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.

It would be a large change but invulnerable saves could mitigate armor lost to AP. 6++ negates AP -1 while still working against the really nasty stuff as a minimum 6+ save, 5++ negates AP -2, etc. Yes, it makes some units disgustingly hard to remove compared to what they are now, but that's no different than it used to be when AP was all or nothing and most weapons had nothing against 3+ and better.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
It would be a large change but invulnerable saves could mitigate armor lost to AP. 6++ negates AP -1 while still working against the really nasty stuff as a minimum 6+ save, 5++ negates AP -2, etc. Yes, it makes some units disgustingly hard to remove compared to what they are now, but that's no different than it used to be when AP was all or nothing and most weapons had nothing against 3+ and better.

The old system was absolute garbage. I'm glad it's gone.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
It would be a large change but invulnerable saves could mitigate armor lost to AP. 6++ negates AP -1 while still working against the really nasty stuff as a minimum 6+ save, 5++ negates AP -2, etc. Yes, it makes some units disgustingly hard to remove compared to what they are now, but that's no different than it used to be when AP was all or nothing and most weapons had nothing against 3+ and better.

The old system was absolute garbage. I'm glad it's gone.

Yes, forcing marines into the bushes so they can get their 3+ save is much better than a marine being their own cover...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
It would be a large change but invulnerable saves could mitigate armor lost to AP. 6++ negates AP -1 while still working against the really nasty stuff as a minimum 6+ save, 5++ negates AP -2, etc. Yes, it makes some units disgustingly hard to remove compared to what they are now, but that's no different than it used to be when AP was all or nothing and most weapons had nothing against 3+ and better.

The old system was absolute garbage. I'm glad it's gone.

The old system made pricing weapons according to the effect their AP had actually possible. With AP under this system being either a 0% reduction in the amount of armour saves taken or a 100% reduction in armour saves taken, weapons could be priced around the utility such AP provided most of the time much more easily than a weapon in today's system with AP-1, which is either a 20%, 25%, 33%, 50%, or 100% reduction in the amount of armour saves taken, making it far more difficult to fairly price it (and, conversely, much harder to fairly price various levels of armour saves).

Further, it really doesn't matter if you shoot something with a more powerful weapon if the increase in power isn't significant enough to cause damage. I think we'd all agree that a 6" gun on a cruiser is ridiculously more powerful than a slingshot, but the result of firing them on the main belt armour of a battleship is the same: the round breaks or bounces, depending on the angle. In the old system the cruiser gun might be AP3 and the slingshot AP-, accurately reflecting the fact that both of them had a snowball's chance in hell of getting through a 2+ rerollable armour save of the battleship despite one being much more powerful than the other. In the new system the cruiser gun might have AP-2 while the slingshot is AP-0, making the cruiser gun have a 25% chance of penetrating the armour (rerollable save, but -2 so rerollable 4+ instead of 2+) with the slingshot being the same as before (2+ rerollable). It's a simplification based on the idea that "STRONGER=BETTER, HURR!" without any consideration as to whether the additional armour piercing capacity actually should make a meaningful difference.

Yeah, I'm beginning to think the old system was actually better.

The old system was also easier, binary versus a modifier.

The old system also had less granularity. Things were basically all or nothing. Either your AP could pierce power armor, or it wasn't worth gak. Things like Heavy Bolters are the best they've ever been due to these changes, and heavy bolters are hardly overpowered.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
It would be a large change but invulnerable saves could mitigate armor lost to AP. 6++ negates AP -1 while still working against the really nasty stuff as a minimum 6+ save, 5++ negates AP -2, etc. Yes, it makes some units disgustingly hard to remove compared to what they are now, but that's no different than it used to be when AP was all or nothing and most weapons had nothing against 3+ and better.

The old system was absolute garbage. I'm glad it's gone.

I'm surprised, Slayer - we actually agree on something.

Honestly, the new system with modifiers is better, until you come to the wound chart

That is were actual tough units get shafted, units that relied on T4 +.

 Melissia wrote:
The old system also had less granularity. Things were basically all or nothing. Either your AP could pierce power armor, or it wasn't worth gak. Things like Heavy Bolters are the best they've ever been due to these changes, and heavy bolters are hardly overpowered.

Either the bullet can beat the armor or it can't. There aren't half measures when it comes to terminal ballistics.

I think the new system might be even more garbage.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The old system also had less granularity. Things were basically all or nothing. Either your AP could pierce power armor, or it wasn't worth gak. Things like Heavy Bolters are the best they've ever been due to these changes, and heavy bolters are hardly overpowered.

Either the bullet can beat the armor or it can't. There aren't half measures when it comes to terminal ballistics.

Armor generally isn't the same thickness all over. Especially something like body armor. Those Space Marine pauldrons are probably a lot stronger than the helmet.

I like granularity, but on a D6, its really hard to price -1 AP. It halves the effectiveness on expensive terminator armor and barely moves the needle on ork boyz.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The old system made pricing weapons according to the effect their AP had actually possible. With AP under this system being either a 0% reduction in the amount of armour saves taken or a 100% reduction in armour saves taken, weapons could be priced around the utility such AP provided most of the time much more easily than a weapon in today's system with AP-1, which is either a 20%, 25%, 33%, 50%, or 100% reduction in the amount of armour saves taken, making it far more difficult to fairly price it (and, conversely, much harder to fairly price various levels of armour saves).

AP2 used to increase damage by 20%, 50%, 100%, 200%, 500% depending on the targets save but I guess we're ignoring that fact. The stats you mentioned also regard increase in damage, not the amount of saves taken.

Edit: I guess it does regard the amount of saves taken.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The old system also had less granularity. Things were basically all or nothing. Either your AP could pierce power armor, or it wasn't worth gak. Things like Heavy Bolters are the best they've ever been due to these changes, and heavy bolters are hardly overpowered.

Either the bullet can beat the armor or it can't. There aren't half measures when it comes to terminal ballistics.

In that logic Autocannons shouldn't hurt Marines period since those were AP4 compared to the 3+ of a Marine.

You do know that you don't have to straight up pierce through every time right? What is your actual knowledge of terminal ballistics?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Either the bullet can beat the armor or it can't.

That's not how armor works. Nor is it how ballistics works. Nor is it how physics works.

Just look at the variety of modern weapons vs modern body armor. Some weapons you'll barely notice at all through armor. Some weapons have a better chance to hurt you through body armor than others. Some ignore the armor entirely, and sometimes the armor helps save your life even if it doesn't actually stop the bullet entirely, because it reduces the bullet's energy enough that even though it injures you, it doesn't kill you.

If you want to start arguing realism, we need MORE granularity, not less. I personally don't care much about "realism". I just find the game's balance more interesting and complex (in a good way) with the greater granularity of the new system. Which isn't to say that GW did a good job balancing it. But they didn't do a good job balancing the old system either, so...

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The old system also had less granularity. Things were basically all or nothing. Either your AP could pierce power armor, or it wasn't worth gak. Things like Heavy Bolters are the best they've ever been due to these changes, and heavy bolters are hardly overpowered.

Either the bullet can beat the armor or it can't. There aren't half measures when it comes to terminal ballistics.

Armor generally isn't the same thickness all over. Especially something like body armor. Those Space Marine pauldrons are probably a lot stronger than the helmet.

I want to quote this just because of how much I agree with it. The armor save is more than just the thickness or composition of the armor, but also coverage. An Ork boy theoretical have plenty of looted pieces of power armor, carapace armor, vehicles armor plates, ect on his body, but the reason 6+ is still appropriate is because most of his body is protected by a t-shirt and pants. Similarly vehicles are not one giant block of uniform armor (other than the land raider) , and there are weak point that while can be better defended against small arms fire but might still be pierced through by something that could do that to the more armored parts. If you think about the armor save as "The shot hits something that it can or cant get through" rather than "The shot hits the strongest part of the armor or a place that wouldn't have saved the wearer anyway", it makes a bit more sense for a modifier system.

That said, I think both systems have their pros and cons, but I always roll my eyes at these discussions because it always always revolves around which is better for power armor.

Or maybe the armor save system is just an abstraction because its a game and not a simulation?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
It would be a large change but invulnerable saves could mitigate armor lost to AP. 6++ negates AP -1 while still working against the really nasty stuff as a minimum 6+ save, 5++ negates AP -2, etc. Yes, it makes some units disgustingly hard to remove compared to what they are now, but that's no different than it used to be when AP was all or nothing and most weapons had nothing against 3+ and better.

The old system was absolute garbage. I'm glad it's gone.

Yes, forcing marines into the bushes so they can get their 3+ save is much better than a marine being their own cover...

You could easily implement the old cover system under the current rules, with cover giving you essentially an invuln save rather than an incremental bonus. The old cover system really isn't a justification for the all-or-nothing save system.

I'd love to see cover provide a FNP-type save that can stack with any other saves a model already has. Just give anything in cover a flat boost to durability, none of this statistical weirdness where Space Marines are incentivized to take cover while Guardsmen don't bother. But that's neither here nor there.

 Melissia wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Either the bullet can beat the armor or it can't.

That's not how armor works. Nor is it how ballistics works. Nor is it how physics works.

Just look at the variety of modern weapons vs modern body armor. Some weapons you'll barely notice at all through armor. Some weapons have a better chance to hurt you through body armor than others. Some ignore the armor entirely, and sometimes the armor helps save your life even if it doesn't actually stop the bullet entirely, because it reduces the bullet's energy enough that even though it injures you, it doesn't kill you.

If you want to start arguing realism, we need MORE granularity, not less. I personally don't care much about "realism". I just find the game's balance more interesting and complex (in a good way) with the greater granularity of the new system. Which isn't to say that GW did a good job balancing it. But they didn't do a good job balancing the old system either, so...

Failed saves are when you find a weak point. Finding a weakpoint doesn't mean you penetrated the armor.

I'll call my friend and tell him how much better was the old system were my Fire Warriors were wounding his IG infantry in 2+, ignoring all of his armor and most of the time also removing the cover save.

Yeah, he surely doesn't prefers the current system were I wound him on 3+, and then can save at 5+ or 4+ if hes in cover.

The old system was so much better. So good, and so interactive: I have the right amount of AP so I instantly delete you.

Yay! Fun!

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Either the bullet can beat the armor or it can't.

That's not how armor works. Nor is it how ballistics works. Nor is it how physics works.

Just look at the variety of modern weapons vs modern body armor. Some weapons you'll barely notice at all through armor. Some weapons have a better chance to hurt you through body armor than others. Some ignore the armor entirely, and sometimes the armor helps save your life even if it doesn't actually stop the bullet entirely, because it reduces the bullet's energy enough that even though it injures you, it doesn't kill you.

If you want to start arguing realism, we need MORE granularity, not less. I personally don't care much about "realism". I just find the game's balance more interesting and complex (in a good way) with the greater granularity of the new system. Which isn't to say that GW did a good job balancing it. But they didn't do a good job balancing the old system either, so...

Failed saves are when you find a weak point. Finding a weakpoint doesn't mean you penetrated the armor.

Failed saves can mean a lot of things. It could also mean the projectile hit a strong point on ther armor square enough to penetrate instead of glancing off due to the angle of impact.

 Galas wrote:
I'll call my friend and tell him how much better was the old system were my Fire Warriors were wounding his IG infantry in 2+, ignoring all of his armor and most of the time also removing the cover save.

Yeah, he surely doesn't prefers the current system were I wound him on 3+, and then can save at 5+ or 4+ if hes in cover.

The old system was so much better. So good, and so interactive: I have the right amount of AP so I instantly delete you.

Yay! Fun!

On the other side of this my termintors would be ignoring the majority of small weapon fire, while now they are being killed by -2AP bolters. That aint fun either, and unlike IG my models don't cost 4pts per model.

Karol wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I'll call my friend and tell him how much better was the old system were my Fire Warriors were wounding his IG infantry in 2+, ignoring all of his armor and most of the time also removing the cover save.

Yeah, he surely doesn't prefers the current system were I wound him on 3+, and then can save at 5+ or 4+ if hes in cover.

The old system was so much better. So good, and so interactive: I have the right amount of AP so I instantly delete you.

Yay! Fun!

On the other side of this my termintors would be ignoring the majority of small weapon fire, while now they are being killed by -2AP bolters. That aint fun either, and unlike IG my models don't cost 4pts per model.

Believe me, with only 1W terminators died to small arm fire just like they are doing now. And with grav spam they were totally decimated. Terminators have never been as resilient as they are now, specially with all the stratagems they have like Transhuman Phisiology or -1 damage for GK ones.

All the people that tries to claim that the old AP system made things more resilient is straight up lying (Or just disremembering). The changes that have make weapons more letal now are the ease to gain rerrolls and bonus to hit and to wound, and how many weapons have gained shoots to their profiles, etc... the AP system has made some cases more letal and others less, so its end up being neutral overall. (The same goes for the changes to the wound chart)

Transhuman goes on paladins. Plus it is a stragagem meaning it buffs 1 unit out of an entire army, the rest dies easy.

Also if terminators were bad before, then maybe GW should have given them rules that fix them, and not rules that make them worse primaris. And if they couldn't, then they just should have removed old marines, so people don't buy in to bad units and get stuck with them.

. the AP system has made some cases more letal and others less, so its end up being neutral overall. (The same goes for the changes to the wound chart)

you know that is like saying an age group is wrestling is better then a weight class, because just because two guys are 45kg and one is 90kg, because it all avarges out at around 60, so all is good. It really doesn't make a person with a bad army happy to hear that all is good, because other armies are having a good time now. Specially if their army were bad in prior editions too. I don't care that much, about prior editions. I didn't play in them, but termintors lore, description etc is that they are extremly resilient . Right now they are not much more resilient then a grunt primaris. specially considering the point costs.

Nothing in the game is specially resilient. That has been a thing for as 40k existed. If your opponent wants something dead they are gonna kill it unless is some broken combo (like invisibility deathstars with characters tanking everything in 7th, paladins in 5th, IH leviathan in 8th, etc...) that are always specific examples on a sea of very killable stuff.

Unless you are plaguebearers. Those damm things.

 Galas wrote:
Believe me, with only 1W terminators died to small arm fire just like they are doing now. And with grav spam they were totally decimated. Terminators have never been as resilient as they are now, specially with all the stratagems they have like Transhuman Phisiology or -1 damage for GK ones.

All the people that tries to claim that the old AP system made things more resilient is straight up lying (Or just disremembering). The changes that have make weapons more letal now are the ease to gain rerrolls and bonus to hit and to wound, and how many weapons have gained shoots to their profiles, etc... the AP system has made some cases more letal and others less, so its end up being neutral overall. (The same goes for the changes to the wound chart)

The math doesn't bear out your claim:

Old 1W terminators versus 10-tactical marines within 12":

20 shots, 13.33 hits, 6.67 wounds, 1.11 unsaved wounds

New 2W terminators versus the same:

Devastator or Assault Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 2.22 unsaved wounds

Tactical Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 4.44 unsaved wounds

If you think it's unfair to look at Marines, we can do the math for Necron warriors as well, but I can already tell you that the terminators break even on that one.

Now let us move on to midrange shooting, and look at Assault Cannons and Autocannons; again at 12" range:

1W Terminators vs 1 Assault Cannon/Storm Bolter Dreadnought:

AssCannon: 4 shots, 2.67 hits, 2.22 wounds, 0.60 unsaved wounds
Storm Bolter: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds, 0.11 unsaved wounds

2W Terminators vs 1 Assault Cannon/Storm Bolter Dreadnought:

AssCannon: 6 shots, 4 hits, 3.33 wounds, 2.22 unsaved wounds
Storm Bolter: 4 shots, 2.67 hits, 1.33 wounds, 0.22 unsaved wounds

1W Terminators vs 1 2x TL Autocannon Dreadnought:

4 shots, 3.56 hits, 2.97 wounds, 0.49 unsaved wounds

2W Terminators vs 1 2x Twin Autocannon Dreadnought:

8 shots, 5.33 hits, 4.44 wounds, 1.48 unsaved wounds (2.96 damage)

Not that these last two examples don't include doctrines which make the comparison look even worse for our poor terminators.

In nearly every scenario the terminators are either just as tough as 7th edition or worse, there may be some edge cases where they come out ahead but on the whole they're weaker than ever now in terms of durability.

 Galas wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I'll call my friend and tell him how much better was the old system were my Fire Warriors were wounding his IG infantry in 2+, ignoring all of his armor and most of the time also removing the cover save.

Yeah, he surely doesn't prefers the current system were I wound him on 3+, and then can save at 5+ or 4+ if hes in cover.

The old system was so much better. So good, and so interactive: I have the right amount of AP so I instantly delete you.

Yay! Fun!

On the other side of this my termintors would be ignoring the majority of small weapon fire, while now they are being killed by -2AP bolters. That aint fun either, and unlike IG my models don't cost 4pts per model.

Believe me, with only 1W terminators died to small arm fire just like they are doing now. And with grav spam they were totally decimated. Terminators have never been as resilient as they are now, specially with all the stratagems they have like Transhuman Phisiology or -1 damage for GK ones.

All the people that tries to claim that the old AP system made things more resilient is straight up lying (Or just disremembering). The changes that have make weapons more letal now are the ease to gain rerrolls and bonus to hit and to wound, and how many weapons have gained shoots to their profiles, etc... the AP system has made some cases more letal and others less, so its end up being neutral overall. (The same goes for the changes to the wound chart)

I've been telling people this. The number of weapons that Terminators straight gained durability to FAR outweighs anything they lost durability to, and in certain cases, stayed equal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Believe me, with only 1W terminators died to small arm fire just like they are doing now. And with grav spam they were totally decimated. Terminators have never been as resilient as they are now, specially with all the stratagems they have like Transhuman Phisiology or -1 damage for GK ones.

All the people that tries to claim that the old AP system made things more resilient is straight up lying (Or just disremembering). The changes that have make weapons more letal now are the ease to gain rerrolls and bonus to hit and to wound, and how many weapons have gained shoots to their profiles, etc... the AP system has made some cases more letal and others less, so its end up being neutral overall. (The same goes for the changes to the wound chart)

The math doesn't bear out your claim:

Old 1W terminators versus 10-tactical marines within 12":

20 shots, 13.33 hits, 6.67 wounds, 1.11 unsaved wounds

New 2W terminators versus the same:

Devastator or Assault Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 2.22 unsaved wounds

Tactical Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 4.44 unsaved wounds

If you think it's unfair to look at Marines, we can do the math for Necron warriors as well, but I can already tell you that the terminators break even on that one.

Now let us move on to midrange shooting, and look at Assault Cannons and Autocannons; again at 12" range:

1W Terminators vs 1 Assault Cannon/Storm Bolter Dreadnought:

AssCannon: 4 shots, 2.67 hits, 2.22 wounds, 0.60 unsaved wounds
Storm Bolter: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds, 0.11 unsaved wounds

2W Terminators vs 1 Assault Cannon/Storm Bolter Dreadnought:

AssCannon: 6 shots, 4 hits, 3.33 wounds, 2.22 unsaved wounds
Storm Bolter: 4 shots, 2.67 hits, 1.33 wounds, 0.22 unsaved wounds

1W Terminators vs 1 2x TL Autocannon Dreadnought:

4 shots, 3.56 hits, 2.97 wounds, 0.49 unsaved wounds

2W Terminators vs 1 2x Twin Autocannon Dreadnought:

8 shots, 5.33 hits, 4.44 wounds, 1.48 unsaved wounds (2.96 damage)

Not that these last two examples don't include doctrines which make the comparison look even worse for our poor terminators.

In nearly every scenario the terminators are either just as tough as 7th edition or worse, there may be some edge cases where they come out ahead but on the whole they're weaker than ever now in terms of durability.

Not comparable because all those TL weapons, for example, literally just doubled in shots. The non-Tactical Doctrine Marines are somehow at 40 shots instead of the 20 they SHOULD be at.

Your math is bad and you should feel bad.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Believe me, with only 1W terminators died to small arm fire just like they are doing now. And with grav spam they were totally decimated. Terminators have never been as resilient as they are now, specially with all the stratagems they have like Transhuman Phisiology or -1 damage for GK ones.

All the people that tries to claim that the old AP system made things more resilient is straight up lying (Or just disremembering). The changes that have make weapons more letal now are the ease to gain rerrolls and bonus to hit and to wound, and how many weapons have gained shoots to their profiles, etc... the AP system has made some cases more letal and others less, so its end up being neutral overall. (The same goes for the changes to the wound chart)

The math doesn't bear out your claim:

Old 1W terminators versus 10-tactical marines within 12":

20 shots, 13.33 hits, 6.67 wounds, 1.11 unsaved wounds

New 2W terminators versus the same:

Devastator or Assault Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 2.22 unsaved wounds

Tactical Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 4.44 unsaved wounds

Where can I get these Tactical Marines with 4 shots each? Which chapter should I be playing that I never noticed had this ability?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Believe me, with only 1W terminators died to small arm fire just like they are doing now. And with grav spam they were totally decimated. Terminators have never been as resilient as they are now, specially with all the stratagems they have like Transhuman Phisiology or -1 damage for GK ones.

All the people that tries to claim that the old AP system made things more resilient is straight up lying (Or just disremembering). The changes that have make weapons more letal now are the ease to gain rerrolls and bonus to hit and to wound, and how many weapons have gained shoots to their profiles, etc... the AP system has made some cases more letal and others less, so its end up being neutral overall. (The same goes for the changes to the wound chart)

The math doesn't bear out your claim:

Old 1W terminators versus 10-tactical marines within 12":

20 shots, 13.33 hits, 6.67 wounds, 1.11 unsaved wounds

New 2W terminators versus the same:

Devastator or Assault Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 2.22 unsaved wounds

Tactical Doctrine: 40 shots, 26.66 hits, 13.33 hits, 4.44 unsaved wounds

If you think it's unfair to look at Marines, we can do the math for Necron warriors as well, but I can already tell you that the terminators break even on that one.

Now let us move on to midrange shooting, and look at Assault Cannons and Autocannons; again at 12" range:

1W Terminators vs 1 Assault Cannon/Storm Bolter Dreadnought:

AssCannon: 4 shots, 2.67 hits, 2.22 wounds, 0.60 unsaved wounds
Storm Bolter: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds, 0.11 unsaved wounds

2W Terminators vs 1 Assault Cannon/Storm Bolter Dreadnought:

AssCannon: 6 shots, 4 hits, 3.33 wounds, 2.22 unsaved wounds
Storm Bolter: 4 shots, 2.67 hits, 1.33 wounds, 0.22 unsaved wounds

1W Terminators vs 1 2x TL Autocannon Dreadnought:

4 shots, 3.56 hits, 2.97 wounds, 0.49 unsaved wounds

2W Terminators vs 1 2x Twin Autocannon Dreadnought:

8 shots, 5.33 hits, 4.44 wounds, 1.48 unsaved wounds (2.96 damage)

Not that these last two examples don't include doctrines which make the comparison look even worse for our poor terminators.

In nearly every scenario the terminators are either just as tough as 7th edition or worse, there may be some edge cases where they come out ahead but on the whole they're weaker than ever now in terms of durability.

Not comparable because all those TL weapons, for example, literally just doubled in shots. The non-Tactical Doctrine Marines are somehow at 40 shots instead of the 20 they SHOULD be at.

Your math is bad and you should feel bad.

I'm literally doing the math at work between customers and it still works if you change the range from under 12" to over 12" so,

How the Dreadnought TL weapons not comparable? It's the same weapon on the same platform as it was last edition, and assault cannons gained 2 shots but lost rending. I also included Necron warriors which you don't need to do the math for, they generate the same hits, and wounds in each edition but in 8th they have double the unsaved wounds due to the AP rules.

How about you show the cases where terminators supposedly gained durability?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

happy_inquisitor wrote:
Where can I get these Tactical Marines with 4 shots each? Which chapter should I be playing that I never noticed had this ability?

I'm at work and misread the rule between customers. The math works out at greater than 12" but not at under 12" as I asserted.