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.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You don't have to "be imaginative", they just need to fix the points. At the end of 8th a 1 shot S8, AP-4, Dd6 multi-melta was 22 points. Fast forward to 9th, and they doubled the shots, which doubled the output, and they're now 20 PPM for INFANTRY, and 25 PPM for VEHICLES. That's nuts.

You're describing only half the problem.

Tanks should fear those sorts of weapons. Those sorts of weapons should be great at killing vehicles. If they're too cheap, then change their cost. But the other half is that vehicles aren't durable in general (and monsters are even worse). This exacerbates the problem with Cognis-Lascannons and Multi-Meltas, but it doesn't show the scope of the entire problem. Those AT weapons need to be costed appropriately, but vehicles/monsters also need to be tougher.

Especially Carnifexes. (/no bias at all)

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You don't have to "be imaginative", they just need to fix the points. At the end of 8th a 1 shot S8, AP-4, Dd6 multi-melta was 22 points. Fast forward to 9th, and they doubled the shots, which doubled the output, and they're now 20 PPM for INFANTRY, and 25 PPM for VEHICLES. That's nuts.

You're describing only half the problem.

Tanks should fear those sorts of weapons. Those sorts of weapons should be great at killing vehicles. If they're too cheap, then change their cost. But the other half is that vehicles aren't durable in general (and monsters are even worse). This exacerbates the problem with Cognis-Lascannons and Multi-Meltas, but it doesn't show the scope of the entire problem. Those AT weapons need to be costed appropriately, but vehicles/monsters also need to be tougher.

Especially Carnifexes. (/no bias at all)

Agreed, tanks should fear those, but they're too cheap. Mine feel pretty durable outside of those things. But let's say vehicles in general aren't, what's your solution? And remember, as you said:

H.B.M.C. wrote:It would have to be at the core rules level, and in a way that works with all existing Codices. If it's something like "Units with the 'Vehicle' Keyword reduce all damage by 1 to a minimum of 1", I'm not sure that'll help.

So, within your own stipulations, what do you think would work?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
They have Mortal Wounds from psychic powers.

And GUOs can cause them on the charge.

Outside that? Low strength, no-you can get S6 +1 to-wound on Plaguebearers. But they have no AP. In fact, outside of GUOs and Heralds, they don’t have AP at all.

Then yes. Literally by design it sounds like Nurgle daemons should struggle against high armor units if they don't use magic.

The only Nurgle daemon psykers that I'm aware of are the HQs, and I don't recall them having any especially impressive offensive powers. I don't think 1 or 2 smite-like powers per HQ slots is going to be enough to reliably power your way through a bunch of otherwise invulnerable wounds. Especially if your opponent has a bit of a skew list.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:
We're not talking about being "equally good at everything," though. We're talking about how it would stink for the majority of your army to not be allowed to hurt portions of your opponent's army.

...

Some people are okay with having units that are literally immune to big chunks of their opponent's army. Reasonable people can feel that way. Some of us think it sounds miserable.

Then why are you playing mono-Nurgle daemons in this scenario? It doesn't sound like the issue is with the Terminators here, it sounds like the issue is that you expect to be able to take like 4 distinct units out of the codex' 20+ and be able to handle every scenario equally.

If you choose to ignore 75% of a book's options and skew your list, then you kind of forfeit the right to have a tactically flexible army.

To be fair, Nurgle daemons are a bit of an odd duck as an example because while they definitely should be a viable standalone faction, they really ought to have more support than they currently do. Still, JNA's point is a good one. A mono-god daemon army can potentially get screwed over by giving some units a 1+ save that doesn't fail on a roll of 1. And Nurgle daemons are just an extreme case being used to illustrate the problem. Should every pulse rifle, lasgun, scatter laser, and sororitas bolter in your opponent's army really be disallowed from hurting a terminator?

Basically, there are those of us who find the idea of not being allowed to hurt enemy units unappealing. Even if you don't share that view, you can probably understand it. Currently, it takes a lot of lasguns or sororitas bolter shots to kill a squad of terminators, but guardsmen and sisters are allowed to kill terminators. I feel that's better for the game than the 1+ unfailable save idea.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You don't have to "be imaginative", they just need to fix the points. At the end of 8th a 1 shot S8, AP-4, Dd6 multi-melta was 22 points. Fast forward to 9th, and they doubled the shots, which doubled the output, and they're now 20 PPM for INFANTRY, and 25 PPM for VEHICLES. That's nuts.

You're describing only half the problem.

Tanks should fear those sorts of weapons. Those sorts of weapons should be great at killing vehicles. If they're too cheap, then change their cost. But the other half is that vehicles aren't durable in general (and monsters are even worse). This exacerbates the problem with Cognis-Lascannons and Multi-Meltas, but it doesn't show the scope of the entire problem. Those AT weapons need to be costed appropriately, but vehicles/monsters also need to be tougher.

Especially Carnifexes. (/no bias at all)

You know I never thought about AT weapon-to-vehicle cost before, but I'm suddenly reminded that in 2nd ed, a SM Multimelta cost 65 points to a Land Raiders 220. One of the most effective AT weapons itself cost more than 25% of the vehicle cost! A Lascannon cost 45 points, for 1/6th the LR cost.

That's kind of interesting to think about.

Are dark lances really unreasonable at their current price? I've been playing DE for a while now, so my perspective might be skewed. They have the same max damage as a lascannon and only 1 higher average damage (4.5 instead of a lascannon's 3.5), and I don't see a lot of complaints about standard lascannons. The dark lance is fumble-proof (you can't roll a 1 or 2 for damage like you can with a lascannon), but I recall plenty of threads talking about how dedicated anti-tank weapons sucked next to plasma weapons because of the possibility of rolling low on damage. So the flub-proof damage roll is probably a good thing.

None of which necessarily means that lances aren't underpriced. It just seems odd that they're considered a problem when both their average and max damage is so close to that of the lascannon. It kind of makes me wonder if that perception might have a bit of an imperial bias? Not an accusation. I'm sincerely uncertain.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
No to more dice rolling, or alternatives that involve the same amount of dice rolling of the current version of terminators.

If you want to make termies durable but without rolling thousands of dice, I think the right solution could be making them T4 2W but 1+ save. Of course getting rid of the whole "rolls of 1 always fail". Maybe even ignoring AP-1 vs low S weapons, for example S4 or S5. This way they'll be extremely durable against light firepower but still vulnerable to weapons with high AP and/or high S.

Of course same solution would apply for other armored infantries and even vehicles. 1+ saves worked well for WHFB years ago and there's no need to differentiate infantries/bikes/cavarly/monsters and vehicles with two different systems, like the AV system of older editions of 40k.

Firing AP0 weapons against stuff like termis or LRs is already quite pointless in most of the circumstances, but 1+ saves would help against those units/armies that can have a massive amount of those shots for cheap which is the reason why termies went for the route of stats creep in the first place.

So feth Nurgle Daemons, right? They don’t ever need to handle Terminators.

Is Nurgle Daemons even an army? Chaos Daemons can definitely deal with 1+ termies, so do Deathguard. Mortal Wounds are also a thing, so is tarpitting elites with cheap (and disgustingly resilient) bodies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
...2) I have, not once, ever seen someone propose "Make Terminators immune to AP0 weapons!" alongside "And here's how to make it work for armies that'd be screwed by that!" This is not the first time this suggestion has shown up.

AP0 weapons aren't Terminators' problem. The problem is overly-generous access to easily spammable AP-1/-2.

Those weapons are proper anti elite tools. Termies SHOULD be vulnerable to those, and with 2W 1+ they could tank lots of hits anyway. What people hated in the past was losing lots of termies against massive S3/4 weapons, simply by rolling a few 1s.

I don't think giving them 3W was the correct way to fix them, and I dislike the concept of rolling tons of dice for little or no result; I would have preferred making them more resilient to low-mid strength hits and immune against low S countless shots/attacks, which have always been the nightmare of terminators.

Itt:
"Infantry units should be immune to small arms but tanks and monsters can and should take wounds to lasguns"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guarantee you can put thicker armor on a tank than you can on a space marine

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Itt:
"Infantry units should be immune to small arms but tanks and monsters can and should take wounds to lasguns"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guarantee you can put thicker armor on a tank than you can on a space marine

In my previous post I said that 1+ should be extended to tanks, big ones like those which already have 2+ at least .

Since we're in the age of cumulative AP and mortal wounds I don't see the reason why 1+ saves shouldn't exist, that's it. WHFB had it for years (even 0+ was possible actually), although only on characters IIRC.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You don't have to "be imaginative", they just need to fix the points. At the end of 8th a 1 shot S8, AP-4, Dd6 multi-melta was 22 points. Fast forward to 9th, and they doubled the shots, which doubled the output, and they're now 20 PPM for INFANTRY, and 25 PPM for VEHICLES. That's nuts.

Yea, but how many lists that are a problem are packing MM? People are getting plinked by incidental dark lances and then tons of pointy melee or lots and lots of infantry weapons and super lascannons.

Lists are not packing MM's because no one is bringing tanks unless they are cheap and/or have an invul save.
And why is that? Because anti tank weapons are so damn points effective right now.

If the Ork buggy army takes off you might see some more AT weapons getting brought and then such a list will melt as snow in the summer and we're back to people not bringing a lot of AT because no one is bringing tanks. because AT is to effective.

Rather then do all sorts of +1 sv or ignore ap stuff. What happens if we simply double the wounds of all vehicles and monsters?
Mid-grade weapons still plink off wounds but are not good enough to deal with multiple tanks, AT weapons are still best but it actually takes some effort to kill a tank rather then glance in its general direction.

Struggle against units with good armor? Sure, that's fine. That's a weakness in the army.
Be literally incapable of dealing with them? That's just bad game design. And considering that, if I take three Poxbringers, I can get three Smites (killing two Terminators on average-and the Nurgle Smitelike powers aren't any better, really) and a handful of AP-3 attacks, or be forced into taking a GUO or two (who are big ol' fire magnets that aren't that hard to take down for their points) to even have a CHANCE of touching these Terminators... Yeah, no.

Hey, do you play Black Templars? I hear they'll be a lot better if you soup in Inquisitorial Psykers!

Nurgle Daemons are a more distinct subfaction than Black Templars or Raven Guard, having mostly unique units instead of sharing 85% or more of their stuff with other Marine subfactions. And yet, you don't hear people saying "If your Templars suck, just play White Scars."
Or at least, not nearly as much as I hear "If your Nurgle Daemons suck, just play mixed Chaos."

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

BlaxicanX wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
They have Mortal Wounds from psychic powers.

And GUOs can cause them on the charge.

Outside that? Low strength, no-you can get S6 +1 to-wound on Plaguebearers. But they have no AP. In fact, outside of GUOs and Heralds, they don’t have AP at all.

Then yes. Literally by design it sounds like Nurgle daemons should struggle against high armor units if they don't use magic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:
We're not talking about being "equally good at everything," though. We're talking about how it would stink for the majority of your army to not be allowed to hurt portions of your opponent's army.

...

Some people are okay with having units that are literally immune to big chunks of their opponent's army. Reasonable people can feel that way. Some of us think it sounds miserable.

Then why are you playing mono-Nurgle daemons in this scenario? It doesn't sound like the issue is with the Terminators here, it sounds like the issue is that you expect to be able to take like 4 distinct units out of the codex' 20+ and be able to handle every scenario equally.

If you choose to ignore 75% of a book's options and skew your list, then you kind of forfeit the right to have a tactically flexible army.

Struggle against units with good armor? Sure, that's fine. That's a weakness in the army.
Be literally incapable of dealing with them? That's just bad game design. And considering that, if I take three Poxbringers, I can get three Smites (killing two Terminators on average-and the Nurgle Smitelike powers aren't any better, really) and a handful of AP-3 attacks, or be forced into taking a GUO or two (who are big ol' fire magnets that aren't that hard to take down for their points) to even have a CHANCE of touching these Terminators... Yeah, no.

Spoiler:

Blackie wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
No to more dice rolling, or alternatives that involve the same amount of dice rolling of the current version of terminators.

If you want to make termies durable but without rolling thousands of dice, I think the right solution could be making them T4 2W but 1+ save. Of course getting rid of the whole "rolls of 1 always fail". Maybe even ignoring AP-1 vs low S weapons, for example S4 or S5. This way they'll be extremely durable against light firepower but still vulnerable to weapons with high AP and/or high S.

Of course same solution would apply for other armored infantries and even vehicles. 1+ saves worked well for WHFB years ago and there's no need to differentiate infantries/bikes/cavarly/monsters and vehicles with two different systems, like the AV system of older editions of 40k.

Firing AP0 weapons against stuff like termis or LRs is already quite pointless in most of the circumstances, but 1+ saves would help against those units/armies that can have a massive amount of those shots for cheap which is the reason why termies went for the route of stats creep in the first place.

So feth Nurgle Daemons, right? They don’t ever need to handle Terminators.

Is Nurgle Daemons even an army? Chaos Daemons can definitely deal with 1+ termies, so do Deathguard. Mortal Wounds are also a thing, so is tarpitting elites with cheap (and disgustingly resilient) bodies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
...2) I have, not once, ever seen someone propose "Make Terminators immune to AP0 weapons!" alongside "And here's how to make it work for armies that'd be screwed by that!" This is not the first time this suggestion has shown up.

AP0 weapons aren't Terminators' problem. The problem is overly-generous access to easily spammable AP-1/-2.

Those weapons are proper anti elite tools. Termies SHOULD be vulnerable to those, and with 2W 1+ they could tank lots of hits anyway. What people hated in the past was losing lots of termies against massive S3/4 weapons, simply by rolling a few 1s.

I don't think giving them 3W was the correct way to fix them, and I dislike the concept of rolling tons of dice for little or no result; I would have preferred making them more resilient to low-mid strength hits and immune against low S countless shots/attacks, which have always been the nightmare of terminators.

Hey, do you play Black Templars? I hear they'll be a lot better if you soup in Inquisitorial Psykers!

Nurgle Daemons are a more distinct subfaction than Black Templars or Raven Guard, having mostly unique units instead of sharing 85% or more of their stuff with other Marine subfactions. And yet, you don't hear people saying "If your Templars suck, just play White Scars."
Or at least, not nearly as much as I hear "If your Nurgle Daemons suck, just play mixed Chaos."

Mono God armies were never meant to be well rounded. They are like WHFB index armies doubling down on a specific concept. So if my Night Goblin army runs into problems no one bats an eye but if those daemons do people on the Internet complain.

So if you want to have a Daemon army with less problems just include all four types. And don't be afraid to paint them all in one colour scheme. I have seen Nurgle units painted in a cold blue/white scheme and they looked great.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

BlaxicanX wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
They have Mortal Wounds from psychic powers.

And GUOs can cause them on the charge.

Outside that? Low strength, no-you can get S6 +1 to-wound on Plaguebearers. But they have no AP. In fact, outside of GUOs and Heralds, they don’t have AP at all.

Then yes. Literally by design it sounds like Nurgle daemons should struggle against high armor units if they don't use magic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:
We're not talking about being "equally good at everything," though. We're talking about how it would stink for the majority of your army to not be allowed to hurt portions of your opponent's army.

...

Some people are okay with having units that are literally immune to big chunks of their opponent's army. Reasonable people can feel that way. Some of us think it sounds miserable.

Then why are you playing mono-Nurgle daemons in this scenario? It doesn't sound like the issue is with the Terminators here, it sounds like the issue is that you expect to be able to take like 4 distinct units out of the codex' 20+ and be able to handle every scenario equally.

If you choose to ignore 75% of a book's options and skew your list, then you kind of forfeit the right to have a tactically flexible army.

Struggle against units with good armor? Sure, that's fine. That's a weakness in the army.
Be literally incapable of dealing with them? That's just bad game design. And considering that, if I take three Poxbringers, I can get three Smites (killing two Terminators on average-and the Nurgle Smitelike powers aren't any better, really) and a handful of AP-3 attacks, or be forced into taking a GUO or two (who are big ol' fire magnets that aren't that hard to take down for their points) to even have a CHANCE of touching these Terminators... Yeah, no.

Spoiler:

Blackie wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
No to more dice rolling, or alternatives that involve the same amount of dice rolling of the current version of terminators.

If you want to make termies durable but without rolling thousands of dice, I think the right solution could be making them T4 2W but 1+ save. Of course getting rid of the whole "rolls of 1 always fail". Maybe even ignoring AP-1 vs low S weapons, for example S4 or S5. This way they'll be extremely durable against light firepower but still vulnerable to weapons with high AP and/or high S.

Of course same solution would apply for other armored infantries and even vehicles. 1+ saves worked well for WHFB years ago and there's no need to differentiate infantries/bikes/cavarly/monsters and vehicles with two different systems, like the AV system of older editions of 40k.

Firing AP0 weapons against stuff like termis or LRs is already quite pointless in most of the circumstances, but 1+ saves would help against those units/armies that can have a massive amount of those shots for cheap which is the reason why termies went for the route of stats creep in the first place.

So feth Nurgle Daemons, right? They don’t ever need to handle Terminators.

Is Nurgle Daemons even an army? Chaos Daemons can definitely deal with 1+ termies, so do Deathguard. Mortal Wounds are also a thing, so is tarpitting elites with cheap (and disgustingly resilient) bodies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
...2) I have, not once, ever seen someone propose "Make Terminators immune to AP0 weapons!" alongside "And here's how to make it work for armies that'd be screwed by that!" This is not the first time this suggestion has shown up.

AP0 weapons aren't Terminators' problem. The problem is overly-generous access to easily spammable AP-1/-2.

Those weapons are proper anti elite tools. Termies SHOULD be vulnerable to those, and with 2W 1+ they could tank lots of hits anyway. What people hated in the past was losing lots of termies against massive S3/4 weapons, simply by rolling a few 1s.

I don't think giving them 3W was the correct way to fix them, and I dislike the concept of rolling tons of dice for little or no result; I would have preferred making them more resilient to low-mid strength hits and immune against low S countless shots/attacks, which have always been the nightmare of terminators.

Hey, do you play Black Templars? I hear they'll be a lot better if you soup in Inquisitorial Psykers!

Nurgle Daemons are a more distinct subfaction than Black Templars or Raven Guard, having mostly unique units instead of sharing 85% or more of their stuff with other Marine subfactions. And yet, you don't hear people saying "If your Templars suck, just play White Scars."
Or at least, not nearly as much as I hear "If your Nurgle Daemons suck, just play mixed Chaos."

Mono God armies were never meant to be well rounded. They are like WHFB index armies doubling down on a specific concept. So if my Night Goblin army runs into problems no one bats an eye but if those daemons do people on the Internet complain.

So if you want to have a Daemon army with less problems just include all four types. And don't be afraid to paint them all in one colour scheme. I have seen Nurgle units painted in a cold blue/white scheme and they looked great.

There's a difference between "this army struggles to handle Terminators and other well-armored infantry" and "This army needs to take a 270 point, highly vulnerable HQ to have a chance of even wounding a 190 point squad."

I'd love to see Nurgle Daemons more fleshed out (along with the other Daemonic gods) but for now, I accept that they have weaknesses, like virtually no shooting and minimal access to AP. But when you can slap down 75 literally invulnerable to most of my army wounds and STILL have 1,000 points to play with... That's an issue.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Hey, do you play Black Templars? I hear they'll be a lot better if you soup in Inquisitorial Psykers!

Nurgle Daemons are a more distinct subfaction than Black Templars or Raven Guard, having mostly unique units instead of sharing 85% or more of their stuff with other Marine subfactions. And yet, you don't hear people saying "If your Templars suck, just play White Scars."
Or at least, not nearly as much as I hear "If your Nurgle Daemons suck, just play mixed Chaos."

BT are SM, with access to basically anything SM related without even souping. That's loads of datasheets to choose from. Maybe they'll even get a supplement.

Nurgle Daeomons are not a stand alone army though, so adding other kind of daemons or deathguard units it's not like suggesting to play something else: it's suggesting to play the army using its entire potential. It's basically like saying that a full gretchin army should be competitive while refusing to add any other ork unit that may improve a lot that themed army. Take a full coven army as another example: they're a subfaction of one of the best codex and yet it's not a proper standalone faction to play with; a full coven army will struggle against lots of stuff. If you want to run a full coven or gretchin army, or any other list that just spam a tiny fraction of a whole available roster, go for it; don't complain if it doesn't work though.

I'm usually not one to mind diverging from the original topic of the thread but this one has gone WAY of course.

In an effort to bring it back - I think the recent discussion here sort of showcases the issues, IMHO, with the current design and specially the growing lethality and power creep that's undermining more genuine tactical gameplay. The response to weapons being too strong? Double the HP's of units!

We shouldn't be in this situation in the first place and doing things like making vehicles just monstrous creatures with more wounds or whatever doesn't make the underlying gameplay more tactical or compelling. It makes it worse IMHO and ALSO creates new problems that requires more fussing around to fix.

 Ordana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You don't have to "be imaginative", they just need to fix the points. At the end of 8th a 1 shot S8, AP-4, Dd6 multi-melta was 22 points. Fast forward to 9th, and they doubled the shots, which doubled the output, and they're now 20 PPM for INFANTRY, and 25 PPM for VEHICLES. That's nuts.

Yea, but how many lists that are a problem are packing MM? People are getting plinked by incidental dark lances and then tons of pointy melee or lots and lots of infantry weapons and super lascannons.

Lists are not packing MM's because no one is bringing tanks unless they are cheap and/or have an invul save.
And why is that? Because anti tank weapons are so damn points effective right now.

If the Ork buggy army takes off you might see some more AT weapons getting brought and then such a list will melt as snow in the summer and we're back to people not bringing a lot of AT because no one is bringing tanks. because AT is to effective.

Rather then do all sorts of +1 sv or ignore ap stuff. What happens if we simply double the wounds of all vehicles and monsters?
Mid-grade weapons still plink off wounds but are not good enough to deal with multiple tanks, AT weapons are still best but it actually takes some effort to kill a tank rather then glance in its general direction.

I think it's a lot more complex than that.

Malik's army had 5 TCLC or 10 shots. That's 18 damage to vehicles on average plus 3 MW from the bomber. The average DE list brings on average 6 DL, which would be 13 damage and that's if every boat can see. Scrapjets bring 3 to 4 shots at S8 with a lot less AP than MM. Eight of those can't typically down a Redemptor and would barely take a tank.

Of the top two armies only one brings enough AT to stress and only if you stick your neck out too far. In the LGT situation the terrain wasn't enough to hide that many dreads and he took it on the chin from two blocks of infantry on top of good rolls.

There isn't that much AT on the table. The concerns for vehicles are overstated and what the internet says doesn't match what happens on the table.

Marine players aren't avoiding tanks. They're bringing weapons to help kill Raiders and other problem units. A Valiant does 6.2 to a Raider. A Volkite Contemptor does 7.1 for much cheaper. They didn't dodge the Valiant, because they were worried it would die. They dodged it, because it wasn't the best unit to tackle Raiders or backfield chickens. Most everyone has a top profile strat for vehicles as well, so if someone was worried about limping a tank around they don't really have to.

I think it would be interesting to try and crunch the odds on Malik's opening turn in the final.

But yeah. At this stage its fair to say a lot of vehicles/monsters not seeing play are due to the fact they are inefficient for the points - although the vulnerability of T7/T8/3+ save to MMs, Dark Lances, Ad Mech chickens etc does factor into that.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Agreed, tanks should fear those, but they're too cheap. Mine feel pretty durable outside of those things. But let's say vehicles in general aren't, what's your solution?

Tanks, or just vehicles in general? Because Rhinos and other light-armor vehicles don't feel too different from how they used to, but Leman Russes are now barely any more durable than Chimeras when they used to bounce lascannons 2/3 of the time.

I don't think it's vehicles on the whole that are too vulnerable; it's tanks and tank-analogue monstrous creatures that got hit hard by the transition to 8th. At the very least, an actual tank should have a 2+ save.

Siegler just won New Orleans with no chickens and no teleport. That's a sparse 6 TCLC shots. It looks like he just went for reliable rolls and buffs.

2 Marshals
Manipulus
19 Rangers
2x8 Stalkers
10 Stalkers
8 Infiltrators
2x5 Raiders
5 Sterylizors
2x5 Vanguard

3 Stratoraptors
Fusilave

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...Agreed, tanks should fear those, but they're too cheap. Mine feel pretty durable outside of those things. But let's say vehicles in general aren't, what's your solution? And remember, as you said:

H.B.M.C. wrote:It would have to be at the core rules level, and in a way that works with all existing Codices. If it's something like "Units with the 'Vehicle' Keyword reduce all damage by 1 to a minimum of 1", I'm not sure that'll help.

So, within your own stipulations, what do you think would work?

Patch the wound table. The issue that's created the monster of d6+2 melta is that the new wound table destroyed melta's niche in 8th, since GW wanted overcharged plasma to wound T4 on 2+ they had to make it S8, and then didn't consider that they'd just made overcharged plasma (two S8/D2 shots) better than melta (one S8/Dd6 shot) against all targets, so now they're putting out damage reduction and pumping the damage stat on things in an effort to give melta back it's niche. In practice what they ought to do is go back to something closer to the old wound table (2+ S two higher/3+ S one higher/4+ S equal/5+ S one lower/6+ S 2-3 lower/impossible S 4 lower), since that de-homogenizes Strength some and lets you have more distinct roles for weapons without having to stack extra mechanics on the game, while still letting 2W Marines and D2 Marine-killer weapons exist, and also not growing vehicle wound counts beyond what you can reasonably mark on the table with d10s or an MTG spindown.

Wyldhunt wrote:

To be fair, Nurgle daemons are a bit of an odd duck as an example because while they definitely should be a viable standalone faction, they really ought to have more support than they currently do.

Sure, I have no problem with that.

JNA's point is a good one. A mono-god daemon army can potentially get screwed over by giving some units a 1+ save that doesn't fail on a roll of 1.

but that is the mono god army's problem, not the terminator's problem. You are misappropriating the issue. Going off of what you and he are saying, it sounds like Mono Nurgle armies are a skew list. It is apparently really really good at one or two things while being useless garbage and completely helpless at other things. Don't play skew lists, unless you're okay with running into something that your army can't deal with and automatically losing the game. As the rules currently are, if you take a bunch of slow, glass Cannon melee units and throw them against my army which is a bunch of hard-hitting artillery, I will crush you. And that's as it should be. If I bring my list that is nothing but hard-hitting artillery against your army which is a deep striking melee horde list, you will crush me. And that's how it should be.

If you want to be able to always have a answer against a particular unit type then you should be making well-rounded TAC lists.

Should every pulse rifle, lasgun, scatter laser, and sororitas bolter in your opponent's army really be disallowed from hurting a terminator?

if those factions have AV/anti-TEQ weapon options then yes I would have absolutely no problem with small arms being completely useless against terminators.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

To be fair, Nurgle daemons are a bit of an odd duck as an example because while they definitely should be a viable standalone faction, they really ought to have more support than they currently do.

Sure, I have no problem with that.

JNA's point is a good one. A mono-god daemon army can potentially get screwed over by giving some units a 1+ save that doesn't fail on a roll of 1.

but that is the mono god army's problem, not the terminator's problem. You are misappropriating the issue. Going off of what you and he are saying, it sounds like Mono Nurgle armies are a skew list. It is apparently really really good at one or two things while being useless garbage and completely helpless at other things. Don't play skew lists, unless you're okay with running into something that your army can't deal with and automatically losing the game. As the rules currently are, if you take a bunch of slow, glass Cannon melee units and throw them against my army which is a bunch of hard-hitting artillery, I will crush you. And that's as it should be. If I bring my list that is nothing but hard-hitting artillery against your army which is a deep striking melee horde list, you will crush me. And that's how it should be.

If you want to be able to always have a answer against a particular unit type then you should be making well-rounded TAC lists.

Should every pulse rifle, lasgun, scatter laser, and sororitas bolter in your opponent's army really be disallowed from hurting a terminator?

if those factions have AV/anti-TEQ weapon options then yes I would have absolutely no problem with small arms being completely useless against terminators.

Nurgle Daemons are presented as a perfectly viable army.

If they cannot make a TAC list, that is an issue with them-and one that I would dare say needs addressing more than literally ANYTHING Marine.

I 100% agree with you. If games workshop is going to advertise mono Nurgle as a viable standalone army then they have a obligation to provide it with rules and units that allow it to be competitive in a TAC environment.

Since we're on the subject that is something that I as a slaanesh player has taken issue with for years. GW has gone out of their way to create anti-synergy for trying to play undivided demons but all of the monogod lists feel super underdeveloped.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Should every pulse rifle, lasgun, scatter laser, and sororitas bolter in your opponent's army really be disallowed from hurting a terminator?

if those factions have AV/anti-TEQ weapon options then yes I would have absolutely no problem with small arms being completely useless against terminators.

This might just be an irreconcilable difference in what you and I want the game to look like. Which is fine. Reasonable people can want different things.

To me, having some units in 40k be literally invulnerable to other units would be a bad thing. If you and I are playing a 1,000 point game and you've taken 750 points worth of terminators, then the only units in my army that are allowed to participate in the core engagement of the game (units fighting each other) are the ones that I happened to put some anti-tank guns into. So if I bring a vanilla TAC list, the unfailable 1+ terminator save mechanic has turned this into a pretty annoying experience as only the special weapons in my troop squads are allowed to actually fight your termies. Even worse, this makes it very easy to create a defensive skew list that basically just has to kill its opponent's anti-tank units to spend the rest of the game being invulnerable.

That's more or less how 5th edition parking lots were against S3 armies (S3 units couldn't punch tanks to death in melee the way S4 armies could). It was a bad experience then, and I don't want to return to it now. Similarly, I did not have fun in 7th edition when list building began and ended with being able to counter invisible death stars or AV 13/13/12 imperial knights.

That kind of blanket invulnerability makes more sense in games where you can change up your army loadout with a side list or mid-game decisions. In 40k, skews like that can screw you over before you even get to the game store.

I'm 100% ok with having some units being invulnerable to others, I just wouldn't put Terminators in that category. But monsters and vehicles? Heck yeah.

But then I'd minimize the possibilities for skew, and rebalance some other things, such as Knights.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm 100% ok with having some units being invulnerable to others, I just wouldn't put Terminators in that category. But monsters and vehicles? Heck yeah.

But then I'd minimize the possibilities for skew, and rebalance some other things, such as Knights.

Fair enough. How would you go about minimizing skew? Seems like you'd have to impose anti-tank quotas on list creation or something. Or put maximums on how many units with certain traits your list can contain. So for instance, you could say that only 50% of your points can be invested in models with the vehicle keyword. Of course, then you'd be invalidating tank companies.

For the tanks vs other stuff problem - originally 40k had masses of wounds on a vehicle (50+? for a land raider from memory), but AT weapons did stuff like 2D12 wounds.

Now that would vape characters, but that wasn't so much of a problem then. Now Abaddon players don't want their guy to disappear when a guardsman hits with an AT weapon, so that makes everything go weird with how the game treats vehicles as bigger people, but doesn't want special people to be turned into smoking boots.

There are limited ways round this sadly given the system. The only one I can see is going back to a lot more wounds for big tough things (MBTs) so its harder to deal with them using anti infantry weapons, AT weapons doing plenty of wounds to them to maintain that parity, and then one of two fixes to save the precious characters.

Either a) have AT weapons get -1 to shoot non tanks (not sure how Nids would fit in here, would need a sensible keyword for anything that is the favoured target of lascannon) OR b) have two damage stats vs tanks and everything else but that would be a lot clunkier.

The advantage of a) is you could expand it so weapons that were useless vs armour could get a -1 to hit and so on.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm 100% ok with having some units being invulnerable to others, I just wouldn't put Terminators in that category. But monsters and vehicles? Heck yeah.

But then I'd minimize the possibilities for skew, and rebalance some other things, such as Knights.

Fair enough. How would you go about minimizing skew? Seems like you'd have to impose anti-tank quotas on list creation or something. Or put maximums on how many units with certain traits your list can contain. So for instance, you could say that only 50% of your points can be invested in models with the vehicle keyword. Of course, then you'd be invalidating tank companies.

Go back to one Battalion only for army comp, stop putting all-heavy-weapons things like Kataphrons in Troops, cut down on vehicle squadrons, Knights get to be LoW choices for AdMech rather than their own Codex. If you want to minimize skew you have to invalidate tank companies. Tank companies are skew.

I'd have a single FOC:

X-X HQ
0-6 Elite
X-8 Troops
0-4 Fast Attack
0-4 Heavy Support
0-2 Flyers
0-2 Fortifications
0-X Dedicated Transports.

Want to add another Elite/FA/Flyer/HS? Pay 2 CP. No additional detachments. Then allow scaling for the troops/HQ requirement, so for 1000 points it'd be 1 and 1, for 1500 it'd be 2 and 3, and so on.

Then any special formations and what not could be handled via unique FOCs in each Codex, themed around that army, where appropriate.

So, to use a simple example, a Iyanden Spirit Host, where it's mostly Elites and HS, but Wraith units get a bonus (like Obsec or whatever). Also lets you play around with what gets 'Core'.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm 100% ok with having some units being invulnerable to others, I just wouldn't put Terminators in that category. But monsters and vehicles? Heck yeah.

But then I'd minimize the possibilities for skew, and rebalance some other things, such as Knights.

Fair enough. How would you go about minimizing skew? Seems like you'd have to impose anti-tank quotas on list creation or something. Or put maximums on how many units with certain traits your list can contain. So for instance, you could say that only 50% of your points can be invested in models with the vehicle keyword. Of course, then you'd be invalidating tank companies.

There are three options for minimizing skew as I see it.

1: Return to stricter FOCs. Too bad mr tank company.
2: Make tank/monster lists less objective-capable, so players can win easier against them without destroying them.
3: Make tanks/monsters more vulnerable when unsupported by infantry. (This is the option I like)

Ideally one could keep making their tank lists, but at some point it should become a negative return, design-wise. Preferably the opposing player has mechanics open to them which make it fun (just out-scoring isn't fun). This is why I'd advocate for more grenade attacks in cc against tanks, more interesting damage charts, and optional subsystem targeting/locational damage against knights or other superheavies.

 Insectum7 wrote:
3: Make tanks/monsters more vulnerable when unsupported by infantry. (This is the option I like)

Please elaborate.