40- point Terminator be more durable than a Leman Russ?

Is it more durable? Does it have as many wounds? Will it be guaranteed to survive a lascannon, or a meltagun like a russ? Can it put out anywhere near as much damage as a lemon russ?

Against literally anything S5 down, yes, it is more durable with your proposed changes.

Again, Terminators aren't in a good spot-they deserve buffs. But not THAT much.

Also, think outside the Imperium. What options do, say, my Nurgle Daemons have for killing Terminators with that rule? I can only field up to three Princes.

Edit: And my bad-against S4 AP0, they're actually slightly less durable. 1.5 Terminators die for each Russ that gets killed.

Mortal wounds?

I literally laughed at losses from morale.
Also you named like 3 weapons. Care to keep going, especially when the new Autocannons actually aren't that far off from the old ones anyway (which is really why it is a bizarre complaint)