Incorrect, Tac Termies are meant to be...wait for it, TACTICAL, meaning capable of both Dakka and Punching. They fit the fluff perfectly, I have said and still say a 5pt reduction would be warranted, but I would want something similar across the board for every factions elite heavy armor models.
Ghazkuul wrote: Incorrect, Tac Termies are meant to be...wait for it, TACTICAL, meaning capable of both Dakka and Punching. They fit the fluff perfectly, I have said and still say a 5pt reduction would be warranted, but I would want something similar across the board for every factions elite heavy armor models.
So 'tactical' means a big power glove and storm bolter.... for terminators? I can see why an orc would think that...
Also, just because you give a dog a bone, like your proposed 5 pt reduction, doesn't mean that you need to give every dog in the neighborhood one too. Each army has its own synergy and isn't so directly proportional to other army lists.
I generally like this idea, minus the part where it somewhat ignores fixing Stormbolters (there's quite a few places that you can get SBs that the only reason to take it is to soak Weapon Destroyed results. Seriously, that should not be a thing).
I really could care less about improving storm bolters. I would rather just make terminators even cheaper and be done with it.
My cost point proposal would be 27 ppm with PF and Storm bolter stock. Anything else is either a swap or upgrade depending on what it is.
I wonder if, unwieldily only reduced them to I2, if that would help them out a bit more. It certainly doesn't sound like a lot, and means they are still vulnerable to weight of attacks, but it also gives them the option of taking out most standard AP2 melee weapons before they can munch the termies back, unless it's other termies holding them that is.
Also, just because you give a dog a bone, like your proposed 5 pt reduction, doesn't mean that you need to give every dog in the neighborhood one too. Each army has its own synergy and isn't so directly proportional to other army lists.
Also, just because you give a dog a bone, like your proposed 5 pt reduction, doesn't mean that you need to give every dog in the neighborhood one too. Each army has its own synergy and isn't so directly proportional to other army lists.
Allies, anyone?
I believe our context is not about including allies; its about individual factions vs each other However, your point does have some bearing; its just an indirect thing.
I don't think even GW puts that much consideration into balancing out armies (what allies have what) - determine what collectively should be or not be as a whole.
Every single solution offered so far has been broken except the 5 pt reduction in price. Sorry guys but anything more and your going to have to redo almost every other army to fix the fact that most have similar units and do about the same thing.
yes I am an ork player and I use meganobz as my example. same cost, about the same statline, orks have 1 more wound and Termies have the 5++ to counter that. Termies have better shooting and Orks have better assaulting.
Space marines are Jacks of all trades masters of none, Tac termies are good (not great, not above and beyond) at shooting and good at assault. They fill a hole in space marine lists on how best to counter MC and such. If you want to give them better shooting or buff them in any meaningful way besides a minor reduction in points then I would want my Nobz to have a similar buff. Especially since the latest codex buffed Space marines and nerfed Orks. (here comes the "BUT YOU CAN BRING A STOMPA" comments)
Ghazkuul wrote: Every single solution offered so far has been broken except the 5 pt reduction in price. Sorry guys but anything more and your going to have to redo almost every other army to fix the fact that most have similar units and do about the same thing.
yes I am an ork player and I use meganobz as my example. same cost, about the same statline, orks have 1 more wound and Termies have the 5++ to counter that. Termies have better shooting and Orks have better assaulting.
Space marines are Jacks of all trades masters of none, Tac termies are good (not great, not above and beyond) at shooting and good at assault. They fill a hole in space marine lists on how best to counter MC and such. If you want to give them better shooting or buff them in any meaningful way besides a minor reduction in points then I would want my Nobz to have a similar buff. Especially since the latest codex buffed Space marines and nerfed Orks. (here comes the "BUT YOU CAN BRING A STOMPA" comments)
I think that you are demonstrably wrong about this. Full assault cannon terminators are no worse than what Eldar trot out every game. Furthermore, terminators do not fill any meaningful role in the current space marine codex. Especially not with centurions as an option. The marines have many, many better counters to MC than terminators. In fact, I can't think of a single enemy unit that terminators actually effectively counter.
There is actually room for a great deal of improvement for terminators without breaking the game. Now bikers or centurions? Absolutely not. But as it stands, any marine player trying to use these things is crippling their own list.
Ghazkuul wrote: propose your suggestion then to GW, when they laugh at you for trying to break the game just remember I told you so
GW hasn't changed terminators since 4th ed. This is all thought experiment. The reality is that tac terminators will remain unusable by marine players who want to be even semi-competitive.
You also completely overestimate GW. These are the people that printed C: Eldar in 6th and SW, BA and GK in 5th.
Bharring wrote: 'No worse than what Eldar trot out every game'
Didn't we show, earlier, that this would, in fact, make Eldar look weak, in just about every way?
40ppm for an Assault Cannon on a t4 2+5++ that kicks ass in melee too?
They'd have to be more than 40 ppm, which is probably the biggest downfall to that plan. And that wouldn't make Eldar weak in every way. WS and WK would still stomp the crap out of that unit. As well as units like War Walkers that the terminators can't get within range of because the assault is still a miserable 24". Most 2+ save armor models are just in a bad place right now and the terminator exacerbates this by having terrible offense/pt.
The best post on here is the one that said there is no easy fix. I do not like things like arbitrary rerollable saves for terminators or mutiple wounds or higher T. None of those fit to me. Getting a bigger gun? That fits.
WK:
5x4x(2/3)(1/6)(1) = 20x(1/9), or 2+ wounds/round shooting
5x2x(1/2)(1/2)(1) = 10x(1/4), or 2+ wounds/round in melee
Not bad for fighting the optimal counter for your loadout.
Serpent:
5x4x(2/3)(1/6)(1/3) = 20*(1/27)
You're penning a jinking Serpent more often than not. So, you're making it:
-Fire SL/SC, then get hit hard by s pen effects, giving it only 1 real round of shooting
-Fire SL/SC, but risk being assaulted
-Fire just the SL, but survive
So its shooting:
SL: 4x(<1/3)(5/6)(1/6) = 20/108 dead Marines
SS: 4.5x(<1/3)(5/6)(1/6) = 22.5/108 dead Marines
SC: 3x(<1/3)[(4/6)(1/6) + (1/6)(4/6)] = 24/108 dead marines.
So its trading most of a HP per round for little over half a dead Termie a round, assuming you never make a 9" charge?
Looks like you're killing Serpents easily, even for the points.
And those are two of the nastiest things in the game. And both are quite close to your least-optimal targets.
WK:
5x4x(2/3)(1/6)(1) = 20x(1/9), or 2+ wounds/round shooting
5x2x(1/2)(1/2)(1) = 10x(1/4), or 2+ wounds/round in melee
Not bad for fighting the optimal counter for your loadout.
Serpent:
5x4x(2/3)(1/6)(1/3) = 20*(1/27)
You're penning a jinking Serpent more often than not. So, you're making it:
-Fire SL/SC, then get hit hard by s pen effects, giving it only 1 real round of shooting
-Fire SL/SC, but risk being assaulted
-Fire just the SL, but survive
So its shooting:
SL: 4x(<1/3)(5/6)(1/6) = 20/108 dead Marines
SS: 4.5x(<1/3)(5/6)(1/6) = 22.5/108 dead Marines
SC: 3x(<1/3)[(4/6)(1/6) + (1/6)(4/6)] = 24/108 dead marines.
So its trading most of a HP per round for little over half a dead Termie a round, assuming you never make a 9" charge?
Looks like you're killing Serpents easily, even for the points.
And those are two of the nastiest things in the game. And both are quite close to your least-optimal targets.
The assault cannons would never get within range of a Serpent. The heavy wraith cannon also out ranges the terminators. Once the WK gets into melee, the terminators are all dead. 12" move with a 2D6 charge, means the terminators get one shot off being being pounded. That's assuming they just aren't shot to death by the Eldar army outside the 24" range to begin with. The assault cannon is an incredibly overrated weapon due to range and platform issues, and even massed up like this on a 2+ armor platform, the Eldar have hard counters.
Termies, once within 24":
4x(2/3)(1/2)(2/3) = 8/9 HP/round, plus most of those are pens on an open topped vehicle.
You'd need to be quite expensive for that to be fair.
(And how often is there no safe place to deep strike within 24" of the target?)
Deep strike is so bad that I forgot about that. But for this unit, it would actually be really nasty, because they have shooting that someone might care about. We'd have to consider taking deep strike off them I suppose so they aren't point and click.
5x(1/2)(5/6)(2/3) is 50/36. That WK kills less than 2. Not 5.
Serpents staying out of threat range? Deepstrike into range? Spend a turn or possibly two running, where the Serpent kills less than one Termie on average?
5x(1/2)(5/6)(2/3) is 50/36. That WK kills less than 2. Not 5.
Serpents staying out of threat range? Deepstrike into range? Spend a turn or possibly two running, where the Serpent kills less than one Termie on average?
Holy hell, man, try understanding the firepower.
Ironic coming from an Eldar player. Try understanding the firepower indeed. Massed S6 is okay for your codex but in the hands of anyone else, it's unthinkable, evidently.
Bharring wrote: So massed s4 is crap.
Massed s4 fake-rending at shorter range for about the same price on paper platforms is unmitigatingly broken.
Massed s6 on paper platforms is broken
Massed s6 actual-rending on t4 2+/5++ for half the cost is just fine, because its "only" 24".
Doesn't add up.
Massed S4 fake rending at least has a purpose. Massed S4 is total crap.
I wouldn't call WS paper platforms. And I"m not sure where you are getting half cost.
Also, do you have any counter proposals that don't end with terminators being dust collectors? Would heavy bolters be acceptable? I find them nearly useless, but they are still better than stormbolters.
Nobody is defending the Wave Serpent here. The War Walker @70ppm seemed to be more appropriate.
If we were talking 40ppm Assault Cannons on somehow a relentless Guardsmen, it'd be different (overcosted, even). But were talking about Tac Termies. Whole codecies are worse at CC than they are. And this change would make them better at shooting than most things, too. All while being reasonably resilient.
Its like being a generalist isn't enough. You need them to be the best at everything. While not costing extra.
They cost too much/die too fast right now, yes. But they survive better than most things.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 35ppm. Allow 2 HW upgrades per 5.
Bharring wrote: Nobody is defending the Wave Serpent here. The War Walker @70ppm seemed to be more appropriate.
If we were talking 40ppm Assault Cannons on somehow a relentless Guardsmen, it'd be different (overcosted, even). But were talking about Tac Termies. Whole codecies are worse at CC than they are. And this change would make them better at shooting than most things, too. All while being reasonably resilient.
Its like being a generalist isn't enough. You need them to be the best at everything. While not costing extra.
They cost too much/die too fast right now, yes. But they survive better than most things.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 35ppm. Allow 2 HW upgrades per 5.
But they don't survive better than most things. They are less resilient per point against boltguns, lasguns, plasma, melta, you name it than a generic marine. The only category where they are better is AP 3 where the marine doesn't have 5+++ cover. That's it. Against all other shooting, they are bigger victims than tac marines.
Our big disconnect here is the theoretical melee ability. Tac termies, in my experience, never live to get into melee so there fore their melee stats can be ignored in practice. They are only relevant in the theoretical world where my opponent would actually get within assault range and allow them to live at the same time. All the points being spent on those fists are points being flushed by the marine player.
Again, give me a change where terminators are no longer paper weights. There is not a single circumstance where I want these things in my list as it stands.
Bharring wrote: They also destroy in CC much better than equal points of Tac marines. Gotta pay for that.
Tac Marines are one of the most durable troops. They aren't the only comparison point.
I don't want to pay for that because they never get to use that capability. In practice, it's a very weak ability. Terminators are also not any more durable than Ork boyz or even guardsmen. Basically, the math of losing 40 pts when you roll a "1" is very, very harsh. It's almost always better to have more wounds to give.
Not at all. Even if they never get in melee with units, they still force position. Quite the threat in being alone.
And mine get into CC reasonably.
When it comes to a t4 2+/5++, 'allowing them to live' isn't so merciful as it sounds. It simply means they needed their firepower elsewhere.
Or do you believe that you should be free to get any unit you want into assault with any other unit? How would that be fair?
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you don't want to pay for it, don't. But don't take a CC unit for its ranged abilities, then complain that they need to be snooty units too, *then* complain about the generalist tax.
I'd actually consider that, although I would go with the cyclone launchers because 4 ST 8 shots can actually start taking some HPs off vehicles at a real range. Two assault cannons is still pretty lame, imo. They'd still have serious durability issues, but it would be improved some. The squad would still have 105 pts of dead weight, but I'd at least think about it.
I'd amend Bharring's suggestion to at least consider Stormbolters as Assault 3 (while mathematically a 50% increase in base firepower... it's more S4/AP5 shooting in an army that can bring S4/AP5 in spades already).
I'd also like to include additional heavy weapon options; more specifically:
Multimeltas, Plasma Cannons (though DA might have a trademark on PC Termies), Lascannons, Grav-cannons (but no grav-amp), and a Flakk option for CMLs.
This increases general versatility, due to a variety of weapon options. Also would increase versatility with CML+Flakk option.
OTOH, I think Grav-cannons should be a general heavy option, with the "GravCent" specific option including a grav-amp to differentiate it.
Martel732 wrote: I'd be happy with 4 krak missiles from a ~200 pt unit.
Do you know you have:
- Land Speeders? Put a Typhoon Missile on and squadron them, 75ppm. 6x Krak missiles for 225pts.
- Devastator squads? Buy 2 with full MLs. 4x Krak Missiles for 200pts.
- A Dreadnought for 115pts? Buy 2 for 230pts, you get 2x Krak ML and 4x TL autocannons. Pretty close.
- A triple-Lascannon Pred for 140pts? Only 3x shots but they're at S9AP2.
225pts for 5 Tac Termies (35ppm), w/2x Cyclone ML, still doesn't have firepower commensurate to these choices. But Termies are an assault unit, not the SM mirror of the Broadside. That unit exists for SM too, in a sense:
- Centurion Devastator squad, 280pts. 3x Krak Missiles and 3x TL-Lascannons. Also, T5 and 2W each. Happy now?
Look, reducing the price of the Cyclone ML, and giving Termies a 2nd Heavy Weapon option, is an ok idea. 4x Krak from a 200+pt unit is completely in line with the Codex. But that has nothing to do with their primary job, which is assaulting. Trying to base Terminator pricing on being an S8 Krak platform, is not the way to resolve anything at all! They need to be better in assault, which concerns primarily all the steps it takes to get there. Being average at S8 shooting and still struggling with assault isn't a fix.
Read behind the lines, to the way the weapon should be used. Forget the range. S8AP3 is there to help you can soften up 3+ infantry (hint, Incubi) before assaulting, or take a HP off a vehicle before you charge it. Or to finish off an escaping fast vehicle, which fleeing in terror of your S8 AP2 melee attacks. Having an extra CML doesn't actually help you with the problems of getting the charge off, and that's still the issue.
Given your preference for all things shooty over assault, what you want is to move DevCents to the Elites spot. That way you can spam shooty units so you can keep up with Eldar and Tau in your broken FLGS meta. Terminators are a frontline assaulter unit with some shooting, son. And you said it yourself, you place very little value on assault. Move on. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Terminators with a Power Weapon and Storm Bolter are 31ppm for the first 5 and may take up to 4 Heavy Weapons
Each model after the first 5 costs 29ppm and can't take any Heavy Weapon upgrades
May upgrade power weapon to a power fist for 5 points or a chainfist for 10 points
Storm Bolters are Assault 3 and may be used at full BS in overwatch if you choose to fire snap shots in the shooting phase. This is declared before firing in the shooting phase.
TDA no longer gives an invul save and instead gives FNP 5+
TDA treats Storm Bolters like pistols except they count as both oridanary weapons and specialits weapons
A model in TDA with a Storm Bolter may choose to give up the extra attack on favor for a full BS during overwatch instead of the snapshot option of storm bolters, or they can use the snapshot during shooting phase rule. This is declared before the charge or assault phase if already in combat.
Martel732 wrote: I'd be happy with 4 krak missiles from a ~200 pt unit.
Do you know you have:
- Land Speeders? Put a Typhoon Missile on and squadron them, 75ppm. 6x Krak missiles for 225pts.
Land Speeders are an AV 10/10/10, 2HP skimmer. As such, this makes them exceptionally fragile to everything. Admittedly a pair of is 150 points and gives 4 Krak shots per turn. For 20 points more you can give both of them multi-meltas to increase their potential number of S8 shots per turn.
Yoyoyo wrote: - Devastator squads? Buy 2 with full MLs. 4x Krak Missiles for 200pts.
Devastators have better things to do than carry MLs. Like carry Lascannons. Additionally, SM Heavy Support is already choked with units that range from "pretty good" (PADevs, some Pred configs, Stormravens) to "amazeballs" (DevCents, Thunderfire cannons). There's a few "it's cheap" and/or "situational" options, like Whirlwinds, Vindicators, and the Hunter/Stalker, but it's not unreasonable to say that compared to other HS options, there's far better "buys" than MLDevs.
Yoyoyo wrote: - A Dreadnought for 115pts? Buy 2 for 230pts, you get 2x Krak ML and 4x TL autocannons. Pretty close.
Dreads have their own problems. There's also the fact that Rifleman-style is probably an overall better platform, due to the meta favoring mass S6/7 weapons. 120pts gets you 4 S7 twin-linked shots at 48" and with BS4. This being said, Dreads do seem like a passable unit in the Elites choices that overshadows Terminators, if only because it can be equipped to suit the meta (IE, spam S6/7 guns).
Yoyoyo wrote: - A triple-Lascannon Pred for 140pts? Only 3x shots but they're at S9AP2.
Traditional SM trilas-Preds have the problem in that they cannot move around if they want to fire at full effect. The BA variation does have the advantage of being able to buy "Fast" status, allowing it to move 6" and fire at full effect. This is actually very critical, as a trilas-Pred that has to sit still can be maneuvered against such that you never need to shoot at it, since it will have nothing it can actually shoot at to useful effect. Again though, I'll admit that trilas Preds have the workings of being a capable weapon platform. If only they could by PotMS and take a Conversion Beamer as the main gun, then they might be a bit more badass (both would have an appropriate point cost, of course).
Yoyoyo wrote: 225pts for 5 Tac Termies (35ppm), w/2x Cyclone ML, still doesn't have firepower commensurate to these choices. But Termies are an assault unit, not the SM mirror of the Broadside. That unit exists for SM too, in a sense:
- Centurion Devastator squad, 280pts. 3x Krak Missiles and 3x TL-Lascannons. Also, T5 and 2W each. Happy now?
DevCents are more expensive though. They also lack DS, or an invulnerable save. They do gain T5 and 2W instead of a 5++, which is nice, and in the current meta it's mechanically better since it allows them greater ability to simply brute force their way through a storm of S6/S7 fire. However, I take issue with the idea that Terminators are an "assault unit".
If they were a legitimate assault unit then their most useful upgrades would not be GUNS. Hammernators or Clawnators are assault units- they have one job, and that's to punch things to death. The upgrades they have available are commensurate to this purpose. Tac Termies however, not only come with a gun, but also have mostly gun-related upgrades.
Yoyoyo wrote: Look, reducing the price of the Cyclone ML, and giving Termies a 2nd Heavy Weapon option, is an ok idea. 4x Krak from a 200+pt unit is completely in line with the Codex. But that has nothing to do with their primary job, which is assaulting. Trying to base Terminator pricing on being an S8 Krak platform, is not the way to resolve anything at all! They need to be better in assault, which concerns primarily all the steps it takes to get there. Being average at S8 shooting and still struggling with assault isn't a fix.
Except that Tac Termies don't want to assault stuff. I mean sure, almost every Tac Terminator gets a power fist. That's really cute, that is. The truth of the matter is that Terminators carry guns. They are a shooting unit that's sort-of-not-terrible-at-assaulting. They are not an assault unit.
Here, let's look at the nature of the upgrades available (not going to list points or number of upgrades, since that's not relevant) to Tac Termies, Assault Termies, Honor Guard, and Vanguard Veterans:
Terminator Upgrades 1. More mans
2. Chainfists
3-5. GUNS; these being the HF, AC, and CML. Of particular interest is that a CML is in addition to the Stormbolter
Assault Terminators 1. More mans
2. swap LCs to TH/SS
Honor Guard 1. More mans
2. Relic Blades for all the things
3. Banner stuffs
4. Chapter Champ CCW instead of gun (he's already got two CCWs... I guess GeeDubs derped?); Chapter Champ TH option
Vanguard Vets 1. More mans
2. Any dude can take from the Melee Weapons list 3. Overpriced pistols
4. Meltabombs
5. SS 6. Jump packs errywhere
7. Squad leader Relic Blade option
So we can see that actual assault units pretty much don't get gun upgrades. Certainly not guns that can be thought of as "useful" (like CMLs, or very situationally ACs/HFs). Terminators are a shooting unit. They carry guns by default, and more importantly the majority of their upgrades are guns.
How many times do I have to point out that the optimal target for a power fist and the optimal target for a Stormbolter (or even most of the guns Terminators get) is just so wildly incompatible as to be ridiculous to try to make them an assault unit. If you really want Terminators that punch things, then the Assault Terminators would like a word with you, I'm sure.
If you're still hung up on how they're an "assault unit that has guns", then why not just suggest that the two Terminator entries (one shooty, one choppy) simply be rolled together?
Yoyoyo wrote: Read behind the lines, too -- S8AP3 is how you can soften up T4 3+ infantry before assaulting, or take a HP off a vehicle before you charge it. But an extra ML doesn't actually help you with the problems if getting the charge off!
Given your preference for all things shooty over assault, what you want is to move DevCents to the Elites spot. That way you can spam shooty units so you can keep up with Eldar and Tau in your broken FLGS meta. Terminators are a frontline assaulter unit with some shooting, son. And you said it yourself, you place very little value on assault. Move on. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Assault Centurions offer better shooting than a stock Terminator. They might cost 50% more, but they get 50% more shots at 12-24", and 200% more shots at 0-12", all of which are twin-linked. Plus they can carry twin-linked flamers or twin-linked meltaguns, and they get S9 AP2 melee weapons that strike at initiative, and they get the option (in fact come stock, with a free swap to a Hurricane Bolter) to ignore the initiative penalty for charging through cover.
It sounds like the unit you want is something punchy that can shoot passably well. I guess those Assault Centurions couldn't possibly be an answer to that- and in the Elites section to boot!
Terminators with a Power Weapon and Storm Bolter are 31ppm for the first 5 and may take up to 4 Heavy Weapons
Each model after the first 5 costs 29ppm and can't take any Heavy Weapon upgrades
May upgrade power weapon to a power fist for 5 points or a chainfist for 10 points
Storm Bolters are Assault 3 and may be used at full BS in overwatch if you choose to fire snap shots in the shooting phase. This is declared before firing in the shooting phase.
TDA no longer gives an invul save and instead gives FNP 5+
TDA treats Storm Bolters like pistols except they count as both oridanary weapons and specialits weapons
A model in TDA with a Storm Bolter may choose to give up the extra attack on favor for a full BS during overwatch instead of the snapshot option of storm bolters, or they can use the snapshot during shooting phase rule. This is declared before the charge or assault phase if already in combat.
I am so glad I refreshed the page, because this... this sounds pretty cool. Now, I'm not sure of the wisdom of "start at 5 guys, take 4 heavies, then add 5 spare dudes to catch bullets for the heavies" approach, since in practice that's what it'll look like. I rather like the "2 heavies/5 mans" approach, as you then have to take a full ten-man squad to get 4 heavies on the field through that option.
I also like the Stormbolter bits- Assault 3 as a bare minimum makes a shootynator just as killy as an Assault Centurion with a Hurricane Bolter when at a distance; you're basically trading twin-linked shots, +1S/T/W, and AP2 melee at initiative for DS, overwatch, either FNP or a 5++ invuln (depending on general preference; I think both options have their merits), and being generally cheaper.
Overall, I like.
EDIT: fixed a little bit of formatting, because sometimes I derp quote boxes.
I am so glad I refreshed the page, because this... this sounds pretty cool. Now, I'm not sure of the wisdom of "start at 5 guys, take 4 heavies, then add 5 spare dudes to catch bullets for the heavies" approach, since in practice that's what it'll look like. I rather like the "2 heavies/5 mans" approach, as you then have to take a full ten-man squad to get 4 heavies on the field through that option.
I also like the Stormbolter bits- Assault 3 as a bare minimum makes a shootynator just as killy as an Assault Centurion with a Hurricane Bolter when at a distance; you're basically trading twin-linked shots, +1S/T/W, and AP2 melee at initiative for DS, overwatch, either FNP or a 5++ invuln (depending on general preference; I think both options have their merits), and being generally cheaper.
Overall, I like.
The start with 5 guys with all upgrade options available from the start is an idea I have been playing with to make space marines expensive but more powerful at lower points, but ultimately a bit cheaper at higher points levels (and combat squads for versatility). The idea being to make Space marines a bit stronger in smaller point games without making them broken. I agree that 2 heavies per 5 are probably better otherwise because it promotes max squad size. At least that is the idea behind it. It is something that needs testing to be sure. As far as my suggestions go, I think they are a starting point for decent playtesting and adjust from there.
Yoyoyo wrote: Whiskey, you have a point that they're not a pure assault unit. But they're not a pure shooting unit either, like DevCents.
We are pretty much on the same page, the mandatory Powerfist is what hampers their flexibility.
I understand I'm biased towards shooting, but I don't understand how units that are inferior to tac marines in terms of durability/pt are supposed to be assault specialists.
After some thinking I am wondering if the switch from Invul to FNP is a good one, since they will lose a save against some things they get one against now. Maybe the thing to do would be a 4+ FNP with an ability like the necrons decursion formation/dataslate/whatever it is (ie get the fnp but at -1). Maybe boost the price by 2 points (to terminators) if doing that. Or give them 5+ invul and 5+ FNP for a 5 points increase (to terminators). The thing is I think 30ish ppm is about right for terminators and I don't want them to be unbalanced/over powered, or overly complicated (which is a near impossibility). The biggest problem is the entire game is a bit out of whack and needs some good, honest playtesting a tweaking to create a better and more ideal balance. You will never get perfect balance, but maybe with a LOT of work you could get a game taht comes a lot closer to it. Really this game needs a unit design system to give a rough guide of where to benchmark things. If you had a system like that and made it as solid as possible you could go nuts with allowing conversions and homebrew that would be balanced as well and maybe even tournament viable if submitted to a to like a month before for review.
Slaanesh-Devotee wrote: Exactly, their role is to be in close quarters and punching things. The storm bolters are a way to soften up the target a little. They worked better when assault made a bigger difference versus rapidfire weapons.
I'd merely like to point out that the kind of things powerfists are good at punching to death are on the opposite end of the target spectrum that Stormbolters are good at killing. As in, powerfists want to be punching T6+, while Stormbolters want to be shooting T3 or at most T4 things. Very different target types.
True, the holdover from 2nd where such flexibiilty was able to be used causes issues when compared to other units that are more focused.
How about we reward Terminators for their veteran skills and give them some flexibility? After all, power-armoured veterans get flexibilty through ammo choices.
Their light firepower is more focused on dealing with hordes of lightly armoured infantry (Some might want more firepower, but the targets are of these type I think we can agree?). Their fists are more useful versus big well armoured things. So let's make them a unit that is specifically good at dealing with bubblewrap.
Give Terminators the ability to charge a unit that they did not shoot at. Then they can mow down bubblewrap to clear a corridor and then charge the tank or monster behind.
Yoyoyo wrote: Whiskey, you have a point that they're not a pure assault unit. But they're not a pure shooting unit either, like DevCents.
We are pretty much on the same page, the mandatory Powerfist is what hampers their flexibility.
I'd contend that they're comparable, insofar as the fact that almost all Tac Termie upgrades are guns. It just seems like GW is trying to make Tac Termies a shooting platform, but ends up compromising them on account of the legacy design that Terminators 'must' have a power fist for whatever reason.
I mean technically, fluff-wise, it does make sense. A power/chain fist would be a much better tool for hand-breaching doors (or walls) in a boarding engagement. It's just that that kind of utility never actually shows up in tabletop 40K. You see it a little in Space Hulk, where a model with a chainfist will auto-destroy a door, which is a pretty handy tool. But in regular 40K? Good luck finding a door to punch.
NorseSig wrote: The start with 5 guys with all upgrade options available from the start is an idea I have been playing with to make space marines expensive but more powerful at lower points, but ultimately a bit cheaper at higher points levels (and combat squads for versatility). The idea being to make Space marines a bit stronger in smaller point games without making them broken. I agree that 2 heavies per 5 are probably better otherwise because it promotes max squad size. At least that is the idea behind it. It is something that needs testing to be sure. As far as my suggestions go, I think they are a starting point for decent playtesting and adjust from there.
Hmm, hadn't thought of that. I'd tend toward favoring 2 heavy/5, but the reasoning of a max-firepower squad for smaller-scale games, and then adding spare bodies at larger levels, is sound.
Slaanesh-Devotee wrote: True, the holdover from 2nd where such flexibiilty was able to be used causes issues when compared to other units that are more focused.
How about we reward Terminators for their veteran skills and give them some flexibility? After all, power-armoured veterans get flexibilty through ammo choices.
Their light firepower is more focused on dealing with hordes of lightly armoured infantry (Some might want more firepower, but the targets are of these type I think we can agree?). Their fists are more useful versus big well armoured things. So let's make them a unit that is specifically good at dealing with bubblewrap.
Give Terminators the ability to charge a unit that they did not shoot at. Then they can mow down bubblewrap to clear a corridor and then charge the tank or monster behind.
I see potential in this, though I also feel like it's impossible to actually tell how well this would work unless it's actually playtested.
TDA no longer gives an invul save and instead gives FNP 5+
Yea, the FNP option has been brought up before. I wouldn't mind settling for the trade, but at FNP 4+, and reducing point cost. It may not tackle the over abundance of AP2 sauce - that screws termnators, but at least it helps in that regard without completely making terminators better than tanks. Essentially, against non AP2 or better, this option would make it approx an 8% chance to kill a terminator with 1 wound caused.
So... lets run some mathhammer:
The difference of FNP and not having FNP for terminators:
Die face @ 16.67%
10 wounds from bolters, having a 2+ save with 'feel no pain 4+': 91.67% saved or .8 out of 10 failed
10 wounds from bolters, having a 2+ save with NO 'feel no pain': 83.35% saved or 1.6 out 10 failed
Whiskey144 wrote: I'd contend that they're comparable, insofar as the fact that almost all Tac Termie upgrades are guns. It just seems like GW is trying to make Tac Termies a shooting platform, but ends up compromising them on account of the legacy design that Terminators 'must' have a power fist for whatever reason.
Look beyond the guns mate, GW did not intend them as a shooting platform. Look at the statline, rules and squad sizes of DevCents vs Tac Termies. Tac Termies have a very clear edge in number of attacks, hit with AP2, and can deploy via DS. I don't believe DevCents even have a melee weapon! Centurion Assaulters are around, true, but I'm sure you can recognize that a SnP unit with 7 attacks has a very narrow band of units they can be effective against. If Assault Cents don't strike at Initiative, Tac Termies can actually beat them in assault. Assault Cents are much more effective employing their shooting attack against CC troops (TL Melta/Flamer, TL Hurricane bolter) as their CC profile isn't good. It really only makes sense versus something like a Fortification or a Superheavy that they can catch.
Realistically though, Tac Termies would just kite Assault Cents with rending Assault Cannons and SB shots beyond the 12" range band Melta and Hurricane Bolters are effective in. And they would assault DevCents, probably wiping them without losing a man. The "Tactical" part basically means they are a hybrid troop, and can take advantage of any asymmetry.
We mentioned the upgrades, so let's look at them then.
- They can upgrade to a chainfist (assault).
- They can take a Flamer (assault).
- They can take an assault cannon (24" range, inconclusive).
- They can take a ML (48" range, typically fire support).
We should note, though, that Krak is redundant in the SM Codex and DevCents outshoot even 35ppm Terminators with better weapons, TL bonuses, higher toughness and more wounds as it stands already. You are right, they are not pure assault troops. But they aren't comparable to DevCents, even ignoring the fluff completely. Tac Termies are a hybrid, highly capable assault troops that bring atypical flexibility to the table through quality shooting. But they're always going to be great assault troops in CC, it's just the nature of the unit.
Anyways, here's the general conclusions of the thread :
- Drop the price of LC Assault Terminators significantly
- TH/SS are fine, but underperforming/overcosted Land Raiders are hurting them
- Tactical Terminators should have 2x Heavy Weapons slots per 5 models
- Tactical Terminators should be able to exchange their mandatory Power Fist for a Power Weapon, for a discount of 10pts
- Storm Bolters merit future attention
Slaanesh-Devotee wrote: Give Terminators the ability to charge a unit that they did not shoot at. Then they can mow down bubblewrap to clear a corridor and then charge the tank or monster behind.
Split Fire as a Special Rule for Tac Termies would essentially accomplish this. It makes sense (as tactics imply flexibility and discretion).
Anyways, here's the general conclusions of the thread :
- Drop the price of LC Assault Terminators significantly
- TH/SS are fine, but underperforming/overcosted Land Raiders are hurting them
- Tactical Terminators should have 2x Heavy Weapons slots per 5 models
- Tactical Terminators should be able to exchange their mandatory Power Fist for a Power Weapon, for a discount of 10pts
- Storm Bolters merit future attention
Really? That is the consensus? I don't really see it that way..
If anything I just see your points as mere proclamation like others have said prior - its the side that thinks 'options' and 'heavy bolter like storm bolters' will fix terminators.
This... 'party' of thought has an agenda that isn't really objective - imo.
Look, I don't entirely disagree with all of your points, but it is sort of condiment related in the sandwhich we're trying to make. There is an issue with the buns, and therefore, adding relish and spicy mustard will really just mask things but not fix the lack of bread consistency. If anything, it's going to make things worse because how people will start eating them than how they should be eaten (think of eating a soggy sandwich - kinda messy). So first, we need to figure out just how long to toast it with the right amount of butter after. then we consider what to add. ...................... I can't believe I compared this problem with a sandwich.... hah
Really? That is the consensus? I don't really see it that way..
If anything I just see your points as mere proclamation like others have said prior - its the side that thinks 'options' and 'heavy bolter like storm bolters' will fix terminators.
This... 'party' of thought has an agenda that isn't really objective - imo.
Look, I don't entirely disagree with all of your points, but it is sort of condiment related in the sandwhich we're trying to make. There is an issue with the buns, and therefore, adding relish and spicy mustard will really just mask things but not fix the lack of bread consistency. If anything, it's going to make things worse because how people will start eating them than how they should be eaten. So first, we need to figure out just how long to toast it with the right amount of butter after. then we consider what to add. ...................... I can't believe I compared this problem with a sandwich.... hah
The only "Proclamation" I will make is that there is an obvious problem with Terminators, and the people who like and enjoy them want to see them fixed. Unfortunately it is a complex problem to fix without an easy solution. Hence the lack of agreement. The issue is compounded more by people who are stuck in absolutes and are unwilling to have an actual discussion. In addition to that there are those who wish Terminators to remain as an army handicap for an easy points farm for them.
I, myself, have put forth SUGGESTIONS that have changed over time as the discussion has moved along. I have done this with the INTENTIONS of either I myself or someone else play testing the rules and adjusting from there. We can discuss and argue about the way to fix Terminators all we want, but at some point we need to decide on a starting point to actually test the rules. Otherwise it is all meaningless.
I don't know about anyone else, but my intentions for fixing terminators is a simple one. To try and do my part to make this game more balanced and better overall.
Really? That is the consensus? I don't really see it that way..
If anything I just see your points as mere proclamation like others have said prior - its the side that thinks 'options' and 'heavy bolter like storm bolters' will fix terminators.
This... 'party' of thought has an agenda that isn't really objective - imo.
Look, I don't entirely disagree with all of your points, but it is sort of condiment related in the sandwhich we're trying to make. There is an issue with the buns, and therefore, adding relish and spicy mustard will really just mask things but not fix the lack of bread consistency. If anything, it's going to make things worse because how people will start eating them than how they should be eaten. So first, we need to figure out just how long to toast it with the right amount of butter after. then we consider what to add. ...................... I can't believe I compared this problem with a sandwich.... hah
The only "Proclamation" I will make is that there is an obvious problem with Terminators, and the people who like and enjoy them want to see them fixed. Unfortunately it is a complex problem to fix without an easy solution. Hence the lack of agreement. The issue is compounded more by people who are stuck in absolutes and are unwilling to have an actual discussion. In addition to that there are those who wish Terminators to remain as an army handicap for an easy points farm for them.
I, myself, have put forth SUGGESTIONS that have changed over time as the discussion has moved along. I have done this with the INTENTIONS of either I myself or someone else play testing the rules and adjusting from there. We can discuss and argue about the way to fix Terminators all we want, but at some point we need to decide on a starting point to actually test the rules. Otherwise it is all meaningless.
I don't know about anyone else, but my intentions for fixing terminators is a simple one. To try and do my part to make this game more balanced and better overall.
The starting point we need to look at is the matter of their survivability. Their problems since the redux from 2nd to 3rd was only fixed by adding a light invulnerable save after complaints related to a lack of survivability (in a white dwarf). This to me, highlights an issue we should observe first. It indicates that GW acknowledged there was an issue, but if one looks at their fix, I think it will reveal a halfhearted attempt:
1 Obviously they didn't really care about really play testing the system and/or SM codex very well - because of something as basic as terminators falling so short...
2 Therefore, It's no real surprise, that they would take the same lack of thought into fixing terminators - when they added an invulnerable save that works 33% of the time - for select weapons. This still leaves a gap of point cost efficiency and a role deficit that I imagine 2nd didn't have as much of a problem with. This also made terminators as dependable as rock, paper, scissors... very expensive gamble at 40 ppm
3rd edition on up has been more volatile in die rolls since it streamlined everything to a standard d6 roll mostly. I liked this approach, but I feel that some of the things, like terminators, didn't carry the same role anymore. Terminators suffered much inherently because the armour scale in 2nd was more granular, thus could be distinguished without feeling ridiculous. Furthermore, with the simple d6 scale that came around in third, it marginalized the best armour in 2nd because not only did it make general saves very categorical (and thus less distinguished), it also made their associated tacitcal use (for squads composed of TDA) confusing as to their role since ppm were too high. The devs just simply dropped the ball on expensive heavily armored units during 3rd edition development. They were focused way too much to get the broad picture out, that units like terminators were left in the dust and fixed with a hodge podge caution - so not to throw off their loose notion of balance.
I'm not advocating for some level of 2nd edition granularity to define terminator survivability, but I do want them distinguished more from tactical marines - to justify why they are even wearing such a bulky thing, and thus, carve out their purpose in army choices.
Adding more termie squad options is not going to help their real issue. It's only going to make it more abstract as to their use, and fail to capture their niche - if their armour save survivability isn't addressed first.
Unfortunately I don't think terminators will change much due to the advent of centurions. I doubt GW will want to overshadow their new kits.
Yoyoyo wrote: Look beyond the guns mate, GW did not intend them as a shooting platform. Look at the statline, rules and squad sizes of DevCents vs Tac Termies. Tac Termies have a very clear edge in number of attacks, hit with AP2, and can deploy via DS.
DS'ing in will cluster you up nicely for a pieplate to the face, and prevents you from launching an assault the turn you come on.
Yoyoyo wrote: I don't believe DevCents even have a melee weapon! Centurion Assaulters are around, true, but I'm sure you can recognize that a SnP unit with 7 attacks has a very narrow band of units they can be effective against. If Assault Cents don't strike at Initiative, Tac Termies can actually beat them in assault. Assault Cents are much more effective employing their shooting attack against CC troops (TL Melta/Flamer, TL Hurricane bolter) as their CC profile isn't good. It really only makes sense versus something like a Fortification or a Superheavy that they can catch.
No, DevCents do not have combat weapons. It's not much of any issue, since GravCents will murder the piss out of Tac Termies before the latter can make it into combat. Also, let's consider a 5-man Terminator unit with an AC, and a 3-man AssCent squad that takes the free swap of Ironclad launcher->Hurricane bolter twice (so it still has an Ironclad launcher), and grab the Omniscope on the sarge and two meltaguns. Both of these units are identical in point cost, by the way.
5 Tac Termies w/ 4 SBs+1 AC will produce 8 S4 AP5 shots+4 S6 AP4 Rending shots from 0-24". The AssCents will produce 6 S4 AP5 shots at 12-24" that are also Twin-Linked; so yes, Terminators can out-dakka AssCents when at a distance. You seem to be claiming (and agreeing) that GW made Tac Termies an "assault platform". So the range advantage of the Terminators is rendered moot- the Terminators will want to get close in an assault things, just like the AssCents- according to you, at least. Incidentally, the AssCents get 12 S4 AP5 shots at 0-12", and 2 S8 AP1 Melta shots, plus they'll probably be close enough to fire a twin-linked S4 AP5 template as well. Oh, and those Hurricane Bolter and Melta shots, they're twin-linked too.
But we won't run this as if both parties are trying to shoot each other to death. Straight combat, how do they compare. Well....
AssCents end up with 7 S9 AP2 attacks base, at Initiative 4 (siege drills are not Unwieldy, retaining an Ironclad launcher keeps the Initiative advantage even if charging through cover). On the charge, they get 10 S9/AP2 attacks. At I4.
Tac Termies produce 8 S8 AP2 Unwieldy attacks, and 2 S4 AP3 attacks at I4. On the charge, this will increase to 12 S8 AP2 Unwieldy attacks, and 3 S4 AP3 I4 attacks. In terms of raw output, yeah, the Terminators seem to have AssCents beat.
Initiative 4 is the great equalizer in this fight. The AssCents will generally strike first- and if they keep at least one Ironclad launcher in the squad, then they always strike first. Depending on the AssCent squad's size, you may want to have two Ironclad launchers, so that it's harder to snipe them out of the unit.
In any case, we'll ignore charges for a moment. AssCents strike first, at I4 and with 7 S9 AP2 attacks. Both are WS4, so both hit on 4s. This is 3.5 hits, which then becomes ~2.92 wounds, which is then saved against the Termies 5++, for ~1.93 Terminators dead. We'll assume this kills the sergeant and one other Terminator, so as to allow the maximum possible number of Terminators to strike back with their Unwieldy powerfists. Though the Termie sarge will produce 1.5 hits, then 0.5 wounds, which then becomes ~0.084 unsaved wounds, with the sarge's power sword. Very unimpressive.
Moving on, the 3 remaining Terminators, all armed with powerfists, produce 6 attacks in return, hit 3 times, and wound on 2s, for ~2.5 wounds. Both squads take ~33-40% casualties. I'll again be generous and assume that one of the Cents is killed by the remaining Terminators. In fact, we'll say that the remaining Termies killed the AssCent sarge. So, 4 swings from the remaining Cents, 2 hits, ~1.67 wounds, for ~1.1 unsaved wounds after saves (Termies have that 5++). So now there's two Terminators left, who swing back with 4 attacks themselves, hit twice, and produce ~1.67 wounds which are unsaved, as AssCents have no invuln.
Second round of combat, no AssCents are killed, though presumably both take a wound. Going into the 3rd round, another Terminator is killed, and the last Termie strikes back and will likely kill one of the two AssCents that are left. Round four, it's a little hairy. The remaining AssCent is pretty much down to a single wound, and it really hinges on whether or not the Terminator manages to save the wound with his 5++.
Ultimately though, AssCents vs Tac Termies in combat, without factoring charge bonuses, is pretty much mutual annihilation. One squad will be reduced to one member, with the other being wiped out. One Terminator or AssCent however, does not a combat-effective unit make. When factoring charge bonuses, I found that with a minimum-sized squad, whichever unit gets the charge wins.
Yoyoyo wrote: Realistically though, Tac Termies would just kite Assault Cents with rending Assault Cannons and SB shots beyond the 12" range band Melta and Hurricane Bolters are effective in.
Rending on ACs is not reliable enough to kill Centurions, while Stormbolters aren't going to be pushing many wounds through a Cent's T5/2+, to say nothing of Cents having two wounds.
Yoyoyo wrote: And they would assault DevCents, probably wiping them without losing a man.
GravCents will murder the Terminators before the Termies can ever get a charge off, LC/ML DevCents will be too far in the back to assault without trying to DS in... at which point you have to stand around and get shot in the face for a turn before you can try and punch things. LC/ML Cents- and Hurricane/HB Cents, for that matter- can probably "just kite" the Tac Termies by using their superior range.
That maneuver cuts both ways, after all.
Yoyoyo wrote: The "Tactical" part basically means they are a hybrid troop, and can take advantage of any asymmetry.
The only problem is that the things that Terminators are good at (killing light infantry in shooting, and punching tanks/MCs), a unit of Centurions is better at. In shooting, the Centurions have better anti-horde options, and arguably have better AT options since they can get meltaguns (rending ACs are notAT guns). AssCents also get +1S over PF Termies, and they strike in Initiative order instead of being held down by Unwieldy.
Yoyoyo wrote: We mentioned the upgrades, so let's look at them then.
- They can upgrade to a chainfist (assault). - They can take a Flamer (assault). - They can take an assault cannon (24" range, inconclusive). - They can take a ML (48" range, typically fire support).
I'd say that a 24" weapon range automatically makes it a 'fire support' or 'primary' weapon, and not an assault-oriented weapon, since 24" is the common infantry weapon range. I'd also contend that Terminators need a wider variety of heavy weapon options- preferably armaments that aren't really available to DevCents (though I'd love for Termies to be able to tote a Grav-Cannon). Then you consider what weapons you want, and then how you want to deliver them; as an example, if you MLs on a 'tough' infantry model, then you can pick the more-accurate DevCents, who can also bring LCs to the party, or the higher-RoF Terminators who can DS in if needed.
If you give Terminators access to MMs, then you have a DSMM option that's able to better leverage cover, can also punch the same things you'll be shooting with MMs to death, doesn't require a drop pod, is theoretically tougher than Sternguard (IE, more likely to survive return fire), and more able to leverage cover than a MM dread in a pod.
Yoyoyo wrote: We should note, though, that Krak is redundant in the SM Codex
I wouldn't say it's redundant, merely highly available. Considering that Eldar and Tau can spam S6/7, then perhaps Marines should be able to spam S8 to a lesser degree? /inner cynic
Yoyoyo wrote: and DevCents outshoot even 35ppm Terminators with better weapons, TL bonuses, higher toughness and more wounds as it stands already. [..] But they aren't comparable to DevCents, even ignoring the fluff completely.
For the record, you brought up DevCents in the first place. I merely pointed out the tradeoffs that the mentioned LC/ML DevCents make in comparison to a slightly cheaper dual CML min-sized Terminator squad. As it happens, the meta currently favors the DevCents, primarily because T5 and 2 wounds makes them moderately more durable against mass S6/7.
Yoyoyo wrote: You are right, they are not pure assault troops. [..] Tac Termies are a hybrid, highly capable assault troops that bring atypical flexibility to the table through quality shooting. But they're always going to be great assault troops in CC, it's just the nature of the unit.
Except that Terminators are not "highly capable assault troops"] in the slightest, except against a very specific subset of targets, the most dangerous of which will either mince the Terminators in combat (DK, IK) or will never be caught by the Terminators (Riptide, WK, IK if it has better things to kill).
Yoyoyo wrote: Anyways, here's the general conclusions of the thread :
- Drop the price of LC Assault Terminators significantly - TH/SS are fine, but underperforming/overcosted Land Raiders are hurting them - Tactical Terminators should have 2x Heavy Weapons slots per 5 models - Tactical Terminators should be able to exchange their mandatory Power Fist for a Power Weapon, for a discount of 10pts - Storm Bolters merit future attention
I'd somewhat disagree, instead stating it as:
-Terminators should be slightly cheaper base, perhaps by giving them a power weapon stock with the option to upgrade to a power/chain fist -Stormbolters should be improved; Assault 3 is a good starting point (IMO at least) -Clawnator and Shootynator should be comparable in cost; this is easiest to manage with a "power weapon stock" option -Hammernators are only bad because delivery systems are lackluster -Shootynators should get double heavies per five mans -Minor adjustments to durability are probably needed -Increased heavy weapon selection would be an improvement
I like analogies, and sandwiches. It's all good man.
This thread just has a lot of talk going in many different directions, I wanted to sum up to get some forward direction out of it. As NorseSig said, if at some point if you want to drive forth a solution, someone who didn't get their way is going to feel hurt. That's the big problem with design by committee, it's hard for some people to have humility and they will simply dig in their heels rather than prop someone else's idea.
Try and jump on the good ideas, rather than getting stuck on the thorny ones, it will help us move a resolution forward.
I didn't see a lot of people going for FNP, so I'll tell you my own reasoning why. It's a very significant buff against anything but S8 or ID weapons. You're negating 1/2 of all S7 Plasma hitting your Termies, and that's after BS, to wound, and invul save rolls, and the Plasma gun accidentally blows up in my face. Isn't Plasma supposedly my dedicated anti-TEQ weapon?
Also, a pure FNP fix won't help Termies against S8+ AP2 blasts, which means you still can't DS against a lot of armies. By reducing the points, you can get bigger squads, combat squad them, and get a lot more target saturation when you drop. So I think a points reduction is more advantageous to you in some ways.
FNP has big consequences for melee -- you might not walk all over Meganobz at S8, but in other currently balanced combat, you will walk all over S7 and below. Remember, FNP is a saved wound, so it won't count towards combat resolution. A unit like the TH/SS (which is already quite good) might become overpowering. Not to mention HQs which are already balanced around T5 and multiple wounds. Plus, do Cents logically get a FNP too?
You would need to run some scenarios and comparisons with Tac Termies, and answer all these questions. I'm not saying it couldn't work, but the bolter example is way too abstract.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So basically, Whiskey -- you learned that DevCents want to be shooting, not punching?
And that "Assault" Cents are pretty much equal to "Tactical" Terminators in pure assault, unless they strike at a higher initiative? Good! Point made.
But yes, if you made Terminators a 30ppm platform for Grav Spam, they'd be quite comparable to Dev Cents. Until you said that, I didn't quite follow your logic.
I think getting sucked into a point-by-point internet deconstruction of a post, usually indicates it's time to leave the argument. So, bye. Cheers!
Yoyoyo wrote: I like analogies, and sandwiches. It's all good man.
This thread just has a lot of talk going in many different directions, I wanted to sum up to get some forward direction out of it. As NorseSig said, if at some point if you want to drive forth a solution, someone who didn't get their way is going to feel hurt. That's the big problem with design by committee, it's hard for some people to have humility and they will simply dig in their heels rather than prop someone else's idea.
Try and jump on the good ideas, rather than getting stuck on the thorny ones, it will help us move a resolution forward.
I didn't see a lot of people going for FNP, so I'll tell you my own reasoning why. It's a very significant buff against anything but S8 or ID weapons. You're negating 1/2 of all S7 Plasma hitting your Termies, and that's after BS, to wound, and invul save rolls, and the Plasma gun accidentally blows up in my face. Isn't Plasma supposedly my dedicated anti-TEQ weapon?
Also, a pure FNP fix won't help Termies against S8+ AP2 blasts, which means you still can't DS against a lot of armies. By reducing the points, you can get bigger squads, combat squad fhem, and get a lot more target saturation when you drop. So I think a points reduction is more advantageous to you in some ways.
FNP has big consequences for melee -- you might not walk all over Meganobz at S8, but in other currently balanced combat, you will walk all over S7 and below. Remember, FNP is a saved wound, so it won't count towards combat resolution. A unit like the TH/SS (which is already quite good) might become overpowering. Not to mention HQs which are already balanced around T5 and multiple wounds. Plus, do Cents logically get a FNP too?
You would need to run some scenarios and comparisons with Tac Termies, and answer all these questions. The bolter example is way too abstract.
I am a little leary of FNP myself for some of the reasons you stated. It probably won't be overpowering for MOST things and variations of Terminators with the exception of MAYBE TH+SS Termies. Personally, I think it should at least be tested first before being completely discounted. I say this because I AM an Iron Hands player and get a 6+ FNP. Overall, based on my results at that, it probably wouldn't be game breaking. You can forget you have the 6+FNP most of the time and it won't make a difference. A 5+FNP might be a little more reliable but I don't think It would be crazy good. Certainly not as good as the reanimation protocols Necrons get (and I am fine with that). I am not a 100% sure but isn't there a unit in Necrons (assault based I believe) that gets 2+/2++ and 4+ Protocols (with the decursion formation. never can remember the name of it)? The wraith I want to say. I seem to remember them being insanely good. TH+SS termies wouldn't have that level of resilience, and would still need a reliable way to get around in a timely fasion (though deepstrike becomes a better option with these).
Cents I think are fine as they are. Their second wound and much better offense make up for any negatives they have.
And I don't completely agree that they will walk all over str7 and below. Will they be able to stand against it better? Yes. But part of the issue with termies is their ability to survive low str shooting. I know my biker cap/CM on a bike with gorgons chain apothecary TH+LC and 4 grav guns in command squad doesn't always steamroll in combat. He is very very good at it but there are ways to stop him dead in his tracks. One of them is to lock him into a giant mob if you can. It takes a while to fight out of that.
Yoyoyo wrote: I like analogies, and sandwiches. It's all good man.
This thread just has a lot of talk going in many different directions, I wanted to sum up to get some forward direction out of it. As NorseSig said, if at some point if you want to drive forth a solution, someone who didn't get their way is going to feel hurt. That's the big problem with design by committee, it's hard for some people to have humility and they will simply dig in their heels rather than prop someone else's idea.
Try and jump on the good ideas, rather than getting stuck on the thorny ones, it will help us move a resolution forward.
I didn't see a lot of people going for FNP, so I'll tell you my own reasoning why. It's a very significant buff against anything but S8 or ID weapons. You're negating 1/2 of all S7 Plasma hitting your Termies, and that's after BS, to wound, and invul save rolls, and the Plasma gun accidentally blows up in my face. Isn't Plasma supposedly my dedicated anti-TEQ weapon?
Also, a pure FNP fix won't help Termies against S8+ AP2 blasts, which means you still can't DS against a lot of armies. By reducing the points, you can get bigger squads, combat squad fhem, and get a lot more target saturation when you drop. So I think a points reduction is more advantageous to you in some ways.
FNP has big consequences for melee -- you might not walk all over Meganobz at S8, but in other currently balanced combat, you will walk all over S7 and below. Remember, FNP is a saved wound, so it won't count towards combat resolution. A unit like the TH/SS (which is already quite good) might become overpowering. Not to mention HQs which are already balanced around T5 and multiple wounds. Plus, do Cents logically get a FNP too?
You would need to run some scenarios and comparisons with Tac Termies, and answer all these questions. The bolter example is way too abstract.
"You're negating 1/2 of all S7 Plasma hitting your Termies, and that's after BS, to wound, and invul save rolls"
Yes, the idea behind the FNP is that it would affect AP2 related s7 just a tad better than what is current. There is also the added benefit that it wont entirely neuter instant death in the process. AP2 is over abundant as is - which is a main reason why SM players avoid using them and why this thread starts out with 'the AP2 issue'.
"Also, a pure FNP fix won't help Termies against S8+ AP2 blasts, which means you still can't DS against a lot of armies. By reducing the points, you can get bigger squads, combat squad fhem, and get a lot more target saturation when you drop. So I think a points reduction is more advantageous to you in some ways."
Well, I don't want terminators to walk around with impunity. Some weapons or things are going to exist where terminators just don't have a chance. We have to accept this I think somewhere in approaching there issue. There's gotta be some delineation as to what weapons should turn terminators into pink mist. I would be okay at that line of S8 AP2. Also, remember, a guardsman with a plasma will still be mitigating 33% of the terminators normal save - if he hits and that's still something.
I agree, a significant point reduction would be a great option - if it goes into the realm of 25-28 ppm.
"FNP has big consequences for melee -- you might not walk all over Meganobz at S8, but in other currently balanced combat, you will walk all over S7 and below. Remember, FNP is a saved wound, so it won't count towards combat resolution. A unit like the TH/SS (which is already quite good) might become overpowering. Not to mention HQs which are already balanced around T5 and multiple wounds. Plus, do Cents logically get a FNP too?"
I think terminators should operate with way more security in close quarters - since that is what they are intended for in lore, so I really don't see a problem here.
TH/SS will become particularly more survivable in close combat yes, but they still suffer from going last, and they are limited in tactical use in general. For how expensive they are (even if with a point reduction) they should be impressive on their consistent damage soak.
HQ units fielded with this combo are going to have to pay the usual subjective premium. Could always increase so that it isn't the only viable cost effecient option.
Centurion should not get anything more than what they already have. In my opinion, they should be retconned anyway. I only tolerate their existence... They are up there with the Logan sleigh, and wolf mounts - imo.
Regarding your idea on direction, here's the list of fixes that sound reasonable to work with:
The offers:
FNP 4+ or 5+
Armour Save reroll (BRB exception)
+1 AP reduction vs Terminator armour.
Stat line increase - variable ideas
Point cost reduction to 25-30 ppm with more more versatility regarding options.
Various Trade-offs:
Remove invulnerable save
Add further movement penalty
Reduce initiative
Add point values
Willing to revise this list, if I agree with the rationale. I may have forgotten some of the ideas I liked in the thread too - fyi.
Reflection is good but at some time we have to run scenarios for the Tac guys, to test and compare all the possible solutions on the table. It's important not to tailor loadouts until we see how the basic troops perform. Given the complexity of the other options I say go with a points reduction and FNP.
It's probably easiest to do this in Excel if anyone can whip up a CC calculator.
At 200pts, here's a selection of infantry to draw a reliable baseline:
Running tests with 33pt Terminators (6x), 40pt Terminators (5x), and 40pt Terminators w/FNP (5+, 6+) would give you a good idea of how they all stack up in CC.
Yoyoyo wrote: Reflection is good but at some time we have to run scenarios for the Tac guys, to test and compare all the possible solutions on the table. It's important not to tailor loadouts until we see how the basic troops perform. Given the complexity of the other options I say go with a points reduction and FNP.
It's probably easiest to do this in Excel if anyone can whip up a CC calculator.
At 200pts, here's a selection of infantry to draw a reliable baseline:
Running tests with 33pt Terminators (6x), 40pt Terminators (5x), and 40pt Terminators w/FNP (5+, 6+) would give you a good idea of how they all stack up in CC.
Anybody want to take this on?
Playtesting is fine to an extent. I just don't think taking various entries from other lists to 'playtest vs' is as directly proportional as you might think. Each army is considered with an internal balance just as much as general game balance perspective. I think the safer bet is to take that related army's standard infantryman as the point cost baseline and establish a metric for our alterations.
What you propose right now, offers way too much subjectivity since it is neglecting army synergy. It won't reveal too much other than opinion I fear.
What we should be looking at, is how much a terminator should cost relative to a tactical marine first.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: I take back what I said (to a degree). In order to establish a relative baseline for the tactical marine, we first have to base on something less than a marine... the only thing that comes to mind would be an imp guard human - I think this makes for the ideal standard/increment for point cost reference.
Anyone disagree?
If not that this is what I have in mind:
Consider and quantify the point value difference between the imp guard and the space marine. Then take those values and increment them in relation to what a terminator SHOULD cost over a space marine.
Playtesting is fine to an extent. I just don't think taking various entries from other lists to 'playtest vs' is as directly proportional as you might think. Each army is considered with an internal balance just as much as general game balance perspective. I think the safer bet is to take that related army's standard infantryman as the point cost baseline and establish a metric for our alterations.
What you propose right now, offers way too much subjectivity since it is neglecting army synergy. It won't reveal too much other than opinion I fear.
What we should be looking at, is how much a terminator should cost relative to a tactical marine first.
In relation to a tactical marine I would say tactical terminators should run 30ppm before upgrades or there abouts. No more than 33. I wasn't suggesting only a FNP change either. I was talking about having them have FNP in place of the invul save though TH+SS would get an invul from the SS. 30ppm is still pricey, but I think it is a fair price (once other changes are made to tune the unit), with some fluctuation depending on what you give them.
My other Ideas (the recent ones) are in the thread, and I have been just too lazy to keep repeating them over and over.
In no way should Terminators get any slower. Their mobility is one of their HUGE drawbacks that will go a long way to help keep them from ever being broke cheese like other units. Which is why we want to boost their damage output and versatility as well, but not boost it too much.
I think based on str alone 8+ is a decent benchmark for instant killing terminators. Which str 8 and above will deny them FNP if I remember correctly. I seem to remember double str over toughness is instant death if they fail a save. But it is late so my mind might not be working correctly atm. And it isn't like anything below str 8 won't kill Terminators with FNP. Massed fire will still kill them as it should, but it won't do it as quickly.
But I agree testing one rule at a time is the way to go starting with the points, though I suspect we can extrapolate some data from similar terminator units already in the game that are around the 33ppm mark. Namely the Grey Knights and Space Wolves. Yes they are slightly more assault geared than the vanilla terminators, but if we look at them we can get some data from that there. Grey Knight termies have storm bolters and force weapons. From what I have experienced and seen the grey knights are in need of help this edition as far as most everything goes minus dreadknights (those are crazy good. Not op good but crazy good). The GK are pretty decent in the assault but their shooting is very weak.
Space Wolves Grey Guard (I think that is what they are called. I am horrible with names) have great utility at 33ppm baseline. What makes them good is you can turn them into a powerhouse assault unit with fairly decent fire support. 2+/3++ guys in the front with good other melee options is what sells them. They Heavy weapons on SW Termies is just icing on the cake., But again They are more assault orientated with their USRs and options than vanilla Terminators. They Grey Guard can still be a little too fragile though.
I have not had a chance to look at Blood Angels or Dark Angels Termies as of yet, and I can't get a proper judge on the Blood Angels version seeing as I refuse to play the local BA player (He cheats, and is an all around poor sport. I only play him if I have to. Like for instance if I am in a league).
I am not saying these examples end the discussion, but they do give some support for the 30ppm starting point for testing. As they are now the SW and GK Termies are a little overpriced (not a lot just a few points, and depending on the rules that people come up with might become spot on.) I will say that GK Termies are about the best troop option for GKIMO, but that is more of due to the weakness of the other troops than anything.
Sorry if this is long and rambly. I get like that when I am tired, but I wanted to get my thoughts out while I remembered them.
Sorry if this is long and rambly. I get like that when I am tired, but I wanted to get my thoughts out while I remembered them.
No problem. good thoughts. I think it digressed well.
Regarding that idea I had for the baseline - for terminators, [take the following as a rough approximation]:
......................................[Long thought train removed for your brevity]...............................................
So now lets look at Tactical Space Marines to terminators with the above comparison in mind:
[Unfortunately the guardsman comparison idea had little bearing from SM to terminator.... thought maybe it would be more useful... oh well]
The pt difference rundown Tac marine -> Terminator:
+1 pts for attacks,
+1 pts for Assault weapon and general range improvement
+2 pts for armour save increase (+16.67% base cost of marine - because one die facing improvement = 16.67% = Approx how many points are incrementally saved from a wound [average])
+2 pts stat points for invulnerable save (+33% / 2 Base cost rounding down - because x2 die facings = 33%, approx, how many points are saved from a wound - divided by 2 because only one save permitted, so reducing for redundancy ).
+5 points for powerfist (+1 per point of Strength in combat + APs but divided by 2 since it essentially reduces all Initiative).
Total: 11 pts
So a terminator with storm bolter & powerfist should start off at no less than 26 ppm ( +15 tac marine +11 difference to current terminator stats)
So..... I will argue that this is really closer to the figure we should be paying for current terminators.
------------------------- Plugging FNP into the above reasoning-----------------------------------------
If we took this figure and modified for some of our desired alterations, like FNP 4+, I would argue it should do the following:
Since FNP is more consistent than the invulnerable save, I think the division I used for it would be cancelled and a further 16.67% fee added on (because its going from a 5+ to a 4+),
and our base cost is still 15, so : 15*16.67% = 2.5. I'll round down, so +2 pts. Now we add the original invuln pt value, without the division and rounding up. So, +5. Now we add 2+5 in total = 7 pts
Therefore, a terminator with FNP 4+, storm bolter and powerfist should cost 31 points.
"Second round of combat, no AssCents are killed, though presumably both take a wound. Going into the 3rd round, another Terminator is killed, and the last Termie strikes back and will likely kill one of the two AssCents that are left. Round four, it's a little hairy. The remaining AssCent is pretty much down to a single wound, and it really hinges on whether or not the Terminator manages to save the wound with his 5++."
They are 2 wounds each yes? So 1 of them is dead if both take a wound, as the closest model takes all the wounds until the next (I can't remember at the moment, but it could be initiative step) round. But anyway the multi wound shenanigans only work if you move the wounded model back next movement phase, or the wound is done on a different round in melee.
kveldulf
You forgot special rules in your figures. I don't know them all, but there is for sure Deep strike.
At this time it does appear to be a point for point change in the same organization slot, not across slots. Using Eldar, Dire Avengers vs Guardians.
Dire Avengers gain +1Ld, +1Sv, Counter Attack, and better Shuricat, making them cost 13ppm.
Storm Guardians vs Howling Banshees
Banshees Gain +1Ld, +1Sv, Acrobatic, Banshee Mask, and a Power Sword. They lose Plasma Grenades. Making them 14ppm, as compared to the 15ppm they run. Not a huge difference, but they are not that much better, and Grenades are better than the mask.
Wyches vs Incubi
Incubi gain +1Ws, +1Ld, +3Sv, and an AP2 +1S weapon. I did not add an extra attack because the wyches get 2 CC weapons.
They lose 1I, Combat Drugs, and Dodge.
Making them cost 14ppm(counting the +1S), a far cry from the 20ppm they are now.
kveldulf
You forgot special rules in your figures. I don't know them all, but there is for sure Deep strike.
At this time it does appear to be a point for point change in the same organization slot, not across slots. Using Eldar, Dire Avengers vs Guardians.
Dire Avengers gain +1Ld, +1Sv, Counter Attack, and better Shuricat, making them cost 13ppm.
Storm Guardians vs Howling Banshees
Banshees Gain +1Ld, +1Sv, Acrobatic, Banshee Mask, and a Power Sword. They lose Plasma Grenades. Making them 14ppm, as compared to the 15ppm they run. Not a huge difference, but they are not that much better, and Grenades are better than the mask.
Wyches vs Incubi
Incubi gain +1Ws, +1Ld, +3Sv, and an AP2 +1S weapon. I did not add an extra attack because the wyches get 2 CC weapons.
They lose 1I, Combat Drugs, and Dodge.
Making them cost 14ppm(counting the +1S), a far cry from the 20ppm they are now.
I intentionally left out maneuvering/toggle special rules to factor in, as I see them as something distributed to units to sculpt and distinguish army composition as a whole - unit synergy within the army
On top of that, it's too hard to factor in things like deployment special rules as absolute point values. If anything, these are the particular mechanics that play testing should be focusing on.
I snipped a lot of my train of thought in that post, which included mention of not quantifying special rules. Heh I guess I should of left it in, but I felt it was better to save everyone a few brain cells and just get to the meat and potatoes.
kveldulf
You forgot special rules in your figures. I don't know them all, but there is for sure Deep strike.
At this time it does appear to be a point for point change in the same organization slot, not across slots. Using Eldar, Dire Avengers vs Guardians.
Dire Avengers gain +1Ld, +1Sv, Counter Attack, and better Shuricat, making them cost 13ppm.
Storm Guardians vs Howling Banshees
Banshees Gain +1Ld, +1Sv, Acrobatic, Banshee Mask, and a Power Sword. They lose Plasma Grenades. Making them 14ppm, as compared to the 15ppm they run. Not a huge difference, but they are not that much better, and Grenades are better than the mask.
Wyches vs Incubi
Incubi gain +1Ws, +1Ld, +3Sv, and an AP2 +1S weapon. I did not add an extra attack because the wyches get 2 CC weapons.
They lose 1I, Combat Drugs, and Dodge.
Making them cost 14ppm(counting the +1S), a far cry from the 20ppm they are now.
I intentionally left out maneuvering/toggle special rules to factor in, as I see them as something distributed to units to sculpt and distinguish army composition as a whole - unit synergy within the army
On top of that, it's too hard to factor in things like deployment special rules as absolute point values. If anything, these are the particular mechanics that play testing should be focusing on.
I snipped a lot of my train of thought in that post, which included mention of not quantifying special rules. Heh I guess I should of left it in, but I felt it was better to save everyone a few brain cells and just get to the meat and potatoes.
Good to know. I always just assigned a flat +1 point to all special rules, except Invulnerable saves, and FnP. Both of which are added to my personal Equation in the Defense portion as a modifier or an additional save sequence, respectively.
kveldulf wrote: Playtesting is fine to an extent. I just don't think taking various entries from other lists to 'playtest vs' is as directly proportional as you might think. Each army is considered with an internal balance just as much as general game balance perspective. I think the safer bet is to take that related army's standard infantryman as the point cost baseline and establish a metric for our alterations.
Playtesting is just that -- testing. It's not to set points, it's to double-check if the values you arrive by your metric give the results you want. Look at it as a way of proving the results of your changes and costing. And in some ways it's easier to say "that works" than by remaining completely abstract. For example, if 200pts is a baseline, we can test 5x Termies at 40ppm, 6x Termies at 33ppm, 5x Termies at 28ppm, and 8x Termies at 25ppm. I can't tell you if 35ppm is the fairest true baseline. I can only say, "here are the results of testing, consider them as you will". Keep in mind it doesn't preclude considering internal synergy to weigh the results afterwards.
The only reason to discourage gaming the values, is if you don't want to check the "practice" against your "theory"!
megatrons2nd wrote: They are 2 wounds each yes? So 1 of them is dead if both take a wound, as the closest model takes all the wounds until the next (I can't remember at the moment, but it could be initiative step) round. But anyway the multi wound shenanigans only work if you move the wounded model back next movement phase, or the wound is done on a different round in melee.
The main point was that Dev Cents have melee comparable to Broadsides (4A at WS4, 7A at WS2, neither get melee weapons), and Tac Termies are pretty good in CC. So they not truly comparable. Neither are the special weapons. Dev Cents have much better quality of fire, and every model is required to take them. Once again, that's similar to a Broadside (Railgun/HYMP, SMS/Plasma Rifle).
Assault Cents are a very strange unit (SnP on an assaulter?). I think they have more of a seige role than anything else. But they compare far more equally to Tac Termies than their Dev Cents do, both in shooting and CC.
Yoyoyo wrote: So basically, Whiskey -- you learned that DevCents want to be shooting, not punching?
No, we established that DevCents shoot things to death, when you brought up LC/ML DevCents.
Yoyoyo wrote: And that "Assault" Cents are pretty much equal to "Tactical" Terminators in pure assault, unless they strike at a higher initiative? Good! Point made.
No, actually. AssCents pretty much gak all over Tac Termies in combat with things that Tac Termies would be good at punching. The only reason for AssCents to strike simultaneously with Tac Termies is if you give all of them Hurricane Bolters instead of Ironclad Assault Launchers, and the target unit is in cover. AssCents have S9 AP2 melee that strikes at Initiative 4. Always. For equal cost investment (assuming only manpower, as the gun upgrades are wasted in combat), AssCents will murder almost anything more efficiently than Tac Termies will. Even equipped with Chainfists, the twin Siege Drills of an AssCent overcome the lack of base attacks on an AssCent's profile, and are S9/AP2 Armorbane, as opposed to the Sx2/AP2 Armorbane of a Chainfist.
The only way for a squad of Shootynators to kill AssCents in assault is for the former to get the charge off.
Yoyoyo wrote: But yes, if you made Terminators a 30ppm platform for Grav Spam, they'd be quite comparable to Dev Cents. Until you said that, I didn't quite follow your logic.
I'd like Grav Cannons as a general heavy weapon option for every SM squad, yes. However, I find it more important that access to the existing heavy weapon list be extended to Terminators, as I did point out that even just going for a double heavy per 5 guys and giving access to MMs means you have a way to deliver DS melta- and 24" range melta, to boot, on a 2+ armor dude. It's not stellar, but it gives a short-range, mobile AT, infantry platform to the SM book, to complement the emplaced infantry AT options of LC/ML DevCents or a 4x ML/4x LCDev squad.
megatrons2nd wrote: They are 2 wounds each yes? So 1 of them is dead if both take a wound, as the closest model takes all the wounds until the next (I can't remember at the moment, but it could be initiative step) round. But anyway the multi wound shenanigans only work if you move the wounded model back next movement phase, or the wound is done on a different round in melee.
The point I was making is that AssCents vs Tac Terminators- before factoring charge bonuses, results in what is effectively MAD. Whichever one gets the charge will probably win in combat.
megatrons2nd wrote: kveldulf
You forgot special rules in your figures. I don't know them all, but there is for sure Deep strike.
At this time it does appear to be a point for point change in the same organization slot, not across slots. Using Eldar, Dire Avengers vs Guardians.
Dire Avengers gain +1Ld, +1Sv, Counter Attack, and better Shuricat, making them cost 13ppm.
Storm Guardians vs Howling Banshees
Banshees Gain +1Ld, +1Sv, Acrobatic, Banshee Mask, and a Power Sword. They lose Plasma Grenades. Making them 14ppm, as compared to the 15ppm they run. Not a huge difference, but they are not that much better, and Grenades are better than the mask.
Wyches vs Incubi
Incubi gain +1Ws, +1Ld, +3Sv, and an AP2 +1S weapon. I did not add an extra attack because the wyches get 2 CC weapons.
They lose 1I, Combat Drugs, and Dodge.
Making them cost 14ppm(counting the +1S), a far cry from the 20ppm they are now.
Wyches aren't really comparable to Incubi, due to the fact that they occupy two entirely different roles. I'm leaning that way on the Banshee/Storm Guardian comparison as well- it'd be more accurate to compare Storm Guardians and Striking Scorpions, as both are more geared towards killing "mob/light" infantry. Incubi and Banshees want to be pointed at things with good armor saves.
Yoyoyo wrote: The main point was that Dev Cents have melee comparable to Broadsides (4A at WS4, 7A at WS2, neither get melee weapons), and Tac Termies are pretty good in CC. So they not truly comparable. Neither are the special weapons. Dev Cents have much better quality of fire, and every model is required to take them. Once again, that's similar to a Broadside (Railgun/HYMP, SMS/Plasma Rifle).
I never even compared DevCents to Tac Termies in combat, though. In fact, I didn't even mention DevCents in combat at all, except to say that Terminators won't ever get into combat with DevCents, since they'll either have to DS in and stand around to be shot in the face, or they'll be vaporized by GravCents.
Yoyoyo wrote: Assault Cents are a very strange unit (SnP on an assaulter?). I think they have more of a seige role than anything else. But they compare far more equally to Tac Termies than their Dev Cents do, both in shooting and CC.
Terminators as a combat unit do the same thing as Assault Centurions. It's just that AssCents do that job infinitely better- Siege Drills have no initiative penalty, and always strike at S9. Chainfists being armorbane is irrelevant, as Siege Drills are also armorbane, and power/chain fists and siege drills are all AP2. AssCents are even better at anti-horde shooting, thanks to carrying twin-linked flamers by default, and being able to season a few Hurricane Bolters into the squad.
Scorpions Gain +1Ld, +2Sv, a better Chainsword(+1S and AP6) Mandiblasters, Infiltrate, Move through Cover, and Stealth. Making them 15ppm each, rather than 17ppm each as they are now. With MtC and Infiltrate added, 17ppm. Still not lining up for troops to elite slots unless you add in movement/deployment abilities.
------------------------- Plugging FNP into the above reasoning-----------------------------------------
If we took this figure and modified for some of our desired alterations, like FNP 4+, I would argue it should do the following:
Since FNP is more consistent than the invulnerable save, I think the division I used for it would be cancelled and a further 16.67% fee added on (because its going from a 5+ to a 4+),
and our base cost is still 15, so : 15*16.67% = 2.5. I'll round down, so +2 pts. Now we add the original invuln pt value, without the division and rounding up. So, +5. Now we add 2+5 in total = 7 pts
Therefore, a terminator with FNP 4+, storm bolter and powerfist should cost 31 points.
[the above values may change around FYI]
Personally, I would start the calculations at a 5+ FNP since right now Terminators have 5+ Invul.
I think your point system is a great Idea myself. Honestly, I think there should be a point system for building units in all the armies anyway. It would make tuning and balancing armies a lot easier. You still wouldn't achieve perfect balance, but I am fine with that. Balanced armies, codices and units would really change the game. It would create a lot more build diversity.
I love the work this guy has done here for vehicle construction http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/634211.page . Lythrandire Biehrellian has really done a good job with it IMO. If we could do the same thing with other units and maybe the weapons to find a closer approximation to their true points value we could pontentially fix not just Terminators, but everything to an acceptable level. But that is a topic for another thread.
I think testing Terminators with a 5+ FNP @ the ppm your system would suggest for something like that is a good start. Then maybe try out my storm bolter idea (shameless plug) to see how that affects things. Finally, maybe test the TDA changes to storm bolters. We, as a community, could test these ideas; as well as the ideas others have suggested and keep what works the best.
I believe it is time we start to actually try and test the ideas in games instead of just talk about the changes endlessly in various threads. We can talk and discount all we like, but ultimately we don't know for sure if an idea is good or not unless we give it a go and test it. That is as long as the idea is a reasonable one. If it seems blatantly OP it probably is.
I should say that we should mathematically test changes before we actually playtest them as well if that is possible. But, actual playtesting is needed. If I had a second army or an easy way to get a game I could do a lot of it myself. Unfortunately I am in a situation where actual playtesting for me is very difficult. It is amazing how EASY it is to get a game with a FLGS and how HARD it is without one.
kveldulf wrote: Playtesting is fine to an extent. I just don't think taking various entries from other lists to 'playtest vs' is as directly proportional as you might think. Each army is considered with an internal balance just as much as general game balance perspective. I think the safer bet is to take that related army's standard infantryman as the point cost baseline and establish a metric for our alterations.
Playtesting is just that -- testing. It's not to set points, it's to double-check if the values you arrive by your metric give the results you want. Look at it as a way of proving the results of your changes and costing. And in some ways it's easier to say "that works" than by remaining completely abstract. For example, if 200pts is a baseline, we can test 5x Termies at 40ppm, 6x Termies at 33ppm, 5x Termies at 28ppm, and 8x Termies at 25ppm. I can't tell you if 35ppm is the fairest true baseline. I can only say, "here are the results of testing, consider them as you will". Keep in mind it doesn't preclude considering internal synergy to weigh the results afterwards.
The only reason to discourage gaming the values, is if you don't want to check the "practice" against your "theory"!
I want to make this very clear, I'm not against play testing. I'm against gross comparisons for what WE might think are equally diametrical and then digressing into opinion.
You cannot establish a baseline with playtesting alone. There first needs to exist some consistent theoreticals first.
Let's consider your list:
At 200pts, here's a selection of infantry to draw a reliable baseline:
All this is doing is looking at current point values that equal 200 pts? We're suppose to get a reliable baseline from this?? There are so many factors in which these units excel at - in certain situations. The amount of situational testing needed for this type of playtesting would be extensive, if done in earnest and consistently. However, I think any discernible outcomes will be gakked up with personal opinion or skewed by situational fortune if there are not some theoretical baselines first.
What we need to further ask ourselves before testing, or composing scenarios is, how are the terminators meant to be played?
We really really need to refrain from our inner Orc: 'Dees ca'n beaht dem guys bhut not d'om guys? t'at's OP - cuz methinks!
Even if you have other people who think your 'opinion' is more correct, you've proven nothing but gaining numbers in a might makes right fashion (popularity version).
One last thing we need to remember about Warhammer : re-balancing a point value that you suspect being off isn't dependent on the value of the 'variety pool' - its an inexorable thing - inferred in that statement. It's simply bad science to assume one exception (terminators) and not recognize the assumption that the rest of the point scale is consistent. Your eating your own tail doing that. That goes back to understanding what to compromise on unless we intend on revamping all point values (which i don't have the time for). Some units may just get owned by terminators more so but, Terminators may just get their asses handed back to them in new ways. We need to keep this in mind particularly before formulating fixes.
What we need to further ask ourselves before testing, or composing scenarios is, how are the terminators meant to be played?
We really really need to refrain from our inner Orc: 'Dees ca'n beaht dem guys bhut not d'om guys? t'at's OP - cuz methinks!
Even if you have other people who think your 'opinion' is more correct, you've proven nothing but gaining numbers in a might makes right fashion (popularity version).
One last thing we need to remember about Warhammer : re-balancing a point value that you suspect being off isn't dependent on the value of the 'variety pool' - its an inexorable thing - inferred in that statement. It's simply bad science to assume one exception (terminators) and not recognize the assumption that the rest of the point scale is consistent. Your eating your own tail doing that. That goes back to understanding what to compromise on unless we intend on revamping all point values (which i don't have the time for). Some units may just get owned by terminators more so but, Terminators may just get their asses handed back to them in new ways. We need to keep this in mind particularly before formulating fixes.
I think the intention of Tactical Terminators is to be a more durable, more versatile, tactical unit with more firepower. It seems to me they are meant to be a unit that is supposed to shoot for a turn or two then mop up in an assault. I feel the powerfist is a weapon that was given to them in poor judgement. The judgement being that a 5+ invul save would protect them and thus worth the price hike of the unit. it clearly is not. While they have power weapons standard terminators really aren't geared towards assault.
I agree there are issues with the points system overall with things out of whack. I don't think it will get solved right away, but I think there are enough correctly priced units that we can over time adjust them.
Terminators should have things they are good at killing, and there are things that should be good at killing them. I think the biggest issues with Terminators besides their cost is the lack of firepower or rather the lack of volume of fire and versatility.
I am hoping eventually we can get an accurate point scale, and maybe we can get there eventually. Until then, however, I think working with the units that are the most out of whack is a good place to start.
I understand you don't have time to do the rebalancing yourself. No one does. But it can be done if we, as a community, work together. If we get those with the most experience, the time, and insight to band together and tackle these problems we can do it. I'd say don't work on the problem as a giant group, but break it up into pieces and keep up the communication. It won't be easy because it will mean having to put egos and preconceptions aside, and be willing to compromise; as well as try other people's ideas. This is a tough thing to do for a group of people who are VERY passionate about their armies and units. And we will have to except we won't be able to match fluff exactly (especially since so much of it is written in such an exaggerated fashion).
None of the issues are made easy by GW not doing their job gameplay wise and retcon wise. I am wishing more and more that they would drop the "40K" and call it Sci-fi. Then they could advance the story and game without having to retcon whenever they release something new. The same idea should apply to Fantasy too imo. GW really needs to go back to having an interaction with it's customers and playtesting the games, but I know that will never happen.
I think the intention of Tactical Terminators is to be a more durable, more versatile, tactical unit with more firepower. It seems to me they are meant to be a unit that is supposed to shoot for a turn or two then mop up in an assault. I feel the powerfist is a weapon that was given to them in poor judgement. The judgement being that a 5+ invul save would protect them and thus worth the price hike of the unit. it clearly is not. While they have power weapons standard terminators really aren't geared towards assault.
I agree there are issues with the points system overall with things out of whack. I don't think it will get solved right away, but I think there are enough correctly priced units that we can over time adjust them.
Terminators should have things they are good at killing, and there are things that should be good at killing them. I think the biggest issues with Terminators besides their cost is the lack of firepower or rather the lack of volume of fire and versatility.
I am hoping eventually we can get an accurate point scale, and maybe we can get there eventually. Until then, however, I think working with the units that are the most out of whack is a good place to start.
I understand you don't have time to do the rebalancing yourself. No one does. But it can be done if we, as a community, work together. If we get those with the most experience, the time, and insight to band together and tackle these problems we can do it. I'd say don't work on the problem as a giant group, but break it up into pieces and keep up the communication. It won't be easy because it will mean having to put egos and preconceptions aside, and be willing to compromise; as well as try other people's ideas. This is a tough thing to do for a group of people who are VERY passionate about their armies and units. And we will have to except we won't be able to match fluff exactly (especially since so much of it is written in such an exaggerated fashion).
None of the issues are made easy by GW not doing their job gameplay wise and retcon wise. I am wishing more and more that they would drop the "40K" and call it Sci-fi. Then they could advance the story and game without having to retcon whenever they release something new. The same idea should apply to Fantasy too imo. GW really needs to go back to having an interaction with it's customers and playtesting the games, but I know that will never happen.
Anyway, sorry for the rant.
Well I started another thread dedicated to playtesting just a bit ago - the FNP idea for terminators. After enough testing with that, we can look into weapon options.
I agree mostly with your outlook on tactical terminators. Regarding your notion on firepower, we should probably keep in mind how it should look than simply more. For 5 guys in a squad, should they really produce more shots than a squad of 10 tactical marines? Should they really overshadow heavy bolters so much? Should we really give them enough options to replace a devastator role?
Perhaps targeting systems may be a neat way of tackling this (since terminators are suppose to have better sensors etc) - I'm thinking rerolls to hit on their ranged weapons, in conjunction with wearing terminator armour, would be a fun synergy and help alleviate their ranged ability enough, without going too overboard. Essentially, it would make wearing terminator armour for marines BS5 (from BS4) but not affecting the global veteran statline. It would also be consistent with the idea of Terminators: quality over quantity.
I think I'll restrict my thoughts on Stormbolters to the thread that was made specifically for that, and simply comment on the weapon options of Terminators.
More-or-less, I think that at a minimum, they should have more options than "CML, AC, HF". I'm somewhat wary of allowing the Plasma Cannon on vanilla Termies, simply because "all the plasma" seems more of a DA thing. OTOH, I feel like DA Termies are in a slightly better place as far as options go, purely because they do have that PC... though mostly because it means more options than "CML/AC/HF". The basic ML would be redundant due to the Terminator-specific CML, but the MM and PC both have potential.
LCs arguably step on LC/ML DevCents, and wouldn't really sync well with the purpose of Terminators- since they're Relentless and DS, they do have the option of just marching up the board while shooting things. LCs don't work so well for that; CMLs can work purely because they get to double-tap relative to regular MLs. For the HB, it ends up being somewhat redundant- the AC will generally outclass it in almost every respect. Of course, if HB were made a 5 point upgrade instead of 10, then it could become sort of a budget dakka option.
I'd also say that most of the much more reasoned (and streamlined) proposals about Stormbolters that I'm seeing (and preferring at this point) tend to just provide a RoF boost.
It's also worth noting that 5 Terminators out-dakka'ing 10 Tacs is, IMO, somewhat reasonable. As it stands, Terminators simply can't out-dakka their cost in Tacs; the Tacs have generally better weapon options (the only standout Termie gun, IMO, is the CML), far more varied (and thus versatile) weapon options, and still retain a good amount of basic bolter fire.
Well I started another thread dedicated to playtesting just a bit ago - the FNP idea for terminators. After enough testing with that, we can look into weapon options.
I agree mostly with your outlook on tactical terminators. Regarding your notion on firepower, we should probably keep in mind how it should look than simply more. For 5 guys in a squad, should they really produce more shots than a squad of 10 tactical marines? Should they really overshadow heavy bolters so much? Should we really give them enough options to replace a devastator role?
Perhaps targeting systems may be a neat way of tackling this (since terminators are suppose to have better sensors etc) - I'm thinking rerolls to hit on their ranged weapons, in conjunction with wearing terminator armour, would be a fun synergy and help alleviate their ranged ability enough, without going too overboard. Essentially, it would make wearing terminator armour for marines BS5 (from BS4) but not affecting the global veteran statline. It would also be consistent with the idea of Terminators: quality over quantity.
I don't think assault 3 would hurt heavy bolters much seeing as heavy bolters have a higher str and a better ap. And i could live with two or 3 heavy upgrades total if storm bolters offered that along with my previous suggestions on TDA and storm bolter interactions. I could live with it because it would provide tactical flexibility with some possible downsides if you choose wrong for the turn. But again it is something that needs to be tested eventually, and these are just ideas aka brainstorming.
I do agree that it would blur the line a bit for heavy bolters, but then again I think heavy bolters is one of those weapons that has kind of lost it's place to other things anyway (I would love to give them pinning and give pinning back to sniper rifles as well). But that is a discussion for another thread too.
Devastators are hampered by them not really being a good choice. I think they would be better off with split fire and being in the troops section. But, again that is a topic for another thread.
I will check out your thread for testing if I can find it. It is nice having a productive or at least seemingly so discussion. I hope we can get somewhere with it so we don't have to keep having these threads about terminators every week or so rehashing old ground and getting nowhere.
Well I started another thread dedicated to playtesting just a bit ago - the FNP idea for terminators. After enough testing with that, we can look into weapon options.
I agree mostly with your outlook on tactical terminators. Regarding your notion on firepower, we should probably keep in mind how it should look than simply more. For 5 guys in a squad, should they really produce more shots than a squad of 10 tactical marines? Should they really overshadow heavy bolters so much? Should we really give them enough options to replace a devastator role?
Perhaps targeting systems may be a neat way of tackling this (since terminators are suppose to have better sensors etc) - I'm thinking rerolls to hit on their ranged weapons, in conjunction with wearing terminator armour, would be a fun synergy and help alleviate their ranged ability enough, without going too overboard. Essentially, it would make wearing terminator armour for marines BS5 (from BS4) but not affecting the global veteran statline. It would also be consistent with the idea of Terminators: quality over quantity.
I don't think assault 3 would hurt heavy bolters much seeing as heavy bolters have a higher str and a better ap. And i could live with two or 3 heavy upgrades total if storm bolters offered that along with my previous suggestions on TDA and storm bolter interactions. I could live with it because it would provide tactical flexibility with some possible downsides if you choose wrong for the turn. But again it is something that needs to be tested eventually, and these are just ideas aka brainstorming.
I do agree that it would blur the line a bit for heavy bolters, but then again I think heavy bolters is one of those weapons that has kind of lost it's place to other things anyway (I would love to give them pinning and give pinning back to sniper rifles as well). But that is a discussion for another thread too.
Devastators are hampered by them not really being a good choice. I think they would be better off with split fire and being in the troops section. But, again that is a topic for another thread.
I will check out your thread for testing if I can find it. It is nice having a productive or at least seemingly so discussion. I hope we can get somewhere with it so we don't have to keep having these threads about terminators every week or so rehashing old ground and getting nowhere.
Indeed. I wasn't really expecting this thread to turn into anything more than rendezvous rant to be honest. I hope enough people jump in on the playtesting. Here's the link (its a newer post):
Also, I like your profile emblem - I'm IH player too but their 30k though.
I'll link some dudes in my dakka gallery later in the week. Bought them already painted (about a month ago), but I'm redoing the bevel/rim color from black to baneblade brown. Working on some 30k DG right now as well.
Oh and about the storm bolter heavy bolter relationship: i was sort of referencing anyone advocating a strength increase on storm bolters (thus being S5 and = to HB more so).
Whiskey144 636783 7650344 wrote:
I never even compared DevCents to Tac Termies in combat, though. In fact, I didn't even mention DevCents in combat at all, except to say that Terminators won't ever get into combat with DevCents.
You sort of did. You said Tac Termies (as a unit) were comparable to DevCents based on the fact their upgrades mostly all guns. Well, now you're saying they're obviously not. Put as charitably as possible, that was extremely poor phrasing.
Next, feel free to compare a pure assault unit like TH/SS Termies against Assault Cents. Both against each other, and against a I5 Wraithknight. You can leave the SnP issues out of it, but they are definitely there. Setting up a charge is important and Termies are better at it (as they can move more than 6" a turn).
Anyways, it's all rhetorical, I looked at it already. It's not too complicated man. Tac Termies are a hybrid unit. They can kit special weapons and are competent assaulters, as you said they defeat Assault Cents off the charge. You are just making it painful to even talk to you, because you're apparently more invested in arguing semantics and playing at "destruction-in-detail" of someone else's post rather than making a simple clarification of your own.
Also, I like your profile emblem - I'm IH player too but their 30k though.
I'll link some dudes in my dakka gallery later in the week. Bought them already painted (about a month ago), but I'm redoing the bevel/rim color from black to baneblade brown. Working on some 30k DG right now as well.
This is a bit off topic, and I hope it doesn't derail the thread; but, I LOVE 30K IH. If I had the cash I would start an army of them.
I need to strip my models and repaint them at some point once I get hold of some decent paints. I want to do a more accurate job with the colors and clan company symbols. I need to get a better transition of colors than I do right now. And I want to do a more 30K style paint scheme on them.
I fear I may have to rely on a painting service to get them based and painted up to my standard since I just do not have the painting skills to get them to that level (sight, inexperience, and steady hand issues). I'll probably keep trying on my own, but if time and quality become a factor I'll just save some money and get Frontline Gaming do it.
Whiskey144 636783 7650344 wrote:
I never even compared DevCents to Tac Termies in combat, though. In fact, I didn't even mention DevCents in combat at all, except to say that Terminators won't ever get into combat with DevCents.
You sort of did. You said Tac Termies (as a unit) were comparable to DevCents based on the fact their upgrades mostly all guns. Well, now you're saying they're obviously not. Put as charitably as possible, that was extremely poor phrasing.
Next, feel free to compare a pure assault unit like TH/SS Termies against Assault Cents. Both against each other, and against a I5 Wraithknight. You can leave the SnP issues out of it, but they are definitely there. Setting up a charge is important and Termies are better at it (as they can move more than 6" a turn).
Anyways, it's all rhetorical, I looked at it already. It's not too complicated man. Tac Termies are a hybrid unit. They can kit special weapons and are competent assaulters, as you said they defeat Assault Cents off the charge. You are just making it painful to even talk to you, because you're apparently more invested in arguing semantics and playing at "destruction-in-detail" of someone else's post rather than making a simple clarification of your own.
It's still REALLY hard to like a 45 pt model with no ranged capability at all and 6" movement. I don't think TH/SS terminators are that good, and they are the best of the bunch.
Yoyoyo wrote: You sort of did. You said Tac Termies (as a unit) were comparable to DevCents based on the fact their upgrades mostly all guns. Well, now you're saying they're obviously not. Put as charitably as possible, that was extremely poor phrasing.
Okay, I'm going back through my posts in this thread to look at any and/or all places I may have compared Shootynators and DevCents. The first time I mentioned DevCents was in comparing the amount of firepower that could be put on the field by primarily infantry units in various CAD slots for a similar price to the current Shootynators, using a 10-man/2 AC squad.
The second time was to point out that that if Shootynators were reduced to 35 ppm, and changed to double heavy/5 guys, with a 5-man squad using two CMLs, a min-sized squad of LC/ML DevCents is much more expensive, but while lacking an invulnerable save and DS, they are somewhat better suited to the current meta on account of T5/2W.
In that particular case I then went on to say that the Assault Terminator entry, a pure assault unit, only has options for combat weapons.
Furthermore, I was specifically referring to the fact that when I compared Terminators and Centurions in combat against each other, I was using the Assault Centurions for that comparison. While I did comment that I'd lump Shootynators and DevCents together on account of having primarily gun-based upgrades, there's also a very real sense in that they're also comparable on account of both being the equivalent of super-heavy infantry models that are used to bring heavy weapons to the field. The problem is that looking at the two units in that way, DevCents end up being blatantly superior.
Yoyoyo wrote: Next, feel free to compare a pure assault unit like TH/SS Termies against Assault Cents. Both against each other, and against a I5 Wraithknight. You can leave the SnP issues out of it, but they are definitely there. Setting up a charge is important and Termies are better at it (as they can move more than 6" a turn).
Comparison of Hammernators and AssCents, and then a WK vs AssCents? Your wish is my command, oh great master of Yo-yos.
HAMMERTIME:
5 Hammernators is 225 points, 3 AssCents are 190 points. AssCents take no upgrades, as for the purposes of combat no upgrades are relevant. Hammernators have 10 S8/AP2 attacks, at I1; AssCents have 7 S9/AP2 at I4. AssCents strike first, hitting 3.5 attacks and inflicting ~2.92 wounds. Hammernators have a Stormshield, and so get a 3++, which then results in around 0.97 unsaved wounds. Call it one; so that's 1 Hammernator down, and four left. They strike back with 8 attacks, get 4 hits, and inflict 3.332 wounds. So they kill one AssCent in return- we'll assume the sergeant for now, and then consider what happens if one of the grunts dies first instead.
Round 2, one AssCent will strike first, while the other is reduced to I1 due to Concussive (THs get the Concussive trait, which is very rarely used on account of only a few models being multi-wound and T5+). The one who goes first will get 2 attacks, 1 hit, ~0.833 wounds. This is then saved by the Terminators to be ~0.27 wounds inflicted. The other AssCent will then inflict the same amount of attacks/unsaved wounds; we'll be somewhat generous and say that the Hammernators manage to take another casualty. The three remaining Hammernators then strike back with 6 attacks, 3 hits, ~2.5 wounds, most likely killing both AssCents.
However, it is extremely important to remember that the only difference in this scenario, as compared to regular PF/SB Termies, is that Hammernators have SSs, and so get a 3++. This is literally the only reason that they're able to actually win combat. Even if AssCents get the charge, the 3++ will easily ensure that the Hammernators win anyways- statistically speaking there'll be about 0.4 additional unsaved wounds, which actually meshes in well with the ~0.54 wounds from the remaining AssCents after the first round of combat. Again, the only reason Hammernators beat AssCents, is because they have a 3++.
WRAITHKNIGHT
Unfortunately, I can't find any information on how to calculate the results of limited rerolls (IE, the effects of rules like Master-crafted), so this will be done without the inclusion of the Ghostglaive/Scattershield added to the WK. In any case, a plain WK is 240 points, 4 AssCents (no upgrades, as none are relevant to assault) are 250 points. For the record, 4 AssCents is equal in cost to the Ghostglaive/Scattershield WK.
So, WK is I5, strikes at S10/WS4/4A, against 4 AssCents, who'll get 9 S9/AP2 attacks, also at WS4, but at I4. WK goes first, hits twice, and inflicts ~1.67 wounds... that, thanks to MC status, are also AP2. Since these attacks are S10 vs Cent T5, it instagibs two Cents. We'll be nice and let the Cent sarge live this time; Cent sarge and remaining Marine will get 5 attacks, 2.5 hits, and ~1.67 wounds. Next round of combat, AssCents are wiped, WK is down by two wounds.
WK LIKES HAMMERTIME TOO
How do 5 Hammernators do against a WK? Well, as before, the WK will get 4 attacks, hit twice, get ~1.67 wounds, which then face a 3++, for ~0.56 unsaved wounds. Best case, 4 Hammernators remain. They then strike back, with 8 S8/AP2/Concussive attacks, 4 hits, and 2 unsaved wounds. Second round, total wounds inflicted by WK will again be ~0.56; so between the first and second rounds of combat, one Terminator is guaranteed to die. OTOH, the WK is now reduced to I1 (due to Concussive THs), and so is striking simultaneously with the Hammernators. Who then put two more wounds on the WK.
Round 3, probably a second Hammernator dead, but he still gets to strike due to both parties being at the same Initiative step. WK is killed, and around three Hammernators are likely to still be standing. Against Strength 10MCs, the AssCents T5/2W profile works against them, as they end up instagibbed. It's also worth noting that the real equalizer here is the killer invuln that Hammernators get- there's a reason that there exists a blog by the name "3++ is the new black", after all.
I'd also like to mention that against lower-Strength MCs, AssCents will likely do a lot better- S9/AP2 without Unwieldy is a huge advantage in punching big gribbly things. Even more so than a 3++, almost, as striking first means that there's potential to never actually need to roll saves, since you might very well wipe out the enemy unit before they ever get the chance to strike. This is, incidentally, why AssCents rip into PF/SB Termies so badly- they can leave the Terminators with no recourse but a 5++, and even if the Termies were changed to swap an invuln for FNP, it would be even worse, as S9 ID's T4.
Moreover, Martel brings up a good point: Hammernators are slow if they don't have a fancy ride (like an overpriced LR or an unreliable Stormraven). Hammernators were probably the best assault unit in 5th edition, to the point that they were the stick by which all other punchy things were measured at the time. Which is saying something quite impressive about Hammernators, considering that 5th was very shooting oriented.
Hammernators, of all Terminator models, have probably aged the best- Chaos and GK Termies are the other contenders- Chaos Termies can do a three man melta-cide DS unit for relatively cheap (~112 points for 3 dudes with combi-meltas), and GK Termies are both cheaper and arguably better equipped- most GK Termie combat weapons strike at Initiative value, and on top of that GK Termies get a buttload of different grenades- most importantly, frag and psyk-out. SW Termies are probably something that's aged sort of well on account of similarities with Chaos Termies- they start of fairly cheap and can take combi-meltas in very small (3-model) squads.
Yoyoyo wrote: Anyways, it's all rhetorical, I looked at it already. It's not too complicated man. Tac Termies are a hybrid unit. They can kit special weapons and are competent assaulters, as you said they defeat Assault Cents off the charge. You are just making it painful to even talk to you, because you're apparently more invested in arguing semantics and playing at "destruction-in-detail" of someone else's post rather than making a simple clarification of your own.
It's important to note that Tac Termies vs AssCents in an assault, the deciding factor is really who charges who- or rather, who can get the bonus for charging, as if either one is forced into a Disordered Charge of some kind, then the end result is effective mutual destruction. Not only that, but AssCents get guns that tend to be relevant at assault range.
In contrast, Terminator weapons will see them sticking around 24"- which is out of range of all but the most deadly/wildly optimistic assault units/ranges. This is really the killer for Tac Termies as being competent in assault- they only actually do well at punching tanks, the odd walker, or as a last resort a MC. Against most MCs, so long as the target is S9 or less, AssCents tend to be better- S9 is a big deal as it means you get to wound T7 on 2s and T8 on 3s- some of the nastier MCs in the game are that (WKs are T8, for example). It's also important to note that the gun upgrades for Terminators are expensive- you're really going to want them shooting as much as possible so that you can leverage as much efficiency as you possibly can for the overall cost of platform+weapon upgrades.
As it stands, if I want mass S8+ fire, then I'm probably going to take AC+ML, or even Rifleman Dreads, as well as Typhoon speeders, Typhoon Stormtalons (who also get twin-linked ACs!), and some combination of LCDevs, LC/ML DevCents, or trilas Preds. Terminators don't really offer any compelling advantage for their guns. Not only that, but as I've mentioned before, the guns Terminators get, and their basic melee weapons, are designed for engaging two opposing ends of the target spectrum. Which makes Terminators schizo, as they either shoot at- to little effect- something they can punch to death... or they are forced to tarpit themselves if they're in a position to assault things. And certainly, I can say that if I have the opportunity to present my opponent with something that Terminators are good at shooting, and he obliges me by getting into assault range, then I am damn well going to charge my blob of meatbag light infantry into his Terminators, where they will probably be locked into combat for the rest of the game.
Whiskey144 wrote: Unfortunately, I can't find any information on how to calculate the results of limited rerolls (IE, the effects of rules like Master-crafted)
You can use a probability calculator. For your future use.
SGTPozy wrote: If Terminators become 2W models... What happens to Paladins? There is no way that they can become 3W models!
It seems to me that Grey Knights as an army restrict what changes could happen:
The storm bolter cannot become salvo because of PAGK.
Terminators cannot gain a W because of Paladins.
Terminators cannot gain a 4++ because of Sanctic +1 invulnerable save shenanigans.
I kind of don't care about paladins. Paladins came much, much later to the party. We need to take care of the originals first and worry about GK silliness later.
AnomanderRake wrote: Sanctuary doesn't stack with itself. Make storm bolters Assault 3. Just leave Paladins at two Wounds.
GK don't really restrict changes.
I don't want more S4 shooting though. The terminators will stay on the shelf.
Simply pointing out that you can make changes that would impact GK.
Yet again, 4+ Inv base, 30ppm with power weapons instead of power fists, and two upgrade weapons per five models. Fixes Terminators handily without silliness.
AnomanderRake wrote: Sanctuary doesn't stack with itself. Make storm bolters Assault 3. Just leave Paladins at two Wounds.
GK don't really restrict changes.
I don't want more S4 shooting though. The terminators will stay on the shelf.
Simply pointing out that you can make changes that would impact GK.
Yet again, 4+ Inv base, 30ppm with power weapons instead of power fists, and two upgrade weapons per five models. Fixes Terminators handily without silliness.
I could live with that. 3/5 worthless shooting is a lot better than 4/5 worthless shooting.
At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x Heavy Weapon slots, you can DS a 5-Man squad w/ 2x Heavy Flamers and 6x S4 shots for 170pts. Maybe some use in pushing isolated ObSec troops off an objective. Heavy Flamer is going to do well versus GEQ and Power Sword/Maul Termies will find acceptable CC targets too. You risk getting stuck in bigger Tarpits, but it's much better than 1x Flamer/Fist Termies. The above profile seems to reflect really well on the fluff IMO -- teleporting shock troops crunching into hordes or weaker troops to seize critical objectives.
At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x AC (190pts) you could get 10x S6 AP4 CC attacks with the maul and 8x Rending S6 AP4 with the AC. With a standardized profile in both melee and CC, I suppose you'd go after light armour or tougher units with a poor armour save. Still risky points wise, but maybe there is some tactical value in knocking out key targets like artillery or AA, like a Manticore (170pts) or 2x Hydras in a battery (140pts).
At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x CML (200pts), you have a pretty usual and pricey gunline unit that either can't take advantage of standoff or power weapons. The S8 Krak has a more unified offensive profile with S8 Power Fists, unfortunately it starts getting very expensive. However, it's firepower is more or less average at 200pts. So maybe there's a niche role due to the DS and 2+ save.
At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and Storm Bolters, you can DS 2x 5-man Combat Squads in for 300pts. The idea is going after backfield targets with melee, and hoping to survive through target saturation. The usual issues with DS remain (reserves coordination, scatter, mishaps, survivability). But probably more survivable than with 200pt Power Fist Termies.
Just some options to reflect on the points values, and what you'd actually use. Split Fire of course would help, and it 's very fluffy "Tactical".
Yoyoyo wrote: At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x Heavy Weapon slots, you can DS a 5-Man squad w/ 2x Heavy Flamers and 6x S4 shots for 170pts. Maybe some use in pushing isolated ObSec troops off an objective. Heavy Flamer is going to do well versus GEQ and Power Sword/Maul Termies will find acceptable CC targets. You risk getting stuck in bigger Tarpits, but it's much better than 1x Flamer/Fist Termies. The above profile seems to reflect really well on the fluff IMO -- teleporting shock troops crunching through hordes to seize critical objectives.
At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x AC (190pts) you could get 10x S6 AP4 CC attacks with the maul and 8x Rending S6 AP4 with the AC. With a standardized profile in both melee and CC, I suppose you'd go after light armour or touger units with a poor armour save. Still risky points wise, but maybe there is some tactical value in knocking out key targets like artillery or AA, like a Manticore (170pts) or 2x Hydras in a battery (140pts).
At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x CML (200pts), you have a pretty usual and pricey gunline unit that either can't take advantage of standoff or power weapons. The S8 Krak has a more unified offensive profile with S8 Power Fists, unfortunately it starts getting very expensive. However, it's firepower is more or less average at 200pts. So maybe there's a niche role due to the DS and 2+ save.
At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and Storm Bolters, you can DS 2x 5-man Combat Squads in for 300pts. The idea is going after backfield targets with melee, and hoping to survive through target saturation. The usual issues with DS remain (reserves coordination, scatter, mishaps, survivability). But probably more survivable than with 200pt Power Fist Termies.
Just some options to reflect on the points values, and what you'd actually use.
Any of these are more useful than their current incarnation.
SGTPozy wrote: If Terminators become 2W models... What happens to Paladins? There is no way that they can become 3W models!
It seems to me that Grey Knights as an army restrict what changes could happen:
The storm bolter cannot become salvo because of PAGK.
Terminators cannot gain a W because of Paladins.
Terminators cannot gain a 4++ because of Sanctic +1 invulnerable save shenanigans.
Terminators becoming a 2W model will:
a) not help them very much
b) have a far more serious impact with regards to multi-wound character models taking TDA.
As an example, consider the "Smashfether" build of the SM Chapter Master. Now add Terminator armor so that he gets a bonus wound.
Yoyoyo wrote: At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x Heavy Weapon slots, you can DS a 5-Man squad w/ 2x Heavy Flamers and 6x S4 shots for 170pts. Maybe some use in pushing isolated ObSec troops off an objective. Heavy Flamer is going to do well versus GEQ and Power Sword/Maul Termies will find acceptable CC targets too. You risk getting stuck in bigger Tarpits, but it's much better than 1x Flamer/Fist Termies. The above profile seems to reflect really well on the fluff IMO -- teleporting shock troops crunching into hordes or weaker troops to seize critical objectives.
At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x AC (190pts) you could get 10x S6 AP4 CC attacks with the maul and 8x Rending S6 AP4 with the AC. With a standardized profile in both melee and CC, I suppose you'd go after light armour or tougher units with a poor armour save. Still risky points wise, but maybe there is some tactical value in knocking out key targets like artillery or AA, like a Manticore (170pts) or 2x Hydras in a battery (140pts).
At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x CML (200pts), you have a pretty usual and pricey gunline unit that either can't take advantage of standoff or power weapons. The S8 Krak has a more unified offensive profile with S8 Power Fists, unfortunately it starts getting very expensive. However, it's firepower is more or less average at 200pts. So maybe there's a niche role due to the DS and 2+ save.
At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and Storm Bolters, you can DS 2x 5-man Combat Squads in for 300pts. The idea is going after backfield targets with melee, and hoping to survive through target saturation. The usual issues with DS remain (reserves coordination, scatter, mishaps, survivability). But probably more survivable than with 200pt Power Fist Termies.
Just some options to reflect on the points values, and what you'd actually use. Split Fire of course would help, and it 's very fluffy "Tactical".
All of these options would generally be better than the current. Ironically, this makes them very similar to the Chaos Termies... bar Chaos Termies having combi-weapons for everyone, of course and no CML, of course. It's also the case that this solves the issues Terminators have traditionally had with target selection- most of their guns are better suited to engaging infantry of some kind, while their powerfists want to punch things like MCs or vehicles.
Yeah I wouldn't care about smashy if he was 5 wounds and couldn't GET PLACES after the initial deep strike. Also being off his bike means he's back down to t4, so small arms cheer, and no fnp from fists and lascannons and such.
As for termie fixing, I'm hoping for something that doesn't involve me going through all me termie models chopping off 90% of their power fists. (And ordering standard power weapons.)
Bobthehero wrote: Smashfether is good because he's on a bike, can't take Termie armor.
Ah, I hadn't actually checked that to be sure.
niv-mizzet wrote: As for termie fixing, I'm hoping for something that doesn't involve me going through all me termie models chopping off 90% of their power fists. (And ordering standard power weapons.)
You have a fair point. Given that Shootynators are generally considered to need improvements to their shooting, maybe we could discount their PF on account of it not being used except in extremis.
Bishop F Gantry wrote: TDA gets salvo for Stormbolters non TDA can uppgrade special issue ammo instead.
TDA models don't care about Salvo anything, since they are Relentless. Literally, Salvo is only actually relevant if you're not Relentless/SnP. If you have a unit with either of those traits, then Salvo might as well be Heavy for all the difference it would actually have.
Now, I won't go into all the problems with Salvo and the generally few examples of Salvo weapons that are actually good, but I will say this:
Stormbolters, even with Special Issue Ammo, would still need a RoF bump. The biggest thing, however, is that Stormbolters should not be like regular bolters, in that you get to pick which one whenever you shoot- there should be a trade-off involved with gaining higher RoF. IMO, I would phrase SB+Special Ammo rules thusly:
Any model with a Stormbolter may choose to take a Special Issue Ammo profile at no cost; it substitutes its own weapon type (IE, Assault) instead of the listed "Rapid Fire" type. Only one Special Ammo type may be issued with the Stormbolter. Further, if a unit includes multiple models armed with Stormbolters, all such models MUST choose the same Special Ammo type.
This prevents people from potentially squeezing the same number of Special Issue Ammo shots out of fewer guys with identical versatility to the current Sternguard+Special Ammo combination. It does, however, provide increased versatility to the Stormbolter-armed model.
In fact, this could be a good way to fix Stormbolters in general, is that you get the current S4/AP5 24" range, though bumped up to something like Assault 3, and then get to choose a Special Issue Ammo profile. This would be particularly interesting if we expanded on Special Issue Ammo variants, and also included some pintle-mount oriented and Sisters-specific profiles.
Maybe even include a GK-specific profile that's intended to kill daemons/psykers, though naturally a tradeoff would be necessary.
Now I'm afraid I might come off as very...newb...but: in regards to "fixing" terminators for competitive play: why not just give them 2 wounds? It's a pretty easy fix, makes them roughly x2 as likely to survive massed small arms, instant death weapons can still kill them but anti-tank has a slightly harder time...
AFAIK- I wasn't present for the entire thread, only about half- 2W Termies was discussed but eventually decided against- Termies and Cents occupy a position of being what I like to call "super-heavy infantry"- they're heavier than traditional "heavy" infantry (IE, MEQ), but they're still actually an infantry model, rather than being MCs or walkers.
I think the general idea was that 2 wounds would make them too much like Centurions, which are also a 2+ save model that already has 2 wounds. It also ignores the other issue Terminators have:
They can't kill things very well. When I can literally get just as much firepower from 2 10-man Tac squads, in Rhinos, with special/heavy weapons, for the same cost as a 10-man Termie squad with 2 ACs, well, why would I take the Termies? Firepower is equal- or superior, depending on target composition- durability is comparable or perhaps better (20 T4/3+ wounds, 6 AV11/11/10 HPs, vs 10 T4/2+/5++ wounds), and I get to use my mandatory two Troops choices to get this into my list, and I get transports.
Oh, and the Tac squads get ObSec, even if ObSec isn't very useful most of the time.
Granted, vanilla Marines don't have very many good Elites choices- it mostly comes down to Sternguard and maybe Rifleman Dreads (IMO). So it's not like the Elites slot is filled with a bunch of amazing units and Terminators get left behind by other, better Elites units. Termies are getting left behind in favor of the mandatory two Troops choices.
EDIT: and this is considering that Tacs are themselves not that good, either. Which makes Terminators look even worse.
niv-mizzet wrote: As for termie fixing, I'm hoping for something that doesn't involve me going through all me termie models chopping off 90% of their power fists. (And ordering standard power weapons.)
Whiskey144 wrote: You have a fair point. Given that Shootynators are generally considered to need improvements to their shooting, maybe we could discount their PF on account of it not being used except in extremis.
One option is to split the Terminator branch in 3. You'd have:
- Tactical Terminator Squad (30ppm, Power Weapons, 2x Special Weapons)
- Assault Terminator Squad (40ppm, melee weapons only)
- Terminator Squad (35~ppm, Power Fists, 1x Special Weapon)
So basically you simply end up getting a discount on the Power Fists by buying them in bulk. It doesn't really "fix" the stock Terminators, it's just addressing the fact that 4x Power Fists are expensive, don't add any survivability, and require a lot of support to get them to the right target. So while 1x PF is maybe worth 25pts on your character, 4x PF are not worth 100pts on your troops.
Additionally, the stock Terminators are carrying the most Storm Bolters of these three groups, so they would benefit the most from any potential improvements.
One option is to split the Terminator branch in 3. You'd have:
- Tactical Terminator Squad (30ppm, Power Weapons, 2x Special Weapons)
- Assault Terminator Squad (40ppm, melee weapons only)
- Terminator Squad (35~ppm, Power Fists, 1x Special Weapon)
So basically you simply end up getting a discount on the Power Fists by buying them in bulk. It doesn't really "fix" the stock Terminators, it's just addressing the fact that 4x Power Fists are expensive, don't add any survivability, and require a lot of support to get them to the right target. So while 1x PF is maybe worth 25pts on your character, 4x PF are not worth 100pts on your troops.
Additionally, the stock Terminators are carrying the most Storm Bolters of these three groups, so they would benefit the most from any potential improvements.
Would the terminator sergeant still come with a power weapon? If so, will it come at a discount price from the powerfist terminators? 40ppm is too much for Lightning claw assault terminators. If twin lightning claws gave rending instead of or in addition to shred than maybe. 40ppm sounds about right to me for hammernators.
Overall I really do not favor the powerfist squad because it is basically what we have now and really doesn't address the issues with them well.
I think the powerfist actual hurts them in the long run.
Not striking at initiative is a killer unless you are a hammernator imo. But, it is something I would be willing to try with the right buffs to storm bolters and what TDA can do with them.
The Tactical terminators and terminator squads having different number of specials doesn't make much sense either.
I'd actually extend it to "not striking first in combat can be a real killer". After all, Assault Cents get to strike at Initiative... but against say, a WK they still get stomped into the ground, due to the WK's I5.
Hammernators get away with striking at I1- IE, after almost everything- on account of getting a 3++ save, allowing them to absorb almost ridiculous amounts of damage in combat. The only time striking first in combat doesn't help is if you charge something that you can't really hurt in the first place.
Also, I echo the idea that Tac Termie and "regular Termie" squads having different special weapon density isn't really making sense.
Well, I think that +1T for TDA models being in base contact with each other seems to have two problems:
1) Isn't that a Deathwing Knight shtick?
2) Doing so puts the Termies in perfect formation to receive many pieplates to the face.
A lot of armies these days seem to be able to bring some kind of AP2 large blast weapons to the field. Not only that, but it increasingly seems as if such weapons are getting longer and longer ranges.
Used to be that a low-AP, high Strength large blast was either on a very fragile artillery platform, or was on a very short ranged assault gun platform.
Now you've got Jump/Jetpack MCs toting the things...
Pretty good points across the board gents. We are getting into the finer details now. So, add/amend :
- Drop the points of the LC Termies (25-35pts, requires testing).
- Give the Terminator Squad access to a 2nd Heavy Weapons slot.
- Figure out the details for the Power Sword Sgt (Terminator Squad). Maybe a points discount, +1A, or a 5pt Chainfist?
- Figure out exactly how the SB fits into the picture.
PF Termies are caught in a bind because Deep Striking favors cheaper Alpha Strike units, and deploying TH/SS Terminators in a Land Raider is more effective in CC. I think there's still some thinking to be done over this, not easy to resolve. Improving the SB a little would help too. But in the meantime, we can at least adjust the pricing to reflect the poorer scaling of the PF squad.
Whiskey144 wrote: Well, I think that +1T for TDA models being in base contact with each other seems to have two problems:
1) Isn't that a Deathwing Knight shtick?
2) Doing so puts the Termies in perfect formation to receive many pieplates to the face.
A lot of armies these days seem to be able to bring some kind of AP2 large blast weapons to the field. Not only that, but it increasingly seems as if such weapons are getting longer and longer ranges.
Used to be that a low-AP, high Strength large blast was either on a very fragile artillery platform, or was on a very short ranged assault gun platform.
Now you've got Jump/Jetpack MCs toting the things...
1. it kinda is, the main problem is to up survivability of vanilla tda's that dosent carry over and escalate into a chain reaction of unknown buffs.
2. pie plates will be thrown out regardless but if you can knock out or lock up them pie plate casters the tda's survival rate will passively increase and if your deepstriking your lumped up anyway
TBH though, the things which are actually dangerous and carry AP2 pieplate weapons are also either incredibly durable or incredibly mobile.
Riptides? Never gonna catch it. WKs? Good luck killing one. Of course, given that WKs are also Jump MCs and Riptides are 2+, with options to get a 3++ and 5+ FNP the opposite is also true of both.
/grumbling at least Dreadknights have the decency to want to punch things really badly.
For the +1T idea, I'd just do it without needing base contact. It doesn't really fit thematically unless it's to do with a shield formation. Standing close to another Terminator shouldn't be what makes a Terminator tougher.
Besides, +1T Terminators already exist in the form of the Mark of Nurgle.
Before you guys jump on "do 2W" or "do T5", please look at the numbers. In the other thread with a 4+ FNP and price drop, Tac Termies are already strong enough, and Assault Terminators are likely broken. 2W or T5 is too much.
Terminators are already pretty tough with a 2+. Most of the issues come down to a diffused role (Alpha Striking Tac Terminators), overcosting (LC Terminators, poor PF scaling), or problems in deployment (DS saturation, issues w/Land Raiders).
If you are against stupid numbers of AP1/2 weaponry and feel helpless, it's either a problem with undercosted AP1/2 units, or you need to start putting some MSU in your list. Making someone waste their AP2 shots on a cheap unit is a counter. Losing a 11pt Scout is going to hurt a lot less than a 40pt Terminator.
Well, yeah. I'd agree that 2W or T5 isn't going to help much. Also, thanks to Frozen Ocean for helpfully pointing out that Chaos Termies can already get T5 thanks to MoN, I'd forgotten about that.
So I'd agree that Terminator problems as they stand now really has to due with overcosting and role issues. Deployment problems can be bundled back into both overcosting and role issues, as the former bites really hard with Land Raiders being so expensive (and requiring fairly small squads to actually fit in a LR), while DS can overcost them to a degree if it's something that they have trouble leveraging with a useful amount of reliability.
People seem to be against the idea of changing the invulnerable save to a FNP of the same value. Maybe TDA should continue to give the Invulnerable save but if it is on a model that is getting an invulnerable save from another source that is equal to or exceeding the 5++ then the 5+ invulnerable instead becomes a 5+FNP.
I think a points cost reduction is pretty much required. I am leaning towards a 28 ppm for power weapon + storm bolter with an invul save. Though with the right buffs in other areas I would go up to 30. Powerfist variant would be 5 points more. Lightning clasws would cost same as power weapon + storm bolter. TH+SS would cost 40ppm.
I think a change to storm bolters is needed too. My latest idea inspired in part by another poster is to make storm bolters assault 2 (maybe 3), gauss or tesla. I know it steps on necrons a bit, but gauss would let terminators select tougher targets with their weapons and tesla would generate more hits. Tesla would definitely be an assault 2 weapon.
I think with this rule TDA being able to fire snapshots during shooting phase to get full BS during overwatch would work out well. It would give tactical flexibility to Terminators.
Another option would be to make tesla and gauss ammo upgrades which could be bought full cost or for entire unit at a discount but only be able to buy one type. If bought at full price let them switch between the two. Make the full cost option available to characters. If tesla and gauss are upgrades id say make storm bolters assault 3.
The gauss option especially would help out GK as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I disagree with the TH/SS ones being 45 points. Look at other, more viable melee units as an example of this. 40 points is just fine.
I agree 40 ppm is just right for TH+SS Terminators. Which I mention in my above post.
NorseSig wrote: People seem to be against the idea of changing the invulnerable save to a FNP of the same value. Maybe TDA should continue to give the Invulnerable save but if it is on a model that is getting an invulnerable save from another source that is equal to or exceeding the 5++ then the 5+ invulnerable instead becomes a 5+FNP.
I think a points cost reduction is pretty much required. I am leaning towards a 28 ppm for power weapon + storm bolter with an invul save. Though with the right buffs in other areas I would go up to 30. Powerfist variant would be 5 points more. Lightning clasws would cost same as power weapon + storm bolter. TH+SS would cost 40ppm.
I think a change to storm bolters is needed too. My latest idea inspired in part by another poster is to make storm bolters assault 2 (maybe 3), gauss or tesla. I know it steps on necrons a bit, but gauss would let terminators select tougher targets with their weapons and tesla would generate more hits. Tesla would definitely be an assault 2 weapon.
I think with this rule TDA being able to fire snapshots during shooting phase to get full BS during overwatch would work out well. It would give tactical flexibility to Terminators.
Another option would be to make tesla and gauss ammo upgrades which could be bought full cost or for entire unit at a discount but only be able to buy one type. If bought at full price let them switch between the two. Make the full cost option available to characters. If tesla and gauss are upgrades id say make storm bolters assault 3.
The gauss option especially would help out GK as well.
I can not, in good conscious, see a Terminator going below 30ppm. They are a lot more Durable than Incubi +1T +1Sv +invulnerable save, have a ranged attack, and even with a power weapon, are comparable in melee, plus more Special rules.
I can not, in good conscious, see a Terminator going below 30ppm. They are a lot more Durable than Incubi +1T +1Sv +invulnerable save, have a ranged attack, and even with a power weapon, are comparable in melee, plus more Special rules.
More special rules doesn't necessarily mean better.
Relentless is good, but bulky drags the unit down. 2+/5++ is ok, but considering the meta and what people take not as good as one would expect.
Land raiders are AV14, but overly expensive, low firepower, and can't take a full ten man unit of terminators.
Deepstrike gets you where you need to be, but you can't do anything for a turn and will get pretty much decimated before doing anything.
Storm bolters at assault 3 are a little better, but won't be hurting anything you really want terminators to hurt (giving access to special issue ammo upgrades would fix this, which certain ammos could lower RoF). At assault 2 storm bolters are pretty much junk, and worth 1 pt max.
Power weapons give decent melee as far as str and ap go.
Powerfists do great melee dmg, but the initiative one tends to get terminators killed before they even get to strike (and jack up model price as well.
A 6 inch move really hurts Terminators. As does the current rules for charge and assault.
Inability to make sweeping advances also hurts.
You only get two heavy weapons, and a poor selection of heavy weapons overall kind of mitigate the relentless rules. The heavy weapon selection hurts more than the limit of two heavy weapons does.
Not being able to take all heavy weapons in the first 5 models really kills terminators.
ATSKNF is ok but largely over rated.
Some rules that would help terminators and TDA in general, but could potentially make them broken or uber expensive depending on which ones and how many you take for them are: Fleet, Move Through Cover, Split Fire, and Strafing Run.
Terminators getting something like a 3+ cover save the turn they deepstrike could help terminators or any deepstrike unit without being too broken. Or maybe snapshots only vs a unit the turn it deepstrikes.
I don't have experience against incubi, but it sounds like (from your previous posts) that they kind of suck against everything except overcosted terminators. Maybe Incubi need some tweaking as well. I firmly believe that no unit should be good against only one other unit.
The charge rules could be fixed by saying base charge for a model with 6inch move is 3+d6. Slow and Purposeful would subratact an inch and Relentless would add an inch. Models who move 12+ inches charge 5+d6, and again SnP subtracts an inch while Relentless adds an inch.
Well, I'd actually agree with 30-ish ppm for a Terminator with a Stormbolter (or Combi-Bolter) and a power weapon, given that a Chaos Termie is actually 31 ppm for a combi-bolter+power weapon.
Chaos Termies have their own problems, of course- mostly that Combi-Bolters are probably worse than Stormbolters, and Chaos Termies have an even worse selection of heavy weapons. But 30/31 ppm for a Terminator with a Stormbolter+power weapon seems like a reasonable deal. Considering that we're pretty much set on Assault 3 Stormbolters, and likely a greater heavy weapon density- even just going "2 heavies, accessible @5 mans" would be a big deal, as you could then go MSU+max heavies if you wanted.
Throw in some better heavy weapon options, and I'd argue Split Fire has some good potential, though Fleet isn't a good choice and Strafing Run is actually mechanically impossible to use (it only applies to Fliers targeting other things when in Zooming mode, IIRC). Move Through Cover would actually feel kind of fluffy, IMO- the sheer bulk combined with the dynamic power of an Astartes allows a TDA-equipped dude to simply run around without worrying about things like "this rock is in my way".
With regards to "Terminators can't be "less expensive" (IE better) than Incubi!", Incubi are a highly specialized unit. They're mainly intended to kill heavy infantry, since they have AP2 combat weapons that strike at initiative; this makes them particularly effective at killing TEQ, but they're still no slouch at killing MEQ. The problems facing Incubi mostly fall under the following headings:
1) Assaulting through cover; Incubi have no assault grenades (lolwut GeeDubs)
2) Delivery into combat (cardboard bawkses are super-great)
For the former, the solution is simple: give Incubi assault grenades. For the latter... I guess just deal with the fact that Raiders are flimsy as piss, or maybe go Forgeworld and use the Tantalus since it's AV12/12/10?
- Assault Terminator Squad now costs 150pts, +30pts to add a model. TH/SS Terminator upgrade is +15pts.
- Tac Terminators cost 150pts, equipped w/Power Weapons, +30pts to add a model.
- Terminator Squad costs 170pts, Sgt may upgrade Power Sword to Chainfist for +10pts, +30pts to add a model.
- Special weapons capacity doubled for Terminator Squad and Tac Terminators.
- Terminator Squad and Tac Terminators have USR "Split Fire".
- Storm Bolter is now Assault 3.
Whiskey144 wrote: Well, I'd actually agree with 30-ish ppm for a Terminator with a Stormbolter (or Combi-Bolter) and a power weapon, given that a Chaos Termie is actually 31 ppm for a combi-bolter+power weapon.
Chaos Termies have their own problems, of course- mostly that Combi-Bolters are probably worse than Stormbolters, and Chaos Termies have an even worse selection of heavy weapons. But 30/31 ppm for a Terminator with a Stormbolter+power weapon seems like a reasonable deal. Considering that we're pretty much set on Assault 3 Stormbolters, and likely a greater heavy weapon density- even just going "2 heavies, accessible @5 mans" would be a big deal, as you could then go MSU+max heavies if you wanted.
Throw in some better heavy weapon options, and I'd argue Split Fire has some good potential, though Fleet isn't a good choice and Strafing Run is actually mechanically impossible to use (it only applies to Fliers targeting other things when in Zooming mode, IIRC). Move Through Cover would actually feel kind of fluffy, IMO- the sheer bulk combined with the dynamic power of an Astartes allows a TDA-equipped dude to simply run around without worrying about things like "this rock is in my way".
With regards to "Terminators can't be "less expensive" (IE better) than Incubi!", Incubi are a highly specialized unit. They're mainly intended to kill heavy infantry, since they have AP2 combat weapons that strike at initiative; this makes them particularly effective at killing TEQ, but they're still no slouch at killing MEQ. The problems facing Incubi mostly fall under the following headings:
1) Assaulting through cover; Incubi have no assault grenades (lolwut GeeDubs)
2) Delivery into combat (cardboard bawkses are super-great)
For the former, the solution is simple: give Incubi assault grenades. For the latter... I guess just deal with the fact that Raiders are flimsy as piss, or maybe go Forgeworld and use the Tantalus since it's AV12/12/10?
I think Combi-Bolters with an extra shot would be fine. If I remember correctly combi-bolters have twin-linked on the 2 shots in the 12 inch range. Which actually makes them better than storm bolters inside 12 inches.
Strafing Run reads as being geared towards vehicles and is a stretch to be sure.
I am unsure about the rules for repeating rules in forums, but if there is an issue I will delete it.
Strafing Run
This vehicle is designed as a ground attack craft, the spread and convergence distance of
its weapons keyed to maximise carnage on the foes below.
When shooting Assault, Heavy, Rapid Fire or Salvo weapons at Artillery, Beasts, Bikes,
Cavalry, Infantry, Monstrous Creatures and vehicles without the Flyer or Skimmer type,
this vehicle has +1 Ballistic Skill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yoyoyo wrote: Good point on the Chaos Termies. So, a recap:
- Assault Terminator Squad now costs 150pts, +30pts to add a model. TH/SS Terminator upgrade is +15pts.
- Tac Terminators cost 150pts, equipped w/Power Weapons, +30pts to add a model.
- Terminator Squad costs 170pts, Sgt may upgrade Power Sword to Chainfist for +10pts, +30pts to add a model.
- Special weapons capacity doubled for Terminator Squad and Tac Terminators.
- Terminator Squad and Tac Terminators have USR "Split Fire".
- Storm Bolter is now Assault 3.
Do these changes sound reasonable?
I would say upgrade to TH/SS be +10pts
Tac sergeant may upgrade power sword to a PF for +5pts, or a Chainfist for +10pts
other than that it sounds good.
TDA getting Move Through Cover might be a thing to consider as well. As would Fleet.
If there were more options for ranged upgrades I could live with 2 total said upgrades as long as they come in the forst 5 models
I do worry about stepping on other specific terminators like the DA ones.
Yoyoyo wrote: Good point on the Chaos Termies. So, a recap:
- Assault Terminator Squad now costs 150pts, +30pts to add a model. TH/SS Terminator upgrade is +15pts.
- Tac Terminators cost 150pts, equipped w/Power Weapons, +30pts to add a model.
- Terminator Squad costs 170pts, Sgt may upgrade Power Sword to Chainfist for +10pts, +30pts to add a model.
- Special weapons capacity doubled for Terminator Squad and Tac Terminators.
- Terminator Squad and Tac Terminators have USR "Split Fire".
- Storm Bolter is now Assault 3.
Do these changes sound reasonable?
I don't really see the point of having separate entries for "Tactical Terminators" who get a power weapon+Stormbolter, and "Terminators" who get the traditional PF+SB. It seems like it would be easier to just roll both options together and have a power weapon start, and then add a power fist for +5 ppm on top of the 30 that each one costs.
Incidentally, how about this for a unified Terminator entry:
Terminator Squad- 150 points
4 Termies+1 Sarge, all with SB+power weapon
-Add up to 5 additional mans for +30 ppm -swap power weapon for PF for +5 points, Chainfist for +10pts
-two heavies per five guys
-swap power weapon+SB for twin Lightning Claws
-swap power+SB for TH/SS for +10 ppm
Models in TDA have the Move Through Cover rule (to represent them going "ain't nobody got time for walls!"), and the Terminator Sarge, as long as he is alive, confers the Split Fire USR on the unit.
I do see a little bit of potential issue with TH/SS and Chainfist being the same cost, but the Chainfist means you keep your gun, and get Armorbane in combat, while the TH/SS mainly gives a 3++- Concussive isn't going to come into effect overly often against things that Hammernators can actually get into combat with.
NorseSig wrote: I think Combi-Bolters with an extra shot would be fine. If I remember correctly combi-bolters have twin-linked on the 2 shots in the 12 inch range. Which actually makes them better than storm bolters inside 12 inches.
For Combi-Bolters I was thinking that something like "Rapid Fire 3/2, Twin Linked" would be good; this makes Combi-Bolters slightly better at short range but slightly worse at long range. The only real issue is trying to frame the rules of the weapon so as to allow for that. OTOH, making it 30" Salvo 3/3 Twin-Linked might work; this gives it a slightly longer half-range (15" vs 12" for Bolters), plus an extra shot at that range, making it a useful cheap (2-3 points?) gun option for Chaos Marine characters, as well as a better gun for Chaos Termies. About the only issue I see is logically explaining why strapping two Bolters together gives a longer-ranged, more accurate weapon than a Stormbolter (which combines two mechanisms in a fire-synced, singular receiver)... mostly the longer-ranged part, really.
Tac sergeant may upgrade power sword to a PF for +5pts, or a Chainfist for +10pts
other than that it sounds good.
TDA getting Move Through Cover might be a thing to consider as well. As would Fleet.
If there were more options for ranged upgrades I could live with 2 total said upgrades as long as they come in the forst 5 models
I do worry about stepping on other specific terminators like the DA ones.
I'm not sure of why TDA equipped models would have Fleet though. Move Through Cover I can see for sure- it's sort of how they work in DoW2 where Terminators are of such 'size' that they actually smash through and destroy cover on the map, completely ignoring it. Obviously we can't really implement such a mechanic in 40K- not only is it potentially very broken, but it would be difficult to manage. That said, the 'spirit' of it, if you will, is that Terminators wouldn't really be slowed down by cover, so MTC makes sense IMO.
But I'm not seeing the logic for Fleet.
Incidentally, I think that some of the army-specific Terminators are able to diversify themselves in their rules and certain options that they get- DA Termies get Plasma Cannons for example, while Chaos Termies have Reaper ACs (which isn't much, but still...) and combi-meltas/-plasmas, as well as a 3-man minimum squad size (those things are awesome). Space Wolves are... extra-wolfy, I guess? while Blood Angels... I don't actually know what BA get.
I guess I kind of think of TDA armor as having mechanical mechanisms (pistons and such) to augment strength and movement. Kind of like the loader in Aliens but smaller.
Or like the exo-skeleton in this vid. Being a more advanced suit it would allow you to move faster to a certain degree due to mechanical advantage.
-- TH/SS Terminators are regarded as "alright" at 45pts. I would only make changes to clearly OP/UP units, which most people see as overdue. Otherwise, you risk losing credibility.
-- Discrete choices are nice -- we have a pure melee unit, a PF-equipped unit, and a PW-equipped unit. You can see the difference instantly, which is important for opponents who aren't familiar with the unit.
-- There is a chance of people finding ways to exploit freedom of choice (like 1x LC Sarge to challenge, 2x TH/SS to tank fire, and 2x Tac Termies with Heavy Weapons).
This has more to do with design than anything else.
I do see a little bit of potential issue with TH/SS and Chainfist being the same cost, but the Chainfist means you keep your gun, and get Armorbane in combat, while the TH/SS mainly gives a 3++- Concussive isn't going to come into effect overly often against things that Hammernators can actually get into combat with.
The way I see it the price is justified for the chainfist. The chainfist expands the number of targets a Terminator can engage, and with the right special issue ammunition and heavy weapons could threaten a wide variety of targets. To have that ability should increase cost. And I doubt you would want more than few upgraded with chainfists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TH/SS Terminators are regarded as "alright" at 45pts. I would only make changes to clearly OP/UP units, which most people see as overdue. Otherwise, you risk losing credibility.
You are probably correct, but I sort of feel like assault terminators should have Fleet and Move Through Cover. But, that is just me.
I think a bigger issue is how deepstrike works when it comes to deepstrike units. I feel like they should have increased defenses for the turn they deepstrike in. That way they don't get shot up as bad, but the opponent has a chance to counter the deepstrike in some fashion.
I think 3+ cover save or possibly snapshots only vs a unit that arrived via deepstrike until the movement phase of the next turn when the unit is able to move and shoot.
ThatSwellFella wrote: Models with terminator armor reduce the strength of oncoming attacks by 1 and increase the AP of attack by one?
That option was offered up but ultimately decided against I believe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yoyoyo wrote: You might have a point about DS. But now we're talking about a deeper game mechanic, and DS right now is based on suicidal shooty Alpha-Strike drops.
The exception being Death Stars with psychic defense, or some equivalent.
That is true, but is worthy to discuss it a bit in the context that terminators have it, and potentially benefit from it and a change to it. One of those things where we need to keep everything in perspective and not forget things in order to get things right. Personally I like the snapshots variation as it gives a chance for the unit to survive til it's next turn, but still allows an opponent to adjust to it or possibly remove it. Just not as easily.
However, your point does have some bearing; its just an indirect thing.
but their 30k though.
