Have you run the numbers for Heavy Bolter sternguard ammo terminators? I'm liking that better than ACs anyway.
Not that AC terminators would be close to autowin. They shoot, once, and then die like everything else in this game that's not a special snowflake unit.
"Only Termies win by a much, much wider margin. And against many more foes. "
Except they wouldn't in practice.
"Imagine this scenario: Two Termies per 5 get the 'Super Martel Special' AC. 36" range, heavy 10. The others are stuck with Storm Bolters. Whole 5man unit clocks in at 200 points. Would you still say they'd suck? "
That changes the situation. A situation that I'm looking at on a case by case basis. I'm not trying to use generalities like you are. I really don't care how terminators get more firepower. But they need more firepower or people will just use assault terminators with a 3++ invuln. If shooting terminators are just going to be there for power fist duty, then you should just be using assault terminators all the time.
" and a quarter or less the CC capability"
You make the mistake of thinking this matters in most games. It doesn't. They get shot long before CC matters.
What else wouldn't shoot once, then die to an equal amount of firepower?
It might not take as much firepower as youd like to remove Termies, but it still takes much more firepower/point than killing Windriders.
Why don't Windriders fire once then die? Because their firepower kills too much.
So why wouldnt the Termies that have more firepower/pt kill more? And then be even harder to remove?
How, precicesly, would 45ppm Termies all with ACs not win more frequently and against a wider variety of enemies than Scatter Bikers?
Better firepower/pt.
Better survivability/pt.
Better CC.
Better Morale.
Sure, Scatter Bikes can Flat Out onto objectives if there aren't 3 Termies sitting on them. But you're sacrificing up to a 270pt unit without even shooting that round to hold one objective that the opponent hasn't covered. So ObSec does little.
ScatterBikes have 36" range, and more maneuverability. But the table is 4x6. Two units of Termies cover the bulk of the table easily. Even if they start on foot.
Most other armies will die faster, and kill fewer, when faced with these Termies.
In practice, they'd go well beyond what Scatter Bikes do today. Pure broken cheese.
CC may not mean much to you, but it certainly means something. And durability. And ATSHKNF. And CT. And deep strike. If you don't want CC, have you considered taking units that aren't CC beasts?
I can tell you that if I go up against a unit that can beat me in CC even when greatly outnumbered, *and* shoot me off the table while most of my shots bounce off them, I'm not going to enjoy that much.
"Why don't Windriders fire once then die? Because their firepower kills too much. "
And many units can't reach them. That's actually more important than their firepower often, because it stops units from shooting them that the Windriders didn't get to shoot at. 24" -> 36" is the best range bump in the game.
"Better firepower/pt."
Not even close. Windriders have way more shots/pt. I'm not sure how you are valuing rending, but it's not THAT valuable.
Your whole post is kind of moot, since I've moved on from the AC thing. I like the heavy bolter w/special ammo better.
You also have ignored the point of firepower being necessary as to not make the assault terminators an auto-take over the tactical terminators.
", but it certainly means something"
Keep telling me that as I take my CC units off the table with a croupier stick.
" have you considered taking units that aren't CC beasts? "
I'm beginning to think you are trolling here. This thread is to address the issue that tactical terminators are unplayable. So, yes, almost every marine player I know has considered this. And decided to NEVER use this unit.
"If you don't want CC, have you considered taking units that aren't CC beasts? "
I just wanted to comment on this again. I play BA and I'm down to one true CC unit per list due to how incredibly crappy CC is now. It really pisses me off that armies like your Eldar have turned the game into a game of "how many dice can I throw in the shooting phase". Codices like Eldar have drive this change, so that's why I think the terminators solution MUST be a firepower one. That and to differentiate from assault terminators MEANINGFULLY.
" 8 S6 AP4 rending shots? On a 2+/5++ T4 platform?"
8 shots is a joke in 7th. Scatbikes are throwing FORTY. FORTY.
CMLs are a joke as well because frag missiles are awful and krak missiles are primarily good against MCs without 2+ armor. Krak missiles are ironically pretty crappy against most vehicles. They are not worth a heavy weapon slot for sure.
"Devs can do the same at 200 "
I don't use devs, either, because they suck. The only devs that are good are Skyhammer devs with grav cannons.
"How about double Heavy Flamers?"
Marines need more heavy flamers like a hole in the head.
Look. Most terminator heavy weapons suck. Taking more of them doesn't make them any better. Except the assault cannon, because 20 S6 shots is getting into the realm of Eldardom, which by definition makes them viable. Scatbikes still have double the shots, but I guess being half as efficacious as Eldar is a sin.
Bharring wrote: Most Termie heavy weapons suck the way that most other race's heavy weapons suck. Namely, they aren't Scatter Bikes, so you don't care.
Indeed.
If you use that as your baseline then nothing's gonna work. BECAUSE NOBODY WANTS MORE GAME-BREAKERS!
Scatterbikes are BROKEN, that means that THEY need to change too. But we shouldn't talk about that here. As this isn't their topic.
Now, onto something relevant: Why Heavy Bolters instead of a buffed Storm Bolter? You can give it more shots, more range and the stronger profile if needed and it doesn't screw over existing models. Never got an answer.
the fact that bharring thinks that 8 S6 AP4 shots at 24' is better then a unit of scatter bikes and would beat the scatter bikes every game makes me think he is trolling.
As a heads up im a neutral party in this completely, I don't play Space Marines and I am not Eldar/Necron.
Tac termies need some kind of advanced fire power in this edition. SO far Martel has made a lot of good suggestions and Crash and Bharring have shot them down because nobody wants anymore units on par with Eldar units.
And if you really think that Scat bikes aren't MORE durable then Tac terminators then your smoking something. 3+ armor and a 4+ jink beats a 2+ armor and 5++ invul any day of the week.
Gas,
The references were to 5 Termies each with an AC stock.
That's 20 shots.
While its fewer shots than the same points of Wind riders, each AC shot is more than twice as likely to kill a Windrider as a Scatter Laser shot is to kill a Termie.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 3+/4+ jink beats 2+/5++? On what day?
AP4+ kills Wind riders twice as fast.
AP3 kills Windriders 3x if they jink, 6x if they don't.
AP2 kills Windriders 0.75x faster if they jink (cutting their firepower by 75%), 1.5x faster if they don't.
CC AP3 kill Windriders 6x faster
CC AP2 kill Windriders 1.5x faster.
The *only* situation where 3+/4+ jink beats 2+/5++ is vs AP2 ranged shots where the defending unit is willing to sacrifice 75% of its shooting.
In all other situations, 2+/5++ ranges from 1.5 to 6 times better.
And "All other situations" are much, much more common.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You are right that I don't want more units at Scatterbike levels. I want fewer. None preferably. I want the Scstterbikes themselves changed, too. But you'd have to read my posts beyond Martel's characterizations to know that.
Give the sergeants a selection of short skill list of 3-5 skills he can purchase and 1-2 special weapons, perhaps even one that gives him +1 I and you will see that the termies can flourish in the current meta and 7th. It works for the aspect eldar and their exarchs... why should terminator sergeants be any less trained?
Exarchs are fully consumed with the path. Not even leaders in the traditional sense, more paragons/obsessives.
They aren't really the same thing. Not that Exarchs shouldn't pay more for what they get, but an SM sarge is the same flesh and blood, the same equipment, and the same training as the other Marines. Just higher rank and often more skilled. Exarchs aren't Aspect Warriors anymore.
Bharring wrote: Gas,
The references were to 5 Termies each with an AC stock.
That's 20 shots.
While its fewer shots than the same points of Wind riders, each AC shot is more than twice as likely to kill a Windrider as a Scatter Laser shot is to kill a Termie.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 3+/4+ jink beats 2+/5++? On what day?
AP4+ kills Wind riders twice as fast.
AP3 kills Windriders 3x if they jink, 6x if they don't.
AP2 kills Windriders 0.75x faster if they jink (cutting their firepower by 75%), 1.5x faster if they don't.
CC AP3 kill Windriders 6x faster
CC AP2 kill Windriders 1.5x faster.
The *only* situation where 3+/4+ jink beats 2+/5++ is vs AP2 ranged shots where the defending unit is willing to sacrifice 75% of its shooting.
In all other situations, 2+/5++ ranges from 1.5 to 6 times better.
And "All other situations" are much, much more common.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You are right that I don't want more units at Scatterbike levels. I want fewer. None preferably. I want the Scstterbikes themselves changed, too. But you'd have to read my posts beyond Martel's characterizations to know that.
Scatterbikes have the ability to shoot and scoot. They are basically impossible to catch. "Ohh but 2 units of terminators can easily catch them" So just double the amount of units which just about triples the points cost compared to the scat bikes and boom we can catch scat bikes......kinda inefficient wouldn't you agree? Terminators vs scat bikes in a vacuum scat bikes win every time. In a real game Scat bikes win every time because the termies will never be able to catch the bikes and shoot them let alone get in Close combat. In a real game the second those terminators disembark or deep strike they are SHOT OFF THE TABLE.
Yeah 3+ 4+ is tougher to kill then 2+ 5++. Because realistically how many AP4 ignores cover weapons are in the game compared to weapons that are AP1-2 or have rending? the answer is that their are WAY more AP1-2 weapons in the game then AP1-4 ignores cover weapons. Furthermore your scat bikes can quickly hide behind cover AFTER shooting where as the terminators are stuck out in the open and easily killed.
As an Ork player when I see terminators all I see are 200+ points of easy kills. When I see Scat bikes I see the death of my Ork Boyz and a lot of turns wasted trying to kill them. The most successful tactic I have had in kill terminators is either shooting them to death with Deff Gunz/Shoota Boyz or just assaulting them with boyz who either kill them outright or wound them so badly that I either win or win by turn 2. Best tactic in killing scat bikes is ....hope? I fire massive volleys and they get their 4+ cover save if not their 3+ armor save and thats only if I can actually see them which most of the time I cant.
Ohh and 5 terminators with a AC each still lose to scat bikes. 24' range means that unless the eldar player is stupid the marine player will never be able to catch the Scat bikes while in return the Eldar player can pick off terminators every turn and on the last turn can shoot forward and take whatever objective needs to be held.
I'm not arguing that Termies aren't competitive, even at the current 175pts for 5.
I'm arguing that coming with ACs stock would be broken.
A couple of concerns with your assessment:
- How are Termies being shot off the table upon deep striking before they get to shoot? By a unit without Intercepted? If they Deep strike in, they are shooting first.
- How do Scatter Bikes stay away from Termies while shooting?
On an infinite sized board, its possible. But standing on the center line, Termies threaten two board edges simultaneously. Their threat range is 24"+6", which is a circle of over 50" in diameter. Its not exactly small. And if the scatter bikes end movement anywhere in there, they lose heavily. And as Termies can push their way anywhere in this matchup, if Scatter Bikes don't shoot to avoid getting shot, winding down the clock actually helps Termies more.
As for being shot off the table, Scatter Bikes kill 4x(2/3)(5/6)(1/6) Termies. Each bike can kill, on average (20/54) Termies. That is scary. But any round Termies are in range, they kill 4x(2/3)(2/3)(1/3)+4x(2/3)(1/6)(1) Windriders, or 4x(4/27) + 4x(3/27), or (56/54) Wind riders.
So let's try that out. 5 Termies vs 9 Windriders. Large points advantage Windriders.
Termies drop in and kill over 5 Windriders.
Assuming they hold, 4 wind riders kill 80/54 Termies.
Remaining Termies likely finish off the Windriders if they're in range. If not, they'll get them the following round.
Anything can be shot off the table. Termies take more than most. Giving them glass cannon firepower would make them OP.
As for likelyhood of weapons, I think there is some confusion. Its not just AP4 ignores cover where Termies do better. Its anything AP3+, *or* anything AP1/2 with Ignores Cover. Or Scatter Bikes don't want to jink (fun fact - a jinking Scatter Bike is less deadly to a Termie, than a Storm Bolter termie is to a Scatter Biker). Or CC.
The majority of the firepower isn't AP1/2. It might feel like that at times, but AP3+ vastly outnumbers AP1/2.
Even if somehow AP1/2 were as prevelant as AP3+, Scatter Bikes are only marginally more survivable vs AP1/2 while jinking (0.25), whereas Termies are much more survivable (1.5x - 6x!) vs everything else. It's not even close.
Cover doesn't flip much. It means, with intervening ruins, Scatter Bikes can use the Jink numbers without jinking. So only vs AP1/2. still only 25% better best case, but 3x worse worst case.
As for rocketing forward last turn, you must be within 3" to claim an objective. Even with ObSec. 3 Termies you've been trying to run from instead of fighting all game can hold an objective, and prevent you from getting close enough. And that assumes both Eternal War and Eldar player taking second turn. Otherwise, rocketing onto an objective will show you what powerfists do to jetbikss when they come forward.
Current Scat Bikers are OP, and Termies arent competitive, but these AC Termies just destroy.
Bharring wrote: I'm not arguing that Termies aren't competitive, even at the current 175pts for 5.
I'm arguing that coming with ACs stock would be broken.
A couple of concerns with your assessment:
- How are Termies being shot off the table upon deep striking before they get to shoot? By a unit without Intercepted? If they Deep strike in, they are shooting first.
- How do Scatter Bikes stay away from Termies while shooting?
On an infinite sized board, its possible. But standing on the center line, Termies threaten two board edges simultaneously. Their threat range is 24"+6", which is a circle of over 50" in diameter. Its not exactly small. And if the scatter bikes end movement anywhere in there, they lose heavily. And as Termies can push their way anywhere in this matchup, if Scatter Bikes don't shoot to avoid getting shot, winding down the clock actually helps Termies more.
As for being shot off the table, Scatter Bikes kill 4x(2/3)(5/6)(1/6) Termies. Each bike can kill, on average (20/54) Termies. That is scary. But any round Termies are in range, they kill 4x(2/3)(2/3)(1/3)+4x(2/3)(1/6)(1) Windriders, or 4x(4/27) + 4x(3/27), or (56/54) Wind riders.
So let's try that out. 5 Termies vs 9 Windriders. Large points advantage Windriders.
Termies drop in and kill over 5 Windriders.
Assuming they hold, 4 wind riders kill 80/54 Termies.
Remaining Termies likely finish off the Windriders if they're in range. If not, they'll get them the following round.
Anything can be shot off the table. Termies take more than most. Giving them glass cannon firepower would make them OP.
As for likelyhood of weapons, I think there is some confusion. Its not just AP4 ignores cover where Termies do better. Its anything AP3+, *or* anything AP1/2 with Ignores Cover. Or Scatter Bikes don't want to jink (fun fact - a jinking Scatter Bike is less deadly to a Termie, than a Storm Bolter termie is to a Scatter Biker). Or CC.
The majority of the firepower isn't AP1/2. It might feel like that at times, but AP3+ vastly outnumbers AP1/2.
Even if somehow AP1/2 were as prevelant as AP3+, Scatter Bikes are only marginally more survivable vs AP1/2 while jinking (0.25), whereas Termies are much more survivable (1.5x - 6x!) vs everything else. It's not even close.
Cover doesn't flip much. It means, with intervening ruins, Scatter Bikes can use the Jink numbers without jinking. So only vs AP1/2. still only 25% better best case, but 3x worse worst case.
As for rocketing forward last turn, you must be within 3" to claim an objective. Even with ObSec. 3 Termies you've been trying to run from instead of fighting all game can hold an objective, and prevent you from getting close enough. And that assumes both Eternal War and Eldar player taking second turn. Otherwise, rocketing onto an objective will show you what powerfists do to jetbikss when they come forward.
Current Scat Bikers are OP, and Termies arent competitive, but these AC Termies just destroy.
Your math is so broken it is ridiculous. 5 termies fire 10 Bolt gun shots, hitting 6-7 times and wounding 3-4 times. the bikers should fail roughly 1 or at the most 2 of their armor saves. If you gave them all AC's (which I said they would have to pay for btw) thats 20 shots about 12-14 hits and about 10 wounds and thats still only 2-3 dead riders, and if the rend hits thats a jink save so a 50/50 chance so lets go on the side of 3 dead riders. thats in a deep strike where the bikers don't get to shoot and then hide before termies can return fire.
Also in the current rules a 5 man termy squad can deep strike and can fire but since they have Storm Bolters the most they can do is kill a handful of infantry or maybe put a glance on some rear armor. On the other persons turn they will wipe out the terminators because they don't want them getting into CC. This is simple why do you not grasp this? have you ever played with/against terminators?
Gaz,
As I said, the numbers and situation where they wipe the floor with Windriders is where they're 45ppm with ACs.
In that situation, clearly our math disagrees. Let's try to find out where that is.
Here's how I calculate them shooting Windriders:
4 shots each.
2/3 to hit.
2/3 to wound without rending, 1/6 to rend
1/3 to kill without rending, 1 with rending, but we'll jink this time for 1/2
The formula, per Termie, is thus:
4x(2/3)(2/3)(1/3) = 4x(4/27) nonrending kills +
4x(2/3)(1/6)(1/2) = 4x(1/18) rending kills
4x(8/56) + 4x(3/56) = 4x(11/56), or 44/54, or roughly 80% chance per Termie to kill a Windrider, while they jink. (Earlier number was without jinking).
Slightly over .8 x 5 is slightly over 4, not 3.
Furthermore, 5 Termies at 45ppm is 225 points. 9 Windriders at 27ppm is 243 pts.
I'm not disagreeing with the point that tac Termies are bad. I field mine from time to time, and have played against them too. They can can anchor a line, or give a threat that must be handled, or slowly push, but don't make their points back usually.
I don't know how many times I can say that I agree they aren't currently effective, and still have people tell me I'm arguing otherwise.
Last time I fielded Termies was Assault Termies. Lost 4 SS/TH to a single Psychic Screech.
A memorable time i fielded my Tac Termies, they got shot off the table in one round of shooting plus overwatch by 5 Bolt Pistol chosen.
Now neither of those are the result of their stats (seriously, run those odds!), but I'm just trying to show that I do run Termies.
Martel,
You have moved on, but the logic against the AC Termies is still being debated. Leaving factually inaccurate statements to stand is really hard for me.
(Side note - Ghaz, as an Ork player, what do you think of 200pts for 5 Termies with 2x Heavy Flamers?)
" Leaving factually inaccurate statements to stand is really hard for me. "
Sorry? I sometimes prefer that people believe factually inaccurate things because it makes them easier to beat.
"but don't make their points back usually. "
I don't like this metric in general.
"but the logic against the AC Termies is still being debated"
That's your mistake. There is very little logic to this game to begin with. I personally still think AC terminators would fine for 7th ed, but heavy bolters with special ammo gives them more range and takes away their efficacy vs vehicles, because so many freaked out over a couple rends. But as for AC, I really think its as simple as if Eldar can get 40 S6 shots for 270 pts, then marines should be able to have 20 S6 shots for 225 pts. Everything else is handwaving, word salad, and overreaction to me. I've decided to go down to 15 shots that reach as far as the Eldar 40 shots and have some extra ammo options. But I'm not sure that 15 shots would be worth 175 pts, though. (These terminators would be 35 ppm, not 45 ppm)
Again.
1) Why Heavy Bolters and not buffed Storm Bolters? You can give them more shots.You can give them the stronger profile. 2) Scatterbikes are NOT the standard, they are a mistake. Don't measure based on them, anything you find from doing that is absolutely useless.
Bharring wrote: In other words, ScatterBike clones or bust, any debate is beneath you?
Bharring wrote: In other words, ScatterBike clones or bust, any debate is beneath you?
No. I just said for like the 5th time I'm more in favor of the heavy bolter version. I just find your objections laughable. Especially from an Eldar player.
You removed your more crazy verbage about how logic doesn't matter, that all that matters is Termies should have amazing shooting, and any logic - even if it did show they would be OP - is both unwelcome and irrelevant. The whole no-reasoning-matters argument of an earlier version of that post is what I was replying to.
You had flatly dismissed all arguments that didn't push the "they have less daka than WindRiders" point, quite abrasively.
It was really quite shocking. I hope it was just a mistype.
Bharring wrote: "Everything else is handwaving, word salad..."
You removed your more crazy verbage about how logic doesn't matter, that all that matters is Termies should have amazing shooting, and any logic - even if it did show they would be OP - is both unwelcome and irrelevant. The whole no-reasoning-matters argument of an earlier version of that post is what I was replying to.
You had flatly dismissed all arguments that didn't push the "they have less daka than WindRiders" point, quite abrasively.
It was really quite shocking. I hope it was just a mistype.
Shocking? Really? Okay. You're acting like I killed your cat. I just disagree with you about only letting Eldar have the cool toys.
" quite abrasively. "
A lot less abrasive than it is trying to take on Eldar with BA, I assure you.
" even if it did show they would be OP"
But it's okay for Eldar to trot out an ENTIRE LIST of "OP". Okay.
No, you called any argument I might ever make 'word salad', irrelevant, and stupid, regardless of content. I'll chalk that up to a mistype that you corrected, and hopefully we can move on.
For probably the twentieth time in 11 pages, I'm not saying only Eldar should have stupidly OP gak. I'm saying noone should. How many times do I need to say that?
That brings us to what to do in the face of Eldar having that gak.
Making Termies even more gakkily OP shouldn't be an option.
Making Termies just as OP is an option some embrace. I certainly disagree. Currently, Scatter Lasers only matter directly when Eldar is on the board. Making Termies just as OP as Eldar gakkiness ruins games with Marines and Eldar, even if it *might* balance Marines vs Eldar.
Externally speaking, as the share of armies that are OP approach 50%, the frequency with which games are ruined increases.
I'd suggested the approach of Eldar being fixed, but that's not what this thread is about. Its about what to change for Termies. In that regard, what level are we trying to tune them to? Beyond ScatterBike level? Equal to Scatter Bikes? Equal to the middle? Equal to the bottom 33%? I'd suggest aiming for the middle.
This is where our argument breaks down. You see scatterbikes as The New Middle. That's our first problem. Then, looking at the same change, you see subpar, I see outrageously beyond ScatterBikes. If we're that far out of agreement, I don't think well ever come to terms.
And so, that is where we're at, when someone else engaged about if the same change set we disagree on is actually OP. Some basic math changed hands, and didn't match. You'd think we could finish that discussion without you screaming "But you're wrong! And you can't keep discussing because I've retracted that theory!".
Furthermore, I had hoped to hear from other people, too, about what they think of other options. For instance, what do other people think of 200-ish points for a 5man with two heavies? I know you don't care about it, but I'm hoping to hear more from people who don't just dismiss me as a dirty Eldar player. Especially when discussing my Termies, which I seem to field more than you in the first place.
Bharring, Should terminators all have Heavy Bolters or AC's? No they shouldn't because it will make them OP. HOWEVER! your argument is that they shouldn't because then they are just as OP as Eldar and you don't want Eldar to be OP to begin with either. The problem with that is that we know for a fact GW doesn't give a Feth what we think or for game balance and we furthermore know its going to be a long time if EVER before GW gets rid of Scatter bikes or ridiculously OP undercosted Wraith Knights. So should every army from now on take nerfs to bring them back to the power level they should be at? or should every army continue to get buffed to try and contend with Eldar/Necron OP?
Eldar and Necrons Broke the game horribly, I doubt GW is going to admit a mistake and go back and fix it so realistically the only solution is to buff everyone else to match Eldar/necron power levels.
Or we ourselves could nerf Eldar/Necrons to everyone else's level.
I don't get why people always pull the "GW would never nerf OP thing X so soon" in a proposed rule thread where people are actively making rules to ignore GW's current rules.
I could turn around and say "GW would never buff Terminators so soon after releasing C:SM, so we should nerf Eldar/Necrons and other OP things down to their level"
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Or we ourselves could nerf Eldar/Necrons to everyone else's level.
I don't get why people always pull the "GW would never nerf OP thing X so soon" in a proposed rule thread where people are actively making rules to ignore GW's current rules.
I could turn around and say "GW would never buff Terminators so soon after releasing C:SM, so we should nerf Eldar/Necrons and other OP things down to their level"
So in a "Buff Terminators" thread you think the answer to how weak and pathetic terminators are is to nerf Eldar and Necrons? completely ignoring the fact that my horrendously underpowered Ork Codex eats terminators for breakfast? or that Tau destroy Terminator before they can even get off an assault? or that even IG can shoot Terminators off the table before the Terminators can kill more hten a handful of guardsmen?
How about making a useful contribution to the thread as opposed to complaining that we think Terminators need to be on the same power level as Scat bikes
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Or we ourselves could nerf Eldar/Necrons to everyone else's level.
I don't get why people always pull the "GW would never nerf OP thing X so soon" in a proposed rule thread where people are actively making rules to ignore GW's current rules.
I could turn around and say "GW would never buff Terminators so soon after releasing C:SM, so we should nerf Eldar/Necrons and other OP things down to their level"
Practically impossible. Players flock to the original material, even if it's bad. Many of them dare not to venture out into the mysterious world of house-ruling. It's kind of a crowd mentality thing where because some of them are too scared to make the jump, the rest of us can't jump because we'd divide the game even more, and players don't grow on trees. Secondly, getting players in general to agree that, for example, X is worth 43 points and NOT 44 per model would be another impossible task. Finally, getting past players that have more ego than playskill is also an issue. (I've personally found that our worst local players are also the ones that have the most ridiculous ideas about what armies and units are good etc.)
No, I don't think they are. I think scattering around some +1 to values like storm bolter shots and upgrades per squad aren't thoughts, I think they are random. Technically these are things that they do not currently have, and are therefore "more things," but this is basically irrelevant, like giving daemonettes bs9. Yeah, ok, your rangers have Hatred: gargoyles. +3 points. Bizzarely, your rangers don't really have trouble fighting gargoyles in cc, are not things you would use to fight gargoyles in cc, will very rarely be in combat with gargoyles, and very rarely be on the table with gargoyles.
It's really frustrating because I think Martel has useful things to say (I'm not remotely interested in using the ideas, but it's useful to read) and I would really rather he were just posting mostly by himself, because this interference has meant it took like four weeks to transition away from liking a 24" gun on an infantry platform.
I think the most important thing is that even though they can get bs5 and tons of special rules, Dire Avengers, Banshees, etc are not worth taking, and neither are most marines units, and indeed most types of infantry. If an infantry unit are used it is mostly to take up board space, which TDA don't do because losing one base is a big drop in footprint. So you gotta make infantry better in some way than bikes and gargantuan creatures.
Desubot wrote: Can we just Remove bladestorm. and make scatterbikes 1 scatter per unit of 3.. please..
Find an Eldar player to agree to that and sure.
"Personal experience of 20+ years of gaming. It's a psychology thing. People seem to HATE taking nerfs on their stuff, but don't mind their opponents being brought up to "their level". They get to keep their sense of superiority, which is important to many gamers. The idea that they can't be beat with the 'real rules'. "
I think this is really important. I'm not going to invite an eldar player to play with my new houserules that are just a bright idea like scatterlaser nerfs. I'm going to make him feel generous by asking him to allow me some OP units of my own that he can still pretty much destroy because he's got really good units.
I'm not saying to not buff them, I'm saying to to buff them to the standard of an OP unit because "GW won't change Scatbikes anytime soon".
Do you not see the absurdity of justifying buffing Termis to OP levels because GW won't nerf Scatbikes?
I agree, Termis need a buff, but if the logic your going to use is "make them OP because GW won't make non-OP units not OP anytime soon" then why bother trying to write proposed rules for anything since GW won't do what we're writing anytime soon.
And why wouldn't I complain about you wanting to buff Termis through the roof to the levels of a unit you know is OP? Look if you want an echochamer of "Lol let's make this OP because GW" be my guest, but that isn't good game design.
Plus how many people do you think would be willing to play with proposed rules that make a unit OP? Would you be willing to face a unit that deletes 1/2 a mob of boyz every turn?
Terminators undoubtbly need a boost, but this isn't the way to do it. Buffing Storm Bolters? All good and fine (as long as my Chaos Terminators get a boost to their combi-bolters to compensate). Giving them a 4++ by default and/or allowing them to re-roll saves? By all means.
We seem to get a thread like this every month where people suggest sane and non-gamebreaking suggestions only for it to reach "give them all ACs".
And Martel before you go "I've moved on from that", I know you have. That said I feel it's better to minorly buff their storm bolters (a weapon that is by all standards universally terrible), boost their defense and maybe (if needed) a points decrease on top of that rather than give them all heavy bolters with special ammo.
How would that work, anyway? 30" Str 5 AP 3 Heavy 3 Gets Hot! for Vengeance? But then what would Kraken do, since currently they boost the AP by 1, and therefore would be infinitely better. Would vengeance by AP2, then? Because that's better than the "All ACs" suggestion and even more broken, even with Get's Hot.
EDIT: If buffing Termis to OP levels instead of nerfing Eldar/Necrons is solely so Eldar/Necrons players are more willing to face you, how willing do you think everyone else will be to play with you OP Termis? You can't say buffing them to OP levels so the players of 2 armies in the game are more accepting is so you can have more opponents with your houserules when simultaneously everyone else will decline to play against you with your houserules for the exact same reason.
And why wouldn't I complain about you wanting to buff Termis through the roof to the levels of a unit you know is OP? Look if you want an echochamer of "Lol let's make this OP because GW" be my guest, but that isn't good game design.
Plus how many people do you think would be willing to play with proposed rules that make a unit OP? Would you be willing to face a unit that deletes 1/2 a mob of boyz every turn?
Terminators undoubtbly need a boost, but this isn't the way to do it. Buffing Storm Bolters? All good and fine (as long as my Chaos Terminators get a boost to their combi-bolters to compensate). Giving them a 4++ by default and/or allowing them to re-roll saves? By all means.
I feel like when it comes to bad game design, 4++ is about as lazy a possible. That's not important.
What um, what are buffed storm bolters going to do about centstar? Grav bikes, scat bikes, riptides, ghost arks?
Those aren't the only things in the game, and they are OP armies some of them, ok.
What are they going to do about a guard blob? Well, guard blobs aren't the best way to play guard necessarily. What are buffed storm bolters going to do to guard vet squads of any type?
They'll kill them, sure. Anything can do that, though. You take terminators to fight, you know, monsters.
Tactical terminators are armed with power fists to take down monsters, and stormbolters for squishies, with a heavy weapon or 2 to support them. That's how the fluff has portrayed them, not a gun that can destroy absolutely everything with ease and a power fist for show.
If a 4++ is lazy, what's giving them all an AC?
For 35 points I feel it's be fine if Terminators had +1 Attack each, a 4++ instead of a 5++, 2 heavy weapons in a 5 man squad and 3 in a 10 man and the following change to storm bolters with special ammo ontop to give them an extra boost against other targets.
So maybe something like:
Tactical Terminator Squad: 175 pts
Terminator: WS 4 | BS 4 | S 4 | T 4 | W 1 | I 4 | A 3 | Ld 9 | Sv 2+/4++ Terminator Sergeant: WS 4 | BS 4 | S 4 | T 4 | W 1 | I 4 | A 3 | Ld 9 | Sv 2+/4++
Unit Composition: 4 Terminators and 1 Terminator Sergeant
Special Rules: - ATSKNF - Chapter Tactics - Combat Squads
Options: - May include up to 5 additional Terminators: 35pts each - Any model may replace their PF with a CF: 5pts each - 2 Terminators may choose one of the following: -- Replace SB with HF: 5pts -- Replace SB with AC: 15pts -- Take CM: 20pts If the unit has 10 models, 1 Terminator may choose one of the following: -- Replace SB with HF: 5pts -- Replace SB with AC: 15pts -- Take CM: 20pts -May take a Land Raider variant as a DT
Storm Bolter Range 24" | Str 4 | AP 5 | Salvo 2/4, Shred
Terminator Special Ammunition In each shooting phase, models with Terminator Special Ammunition can choose to use one of the following profiles below for their Storm Bolter until the beginning of their next Shooting Phase. All models with Terminator Special Ammunition in a unit must use the same profile.
Kraken Bolt: Range 30" | S 4 | AP 4 | Salvo 2/4, Shred
Dragonfire Bolt: Range 24" | S 4 | AP 5 | Salvo 2/4, Shred, Ignores Cover
Hellfire Round: Range 24" | S 1 | AP 5 | Salvo 2/4, Shred, Poisoned (2+)
Vengeance Rounds: Range 18" | S 4 | AP 3 | Salvo 2/3, Shred, Gets Hot
Herculean Bolts: Range 24" | S 5 | AP 5 | Salvo 2/3, Shred, Rending
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Believe me, I cringe when I see the points cost of my Nobz (I'd weep, but that's un-orky)
They'll get love when a thread is made for them (believe me, if it's made I'll be there)
The boys mob nobs benefit from having a ton of cheap ablative wounds, making sure the points spent on them go the distance.
Actual nob squads though, yeah those are pretty meh.
I don't think that you and I are talking about the same subject.
Honestly at this point I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about. You say that things like giving them 4++ invulnerable saves or giving storm bolters more shots are "Random things to do" but imply that giving every Terminator an Assault Cannon or Heavy Bolter isn't. Maybe I inferred wrong on the last part, though.
In regards to your "they fight monsters" comment from earlier, more Attacks and a 4++ helps them fight monsters in combat (the reason they're armed with PFs to begin with) and the Special Ammunition, Shred and additional SB shots help them soften them before they charge. SB aren't meant to kill everything out right in one salvo.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Tactical terminators are armed with power fists to take down monsters, and stormbolters for squishies, with a heavy weapon or 2 to support them. That's how the fluff has portrayed them, not a gun that can destroy absolutely everything with ease and a power fist for show.
Spot on
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: The problem with that is that we know for a fact GW doesn't give a Feth what we think or for game balance and we furthermore know its going to be a long time if EVER before GW gets rid of Scatter bikes or ridiculously OP undercosted Wraith Knights.
The cynical side of me thinks GW deliberately shift the power:points value of units to encourage sales. e.g.when dreads were reduced to a measly 2 attacks, a load of players shelves them, and spent money on rifleman dreads or alternatives. So likewise perhaps the serious buff to jetbikes is deliberate to encourage sales. Assuming the game testers in there are competent I can't imagine how they create such disparity in unit values except for this reason.
The same can also be said for the change in rules for certain unit types we see in each ruleset release, as well as rule changes that swing shooting in favour of close combat, or vica versa.
That's why I think it's especially important for players to be fair and agree to self regulation of stats and points values, so we can continue to use the units we want in our armies, not the ones that the GW are shoving us towards with each codex and ruleset release.
"How would that work, anyway? 30" Str 5 AP 3 Heavy 3 Gets Hot! for Vengeance? But then what would Kraken do, since currently they boost the AP by 1, and therefore would be infinitely better. Would vengeance by AP2, then? Because that's better than the "All ACs" suggestion and even more broken, even with Get's Hot."
Don't give them veangenace. They're not there for AP 2. I don't think AP 3 ammo on a marine elite is a crazy idea.
". That said I feel it's better to minorly buff their storm bolters"
I will never use a unit with so little firepower in 7th. They'd have to be SUPER cheap. Even at 35 pts, they are completely unusable.
"Tactical terminators are armed with power fists to take down monsters, and stormbolters for squishies, with a heavy weapon or 2 to support them. That's how the fluff has portrayed them, not a gun that can destroy absolutely everything with ease and a power fist for show."
This formula is a complete failure in 7th. Time to change it. The fluff means nothing to me. Only table top efficacy, because I spend a lot more time playing than I do reading GW's poor fiction.
To the supporters of the terminator status quo: there is no way I'm paying 35 ppm, and then waiting for them to arrive via deep strike, staying in "rape me" formation in order to shoot STORMBOLTERS at the enemy, and then having them shot in the face by any number of AP 2 weapons in the game that are everywhere. This is not happening. How cheap do you make such a TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE gimmick? My 25 terminators will continue to gather dust, as per protocol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Tactical terminators are armed with power fists to take down monsters, and stormbolters for squishies, with a heavy weapon or 2 to support them. That's how the fluff has portrayed them, not a gun that can destroy absolutely everything with ease and a power fist for show.
If a 4++ is lazy, what's giving them all an AC?
For 35 points I feel it's be fine if Terminators had +1 Attack each, a 4++ instead of a 5++, 2 heavy weapons in a 5 man squad and 3 in a 10 man and the following change to storm bolters with special ammo ontop to give them an extra boost against other targets.
So maybe something like:
Tactical Terminator Squad: 175 pts
Terminator: WS 4 | BS 4 | S 4 | T 4 | W 1 | I 4 | A 3 | Ld 9 | Sv 2+/4++
Terminator Sergeant: WS 4 | BS 4 | S 4 | T 4 | W 1 | I 4 | A 3 | Ld 9 | Sv 2+/4++
Unit Composition: 4 Terminators and 1 Terminator Sergeant
Special Rules:
- ATSKNF - Chapter Tactics
- Combat Squads
Options:
- May include up to 5 additional Terminators: 35pts each
- Any model may replace their PF with a CF: 5pts each
- 2 Terminators may choose one of the following:
-- Replace SB with HF: 5pts
-- Replace SB with AC: 15pts
-- Take CM: 20pts
If the unit has 10 models, 1 Terminator may choose one of the following:
-- Replace SB with HF: 5pts
-- Replace SB with AC: 15pts
-- Take CM: 20pts
-May take a Land Raider variant as a DT
Storm Bolter Range 24" | Str 4 | AP 5 | Salvo 2/4, Shred
Terminator Special Ammunition In each shooting phase, models with Terminator Special Ammunition can choose to use one of the following profiles below for their Storm Bolter until the beginning of their next Shooting Phase. All models with Terminator Special Ammunition in a unit must use the same profile.
Kraken Bolt: Range 30" | S 4 | AP 4 | Salvo 2/4, Shred
Dragonfire Bolt: Range 24" | S 4 | AP 5 | Salvo 2/4, Shred, Ignores Cover
Hellfire Round: Range 24" | S 1 | AP 5 | Salvo 2/4, Shred, Poisoned (2+)
Vengeance Rounds: Range 18" | S 4 | AP 3 | Salvo 2/3, Shred, Gets Hot
Herculean Bolts: Range 24" | S 5 | AP 5 | Salvo 2/3, Shred, Rending
I'd be willing to playtest this. Salvo 2/4 might make this work because 2 shots per model is way too small for a 35 ppm model that can't get in CC.
I still think it's hilarious that Eldar can have a troop choice with 40 S6 shots, but give marines an elite choice with 20 S6 shots, and everyone loses their minds. I've played against enough scatbikes now that I wouldn't bat an eye. In fact, I'd be grateful that they only have 24" range and are foot sloggers.
Matt,
Did you plan on changing TH/SS Termies at all in relation to this?
Going from 4++ to 3++ and lose that kind of proposed shooting doesn't seem to be worth +10ppm.
From a fluff perspective, does Special Ammo seem right? Termie armor is too cumbersome to even sweep opponents, so swapping out ammo types mid-battle seems a bit off. (And automated ammo swappers don't feel Marine-ish). Thoughts?
Hmm, salvo 2/4 AND shred seems little too good, better than a heavy bolter in fact. Suggest assault 3 or assault 2 shred
I'd also avoid ammo types altering the rate of fire, it seems a bit messy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Matt,
Did you plan on changing TH/SS Termies at all in relation to this?
Going from 4++ to 3++ and lose that kind of proposed shooting doesn't seem to be worth +10ppm.
There's a load of suggestions about this earlier in the thread. From SS allowing an invul save reroll to it conferring hammer of wrath.
Matt, thank you.
When people aren't buffing these things to ridiculous heights it's not "Eldar can be OP and nobody else can", it's "Nobody should be that OP, but we're going to balance Termies to a more reasonable level and leave the assumption that Scatterbikes should be nerfed because this thread is about Terminators and not Scatterbikes".
And quite frankly most of Martel's posts seem to be coming from a grudge, a few of the things he said when it's not hiding behind "It's the new normal" (which is bunk, even now in the "new status quo", those handfuls of units stand out) show that he's upset about things and is effectively venting his anger with these suggestions. Understandable, but still not right. Even now he's still doing things like exaggerating the advantage of shooting over Assault by pretending CC doesn't exist, when people still get use out of choppy units and armies even with all the disadvantages (and if it's a personal preference thing, Terminators were never really going to appeal too much, and picking Blood Angels over Vanilla/Dark Angels would be a bit bold and foolish for someone who doesn't like melee and just wants to shoot a lot).
As far as the new profile, mostly good but I have a few suggestions:
• Let Sarge swap his Power Sword for a Power Maul or Power Axe and give him +1 attack as compensation for having no Fist. Optionally +1 Wound too.
• Maybe 2 Heavies per 5 guys as many suggested (thus, one more in a full squad) would be better. People seem to really want more Heavy Weapons and it's simpler to follow too.
• Was removing the Plasma Cannon deliberate? If it's because it's too bad, maybe make it a free swap instead?
• Some have suggested Terminator Armor rerolls the armor save, are you including that? Also I'd like to again suggest putting in a rule that lets them both Assault and Shoot on the turn they Deep Strike (BOTH because I already want Deep Striking in general to let you pick and as another incentive for shooty Termies).
Can't remember anything else so I'd say it's mostly good!
Bharring wrote: Matt,
Did you plan on changing TH/SS Termies at all in relation to this?
Going from 4++ to 3++ and lose that kind of proposed shooting doesn't seem to be worth +10ppm.
People have suggested that the Storm Shield should reroll invulnerable saves, which is slightly better than 3++.
Now instead of going from 2/3 to 1/3 chance of fail, they go from 1/2 to 1/4 chance of fail. In both cases it halves the chance of failing.
And if it still seems less impressive than it was before, that's probably fine as it's another push to make TH/SS something to consider instead of auto-take.
From a fluff perspective, does Special Ammo seem right? Termie armor is too cumbersome to even sweep opponents, so swapping out ammo types mid-battle seems a bit off. (And automated ammo swappers don't feel Marine-ish). Thoughts?
Two ways to go about this:
Method 1 (if letting them swap is good):
Terminator armor has a lot of stuff in it already and considering that the Storm Bolter is kinda dinky compared to the Assault Cannon/Plasma Cannon/Heavy Flamer it seems odd that they aren't any more/less agile depending on weapon choices. Makes sense if they have a heavy (if small) ammo-changer in their arm when they use a Storm Bolter.
Method 2 (if letting them swap is too much):
Instead, the squad picks ONE ammo type when they first arrive and are stuck with it for the rest of the game. The first two are safe choices since they're direct upgrades, but the last two might be a bit trickier, so something to think about before picking them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thegreatchimp wrote: Hmm, salvo 2/4 AND shred seems little too good, better than a heavy bolter in fact. Suggest assault 3 or assault 2 shred
If it's just outclassing the Heavy Bolter, then that can get buffed too.
Bharring wrote:Matt,
Did you plan on changing TH/SS Termies at all in relation to this?
Going from 4++ to 3++ and lose that kind of proposed shooting doesn't seem to be worth +10ppm.
From a fluff perspective, does Special Ammo seem right? Termie armor is too cumbersome to even sweep opponents, so swapping out ammo types mid-battle seems a bit off. (And automated ammo swappers don't feel Marine-ish). Thoughts?
I was thinking about making it 5pts, or 10pts with an additional special rule.
I see your point about ammo swapping, but along the same vein, how do Terminators replace their ammo once they've emptied their storm bolter? We could suspend disbelief and keep it as access to all of them at any time or as Crash said, make them choose 1 type at the start of battle (and balancing Herculean and Vengeance rounds around that)
thegreatchimp wrote:Hmm, salvo 2/4 AND shred seems little too good, better than a heavy bolter in fact. Suggest assault 3 or assault 2 shred
I'd also avoid ammo types altering the rate of fire, it seems a bit messy.
I can see you point, however I still think A3 or A2 Shred isn't enough of a buff for the base Storm Bolter. May make it Salvo 2/3 instead and then have the Heavy Bolter be buffed to Salvo 3/5 Pinning?
I'd keep the Storm Bolter at Salvo 2/4 but then the Heavy Bolter would have to be even better and make Autocannons not worth it.
Also, the alternating rates of fire for different ammo was because I felt 20 AP3 shots with shred were a bit much... that's 10 marines dead a turn from a squad that costs 5pts more than 10 bare Tacs that is way more capable in assault. Even with Gets Hot, that's only 0.555 wounds per phase. 15 shots is only 7.5 MEQ a turn, so not as bad. For Herculean rounds it was a mistype, however. They were meant to be 2/4.
CrashGordon94 wrote:Matt, thank you.
When people aren't buffing these things to ridiculous heights it's not "Eldar can be OP and nobody else can", it's "Nobody should be that OP, but we're going to balance Termies to a more reasonable level and leave the assumption that Scatterbikes should be nerfed because this thread is about Terminators and not Scatterbikes".
And quite frankly most of Martel's posts seem to be coming from a grudge, a few of the things he said when it's not hiding behind "It's the new normal" (which is bunk, even now in the "new status quo", those handfuls of units stand out) show that he's upset about things and is effectively venting his anger with these suggestions. Understandable, but still not right. Even now he's still doing things like exaggerating the advantage of shooting over Assault by pretending CC doesn't exist, when people still get use out of choppy units and armies even with all the disadvantages (and if it's a personal preference thing, Terminators were never really going to appeal too much, and picking Blood Angels over Vanilla/Dark Angels would be a bit bold and foolish for someone who doesn't like melee and just wants to shoot a lot).
As far as the new profile, mostly good but I have a few suggestions:
• Let Sarge swap his Power Sword for a Power Maul or Power Axe and give him +1 attack as compensation for having no Fist. Optionally +1 Wound too.
• Maybe 2 Heavies per 5 guys as many suggested (thus, one more in a full squad) would be better. People seem to really want more Heavy Weapons and it's simpler to follow too.
• Was removing the Plasma Cannon deliberate? If it's because it's too bad, maybe make it a free swap instead?
• Some have suggested Terminator Armor rerolls the armor save, are you including that? Also I'd like to again suggest putting in a rule that lets them both Assault and Shoot on the turn they Deep Strike (BOTH because I already want Deep Striking in general to let you pick and as another incentive for shooty Termies).
Can't remember anything else so I'd say it's mostly good!
No problem.
1) Sounds good on the first part. I can see what you mean about compensation for not having a fist, though I'm not sure we want 5A Lightning Claw Assault Sergeants. *shrug*
2) You're probably right.
3) Vanilla Termis don't have the option for a Plasma Cannon, that's the reason why . I didn't realise DA could take PCs.
4) With the buffs to everything else, I didn't include re-rolling armour as I wanted to keep them at 35pts each and felt everything + re-rolling armour might be too much. If we increase their cost back to 40pts or more, I don't see why we can't allow them to re-roll their armour. With all Assault-from-DS being removed from the game (except Skyhammer for... reasons) I'm not entirely sure about the letting them shoot and assault after DSing.
@Martel:
I'm glad you're at least willing to try my proposed Termi rules.
So with this in mind...
Spoiler:
Tactical Terminator Squad: 175 pts
Terminator: WS 4 | BS 4 | S 4 | T 4 | W 1 | I 4 | A 3 | Ld 9 | Sv 2+/4++
Terminator Sergeant: WS 4 | BS 4 | S 4 | T 4 | W 1 | I 4 | A 4 | Ld 9 | Sv 2+/4++
Unit Composition: 4 Terminators and 1 Terminator Sergeant
Special Rules:
- ATSKNF - Chapter Tactics
- Combat Squads
Options:
- May include up to 5 additional Terminators: 35pts each
- Any model may replace their PF with a CF: 5pts each
- For every 5 models in the unit, 2 Terminators may choose one of the following:
-- Replace SB with HF: 5pts
-- Replace SB with AC: 15pts
-- Take CM: 20pts
(Or Replace SW with Plasma Cannon for Xpts if DA)
-May take a Land Raider variant as a DT
Assault Terminator Squad: 175 pts
Terminator: WS 4 | BS 4 | S 4 | T 4 | W 1 | I 4 | A 3 | Ld 9 | Sv 2+/4++
Terminator Sergeant: WS 4 | BS 4 | S 4 | T 4 | W 1 | I 4 | A 4 | Ld 9 | Sv 2+/4++
Unit Composition: 4 Terminators and 1 Terminator Sergeant
Wargear:
- Terminator Armour
- 2 Lightning Claws
Special Rules:
- ATSKNF - Chapter Tactics
- Combat Squads
Options:
- May include up to 5 additional Terminators: 35pts each
- Any model may replace their 2 LCs with TH/SS: 5pts each
-May take a Land Raider variant as a DT
Storm Bolter Range 24" | Str 4 | AP 5 | Salvo 2/3, Shred
Heavy Bolter Range 36" | Str 5 | AP 4 | Salvo 3/5, Pinning
Terminator Special Ammunition In each shooting phase, models with Terminator Special Ammunition can choose to use one of the following profiles below for their Storm Bolter until the beginning of their next Shooting Phase. All models with Terminator Special Ammunition in a unit must use the same profile.
Kraken Bolt: Range 30" | S 4 | AP 4 | Salvo 2/3, Shred
Dragonfire Bolt: Range 24" | S 4 | AP 5 | Salvo 2/3, Shred, Ignores Cover
Hellfire Round: Range 24" | S 1 | AP 5 | Salvo 2/3, Shred, Poisoned (2+)
Vengeance Rounds: Range 18" | S 4 | AP 3 | Heavy 2, Shred, Gets Hot
Herculean Bolts: Range 24" | S 5 | AP 5 | Salvo 2/3, Shred, Rending
I can see you point, however I still think A3 or A2 Shred isn't enough of a buff for the base Storm Bolter. May make it Salvo 2/3 instead and then have the Heavy Bolter be buffed to Salvo 3/5 Pinning?
I'd keep the Storm Bolter at Salvo 2/4 but then the Heavy Bolter would have to be even better and make Autocannons not worth it.
I suppose I see your point with this. Particularly how the Grey Knights would be with Salvo 2/4 Storm Bolters! Though now that we've mentioned further changes, maybe a rule that says the unit using them can always Assault after firing since we changed it from Assault 2 to Salvo 2/3. Obviously no change for Relentless units like Termies but for Grey Knight Strike Squads/Purifiers, certain HQs and some Marines/Sisters who might have Storm Bolters without Bikes or Terminator Armor they might need it.
1) Sounds good on the first part. I can see what you mean about compensation for not having a fist, though I'm not sure we want 5A Lightning Claw Assault Sergeants. *shrug*
2) You're probably right.
3) Vanilla Termis don't have the option for a Plasma Cannon, that's the reason why . I didn't realise DA could take PCs.
4) With the buffs to everything else, I didn't include re-rolling armour as I wanted to keep them at 35pts each and felt everything + re-rolling armour might be too much. If we increase their cost back to 40pts or more, I don't see why we can't allow them to re-roll their armour. With all Assault-from-DS being removed from the game (except Skyhammer for... reasons) I'm not entirely sure about the letting them shoot and assault after DSing.
1) I was kinda split about that, I suppose Assault Sergeants could have the same number of attacks. Where it gets tricky would be Dark Angels (Deathwing Termies aren't split the same way - They're set up like Tactical Termies by default with the options to switch for LCs for free or TH/SS for 10 points each, by model so you can "mix" the two.). At the same time, I suppose extra choppy Assault Sergeants wouldn't be bad either, though again tricky for Dark Angels (the Deathwing Command Squad has 5 Terminators by default and one of the options is to turn one of them into a Sergeant for free. With this if you gave one of the Command Squad guys LCs or TH/SS you could just say "he's the Sergeant" for an extra free attack. Though that might not be a problem either).
3) Oh whoops, my lack of Vanilla Marine logic shoes... I would like to mention that IIRC the Plasma Cannon costs as much as the Assault Cannon and is also crap, so maybe that could be cheaper (thought either 5 points for free, considering the now much better Storm Bolter it'll replace).
4a) That's a fair point about price, not sure if cheaper ones without re-rolling or same price (or more expensive) WITH re-rolling would be a better idea.
4b) Honestly removing Assault-from-Deep-Strike was a really bad idea to begin with, hence why I mentioned the general idea of "one or the other on Deep Strike", though I suppose even with that idea the Shoot-and-Charge rule might be a bit much, but I dunno, basically I suggested that with that change in mind either way.
I can see you point, however I still think A3 or A2 Shred isn't enough of a buff for the base Storm Bolter. May make it Salvo 2/3 instead and then have the Heavy Bolter be buffed to Salvo 3/5 Pinning?
That would be an ideal solution
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Also, the alternating rates of fire for different ammo was because I felt 20 AP3 shots with shred were a bit much... that's 10 marines dead a turn from a squad that costs 5pts more than 10 bare Tacs that is way more capable in assault. Even with Gets Hot, that's only 0.555 wounds per phase. 15 shots is only 7.5 MEQ a turn, so not as bad. For Herculean rounds it was a mistype, however. They were meant to be 2/4.
Understand.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There's been some great alterations for termies hammered together on this thread. One thing that's being overlooked though is that some terminators equipment is available to other units than terminators. Specifically with the suggestion that a storm shield allow a reroll of the the suggested TDA 4++ -bearing in mind that we are changing the wording of "storm shields," how does this translate to power armoured figures with storm shields, or sw runic armour figures with storm shields? Unless a seperate "terminator storm shield" is to be implemented, the ruling has to be such that it's consistent for all models.
Still, I think that Heavy Bolter stats on their Storm Bolters would be good. S5 isn't terrible and can glance plenty of vehicles in many numbers, and AP4 helps against more medium infantry. I don't think they need the 36" so maybe 24", but what do we think of that option itself?
The Assault Cannon becomes less appealing since 3 S5 shots with S8 AP3 thrown in is much better than S6 AP4 Rending...
thegreatchimp wrote: There's been some great alterations for termies hammered together on this thread. One thing that's being overlooked though is that some terminators equipment is available to other units than terminators. Specifically with the suggestion that a storm shield allow a reroll of the the suggested TDA 4++ -bearing in mind that we are changing the wording of "storm shields," how does this translate to power armoured figures with storm shields, or sw runic armour figures with storm shields? Unless a seperate "terminator storm shield" is to be implemented, the ruling has to be such that it's consistent for all models.
That is a point. Honestly I've been trying to keep non-Termies in mind (see my suggesting an Assaulting rule on the Storm Bolter for on-foot Power Armor peeps with SBs), kinda forgot that you can have Storm Shields without Terminator Armor... Actually, not sure I ever knew that was an option to begin with, besides maybe glancing at Vanguard Vets or Death Company or something once.
Three options I can see:
1) Separate "Terminator Storm Shield" that lets you re-roll your invulnerable, the normal Storm Shield stays the same for those other units.
2) The Storm Shield grants 4++ to those with 5++ or worse, along with the re-roll.
3) Storm Shields on Termies let you re-roll your invulnerable while they just grant 3++ on everything else (same as first option, but compressed into one item).
The question is "Should Power Armor + Storm Shield people have 3++ or 4++ re-rollable?" and if we want them to stay with the 3++ "Should it be split into two items, or kept one item?"
Wow some powerful sh*t getting brewed in here. My eyes watered when I walked in..
So I love termies, I've run full wings for years but just from a fresh, first impression perspective I think these rules are looking a little too good. The terminator ammo and rerollable saves particularly.
Now in a MEQ ONLY environment they might be alright, but against plenty of other non meq armies they'd be pretty broke. Also consider the balancing act of other units that are similar in function. Wheres that leave sternguard or meganobz etc. Precedence.
And lastly considering on top of everything else they also have in-built combat ability, invulns and deep strike all of which even centurions lack.
Anyway that said the base equipment and costs, dual HWs and salvo 3 SB all look pretty spot on from where I'm at. But then I'm feeling bad about wanting an ap2 huskblade..
^Just be glad we aren't bringing them up to the level Martel was aiming at!
Though yeah, this is all stuff to keep in mind. Doesn't seem too unreasonable to me but I could be missing plenty of stuff.
CrashGordon94 wrote: ^Just be glad we aren't bringing them up to the level Martel was aiming at!
Though yeah, this is all stuff to keep in mind. Doesn't seem too unreasonable to me but I could be missing plenty of stuff.
Haha ya thats where the smell was coming from! Burnt pieces of remaining game balance lol. Only joking brew away.
Seriously though using eldar and especially scatbikes as a metric for anything is gonna lead to badly skewed results.
Three options I can see:
1) Separate "Terminator Storm Shield" that lets you re-roll your invulnerable, the normal Storm Shield stays the same for those other units.
2) The Storm Shield grants 4++ to those with 5++ or worse, along with the re-roll.
3) Storm Shields on Termies let you re-roll your invulnerable while they just grant 3++ on everything else (same as first option, but compressed into one item).
The question is "Should Power Armor + Storm Shield people have 3++ or 4++ re-rollable?" and if we want them to stay with the 3++ "Should it be split into two items, or kept one item?"
While the re-roll gives justifiable resistance to small arms fire, I think it makes them too resiliant to heavy weapons (which should remain a threat to termies). I'd also avoid a generic ss conferring a 4++ reroll . As you've pointed out, would it be a little too good for power-armoured marines? I fear it would.
Were I you I would actually just leave it at simple 3++ and then to keep it competitive vs the new upgunned storm bolter, give the shield either Hammer of Wrath OR Counter Attack. That would keep it nicely viable. I'm on the fence as to whether or not that should apply to the generic ss, or "termie ss." It'd justify a raise of a few points, but would a ss with these rules become a default choice for every marine IC? If not then all would be fine with a generic ss. If yes then that would be undesireable and we'd need 2 types of ss.
Personally I would be happy with Terminators getting to the same power level as Eldar shenanigans. It would justify them giving my orks a lot more love. Maybe putting a Gitfinda in a unit that uses ranged weapons. Or god forbid, giving me Nob with PK and a bike for less then it costs for Eldar to field 2 or more Windriders with better stats/weapons/armor/range.
Why are we not? Why are you acting as though you can somehow unilaterally decide what we are and aren't doing?
Nobody is deciding anything here. At the end of the day we can all walk away and make whatever changes we want to termies -can give them jump packs or bikes, as long as that's acceptable within your own playing group
Just trying to combine our brainpower to forge something that's balanced and usable to folks...should they choose to use it.
dominuschao wrote:Seriously though using eldar and especially scatbikes as a metric for anything is gonna lead to badly skewed results.
Indeed, kept trying to explain this to Martel but he seems to have a really hard time listening...
thegreatchimp wrote:While the re-roll gives justifiable resistance to small arms fire, I think it makes them too resiliant to heavy weapons (which should remain a threat to termies). I'd also avoid a generic ss conferring a 4++ reroll . As you've pointed out, would it be a little too good for power-armoured marines? I fear it would.
Were I you I would actually just leave it at simple 3++ and then to keep it competitive vs the new upgunned storm bolter, give the shield either Hammer of Wrath OR Counter Attack. That would keep it nicely viable. I'm on the fence as to whether or not that should apply to the generic ss, or "termie ss." It'd justify a raise of a few points, but would a ss with these rules become a default choice for every marine IC? If not then all would be fine with a generic ss. If yes then that would be undesireable and we'd need 2 types of ss.
Ummm, here's the thing: 4++ re-rollable is definitely better than 3++, but not by much.
Again, 3++ has a 4/12 chance of failure while 4++ re-rollable has a 3/12 chance of failure. Doesn't really seem so big a boost as to be broken.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Why are we not?
Because it's completely unreasonable.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Why are you acting as though you can somehow unilaterally decide what we are and aren't doing?
I hate it when people do this...
Because I applied basic logic and saw that it was a completely horrible idea. It's no exclusive right to me, anyone else can do the same. I'm not going to hold back because of some insane logical fallacy.
CrashGordon94 wrote: [ Ummm, here's the thing: 4++ re-rollable is definitely better than 3++, but not by much.
Again, 3++ has a 4/12 chance of failure while 4++ re-rollable has a 3/12 chance of failure. Doesn't really seem so big a boost as to be broken.
I know what you mean. But ss resistance vs armour piercing weapons is fine as it is, so I wouldn't increase it, particularly when doing so neccessitates either a messy rule or the creation of a 2nd storm shield like we are considering.
Also lascannons struggle in the current edition as it is. They don't need a -7% chance of killing an ss termie, on top of their other woes!
At the same time, 4++ to 3++ is kinda weak, even if it gives Hammer of Wrath or whatever. That would be a weak tradeoff for losing the new and improved Storm Bolter.
In a nutshell because it was a glaring mistake. An eff-u to someone being forced to tone down wave serpents. If your familiar with MTG for example scatbikes are the 'mental misstep' of 40k.
We've been working on a massive FUQ (unanswered) slash Errata here locally so I am interested in what you guys are brewing here for termies because they do need a little help.
However its too difficult even unrealistic to use eldar as a metric because they force the vast majority of units to be reworked to compensate. Its the arms race.
Much easier [and better IMO] to just nerf windriders bring back the former distort and tone down infinite warp jumps.
I do like the idea of terminator rounds and even of multiple heavy weapons, maaybe even better saves. Its the combo of all the above thats looking ridiculous. Once per game terminator rounds even sounds aight. Or 1 heavy weapon per model with current weapon stats. But even here we need to consider scatbikes have a lot going for them but combat ability is null and saves are much worse than on TDA. They trade firepower to obtain jink saves. Terminators don't trade anything.
CrashGordon94 wrote: At the same time, 4++ to 3++ is kinda weak, even if it gives Hammer of Wrath or whatever. That would be a weak tradeoff for losing the new and improved Storm Bolter.
It's certainly less lucrative than it was before. 3 options as I see it:
1) Slight modification to one of your suggestions: SS provides 3++. If a model already has an invulnerable save, instead of using the ss's 3++, the player may instead elect to reroll the model's existing invulnerable save. (my feeling is this should only be applicable to a models invulnerable save, i.e. not applicable to cover saves as it might be a bit too good otherwise. Thoughts?
2) SS 3++ & confers counterattack (considerable better than hammer)
3) SS 3++ & confers HOW. Points reduced appropriately form teminators to keep it competive vs sb.
dominuschao wrote: In a nutshell because it was a glaring mistake. An eff-u to someone being forced to tone down wave serpents. If your familiar with MTG for example scatbikes are the 'mental misstep' of 40k.
We've been working on a massive FUQ (unanswered) slash Errata here locally so I am interested in what you guys are brewing here for termies because they do need a little help.
However its too difficult even unrealistic to use eldar as a metric because they force the vast majority of units to be reworked to compensate. Its the arms race.
Much easier [and better IMO] to just nerf windriders bring back the former distort and tone down infinite warp jumps.
I do like the idea of terminator rounds and even of multiple heavy weapons, maaybe even better saves. Its the combo of all the above thats looking ridiculous. Once per game terminator rounds even sounds aight. Or 1 heavy weapon per model with current weapon stats. But even here we need to consider scatbikes have a lot going for them but combat ability is null and saves are much worse than on TDA. They trade firepower to obtain jink saves. Terminators don't trade anything.
My counter to this is that if you don't make serious changes to what tactical terminators can do at range, you will only ever see the assault version of terminators. The salvo 2/4 special ammo stormbolters sound pretty decent, as does heavy bolters w/special ammo. Sadly, CC ability is practically a non-factor in so many 7th ed games.
Also, don't forget that the windrider's movement and range mean that they will frequently be taking zero return fire, making them immortal. Stormbolters but terminators within all kinds of nasty return fire like grav cannons. This is the same reasoning as to why the Riptde is at least twice as durable as the Dreadknight, despite similar stats; far less effective incoming shots.
And the unfortunate problem is that the nerfs wouldn't stop with windriders. There are many calls for nerfs on many things in the game such as grav. If you nerf grav, then Riptides and WK need nerfed at minimum. One nerf leads to another nerf, etc. It's not really any different than bringing everything up.
Some good points Martel and your right, terminators fall short in straight fire fights. The game is hostile to elite units vs elite models embedded inside fodder units.
Honestly I think grav on terminators might be a better avenue to explore than new weapon profiles (barring better stormbolters which should be a thing). Maybe reduced scatter DS or similar 'strategic' type abilities.
Grav would be more balanced then some of the other weaponry simply decause it doesn't have a strength value, forces jink, and most importantly its directly proportionate to armour saves in terms of effectiveness. Or in short it hurts meq, eldar, crons, tau while not crushing some of the weaker armies out there, like massed high RoF long ranged heavy weapons (and scats) do. Downside is they would actually be a better version of cents at that point, which is saying something.
Windriders I know quite well. I actually just recently quit using them as written for friendlies and went back to their former profile because they are disgusting and unfun if maxed as written. They basically invalidate a large portion of most books options. They were even borderline too good in the last dex IMO. Taking them back to 1/3 heavies is necessary.
The nerfs in general I disagree on simply because the number of OP'd units is far less than that of the underpowered units in the game. Shortest route and all that.
Anyway I digress a little. So heres some questions:
What is the purpose of terminators? i.e. what would these rules accomplish?
Should terminators be spammable, dedicated to taking out primarily infantry or uber elite 1-of units that can tackle anything? Whats the goal here?
In a perfect world, I would get rid of the useless powerfists that turn tactical terminators into CC units. Footslogging CC units with T4 W1 are a dumpster fire in 7th ed.
I don't think we all agree on a goal here, because my plan would be to turn them into the marine version of broadsides because they are utter failures as CC units.
I have even seen people stop using assault terminators for the exact same reason. Foot slogging CC units. In fact, there's never a reason to use ANY terminator unit over a grav cent or a grav biker. Not having to catch your opponent and being able to just go "LOL GRAV!" is too good to pass up. Why use powerfists when I can just grav?
Powerfists, by the way, that will NEVER catch windriders, so a CC comparison is meaningless. Being an "objective bully" is also meaningless when the Eldar are aiming to table you.
Eliminating or at least trimming back on PFs to say sergs or whatever would open up better ranged ability in return. Assault does happen and its effective. Or in this case counter assault. Cents with no support are a perfect example. SnP = no overwatch and in combat they fold. But ya I agree the dual purpose termie is outdated. PFs are mostly worthless now in this context.
Anway I do get the impression this is aimed primarily at dealing with eldar. Or in other words basically an anti meta unit. So lets run with that for a sec..
Just spit balling here but maybe terminator armour really just needs to shrug grav, like grav immunity of some sort, and include tracking systems that ignore jink. Ya it moves away from their traditional role in the fluff (although stormbolters could still accomplish that). In return the unit is focused on dealing with two of the most problematic elements in today's environment (jinking bikes and grav spam) without splash damaging every other unit that already struggles, which is really what makes windriders too good.. they are anti infantry in spades, double as anti light-med armour, out maneuver everyone AND they're obsec.
dominuschao wrote: Eliminating or at least trimming back on PFs to say sergs or whatever would open up better ranged ability in return. Assault does happen and its effective. Or in this case counter assault. Cents with no support are a perfect example. SnP = no overwatch and in combat they fold. But ya I agree the dual purpose termie is outdated. PFs are mostly worthless now in this context.
Anway I do get the impression this is aimed primarily at dealing with eldar. Or in other words basically an anti meta unit. So lets run with that for a sec..
Just spit balling here but maybe terminator armour really just needs to shrug grav, like grav immunity of some sort, and include tracking systems that ignore jink. Ya it moves away from their traditional role in the fluff (although stormbolters could still accomplish that). In return the unit is focused on dealing with two of the most problematic elements in today's environment (jinking bikes and grav spam) without splash damaging every other unit that already struggles, which is really what makes windriders too good.. they are anti infantry in spades, double as anti light-med armour, out maneuver everyone AND they're obsec.
Terminators fail against more than just Eldar. They just fail the hardest there. Really, any marine list can pack enough AP 2 to melt them down.Tau have the pie plate of doom, and lists with lots of MCs really don't give a feth at all about your armor.
Bharring wrote: Adding SM heavy weapons to the list would be an interesting option.
Perhaps a Grav Cannon as a Heavy option?
How would 5 Termies toting two Grav Cannons (with Amps, probably) for 200-ish points feel?
More expensive then 3 grav cannons and 3 missile launchers with the added benifit of deep striking? (edit: oh wait nevermind cents are more) IF renta pods wasn't a thing then i would say yeah sounds cool
Storm bolters are supposed to be comparable to heavy stubbers, which is the option they replace on Guard vehicles. If you move them too far out heavy stubber territory, you're going to screw with Guard balance.
The heavy stubber is what, 36" S4 AP6 Heavy 3? (or is it AP -? I know it used to be one and was changed to the other... but that's it) In which case the the stubber trades one/two points of AP for an additional 12" of range. Do the SB/HS options cost the same in the IG codex?
dominuschao wrote: Eliminating or at least trimming back on PFs to say sergs or whatever would open up better ranged ability in return. Assault does happen and its effective. Or in this case counter assault. Cents with no support are a perfect example. SnP = no overwatch and in combat they fold. But ya I agree the dual purpose termie is outdated. PFs are mostly worthless now in this context.
Anway I do get the impression this is aimed primarily at dealing with eldar. Or in other words basically an anti meta unit. So lets run with that for a sec..
Just spit balling here but maybe terminator armour really just needs to shrug grav, like grav immunity of some sort, and include tracking systems that ignore jink. Ya it moves away from their traditional role in the fluff (although stormbolters could still accomplish that). In return the unit is focused on dealing with two of the most problematic elements in today's environment (jinking bikes and grav spam) without splash damaging every other unit that already struggles, which is really what makes windriders too good.. they are anti infantry in spades, double as anti light-med armour, out maneuver everyone AND they're obsec.
Terminators fail against more than just Eldar. They just fail the hardest there. Really, any marine list can pack enough AP 2 to melt them down.Tau have the pie plate of doom, and lists with lots of MCs really don't give a feth at all about your armor.
Has anyone suggested TDA granting an additional wound to any model that takes it, grey knights already have it I think though not worded that way. As far as a better SB goes just consult the fluff. Should be twice a bolter and more rapid which relentless would mitigate. So Salvo 2/4 and either twinlinked or shred sounds fair and fits the direction of weight of fire.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: The heavy stubber is what, 36" S4 AP6 Heavy 3? (or is it AP -? I know it used to be one and was changed to the other... but that's it) In which case the the stubber trades one/two points of AP for an additional 12" of range. Do the SB/HS options cost the same in the IG codex?
They're the same cost.
Actually I think the stubber is all-around better mathematically... It has 1 more shot.
Let terminator relentless carry over to PF, so that they strike at initative. That should certainly make them pretty competative again with a single stroke.
Models in Terminator Armor should ignore the Unwieldy rule. They should also have the Hammer of Wrath rule. And make their Storm Bolters rending or Master-crafted.
Making the fist lose unwieldy on termies is undesirable -it would completely imbalance the viability of other close combat weapons. Lightning claws would go relegated to use against T3 enemies. Don't forget us wolves players deliberately fit out some of our termies with mauls, swords and wolf claws so that we CAN strike at initiative
The preferable solution is to make fists optional imo.
Wonder how a second storm bolter, or combi-weapon on a termie, in place of the fist, would work. Give one of the weapons a suitable bayonet attachment for aesthetics of course.
thegreatchimp wrote: Making the fist lose unwieldy on termies is undesirable -it would completely imbalance the viability of other close combat weapons. Lightning claws would go relegated to use against T3 enemies. Don't forget us wolves players deliberately fit out some of our termies with mauls, swords and wolf claws so that we CAN strike at initiative
The preferable solution is to make fists optional imo.
Wonder how a second storm bolter, or combi-weapon on a termie, in place of the fist, would work. Give one of the weapons a suitable bayonet attachment for aesthetics of course.
Lightning Claws give additional attacks too, don't forget about that. It wouldn't be totally imbalanced.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: While LCs would have the potential to do more damage, on average the single PF would do more damage more often whilst ignoring all armour saves.
Tactical Termis and TH/SS Termis would have to skyrocket in price for that to even be a thing (at least 45pts/55pts, most likely higher).
You really think that ability would be so valuable? It think its value would be minimal, because they would not be able to win that many more CCs. CC ability is not even the issue anyway.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: It really is.
LC termis can't go down enough to make it balanced while also not being absurdly cheap.
AP2 weapons at initiative are a big deal, and most of those are only S:U or S:+1, not S:x2.
You're now ID-ing MEQ and less at I4 (or I5 on Slaanesh Termis) and only allow invul saves.
If a xenos army got that ability on a model for less than 50pts along with a 2+ and a 3++ the cries of cheese would be deafening.
"AP2 weapons at initiative are a big deal"
I don't think so. Most units die before they can reach CC. A durable unit with AP 2 on init, maybe, but terminators pale in comparsion to TWC or Wraiths. And they are slow. At any rate, it's a pointless upgrade at best, as dying before CC is a trademark problem for terminators.
As have I, then consider if the exarch is in a challenge against an init 4 or less opponent, for whatever reason, he gets +2 attacks on top of his already hefty 3-4.
Bharring wrote: Scorpion's Claw. An exarch leading it is 57pts. Plus the rest of his units. I've heard a lot of complaints about that striking at initiative.
Sounds like you play against kinda whiney opponents if that's what they are picking out of an Eldar list to complain out. It's a CC weapon. Who cares? Eldar are slaughtering me before I can even think about assaulting.
How about letting them assault out of deepstrike? That would clear up a whole lot of their problems, and make them quite the powerfull fist to launch at your opponent in turn 2/3 when they arrive.
How about letting them assault out of deepstrike? That would clear up a whole lot of their problems, and make them quite the powerfull fist to launch at your opponent in turn 2/3 when they arrive.
There was a chapter approved variant Tyranid list that could deep strike directly into assault, but the units had to DS within one inch of their targets and it was third edition.
There were marine vanguard in fifth edition, of course, but they were not competitive style units because of the problems with reserve rolls and scatter. Even then, if you scatter and have to assault the wrong unit with vanguard, you can hope to use their jump packs on turn five to assault something useful; not so for Terminators.
Deep strike is a very good rule for normal basement games, but it is a really bad idea competitively, even if they can assault in the same turn. Maybe it could be competitive if bikes, and every other unit too, came with teleport homers, and Tigurius were really cheap and didn't have to use a specific chapter tactic, and Terminators came with a 36" Kheres cannon fired at bs5, with s6 TL storm bolters, and invisibility on deployment, then deep strike would be competitive, but still only in niche situations. Essentially, if everything were different, they would be a curiosity unit.
I think you are exaggerating the uselessness of DS. Also, scout bikes (a very underused unit that just got a stat boost) can come with teleport homer by the way.
triplegrim wrote: I think you are exaggerating the uselessness of DS. Also, scout bikes (a very underused unit that just got a stat boost) can come with teleport homer by the way.
I just came from a GT where, while I was using pods to safely DS, I had an opponent lose his warlord and artillery semi-deathstar to a mishap scatter, the 3rd one waste a turn from a mishap scatter, the 4th have no one come in from reserve t2 and get tabled due to it, and the 6th have one unit that was delayed 1 turn to mishap scatter, and 1 unit that waited til t4 to come in, then got delayed twice by mishap scatters.
I just came from a GT where, while I was using pods to safely DS, I had an opponent lose his warlord and artillery semi-deathstar to a mishap scatter, the 3rd one waste a turn from a mishap scatter, the 4th have no one come in from reserve t2 and get tabled due to it, and the 6th have one unit that was delayed 1 turn to mishap scatter, and 1 unit that waited til t4 to come in, then got delayed twice by mishap scatters.
So in other words competative players in GTs think Deep striking is worth fielding.
I just came from a GT where, while I was using pods to safely DS, I had an opponent lose his warlord and artillery semi-deathstar to a mishap scatter, the 3rd one waste a turn from a mishap scatter, the 4th have no one come in from reserve t2 and get tabled due to it, and the 6th have one unit that was delayed 1 turn to mishap scatter, and 1 unit that waited til t4 to come in, then got delayed twice by mishap scatters.
So in other words competative players in GTs think Deep striking is worth fielding.
Hmm. Fair point, but I personally believe traditional DS to be too risky for a multi-round event. By sheer odds each unit deep striking without protection is going to bite you in like a third of your games.
triplegrim wrote: I DS'ed in 2003 during a tau game. And then again in may 2015 with belial. I guess it will be 12 years untill next time too, so I'm no enthusiast.
But DS and its qualities aside, the terminators would certainly benefit from being able to assault out of it, no?
Yes, I'd agree with that. Not sure I'd take them still, but I would think about it more.
Hi chaps. Just been reading through this lot and thought I'd stick my oar in. I've recently dipped my toe back into 40K after a fairly long break between 4th and 7th ed., so bear that in mind if you think I'm talking a load of mad old nonsense (which I may well be doing). Thought getting involved in this discussion might help brush up on some of the stuff I've missed when it comes to 7th, so thanks in advance if you choose to bear with me.
As far as I see it, thinking back to my take on them from 1st-4th ed, and Space Hulk, the standard thrust of what a Terminator squad OUGHT to be is being a very survivable unit of elite, close-quarter fighters. It seems to me like some of the suggestions on here want to turn them into more of a fire-support unit. I get the reasoning behind it (the prevalence of shooting over CC in 7th ed) but in my view that just kinda chucks what Termies have always been about in the bin. Personally, I'd be more interested in a way of making them work in keeping with their background, within the current ruleset.
As such, heres some stuff I like the sound of. Apologies if I'm just rehashing something I missed earlier in the thread.
1. Improving Storm Bolters. I'm not sure boosting the strength or AP really works, either from a fluff point of view, or the knock on effect for other weapons (particularly Heavy Bolters). I like the idea of them just being able to kick out a mad amount of shots for a small unit, as the TDA's bulk, coupled with targeters etc, is gonna provide a much more stable firing platform for the weapon. Now this may be my unfamiliarity with the latest ruleset, but what's the advantage to making them Salvo weapons, rather than just giving them Assault 4?
1b. Why not allow Termies with a SB to count it as an additional CC weapon in assault? They basically carry them like pistols already. And I guess you could argue, from a fluff perspective, that the best of the best of SMs are going to be familiar enough with the standard weapon fittings of TDA that they get this bonus even with a powerfist.
2. Armour. I'm pretty drawn to the idea of giving them a re-roll to their save (which, if my maths hasn't failed me is essentially equivalent to the "3+ on 2D6" save they had in 2nd ed.). Makes them all but impervious to small arms fire, and forces anyone who wants to take them down to basically use stuff that you'd use for dealing with tanks and that. Which seems to me to be the way is should be. Maybe with this, it's ok to leave the Inv. save as it is?
3. Some sort of in-game reflection of the fact all these guys are going to have hundreds of years' tactical experience, up to and including leading squads of regular Marines, and essentially functioning as single-man units in space hulk corridors. Plus they have all that biz where they can see what the other suits in their squad are seeing, etc. A couple of off-the-top-of my head ideas for this:
a. Let them split fire between enemy units? Coupled with better Storm Bolters, I feel like this could make them a bit more of a threat, shooting-wise.
b. Increase their unit coherency distance to 4"? Trying to get my head round whether this would be useful, but just thought I'd throw it out there and see what people make of it.
Anyway, be gentle, I'm new. Well, I'm old, but I've been away.
How's this for a merge of your suggestion and others:
-40ppm
-SBs become A3
-Split Fire
-Reroll failed Armor Saves
-2 Heavies per 5
?
It maintains their slow plodding theme, but brings in some fire support and Elite status (each member selects its own targets!).
For the +1 A for having the SB, do Termies need it? I've always felt that the SB just wasn't maneuverable like a pistol, especially while wearing Termie armor. Also note that Power Fists are Specialist weapons, so Pistol wouldn't do anything.
PF Termies hit really really hard in CC as is 2-3 S8AP2 attacks each really piles on the hurt. +1A doesn't seem necessary, with the other buffs especially.
As for A3 instead of A4, I'd rather the SB be "Boltgun++" instead of "Nearly-HB". another option would be RF2.
Finally, 2 Heavies per 5 with Split Fire can really make supporting use of a pair of CMLs or ACs.
Not sure if this is giving them too much for +5ppm, though.
What do you think, Lanrak?
I must admit, I deliberately steered clear of the points area of the discussion, since I don't feel like I have a solid enough grasp of the changes in points values since 3rd/4th to have a fully-formed opinion on them. Although given that a mega-armoured Nob has an extra wound and attack, and costs 40pts, I don't think that seems unreasonable if the Termies got the boosts you mentioned, Bharring.
Maybe they don't need the extra attack in CC for the SB guys; I just wondered if they needed a little extra something to make the SB a bit more of a desirable loadout compared to the other options.
Is the consensus that SBs taking 4 shots would be excessive? I just always got an impression of them, fluff-wise, as being geared towards pumping out a frankly ludicrous quantity of bolter shells, although maybe I'm letting Space Hulk creep into my thinking here too much.
Overall though, I wonder if a lot of the problems people have with Terminators is maybe that they were never really intended, originally, as a unit to wander around an open battlefield, so much as specialised close-quarters shock troops (cf Space Hulk again). Their whole vibe being more "pop out of teleporters or a LR in the thickest fighting and really badly mess up anything nearby" rather than "get into protracted firefights with dedicated fire support units".
Increasing the shots on the stormbolter would not make me take terminators. Marines don't need more S4 shots to bounce off Wraithknights and IKs.
"Terminator squad OUGHT to be is being a very survivable unit of elite, close-quarter fighters"
But they just die like little bitches in 7th in the shooting phase. A list has to be able to handle multiple DKs and Riptides in 7th, which means by default they can handle terminators with ease. The bar has been raised; there is no place for terminators anymore.
To be honest a reroll to their armour save would really put a damper on the high-strength lots-o'-shots spam that is rather prevalent (looking at you, Eldar!) as a counter to Terminators. Grav-spam and the various Wraith weapons would still be a problem, however.
Nazrak wrote: what's the advantage to making them Salvo weapons, rather than just giving them Assault 4?
Some good suggestions there Nazrak regarding split fire and extended unit coherency -it'd give them more tactical flexibility, and beig able to spread out would make them less susceptible to AP2 blast weapons, and most importantly as you mentioned, it would enhance the theme of the unit, in giving them rules that are reflective of their capabilities and tactical role -which to me is far more desirable than -as you rightly said- trying to turn them into something they aren't intended to be.
Regarding giving the sb salvo instead of assault. It's simply a balancing thing for power-armoured troops equipped with the sb. Salvo 2/4 would mean that such troops troops get less shots when moving and firing with a sb, but terminators would remain unaffected because they have relentless i.e. they could always fire the higher number of shots regardless of whether thy moved. To be honest though I'd sooner just make it assault 3 -less messy.
Cheers for clearing that up man – I guess that means you can stick with a unified Storm Bolter profile across the board rather than overloading the Terminators with special rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS Now I've got my head round Salvo, I'm into it, as it's in keeping with Terminators being able to kick out more SB rounds due to stability of being a big, solid gun platform.
Once again people forget there is an entire army (GK) with Stormbolters vanilla and another with it as a upgrade (SoB). Lets forget the whole Salvo concept it is a horrible idea and wouldn't solve anything, the Special Issue Ammunition is a better idea.
Ironically... if you made Storm Bolters Salvo then GKPA in theory would become defunct, moreso than they already are. They would not be able to shoot or melee in the same turn and thus would have the worst ppm basic infantry army in the game. You would never see Power Armor models again, only terminators.
SoB are not a good choice for Storm Bolters to begin with, melta or flamers are a better choice. It would not affect them much. But it would take a underperforming weapon and putting it out of its misery Ole Yeller style.
No, it's too good for everyone. I really don't see why you can't seem to grasp that, because it's already been explained repeatedly to you...
All I can guess is that you're deliberately being obtuse so you can have an excuse to demand a stupidly OP army.
Regarding the point regarding buffed Storm Bolter versus Heavy Stubber for Guard Vehicles now that the former would be better in every way... Honestly I think I'd fix that by dropping the price of the Stubber, maybe to 1 point or even free. If nothing else it'd be really fluffy, with the level of tech in 40k something like a Browning M2 would be incredibly easy to just whip up, but probably wouldn't do a lot.
As for the Salvo SB, I had been repeatedly mentioning that if it went that way it should have an "assault after firing" special rule attached to it so as not to screw over non-Relentless Storm Bolter users, but nobody really responded to it...
I had also considered the SB Pistol thing, simply because the proportions shown in some of the drawings make it look like a massive Bolt Pistol in some ways, and it's another solution to the Sergeant getting an extra attack to compensate for no Fist (between that and letting him swap his Sword for an Axe or Maul, people probably wouldn't hate him anymore!), and this way it wouldn't mean LC or TH/SS Sarges getting a bonus Attack (Which might be too much, and WOULD be weird for a choppy Deathwing Command Squad).
Assault from Deep Strike is a must. In fact I had said the GENERAL rule for DS should be that the unit chooses whether they'd shoot or charge that turn upon arriving, while Terms would get a special rule that lets them do both at once.
Regarding ignoring Unwieldy, that's probably too much on its own but a variant could be cool. For example maybe Unwieldy makes Terms Initiative D3 instead of Initiative 1 (probably rolled at the start of the Fight sub-phase, not sure whether it'd be for the whole unit or individuals) or maybe when they Charge they make an Initiative test that'll let them ignore Unwieldy for that turn if they pass, or when they charge they make their extra Attack from the charge at Initiative.
Im not sure for all the terminator, but I would be happy if my Deathwing termi can take 2 heavy weapon instead of 1. Just that, and I would see them more on the board I'm sure.
They are resilient, they DS and can do decent amount of damage in CC. Now, give them 2 Assault Cannon on 5man, and they could actually dish out some range damage as well.
It would be an improvement, but I'm still not sure I'd use them. I question whether any other serious players would, either. Additional input would be useful. Would you tack on an additional 40 pts for only two assault cannons?
Bharring wrote: Scorpion's Claw. An exarch leading it is 57pts. Plus the rest of his units. I've heard a lot of complaints about that striking at initiative.
Pretty sure an eldar exarch has a solid....6 initiative. Str 6 ap2 at ELDAR initive is good.
One model with s6 ap2 on initiative 6 might be a little better than one model with S8 AP2 on initiative 4 in some regards (strike first or same as I5/6, vs IDing T4, still wounding T5/6 on 2+, doing much, much more vs T7+, and destroying vehicles).
But at 57pts for s6 ap2, and the rest of the squad being 17ppm for s4ap-, compared to a full squad at S8AP2 on initiative at 35ppm? With a 2+/5++? And much better shooting? And T4?
Probably not the best example, but still should show that it wouldn't be right.
Also:
IoM don't typically pay more for their weapons.
ML:
IoM: 15pts in an infantry squad. 25pts to get Flak as well.
Eldar: 30 pts to add to Infantry, and get flak
Heavy Bolter: Overcosted at 10pts
Eldar Shuriken Cannon - 15pts on infantry
IoM Plasma Gun: 15pts
Rail Rifle: 15pts
Plasma Cannon costs as much as a Star Cannon
Brightlance/Darklance and Lascannon
Wind riders certainly pay too little for their heavy weapons, among other problems. They are not the only unit in the game.
But if a SL costs Guardians 20pts, and an AC costs Termies 20pts, how is the SL too cheap an upgrade, while the AC too expensive?
Bharring wrote: The AC doesn't have a good spamable platform. That is certainly true. But its definitely worth 20pts in my book.
It's not, though, because it lacks a good, spammable platform. These points values don't exist in a vacuum. It's a measure of their value on the battlefield, and the AC, the way it is deployed, has very little value.
Then you should probably look for different opponents.
Not really an option. Besides, why should they self-nerf?
Because their stuff is OP and it's clearly taking a toll on you to boot. No shame in asking them to tone it down.
They blame GW for the OPness, not themselves. Tournament prep is the usual focus, so there's no real reason to tone it down. I'm not really sure what toning it down means for Eldar vs BA anyway.
They view the game in units that are "worth taking" or "not worth taking". They don't view any Eldar troop worth taking compared to a scatterbike. It's a matter of efficiency.
CrashGordon94 wrote: Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.
If it's giving you a hard time, ask them to tone it down or just refuse to play them.
I have seriously thought about quitting. GW has taken a giant dump on BA twice now. BA aren't even fun in a casual game anymore because their assault units are just awful now. I've collected around 40+ terminators since 1995 and you see how useful those are.
. I didn't realise 
I would like to mention that 
