They are twice as good while costing 3 times the price, however their melee power and ability to fire on the move is superior to those points spent on tacticals. I have a regular opponent who is starting to realize this, his issue was that his tactical terminators never made their points back from shooting. When he started being more bold and closing to fist ranges *while firing* he found their impact dramatically increased because without a dedicated melee unit those terminators will beat your basic troopers like red headed step children...

That's nice, getting to those basic troopers that aren't dedicated melee is now the issue, because I doubt tau fire warriors are walking up the field early on. Deepstriking just leaves you vulnerable to pie plates for a turn and ranged death. Walking is a hilarious idea, and the land raider now kickstarts the price up 2X to 3X.

This is sort of off topic, but i want the whole darn tabletop game to be rewritten, so that the stats play into the lore, EG marines are like chuck norris but cost out the bum points wise. Also...i wouldn't mind being able to split the fire in my squads. So that heavy weapons (lascannon for example) can fire at a big nasty tank while the lasguns pew some orkies....

Back on topic. I think feel no pain would be nice. But that's why we have iron hands

 Dunklezahn wrote:

Anyone can stack the deck by choosing the right gun lets consider Dark Reapers. 5 guys, 10 shots, 4.44 wounds. That's 29pts of dead terminator and 61.6 points of dead tactical...

Complains about stacking the deck, picks the ONE case where Terminators are better (AP3). Good job.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dunklezahn wrote:

Anyone can stack the deck by choosing the right gun lets consider Dark Reapers. 5 guys, 10 shots, 4.44 wounds. That's 29pts of dead terminator and 61.6 points of dead tactical...

Complains about stacking the deck, picks the ONE case where Terminators are better (AP3). Good job.

*facepalm* You realize that was *exactly* the point I was making when you used ap2 plasma guns to highlight the vulnerability of terminators compared to tacticals right? I am included in anyone after all.

And Zebio what if I deep strike onto a scout beacon behind LOS terrain, or onto a flank limiting enemy fire, what if there are other threats moving upfield, what if my army is Deathwing and I down 30 terminators all over that Tau player? What if I ran after deepstriking?
If the entire enemy force can see the whole battlefield then I suggest you let the Tau have planet bowling ball and try holding them somewhere there is terrain. A single terminator will beat down a full Fire Warriors squad and break them more often than not. They will likely put 2 saves on him and he will likely kill 2 of them forcing an Ld5/6 test.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dunklezahn wrote:

Anyone can stack the deck by choosing the right gun lets consider Dark Reapers. 5 guys, 10 shots, 4.44 wounds. That's 29pts of dead terminator and 61.6 points of dead tactical...

Complains about stacking the deck, picks the ONE case where Terminators are better (AP3). Good job.

*facepalm* You realize that was *exactly* the point I was making when you used ap2 plasma guns to highlight the vulnerability of terminators compared to tacticals right? I am included in anyone after all.

The point is that in literally every other situation than when being shot by AP3 the Terminators are less survivable than their points in Tactical Marines. Thus, Plasma isn't "stacking the deck", AP3 is. Bolters are better against Terminators, Shuriken weapons are better against Terminators, Lasguns are better against Terminators, CCWs are better against Terminators, Tesla weapons are better against Terminators, Lascannons are better against Terminators, Shootas are better against Terminators. EVERYTHING that isn't AP3 is better against Terminators than against Tactical Marines.

Anyone can stack the deck by choosing the right gun lets consider Dark Reapers. 5 guys, 10 shots, 4.44 wounds. That's 29pts of dead terminator and 61.6 points of dead tactical..

I chose the plasma example because you suggested that terminators are better in the open than tac marines when faced with armour ignoring weapons. You were wrong and I proved it using maths. So please, don't accuse people of skewing data because you couldn't count.

Against one ap value, which is ap 3, (which is by the way one of the least common ap vaules) the tac marines are worse, against all the others they are better than terminators.

Now do some maths for anything that isn't ap 3 and you will see that terminators fall short for everything else.

This is not "stacking the deck" as you are so fond of saying, it is stating the simple fact that vs 95% of the weapons in the game tac marines are better. You are just ignoring the evidence in front of you.

Something doesn't get selected at a tourney because it's strong, it gets chosen because it's strong against the opponents you are likely to encounter.

Yeah, because howling banshees and mandrakes are so awesome when I am not playing at tournaments. (This is sarcasm).

From what you have been saying, most people where you play are not competitive, and do not build lists to win. That's fine, don't let me stop you. But when you come into an discussion detailing the balance of terminators in the current meta, when you only play non optimized lists, you don't sound like you have much experience to go off.

See the endless threads on the "death" of assault, it may be true in your meta but don't make the classic mistake of assuming it is a blanket case.

Please read my previous post again, as you are clearly missing the point. I am saying assault terminators in a Landraider are effective. However standard terminators without a landraider will be unlikely to reach a combat which is favourable to them. It is more likely that they will be shot down, or be assaulted by something that will tear them to pieces before they even attack.

They are twice as good while costing 3 times the price, however their melee power and ability to fire on the move is superior to those points spent on tacticals. I have a regular opponent who is starting to realize this, his issue was that his tactical terminators never made their points back from shooting. When he started being more bold and closing to fist ranges *while firing* he found their impact dramatically increased because without a dedicated melee unit those terminators will beat your basic troopers like red headed step children...

Please walk your terminators towards the equivalent points cost of tau fire warriors, or tac marines with special weapons, and tell me how that goes. Because the numbers are clearly not in your favour.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

I chose the plasma example because you suggested that terminators are better in the open than tac marines when faced with armour ignoring weapons. You were wrong and I proved it using maths. So please, don't accuse people of skewing data because you couldn't count.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
2
When the marines are in area terrain both are statistically as durable against small arms fire, and the marines are twice as durable as the terminators against ap 2 weaponry. The terminators only advantage is when ap 3 weapons are used.

Is 6.667 half of 10? No.
The terminators are more durable than you give them credit for when in the open due to their invulnerable save as I said. So your statement that marines are twice as durable is a half truth at best being only applicable in that one scenario, my maths is fine.

Picking a situation where one side displays superior or inferior performance is deck stacking, like it or not. Now I already said they are half as durable against "small arms" but they are twice as durable against AP3 and 2/3rds as durable against AP2 so their level or durability is entirely dependant on what they are shot by.

Against one ap value, which is ap 3, (which is by the way one of the least common ap vaules) the tac marines are worse, against all the others they are better than terminators.

Now do some maths for anything that isn't ap 3 and you will see that terminators fall short for everything else.

This is not "stacking the deck" as you are so fond of saying, it is stating the simple fact that vs 95% of the weapons in the game tac marines are better. You are just ignoring the evidence in front of you.

See above

Yeah, because howling banshees and mandrakes are so awesome when I am not playing at tournaments. (This is sarcasm).

Because in that particular meta they are a very poor choice.
They can be used with success, a better question is why are they poor for you? They are overpriced slightly but the primary reason is planet bowling ball tables played on by gunline lists and the lack of assault transport. If the meta was power armoured melee units they would carve them up quite handily.

From what you have been saying, most people where you play are not competitive, and do not build lists to win. That's fine, don't let me stop you. But when you come into an discussion detailing the balance of terminators in the current meta, when you only play non optimized lists, you don't sound like you have much experience to go off.

I already said we play to win, you are making the same mistake in assuming the tourney meta is the "One true meta" optimized is a relative term. Change the composition of the armies faced and the meta shifts. That is it's very meaning. At the risk of drawing that old line in the sand between fluff and tourney players I've noticed that so many folks call the tourney meta "The Meta" (Capital M) when this is far from the case, the meta changes from town to town, group to group. Assuming someone who plays a different list to the limited scope available at a tourney is not playing to win is the height of hubris.

Please read my previous post again, as you are clearly missing the point. I am saying assault terminators in a Landraider are effective. However standard terminators without a landraider will be unlikely to reach a combat which is favourable to them. It is more likely that they will be shot down, or be assaulted by something that will tear them to pieces before they even attack.

And I disagree, though even if I didn't terminators are also equipped for free with a deep strike option and if required have no need to walk anywhere. You also have an army around them and with their smaller footprint and deployment options you can use them to leverage a greater value of points against your foe than he can retaliate with, such is one of the basic strategies of such games.

Please walk your terminators towards the equivalent points cost of tau fire warriors, or tac marines with special weapons, and tell me how that goes. Because the numbers are clearly not in your favour.

I already covered this, not only is deep strike and LOS blocking terrain an option but I presume by special weapons you mean Plasma since the flamer would be of little help, would you still take plasma if you meta included a 150+ Ork green tide player? Funny how those never show up at tourneys, must be one of those meta things, I play against one...

edit: punctuation again and the damned quote system

By this point you are just trolling. At least I hope you are.

Anyone who thinks mandrakes can be good needs help.

Okay Dunklezahn keep bringing your terminators and my BA will keep wiping the floor up with you. That's how bad they are; not even the BA give a feth.

Terminators are just bad. It doesn't matter what the "meta" is, because any random Eldar list is going to be able to hose them.

Don't forget that even if you do get into assault, they will be assaulting what your opponent lets them assault. That is probably the single biggest problem with assault. Shooters choose what they kill, assault troops kill what is chosen for them. Well, maybe dying in transit is a bigger problem. But it's still a big problem.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
I chose the plasma example because you suggested that terminators are better in the open than tac marines when faced with armour ignoring weapons.

AP3 is not an armor ignoring weapon when firing at terminators.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
I chose the plasma example because you suggested that terminators are better in the open than tac marines when faced with armour ignoring weapons.

AP3 is not an armor ignoring weapon when firing at terminators.

I think that is pretty clear to everyone. Thanks captain.

Against everything else terminators are weaker than tac marines. With or without cover.

With the small number of ap3 weapons in the game this is not such a huge advantage.

Well how about this in no particular order

1) Make Terminator able to either shoot and run, or just assault if they deep strike with a teleport/Locator beacon.

2) Let them be able to upgrade there storm bolter, either with better round (Kraken, hellfire shell come to mind), Combi-weapons. Or change to something completely different and new

3)Small point reduction.

4)And for higher survival, how about for 1 turn, you can re-roll all unsuccessful save. It would make them just tough enough exactly when you need them to be while still being susceptible to plasma and melta


Some food for thought, even if there not all new ideas

How about a simple, choose the turn they arrive from deepstrike.

If you had multiple squads then you can tailor up for a mass attack at some point in the game, strike with support. Granted they can still get shot up, and you probably wouldn't take them against tau, but you can tailor up for a supported strike on the enemy lines, or have them drop in late in the game to mop up.

And mixing squads again with two heavy weapons, serg with lightening claws, two thunder hammer storm shields, two assault cannons and arriving where you want them too. Maybe a point drop still also.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
By this point you are just trolling. At least I hope you are.

Anyone who thinks mandrakes can be good needs help.

No, I simply disagree with you which makes me neither a troll or in need of help. Some units are badly designed, Mandrakes being one (their shooting attack being pain point activated is stupid since they can't infiltrate with a homonculi) but a list is not "optimised" based on it's own strengths, it is done by evaluating it's power against it's likely opponents that is how the meta shifts with new codicies and how units go in and out of favour. Some units are balanced badly enough that they fall at the other extreme, so good against everything at their cost that not taking them is crazy but most fall into the ground in between.

You yourself cite equal points of Firewarriors as a problem, not because you chose the unit at random but because Tau are a current power list in the tourney meta that seems to drive your evaluations, same with plasma.

Don't forget that even if you do get into assault, they will be assaulting what your opponent lets them assault. That is probably the single biggest problem with assault.

And if you deep strike down next to an objective? The enemy can choose to fall back away from you but at that point they are getting driven off the game winning points, which are all that matter. Who cares if the Termies buy the farm once they have driven said units back far enough with even the threat of assault.
Neither of us could say with any authority who would win a game Martel, we have never seen each other play, my meta is clearly very different from your own.

Of course if you are playing pure killpoints games that's not a factor but since i think 5/6 of the games are objective driven in the core rules that's rare. Even more rare if the Bay Area Open missions are used (which are awesome by the way)

Simply put, the people where you play must really not play to win. You talk about meta armies as if they are some kind of rarity.

Now that in 6th edition we have tau with their riptides and mass firepower, we have eldar with rending shuikren weapons and wraith knights, SM have their grav weapons and dirt cheap bikes, daemons have 2++ save units along with iron arm daemon princes.
Terminators are growing ever more dated in a game which has seen large buffs to other armies and units.

Please tell me, against what kind of list would terminators really hold an advantage? And in which list would they bring something to the table that another equally priced or cheaper unit could not?

If the meta was power armoured melee units they would carve them up quite handily.

Have you actually tried terminators against death company?

Now you have said that you play Deathwing, and also stated that you play many other armies.

I also play deathwing, along with ravenwing and daemons. There is no competition between DW and the latter. Some people might like being the underdog. But there is no way that terminators should be considered a good choice.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
By this point you are just trolling. At least I hope you are.

Anyone who thinks mandrakes can be good needs help.

No, I simply disagree with you which makes me neither a troll or in need of help. Some units are badly designed, Mandrakes being one (their shooting attack being pain point activated is stupid since they can't infiltrate with a homonculi) but a list is not "optimised" based on it's own strengths, it is done by evaluating it's power against it's likely opponents that is how the meta shifts with new codicies and how units go in and out of favour. Some units are balanced badly enough that they fall at the other extreme, so good against everything at their cost that not taking them is crazy but most fall into the ground in between.

You yourself cite equal points of Firewarriors as a problem, not because you chose the unit at random but because Tau are a current power list in the tourney meta that seems to drive your evaluations, same with plasma.

Don't forget that even if you do get into assault, they will be assaulting what your opponent lets them assault. That is probably the single biggest problem with assault.

And if you deep strike down next to an objective? The enemy can choose to fall back away from you but at that point they are getting driven off the game winning points, which are all that matter. Who cares if the Termies buy the farm once they have driven said units back far enough with even the threat of assault.
Neither of us could say with any authority who would win a game Martel, we have never seen each other play, my meta is clearly very different from your own.

Of course if you are playing pure killpoints games that's not a factor but since i think 5/6 of the games are objective driven in the core rules that's rare. Even more rare if the Bay Area Open missions are used (which are awesome by the way)

That which they fall back from can be retaken when the terminators are dead. You people act like once an objective is lost, it's lost forever.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
By this point you are just trolling. At least I hope you are.

Anyone who thinks mandrakes can be good needs help.

He's clearly not. I'm exalting every single post I find which he's written because he makes very valid points. Mandrakes and Banshees have nothing to do with it (two units that need adjustments), that's clearly rhetoric. His point is, if you missed it, that Terminators are not terrible. His point is that you can make Terminators work competitively if you don't try to use them with a single purpose. His point is not, as far as I can tell, that Terminators are perfectly balanced.

From my own perspective as someone who's currently got a large Eldar army and expanding my Marine army with specifically Tacticals and Terminators, Terminators do not fail me when I play them I fail them and they scare me when I play against them. I much rather see my opponents spend their points in Tacticals and their ilk.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
That which they fall back from can be retaken when the terminators are dead. You people act like once an objective is lost, it's lost forever.

...and you people (let's agree not to use that expression again, yes?) are acting like Terminators should be taken as 95% of the models in an army with an above average win ratio expectancy. Support them with the remaining 80+% of your army point allowance.

But I could be supporting a model that doesn't suck. What does "support" mean anyway?

And no, I'm acting like terminators should never be selected ever because they are incredibly overcosted. Not just kind of over costed like tactical marines, but VERY overcosted.

There is no way to overcome overcosted in this game with the Tau/Eldar/Daemons running around. There is no support you can give that prevents the Eldar from doing their thing. You have to be able to disable the Eldar guns or survive them. Terminators can't do either.

...and you people (let's agree not to use that expression again, yes?) are acting like Terminators should be taken as 95% of the models in an army with an above average win ratio expectancy. Support them with the remaining 80+% of your army point allowance.

Except they aren't worth it to be taken in 50% games, there's a reason why the most popular build is the CSM Termicide. They aren't survivable enough to run or deepstrike, they aren't cost effective enough to take a land raider because they would lose out on their shooting, and their melee isn't hot enough to be worth it (Ever see them deal with a jetseer or 2++ daemon squad?).

They aren't fast, they aren't effective at moving across the board, their shooting isn't worth walking them, their melee isn't good enough. They are the epitome of Mediocre, they are the Thousand Sons, supposed to be effective in a few area's and failing utterly in all of them.

We are playing with 'Terminator armour reduces the AP of incoming shots by 1'. That is, 1 to 2, 2 to 3 etc.

Works excellently.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
We are playing with 'Terminator armour reduces the AP of incoming shots by 1'. That is, 1 to 2, 2 to 3 etc.

Works excellently.

It's a poor solution in my opinion. It basically makes them solid against plasma, lance and lascannon fire (and a slew of other AP2 weapons) but does nothing to protect them against small arms.

Optimal play in these situations is to just direct the plasma/lascannon fire elsewhere and hose them with bolters/small arms. The math has been done, and they have absolutely garbage survivability against small arms. Net result is they have a 0% increase in staying power, you just limit your opponents options slightly. All you have accomplished is changed the list of effective weapons against them from "AP2 or better stuff and small arms" to "AP1 and small arms".

how about both a +1T & the lowers AP by one? or is that too much?

you are still gonna splat them with AT weapons, and you are not gonna be wounding them that much with small arms

 IHateNids wrote:
how about both a +1T & the lowers AP by one? or is that too much?

you are still gonna splat them with AT weapons, and you are not gonna be wounding them that much with small arms

I don't think the "lowers AP value by 1" is a good idea. It would set a dangerous precedent, and you would see it popping up everywhere....suddenly you'd be looking at plasma-immune Draigo/Lysander today, and plasma immune monstrous creatures a year later. Suddenly AP2 is worthless and melta is the new mega-weapon, just like it was in 5th edition. This would have a secondary effect of further degrading vehicle staying power...etc. It would be a chain reaction that would lead to...weird places and would harm any army that couldn't field solid AP1 firepower.

+1T, 5+ FnP, 2+ save should do it.

 Mahtamori wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
By this point you are just trolling. At least I hope you are.

Anyone who thinks mandrakes can be good needs help.

He's clearly not. I'm exalting every single post I find which he's written because he makes very valid points. Mandrakes and Banshees have nothing to do with it (two units that need adjustments), that's clearly rhetoric. His point is, if you missed it, that Terminators are not terrible. His point is that you can make Terminators work competitively if you don't try to use them with a single purpose. His point is not, as far as I can tell, that Terminators are perfectly balanced.

From my own perspective as someone who's currently got a large Eldar army and expanding my Marine army with specifically Tacticals and Terminators, Terminators do not fail me when I play them I fail them and they scare me when I play against them. I much rather see my opponents spend their points in Tacticals and their ilk.

I know he is saying terminators can work, however so far he has not provided any evidence to support this.

The maths is clearly against him when terminators are compared to the basic troop choice of their army, in terms of points per wound vs small arms fire, and low ap fire, they are worse. They have a worse ranged damage output and are not scoring.

I have conceded that terminators are better in CC, but to get there you will need a landraider (no, deep striking is not a viable alternative in a competitive environment, the squad wiped off the board before they get a chance to charge, or you will have to deploy them out of LoS, in which case you are back to square one, with footslogging terminators), and even then they have unwieldy weapons and no sweeping advance.

Look at a tournament and tell me how many terminators you see there. The evidence that terminators are no longer a competitive choice is in front of you.

Disagree all you like, but please back it up with something, so far I have seen nothing.

You play eldar but fear terminators......do your guys use shuriken weapons? Did your wave serpents go on holiday? Are you waiting for the wraithknight's sun cannon to go on sale?
With an Eldar army it is more difficult not to chose something that will chew through terminators.

 Dunklezahn wrote:
You yourself cite equal points of Firewarriors as a problem, not because you chose the unit at random but because Tau are a current power list in the tourney meta that seems to drive your evaluations, same with plasma.

If you're not going to compare your units against good/the best units and armies in the game, what is the point of even making a qualitative statement on how good the unit is? You refuse to even compare it to stuff that's actually good and stuff that matters.

I don't need to pay 45 points per terminator just to beat up on grots. I need them to do their job, against the toughest of enemies.

Lots of people saying about 2 wounds.

So my paladins would now get 3 wounds? Hell yeah that would be awesome. Or just even t5 and stay at 2 wounds

I'm not convinced about the T5 or 2W, they are not the same size or build as centurions after all. Personally just balancing their points and weapons better would go a long way.

-5pts for all models (-9 for deathwing), chaos terminators included here too.
-5 pts for all weapon upgrades (TH/SS, Chainfist & combi weapons would still be 5).
Double heavy weapon options
New heavy weapons for chaos terminators (as it stands chaos terminators don't use their heavy weapon already, so giving them 2 is pointless).
The option of combi weapons on all models

For characters, give terminator armour EW. This way it has a little more to balance it against the option of taking a bike.

Little changes, which hopefully give terminators a wider variety of roles at a more competitive price.

This thread makes me wonder how many people actually understand the term 'meta' vs how many just heard that term on the interwebs and use it wherever possible.

 Carnage43 wrote:

 IHateNids wrote:
how about both a +1T & the lowers AP by one? or is that too much?

you are still gonna splat them with AT weapons, and you are not gonna be wounding them that much with small arms

I don't think the "lowers AP value by 1" is a good idea. It would set a dangerous precedent, and you would see it popping up everywhere....suddenly you'd be looking at plasma-immune Draigo/Lysander today, and plasma immune monstrous creatures a year later. Suddenly AP2 is worthless and melta is the new mega-weapon, just like it was in 5th edition. This would have a secondary effect of further degrading vehicle staying power...etc. It would be a chain reaction that would lead to...weird places and would harm any army that couldn't field solid AP1 firepower.

+1T, 5+ FnP, 2+ save should do it.

How would you change Icon of Excess on a Chaos Terminator squad?

It gives FnP too and would be made obsolete by this change.

Also yay for T6 nurgle termies!

Haven't read the whole thread so slap me if this has already been suggested.

It seems to me like Centurions are an attempt to make Terminator variants. Why not combine the two? How amazingly cool would it be to have a 5-man squad of T5 W2 I2* models with a 2+/5++ deep striking into center field, each wielding a twin-linked assault cannon?

Similarly, how great would it be for a 5-man squad of T5 W2 I2* models with a 2+/5++ wielding Lightning Claws to pour out of a LRC and charge an entrenched position?

Following this concept of "combining" Terminators and Centurions, I think the following adjustments should be made:

* swap Slow and Purposeful for Relentless
* make each model I2 to represent the bulk of the armor they're wearing
* allow these models to make Sweeping Advances
* make storm bolters salvo 2/4
* "basic model" of a Centerminator (hah) should be armed with two salvo 2/4 storm bolters (counting as a single twin-linked weapon) or two lightning claws (in the case of the assault variant)
* points adjusted to fit the new design, obviously

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Carnage43 wrote:

 IHateNids wrote:
how about both a +1T & the lowers AP by one? or is that too much?

you are still gonna splat them with AT weapons, and you are not gonna be wounding them that much with small arms

I don't think the "lowers AP value by 1" is a good idea. It would set a dangerous precedent, and you would see it popping up everywhere....suddenly you'd be looking at plasma-immune Draigo/Lysander today, and plasma immune monstrous creatures a year later. Suddenly AP2 is worthless and melta is the new mega-weapon, just like it was in 5th edition. This would have a secondary effect of further degrading vehicle staying power...etc. It would be a chain reaction that would lead to...weird places and would harm any army that couldn't field solid AP1 firepower.

+1T, 5+ FnP, 2+ save should do it.

How would you change Icon of Excess on a Chaos Terminator squad?

It gives FnP too and would be made obsolete by this change.

Also yay for T6 nurgle termies!

Just have the icon of excess improve the FnP by +1 to a 4+.

Would T6, 37+ point terminators REALLY super over powered? I mean, T6 barely helps against plasma and doesn't do anything against S8+. 5 would run you 185 points, which is right on par with a riptide's T6 W5 2+/5++, and they're have WAY less firepower.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Carnage43 wrote:

 IHateNids wrote:
how about both a +1T & the lowers AP by one? or is that too much?

you are still gonna splat them with AT weapons, and you are not gonna be wounding them that much with small arms

I don't think the "lowers AP value by 1" is a good idea. It would set a dangerous precedent, and you would see it popping up everywhere....suddenly you'd be looking at plasma-immune Draigo/Lysander today, and plasma immune monstrous creatures a year later. Suddenly AP2 is worthless and melta is the new mega-weapon, just like it was in 5th edition. This would have a secondary effect of further degrading vehicle staying power...etc. It would be a chain reaction that would lead to...weird places and would harm any army that couldn't field solid AP1 firepower.

+1T, 5+ FnP, 2+ save should do it.

How would you change Icon of Excess on a Chaos Terminator squad?

It gives FnP too and would be made obsolete by this change.

Also yay for T6 nurgle termies!

Why would they care? Icon of Fear can be given to Possessed. Most of them are useless anyways.

MarsNZ wrote:
This thread makes me wonder how many people actually understand the term 'meta' vs how many just heard that term on the interwebs and use it wherever possible.

Protip: There's more to metagaming than just your local shop.

FNP would do it for me. I run a squad of 10 tac terms with a chaplin and 9 times out of 10 they make their points cost back or tie up enough shooting to justify their cost of 550 points.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
By this point you are just trolling. At least I hope you are.

Anyone who thinks mandrakes can be good needs help.

He's clearly not. I'm exalting every single post I find which he's written because he makes very valid points. Mandrakes and Banshees have nothing to do with it (two units that need adjustments), that's clearly rhetoric. His point is, if you missed it, that Terminators are not terrible. His point is that you can make Terminators work competitively if you don't try to use them with a single purpose. His point is not, as far as I can tell, that Terminators are perfectly balanced.

From my own perspective as someone who's currently got a large Eldar army and expanding my Marine army with specifically Tacticals and Terminators, Terminators do not fail me when I play them I fail them and they scare me when I play against them. I much rather see my opponents spend their points in Tacticals and their ilk.

You play eldar but fear terminators......do your guys use shuriken weapons? Did your wave serpents go on holiday? Are you waiting for the wraithknight's sun cannon to go on sale?
With an Eldar army it is more difficult not to chose something that will chew through terminators.

I don't use Wraithknights because I think their rules are over the top and their model aesthetics is just poorly done. I also sent all but at most 2 of my Wave Serpents on holiday because, again, they are over powered. I focus on using foot troops and it is so far making my games more fun and challenging (and my win loss ratio is still fairly good).

My own point is that maybe, just maybe, it's not Terminators that are poorly designed. Maybe it's a few key models? I mean, when it comes to Eldar what army doesn't have problems dealing with Wraithknights? What armies doesn't have problems with Wave Serpent spam? Are those models an argument for improving Terminators? NO! Of course they aren't!

 Mahtamori wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
By this point you are just trolling. At least I hope you are.

Anyone who thinks mandrakes can be good needs help.

He's clearly not. I'm exalting every single post I find which he's written because he makes very valid points. Mandrakes and Banshees have nothing to do with it (two units that need adjustments), that's clearly rhetoric. His point is, if you missed it, that Terminators are not terrible. His point is that you can make Terminators work competitively if you don't try to use them with a single purpose. His point is not, as far as I can tell, that Terminators are perfectly balanced.

From my own perspective as someone who's currently got a large Eldar army and expanding my Marine army with specifically Tacticals and Terminators, Terminators do not fail me when I play them I fail them and they scare me when I play against them. I much rather see my opponents spend their points in Tacticals and their ilk.

You play eldar but fear terminators......do your guys use shuriken weapons? Did your wave serpents go on holiday? Are you waiting for the wraithknight's sun cannon to go on sale?
With an Eldar army it is more difficult not to chose something that will chew through terminators.

I don't use Wraithknights because I think their rules are over the top and their model aesthetics is just poorly done. I also sent all but at most 2 of my Wave Serpents on holiday because, again, they are over powered. I focus on using foot troops and it is so far making my games more fun and challenging (and my win loss ratio is still fairly good).

My own point is that maybe, just maybe, it's not Terminators that are poorly designed. Maybe it's a few key models? I mean, when it comes to Eldar what army doesn't have problems dealing with Wraithknights? What armies doesn't have problems with Wave Serpent spam? Are those models an argument for improving Terminators? NO! Of course they aren't!

Wait, so your argument is "I don't use stuff that kills Terminators, so they're fine!"?

No, my argument is "those things are broken and needs fixing, not your gods damned terminators"

 Mahtamori wrote:
No, my argument is "those things are broken and needs fixing, not your gods damned terminators"

How many things must become "broken" by new codices until it is the terminators themselves that needs changing?

As I said to the other guy, if you like to play non competitive lists then that is fine, and is non of my business. However, for the purpose of "How would you improve terminators" then you really need to consider the competitive choices out there and how they correspond to terminators.

Improve terminators? Give them 2 wounds like a handful of Terminator units in FW's HH Book 2.

 Mahtamori wrote:
No, my argument is "those things are broken and needs fixing, not your gods damned terminators"

Yes, those things are broken.

Now how exactly are we going to somehow delete them from the codex officially? Or is this a train of thought that doesn't really have an answer till 7th to 10th edition?

madd_leeroy wrote:
FNP would do it for me. I run a squad of 10 tac terms with a chaplin and 9 times out of 10 they make their points cost back or tie up enough shooting to justify their cost of 550 points.

Then you play against paste-eaters. Sorry, true story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mahtamori wrote:
No, my argument is "those things are broken and needs fixing, not your gods damned terminators"

Then you can't do math, because terminators aren't even good compared to units IN THEIR OWN CODEX. Why can't people just accept that they're bad? Because they are. Very bad at the moment. They would be bad without the existence of codex:Eldar, but with Eldar, they are literally unfieldable.