Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I suppose you forgot the shooting too. The Mathhammer took place in another thread. You're also doing math where there isn't 175 points of Banshees (more if we put upgrades on the Terminators). 10 and an Exarch doesn't seem correct, but I don't have my computer in front of me.

It says a lot, though, that one of the supposedly terrible targets for Banshees actually has a good chance at losing.

Also don't forget they're going to be taken in the formation that gives them WS5, because it would be stupid to waste the Elite Slot on them. In that fairness when I did the numbers I did various CT's (like Imperial Fists attempting to shoot them before they charge, Carcharodons with Fear, Black Templars with Counter Attack did good though, etc).

You're right, I didn't include any extra bonuses and uses the most "in a vacuum" scenario I could; because if I did, then the Banshees would have even less of a chance. I used a base 165 unit of Terminators against a 153 point squad of Banshees plus an Exarch (max number possible) because that's the most equal I could get it. If we wanted to get stupid I could include Chapter Tactics, a Tactical Doctrine, a Formation bonus , and a heavy weapon on the Terminators. (175 points now with a heavy flamer) I'll even give the Banshee Exarch the Executioner for all the good it will do for them. (163 points) In this new scenario the Terminators will arrive from deepstrike (formation rule) and unload 12 SB shots and 2 Heavy Flamer shots due to their "Strike Force Ultra" formation bonus of an extra shot on everything and activate their Assault Doctrine. What little is left of your Banshees now shoots and assaults - taking a beating in Overwatch due to the heavy flamer - and is promptly wiped even with the BS 5 bonus due to all the Terminators having an extra attack (also a formation bonus) and re-rolling all of their to hit rolls of one in melee (Doctrine) . Also keep in mind you specifically said "in melee" during your argument in this thread.

See I can concoct scenarios too. The simple fact of the matter is that this game doesn't exist in a vacuum. And, outside of a vacuum scenario, Terminators are always going to be a more useful unit on the board than Banshees will be. Everyone in this thread is talking about how terminators will be unfavorable in specific scenarios, or how they aren't good enough compared to units that have a completely different army role without actually bothering to consider what their actual purpose is. Terminators exist to be a walking threat on the board that can't be ignored. They are not supposed to be foot slogging their way across the board. They are supposed to use a land raider or deep strike in and shoot a bit before ultimately trying to close for assault. Their shooting should be good; their survivability great; and their melee great. The problem is that they are slightly too low in all three categories right now. The problem with this thread is that everyone's suggestions seem to be along the lines of 'MAKE THEM GODS AT EVERYTHING.' Units have roles. Units that do everything well are terrible for balance both internally and externally for a game system. Externally: they remove the viability of other choices by just being almost as good as specialized units in their specialty while having none of their drawbacks. Internally: their jack of all trades play-style means they have to either, be average at everything or extremely costly to balance it. In this entire thread I've never seen anyone once argue for increasing all their capabilities to these ridiculous level along with a price increase.

Terminators are 175 base....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You simply have to keep adding Banshees until you hit the correct point value, even if it goes outside the regular squad size. You completely made up numbers for the Terminators and gave the Banshees even less.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
How about adding a rule where they choose what benefit they get from the following list at the start of each turn.

Ignore the unwieldy property on any weapon carried

Ranged weapons gain the shred use

Reroll failed saves

Solves all of the issues with terminators while not allowing them to be too powerful all the time.

It's 40k, not Crysis! It does seem like a very uncharacterisitic ability for the unit, something more fitting for mutilators / olbiterators perhaps.

Ignores unwieldy would be unadvisable because it will relegate every cc weapon except pf, cf and hammer

If you do the maths on it, you'll find reroll failed saves full stop is OP.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
How about adding a rule where they choose what benefit they get from the following list at the start of each turn.

Ignore the unwieldy property on any weapon carried

Ranged weapons gain the shred use

Reroll failed saves

Solves all of the issues with terminators while not allowing them to be too powerful all the time.

It's 40k, not Crysis! It does seem like a very uncharacterisitic ability for the unit, something more fitting for mutilators / olbiterators perhaps.

Ignores unwieldy would be unadvisable because it will relegate every cc weapon except pf, cf and hammer

If you do the maths on it, you'll find reroll failed saves full stop is OP.

Except it would protect them effectively from small arms fire and makes people want to use their ap1-2 weapons against them, I do see where rerolling invuls would be an issue, so just make it armor saves and you should be golden.

With it being a choice the terminators would have to decide whether they are going to be in combat, firing down range with their weapons, or taking a lot of small arms fire. Then the opponent has the chance to invalidate that option with gameplay on their turn. When they choose reroll armor saves, move away or hit them with high ap weapons. Choose to ignore unwieldy, then hit them with small arms fire when they become disengaged from whatever they were killing. Choosing shred is the most tactically flexible option because the enemy really has no way to negate it on their turn. That's why I chose to add it even though it is slightly weaker than the others.

That said, I've still never had any real issue with terminators in my games. My houserules give all the Sargent level characters a wound for free (to a max of 3, harlequins, skitarii, and craftworld eldar don't get them) so their base unit already has a wound pool increase of 33% to start.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:


Except it would protect them effectively from small arms fire and makes people want to use their ap1-2 weapons against them,

Protect them too well. Whatever about a 1 in 36 chance of a lasgun piercing TDA being horrible to small arms, a 1 in 36 chance of a krak missile piercing it is just ludicrous. In short that just doesn't work for the mechanics of the game they're in. Doomshaka's proposal is the most promising suggestion so far (roll 4++ invul in addition to armour save vs AP4 weapons or weaker)

 thegreatchimp wrote:
It's 40k, not Crysis!

Yeah, 30k is Crysis. You may want to take a look at some of the 30k Cameleonine, it's basically cloaking on PA.

/OT

 Ashiraya wrote:
You may want to take a look at some of the 30k Cameleonine, it's basically cloaking on PA.

/OT

These are the cloaks the recon squads come with? My knowledge of HH is mainly limited to the models, I haven't much looked into the rules unfortunately.

Cameleonine is a collective term for 30k Legiones Astartes infantry stealth tech - from cloaks covered in a refractive substance, to what amounts to Crysis cloaking.

Same in game terms, less so in lore terms.