WH40k game Indomitus Terminators

[DesuVult]

Don't like d6 damage.

[Blindhamster]

Surprised the power sword looks like the bladeguard one but isn’t master crafted tbh

[jimbo1701]

14 minutes ago, DesuVult said:

Don't like d6 damage.

I can live with it on a multi purpose weapon like the missive launcher but on say the las cannon would like to see a more guaranteed damage profile 

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

31 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

Surprised the power sword looks like the bladeguard one but isn’t master crafted tbh

 

May be more a case of Bladeguard losing the MC distinction (as has been rumored for a while) and the Termie weapon just matching that.

3 hours ago, Kallas said:

With Power Weapons going back to being an all-encompassing category, rather than the nuance of Power Swords, Axes and Mauls, I'm hoping they just make the Bolt Rifle (and variants) and Bolter all the same. 

 

 Very generous of you - an outspoken Firstborn proponent - to give up the Bolt Rifle variant distinctions on behalf of Primaris players.

[Guest Triszin]

1 hour ago, zero888 said:

So Assault Cannons are back to 4th edition "Rending" rules........

 

Not a fan of Power Fists not being unwieldy. If the intent is to make the edition less lethal, then hitting on a 4+ would be a great tradeoff to have D2. IMO. Maybe Terminators don't have the negative to hit to represent the armor but a PA Sergeant will? Overall nothing too shocking so far, I'll stay cautiously optimistic

So, maybe powerfists when on termis arent unwieldy.

 

But when they are on non termi units they are.

 

Lots of unknowns atm

[Emperor Ming]

I thought they said random damage was gone

 

Increased T and Inv save is rather disappointing, that's not exactly toning down the power creep

[jimbo1701]

7 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

I thought they said random damage was gone

 

Increased T and Inv save is rather disappointing, that's not exactly toning down the power creep

I quite like that terminators will be the walking tanks they are purported to be. Points will hopefully reflect it and opponents will need to factor in anti-heavy infantry rather than relying on anti tank or anti horde weaponry. 

[ZeroWolf]

Just now, jimbo1701 said:

I quite like that terminators will be the walking tanks they are purported to be. Points will hopefully reflect it and opponents will need to factor in anti-heavy infantry rather than relying on anti tank or anti horde weaponry. 

Agreed, this is how Terminators are supposed to be.

 

Also at what point did GW say random damage was gone?

[Vardus]

12 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

I thought they said random damage was gone

 

Increased T and Inv save is rather disappointing, that's not exactly toning down the power creep

 

Is it really power creep when everything is supposed to be starting at a new baseline?

[acrozatarim]

33 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

Agreed, this is how Terminators are supposed to be.

 

Also at what point did GW say random damage was gone?

 

I don't think they did say that, or at least, if they did then it's news to me.

 

I've always struggled a bit with Terminators because my first experience with them was the 2nd ed version, where the 3+ on 2d6 armour save never really had an equivalent in later editions. Obviously, from a design point of view, having to roll 2d6 for each and every save would massively slow everything down, so I understand why it's been done away with, but they've never had quite the right feel since of being these massively-armoured walking tanks. Hopefully the boost to T5 and the general reduction in AP will go some way to reclaiming that old feel.

[Widowmaker82]

1 hour ago, zero888 said:

So Assault Cannons are back to 4th edition "Rending" rules........

Assault Cannons have Devastating Wounds, not Critical Wounds (which is part of the Anti—X ability). They’ve not revealed what Devastating Wounds actually does.

Also, as far as I can tell from that article, critical wounds just overrides the standard S vs T formula - so Chain Fists have Anti-Vehicle 3+ and always wound vehicles on a 3+. It doesn’t say anything else about what Critical Wounds does, though I’m guessing it does something more (otherwise why not just say that anything wounds on a roll of 6 and Anti-X weapons wound keyword X models on the stated roll). A bit early to jump to conclusions though… rending in 4th bypassed armour saves as well, and we have no idea if Critical Wounds will do that. 
 

One thing that really stood out for me on the Terminator datasheet was the restraint in the AP and damage stats for the weapons. 

[acrozatarim]

Just now, Widowmaker82 said:

 

One thing that really stood out for me on the Terminator datasheet was the restraint in the AP and damage stats for the weapons. 

 

I really hope they carry this through with the rest of the units. What I'm desperate to avoid is where you have a lascannon, then someone gets a lascannon ++ like the various *lances, then everyone elses' lascannons have to be ++ as well, til the few original lascannons still in the game feel like the forgotten stepchildren of the system.

[KnightofSigismund]

I’m wondering how they will do aggressors after seeing this. 

[Lemondish]

2 hours ago, jimbo1701 said:

I can live with it on a multi purpose weapon like the missive launcher but on say the las cannon would like to see a more guaranteed damage profile 

I'm actually totally okay with swingy damage. It'll go a long way to help reduce the overall feeling of lethality in the game. Sometimes your las is gonna glance. We just kind of hate it right now because there are so many reasons to avoid these profiles since mid Str, mid AP, 2 damage in high volume basically just dominates literally everything, everywhere.

1 hour ago, Emperor Ming said:

I thought they said random damage was gone

Lol where was that said?

[DesuVult]

A lascannon glancing a HP off a vehicle was fine because you still took off a good chunk of health.  A lascannon rolling a 1 for damage means your damage must pass through another gate because even marines have 2 wounds so it will take another lascannon to kill the wounded marine.  For low volume weapons this tends to make them nor worthwhile as you miss 1/3 of the time, fail to wound 1/6 or 1/3 of the time, they save 1/3 or 1/6 of the time, and then you fail to do appreciable damage 1/6 of the time.  Flat damage weapons remove the last gate so see noticeable uptick in reliability and usually kills as well as a result.

[Lemondish]

This might be a bit of a stretch, but I suspect Bolter Discipline goes away. Here's why I think that...

 

Right now, in the context of how rapid-fire weapons work, Terminators always fire 4 shots at the storm bolter's maximum range due to the Bolter Discipline part of the Angels of Death ability.

 

One would think, given the design intent here, a Storm Bolter emulating this would just show 4 attacks without any special rule like rapid fire applied. That would certainly be in line with how these data cards are meant to simplify things, right? What we can see right now is potential design space where these profiles essentially consider not just the weapon but the user as well. That space could eliminate Bolter Discipline entirely by just tweaking the weapon profile on the cards itself.

 

Yet we see that the Bolters here have the rapid fire rule, which I think could mean Bolter Discipline no longer exists.

[Doctor Perils]

2 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

Surprised the power sword looks like the bladeguard one but isn’t master crafted tbh

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if master crafted became a distinction for a few cases where both a Sergeant and members of their unit could have a power weapon (eg Vanguard Veterans)

[Kallas]

3 hours ago, Lord Nord said:

Very generous of you - an outspoken Firstborn proponent - to give up the Bolt Rifle variant distinctions on behalf of Primaris players.

Ok. Not like Primaris proponents have proposed giving up all Firstborn on behalf of Primaris players or anything...  

 

Regardless, streamlining is something GW are doing, as evidenced by merging the Power Weapons back into one entry; it makes sense to do the same with all low level weapons such as the various Bolt Rifles. I could see the Stalker remaining somewhat distinct, but it's a logical step to do such a merge. Marines are one of the few factions to have such variety in basic weapons: reducing the number of marginally different weapons to streamline the game and rules is something that some Primaris proponents have called for often over the past few months. The same could be said for the Corsairs Shuriken Rifles and Guardian Shuriken Catapults.

 

It would also go to reducing the divide and making all kinds of Space Marines just...Space Marines again, instead of either or, and brings both lines closer to being one and the same - whichever way the player wants to go. Base on whichever Bolter/Bolt Rifle/Auto Bolt Rifle/Stalker Bolt Rifle you want, it's doing what people of all almost stripes have been asking for: reducing superflous rules.

[Orange Knight]

On the topic of Bolt Rifles, I don't feel they need any consolidation. They actually make the unit play quite differently. 

 

If GW wants to merge the options, the effects of the different bolt rifles should remain as a selection of ammo types. At the start of each turn you could chose the ammo type, for example.

 

Upon reviewing the Terminators, we haven't yet seen a weapon that would even force them to take their improved invul save. Power and Chain-Fist and the Power Sword are only AP-2. I wonder which weapons will retain the high AP Values. I have a feeling that even Plasma weapons could work in a way similar to the Heresy, where the high AP valued are only resolved on a roll of 4+ to wound.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Orange Knight

[Captain Idaho]

Bolters kinda need to lose the AP etc. I mean, if Power Fists are just AP-2 and Assault Cannons AP0, bolters can't be AP-1 etc.

 

GW did say they're reducing AP across the board.

Edited April 4, 2023 by Captain Idaho

[Orange Knight]

I agree with this.

 

They could mess around with the ranges and rate of fire.

 

Eg:

 

Bolt Rifle: 2 Shots at 30" Str 4 D1

 

Auto Bolt Rifle: Rapid Fire1, 2 Shots at 24" Str 4 D1 (So 3 Shots at 12")

 

Heavy Bolt Rifle: 1 Shot at 36" Str4 Ap-1 D1

 

 

[DesuVult]

 

4 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

I agree with this.

 

They could mess around with the ranges and rate of fire.

 

Eg:

 

Bolt Rifle: 2 Shots at 30" Str 4 D1

 

Auto Bolt Rifle: Rapid Fire1, 2 Shots at 24" Str 4 D1 (So 3 Shots at 12")

 

Heavy Bolt Rifle: 1 Shot at 36" Str4 Ap-1 D1

 

 

You are putting AP on basic rifles again.

Edited April 4, 2023 by DesuVult

[Orange Knight]

Just now, DesuVult said:

What kind of stat differentiation do people even want for basic bolters?

You are putting AP on basic rifles again.

 

On a sniper rifle variant. And it's currently AP-2

[DesuVult]

Just now, Orange Knight said:

 

On a sniper rifle variant. And it's currently AP-2

It being AP -2 now isn't a good thing either.

[Orange Knight]

AP is being reduced, not removed. Some weapons should have it, and they likely will.

 

A single shot rifle with long range is a suitable candidate to keep an AP modifier.