Can terminators make a comeback?

[Hymnblade]

There any positive modifiers in play in the first place. The storm shield modifies the save characteristic, not the roll.

[War Angel]

You should go buy 30 assault terminators then, it will be a good investment for you.

[Hymnblade]

Once again, I don't expect this rule to survive an FAQ. But RAW, it is unambiguous (weird, but unambiguous) that a 1+ effectively ignores modifiers. This is the official GW interpretation, confirmed in the Drukhari FAQ.

 

If you believe this is wrong, by what rule should a roll of 2 against AP2 fail a 1+ save?

[TiguriusX]

 

 

Incase your a visual learner.

I already had this exact same discussion in this exact same thread.

 

I flipped from your position because I too was missing the rule.

 

Read the rule about dice rolls now on page 5.

 

The AP modifies the saving throw dice roll but you can never modify a dice roll to less than 1. It simply becomes 1 (page 5 rule)

 

That is the loop hole GW screwed up on

 

The rule interaction means high AP gets erased and cant punch through Armor 1+

[Waking Dreamer]

You should go buy 30 assault terminators then, it will be a good investment for you.

 

I don't think anybody is deserving of any attitude here.

 

Everyone is civilly discussing an apparent RAW oversight in a very edge example - yet a potentially very powerful one. 

 

Once again, I don't expect this rule to survive an FAQ. But RAW, it is unambiguous (weird, but unambiguous) that a 1+ effectively ignores modifiers. This is the official GW interpretation, confirmed in the Drukhari FAQ.

 

If you believe this is wrong, by what rule should a roll of 2 against AP2 fail a 1+ save?

 

Yeah as said above, the general consensus is that a quick Errata will fix the RAW issue. Some have even said Playtesters have acknowledged the RAW problem:

 

 

Errata on the way according to some playtesters, that rule interaction is an oversight apparently.

Same thing goes for casting smite multiple times with the same psyker.

 

 

@ War Angel:

 

So, by the line of several of your posts you still dont see any RAW problem (like a few others initially), even after the explanation presented? 

 

Also noting that with these explanations (that you currently disagree with), those same people explaining are also agreeing it's probably not what GW  intended, and in the long-term won't be played as such.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Waking Dreamer

[jaxom]

I wrote this elsewhere, but it's clearly a path/process error. How many players apply AP to the save rather than the die roll? It's an extremely common process rather than using the actual process. If terminators are getting the new storm shield rules then it probably made it through play testing because everyone doing the testing was using the common process, where there's no problem in how it works (effectively reduces AP by 1), rather than using the rule with the actual process.

[War Angel]

Your high as a kite if you think this is how it’s meant to be. By your same logic, you never apply the positive modifier because it’s not in the rules.

 

And the rule for storm shield is written on the character sheet, in the past that has meant different models have different benefits from the equipment.

[Kallas]

Your high as a kite if you think this is how it’s meant to be.

 

People have been clearly stating: it's not how it's meant to be (RAI) but it is how it works (RAW).

[TiguriusX]

Your high as a kite if you think this is how it’s meant to be. By your same logic, you never apply the positive modifier because it’s not in the rules.

 

And the rule for storm shield is written on the character sheet, in the past that has meant different models have different benefits from the equipment.

First off...you need to chill and not get personal

 

 

Second...nobody thinks that is the intent. We are pointing out the absurdity and hoping for day 1 errata or faq so this type of argument doesn't happen when people play

[War Angel]

I’m not talking about people who agree that it would be absurd, I’m talking about people who have stated they hope that this sticks around long enough to abuse. I haven’t seen it said here, but my thoughts remain, they are insane to think that.

 

I’m not seeing how your taking the personal if you agree there’s no way this is right.

[BrainFireBob]

If you haven't seen it here, you are jousting at windmills, and casting aggression at this community is inappropriate.

[War Angel]

If you haven't seen it here, you are jousting at windmills, and casting aggression at this community is inappropriate.

I’m not casting aggression, and your accusation would be equally inappropriate.

[Dracos]

You should go buy 30 assault terminators then, it will be a good investment for you.

Sadly some fool either already has them (that’s not the foolish part because Termies look cool) or is ordering them. I just won’t have pity for them when they (here’s the fool part) complain how GW’s sucks and ruined their Deathwing army they spent so much money on.

 

 

Edit: Of course I was building a Lysander version of the Deathwing back in the day when they changed editions. So I speak from experience to some degree. They ever do a Primaris version of Terminators I’ll be broke for months ;)

Edited July 3, 2020 by Dracos

[War Angel]

 

You should go buy 30 assault terminators then, it will be a good investment for you.

Sadly some fool either already has them (that’s not the foolish part because Termies look cool) or is ordering them. I just won’t have pity for them when they (here’s the fool part) complain how GW’s sucks and ruined their Deathwing army they spent so much money on.

Edit: Of course I was building a Lysander version of the Deathwing back in the day when they changed editions. So I speak from experience to some degree. They ever do a Primaris version of Terminators I’ll be broke for months ;)

 

Termies are still awesome, everyone should own a hundred, just so he and two friends can do a battle of the 300. Trying to game the system like this will always be a bad play.

 

Good news is everyone should be looking on EBay shortly after release for those sweet discounted deals.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

If anybody tried to pull this on me I’d pack it up.

[Captain Idaho]

Moving away from rules technicalities, since we all know any disputes will 1) be FAQ'd anyway and 2) no house rule or tournament would allow it. We all know the intent of playing and the practicalities of the game.

 

So with a change to Storm Shields, will we see Assault Terminators coming back? Yes if Land Raiders become worthwhile, frankly. Which is a very distinct possibility.

 

As for regular Terminators - from leaks it appears we'll see the game more expensive save the old favourites we all know and love. That is both good and bad. We'd love them to be more powerful/3 wounds (that's literally all they'd need) but with no points increase it looks likely they're staying the same.

[Medjugorje]

Land Raider + Terminators dont fit anymore. 

Last edtion shows that Terminators are a deepstrike unit. GW had the chance to change that in the last codex to give us better rules  or the 9th edtion embarking rules but they havent... so LR will be just shooting plattforms or a support for other units like shooty ones or very weak ones...

[Hymnblade]

I'm not sure the storm shield change is a net buff to assault terminators. It makes them better against AP1, the same against AP2, and worse against anything AP3 or higher. A lot of the weapons that are problems for Terminators are AP3, like plasma. 9e vehicle rules don't seem to help Land Raiders nearly enough to make them better than deep striking with no scatter for free, IMO. Also, having to disembark wholly within 3" of the transport means every charge is 40mm longer than before.

 

Point costs staying about the same is effectively a buff when most things are going up 10-20%, so that will help. They now compare better to alternatives point for point, especially Assault Centurions that got a big hike.

[Captain Idaho]

I'd say Storm Shield Terminators are most vulnerable to AP-1 weapons that are rapid fire (with a small R and F). Several hits from Autocannons, Ork Lootas, Heavy Bolter equivalent spam, Bolt Rifles... things that move them to 3+ save.

 

Plasma was never the way to kill Storm Shield troops really. Not unless you had a lot of it and if you do, you're not killing other stuff if you're bouncing off 2/3 of a unit.

[Hymnblade]

Right, plasma wasn't an efficient way to kill assault terminators, but it is now. That's why I don't think it's a net buff.

[Volt]

Your high as a kite if you think this is how it’s meant to be. By your same logic, you never apply the positive modifier because it’s not in the rules.

 

And the rule for storm shield is written on the character sheet, in the past that has meant different models have different benefits from the equipment.

It's literally a thing in Age of Sigmar however, so this could end up being the intention. People were asking if a functional 2++ was the intention of the rules for the Stegadon (iirc that model, might be another), and GW clarified that yes, it is the intention for the unit to have a functional 2++.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Isn’t the point that they could have a modified 1 which would be unfailable ?

[Hymnblade]

You'd still fail on a natural 1, so it's not unfailable.

[Volt]

Isn’t the point that they could have a modified 1 which would be unfailable ?

No, it's not an improvement to the dice roll but the actual armor save, which is why it's a functional 2++ in the first place. If it were just a buff to the dice roll, it wouldn't make the unit invulnerable as it would be cancelled out by AP. For example the Bullgryns get shields that add 2 to their armor save rolls.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

I think they (GW) dont care how you get your 4++. If the captain has no Iron halo he would have a 4++ because of the shield. You dont have to write down every single rule which would have the same efffect.

funny how complicated it seems for some people

 

 

It's for consistency. If they ever put the relic shield on a model that has no iron halo or other 4++, it won't have an invulnerable save. It may be redundant on this one model because it already has an iron halo, but it's important to be consistent and build good rules foundations for the future. And no, the Captain would not have a 4++ without his iron halo because his shield doesn't provide an invulnerable save. You can't just assume it does when it's not written there, that's literally how rules work: they only do what they have written down.

Edited July 4, 2020 by Tyberos the Red Wake