60 replies to this topic

[ValourousHeart]

Please show me the text saying...

That when joining a Mixed-Unit, the model with abilities that affect the Unit cannot be used in Mixed units

The mixed unit rules only apply to toughness. I think you've been more focused on wound allocation priority and saves.
For example
If you need to make 5 armor saves..choose a save stat from your unit. After all saves are resolved using that chosen save, you allocate wounds first to all models who share that same Save stat.

 

We've been talking about the rule on page 51 under the heading Abilities.  The sentence that starts with "A Model in a Kill Team".  If you are away from your book, go up to my first post in this thread, I quoted it word for word. 

[Debauchery101]

Please show me the text saying...That when joining a Mixed-Unit, the model with abilities that affect the Unit cannot be used in Mixed units

The mixed unit rules only apply to toughness. I think you've been more focused on wound allocation priority and saves.
For example
If you need to make 5 armor saves..choose a save stat from your unit. After all saves are resolved using that chosen save, you allocate wounds first to all models who share that same Save stat.

We've been talking about the rule on page 51 under the heading Abilities. The sentence that starts with "A Model in a Kill Team". If you are away from your book, go up to my first post in this thread, I quoted it word for word.

The abilities section has nothing to do with mixed unit rules. You mentioned 'mixed unit rules' multiple times dude. Re read your own posts.
I'm not going to keep repeating what others and myself have said about how the Deathwatch Terminator Crux Terminatus. Either you're now trolling or your reading comprehension is not adequate to have this conversation.

[GrinNfool]

Hehe, these kind of conflicts is part of the reason i play 30k instead.

 

No one in the 30k community would argue against a sensible RAI "interpretation" were the RAW is obviously (a mistake from GW part) unsensible.

 

I'm sure you all agree tha it is unsensible that a termie in a squad of power armoured members bestow the termie invul save onto the other squad members, regardless of what GW wrote in the rules. Therefore this discussion would not have occured in the 30k community.

I am not taking a side on this either way, but for a bit in DWs first codex a term did give 5++ to a unit, got faq'd eventually, so likely unintended here, but I think arguing intent either way is hard in this case.

Edited by GrinNfool, 24 December 2020 - 03:54 AM.

[ValourousHeart]

 

 

Please show me the text saying...That when joining a Mixed-Unit, the model with abilities that affect the Unit cannot be used in Mixed units

The mixed unit rules only apply to toughness. I think you've been more focused on wound allocation priority and saves.
For example
If you need to make 5 armor saves..choose a save stat from your unit. After all saves are resolved using that chosen save, you allocate wounds first to all models who share that same Save stat.

We've been talking about the rule on page 51 under the heading Abilities. The sentence that starts with "A Model in a Kill Team". If you are away from your book, go up to my first post in this thread, I quoted it word for word.

The abilities section has nothing to do with mixed unit rules. You mentioned 'mixed unit rules' multiple times dude. Re read your own posts.
I'm not going to keep repeating what others and myself have said about how the Deathwatch Terminator Crux Terminatus. Either you're now trolling or your reading comprehension is not adequate to have this conversation.

 

I quoted the rule I was talking about verbatim in my first post.  None of what we've been talking about has ever touched on different toughness or keywords.  You've even referenced back to me the rule I quoted in my original post.  I'm not sure why you are claiming now that you were unaware of the the rule I was talking about, especially since it is the rule that allows you to have Crux Terminatus on a TDA model you add into a kill team, which kicked off this entire thread.

 

I'm not trolling, I'm simply trying to direct your attention to the rule that prevents you from doing what you claim is possible around your own admission that the rule shouldn't work the way you are planning on using it.

 

But it is obvious now that this conversation has only entrenched you in your plan, and no logical discussion is going to move you from your position.  All I ask is that you not be rude to your opponents if they challenge you on this.

 

Merry Christmas.

[Debauchery101]

Dude...
My reference to mixed unit rules was only to point out that it is a specifically labeled rule that applies to the unit when being attacked. Specifically on how to determine what toughness is being used to wound said unit. So I was trying to dissuade you or anyone from saying it anymore.

I also dont understand how you're claiming I was unaware of what you said...when did I say that?
You're interpretation of the rule your keep mentioning is the very thing we've been matching up to the crux Terminatus listed in the DEATHWATCH TERMINATOR SQUAD datasheet.
Pg 51 Abilities
A model in a kill team unit retains any abilities that applied to that model on its original datasheet...ok so he doesn't lose his crux Terminatus....
Let's read the rest to make sure there aren't anymore exceptions....
If a model in a kill team unit has an ability on their original datasheet that requires every model in the unit to have that ability in order to be able to use it, then they can only use that ability if every model in their kill team unit has that ability....
So the terminator gets to keep and use his ability. It does not grant an ability to others in the kill team nor does it require others for him to use it.
When he dies it goes away.
To convey my point and what others are trying to explain to you is that the Abilities section DOES NOT exclude Abilities that affect others in the kill team unless it is an ability that requires all the models in the kill team unit have the ability.
If you can find text that says "a model in a kill team retains any abilities that are ONLY applied to that model that are on its original datasheet"...then I would say your argument has some weight to it. But as it stands, that's not the case. But that would still require GW to rewrite crux Terminatus to only grant the 5+ invul save to itself or it would lose it because its ability grants it to the whole unit

Another option GW could do is to make the Crux Terminatus a key word.

I also never said the rule isnt supposed to work that way. I am arguing that it is supposed to work that way but I'm pretty sure GW did not intend to write it the way they did to allow the crux terminatus to apply to a kill team unit that has models without the ability.

I wasn't trying to be rude just a bit snarky. Only because it appears you have your mind too focused on the intended use. My first reply to this topic was..."Interesting"...because it had not crossed my mind and I had not made a detailed examination of this from a textual, black and white view point...which is something Qui-Gon is always going to lean towards even if he knows it needs to be changed.

I dont plan to use this in a competitive event but if I did, I would run by the TOs prior and make my case. Im 100% fine with TOs making arbitrary decisions prior to the match, especially in ranked events. If I choose to play in the event then its on me. But I will make contact with the ITC/RTC if I feel that the TOs go against the RAW. Most often they will only do that in regards to terrain interaction, conversions/proxies and a model's base size because that is something that is applied evenly to all players
They will lose reputation and participation if they start making changes to an armie's rules if it comes out that they were wrong.

If pre event I was told I could use the rule as written I would still explain it to my opponent and if he had questions I will show him the email response allowing me to use it this way.

Now if mid event they made a decision against this or did a dice roll off vs holding court to examine this in more detail...I'd let it go because most likely its going to take up some time from your opponents turn since he's attacking you and I hate giving my time to an opponent because we have lawyer up to resolve the issue.
Id bet money most judges would read what I'm explaining and get surprised that the RAW tramples on the RAI
One of the other aspects of DW kill teams is that they have a lot of very specific restrictions and a detailed list of how the different units interact with the Kill Team.

Anyways I rest my case and I'm taking recess on this issue until after the holidays. I will be playing multiple games with my brother and friends for most of the weekend. I'll gather some data

[Master Sheol]

The rules about kill team say

"A model in a Kill team retains the abilities that apply to THAT model"

So a Terminator has the crux terminatus that grants him 5++ and only him retains this ability cause no other model in a Kill team has this ability

 

However don't worry as your interpretation of the rules is horrible and not intellectual honest i already written to GW to have a clarification so GW will recognize where it it written badly and fix it with a FAQ so you will finish to bend the rules at your own advantage

 

This is a game where you should have fun with a friend and not a game where you shows how smart you are in bending the rules to WAAC a toy soldier game

[Debauchery101]

The rules about kill team say
"A model in a Kill team retains the abilities that apply to THAT model"
So a Terminator has the crux terminatus that grants him 5++ and only him retains this ability cause no other model in a Kill team has this ability

However don't worry as your interpretation of the rules is horrible and not intellectual honest i already written to GW to have a clarification so GW will recognize where it it written badly and fix it with a FAQ so you will finish to bend the rules at your own advantage

This is a game where you should have fun with a friend and not a game where you shows how smart you are in bending the rules to WAAC a toy soldier game

no one is being intellectually dishonest. I dont see anyone here actually being a huge advocate for using this. We're making the case that this is 100% written poorly. Example being is that every other codex entry for a single terminator model, including terminator wolf guard pack leaders...they've worded it to only apply to that model. The WGPL actually just got their crux in the eratta. Seeing how the trend was not followed although they've added so much detail into the kill team construction makes it an obvious mistake that can legitimately be argued to use with a RAW standard. Thats GWs fault, not mine, not yours, not a TOs or any random WAAC player who wants to use the RAW. We have to also realize most rules changes come from discovery and/or abuse in competitive platforms which eschew balance.
This topic is being discussed in a few forums/groups. Seems most people agree RAW wins out because nothing stops the terminator from having the crux terminatus and the unit wide application was not changed in line to other similar situations.
Imagine if it was somehow removed from him due to the guidelines ie not everyone in the unit has it...even though we know he at least individually he should have 5+ invul...good luck trying to argue that at a tournament.

That is the only reason this situation is being discussed. Play however you want with friends.

GW should have just made a Datasheet for each killteam even if they end up being long. Because as it is right now we have to cross reference between 2 books, 3 pages of outlines and 4 datasheets.


I did play some games with my brother using this. Honestly is restricts a 10 man unit that isn't being teleported via strat. I prefer drop pods for proteus teams. I'd rather put 7 vets, 1 Apothecary and 2 company vets in a drop pod. 3 storm shields being the bullet sponges ends up being better in the long run.

There is a case for using the RAW to say makean MSU proteus team of 5 vets and 1 terminator. At just under 200pts they'd all have stalkers and a plasma cannon. Not bad for sitting in the backfield.

It seems like peolle are wasting a lot of energy, argueing this issue when its not a huge boost...myself included...especially since I honestly haven't seen anyone wanting to actually use this...its all "well if we wanted to, we could, GW is retarded " vs "hell no you cant"

Edited by Debauchery101, 27 December 2020 - 08:43 PM.

[ValourousHeart]

So let me make sure I have your logic flow outlined correctly

 

1. every other codex entry for a single terminator model, including terminator wolf guard pack leaders...they've worded it to only apply to that model. 

2. Seems most people agree RAW wins out because nothing stops the terminator from having the crux terminatus and the unit wide application was not changed in line to other similar situations.

3. We have to also realize most rules changes come from discovery and/or abuse in competitive platforms which eschew balance.

4. Imagine if it was somehow removed from him due to the guidelines ie not everyone in the unit has it...even though we know he at least individually he should have 5+ invul...good luck trying to argue that at a tournament.

 

5. That's GWs fault, not mine, not yours, not a TOs or any random WAAC player who wants to use the RAW.

 

6. no one is being intellectually dishonest.

 

1.  All identical examples in the game handle this specific rule as only affecting a single model.

2A.  Vaguely defined "similar situations" with the notable exception of any of the identical examples covered in #1 create an ambiguous situation available for exploit.

2B.  You have discovered an echo chamber that agrees with your handling of this exploit.

3.  Competitive platforms abuse exploits like this all of the time, so we should follow their example.

4.  Hey look at this strawman!

5.  This is just shifting blame to GW for everyone else's actions.

6.  This one was moved here because it was the conclusion you were arguing from.

 

Hopefully now that I've realigned the argument into the logic sequence, you can now see that...

 

#1 defines what GW has done.

#2A defines what you have done in opposition to GW.

#2B and #3 are what other people have done and stand as justification for your actions.

#4 is a strawman to make your alternative seem more palatable while misdirecting the reader away from what the actual alternative is, #1. 

#5 is like politicians blaming their political rival for why they got caught breaking the lockdown measures they've imposed on the rest of us.

Which makes #6 clearly a false statement.

[Master Sheol]

So let me make sure I have your logic flow outlined correctly

1. every other codex entry for a single terminator model, including terminator wolf guard pack leaders...they've worded it to only apply to that model.
2. Seems most people agree RAW wins out because nothing stops the terminator from having the crux terminatus and the unit wide application was not changed in line to other similar situations.
3. We have to also realize most rules changes come from discovery and/or abuse in competitive platforms which eschew balance.
4. Imagine if it was somehow removed from him due to the guidelines ie not everyone in the unit has it...even though we know he at least individually he should have 5+ invul...good luck trying to argue that at a tournament.

5. That's GWs fault, not mine, not yours, not a TOs or any random WAAC player who wants to use the RAW.

6. no one is being intellectually dishonest.

1. All identical examples in the game handle this specific rule as only affecting a single model.
2A. Vaguely defined "similar situations" with the notable exception of any of the identical examples covered in #1 create an ambiguous situation available for exploit.
2B. You have discovered an echo chamber that agrees with your handling of this exploit.
3. Competitive platforms abuse exploits like this all of the time, so we should follow their example.
4. Hey look at this strawman!
5. This is just shifting blame to GW for everyone else's actions.
6. This one was moved here because it was the conclusion you were arguing from.

Hopefully now that I've realigned the argument into the logic sequence, you can now see that...

#1 defines what GW has done.
#2A defines what you have done in opposition to GW.
#2B and #3 are what other people have done and stand as justification for your actions.
#4 is a strawman to make your alternative seem more palatable while misdirecting the reader away from what the actual alternative is, #1.
#5 is like politicians blaming their political rival for why they got caught breaking the lockdown measures they've imposed on the rest of us.
Which makes #6 clearly a false statement.

Stand up ovation

Edited by Master Sheol, 28 December 2020 - 05:42 AM.

[Spinsanity]

2B.  You have discovered an echo chamber that agrees with your handling of this exploit.

I so far have refrained from commenting in this thread because I found the argument pretty pointless. I agree with pretty much everyone that the intention seems clear, that the 5++ should only apply to the terminators, but agree with Debauchery that the wording used is definitely wrong, it clearly states everyone in the unit is entitled to the save.

And quoting the Mixed Unit rule does not help in the slightest, at least not the rule that is being quoted here anyway (sorry, I don't have the 'dex, so I have to go with the arguments that have been provided here). The rule specifically mentions "an ability on their datasheet that requires every model in the unit to have that ability in order to be able to use it", but there is absolutely no mention on the quoted Crux Terminatus rule that says every model in the unit needs the ability to use it.

And then you have the nerve to say "oh, you found your own echo chamber, good for you" while congratulating yourself because others agree with you? Seriously?


Seriously, everyone just needs to let the argument slide until a definite answer is provided in a FAQ, because obviously noone here is going to change their stance, not with the kind of arguments being flung by either side of the debate

[Debauchery101]

Its like GW saying Chaos Space Marines will get the extra Wound put into their stat line but we don't get to actually do it until they put in text. Same with the changes to any cross faction options that are shown in the new datasheets included in kit instructions. Partly because theyre incomplete rules/stats and unknown points update.
You want to talk about strawman? Lol you keep gaslighting my explanation as if I'm an advocate for really trying to push this through across all DW players
You can also hate the competitive scene for what It is but thankfully its the smallest group and represents the most minor portion of most gamers playing.
When I mentioned that community in your #3, I again am just stating facts. In 8th we were introduced to rule of 3. We watched 3 marine codex supplements, deathwatch and knight's castellan/rotate ion shields get nerfed. ALL due to the Competitive scene. Playing those rules at your LGM with friends and randoms, most likely won't see those extreme cases on the board....
Rules they previewed for us to play with and when we only had our new books for a week they axed the best parts. I am in no way happy that we lose stuff that end up weighing on our choice to buy material from GW. My mentioning of burning it out in the tournament scene is purely to get change. Amongst friends and casual games the first and most likely only resolution to broken rules is to avoid using them to the extreme when playing. Especially for marines because they have basically every tool in the game. That group also doesn't have world wide tracking of army lists and results vs other factions. Its real data that will end up being a big part in factoring balance and change.
This example like we've all said...is raw but obviously not RAI.
I like the culture referencing in arguments. Really I do. I just do think that situation applies to this
It's more like antifa/blm (competitive players) burning down their own cities and businesses(normal players) because the government(gw) won't balance the game.
Business owners are pissed because they just want to be left alone and Competitive players know how to get the rules changed the quickest. By breaking the meta...Richard sieglar had his whole team, at 2020 LVO use Iron Hands leviathan lists. Even that doesn't always get the fixes when and how we want them
IH and the raven guard got substantial rebalancing after the event.
Just realize we all agree on 99.9 of the game rules. We mostly agree that there is textual mistakes/vagueness. We also have different interpretations. So its not being intellectually dishonest to disagree. It truly is GW responsibility to bridge the gaps and specify ability interactions. For rules like this we need to have GW clarification as a foundation so we can all agree

[Master Sheol]

Its like GW saying Chaos Space Marines will get the extra Wound put into their stat line but we don't get to actually do it until they put in text. Same with the changes to any cross faction options that are shown in the new datasheets included in kit instructions. Partly because theyre incomplete rules/stats and unknown points update.
You want to talk about strawman? Lol you keep gaslighting my explanation as if I'm an advocate for really trying to push this through across all DW players
You can also hate the competitive scene for what It is but thankfully its the smallest group and represents the most minor portion of most gamers playing.
When I mentioned that community in your #3, I again am just stating facts. In 8th we were introduced to rule of 3. We watched 3 marine codex supplements, deathwatch and knight's castellan/rotate ion shields get nerfed. ALL due to the Competitive scene. Playing those rules at your LGM with friends and randoms, most likely won't see those extreme cases on the board....
Rules they previewed for us to play with and when we only had our new books for a week they axed the best parts. I am in no way happy that we lose stuff that end up weighing on our choice to buy material from GW. My mentioning of burning it out in the tournament scene is purely to get change. Amongst friends and casual games the first and most likely only resolution to broken rules is to avoid using them to the extreme when playing. Especially for marines because they have basically every tool in the game. That group also doesn't have world wide tracking of army lists and results vs other factions. Its real data that will end up being a big part in factoring balance and change.
This example like we've all said...is raw but obviously not RAI.
I like the culture referencing in arguments. Really I do. I just do think that situation applies to this
It's more like antifa/blm (competitive players) burning down their own cities and businesses(normal players) because the government(gw) won't balance the game.
Business owners are pissed because they just want to be left alone and Competitive players know how to get the rules changed the quickest. By breaking the meta...Richard sieglar had his whole team, at 2020 LVO use Iron Hands leviathan lists. Even that doesn't always get the fixes when and how we want them
IH and the raven guard got substantial rebalancing after the event.
Just realize we all agree on 99.9 of the game rules. We mostly agree that there is textual mistakes/vagueness. We also have different interpretations. So its not being intellectually dishonest to disagree. It truly is GW responsibility to bridge the gaps and specify ability interactions. For rules like this we need to have GW clarification as a foundation so we can all agree

If we want to be really RAW the rule about 5++ on the terminators is the rule about CRUX TERMINATUS thet is the one on the left shoulder pad that they say it contains a shard of the Emperor armour

Now where is the crux terminatus on the other models? nowhere cause only terminators had this insignia

So considering that Crux Terminatus is NOT the Azrael helmet creating bubble force shield that protect all models around only Terminators can use it to protect themselves with 5++

 

Does it sound ridicolous to you?

Your intepretation of the rules sound ridicolous to me too

But while my intepretation is baseon on the lore of the game your intepretation is based on grammatical issues so my has more importance than yours

 

LOL

[Brother Tyler]

It looks like we need a little time out.

If anyone can think of additional arguments to bolster one side or the other, please report this post so that the mods/admins can re-open it for further constructive discussion.

[Brother Tyler]

I've re-opened this topic for further constructive arguments (without anyone needing to repeat any arguments that have already been provided).

[Debauchery101]

Does it sound ridicolous to you?
Your intepretation of the rules sound ridicolous to me too
But while my intepretation is baseon on the lore of the game your intepretation is based on grammatical issues so my has more importance than yours

LOL

That is exactly why you should remove yourself from the discussion. Because nobody is arguing the intentions or the lore of the game and space marine terminators. Its also why your argument does not have more importance than mine...theyre 2 different things. Don't expect that moving the goal post will get people to agree with you or that it makes you correct.. So just sit back and wait for GW to make a correction. You can also rest assured most people will not play like this.

[Debauchery101]

I have messaged Frontline gaming and a couple TOs to get a more authoritative perspective.

[ValourousHeart]

Didn't you say earlier that it was at the events hosted by these TOs is where we find all of the abuse that GW FAQs? Wouldn't that mean the possibility that the TOs judgement factored into the event that caused the FAQ entry?

 

Be sure to post up here what they say, and how you plan to proceed given their response.

[Debauchery101]

Didn't you say earlier that it was at the events hosted by these TOs is where we find all of the abuse that GW FAQs? Wouldn't that mean the possibility that the TOs judgement factored into the event that caused the FAQ entry?

Be sure to post up here what they say, and how you plan to proceed given their response.

Most TOs in the competitive scene lean towards RAW. Especially when a codex has had a recent FAQ/errata and if they can't get any sort of response from GW on the issue. They let the iron hands thing go on even after the first initial FAQ when people were telling them about it..was it oversight? Was it their own judgement? Same thing with the Raptors+ 2x Master of ambush+ centurions..those issues weren't fixed until after the 2020 LVO..I think 5 or 6 of the final players all had iron hands or raven guard/raptors lists. I really don't blame the players. Its a huge waste of time to compete without the most competitive list. But cheers to them being well known players/teams for intentionally doing that. Because it put GW on the spot.. if only 1 or 2 guys in the event used those lists we'd just praise them on being clever.
Regardless of what they say..I won't use it. The way I play Proteus teams doesn't need nor want terminators. Because usually 3 to 5 have storm shields for a 2+/5+. Which are 13 points cheaper, can use drop pods and rhinos. I can also put 7 vets, chief apothecary and 2 CoVets in a pod. Give the selfless healer trait and aegis relic to the medic...its a way more flexible and sturdy set up

[Lemondish]

Two things to note...

 

1. Wording is clear

2. One FAQ released in December without it mentioned, and it also wasn't included in the massive update released this week

[leth]

RAW it says one thing, however I would never play it this way. 

 

I think the wording in kill team Cassius gives precedent. The terminator has the same name for the rule, only it says that the invul says that it only applies to the model.

 

 

GW doesn’t always FAQ things that they think are beyond reasonable. This could easily fall under this category and that if people keep asking questions then it will make it into the next one. 
 

there is also a differance between an errata and an FAQ, an errata changes the rules, an FAQ is just a clarification of the rules. Getting an errata that changes to what you were saying doesn’t mean you were right before. 

Edited by leth, 08 January 2021 - 09:35 PM.

[Lemondish]

Getting an errata that changes to what you were saying doesn’t mean you were right before.

Then I suppose in that same line of thinking, never getting an errata would mean you are? I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here.

[Debauchery101]

We went down this same road already. We can see its most likely not intended. We all agree its probably best not to play that way. It also has escaped the first round of updates. If argued for use as RAW its most likely a solid win as well as not being a game breaking mechanic.
Its not a buff that you can slap onto something you're already taking. You'd need to build with it in mind and that also narrows your options. I played a few small games to test these squads vs the ones I have 3 to 4 storm.shields in. The added cost for the terminator is almost 3 storm shields. You will tank a lot more plasma and melta with those couple shields than the squad wide 5+

[leth]

 

Getting an errata that changes to what you were saying doesn’t mean you were right before.

Then I suppose in that same line of thinking, never getting an errata would mean you are? I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here.

 

the impression I got was that the person above was saying that the people were playing it wrong because GW later errated it. 
 

so yes, not playing it giving the unit a 5++ is playing it wrong, but I am personally perfectly fine with that since I don’t think that was intended, despite how it is written, 

[Inquisitor lorr]

This post is making my eyes bleed. People’s complete inability to separate their agenda from the interpretation of basic (albeit) poorly drafted English is astonishing.

RAW relies on a pure and strict interpretation of the language as written, with no purposive element to it. The minute you introduce that you are straying into RAI. RAW versus RAI is an entirely distinct argument.

Everyone seems to be pretty much agreed that applying RAI the 5++ should not extend to the unit.

However, RAW working through each step, the balance is in favour of it applying. I don’t see why the mixed unit rule even comes into play - the whole unit is deemed to have the same save as per the DW crux terminatus rule. They are not therefore mixed for those purposes.

P.s. I have absolutely no investment in the outcome of this decision.

[techsoldaten]

Two things to note...

 

1. Wording is clear

2. One FAQ released in December without it mentioned, and it also wasn't included in the massive update released this week

 

First off, glad this thread was reopened. Found it thought provoking and wanted to offer another perspective.

 

Games Workshop clarified rules around Turbo Boost and Fall Back and Shoot for Kill Teams. While it may seem absurd, they did not explicitly deny the Crux Terminatus rules for Terminator models.

 

Instead of arguing over whether or not this was intentional, maybe we should consider what the game designers were thinking when they wrote the supplement and the FAQ.

 

I get the sense they struggled translating Deathwatch into 9th edition.

 

As someone who traditionally plays Chaos, I'm used to facing Deathwatch armies where every unit has SIA and Kill Teams can almost always has a Storm Shield Terminator tanking wounds and a Vanguard Vet giving them Fall Back and Shoot.

 

That's all gone, 9th ed Deathwatch is a very different animal. To me, it looks like a generic Space Marine army that can use doctrines out of sequence and has a very special troops choice.

 

Given that Veterans with Bolters are on-par with Intercessors (and can be made better,) it begs the question: why take anything else? You're just making it harder to use transports, you're losing your best guns, and (unless you're doing combat squads) you're losing what makes Bikers / Vanguard Vets / Terminators special.

 

Don't know the answer, but I think GW may have allowed Terminators to keep the squad-based invul buff as a means of compensating. Otherwise, would there be a good reason to take them? 1 special weapon per Kill Team is not going to make a huge difference.