Just looking to start a general thread discussing peoples' ideas on making terminators a decent choice again.

As anyone who has played terminators in this edition knows, they are currently over-costed, put out little firepower, suffer terribly from not having sweeping advance and are often left at home due to other more efficient picks
So how could we make them a good pick once again? Would a simple points drop be enough?

As someone with a DW army, I believe terminators are worth much closer to 35 points a model, rather than 44. (Even matching the SM price tag would be a nice buff for DA).

How would people feel to terminators being allowed to take their invulnerable save AND their armour save, like ward saves in fantasy. So if they fail their 2+, then they may attempt to pass again on their 5+ (Storm shields should probably be excluded from this).

Blood angels can give them FNP which is fairly similar to your idea.. the problem with terminators as ALWAYS been their delivery system. As with all the bad assault units they lack speed and reliability.

All good assault units either move 12", ignore cover when charging or re-roll charge range (or are all 3 cause they are beasts/cav)

Terminators have NONE of those so they really need atleast 1 to be viable.. or all 3 somehow.

Also, the problem with terminator firepower is strictly based on GW"s inability to understand that storm bolters suck as do most bolt weapons. Cant fix terminators unless storm bolters are improved (which they never will be as GW thinks that two bolters together should have some firepower as one bolter?)

I would simply improve them by improving the choices that Tac Terminators can take; allow them to mix their weapons like Chaos Terminators, giving them Combi-Weapons, different Power Weapons and even access to Special Issue Ammunition.

Simple. Make terminator armour 1+, rolled as 3+ on two dice. Ap 1 still penetrates it but it shouldn't be so easy to lasgun them to death.

And more importantly you'd need a chainfist to kill them in close combat.

xruslanx wrote:
Simple. Make terminator armour 1+, rolled as 3+ on two dice. Ap 1 still penetrates it but it shouldn't be so easy to lasgun them to death.

And more importantly you'd need a chainfist to kill them in close combat.

Im not sure about having terminators unable to deal with other terminators efficiently. Perhaps a 1+ save on the two dice as you said, but allow it to still be beaten by ap2, that way power axes still have some use against them.

Blood angels can give them FNP which is fairly similar to your idea

And DA can give them FNP though their banner, but both would be better, 2+/5+/5+ would let them weather much more small arms fire.

Would it break fluff to allow all tac terminators to get an apothecary? I'm not sure how many there are supposed to be per chapter.

Or maybe just do that 3+ on 2D6 thing, but make AP2 turn it to a 7+ or so.

Points reduction if necessary, not too enthusiastic about additional special rules...

Nothing major- let them run after a deepstrike and still shoot.

Reduction in point.
Movement/Assault after DS, this way they just scream "SHOOT ME!"

I would agree with Kirasu, storm bolters need to be improved. However, i dont think that will be enough. 3 shot storm bolters still arent effective enough to put shooty terminators in the game. What they need are more mid-strength heavy weapons. Currently terminators are 1/5 as-cannons/HF. Give them 1/5 as-cannons (+10pts) and 2/5 HB/HF (+5 pts) and you have a unit that can actually shoot something. Heavy bolters are pretty much useless on all delivery platforms in the game due to their ability to be replaced with something better in every case. Here that would not be the case. AP4 shooting is now something of a desired commodity due to tau/eldar releases, so quantity of AP4 would actually put these guys into a position to be a good choice. Of course, price reductions are probably also needed on the actual models since 2+ armor isnt even being called very good at 31 points is CSM.

For assault terminators, i think good old points cost reduction (along with a standardized 5 ppm for TH/SS upgrade to facilitate even cheaper base cost) would do the trick. If you were paying 300-330 points for that 10 man terminator squad it would seem quite a bit more reasonable.

 zephoid wrote:
I would agree with Kirasu, storm bolters need to be improved. However, i dont think that will be enough. 3 shot storm bolters still arent effective enough to put shooty terminators in the game. What they need are more mid-strength heavy weapons. Currently terminators are 1/5 as-cannons/HF. Give them 1/5 as-cannons (+10pts) and 2/5 HB/HF (+5 pts) and you have a unit that can actually shoot something. Heavy bolters are pretty much useless on all delivery platforms in the game due to their ability to be replaced with something better in every case. Here that would not be the case. AP4 shooting is now something of a desired commodity due to tau/eldar releases, so quantity of AP4 would actually put these guys into a position to be a good choice. Of course, price reductions are probably also needed on the actual models since 2+ armor isnt even being called very good at 31 points is CSM.

For assault terminators, i think good old points cost reduction (along with a standardized 5 ppm for TH/SS upgrade to facilitate even cheaper base cost) would do the trick. If you were paying 300-330 points for that 10 man terminator squad it would seem quite a bit more reasonable.

Grey Knights stand in the way of improving storm bolters. Since they have ridiculously given every single knight his own little storm, and can up the Str by one to boot.
Make them too good and GK becomes an absolute powerhouse, just short of Tau in the shooting phase with a much too solid cc phase.

Points reduction or bring back armor mods and give them back their 3+ on 2d6 save.

Since when were GK considered a top army in 6th? GK were never strong because of S5 shooting, they were strong because of psycannons everywhere combined with force weapons in an edition that had more melee elements (meaning they were able to out-shoot melee and out-melee shooting). Now that the game has shifted to much more shooting, GK's melee ability is much less useful, leaving them in an awkward position. If the bolter banner from DA is any indication, quantity of bolter fire almost cant be OP. There is almost no way to put out enough S4-5 shots to be able to deal with the things in the game that are problematic. Sure you can kill orks or gaunts, but they already do that.

People have talked about giving imperial terminators combi-weapons, would it be too far to give them the option of taking special weapons? Maybe not all squad members, but certainly around 3 or so specials + a heavy weapon. This way they could be equipped to fulfill different specific roles, instead of the same generic role + heavy weapon as we have now.

They would be balanced through their high points cost.

As I've said before; To fix terminators, give them +1 Toughness and then +1 attack, let them buy 1 special and 1 heavy per 5 termies at normal costs. Leave points alone, and you're good.

I think their major flaw is how worthless a 2+ save can often be. They need to be more durable then they are now.

Perhaps give them re-rolls on their 5++? That way they are still resilient to ap3 and higher while not so easily killed off by ap1 and 2.

 zephoid wrote:
Since when were GK considered a top army in 6th?

Didn't claim they ever were.

 zephoid wrote:
GK were never strong because of S5 shooting, they were strong because of psycannons everywhere combined with force weapons in an edition that had more melee elements (meaning they were able to out-shoot melee and out-melee shooting).

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.

 zephoid wrote:
Now that the game has shifted to much more shooting, GK's melee ability is much less useful, leaving them in an awkward position. If the bolter banner from DA is any indication, quantity of bolter fire almost cant be OP. There is almost no way to put out enough S4-5 shots to be able to deal with the things in the game that are problematic. Sure you can kill orks or gaunts, but they already do that.

And that has absolutely no bearing on the situation where storm bolters get an unspecified buff.

So, you managed to completely miss my point and then get into a fuss about it. Fantastic job.

Point: IF storm bolters gained a buff, it would need to be too slight to make much of a difference, because if it was a big enough buff to make a difference for a few terminators, it would be an enormous buff to GK.
Were the bolters why they were OP when they were? Nope. Not at all. But it could be if the bolters gained a large buff to make terminators a ranged threat.

Ok, lets go deeper into what they should be buffed to then. Since they are 2x bolters, 2 shots rapid fire? Seems interesting, but that means you couldnt assault after firing, making their dual use less present. Salvo same thing. Therefore, assault his to be the rule of choice for firing. Assault 4 seems excessive, but assault 3 seems fine.

Now would GK basic troops be better with 1 more shot? Sure. Enough to warrant actually playing? Maybe. OP? Not even close. As i was saying, you almost cant make S4-5 firing have enough shots to be a threat to the 'big hitters' of the game. once you hit S6 you can start getting somewhere, but even then you need exorbitant number of shots to do anything (Even 4th eldar war walkers were only above average with 24 S6 TL shots)

 zephoid wrote:
Ok, lets go deeper into what they should be buffed to then. Since they are 2x bolters, 2 shots rapid fire? Seems interesting, but that means you couldnt assault after firing, making their dual use less present. Salvo same thing. Therefore, assault his to be the rule of choice for firing. Assault 4 seems excessive, but assault 3 seems fine.

They're terminators, weapon type does not matter as they have relentless.

My opinion give them T5 that would help against small arms fire. Perhaps the option to have power weapons instead of fists

T5, another wound and more options when it comes to weaponry. Maybe a points reduction would help too.

 FirePainter wrote:

 zephoid wrote:
Ok, lets go deeper into what they should be buffed to then. Since they are 2x bolters, 2 shots rapid fire? Seems interesting, but that means you couldnt assault after firing, making their dual use less present. Salvo same thing. Therefore, assault his to be the rule of choice for firing. Assault 4 seems excessive, but assault 3 seems fine.

They're terminators, weapon type does not matter as they have relentless.

My opinion give them T5 that would help against small arms fire. Perhaps the option to have power weapons instead of fists

T5 would make sense in the fact that they are supposed to be a walking tank.

The best thing to happen that would make TDA useful again is to change most AP2 range weapons to AP3, specifically Plasma. Or allow their 2+ save to be used on any ranged attack that is not AP1. In melee, their 5++ save is fine versus AP2.

As that won't happen, an across the board 5pt reduction in price would make them more competitive.

SJ

Lower their points cost. If not you'd have to them some survivability increase like +1T or an extra wound alongside the 2+ save and invuln. as right now the armour in and of itself does not provide enough protection in the current meta with massed AP2 weaponry flying out the wazoo. Of course not both at the same time but I think the +1T or +1W would go a long way in making terminator armour a viable option for commander choices instead of the typical artificer+bike combo that is so prevalent in vanilla lists nowadays.

For shooty terminators, would making storm bolters salvo 2/4 be a viable change (by extension CSM combi-bolters would remain twin-linked but be Salvo 2/3)? This way relentless actually plays a role for the guys without a heavy weapon.

Anything else should be based around the army they are in with chapter tactics, marks of chaos, Deathwing rules, etc being the thing that determines if they are more inclined towards shooting or close combat.

 zephoid wrote:
Ok, lets go deeper into what they should be buffed to then. Since they are 2x bolters, 2 shots rapid fire? Seems interesting, but that means you couldnt assault after firing, making their dual use less present. Salvo same thing. Therefore, assault his to be the rule of choice for firing. Assault 4 seems excessive, but assault 3 seems fine.

Now would GK basic troops be better with 1 more shot? Sure. Enough to warrant actually playing? Maybe. OP? Not even close. As i was saying, you almost cant make S4-5 firing have enough shots to be a threat to the 'big hitters' of the game. once you hit S6 you can start getting somewhere, but even then you need exorbitant number of shots to do anything (Even 4th eldar war walkers were only above average with 24 S6 TL shots)

And 1 more shot would do next to nothing at all for terminators, so clearly stormers aren't the way to go to buff termies.
Any buff large enough to make any difference to a terminator is gonna be twice as big for the power armour knights. And GK doesn't need MORE reason to choose power armour over terminator.

Trying to improve termies by buffing any one aspect of them isn't going to be enough, unless you make that change a ridiculous one. And changing the profile of a weapon like the stormbolter is probably a non-starter as it's shared across other units and armies. I also think switching up their weapon options should be avoided. Terminators have had the same weapon options for like 20+ years now, I'd rather make iconic stormbolter terminators worth having instead of making them a melta termicide unit.

So I propose some tweaks across the board:
- slight points drop
- Terminator armor saves can be re-rolled against hits from AP5 or worse weapons (even the weak points aren't that weak)
- Devastating Volley - stormbolters and assault cannons can fire twice in one turn; stormbolters can't fire next turn and the assault cannon can't fire next turn if it rolled more than one 6 to hit
- Sergeant's power sword gives +1 Inv save in close combat just like a Nemesis force sword

I would definitely take my old-school tactical termies again if i figured they would at least get one really good round of shooting and weren't going to get taken out by weight of fire/attacks immediately.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
T5, another wound and more options when it comes to weaponry. Maybe a points reduction would help too.

Grimskul wrote: survivability increase like +1T or an extra wound alongside the 2+ save

Space marines already have that they are called centurions.

Pity that thanks to GK, you can't fix them by adjusting their ranged fire.

Though that still wouldn't fix CSM's the same way.

Make Relentless USR allow Shoot + Charge in the same turn & allow assault in the turn they arrive from Deep Strike.

Currently, Shooti is dominant in all respects to the great game, and simply getting into melee with most armies, is a miracle... Current Melee is at a loss for methods of getting into combat that don't involve massive point sinks into DTs like Land Raiders. If units like Terminators of all variants were allowed to charge on the turn they arrived by Deepstrike, it would alleviate the need to sink something like ~240 points in Land Raider Transports simply to make them effective.

Make terminators 28 points for shooty ones, 32 for thunder hammer versions.

Or go back to the 2 typhoon launchers or 2 assault cannons per 5 dudes. A missile devastator squad with 2+/5++ would be worth it with all the helldrakes flying around.

Too bad any hope for positive change was thrown away recently, and they will suck for years to come.

Leave the points as they are, give basic terminators a 4++ and make terminator stormbolters Assault 4. This makes them more durable against AP2, still makes them vulnerable to mass small arms fire (they do need some form of counter-balance), and allows a 5-man squad to lay down a crap ton of fire (sort of how their fluff always depicts them)

For the assault variety, let TH/SS assault termies count their shield as an additional specialist CCW (Shield Bash-S User, AP4, Concussion). Lightning Claw termies keep the 4++.

They are alright as it stands, but I would like to see one of these changes:

Points drop to around 36-38. Tac marines are 14, and termies are 2x as durable and 2x as shooty at long range, so that puts them at 28, and then the rest covers the PF and 5++.

Some kind of ability to allow a DS charge, With VV losing this, I doubt we'll see anything like this though.

Special Issue ammo, but they'd actually need a points buff here.

Maybe something like DA knights- if half the squad is in base contact, +1T.

I wouldn't directly touch many of the Terminator rules (though they should never cost more than MEQ cost x 2), rather I'd change the things which make them weak. Most AP2 shooting should be AP3 - you should ask yourself if things REALLY deserve AP2, the armour penetrating value of a lascannon which is a focussed anti-tank gun. That would require a mass rules rewrite. Likewise, assault should be way better and things shouldn't be able to just jump over enemies head unless they fly - those two changes would massively buff most assault infantry, which includes terminators. Deep strike should be far more reliable and reserves should be almost entirely controlled - this injects more player control and really changes nothing; if units would be broken with deep strike, they shouldn't be able to get it. Finally, I'd make the game alternating activation which would again buff them. On top of all of this, there needs to be cover changes so that cover gives a penalty to hit, not a save - then terminators hugely benefit from cover as well rather than it being redundant. It also helps tame the mass small arms thing going on ATM.

Basically, many of the core rules which need changing anyway to make the game flow have to change to even consider how to fix terminators. Even if they were T5 W2, 2+/4++ on normal terminators, it still wouldn't make them good; assault is just too weak and their weapons too limited.

For tactical terminators... point cost decrease, some sort of special ammo (wounds on a 2+?) for the storm bolter (or even just something like Rending), and more weapon upgrade options. Well, not necessarily all three, it'd depend, but at least two out of those three.... well, depending on how much the point cost drops, of course.

Alas, GW is oblivious to the problems tac termies especially are facing, so nothing was done for the 6th Ed codices, and likely won't be in 7th Ed either!

Well, the problem with terminators is that they're actually fairly priced for what you get. That means you can't just drop their points cost without making whole swaths of infantry units in the game extra crappy, which they don't need right now.

The real issue here isn't that there's something wrong with terminators, the issue is that there's something wrong with the rest of the game. Namely, the introduction of low-AV fliers and the new monstrous creatures. Back in the day, it wasn't always worth it to, say, invest in plasma spam, because plasma guns were only sort of good against terminators, but nothing else. Nowadays, everybody needs to bring a plethora of stuff in their list that can kill T6 2+/5++ and such.

The end result is that, becasue there are units that are like terminators, but are harder to kill, the meta has shifted in such a way where you're already building lists that are great against terminators.

This, unfortunately, makes the fix a LOT harder. Either you need to roll back the clock and get rid of fliers and the new monstrous creatures, make those new units ruinously expensive to field, or make it so that you don't kill them in the same way that you kill terminators.

... And because none of that will happen, terminators will sort of just be screwed for the near future. If you can't make them better (because they're still not going to be as good as a riptide), and you can't make them cheaper (because that will make lesser infantry useless), then... well... what can you actually do to them?

Right now terminators are way to expensive..
simply because there are SOOO many ways to deal with 2+ this ed.
so no one has a problem killing them...
I think T5 and a movement after DS would suffice

I like the +1W idea. it would make them more resilient (but not immune) to weight of fire and plasma, but still leave them open to ID from dedicated anti-tank weapons (i.e., anything str8 or higher). the interaction with ICs that can take terminator armor would need to be thought through, though. should a captain that chooses termie armor be W4? not sure.

on the offense end of things, I think any tweaks to weapon profiles is likely to have undesirable results in other corners of the game since those weapons aren't unique to termies. a great buff would be to give them a new rule called teleport assault or some such, which would let them assault on the turn they arrived from deepstrike.

it doesn't increase their damage output directly, but it does potentially save them from the initial round of incoming fire they have to weather now. there's still the chance they could fail the charge and have to eat it, anyway. this rule would also force players to balance the potential benefits of a shorter charge distance with the increased odds of a deep strike mishap, so there's some thinking involved.

alas, as others have pointed out, GW seems to be really against assault-on-arrival units these days. so, probably won't happen

 FirePainter wrote:

 zephoid wrote:
Ok, lets go deeper into what they should be buffed to then. Since they are 2x bolters, 2 shots rapid fire? Seems interesting, but that means you couldnt assault after firing, making their dual use less present. Salvo same thing. Therefore, assault his to be the rule of choice for firing. Assault 4 seems excessive, but assault 3 seems fine.

They're terminators, weapon type does not matter as they have relentless.

My opinion give them T5 that would help against small arms fire. Perhaps the option to have power weapons instead of fists

Honestly, I say no to this only because of what it requires for everything else. MC? Daemon Princes? T6 plague termies? Honestly, I'd rather go for 2W. Make them capable of taking on plasma, toughing through lasgun spam. But a lascannon (if their invuln save fails) will annihilate them as per usual.

What do you guys think about centurions minus the looks?

They are units with S5, T5, W2 and 2+ Slow and Purposeful, they can move, shoot, and assault! They can each fire two weapons, with awesome graveguns.

Yes they dont have an invuln but hey stick them in bolstered cover for a pretty resilient unit.

 Gitsmasher wrote:
What do you guys think about centurions minus the looks?

They are units with S5, T5, W2 and 2+ Slow and Purposeful, they can move, shoot, and assault! They can each fire two weapons, with awesome graveguns.

Yes they dont have an invuln but hey stick them in bolstered cover for a pretty resilient unit.

Assault is poor, Shooting is actually very good and I've seen them used for good success.

Assault just needs more attacks or something, better transport options maybe as well, it's still better then it's Mutilator counterpart by miles, but still bad at its job.

They are primarily an assault unit. Bolters have very weak damage output.

They'd be OK with a point reduction...regular Terminators should be 35, Hammernators 40, and the heavy weapons should be discounted by ~5-10 pts each.

Tactical terminators should be able to fire their bolters twice if they're not assaulting.

I think increasing their toughness to 5 isn't justified, given that i don't think weight of fire is the problem, more the spready of ap 2/rending weapons. Giving them a 4++ would be helpful, and i think they have fallen behind the power curve recently.

Our tactical terminators are allowed a heavy weapon for every three in a squad. Stormbolters shoot 3 times at half range (12").

Then again, we don't play 6th Ed either.

If Terminators cannot charge on the turn they are brought in from Deep Strike, they should by all rights have 2 Wounds.

At 31 points per model for a CSM Terminator all they are really used for is Combi-Plasma. 31 points, for a suicidal - first blood - shooti - game of chance.

Now I have run Terminators for a LONG ass time, trying to make them melee viable.. But it IS hopeless.. There is simply NO reason to run them melee in 6th ED. Sure, they'll wreck pretty much anything in melee with TH/SS load outs, but my CSM don't have that option... We have... Combi-Weaponry and Marks of Chaos that arguably give 0 tactical advantages....

The only competent way to run Melee Terminators in a CSM list to take a LR DT and fill it with 4-5 of these buggers while taking a Khorne Lord. Mark of Tzeentch? 4++ is pointless, Mark of Slaanesh? Pointless because your Mark doesn't affect Unwieldly and let you strike at I2 instead of I1. Mark of Nurgle? Means nothing, a T5 model still gets stomped flat by MCs and with only 1W all ap2 MC attacks kill them on a failed roll of 5++ for their Invulnerable Save.... Leaving Mark of Khorne, the only "Decent" Mark of Chaos since it actually has a functioning use if tailored and poured points into...

All being said, Termintaors (Especially Chaos Terminators) suck and fill no niche a squad of pretty much anything else capable of taking special weapons would be better suited for.

On a side note, the last time I took Chaos Terminators in a list I dropped 3 x 3 man squads behind enemy lines and tried to Combi-Plasma stuff. Killed 1 Devilfish, 3 Piranha then got slaughtered by droves and droves of Fire Warrior spam.

A simple points reduction

Personally I'm a big fan of any of the following from what was mentioned earlier:

2 heavy weapons per 5 terminators

Cost drop

Always get their 2+ armor save unless the attack is AP1.

I doubt the third option would ever show up as a rule, so a combination of a cost drop and the extra heavy weapon would work for me.

Assault termies? Nothing. They're fine as they are. Extremely potent, in fact. I try not to make a list with out them.

Tactical termies? Two heavy weapons to a squad seems like a reasonable suggestion.

All termies should be allowed to exchange power fist for a heavy shooting weapon with an upgrade cost.

And I second the fact that assault model termies should be able to mix/match melee weapons.

I play orks and my friend plays LR termies.. largest problem everytime is he just doesn't have the firepower to whittle boys away before combat starts.

It's true, Vanilla Termies are a small letdown, and you succeed with them on only CERTAIN occasions, and only with CERTAIN wargear. This is a list of options I'd propose to change them (picking only one):

- Make their storm bolters AP4, or Assault 3.
- Giving the DA the finger, and letting ALL Chapters mix their terminators. I'd love to play with a squad of 10 termies, part of them wielding TC/SS here and there, covered by an assault cannon or two.
- +1 Wound. Two-wounded Terminators would be definetely worth taking, and more fluff-wise... although, it might cause some rage in xenos army players.

 Tigramans wrote:
It's true, Vanilla Termies are a small letdown, and you succeed with them on only CERTAIN occasions, and only with CERTAIN wargear. This is a list of options I'd propose to change them (picking only one):

- Make their storm bolters AP4, or Assault 3.
- Giving the DA the finger, and letting ALL Chapters mix their terminators. I'd love to play with a squad of 10 termies, part of them wielding TC/SS here and there, covered by an assault cannon or two.
- +1 Wound. Two-wounded Terminators would be definetely worth taking, and more fluff-wise... although, it might cause some rage in xenos army players.

It would also either heavily nerf or heavily buff (Depending on if they get +1W or not) the Paladins.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

It would also either heavily nerf or heavily buff (Depending on if they get +1W or not) the Paladins.

I knew that someone would mention the Paladins. In that case, all they'd need is +1T, but as I mentioned: the +1W proposition is a potential rage magnet, and it was a semi-insane idea.

Also: correcting my earlier comment: not TC, but TH.

Ailaros Nailed it on the head, Termintaors are just a distraction unit now, Its a 200 point sink for a distraction that needs to be dealt with but it could still work with your list in the grand scheme of things. Ive never been huge fans of termis in my chaos lists, And im always afraid of them espically if im lacking in the ap2 side of things. It really is fun though shooting 4 lascannons and wiping out 3 paladins.

I think they could probably use a point drop to something like the cost of Chaos termis or maybe drop the minium unit down.

Drop points to 40

Make Stormbolters salvo 2/3

I think the points decrease is the best option since any other options either buff armies (GK) too much or make them too much like other units (centurions)

I though I read somewhere that Terminator armor was originally developed to repair starships plasma drives or to something along those lines; maybe make them immune to plasma and/or plasma-like weaponry.

Horus Heresy terminators cost a good bit less, but come with combi-bolter and power weapon, do not have ATSKNF, but are also scoring units.

I think that may be the best option: reduce their points, make them scoring units (they're supposed to be the guys who survive where nobody else can), and make them stormbolters and power weapons as basic equipment (which means you can choose between sword, maul, or axe), with options to upgrade to powerfist/chainfists.

But, of course, any real fixes to terminators won't happen without a complete rewrite of all the codexes to match. I think we really need a complete reboot to the game, which we haven't had since 3rd Edition.

Cosmic_Seth wrote:
I though I read somewhere that Terminator armor was originally developed to repair starships plasma drives or to something along those lines; maybe make them immune to plasma and/or plasma-like weaponry.

NO. Just NO.

Actually, you should go put this in the Overpowered (but fluffy) changes to your codex thread.

Its been said before, but the ultimate way to fix terminators (and all 2+ Save infantry) is to revamp all weapons.

All weapons that are AP2 or better save Melta, Lance, and S9+ weapons should be reduced to AP3. Across the board, no exceptions.

Rending, Bladestorm, and Monofilament should be reduced to AP3. There simply is no reason that a low to medium strength attack can consistently slice through TEQ armour 1/6th of the time.

The only AP2 close combat attacks should be from basic weapons that have the Unwieldy special rule (unless its a relic equivalent). Also, MC and FMC base attacks are now AP3, and Smash attacks are AP2/Unwieldy.

Finally, 2+ saves should never, EVER be made available to any type of MC (looking at you Riptide). By nerfing weapons across the board, you leave MCs with 4 or more wounds AND a 2+ save even more powerful then they already are, and that would have to be addressed.

Sadly, none of this will ever happen.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Its been said before, but the ultimate way to fix terminators (and all 2+ Save infantry) is to revamp all weapons.

All weapons that are AP2 or better save Melta, Lance, and S9+ weapons should be reduced to AP3. Across the board, no exceptions.

Rending, Bladestorm, and Monofilament should be reduced to AP3. There simply is no reason that a low to medium strength attack can consistently slice through TEQ armour 1/6th of the time.

The only AP2 close combat attacks should be from basic weapons that have the Unwieldy special rule (unless its a relic equivalent). Also, MC and FMC base attacks are now AP3, and Smash attacks are AP2/Unwieldy.

Finally, 2+ saves should never, EVER be made available to any type of MC (looking at you Riptide). By nerfing weapons across the board, you leave MCs with 4 or more wounds AND a 2+ save even more powerful then they already are, and that would have to be addressed.

Sadly, none of this will ever happen.

Well then their are things like railguns which make sense both fluff-wise and gameplay-wise to have AP1 or 2.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Its been said before, but the ultimate way to fix terminators (and all 2+ Save infantry) is to revamp all weapons.

All weapons that are AP2 or better save Melta, Lance, and S9+ weapons should be reduced to AP3. Across the board, no exceptions.

Rending, Bladestorm, and Monofilament should be reduced to AP3. There simply is no reason that a low to medium strength attack can consistently slice through TEQ armour 1/6th of the time.

The only AP2 close combat attacks should be from basic weapons that have the Unwieldy special rule (unless its a relic equivalent). Also, MC and FMC base attacks are now AP3, and Smash attacks are AP2/Unwieldy.

Finally, 2+ saves should never, EVER be made available to any type of MC (looking at you Riptide). By nerfing weapons across the board, you leave MCs with 4 or more wounds AND a 2+ save even more powerful then they already are, and that would have to be addressed.

Sadly, none of this will ever happen.

Well then their are things like railguns which make sense both fluff-wise and gameplay-wise to have AP1 or 2.

Maybe lower it to S8 weapons that are AP2 or better. The biggest problem has always been the lower strength AP2 and Rending-equivalent stuff anyway (and MC/FMCs)

Considering that Dire Avengers have a special issue shurikan rifles, surely teminators having a special issue storm bolter isn't out if the question. Just a special war gear entry in their profile like "Retribution pattern storm bolter" salvo 5/3 30" range or some such. Only terminator squads can get them, not ICs or any other unit that can use a storm bolter.

MadEdric wrote:
Considering that Dire Avengers have a special issue shurikan rifles, surely teminators having a special issue storm bolter isn't out if the question. Just a special war gear entry in their profile like "Retribution pattern storm bolter" salvo 5/3 30" range or some such. Only terminator squads can get them, not ICs or any other unit that can use a storm bolter.

I think 30" is a bit much...

xruslanx wrote:Simple. Make terminator armour 1+, rolled as 3+ on two dice. Ap 1 still penetrates it but it shouldn't be so easy to lasgun them to death.

And more importantly you'd need a chainfist to kill them in close combat.

That's not simple. You kill Terminators by massed small arms fire. Imagine a platoon of Guardsmen shooting at a unit of Terminators. Yeah. You'd need to roll each wound save separately. The game is slow as it is without making it even slower.

Oh and you'd also break the convention of one dice per non-LD action.

BrotherHaraldus wrote:Or maybe just do that 3+ on 2D6 thing, but make AP2 turn it to a 7+ or so.

Compunds the speed problem while additionally suspending long standing rules tradition of 2+ being the best you can get. Not to mention that it also adds modifiers to the game that's nasty enough to keep track of.

Lobukia wrote:As I've said before; To fix terminators, give them +1 Toughness and then +1 attack, let them buy 1 special and 1 heavy per 5 termies at normal costs. Leave points alone, and you're good.

Congratulations, you've given a sub-50 model upgrades worth approximately 20 points for free while also upgrading their weapon allowance. And that's counting the point cost of T lower than I *know* GW considers T to be worth.

gossipmeng wrote:I think their major flaw is how worthless a 2+ save can often be. They need to be more durable then they are now.

Perhaps give them re-rolls on their 5++? That way they are still resilient to ap3 and higher while not so easily killed off by ap1 and 2.

Well yes and no. It's a product of the game's weapon inflation. I'm tempted to say that it's because GW has cancelled their policy of only giving the good stuff to Marines and Necrons, but that'd be a bit unfair and petty. It's just that now every army has got the tools to take care of all threats (except a few cases of AA gone missing) and the games meta starting to shift.

Your suggestion is one of the more sane ones in terms of appropriate fix. The caveat would be that it should under no circumstances apply to a save other than the suit's own (i.e. NOT Storm Shields and NOT Divination psychics)

ClassicCarraway wrote:Leave the points as they are, give basic terminators a 4++ and make terminator stormbolters Assault 4. This makes them more durable against AP2, still makes them vulnerable to mass small arms fire (they do need some form of counter-balance), and allows a 5-man squad to lay down a crap ton of fire (sort of how their fluff always depicts them)

For the assault variety, let TH/SS assault termies count their shield as an additional specialist CCW (Shield Bash-S User, AP4, Concussion). Lightning Claw termies keep the 4++.

The thing with Assault Terminators is that they are super-scary in melee and they don't pay anything at all for their shield. They are the least in need of a buff and most likely in need of a point increase. There's nothing short of named characters that can actually stand up to them in melee and their tiny shields keep them safe from disproportionate amount of tactical nuclear devices and holes in the fabric of time and space. Their only real problem is "how do I get them into close combat?" and you're not addressing that at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MadEdric, there's nothing special about Terminator Storm Bolters. It's just a lack-lustre weapon wherever it is used. Just keep in mind that while it is poor atm, it still shouldn't enable a single Terminator to clear out a whole squad of GEQ or Boys alone.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Its been said before, but the ultimate way to fix terminators (and all 2+ Save infantry) is to revamp all weapons.

All weapons that are AP2 or better save Melta, Lance, and S9+ weapons should be reduced to AP3. Across the board, no exceptions.

Rending, Bladestorm, and Monofilament should be reduced to AP3. There simply is no reason that a low to medium strength attack can consistently slice through TEQ armour 1/6th of the time.

The only AP2 close combat attacks should be from basic weapons that have the Unwieldy special rule (unless its a relic equivalent). Also, MC and FMC base attacks are now AP3, and Smash attacks are AP2/Unwieldy.

Finally, 2+ saves should never, EVER be made available to any type of MC (looking at you Riptide). By nerfing weapons across the board, you leave MCs with 4 or more wounds AND a 2+ save even more powerful then they already are, and that would have to be addressed.

Sadly, none of this will ever happen.

Rending was designed specifically for two purposes: give Tyranids a way to deal with Terminators and give Tyranids a way to deal with vehicles. And by Tyranids, I mean Terminators' ancient nemesis, the Genestealers.
Then there's your beef with Eldar, there's a much larger snakes to be whacked in that codex to fix it. And by snakes I mean serpents, 'cause you sure don't get them to use them as transports. They're otherwise located on models that die to a stiff breeze so your target priority and weapon choice should be able to take care of the problem in a Darwinistic kind of way. Yes, I know, you'd need to use weapons on them that's not geared towards killing vehicles and MCs, which this edition is all about, but credit some variety where it exists, will you?

 Mahtamori wrote:

ClassicCarraway wrote:Leave the points as they are, give basic terminators a 4++ and make terminator stormbolters Assault 4. This makes them more durable against AP2, still makes them vulnerable to mass small arms fire (they do need some form of counter-balance), and allows a 5-man squad to lay down a crap ton of fire (sort of how their fluff always depicts them)

For the assault variety, let TH/SS assault termies count their shield as an additional specialist CCW (Shield Bash-S User, AP4, Concussion). Lightning Claw termies keep the 4++.

The thing with Assault Terminators is that they are super-scary in melee and they don't pay anything at all for their shield. They are the least in need of a buff and most likely in need of a point increase. There's nothing short of named characters that can actually stand up to them in melee and their tiny shields keep them safe from disproportionate amount of tactical nuclear devices and holes in the fabric of time and space. Their only real problem is "how do I get them into close combat?" and you're not addressing that at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MadEdric, there's nothing special about Terminator Storm Bolters. It's just a lack-lustre weapon wherever it is used. Just keep in mind that while it is poor atm, it still shouldn't enable a single Terminator to clear out a whole squad of GEQ or Boys alone.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Its been said before, but the ultimate way to fix terminators (and all 2+ Save infantry) is to revamp all weapons.

All weapons that are AP2 or better save Melta, Lance, and S9+ weapons should be reduced to AP3. Across the board, no exceptions.

Rending, Bladestorm, and Monofilament should be reduced to AP3. There simply is no reason that a low to medium strength attack can consistently slice through TEQ armour 1/6th of the time.

The only AP2 close combat attacks should be from basic weapons that have the Unwieldy special rule (unless its a relic equivalent). Also, MC and FMC base attacks are now AP3, and Smash attacks are AP2/Unwieldy.

Finally, 2+ saves should never, EVER be made available to any type of MC (looking at you Riptide). By nerfing weapons across the board, you leave MCs with 4 or more wounds AND a 2+ save even more powerful then they already are, and that would have to be addressed.

Sadly, none of this will ever happen.

Rending was designed specifically for two purposes: give Tyranids a way to deal with Terminators and give Tyranids a way to deal with vehicles. And by Tyranids, I mean Terminators' ancient nemesis, the Genestealers.
Then there's your beef with Eldar, there's a much larger snakes to be whacked in that codex to fix it. And by snakes I mean serpents, 'cause you sure don't get them to use them as transports. They're otherwise located on models that die to a stiff breeze so your target priority and weapon choice should be able to take care of the problem in a Darwinistic kind of way. Yes, I know, you'd need to use weapons on them that's not geared towards killing vehicles and MCs, which this edition is all about, but credit some variety where it exists, will you?

I think you over-estimate how effective Assault Terminators are, and yes, they are still overpriced because the only way they ever make it into combat is with the rather hefty LR tax. Not sure about you, but I feel that a 6-model unit that costs almost 500 points should be more than just somewhat effective. Most games, assault termies in a LR just don't make their points back as they are way too easily tied up and worn down, and don't even dream of walking them to combat. 40+ points for a single wound model with no shooting attack, Initiative 1, and average stats is just a bit too high and thus needs a little extra kick to justify the points cost. Not a huge increase mind you, but I think the extra attack and the option to switch to a faster but weaker attack evens them out.

And yes, maybe once upon a time, Rending was meant to give Genestealers a way to kill terminators, but unfortunately that is no longer the case. Everybody and their brother has Rending or an equivalent to it now. As for the beef against Eldar, meh, no more than any other non-Eldar player, but I do feel that reducing the amount of weapons with AP2 or better WOULD balance them out a bit. Sorry, but its not just WS that are making Eldar so OTT, its the WS when combined with all sheer amount of AP2 or better and overall absurd level of mobility that makes the Eldar so infuriating to play against. Take one of those elements out and you have some balance restored (if only just a little bit). After all, terminators (and to a larger extent MEQ in general) don't give one wit about Wave Serpent shooting, its normally the bladestorm-bearing Dire Avengers or absurdly powerful AP2 flamer templates that are carried in them that causes them grief.

Make them 5 points cheaper, make their heavy weapons half cost (or thereabouts) and allow for increased weapon options (such as the ability to take combi-weapons). For assault termies, you could give them a special rule that allows them to assault on the same turn they arrive (I'm not sure how balanced this would be, so perhaps only allowing them a charge range of say, 2/3 of the distance they rolled, would ensure that they weren't excessively effective).

I know this will be against the grain here, but as a person who plays both marines and xenos ...
(I have about 60 termies for my DA army, and 30 or so for my SM army - and about 20 paladins I am slowly making in a roman theme - I love termies).

Terminators are fine.

They no where near suck. Really.

Its our expctations that need to change - not termies.

I think its more players are not used to having them face their match. Maybe you would think those matches were more rare before, and thus the points should come down as AP2 shooty is more common, but honestly - I think its a good change.

Yeah, the game has more shots flying around...from almost all armies - yes, a 2+ save is not what it used to be.
But know what? a 3+ or 4+ is not either.
And with all the cover denying weapons - a 5+ is almost worthless.

Its all about expectations.

Now, what I would like to see are -
* more model diversity. Better arms and legs.
I had to do a lot of conversions to keep my termies "fresh".
* A cheaper heavy flamer would be nice, or an upgraded one with torrent.
* another transport option. LIke a beefy land speeder storm - dropping them off in a hotzone.
* options for one shot weapons - like a single shot hunter killer with skyfire, or some big poison round that has flesh bane for dealing with bio titans and wraithknights.
* an option for termie sgt to get a AP2 weapon.

I do agree however, that there feels like there are too many AP2 weapons out there.
And back when they made basic power weapons AP3, I prediced this would happen....
But, I am curious, do we have more or less effectively ap2 weapons? I think we have less CC versions, and more shooty.
So, while it feels like termies are the problem....I think its that there are just more AP2.
(or rending on a basic gun? ok, that is op).

Anyway, I know many may not agree...and thats fine.
I whole heartily suggest other players who think an army "sucks" play another army or a while - and not a "top tier" army.

I whole heartily suggest other players who think an army "sucks" play another army or a while - and not a "top tier" army.

Forgive but exactly do you mean by that? So if you think your codex is sub par in comparison to others, go build an army that isn't that one nor is it Daemons, Tau, Eldar, or Necrons? My apologies I just don't exactly get the point.

Anyways, the problem isn't really termies. Termies are kinda fine, okay for their price arguably balanced. The problem comes from there being so many DEVESTATING weapons (mainly ranged) that are so effecient for their price it doesn't matter

 StarTrotter wrote:
I whole heartily suggest other players who think an army "sucks" play another army or a while - and not a "top tier" army.

Forgive but exactly do you mean by that? So if you think your codex is sub par in comparison to others, go build an army that isn't that one nor is it Daemons, Tau, Eldar, or Necrons? My apologies I just don't exactly get the point.

My apologies for not being more clear with a bit of a rambly topic.



Basically, I see a lot of new players start with armies that may be "top tier" when they start with them. Well, once that army (or a build, seen that too) is no longer top tier - that player begins to feel that "just good" = sucks.
Where maybe a player with more experience or different expectations feels they are fine, but maybe things have shifted.

I remember the first time a friend of mine who had played power armor for a long time finally played a non power armor (marine) army - he had started to take BS4, WS4 3+ and ATSKNF for granted.
The new army he played did not have termies, or drop pods or ready access to invul saves for characters - also in playing another army he learned the other army's weaknesses that he had never noticed in playing against them.
When he would go back and play his marines again, he discovered he looked at them in a different perspective.
He felt it made him a better player - in both armies.

Another example - marines were not my first army, so I was used to not relying upon durable troops and good saves - I had to rely on cover a lot more.
When I started playing marines (I have um...a lot) I still learned to use cover - once plasma and other lower AP weapons become more common....I was already used to thinking about cover - some of my friends were not - and had a rough adjustment.

Anyways, the problem isn't really termies. Termies are kinda fine, okay for their price arguably balanced. The problem comes from there being so many DEVESTATING weapons (mainly ranged) that are so effecient for their price it doesn't matter

Actually,....THIS.
Star Trotter just summed up the point I was trying to make better than I did!!!

davethepak wrote:
I know this will be against the grain here, but as a person who plays both marines and xenos ...
(I have about 60 termies for my DA army, and 30 or so for my SM army - and about 20 paladins I am slowly making in a roman theme - I love termies).

Terminators are fine.

They no where near suck. Really.

Its our expctations that need to change - not termies.

I think its more players are not used to having them face their match. Maybe you would think those matches were more rare before, and thus the points should come down as AP2 shooty is more common, but honestly - I think its a good change.

Yeah, the game has more shots flying around...from almost all armies - yes, a 2+ save is not what it used to be.
But know what? a 3+ or 4+ is not either.
And with all the cover denying weapons - a 5+ is almost worthless.

Its all about expectations.

Now, what I would like to see are -
* more model diversity. Better arms and legs.
I had to do a lot of conversions to keep my termies "fresh".
* A cheaper heavy flamer would be nice, or an upgraded one with torrent.
* another transport option. LIke a beefy land speeder storm - dropping them off in a hotzone.
* options for one shot weapons - like a single shot hunter killer with skyfire, or some big poison round that has flesh bane for dealing with bio titans and wraithknights.
* an option for termie sgt to get a AP2 weapon.

I do agree however, that there feels like there are too many AP2 weapons out there.
And back when they made basic power weapons AP3, I prediced this would happen....
But, I am curious, do we have more or less effectively ap2 weapons? I think we have less CC versions, and more shooty.
So, while it feels like termies are the problem....I think its that there are just more AP2.
(or rending on a basic gun? ok, that is op).

Anyway, I know many may not agree...and thats fine.
I whole heartily suggest other players who think an army "sucks" play another army or a while - and not a "top tier" army.

I don't think anybody has really said terminators or Space Marines suck. Terminators just aren't as effective as their points cost (and fluff) would indicate. They need a kick in the pants to put them up to their points cost, especially the tactical variety.

"Terminators aren't really the problem, everything else has changed around them" has been repeated a few times now. If everything else has changed, but terminators haven't, then the problem lies with the terminators. Lets have a look at the codex entries shall we?

3rd Edition: 42 points per model. Same weapon load-outs and prices available as 6th. Up to 2 models may take a heavy weapon. Free TH/SS.
4th Edition: 40 points per model. Same weapon load-outs available. Up to 2 models may take a heavy weapon. Free TH/SS. May spend 3pts per model to gain tank hunters or furious charge.
5th Edition: 40 points per model. Same weapon load-outs available, one model in 5 may have a heavy weapon. HF is 5 pts, other options are 30pts. Free TH/SS.
6th Edition: 40 points per model. Same weapon load-outs available. one model in 5 may have a heavy weapon. TH/SS cost 5 points,

Other notes:
CML improved between 3rd and 4th to not replace the model's powerfist, and between 4th and 5th, where it got to fire an extra missile.
SS got much better with their blanket 3++ save in 5th ed.
Assault cannon stopped jamming, got an extra shot and rending throughout the editions.
Deep strike rules got better and worse between editions, 6th edition rules are quite favourable, however unints now have intercept which can be a problem.

Ok so what can we get out of this?
First of all we can see the price of terminators has practically remained the same for the past 14 years, in fact the cost of TH/SS assault squads has increased by 5 points (to balance the new SS rules).
Their armoury has remained entirely unchanged, with only blanket weapon changes effecting them.
Between 4th and 5th they lost the option of having 2 heavy weapons in a 5 man squad.
In 4th edition they had the option to choose tank hunters, combined with 2 Assault cannons this could do pretty decent damage to vehicles.

So overall, in the last 14 years (3rd edition codex was 1999) terminators have remained pretty static points wise, now receive less heavy weapons per 5 man squad and have had a storm shield buff, although they do pay 5 points for the privilege.
(PS: The SS 3++ buff used to give terminators something to do in apocalypse, but the new D weapon rules totally ignore this.)

Personally, with the addition of so many other units and weapons in the game through codex creep, as well as points reductions in other models, it seems now more than ever that terminators need some kind of improvement to once again make them competitive.

Seems like everyone believes the only Terminators are those of Space Marines. Wonder how some feel for Chaos.

Suicide troops used to be one of our few ways of deploying any way besides footslogging/driving a fragile rhino built to go in, ignore our combi weapons, default to our combi meltas and plasmas, hope to claim first blood, watch them get slaughtered. Fear the mighty of chaos! We shall suicide them!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Seems like everyone believes the only Terminators are those of Space Marines. Wonder how some feel for Chaos.

Chaos terminators have several advantages over their SM counterparts:
- They cost 9 points less base (and 3 points less if upgraded with a power fist)
- they can be taken in squads as small as 3
- all models have access to combi weapons
- They can mix ranged and assault weapons (like DA)
- Marks can upgrade their toughness or invulnerable save (although this is costly)
- Squad can get FNP (requires mark of slaanesh on every model so can be expensive)
- Alternatively they can gain fearless, which helps to counter their lack of ATSKNF

The down sides:
- No ATSKNF as base
- No TH/SS
- Less heavy weapon choices

Overall Chaos terminators have a lot more versatility than imperial ones, and the lower base cost with the option of many different upgrades allows them to fit desired roles better. However they can become quite costly and of course miss out on that 3++ SS save, (though tzeentch 4++ is kind of close).

Are they underpowered or need a buff? I wouldn't want to say, as I don't play them.

Are they underpowered or need a buff? I wouldn't want to say, as I don't play them.

Most of those points end up why our Terminators are usually used in the 'Suicide Combi-X' role, rather then any meaningful choice otherwise. The upgrades put them as too expensive when it comes to certain tasks, so they are usually just taken naked with combi-X with axes or mauls to maximize damage afterwords. I've yet to see anyone take the heavy weapon choices because they are far too expensive. (Give me a heavy daemon ranged weapon like the Heart-Ripper at least!)

Still, 112 points for 3 combi weapons and power axes and a 3 man squad with 2+,5++ isn't all that bad.

I would hazard a guess that chaos termies are used in more lists than SM ones, 100 points is much easier to fit in than the 220 base for marines. This, or that the chaos elites are so badly balanced that chaos termies are one of the few viable options.

Okay yeah chaos elites are pretty pants. Another reason is its one of our only alternate means of deployment. We have 0 scouts, only terminators and the jump pack units as deepstrikes, two characters (one of debatable use and another that is generally considered pretty sub par) that give us d3 infiltrate which is entirely random and so unreliable so one cannot entirely rely on a roll, and then a single roll of the d6 giving you a chance to get that warlord trait. Keep in mind this requires csm to be your main army force. The CSM termies fill a void that very few other things can take up (and really out of the jump units, one is useless and the other is meh raptors) and so, whilst sub par, will deployed even if thehy are only fit to be brought in for some guns and then dying painful deaths.

EDIT: Other DS units are Obliterators which are very good and Mutilators which are a distraction/suicide unit that at best can distract the enemy for a bit but will never even get any kills.

Allow assault on the turn they deep strike as well as a minor points reduction

You know, I never really though about it like this but my friend suggested they simply get FNP 4+ (Special rule given that they ALWAYS can roll for it, even against ID weapons of str 8+)

Would that make them better? I sure think so! At least that way that TA is getting put to better use...

I would give them twin-linked bolters since Termies are going to be within "12" most of the time.

As a small buff to DA termies, I would love to see a points drop to match their SM counter parts, and also see a change to DW assault that would let them ignore the 50% rule for reserves (ie: they can act like a drop pod army).

Something besides teleport homers that would reduce scatter would be nice too, although this is asking for a little much.

I really don't think tons of inventive special rules are needed just:

- A points decrease
- Changing Storm Bolters to Assault 3 and AP4
- Something to improve their DS, only minor, maybe allowing them to DS 2" apart in a circle, if they wish.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
As a small buff to DA termies, I would love to see a points drop to match their SM counter parts, and also see a change to DW assault that would let them ignore the 50% rule for reserves (ie: they can act like a drop pod army).

Something besides teleport homers that would reduce scatter would be nice too, although this is asking for a little much.

But we have teleport homers on our bikes, and it is super fun to deepstrike on that lone Ravenwing bike left and then just shredding everything. I do agree with you on the reserves part however.

To further my point about tactical termies - as compared to assault termies who are only in an assault role, it's kinda sucky that even tactical termies are still at their best in assault. Yet obviously worse off than dedicated assault terminators. They just don't have enough firepower to be worth it in a ranged role. Two heavies per five would help, as storm bolters are hardly great and for shooting you'd often be better off bringing massed regular bolters instead give you pay 14 points per bolter instead of 40 per storm bolter and can be scoring to boot! Also cheaper mechanized transport options - DS is free, but not really always reliable.

 Gitsmasher wrote:
What do you guys think about centurions minus the looks?

They are units with S5, T5, W2 and 2+ Slow and Purposeful, they can move, shoot, and assault! They can each fire two weapons, with awesome graveguns.

Yes they dont have an invuln but hey stick them in bolstered cover for a pretty resilient unit.

I honestly love the concept of Centurions. A powerframe that holds multiple heavy weapons/ breeching assault weapons that the space marine steps into. Its not new armor, its add on to existing armor. That it gives +1 tough and wounds (and str I believe?) goes along with the basic idea and is a step between space marines and Dreadknights. The new rules for the weapons fire are great too. I even think the models are ok.

Only problem with Centurions (maybe a bit overpointed) is I feel much of this is what terminators should be. But if terminators are not heavy weapon platforms then lets use that name to good effect, IE, they are as hard to destroy as the original Terminator from the movie (always wondered if they maybe got the name from there). Increase their toughness, wounds and give their armor special rules for save. Maybe the armor gets a 4+ invun save instead of 5+ and they get to roll their invun save if they fail their armor save. Maybe too much for 40 points, but right now they are too easy to kill, so cannot provide multiple rounds of fire, and don't have enough heavy firepower to make worth fielding.

In regards to buffing the storm bolter on terminator armor without screwing up storm bolters across the board and/or making grey knights more powerful, just make it so that models in terminator armor can fire a storm bolter twice per shooting phase, no heavy weapons in termie squads can do the same just the storm bolters, not combi weapons either, it can be represented by the amors capability to absorb the recoil with ease and carrying so much ammo to do it.

It also boosts grey knight termie squads and not the power armour squads.

Brother Payne wrote:Allow assault on the turn they deep strike as well as a minor points reduction

Never going to happen. 6th edition has systematically removed every "assault from reserves" unit and ability from the game. The only one I remember still existing is the Ymgarl Genestealers, and they are looking down the barrel of the nerf guns next month. So nope.

GoliothOnline wrote:You know, I never really though about it like this but my friend suggested they simply get FNP 4+ (Special rule given that they ALWAYS can roll for it, even against ID weapons of str 8+)

Would that make them better? I sure think so! At least that way that TA is getting put to better use...

This is one my of my suggestions. Instead of their 5+ invulnerable, switch it to a 4+ or 5+ FnP save....explained below.

sing your life wrote:I would give them twin-linked bolters since Termies are going to be within "12" most of the time.

This is a step backwards technologically, as storm bolters are the evolution of twin-bolter combi-weapons fluff wise. No fluff reason for this, even if there is a game play reason for it.

The Shadow wrote:I really don't think tons of inventive special rules are needed just:

- A points decrease
- Changing Storm Bolters to Assault 3 and AP4
- Something to improve their DS, only minor, maybe allowing them to DS 2" apart in a circle, if they wish.

You can't change storm bolters game wide, it affects WAY too many units. Rhinos with 2 assault 3 AP4 weapons? Every possible sergeant would take it. 7 point Henchmen with fire power almost equal to 20+ point noise marines? God, the entire GK codex would basically explode overnight into an over powered cheese fest that it was in 5th edition, but with a 24" range instead of melee only.

My philosophy about unit design;

Every unit consists of 3 parts; Offensive power, defensive power and utility/special abilities/intangibles, these are what make up it's point cost.

Offensively Tactical terminators suck. They don't compare favorably to 2 tactical marines in a gun fight, and cost 42% more. They stack up well in melee against tactical marines, but they stack up poorly against even mediocre melee units due to a lack of attack and inability to bring their damage to bear against optimal targets. Eg, powerfists are great against MCs, but MCs wreck them before they get to swing. They are also extremely poor against horde units, as the amount of over kill the powerfist provides and the lack of attacks means they can be pulled down by weight of attacks.

Defensively Tactical terminators suck. They stack up poorly against tactical marines against every single weapon in the game except AP3. It takes the same amount of bolter shots to kill 28 points of tactical marines as it does to kill 40 points of terminator. That's not cool, especially for the "best personal protection in the galaxy".

Special ability wise, Tactical terminators suck. They don't bring anything to the table that an equal points value of something else couldn't do better. They best you could say about them in this regard is that they have not insignificant firepower, and not awful melee ability on the same platform...but there's other units that can do either, or both, better for the points.

So, where do we start? Knowing that your terminator loadouts are not going to change, other than maybe going back to 2 heavies per 5, or maybe allowing the plasma cannon into vanilla books what can you really do?

Well, let's start on the offensive side of things. My ideas;
- Since the storm bolter can't change, maybe allow them to "double tap" them? So allow them to fire the storm bolters twice per turn, making them essentially assault 4. This would make them better than tactical marines, bolter wise > 12", but still worse <12", point for point.
- Bump to WS and BS5? Unlikely, since it would mean changing vanguard, sternguard and every other veteran in the game to this level, but they DID have WS and BS 5 in 2nd edition. It's an idea, but I think it's implications are too far reaching for this discussion.
- Make their storm bolters twin-linked? Call it "bigger magazines" or "improved ammo feeds" or something. Not a huge improvement, and probably still not enough for 40 points.
- Melee wise, the powerfist has issues. Always swinging at I1 makes them axe and enemy powerfist fodder. I'm a fan of allowing Terminator armor to swing I1 weapons at I2, call it something like "improved muscle fiber-bundles". This puts them ahead of stunned/concussed and swinging at I1 weapons, without massively unbalancing the melee game, as swinging a powerfist at I4 or I5 would be overpowered for 50+ points, let alone 40,

Defensively;
-We can't get better than a 2+ save, it's just not a thing anymore, so that leaves additional saves as our only options. Drop the 5++ invul and give them 5+ FnP would be a start. I might even be able to be convinced that a 4+ FnP is fair. A 5+ FnP would put them slightly better than tactical marines. The vulnerability to S8+ AP2 weapons has me leaning towards a 4+ FnP personally. This also allows cover saves to actually MEAN something to terminators, as currently, if the only saves around are 5+, why not just stand in the open?
-Other ideas include going to T5, which makes them better than tacticals actually....Wow, +1T bump is pretty huge against small arms. It's as good as having a 5+ FnP against bolter fire.
-Going to 2 wounds is another idea, but I'm not completely sure what you would have to do to their points costs to accommodate this. Taking Paladins, Attack bikes, Red butchers, Wraiths and the like as examples, we might have to go up to 43-45 points per model.

Special/utility/intangible rule wise; I don't think terminators really need anything super special. You could allow access to some of the old veteran skills like infiltrate, furious charge, tank hunters, some manner of precision deep strike any number of other oddities.

My "ideal" tactical terminator squad;
200 points, comes with assault 4 storm bolters, I2 power fists and a 4+ FnP instead of the 5++ invul, and access to 2 heavy weapons from the current lists.

200 points of tactical marines (14.28 of them) vs 200 points of my ideal terminators (5);
Bolter shots to kill (BS4); Tactical marines ~128 , Terminators: ~180. Win for terminators, and rightly so, as terminator armor should be better against small arms. Still, not a HUGE win here.
Plasma shots to kill (BS4); Tactical marines ~25.7, Terminators; ~18. Terminators still lose out to plasma, but less so than previously thanks to the 4+ FnP over the 5++ invul. Cover will also increase BOTH of the unit's survivability equally.
S8+ AP2+ shots to kill; Tactical marines ~25.7, Terminators; ~9. Worse for the terminators than the current number of 13.5, but that's FnP vs the invul save for you.

Overall, makes heavy weapons better against terminators, and small arms less effective. Terminators are no worst off with these stats than they are now if they are in cover though.

I think the power level is fine, it's the cost that kills them. 40 points before upgrades is crazy for a single wound, T4 model with the proliferation of cheap massed fire and AP2.

Drop basic terms to 26 points, have TH/SS cost +5 per model, and i think you're in business exactly as they are (the other point upgrades can remain).



If you keep the points the way they are, fine - the invul. save goes to 4++, storm bolters fired by a model wearing terminator armor become Assault 3. I almost want to say "give terms the Deathwing Knight ability that gives +1 toughness when in BtB with 2 more more other models in the unit", but that might be a bit over the top with the 2 other things.

 Haight wrote:
I think the power level is fine, it's the cost that kills them. 40 points before upgrades is crazy for a single wound, T4 model with the proliferation of cheap massed fire and AP2.

Drop basic terms to 26 points, have TH/SS cost +5 per model, and i think you're in business exactly as they are (the other point upgrades can remain).

26 is too far for the storm bolter/powerfist variety. I mean, an honor guard model is 25, and terminators upgrade from a power weapon to fist, 2+ to 2+/5++, ability to deepstrike and bolter to storm bolter. 30 would the absolute least current tactical terminators should cost IMO, with 32 being more fitting.

The best option and most elegant I've ever heard was to just give them a 1+ save (still fail on a 1, but survive ap2). The biggest disconnect in recent times is the advent of the AP 2 blast removing them. Termies are rather sufficient in surviving small arms fire, they die to just about the correct amount of non ap2 shooting, they are a gamble unit that feel worth it except against the demolisher shell or plasma russ. With that a point decrease isnt really needed. Barring that giving two heavies per 5 again would probably do the trick.

 lazarian wrote:
The best option and most elegant I've ever heard was to just give them a 1+ save (still fail on a 1, but survive ap2). The biggest disconnect in recent times is the advent of the AP 2 blast removing them. Termies are rather sufficient in surviving small arms fire, they die to just about the correct amount of non ap2 shooting, they are a gamble unit that feel worth it except against the demolisher shell or plasma russ. With that a point decrease isnt really needed. Barring that giving two heavies per 5 again would probably do the trick.

Not happening, for multiple reasons.

1. It would have weird interactions with grav weapons....being wounded on a 1+, and still getting your 2+ save....doesn't make much sense.
2. There are several armies that a terminator heavy force would render virtually obsolete. Weight of fire would be the ONLY way to kill them, as melta and railgun fire would be the only other effective weapons. What happens to a force that doesn't have access to rail or melta fire, but relies on AP2 firepower? Eldar, dark eldar, most of the Tau lists out there these days, even your standard space marine lists these days would be screwed because they lack the volume of fire needed to take terminators by attrition, and don't have the melta to blast them off the table.
3. It doesn't help at all versus small arms fire.

Contrary to your beliefs, terminators are AWFUL against small arms fire. Here's a quick chart showing why. This chart shows how much the various unit takes in damage, per point, per bs4 bolter shot.

Vanilla Tactical marine (14 points, 9 shots to kill): 1.55
Tactical terminator (40 points, 18 shots to kill): 2.22
Space Marine Honor Guard (25 points, 18 shots to kill): 1.38
Space marine biker (21 points, 13.5 shots to kill): 1.55
Firewarrior (9 points, 4.5 shots to kill): 2
Guardsman/termigant (5 points, 2.25 shots to kill): 2.22
Ork Boy (6 points, 3 shots to kill): 2
Genestealer (14 points, 3 shots to kill): 4.66 (This, FYI, is why genestealers SUCK BALLS)

Lower number the better. Terminators have the same survivability point for point as guardsmen STANDING IN THE OPEN. At least guardsmen can hide behind a shrub to increase their survivability, whereas terminators cannot. THIS IMO is the primary failing of terminators, and what needs to be fixed the worst.

After reading through the latest posts, I got a few ideas. I guess the main question is, how do we "fix" Space Marine Tactical Terminators without inadvertently buffing up other units (in C:SM and other codexes) that use some of the same equipment? The obvious example is that buffing Storm Bolters and Terminator Armor itself will also buff Grey Knights in general, and other Storm Bolter wielding units (Rhinos, etc.).

1. Make Tactical Terminators a scoring unit. They're supposed to be the guys you send in when nobody else can do the job.
2. Make their Storm Bolters master-crafted. This will slightly boost their shooting ability, without affecting Storm Bolters anywhere else. These are the elite veterans after all, they should be carrying the good Storm Bolters.
3. Allow them two heavy weapons for every five Terminators. What's the point of being a relentless firing platform if you only get to carry one weapon that benefits from it?
4. Replace the power fist with a power weapon as default, with options to upgrade to powerfists and chainfists. This allows the choice between mauls, swords, and axes. depending on your preferences.
5. Reduce them to 35 points base. This accounts for the removal of the premium powerfist, but the addition of the master-crafted Storm Bolters and becoming a scoring unit.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

1. Make Tactical Terminators a scoring unit. They're supposed to be the guys you send in when nobody else can do the job.

Ah yes, and slap the Dark Angels in the face even more, lovely.

Although to add something constructive, it is more a problem with the entire system than with terminators themselves. The change in volume of fire from 3rd to what we have now is pretty ridiculous, along with the huge amount of AP 2 ranged weaponry that is around now too. If they had FNP it would be nice and I think it would help, but that is only putting a bandaid on the problem.

 Very Superstitious wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

1. Make Tactical Terminators a scoring unit. They're supposed to be the guys you send in when nobody else can do the job.

Ah yes, and slap the Dark Angels in the face even more, lovely.

No! Stop! GW might see this and get more ideas!

People have been talking about ap2 weapons a lot, but to be honest I don't find them too much of an issue. Plasma guns should take down terminators imo, there needs to be some counter.
To me the weight of fire is more of an issue. Terminators and their points were first balanced way back, before things like FRFSRF, DA dakka banner, Tau ethereal Fire warrior spam etc. With this great increase in firepower terminators are just getting whittled down by lasguns.

+1T or some kind of FNP would help to counter this.

 Very Superstitious wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

1. Make Tactical Terminators a scoring unit. They're supposed to be the guys you send in when nobody else can do the job.

Ah yes, and slap the Dark Angels in the face even more, lovely.

I think this is one of the problems plaguing terminators; they've become outdated with all the AP 2 being slung around, and they are across so many codice in various flavours that reworking them becomes quite the task. There are 5 unique streams of terminator that I can think of (vanilla (& I think BA), spiky, grey, dark, and wolf), and they'd all need balancing so that the levels between them are maintained.

So, of the solutions that were listed;
- +1 T - helps with small arms, not so much against anything bypassing their armour. T6 nurgle terminators might be a bit much.
- +1 W - again helping with small arms, and S7 as well, but most AP 2 shooting won't notice either. Paladins seem to get crazy, don't know about them much.
- Granting a 4++ - Not wholly unreasonable. MoT Chaos termies with a 3++ might be getting silly.
- 1+ armour save - helps with most AP 2 shooting, does nothing against small arms. Terminator-heavy armies would need hard counters for a balanced game.
- Upgrade the capabilities of the storm bolter - would either need to be an effect of the armour, or any unit that has access to a storm bolter will have to be reworked, too. Chaos and wolves with combi-weapons will receive no benefit, and GK would need a complete overhaul.
- Make termies scoring - Contextually nerfs DA, encourages more AP 2 weapons to clear out the new and expensive scoring termies.
- Increased heavy weapons allowance - The least drastic change. Chaos will benefit less, as their heavy weaponry is less than impressive.
- Assault out of deep strike - The game doesn't seem to want to do this. Is inclusive for all armies, though.
- Power weapon default w/points drop - Mostly a fix for vanilla termies, perhaps DA too, don't know those very well.
- Points drop - Difficult to balance across armies and other similar units (eg honour guard, obliterators)
- Use twin-linked bolters - Goes against fluff, chaos has it already.
- Characteristic boost - Internal balance issues and fluff descriptancies arise, giving terminator armour to characters would need to be reworked too.
- Reduce the AP on everything else - A game-wide rewrite for the sake of one unit is hardly feasible, and would probably cause more disgruntlement in the community than having termiators remain as is.

It's a complex issue. I think that the points drop and heavy weapon allowance options are the least complex solutions, but any changes would require a blanket update from GW or waiting until 7th ed. I'm not holdingmy breath, but making them more usable would be nice.

 Very Superstitious wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

1. Make Tactical Terminators a scoring unit. They're supposed to be the guys you send in when nobody else can do the job.

Ah yes, and slap the Dark Angels in the face even more, lovely.

Not at all. None of the changes any of us are proposing will happen until a new Codex is released. And you do realize that most any changes made to basic Space Marine terminators would invariably carry over to terminators in the other chapters, right? And C:SM Terminators would remain Elites choices, while Dark Angels Terminators in a Deathwing army (led by Belial) are Troops choices.

Although to add something constructive, it is more a problem with the entire system than with terminators themselves. The change in volume of fire from 3rd to what we have now is pretty ridiculous, along with the huge amount of AP 2 ranged weaponry that is around now too. If they had FNP it would be nice and I think it would help, but that is only putting a bandaid on the problem.

As I said in my first post in this thread, nothing will happen anyway unless there is a complete reboot to the game like we had with 3rd Edition. Which, ultimately, is what GW really needs to do: spend a whole year working on a new edition of rules and new codexes for all the armies to be released all at once.

Re-roll armour and invulnerable saves. Have Special Issue Ammunition on Storm Bolters (even just Kraken bolts would help).

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Nothing major- let them run after a deepstrike and still shoot.

Really terminator's are appropriately priced, we saw them being effective before riptides (the main culprit in my eyes) the mass ap2 world we live in now.

The biggest problem is them coming in and getting plated to death OR sacrificing their shooting so they can run. Adding plasma cannon type upgrades to the squad is also interesting.

I think this would be a good change for DS in general actually. We can see the results in action already with Tau crisis suits getting their full relentless firepower and then 2d6 in the assault phase, it's very effective.

It's all about delivery.

I would be interested in seeing LR'S getting a point reduction and being limited to 1-2 an army aswell. Something I've been championing for awhile.

I'd be interested in hearing why people dislike terms now aswell, obviously they have proven ineffective for players but what are the core reasons?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
"- +1 T - helps with small arms, not so much against anything bypassing their armour. T6 nurgle terminators might be a bit much.
- +1 W - again helping with small arms, and S7 as well, but most AP 2 shooting won't notice either. Paladins seem to get crazy, don't know about them much.

In both scenario's they still get blown away from Riptides/Suncannon's/Lascannon's, difficult to balance aswell because of all the characters in Term armor. A thought, I think the 2w has more merit.

- Granting a 4++ - Not wholly unreasonable. MoT Chaos termies with a 3++ might be getting silly.

- 1+ armour save - helps with most AP 2 shooting, does nothing against small arms. Terminator-heavy armies would need hard counters for a balanced game.
This has been suggested a lot, I think it's terrible. Imagine rolling to wound six times, far far too tedious.

- Increased heavy weapons allowance - The least drastic change. Chaos will benefit less, as their heavy weaponry is less than impressive.
- Assault out of deep strike - The game doesn't seem to want to do this. Is inclusive for all armies, though.

This is very problematic too, they'd be too good."


I like some of the idea's, it's just about getting them to a target reliably. If they are on foot they get out deployed, if they DS they have to wait at least 3 turns to assault and are lucky to get it off. None of those ideas fix that problem.

A Terminator transport dataslate vehicle would be cool.

Or a barrage type deployment would be AWESOME.

Place your deepstriker. Scatter. Then roll the scatter die and place your model 2'' away from the previously placed model.

Thoughts?

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I think you over-estimate how effective Assault Terminators are, and yes, they are still overpriced because the only way they ever make it into combat is with the rather hefty LR tax. Not sure about you, but I feel that a 6-model unit that costs almost 500 points should be more than just somewhat effective. Most games, assault termies in a LR just don't make their points back as they are way too easily tied up and worn down, and don't even dream of walking them to combat. 40+ points for a single wound model with no shooting attack, Initiative 1, and average stats is just a bit too high and thus needs a little extra kick to justify the points cost. Not a huge increase mind you, but I think the extra attack and the option to switch to a faster but weaker attack evens them out.

And yes, maybe once upon a time, Rending was meant to give Genestealers a way to kill terminators, but unfortunately that is no longer the case. Everybody and their brother has Rending or an equivalent to it now. As for the beef against Eldar, meh, no more than any other non-Eldar player, but I do feel that reducing the amount of weapons with AP2 or better WOULD balance them out a bit. Sorry, but its not just WS that are making Eldar so OTT, its the WS when combined with all sheer amount of AP2 or better and overall absurd level of mobility that makes the Eldar so infuriating to play against. Take one of those elements out and you have some balance restored (if only just a little bit). After all, terminators (and to a larger extent MEQ in general) don't give one wit about Wave Serpent shooting, its normally the bladestorm-bearing Dire Avengers or absurdly powerful AP2 flamer templates that are carried in them that causes them grief.

No, I'm really not overestimating how good THSS is. I have a bunch of Marines I occasionally play as Space Wolves or Dark Angels and it's most often my Space Wolves that the THSS (actually PF+SS or SB+SS) see most use and effect. Space Wolves pay a lot for Storm Shields. (I don't play them that often because I am aesthetically and economically limited - GW aesthetics for Marines insult me so I use bits to make Scibor models 40k WYSIWYG which is time consuming and often a bit more expensive than I can motivate)

You're still not addressing their problem, by the way. If the LR tax is the limiter, why even suggest rolling out massive buffs for one of the most durable units in the game? And yes, Walking is dead in this game. We know that. That's the reason no sane person play melee-Eldar because our transports haven't been functional assault vehicles since 4th edition (not to mention that Banshees also got nerfed due to losing AP2).

Wraithguards with flamers are slightly more expensive than Terminators, they can't be mixed and matched weapon-wise and they have no upgrades worth mentioning (Warlocks are so limited due to their ML1/LD8 that it's not really worth contemplating one - especially at the price of nearly a terminator). Yes they absolutely wreck terminators. This is what they are good at. Probably still too cheap. I'd rather see the D-Scythe in the region of 15 to 20 points and give you the ability to mix-match the weapons of Wrathbladeguards freely. Sadly even at 32 points I don't see a use for Wraithcannons (which are S10 AP2, I might add).
I still don't agree with your beef for Bladestorm, it is literally what separates Guardian usefulness from being useless - and yes, it absolutely must be AP2 and not AP3. Yes, Terminators can weather Serpents even if a Serpent kills a terminator per turn, but it's the fact that Terminators can't really do anything about the Serpents except for the one or two who carry the obscenely cheap missile launcher.

I am a great believer in small changes and wait for effect. That means you need a way of applying small changes and measuring the effect - neither of which GW has allowed themselves to have - but the great sweeping changes lack perspective and only serves to make Terminators the defacto powerhouse. The goal shouldn't be to steal the throne from the Riptide or Wraithknight, it should be to present a fun and tactical unit. Oh and that unit absolutely must die during game play - something this bloody game is obscenely bad at allowing models to do.

TH/SS are fething garbage wastes of points when you could just play screamerstar or seercouncil. Don't even try to defend them or imply they're good.

why compare them to some of the most broken lists in the game that are anti-fun? Nobody wants them to be the next -star that you weep to fight.

How can you call something good if you're not going to compare them to stuff that's actually good?

I'll be honest, my first change isn't to make them better, it's to make them make a bit more sense. Instead of that weird Relentless but Can't Sweeping Advance rule, I'll just call them Slow and Purposeful and be done with it.

Now, as for the changes

Tactical terminators I would up the shooting game on them considerably. Make Combi-Weapons a simple replacement for the storm bolter (think Wolf Guard here) would be step one. I might also take the 1 in 5 restriction off the Heavy Flamer (I'd keep it for the AssCan and Cyclone Missile Launcher just because they are so potent). The goal here is for the Tactical Terminators to get in your face and unleash a lot of potent close range fire. Save the longer ranged fire for the Devastators Centurions.

Assault Terminators I'd actually down grade to a powerfist and make cheaper. Then give each of them the option to upgrade to Chain Fists or Thunder Hammers for 5 to 10 points a model The swap to twin Lightning Claws would be fee.

Jefffar wrote:
I'll be honest, my first change isn't to make them better, it's to make them make a bit more sense. Instead of that weird Relentless but Can't Sweeping Advance rule, I'll just call them Slow and Purposeful and be done with it.

Now, as for the changes

Tactical terminators I would up the shooting game on them considerably. Make Combi-Weapons a simple replacement for the storm bolter (think Wolf Guard here) would be step one. I might also take the 1 in 5 restriction off the Heavy Flamer (I'd keep it for the AssCan and Cyclone Missile Launcher just because they are so potent). The goal here is for the Tactical Terminators to get in your face and unleash a lot of potent close range fire. Save the longer ranged fire for the Devastators Centurions.

Assault Terminators I'd actually down grade to a powerfist and make cheaper. Then give each of them the option to upgrade to Chain Fists or Thunder Hammers for 5 to 10 points a model The swap to twin Lightning Claws would be fee.

I think it is so that the termies can run (perhaps not logical, it's more because imagine them trying to reach the enemy without being able to run!).

Termies tend to arrive by Deep Strike or disembark from a Land Raider anyway, them being able to run isn't the key part of getting them into combat range.

Besides, they can't run and charge on the same turn anyway.

 ChakLong wrote:
Re-roll armour and invulnerable saves. Have Special Issue Ammunition on Storm Bolters (even just Kraken bolts would help).

I would say drop the invuln to 6+ and let them re-roll armour saves. That would make Terminators far more resilient to small arms fire but leaves AP2 as the proper counter.

Also increase storm bolters to Assault 3, or make them twin-linked.

They seem to work for me I usually always play 2000+ point games and take 20+ DW terminators. And when I take em out my opponent still says, "WTF all those terminators this is going to suck"

 xttz wrote:

 ChakLong wrote:
Re-roll armour and invulnerable saves. Have Special Issue Ammunition on Storm Bolters (even just Kraken bolts would help).

I would say drop the invuln to 6+ and let them re-roll armour saves. That would make Terminators far more resilient to small arms fire but leaves AP2 as the proper counter.

Also increase storm bolters to Assault 3, or make them twin-linked.

This really doesn't solve the problem of the mass amounts of AP2 though.

They should be re-rollable 2+ armour save and a 4+ inv save to justify them. It's only a 1W model, and even with a re-roll, I don't think it would take much concentrated small arms fire to take down a 5 man squad though, they should probably get a FNP on top of that to make them truly survivable, then there wouldn't be a need to improve their damage output as their resilience would make their current damage capabilities justified as there would be a good chance to use it.

Anyway, even with what I just suggested, Str D still wipes them out in one shot.

With a re-rollable 2+ they shrug off 35/36 wounds.

Tacticals shrug off 2/3.

The difference should not be THAT major.

I would certainly allow more weapon versatility for the Tacticals to make them viable, that seems to be their biggest issue.

As an Ork player, I am disgusted and horrified anyone would suggest a +2 rerollable save, especially considering what's happened with screamerstars. You need something like 200 BS WS 4 Str 4 attacks to have a decent chance of killing one model, which is literally impossible for any one unit to do, and that's before considering that you are facing whatever else the army brings

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
As an Ork player, I am disgusted and horrified anyone would suggest a +2 rerollable save, especially considering what's happened with screamerstars. You need something like 200 BS WS 4 Str 4 attacks to have a decent chance of killing one model, which is literally impossible for any one unit to do, and that's before considering that you are facing whatever else the army brings

As you said, 2++ rerollable invuls already exist, and a 2+ rerollable normal save isn't even remotely as good.

And it's 144 WS 4 Str 4 attacks each, not 200. It's still insanity though.

I still think the solution is a 4 or 5+ FnP on top of the normal 2+ save.

 Carnage43 wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
As an Ork player, I am disgusted and horrified anyone would suggest a +2 rerollable save, especially considering what's happened with screamerstars. You need something like 200 BS WS 4 Str 4 attacks to have a decent chance of killing one model, which is literally impossible for any one unit to do, and that's before considering that you are facing whatever else the army brings

As you said, 2++ rerollable invuls already exist, and a 2+ rerollable normal save isn't even remotely as good.

And it's 144 WS 4 Str 4 attacks each, not 200.

I still think the solution is a 4 or 5+ FnP on to of the normal 2+ save.

a 5+ FnP might be good, because it increases survivalist, without making it OP against anti-tank weapons (str.8+ still ID).

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
How can you call something good if you're not going to compare them to stuff that's actually good?

I think there is a difference between good, and broken. For example, Plague Marines are good... What you listed is nearly unkillable and ridiculous.

 xttz wrote:

 ChakLong wrote:
Re-roll armour and invulnerable saves. Have Special Issue Ammunition on Storm Bolters (even just Kraken bolts would help).

I would say drop the invuln to 6+ and let them re-roll armour saves. That would make Terminators far more resilient to small arms fire but leaves AP2 as the proper counter.

Also increase storm bolters to Assault 3, or make them twin-linked.

As others mentioned, 6+ invuln isn't that great, needs the already bad Tzeentch power, and doesn't solve the fact that often times out isn't light arms as Mich as riptides, Mc, and plasma that are doing them in.

The assault3 or twin-linked are risky as they might or might not drastically surpass chaos termies and sw as well as buffing every vehicle with a storm bolter not to mention the big buff to gk

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
As an Ork player, I am disgusted and horrified anyone would suggest a +2 rerollable save, especially considering what's happened with screamerstars. You need something like 200 BS WS 4 Str 4 attacks to have a decent chance of killing one model, which is literally impossible for any one unit to do, and that's before considering that you are facing whatever else the army brings

That's due to the fact they broke AP2 in orks when they made 4th edition, they had bosses with BS3+ and Zzap's autohit before.

I agree, if a 2+ isn't survivable enough, the problem isn't the terminators.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
As an Ork player, I am disgusted and horrified anyone would suggest a +2 rerollable save, especially considering what's happened with screamerstars. You need something like 200 BS WS 4 Str 4 attacks to have a decent chance of killing one model, which is literally impossible for any one unit to do, and that's before considering that you are facing whatever else the army brings

That's due to the fact they broke AP2 in orks when they made 4th edition, they had bosses with BS3+ and Zzap's autohit before.

I fail to see how the 3rd edition Ork codex and the two 2 AP options that weren't BS2 it had (one of which was a special character, the boss you were referring too) has any relevance to this

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
As an Ork player, I am disgusted and horrified anyone would suggest a +2 rerollable save, especially considering what's happened with screamerstars. You need something like 200 BS WS 4 Str 4 attacks to have a decent chance of killing one model, which is literally impossible for any one unit to do, and that's before considering that you are facing whatever else the army brings

That's due to the fact they broke AP2 in orks when they made 4th edition, they had bosses with BS3+ and Zzap's autohit before.

I fail to see how the 3rd edition Ork codex and the two 2 AP options that weren't BS2 it had (one of which was a special character, the boss you were referring too) has any relevance to this

His point was; "As long as you have enough AP2 firepower, then a rerollable 2+ save isn't very impressive at all. Since orks have virtually no AP2 firepower, of course you'd like a rerollable 2+ save is over powered"

Ah, that makes a lot of sense.

My point still stands. Though Orks would be the ones who'd get screwed the most, there are plenty of armies that would be hurt. Tyranids, Daemons, even Necrons lack the ability to mass AP 2 in the same way as Imperials/Tau/Eldar can, and if that is added to other terminator armor users then it turns Paladins into a real horror show.

Untimately, having a unit that's basically Immune to the majority of weapons and units bar a single subclass, it only worsens the Rock/Paper/Scissors nature of 40k that we should be trying to avoid

I'm not saying that terminators don't need a buff, but that is ludicrous

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Ah, that makes a lot of sense.

My point still stands. Though Orks would be the ones who'd get screwed the most, there are plenty of armies that would be hurt. Tyranids, Daemons, even Necrons lack the ability to mass AP 2 in the same way as Imperials/Tau/Eldar can, and if that is added to other terminator armor users then it turns Paladins into a real horror show.

Untimately, having a unit that's basically Immune to the majority of weapons and units bar a single subclass, it only worsens the Rock/Paper/Scissors nature of 40k that we should be trying to avoid

I'm not saying that terminators don't need a buff, but that is ludicrous

Oh, I agree completely. The whole 2+ rerollable invul save is really taking the steam out of my desire for competitive play at the moment, and there's not really any need to add to that problem.

How to fix terminators?

Basically it's difficult.

A veteran Space Marine with a 2+/5++ save, teleport, relentless, power fist and storm bolter has a certain value. Whilst we could drop the points a bit we still couldn't make them less than the Honour Guard who are (arguably) correctly priced now.

They aren't as survivable as Tac marines for the points, they aren't as shooty as Tac marines for their points, they're more assaulty but who cares about that?

Firstly dropping the points is necessary. Chaos terminators should be about 28 points, with 3 points for combi-weapons. Loyalist terminators should be about 33 points a model, with Deathwing about 35. Two heavy weapons regardless of squad size would do something about their lack of firepower. Heavy weapons should be cheaper. Making storm bolters salvo 3/2 24" range weapons would increase firepower by 50% on terminators (while nerfing Grey Knight power armoured squads) but massed bolter shots are still pretty bad.

Survivability? There really isn't any way to change that short of messing with basic game mechanics. The most that could be argued for would be FnP, but even then there are armies that couldn't cope with cheaper more survivable terminators.

Basically fiddling with points is all we can do really.

You could give them back the option to take certain USRs like they could in 4th edition.

Chaos terminators should be about 28 points, with 3 points for combi-weapons. Loyalist terminators should be about 33 points a model,

So wait, Pfists are about 5 points here? Chaos is still getting pretty shafted here.

I was thinking more of about 3 points.

But then I think the power weapon flexibility of Chaos Terminators as an advantage, axe, sword or mace whereas the loyalists are stuck with power fists.

I'm pretty sure 5 Chaos terminators with combi-plasma will kill a bunch of loyalists anyway. Shooting is much better than assault.

Tda adds +1 to wounds characteristic.

Lets compare a Tac squad with a heavy bolter, plasma gun & a Sarge with a bolter, all mounted in a drop pod. The terminators have an assault cannon. The terminators cost more.
-With a DP the Tac squad lands turn one. The Tac terms don't.
-DS with a DP is much more accurate and safe compared to termie TPing.
-Once you've arrived on the table DP Tac squads can disembark making them safer from template weapons. The termies would have to Run for the same effect, thereby giving up their ability to shoot.
-At 12" to 24" the tac sqd pumps out 8 bolter shots, 1 plas shot, snap firing HB and a snap firing SB. The termies technicaly fire nothing round one if they are TPing, but for arguments sake they fire 8 bolter shots and 3 AC shots. The DP is a better delivery system and will likely land them in the 0" to 12" sweet spot adding another 8 bolter shots and an additional plas shot. Thereby surpassing the Tac termies in firepower.
-Because of the superior DP deep strike you can get the Tac squad to cover supplying them with a save against ap3+. Coming close to the termies 5++. Although there save is 3+ there are twice as many of them.
-In assault the the termies get 8 PF attacks and 2 PS attacks. The marines get 10 basic attacks, they do have krak grenades for tough targets though. Im gonna give that one to the termies. Although termies don't have grenades so they could lose some initiative against opponents in cover.
-The Tac squad can combat sqd into to units for msu goodness.
-The tac squad is scoring.
-The tac suad is Troops, and doesn't take up the more useful elite slot.

These are the reasons I think Tac termies suck, and I would like to fix them. These are my ideas:
-Give Storm Bolters faux-rending, like shuriken catapults have. Make it only for Crux Terminatus pattern SBs. Basically only those carries by termies.
-Let Tac termies take 2 hvy weapons per 5 men.
-Let the sarge take extra CC weapon choices. Any power weapon instead of just a PS. Also LCs, Relic Blade and SS for +5 points or TH and SS for +5 points. Thereby giving them some more CC oomf, and a little tanking ability with the SS 3++
-Give the termie sarge the Dev squad sarge buffing ablitys.
-Reduce the cost of CMLs and ACs to 15. Reduce the cost of all termies to 30 points, but +5 for TH and SS.

This way you could make a Tac termie squad with a Sarge who throws some shooting buffs, has a TH+SS combo, 2 ACs, and a little bit better shooting from their now 6 SB shots with their faux rending. That way when they make the unreliable, almost dangerous TP deep strike (maybe on round 2)they show up pumping out some real firepower with the chance of the sarge tanking the counter fire/charge in the front. All for 185 points. This would make them on par points wise with a regular Tac squad. Given the various trade offs between model count, scoring ability and foc slots Id say that's about right for the vaunted terminators.

/Scout Terminators/

That is all

On the face of it the idea of scout terminators seems ludicrous. Terminators with bp & a knife...

But taking the ball & running with it, Id say why not Scout instead of DS? Maybe outflank?

I liked the old 3rd Ed Deep Strike rules, where you placed a large blast marker, scattered it, then placed the arriving models under the marker. It allowed a 5 man TDA squad to be a little spead out upon arrival. With that in mind, a free 2" move upon arrival in addition to the normal 6th Ed DS rules for TDA only units would help a bit in removing the liability of not arriving by Drop Pod.

SJ

Everyone is talking about changing the rules to break things that have been constant since 3rd edition. Put simply, the easiest way to fix Terminators is to reduce the cost by ~5 ppm and *possibly* allow 2x heavy weapons per 5 men. This would make CSM Terminator hordes really interesting actually...

Imperial heavy weapons for terminators are overcosted, so letting terminators double down on weapons that already are overcosted makes your list worse, not better.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Everyone is talking about changing the rules to break things that have been constant since 3rd edition. Put simply, the easiest way to fix Terminators is to reduce the cost by ~5 ppm and *possibly* allow 2x heavy weapons per 5 men. This would make CSM Terminator hordes really interesting actually...

Except things havn't been constant, deep strike rules have changed quite a bit since it's more glorious 3rd edition days, specially chaos terminators but this aint about that specifically.

Also nobody buys the terminator weapons on CSM, both are overcosted and kinda wimpy.

I'd like to go back to mix and match Assault / Tactical weapon load Temrinator squads makes more sense

Make them:

Toughness 5
Wounds 2
Storm bolters assault 2/heavy 4 shred
Assault cannons heavy 6
Cyclone heavy 4
Sgt can take wargear

Points go up a bit maybe ~45ppm, could stay the same tbh they are pretty bad now.

Mike712 wrote:
Make them:

Toughness 5
Wounds 2
Storm bolters assault 2/heavy 4 shred
Assault cannons heavy 6
Cyclone heavy 4
Sgt can take wargear

Points go up a bit maybe ~45ppm, could stay the same tbh they are pretty bad now.

You are joking right? Those stats warrant a 60+ point per model cost (since they'd be paladins +1 basically, and they are 55),

 Carnage43 wrote:

Mike712 wrote:
Make them:

Toughness 5
Wounds 2
Storm bolters assault 2/heavy 4 shred
Assault cannons heavy 6
Cyclone heavy 4
Sgt can take wargear

Points go up a bit maybe ~45ppm, could stay the same tbh they are pretty bad now.

You are joking right? Those stats warrant a 60+ point per model cost (since they'd be paladins +1 basically, and they are 55),

Paladins get WS5 AND a force weapon and even they are overcosted in this edition, without any wound allocation tricks they are quite naff, I've been running pure draigowing recently and they don't work well since every 2 wounds means a dead pally.

In 6th paladins could be 40 points and not even be broken when compared to other stuff.

You can't just balance a units points around it's stats, terminators are slow, short range, difficult and expensive to transport and lack focus meaning they should pay less for the stats they get in an edition where those shortcoings are a major issue.

Mike712 wrote:

 Carnage43 wrote:

Mike712 wrote:
Make them:

Toughness 5
Wounds 2
Storm bolters assault 2/heavy 4 shred
Assault cannons heavy 6
Cyclone heavy 4
Sgt can take wargear

Points go up a bit maybe ~45ppm, could stay the same tbh they are pretty bad now.

You are joking right? Those stats warrant a 60+ point per model cost (since they'd be paladins +1 basically, and they are 55),

Paladins get WS5 AND a force weapon and even they are overcosted in this edition, without any wound allocation tricks they are quite naff, I've been running pure draigowing recently and they don't work well since every 2 wounds means a dead pally.

In 6th paladins could be 40 points and not even be broken when compared to other stuff.

You can't just balance a units points around it's stats, terminators are slow, short range, difficult and expensive to transport and lack focus meaning they should pay less for the stats they get in an edition where those shortcoings are a major issue.

Look, I don't disagree that terminators of all sorts are bad, but paladins or pretty much the least bad of all the terminators. Going from a paladins to your Uber terminator would warrant those 5 points, since a powerfist and force weapon are roughly equal, the WS bonus, psy powers and aegis offset the storm bolter upgrade, and you are paying those last 5 points for the toughness boost. Seems about right. You could argue that paladins should be 40-45 points, but these uber terminators would still have to be ~5pts more.

The problem with going to both T5 AND W2 means they you have a double stacking increase in survivability. The wound bump alone doubles their survivability against small arms and plasma, but combined with the toughness bump not only are you FURTHER resilient to small arms, you are also nearly twice as survivable against heavy weapons, since you have a S10 instant death threshold. This reduces the effectiveness of S6-S9 AP2 fire in half, and the toughness and wound bump reduces the effectiveness of small arms by something like 66%. I mean, terminators are bad, but you are almost tripling their staying power....that's overkill to say the least.

Compare your uber terminators to Assault Centurions. Both would be T5, 2+ save. Uber termies have the 5+ invul so win the staying power "race". Your assault 4 (essentially, as terminators are relentless) shred storm bolter matches pretty well against the hurricane bolters of the cents, call the ranged firepower a draw. S9 AP2 I4 melee for the cents, S8 AP2 I1 for the Uber termies....solid win for the cents. Terminators can run, deepstrike, and take less spots in a land raider. It's a fairly even match all things considered, and you want to have the terminators cost two thirds of the cents? 5 points less, maybe, but not 20.

Which brings us back to the problem that making terminators competitive requires basically a rewrite of the entire core game.

Numero uno, AP2 has to become far less common, restricted to single shot anti-tank weapons like lascannons and lances and unwieldy close combat weapons. That in turn means that 2+ save monstrous creatures need a reduction in power to balance their increased survivability. Even then volume of fire still eats terminators, so we increase the points cost of multi-shot weapons to make sure there're less of them on the table. Then, because hordes are suddenly stronger because people have less shots to kill them we have to increase their cost so horde numbers are reduced.

Then we have to Squat the Tau just on principle.

Make them able to do back flips.

By doing away with the AP system. Its ridiculously rock paper scissors instead of the more moderate armour degrading system of Warhammer Fantasy

It's been mentioned time and time again but I still believe the best answer to improving Terminators is by giving them 2 wounds.

If you aren't managing to keep models with a 2+/5++ alive, the issue isn't the terminators. Even with AP 2 spam there is only so much even Tau can put on the board and those same weapons are much in demand for taking on vehicles and monstrous creatures. As a general rule I'm probably shooting at those first. A little line of sight blocking terrain and cover, combined with me having to prioritize my shots and you have a few turns to close the gap. A land raider or storm raven will likely buy you a few more.

For Tacticals I could see making them closer to Wolf Guard Terminators (35 ish points a model, power weapon of choice instead of a power fist). The letting everyone upgrade mix and match style with combi weapons, lightning claws, power fists, thunder hammers, storm shields and chain fists being available.

I'd let the Cyclone Missle Launchers be taken in addition to rather than instead of the other special weapons and increase the list of special weapons to include multimeltas and heavy bolters. Maybe reduce the AssCan and Cyclone by 5 points too.

Assault, mostly there I'd go cheaper, give a Chain Fist option and let them take Cyclones. Possibly a grenade harness too. Of I might just say my changes to Tacticals made them potentially assaulty enough and forget assault terminators exist as a seperate unit.

But no, even against Tau, terminators remain one of those units you need to focus a large portion of your army on to kill. This makes them useful because they spare the rest of that army that firepower, or because there are too many threats on the board at once they never have the necissary power leveled against them and they get to jump in and do the damage. You can't rely on them to just work without support anymore though.

I'm gonna agree that extra toughness or wounds is a bit much. A reduction in the cost of men & weapons alongside an increase in weapon selection seems good. I think the heavy weapon set for termies would be complimented by multi meltas . Maybe shred for SBs and CBs.

These are all old ideas seen in old threads that predate the current SM codex. Why didn't GW make ANY of these changes?

I think its because there's already a lot of termi models out there & they wouldn't have sold as many boxes even though the mark up on them is huge. $50 for 5 with painfuly few options in the box.

To do their job, terminators need to be survivable. This means introducing some mechanic to make them not die horribly to massed small arms fire. Plasma being AP 2 is also a serious, serious problem for terminators.

Jefffar wrote:
If you aren't managing to keep models with a 2+/5++ alive, the issue isn't the terminators. Even with AP 2 spam there is only so much even Tau can put on the board and those same weapons are much in demand for taking on vehicles and monstrous creatures. As a general rule I'm probably shooting at those first. A little line of sight blocking terrain and cover, combined with me having to prioritize my shots and you have a few turns to close the gap. A land raider or storm raven will likely buy you a few more.

For Tacticals I could see making them closer to Wolf Guard Terminators (35 ish points a model, power weapon of choice instead of a power fist). The letting everyone upgrade mix and match style with combi weapons, lightning claws, power fists, thunder hammers, storm shields and chain fists being available.

I'd let the Cyclone Missle Launchers be taken in addition to rather than instead of the other special weapons and increase the list of special weapons to include multimeltas and heavy bolters. Maybe reduce the AssCan and Cyclone by 5 points too.

Assault, mostly there I'd go cheaper, give a Chain Fist option and let them take Cyclones. Possibly a grenade harness too. Of I might just say my changes to Tacticals made them potentially assaulty enough and forget assault terminators exist as a seperate unit.

But no, even against Tau, terminators remain one of those units you need to focus a large portion of your army on to kill. This makes them useful because they spare the rest of that army that firepower, or because there are too many threats on the board at once they never have the necissary power leveled against them and they get to jump in and do the damage. You can't rely on them to just work without support anymore though.

Is that meant to be funny? Tau can immediately kill them. By immediately, I mean first turn you WILL have a S8 AP2 large blast put over the top of them which ignores cover. Terminators are bad. Hell, even a modest gunline will kill them easily.

Eyjio wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
If you aren't managing to keep models with a 2+/5++ alive, the issue isn't the terminators. Even with AP 2 spam there is only so much even Tau can put on the board and those same weapons are much in demand for taking on vehicles and monstrous creatures. As a general rule I'm probably shooting at those first. A little line of sight blocking terrain and cover, combined with me having to prioritize my shots and you have a few turns to close the gap. A land raider or storm raven will likely buy you a few more.

For Tacticals I could see making them closer to Wolf Guard Terminators (35 ish points a model, power weapon of choice instead of a power fist). The letting everyone upgrade mix and match style with combi weapons, lightning claws, power fists, thunder hammers, storm shields and chain fists being available.

I'd let the Cyclone Missle Launchers be taken in addition to rather than instead of the other special weapons and increase the list of special weapons to include multimeltas and heavy bolters. Maybe reduce the AssCan and Cyclone by 5 points too.

Assault, mostly there I'd go cheaper, give a Chain Fist option and let them take Cyclones. Possibly a grenade harness too. Of I might just say my changes to Tacticals made them potentially assaulty enough and forget assault terminators exist as a seperate unit.

But no, even against Tau, terminators remain one of those units you need to focus a large portion of your army on to kill. This makes them useful because they spare the rest of that army that firepower, or because there are too many threats on the board at once they never have the necissary power leveled against them and they get to jump in and do the damage. You can't rely on them to just work without support anymore though.

Is that meant to be funny? Tau can immediately kill them. By immediately, I mean first turn you WILL have a S8 AP2 large blast put over the top of them which ignores cover. Terminators are bad. Hell, even a modest gunline will kill them easily.

Even back in 5th back when plasma rifles were on nearly every crisis suit, tau could deal with terminators well because they always had broadsides/crisis suits.

They had issues with Assault terminators that got close, but they could still JSJ well enough to maneuver them.

Late to the party, and haven't read all five pages. I did read about making Terminators more like Paladins. That sounds like a more viable idea. Not exactly like Paladins, but the simple addition of an extra wound for two wounds total would make Terminators much, much more resilient.

Two wounds would allow them to weather all the shooting when they DS, make them more of a tar pit unit in close combat, and make them a little more less susceptible to anti-close combat units.

They would still fear P-fists/T-hammers, Instant Death, plasma, and meltaguns. They would just last a little longer vs. everything else in the game.

This solution doesn't change the entire unit, and could easily be FAQ'd without reprinting every codex or waiting for a new edition.

 Red Marine wrote:

These are all old ideas seen in old threads that predate the current SM codex. Why didn't GW make ANY of these changes?

I think its because there's already a lot of termi models out there & they wouldn't have sold as many boxes even though the mark up on them is huge. $50 for 5 with painfuly few options in the box.

Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Games Workshop balance their game to a casual standard. This basically means that as long as the points costs are within about 30% of being "correct" then it's good enough for them. Competitive players, and players that are even REMOTELY good at high school level mathematics want the game balanced to within 1% or 2% of "correct".

Games Workshop's "play-testing" department plays completely non-optimized lists, and that leads to a lot of things looking balanced, as the level of competitiveness they are tested in isn't really high enough for them to really get a feel for how bad they truly are.

Allow double heavies for Loyalists. BT 2xCML or 2xAC Terminators were perfectly fine (if eye-wateringly expensive) in the old 'dex.

Doubling down on bad weapons won't make terminators good. Both the AC and ML are bad weapons.

Jefffar wrote:
If you aren't managing to keep models with a 2+/5++ alive, the issue isn't the terminators. Even with AP 2 spam there is only so much even Tau can put on the board and those same weapons are much in demand for taking on vehicles and monstrous creatures. As a general rule I'm probably shooting at those first. A little line of sight blocking terrain and cover, combined with me having to prioritize my shots and you have a few turns to close the gap. A land raider or storm raven will likely buy you a few more.

For Tacticals I could see making them closer to Wolf Guard Terminators (35 ish points a model, power weapon of choice instead of a power fist). The letting everyone upgrade mix and match style with combi weapons, lightning claws, power fists, thunder hammers, storm shields and chain fists being available.

I'd let the Cyclone Missle Launchers be taken in addition to rather than instead of the other special weapons and increase the list of special weapons to include multimeltas and heavy bolters. Maybe reduce the AssCan and Cyclone by 5 points too.

Assault, mostly there I'd go cheaper, give a Chain Fist option and let them take Cyclones. Possibly a grenade harness too. Of I might just say my changes to Tacticals made them potentially assaulty enough and forget assault terminators exist as a seperate unit.

I wonder what you play.

It is generally known that terminators are useless compared to the extra bang you can bring using power armoured warriors. This is not opinion-time. These are facts. And no one is better at killing them than Tau. It sounds like you're just afraid that someone at GW will hear people and actually create a viable threat for you at some point.

Jefffar wrote:

But no, even against Tau, terminators remain one of those units you need to focus a large portion of your army on to kill. This makes them useful because they spare the rest of that army that firepower, or because there are too many threats on the board at once they never have the necissary power leveled against them and they get to jump in and do the damage. You can't rely on them to just work without support anymore though.

It's funny, because my Tau friend used these exact arguments, and he was incredibly sure of them... until he started up a Nurgle CSM army.
Then he realised that if you field terminators, that's a huge bunch of points in one place to be destroyed at will. They are not a bullet sponge. They are a point sink. "Too many threats on the board?" For Tau? When I've used my points on making Terminator units? Are you trying to be funny?

Martel732 wrote:
Doubling down on bad weapons won't make terminators good. Both the AC and ML are bad weapons.

We'll just have to agree to disagree there. As I said, though, BT Terminators with dual weapons did just fine until they were removed.

I love the concept of "support". What is "support"? There's nothing I can do to keep shooting armies from targeting exactly what they want except for LOS blocking terrain and being out of range. There is no "support' that makes terminators good or viable. They are T4 dudes who eat 16% of the wounds they are dealt. T4 is now stupid easy to spam wounds against, and it isn't hard at all to cripple a squad of 5.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Doubling down on bad weapons won't make terminators good. Both the AC and ML are bad weapons.

We'll just have to agree to disagree there. As I said, though, BT Terminators with dual weapons did just fine until they were removed.

BT terminators with Tank Hunter that did +1 for pen. I've never seen them without Tank Hunters with that configuration.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Doubling down on bad weapons won't make terminators good. Both the AC and ML are bad weapons.

We'll just have to agree to disagree there. As I said, though, BT Terminators with dual weapons did just fine until they were removed.

By what exactly do you mean "did just fine"? Because I don't think they were doing fine at all in 6th. They were getting erased like every other teq. Neither of their dual weapons could scratch the paint on a Riptide, for example.

Doing fine inasmuch as they were slightly less crappy than regular Space Marine terminators.

Slightly less crappy than terrible is still terrible. Even if they were 30 pts, that's still more than twice a marine and they are statistically no more durable except against AP 3. Let's be honest here, who messes with AP 3 when they can get AP 2 on the cheap now?

But as to not appear to troll, let me see here. If GW wants me to spend *40* pts per terminator, they're going to have to be a lot more fearsome. The current obstacles are volume of fire AND popularity of cheap AP 2. These are non-trivial problems for sure. I think they're going to have to get T5 W2 2+/5++, make stormbolters 30" salvo 2/4 and make the assault cannon ROF 6. This would be competitive with Xeno lists. That's how little they are bringing for 40 pts right now. A big reason is because the powerfist it T-totally useless because they get shot before they can use it.

If your terminators are in a Land Raider, I can't shoot them.

If your terminators are in a Storm Raven, I can't shoot them.

If your terminators are waiting to deep strike, I can't shoot them.

If your terminators are on the field alongside bike or jump units, I won't be shooting them.

If your terminators are on the field alongside heavy support units, I won't be shooting them.

If you want your terminators to be more survivable against Tau, keep them out of harms way until the time is right to close the distance. Give me things that are more pressing to worry about and my attention will be on those. If I spend time attacking a unit that won't be a threat the first couple of turns (like terminators) then I've screwed up because it means one of your immediatly threatening units just got a free pass.

I know the riptide is a scary beast, but it goes down hard and fast to Grav weapons and to a lesser extent Lascannons and Plasma. That big plate is nasty, but it isn't infallible. Fun fact, if you come out of reserves and they use interceptor on the plate, it can't ignore cover and doesn't get the ballistic skill boost. You also get a chance to kill it before your terminators are on the board.

If a model with a 2+/5++ isn't survivable enough, its not the fault of the model.

I would rather see them +2 toughness then +1 toughness +1 wound. To represent that while massively hard to hurt, when something big does hurt them, they die. But it enables them to shrug off massive amounts of small fire. Plus it makes them different from Centurions.

Jefffar wrote:
If your terminators are in a Land Raider, I can't shoot them.

If your terminators are in a Storm Raven, I can't shoot them.

If your terminators are waiting to deep strike, I can't shoot them.

If your terminators are on the field alongside bike or jump units, I won't be shooting them.

If your terminators are on the field alongside heavy support units, I won't be shooting them.

If you want your terminators to be more survivable against Tau, keep them out of harms way until the time is right to close the distance. Give me things that are more pressing to worry about and my attention will be on those. If I spend time attacking a unit that won't be a threat the first couple of turns (like terminators) then I've screwed up because it means one of your immediatly threatening units just got a free pass.

I know the riptide is a scary beast, but it goes down hard and fast to Grav weapons and to a lesser extent Lascannons and Plasma. That big plate is nasty, but it isn't infallible. Fun fact, if you come out of reserves and they use interceptor on the plate, it can't ignore cover and doesn't get the ballistic skill boost. You also get a chance to kill it before your terminators are on the board.

If a model with a 2+/5++ isn't survivable enough, its not the fault of the model.

If only it were that simple. The terminators in transports are just dead points while they are in the transport as well. Meqs lists can't afford that against Xeno lists now. Tau/Eldar can erase multiple squads/vehicles per turn and so I feel that your "solution" is a poor one. Bad units are just bad units and doubling down by trying to make them good is just more points down the rabbit hole. The bottom line is that the terminators could have been more grav bikers or a unit that's actually good. Or at least decent.

If my lowly BA can handle terminators in transports, the mighty Tau/Eldar should have no trouble at all. And I can.

"That big plate is nasty, but it isn't infallible"

Good thing, because when it works, marines just straight up lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rumbleguts wrote:
I would rather see them +2 toughness then +1 toughness +1 wound. To represent that while massively hard to hurt, when something big does hurt them, they die. But it enables them to shrug off massive amounts of small fire. Plus it makes them different from Centurions.

That's cool too. I'm not picky. But 40pts/model is a fething fortune in 6th.

Jefffar wrote:
If your terminators are in a Land Raider, I can't shoot them.

If your terminators are in a Storm Raven, I can't shoot them.

If your terminators are waiting to deep strike, I can't shoot them.

If your terminators are on the field alongside bike or jump units, I won't be shooting them.

If your terminators are on the field alongside heavy support units, I won't be shooting them.

If you want your terminators to be more survivable against Tau, keep them out of harms way until the time is right to close the distance. Give me things that are more pressing to worry about and my attention will be on those. If I spend time attacking a unit that won't be a threat the first couple of turns (like terminators) then I've screwed up because it means one of your immediatly threatening units just got a free pass.

I know the riptide is a scary beast, but it goes down hard and fast to Grav weapons and to a lesser extent Lascannons and Plasma. That big plate is nasty, but it isn't infallible. Fun fact, if you come out of reserves and they use interceptor on the plate, it can't ignore cover and doesn't get the ballistic skill boost. You also get a chance to kill it before your terminators are on the board.

If a model with a 2+/5++ isn't survivable enough, its not the fault of the model.

You're working from the faulty logic that I can field not only a well equipped terminator unit, but a 300~ point container for them while still having a whole army to face you with while this gargantuan point sink... does what exactly? Stays out of harms way apparently.

In ALL of the situations you describe, they aren't doing anything either. You're telling us that the units are fine because if we don't field them you can't kill them. That's fantastic.

I'm telling you that you can't expect terminators (or anything else for that matter) to just walk across no mans land unmolested. You have to use something to get them there or something to keep the enemy busy until the terminators are close enough to do their job.

Land Raiders and Stormravens do the former very effectively. Bikers and high firepower units do the later.

I'm not saying terminators don't need to change, a points going down slightly and an offense going up slightly (about Wolf Guard with slightly cheaper options) would go a long way to helping them out, but they are quite survivable now if you play them with care and thought.

Jefffar wrote:
I'm telling you that you can't expect terminators (or anything else for that matter) to just walk across no mans land unmolested. You have to use something to get them there or something to keep the enemy busy until the terminators are close enough to do their job.

Land Raiders and Stormravens do the former very effectively. Bikers and high firepower units do the later.

I'm not saying terminators don't need to change, a points going down slightly and an offense going up slightly (about Wolf Guard with slightly cheaper options) would go a long way to helping them out, but they are quite survivable now if you play them with care and thought.

*Sigh* I've been playing marines a long time. I've known this for a long time. My primary point is that the terminators themselves aren't worth all the effort of delivering them to a point. And the methods are either a) very expensive or b) very unreliable. There is no amount of care or thought that will save your terminators from Xeno firepower. Xenos can frag fresh squads in a single turn now, and terminators will be exposed sooner or later. Not to mention all the other units you are not taking in order to bring crappy terminators and their marginal delivery systems.

Which is why I say fix their offensive output relative to their points cost (slight increase the former, slight decrease the latter). Trying to make them more survivable through Toughness, Wounds or Saves is only really going to require a points increase and won't make them terribly more effective anyway. The best bet is hard counters to what's killing them.

If they are dying to volume of fire, lay a bunch of big blasts on those masses of troops. Do you have any idea how scary a Whirlwind or Thunderfire is to me as a Tau player? Even with cover I can expect to lose a large chunk of troops. If I brought triptide I don't have many troops to begin with so you've probably prevented me from being able to score. Likewise those weapons are murder on pathfinders or marker drones, removing those means the riptide plate can't ignore cover anymore.

Also bring a lot of Lascannons, they instant death crisis suits and broadsides removing a lot of potential AP 1 and 2 (especially in Farsight lists). They also do a number on Riptides.

Maybe I am looking at this too much as a Tau player. For years we've had to find ways around the weaknesses of a unit while many other codexes had units that were generally strong all around, but to me its more about how the units work together than about how each unit works.

At the rate terminators die, *slight* changes won't work. Compared to a 14 pt meq, they are pitifully not resilient.

Unfortunately, marines can't bring blast weapons, and termiantors, and terminator delivery systems, and lots of lascannons in a balanced list.

Also the unfortunate reality is that Riptides only need to get three or four solid shots in to cripple most marine lists. Three or four whirlwind hits is not crippling any list.

Looking at it from the perspective of even BA, terminators are a "so what?" unit. Their damage output is laughable for their points.

Rumbleguts wrote:
I would rather see them +2 toughness then +1 toughness +1 wound. To represent that while massively hard to hurt, when something big does hurt them, they die. But it enables them to shrug off massive amounts of small fire. Plus it makes them different from Centurions.

I think T6 might be just a bit to much.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Rumbleguts wrote:
I would rather see them +2 toughness then +1 toughness +1 wound. To represent that while massively hard to hurt, when something big does hurt them, they die. But it enables them to shrug off massive amounts of small fire. Plus it makes them different from Centurions.

I think T6 might be just a bit to much.

Why? Wraithguard have it. And better guns. Much better guns.

Wraithguard are just walking suits. Terminators have a person inside. T6 is ridiculously overboard IMO, like T5 Cents.

Jefffar wrote:
Which is why I say fix their offensive output relative to their points cost (slight increase the former, slight decrease the latter). Trying to make them more survivable through Toughness, Wounds or Saves is only really going to require a points increase and won't make them terribly more effective anyway. The best bet is hard counters to what's killing them.

If they are dying to volume of fire, lay a bunch of big blasts on those masses of troops. Do you have any idea how scary a Whirlwind or Thunderfire is to me as a Tau player? Even with cover I can expect to lose a large chunk of troops. If I brought triptide I don't have many troops to begin with so you've probably prevented me from being able to score. Likewise those weapons are murder on pathfinders or marker drones, removing those means the riptide plate can't ignore cover anymore.

Also bring a lot of Lascannons, they instant death crisis suits and broadsides removing a lot of potential AP 1 and 2 (especially in Farsight lists). They also do a number on Riptides.

Maybe I am looking at this too much as a Tau player. For years we've had to find ways around the weaknesses of a unit while many other codexes had units that were generally strong all around, but to me its more about how the units work together than about how each unit works.

Okay, so lets not improve them defensively. A terminator has the survivability of and damage output at range of ~28-30 points of MeQ troops, give or take. That means we need a 10-12 point boost in ranged damage output if we are going to "balance" them.....That's basically assault cannons for ALL tactical terminators to even it out, which sounds about right.

Martel732 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Rumbleguts wrote:
I would rather see them +2 toughness then +1 toughness +1 wound. To represent that while massively hard to hurt, when something big does hurt them, they die. But it enables them to shrug off massive amounts of small fire. Plus it makes them different from Centurions.

I think T6 might be just a bit to much.

Why? Wraithguard have it. And better guns. Much better guns.

Wraithgaurd also are made of waithbone (one of the strongest substances in the universe) and are entirely made of it, not just a person in a suit. They also only have a 3+ save, no invuln, only one attack, a low initiative (for a unit that is both eldar, and often dedicated assaut), and are pretty expensive.
Edit: their guns are also only 12" on a unit that is no very fast, and don't have battle focus.

And we're back to, how do we "fix" the tactical terminators (as most of us seem to agree that the assault terminators are just fine at their job) because the shooty terminators basically suck at theirs. Equal points of power armor marines will outshoot them. I don't want changes to the terminator armor or storm bolters themselves, as any changes made to the specific wargear would apply to all such instances of that wargear throughout the game.
So, what do we do the terminator squad itself, and nothing else?

Points reduction?
Extra (and/or cheaper) heavy weapons?
Special rules that let them reroll missed shots (or get extra shots), or something similar?

Put terminators in a Land Raider, Taudar kill the Land Raider then the terminators.

Put terminators in a Storm Raven, Taudar kill the Storm Raven then the terminators.

Deep strike terminators, Taudar intercept and kill the terminators.

Put terminators alongside bikes or jump pack units, Taudar kill the small number of bikes you can afford after paying for the terminators, then kill the terminators.

Missing anything?

Each five man terminator squad is ten bikes. Just spend those terminator points buying bikes instead. Mobility, toughness, firepower and a Chapter Trait that actually boosts bikes.

Take more bikes.

Kind of inspiration from the Iron Hands legion rules... why not have the strength and AP of ranged weapons fired at them reduced by one. So plasma guns would be s6 ap3. bladestorm would resolve at ap3. Things like powerfists and MC would still force them to fall back to their invulnerable, but for 40 some ppm you should definitely get something cool

Terminators have rules that accurately reflect their role in the fluff. So the only change required is to reprice them.

Points reduction seems to be to most viable fix. However, another option might be an adjustment to the TDA special rules. Allow TDA models the option to start in reserves outside of the 50% limit, with a Deep Strike Assault style rule inherent with wearing TDA. Does not have to be a first turn arrival, but could be an accurate DS, or a free move upon arrival, or a Blind effect upon arrival via "Teleportation Assault". Basically, an inherent ability for TDA take equals the points difference between how much they cost now and how much they should cost.

SJ

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
Terminators have rules that accurately reflect their role in the fluff. So the only change required is to reprice them.

Demonstrably untrue. In the fluff, they are feared. On the table top, they are laughed at.

Seems like a lot of people on here have GW syndrome - when GW screws up a rule or point cost, they "fix" it by changing other things in the game to compensate.

Terminators are fine except for maybe minor tweaking; it's the addition of much more capable enemy firepower that makes them seem unworthy. So when GW throws a few overpowered units into the mix everyone seems to want everything else in the game to be more powerful or cheaper. So if you boost terminators, then what? Oh, now tacticals are underpowered. Oh wait, now its veterans or bikes or nobs and tyranid warriors or whatever!

Quit chasing your tails. The problem rests mainly with the newer (mostly Tau/Eldar) goodies. Fix them instead.

Too late for that. And terminators are a joke for marine lists as well. Grav guns?

And tacticals should be underpowered compared to elites. In fact, I think elites should be the most potent slot for every list, because they can never score. It's called balance.

Jefffar wrote:
If your terminators are in a Land Raider, I can't shoot them.

If your terminators are in a Storm Raven, I can't shoot them.

If your terminators are waiting to deep strike, I can't shoot them.

If your terminators are on the field alongside bike or jump units, I won't be shooting them.

If your terminators are on the field alongside heavy support units, I won't be shooting them.

If you want your terminators to be more survivable against Tau, keep them out of harms way until the time is right to close the distance. Give me things that are more pressing to worry about and my attention will be on those. If I spend time attacking a unit that won't be a threat the first couple of turns (like terminators) then I've screwed up because it means one of your immediatly threatening units just got a free pass.

I know the riptide is a scary beast, but it goes down hard and fast to Grav weapons and to a lesser extent Lascannons and Plasma. That big plate is nasty, but it isn't infallible. Fun fact, if you come out of reserves and they use interceptor on the plate, it can't ignore cover and doesn't get the ballistic skill boost. You also get a chance to kill it before your terminators are on the board.

If a model with a 2+/5++ isn't survivable enough, its not the fault of the model.

I wish Tau players would actually do the math on how many lascannon shots it takes to kill a 2+/5++ Riptide. Not to mention it can be 3++ and FnP.

And you can protect Terminators just fine with Stormravens and Land Raiders, you're right. You just have to pay for units that cost even more than a Riptide and die more easily. Looking at 2+/5++ alone is asinine when you consider the fact that one is on a T4 W1 model and the other is on a MC with jetpacks and 72" range.

Well if you want to compare a 40 point infantry model with a 200 or so point Monstrous Creature, of course you are losing out.

How about allies to apples this time.

I'd say the Eldar Wraithguard and the Necron Wraiths are probably the closest practical equivalent to the terminator. Wraiths are more survivable, but also ridiculously underpriced (a close approximation of their abilities is a Thunderwolf Cavalry with a Storm Shield - 80 points or so). Wraiths have that huge toughness going for them.

But again, survivability isnt the issue to me. It's their cost versus their offensive returns that seems to be the problem.

To be honest, I think what's holding the terminators back is the overcosted Powerfists and Thunderhammers. Assault is not as good as it once was but those weapons are still bein priced to high.

On a tactical terminator with a power weapon we have two examples that cost less than 35 points (Chaos and Space Wolves). They seem to be the right basic price. The extra 5 to 10 for the mandatory Powerfists seems to be the killer. So going to Power weapons and a points cost in the 30 to 35 points range seems to be a reasonable starting point. Then knock down most of the upgrades and you'd have a unit that is tough, but not too tough, has a good offensive punch, and is t so costly that it causes pain when you lose it.

I still wouldn't pay 35 or even 30 pts for a terminator with a power weapon. It's still T4 W1. Garbage. 2+ armor is now overcosted because of weapons available in other lists.

I run a squad of 10 tac terminators with one ass cannon and one CML in a 1500 point battle. With Cassius the unit costs 575 pts and either draws a lot of fire allowing my 6+ tac squads and others to get on with the objectives of the game or gets over the board and causes havoc. I would like more buffs for them but they work for me.

Those terminators won't last long enough against Riptides or grav guns.

Jefffar wrote:
Well if you want to compare a 40 point infantry model with a 200 or so point Monstrous Creature, of course you are losing out.

Terminators are 200 points minimum for 5 wounds T4 2+/5++. Still worse than the Riptide.

Martel732 wrote:
Those terminators won't last long enough against Riptides or grav guns.

Well for a start my opponent has to have a riptide or grav guns! I let him worry about my list rather than be fretting about his deathstar! I usually have 5 or 6 options in my list that are going to be game winners for me.

On a tactical terminator with a power weapon we have two examples that cost less than 35 points (Chaos and Space Wolves). They seem to be the right basic price. The extra 5 to 10 for the mandatory Powerfists seems to be the killer. So going to Power weapons and a points cost in the 30 to 35 points range seems to be a reasonable starting point.

I don't see Space Wolves taking them much anymore.

And Chaos has used them only for Deep Striking Combi-Melta/Plasma.

So it's not like they use them for much besides suicide drops, not exactly good basic price when we don't even wanna use those power weapons.

madd_leeroy wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Those terminators won't last long enough against Riptides or grav guns.

Well for a start my opponent has to have a riptide or grav guns! I let him worry about my list rather than be fretting about his deathstar! I usually have 5 or 6 options in my list that are going to be game winners for me.

Grav bikers aren't death stars. They're just fast troops that massacre terminators. What do you think is going to happen to your troops after your terminators are turned into tin cans by the grav guns? Yup, they're next. I can table a list like you describe with BA. I can't imagine what the good lists will do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

On a tactical terminator with a power weapon we have two examples that cost less than 35 points (Chaos and Space Wolves). They seem to be the right basic price. The extra 5 to 10 for the mandatory Powerfists seems to be the killer. So going to Power weapons and a points cost in the 30 to 35 points range seems to be a reasonable starting point.

I don't see Space Wolves taking them much anymore.

And Chaos has used them only for Deep Striking Combi-Melta/Plasma.

So it's not like they use them for much besides suicide drops, not exactly good basic price when we don't even wanna use those power weapons.

Suicide drops with any meq list is a losing proposition anymore. They can't get cause enough damage to justify it for their cost.

Suicide drops with any meq list is a losing proposition anymore. They can't get cause enough damage to justify it for their cost.

Yeah I stopped using my own terminators once they couldn't even scratch the paint on Wave Serpents.

Just had an idea to make deep striking terminators a little bit better and more resilient to being nuked by an interceptor as soon as they arrive.

How about when deep striking choose two locations where they are deep striking themselves and where their decoy is deep striking. Before interceptor shots are taken but after they are declared, the owner of the termies has to roll to see which of the locations contains the real and which is the decoy, they are then assigned 1-3 on a dice roll, and 4-6, then the opponents interceptor unit has to fire at the target the roll says (if they can see both), so they could end up firing at the decoy. Gives them a 50% of not being fired upon when they deep strike and would waste the interceptors shot in their turn, it would cause the opponent to consider whether their interceptor shot is worth it when facing deep striking termies.

it could probably do with some work rule wise as it's a bit messy but maybe you get the idea....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or just make them immune to interceptor.

Another thing that could help (not enough on its own, but still something) is to let Tactical Terminators take Drop Pods. Combined with some sort of shooting buff (more and stronger weapons) or a hefty cost decrease, that'd mean they'd be able to come down turn 1, shoot some stuff and then be close enough to feasibly be able to use their Power Fists without dropping their shooting potential. This, of course, is dependant on what manner of shooting buffs you give them.

Or we can go the crazy route: Give every Terminator an Assault Cannon standard, with options to upgrade to CML/SB for 5 PPM. At least that way they'd actually pack some ranged punch.

Points cost is not necessarily indicative of performance. Alpha strike ability is a recognized asset. Terminators do not posses this, not even in the slightest. Were a unit of terminators to DS next to a similarly priced unit they'd fail to destroy it, and likely be butchered by said units response. Whatever purpose they once had they can no longer fulfill. Part of this argument is just trying to figure out what they NEED, what they truly need to be useful again. People have agreed they need a points drop, but to what end? I used to use them to handle MCs and deathstars in earlier editions. With their (once) great staying power and PFs they could grind down anything. Now-a-days they'd never catch anything, and if they did they'd just die. Just making them cheaper is a start. But they need more offensive capability. The extra heavy weapon is good. How about master crafted though? They are the elites of the Elites, so making all of their weapons mastercrafted would help and be fluffy. Now your adding 2 or 3 extra hits at ranged and HH without wacky special rules, just good old fashioned Master Crafted. Also their resillence was once their greatest asset. Now its so-so and certainly not worth 40 points. what about making their invulnerable save re-rollable? Just the 5++. So a termie with a SS would get his 3++ , and if that failed he'd get a 5++ re-roll. So...

All weapons Master Crafted?

5++ re-rollable?

With a points drop and additional heavy weapons?

Rather then re-rollable, just make it a natural 4++ (Thus glorious 3++ for Tzeentch Chaos! )

On the deep strike Deathwing count all ranged weapons as twin-linked. It doesn't help.

Basically terminator guns are pretty pathetic. Strength 6 AP4? A two shot missile launcher?

Making storm bolters salvo 3/2 weapons (which would always be 3 shot on relentless terminators) would be a start. They'd still only be bolter shots, but at least there'd be more of them.

In 2nd edition the assault cannon was basically a multi-shot missile launcher. Making it 24" S8 AP4 Heavy 4 rending would be a decent improvement.

The cyclone in 2nd had a salvo function where you could fire off all of its 12 missiles in one glorious salvo that gave you a 6" diameter krak missile blast and krak missiles back then were good.

Whilst we don't need the book keeping that individual missile shots have, perhaps making it more like a thunder fire cannon (regarded as a decent piece of kit) with the barrage function and perhaps an anti-air option.

Chaos do need something too. They suck only marginally less hard than loyalists.

As before, making changes to the rules of TDA or Stormbolters requires ensuring that other armies that use them (GK stormbolters) don't get upset as well. Thus we want to keep changes as small as possible.

I'm currently in the camp that says that points-reduction will make Terminators seen at least a bit more often than they currently are seen (not at all). However a small change restricted to Terminator Storm Bolters (Special Issue Ammunition maybe) would also help make them usable)

I'd say about a 4-7 point redaction in most TDA-armored units would do it. TDA at 32-35ppm (TH/SS still potentially costing a bit more), Wolf Guard/CSM being a few more than than Honor Guard (28 or so I'd guess). The 2+ save is exactly twice as good as a 3+, so any extra points above 2xtactical needs to be worthwhile.

This might be a stupid idea but what if.....

You made them AV10 vehicles?

Still not too hard to take out with expensive weapons, but immune to ap2 bull honkey

Honestly I don't see a future for terminators in a meta that includes stronghold assault and escalation.

In alternative metas a cost drop, double special weapons, and maybe something else would make them a bit more optimal.

One idea I like is to not have them mishap if they teleport in on top of an enemy unit, and instead blind the enemy unit and/or are treated as charging in close combat.

 changerofways wrote:
This might be a stupid idea but what if.....

You made them AV10 vehicles?

Still not too hard to take out with expensive weapons, but immune to ap2 bull honkey

I haven't seen an AP 2 weapon that couldn't penetrate AV 10, but now they have no saving through vs Bolters or Pulse Rifles or Guass Weapons.

A small cost reduction in line with the proliferation of AP-2 available wouldn't be out of line, but I don't believe they'd need much if anything apart from a meta-game shift where quantity of fire is much better than quality. (the reverse is the case currently)

Some units have to be less powerful in order for there to be more efficient units and maintain some semblance of balance. 2+ armor is just one of the victims of that policy; with the release of efficient and plentiful counter-measures found in the most recent codexes.

in time things will swing back the other way again, it always does.

"Some units have to be less powerful in order for there to be more efficient units and maintain some semblance of balance. "

That is the very definition of *imbalance*. If unit A is less powerful than unit B *it should cost fewer points*. It's not just 2+ armor. It's also paying for a near useless powerfist. It's also stormbolters getting worse with respect to bolters in 6th.

I don't want to wait to play a fair game. I can go play plenty of other fair games right now without waiting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 changerofways wrote:
This might be a stupid idea but what if.....

You made them AV10 vehicles?

Still not too hard to take out with expensive weapons, but immune to ap2 bull honkey

It's not just AP 2. It's also weight of fire. Terminators have so many problems in the current state of the game, any necessary changes would break with "tradition". They are likely on permanent mothball.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thariinye wrote:
As before, making changes to the rules of TDA or Stormbolters requires ensuring that other armies that use them (GK stormbolters) don't get upset as well. Thus we want to keep changes as small as possible.

I'm currently in the camp that says that points-reduction will make Terminators seen at least a bit more often than they currently are seen (not at all). However a small change restricted to Terminator Storm Bolters (Special Issue Ammunition maybe) would also help make them usable)

I'd say about a 4-7 point redaction in most TDA-armored units would do it. TDA at 32-35ppm (TH/SS still potentially costing a bit more), Wolf Guard/CSM being a few more than than Honor Guard (28 or so I'd guess). The 2+ save is exactly twice as good as a 3+, so any extra points above 2xtactical needs to be worthwhile.

The 2+ save is twice as good, but the terminator only has one wound, whereas an equivalent amount of tac marines have more than one wound. This makes the terminator less than twice as durable, and only 1.333X more durable against AP 2. And exactly the same durability if the marines are in shrubbery.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
After further consideration, you can't make terminators live up to the fluff without addressing the durability issue. So I can't agree with the people who want to take that off the table. GW should have never make centurions and fixed terminators instead.

I'm thinking the route to improvement might be a Deep Strike via Teleportation special rule. The new Stronghold Assault book suggests allowing Teleporting units to arrive inside of Fortifications (although no rules for this were printed). How about a "Teleportation Assault" rule that allows precision Deep Strike via Teleportation? No scatter, can arrive inside Forts, etc. Remove the transport tax, lets you place them where you want be it out of LoS or right next to a juicy target you want pressured.

That worth the 5pt overage we want reduced?

SJ

No. Because starting in reserves sucks. The unit is not contributing from turn 1.

I don't know about you, but putting stuff out of LOS has a tendency to also put stuff 2 or 3 turns away from the target on foot.

There's also no guarantee of having a useful out of LOS spot available. So we are back to the old "teleport down, stand there for a turn like idiots and then get obliterated on the opponent's next turn." I can not tell you how many terminators I have slagged in 5th and 6th edition this way. The dead turn on any non-shooting deep striker is murder.

Part of it is that Xeno lists don't have that many targets to worry about in marine lists that bring lots of troops. Because tactical marines aren't threatening my grandmother and they can be eliminated casually after all the stuff that might actually do some damage is dead. Yeah, there's grav bikers now. That's one of the primary improvements of the new marine book, but they are even more elite than the 16 pt marines from 5th edition. A turn of bad saves absolutely destroys a bike list.

Give them a different version of Stern Guard special Ammo would do a lot to help them I would think.

That would help, but the Sternguard would still be better since they would get twice as many model with the special ammo. And about the same durability against non-AP 3. Twice as much firepower, same durability, same points. You have a very good idea, but it really highlights the limitations of non-MC, non-multiple W elite models.

Starting in a vehicle is a 2-3 turn delay, just like starting in reserves. However, reserves is free while vehicles are not. As to accurate Deep Striking, I do fairly well with my Mordrak Bomb, arriving on turn 1 without scatter exactly where I want his unit to arrive, followed by a turn 2 arrival of more TDA (if the Libby survives, which he always does so far). So yeah, I can see the benefit of a Teleportation special rule that could give TDA a tax free transport to where they need to be unmolested by anti-TEQ fire.

SJ

I can assault turn 1 from a vehicle if need be. Reserves is turn 3 assault at the SOONEST. I've won or lost games by turn 3. This is a non-fix. Trying to evade fire in this game is almost completely dependent on terrain. Waiting till turn 3 to get shot off the board just makes it so your opponent has less choices of what to vaporize on his turn.

Martel732 wrote:
"Some units have to be less powerful in order for there to be more efficient units and maintain some semblance of balance. "

That is the very definition of *imbalance*. If unit A is less powerful than unit B *it should cost fewer points*. It's not just 2+ armor. It's also paying for a near useless powerfist. It's also stormbolters getting worse with respect to bolters in 6th.

I don't want to wait to play a fair game. I can go play plenty of other fair games right now without waiting.

Could not disagree more. If every unit was as efficient points-wise as the 'best' units in each codex, not only would most of the strategy inherent in list-building be removed (since everything in a given 'dex would be redundantly equal with anything else in it) but the relative power level of each codex would be drastically higher as well.

With that each new book would either be functionally the same as the prior ones (and mostly pointless as a result) or an obvious leap in power in every aspect over everything published previously. ( power creep, essentially) Neither of these scenarios are good for overall game balance. (let alone sales)

In order to have balance at all: there needs to be a small amount of obviously good units, there needs to be a small amount of obviously bad units, and there needs to be a larger pool of potentially and situationally good units to choose from; and these need to change from time to time as new editions, rules, and codexes get published.

I like terminators as much as the next guy, but there isn't a good way to make them 'the new hotness' without some sort of metagame-shifting rules update. For this edition it's all about the fliers, the monstrous creatures, and the shooters. Maybe in 7th they'll have their day in the sun again?

In order to have balance at all: there needs to be a small amount of obviously good units, there needs to be a small amount of obviously bad units, and there needs to be a larger pool of potentially and situationally good units to choose from; and these need to change from time to time as new editions, rules, and codexes get published.

So basically, there should be units that cost a very expensive amount of money just to suck.

Could not disagree more. If every unit was as efficient points-wise as the 'best' units in each codex, not only would most of the strategy inherent in list-building be removed (since everything in a given 'dex would be redundantly equal with anything else in it) but the relative power level of each codex would be drastically higher as well.

Not even referring to his argument at all. What he's saying if Unit X and Unit Y have the same things, they would cost the same. If Unit Y had Special Rule X, they would cost more, not even remotely close to "Everything should be equal at all times despite being very different units,"

"In order to have balance at all: there needs to be a small amount of obviously good units, there needs to be a small amount of obviously bad units, and there needs to be a larger pool of potentially and situationally good units to choose from; and these need to change from time to time as new editions, rules, and codexes get published. "

That is blatantly false. Each unit's cost should be directly proportional to its efficacy on the tabletop. End of discussion. There do not need to be any bad units at all, because I've played many games with far fewer bad units than 40K.

Give them 2 wounds and eternal warrior with a points increase. Done.

Pancakey wrote:
Give them 2 wounds and eternal warrior with a points increase. Done.

Nah, their offense would still suck.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

So basically, there should be units that cost a very expensive amount of money just to suck.

For the overall health of the game? yes, absolutely.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Not even referring to his argument at all. What he's saying if Unit X and Unit Y have the same things, they would cost the same. If Unit Y had Special Rule X, they would cost more, not even remotely close to "Everything should be equal at all times despite being very different units,"

I'm saying that unit X and unit Y (and unit Z, and unit etc...) Cannot all cost the same, even if they have the same rules and the same comparative utility. In order to make any given army selection relevant, there has to be better and worse choices that could be made in it's place.

Martel732 wrote:That is blatantly false. Each unit's cost should be directly proportional to its efficacy on the tabletop. End of discussion. There do not need to be any bad units at all, because I've played many games with far fewer bad units than 40K.

Congratulations. Your observations (while interesting) are statistically insignificant. I can tell you that balancing the game based on your chosen metric is bad for the game, as it would render pointless the publication of different codexes and very quickly result in stagnation of gameplay due to the removal of most list building and tactical considerations.

For the overall health of the game? yes, absolutely.

This isn't MTG, where some cards are good for draft, and worthless for constructed and vice versa, you cannot have an expensive hobby and do so.

I'm saying that unit X and unit Y (and unit Z, and unit etc...) Cannot all cost the same, even if they have the same rules and the same comparative utility. In order to make any given army selection relevant, there has to be better and worse choices that could be made in it's place.

Or they could be taken based on unit role, or a perfect imbalance. What you are suggesting is just straight imbalance.

"Congratulations. Your observations (while interesting) are statistically insignificant. I can tell you that balancing the game based on your chosen metric is bad for the game, as it would render pointless the publication of different codexes and very quickly result in stagnation of gameplay due to the removal of most list building and tactical considerations."

So this is why Starcraft has an order of magnitude (or more) more players than 40K? It has balanced units and far from a stagnant meta. If a unit gets underused, Blizzard tweaks it to make it more desirable. That's what I'm talking about. Once these codices go to print, it's all over. The codices need to be online and updated in real time based on table results. Just a bit ago, mutalisk play was too dominant in Zerg vs Zerg, so they boosted the spore tower against biological units (mutalisks). GW doesn't even pretend to care like this.

Starcraft is FAR more tactical than 40K because there are no wave serpent equivalent units. When I choose to push, what units I build, etc are all in play.

There doesn't have to be BETTER and WORSE choices, there just has to be different, but equally valid choices.

It doesn't have to be MtG for the game design theory to be relevant. The way GW has been doing it for years has been artificially raising and lowering the 'value' of the models they sell with edition and codex changes to encourage their player-base to purchase as many of them as possible.

here is the cycle they use now:
new codex is released. GW sells lots of models of the most obviously useful examples found therein.
Sales of the new models wane as people have purchased as many as they need and/or more indepth analysis of their utility occurs.
new codex is released. Models in said codex are specifically designed to either contribute to or be a counter to the dominant metagame caused by the previous release.
Sales of the new models wane as people have purchased as many as they need and/or more indepth analysis of their utility occurs.

With your 'balancing' example appled:
new codex is released. GW sells lots of models of the most obviously useful examples found therein.
Sales of the new models wane as people have purchased as many as they need.
No one buys any more models until GW releases a new codex that has more powerful models than the current standard. (resulting in either massive power creep over time, or codexes simply not selling due to lack of interest)

But GW isn't even that clever. The mysteriously leave units they could be selling as garbage for multiple editions.

Martel732 wrote:
So this is why Starcraft has an order of magnitude (or more) more players than 40K?

If I had to guess, A) it's because it's orders of magnitude cheaper to purchase and to play B) can be tweaked in something resembling real time in response to game imbalances in order to insure competitive gameplay.

What blizzard can do with monthly patches can take GW an entire 'edition' (so half a decade or so?) to accomplish.

GW could change how they roll out the codices. Stop using print codices and make up the sales on balanced units.

Martel732 wrote:
But GW isn't even that clever. The mysteriously leave units they could be selling as garbage for multiple editions.

Because like I said, some models have to be obviously poor selections in order for all players to have tactical considerations to make.

Even the worst players need to be able to point at two different units and confidently say 'this one is good' and 'this one is bad' in order to have a reason to select one from the other. The only way to insure this can happen is for some units to cost more than they should or simply suck in other obvious ways compared to other models.

 Neorealist wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But GW isn't even that clever. The mysteriously leave units they could be selling as garbage for multiple editions.

Because like I said, some models have to be obviously poor selections in order for all players to have tactical considerations to make.

Even the worst players need to be able to point at two different units and confidently say 'this one is good' and 'this one is bad' in order to have a reason to select one from the other. The only way to insure this can happen is for some units to cost more than they should or simply suck in other obvious ways compared to other models.

That is such wrong-headed thinking. It is far superior to have one unit be good in X, Y, Z cases and another unit be good in A, B, C cases, but have neither one be "superior" to the other for the points.

Martel732 wrote:
That is such wrong-headed thinking. It is far superior to have one unit be good in X, Y, Z cases and another unit be good in A, B, C cases, but have neither one be "superior" to the other for the points.

True, however that is functionally impossible to sustain. Even if every single unit in every single codex was perfectly balanced with every single codex that came before it (with the unbelievable amount of complexity and errata such a situation would inevitably accrue), you cannot assure this will remain the case for units and rules you haven't even 'designed' yet. (ie: future codexes).

As they cannot, so they don't.

 Neorealist wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That is such wrong-headed thinking. It is far superior to have one unit be good in X, Y, Z cases and another unit be good in A, B, C cases, but have neither one be "superior" to the other for the points.

True, however that is functionally impossible to sustain. Even if every single unit in every single codex was perfectly balanced with every single codex that came before it (with the unbelievable amount of complexity and errata such a situation would inevitably accrue), you cannot assure this will remain the case for units and rules you haven't even 'designed' yet. (ie: future codexes).

As they cannot, so they don't.

Blizzard does a damn good job. And if Codex A is balanced with Codex B, then when codex C comes out, you just have to maintain balance, not balance ahead of time. Some concepts are universal like anti-tank, anti-infantry, anti-air. If you make sure that all those concepts are balanced in each codex against a standard, then all codices will be close to each other.

Basically, you're saying its hard, so we get the Wave Serpent. Feth that.

So my -1 to strength and ap of weapons fired at them idea is a no go then?

I'll be doing a playtest with this tomorrow (today? ...2am here) to see if that makes them worth their 40+ppm cost. I'll let ya know the results.

I think that's an interesting idea StarHunter, but I think a defensive boost needs to go along with some kind of offense boost too. Otherwise, they won't even be a threat.

 StarHunter25 wrote:
So my -1 to strength and ap of weapons fired at them idea is a no go then?

I'll be doing a playtest with this tomorrow (today? ...2am here) to see if that makes them worth their 40+ppm cost. I'll let ya know the results.

Hrmmm... what ap is a lascannon again? Can't remember what guns are ap 2 and ap1 anymore blah. But this seems like a far better direction! Do tell about the results! Also AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Run away! Don't kill me StarHunter.

Reduce the number of special weapons in armies, because currently, every model has one...

Martel732 wrote:
Starcraft is FAR more tactical than 40K because there are no wave serpent equivalent units. When I choose to push, what units I build, etc are all in play.

There doesn't have to be BETTER and WORSE choices, there just has to be different, but equally valid choices.

Can we even compare them? The other is a slowly played turn based tabletop game, the other is fast-paced real time strategy game that requires quick reflexes, multitasking, and handling micro- and macromanagement simultaneously.
They are played differently, even though they both share the common feature: strategy.
Starcraft has a medium-light strategic value, since it emphasises speed and reaction time. Its real prowess relies on small to big tactical moves that decide the course of the game. It is more like an action-strategy than a full-fledged strategy game.
40K and many other tabletop games have a strong effect on strategic AND tactical level since it's turn-based, and there's usually no hurry to make your moves - ergo having much more time to think about your next moves... and think what the opponent's next trick woule most likely be. It's like chess, but on steroids.

I'm pretty aware of the GW's inability to balance the game properly - on the other hand, the perfectly balanced game wouldn't be fun, and that has been proven in various cases. I'm not implying that I'm supporting the current balance issues of the 40K, but meaning that bringing it to the maximum would also cause issues. Even Starcraft is not perfectly balanced, but Blizzard and creators of League of Legends have reached pretty close how to use this small imbalance factor in their games. Extra Credits tell about this thing better, so I suggest that you'd check their presentation out in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w

------------

I've also been thinking the issue of "outdated" Terminators, as the discussion has progressed on this topic. I'd be ready to use Terminators much more often for a single change:
Give the damn Sergeant a chance to change his wargear more effectively! He's a bleeding veteran! At least let him change his lousy power sword to another power weapon... or power fist! I DESPISE the fact, that the squad leader deals the weakest yet fastest hit. It wouldn't hurt if he'd have an access to Combi-weapons too.

If this would read in the codex, I'd be damn happy:
"Terminator Sergeant may take items from Terminator Weapons list."

 Tigramans wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Starcraft is FAR more tactical than 40K because there are no wave serpent equivalent units. When I choose to push, what units I build, etc are all in play.

There doesn't have to be BETTER and WORSE choices, there just has to be different, but equally valid choices.

Can we even compare them? The other is a slowly played turn based tabletop game, the other is fast-paced real time strategy game that requires quick reflexes, multitasking, and handling micro- and macromanagement simultaneously.
They are played differently, even though they both share the common feature: strategy.
Starcraft has a medium-light strategic value, since it emphasises speed and reaction time. Its real prowess relies on small to big tactical moves that decide the course of the game. It is more like an action-strategy than a full-fledged strategy game.
40K and many other tabletop games have a strong effect on strategic AND tactical level since it's turn-based, and there's usually no hurry to make your moves - ergo having much more time to think about your next moves... and think what the opponent's next trick woule most likely be. It's like chess, but on steroids.

They have different time frames, but both fundamentally deal with opposing armies governed by a range of variable numerical values. These numbers can be tweaked, and this will effect the balance, so they are comparable imo. Would it be great if GW could do as Blizzard does to make the game competitive? Yes, but then they would have to lose the revenue from their overpriced books as publishing codices online would be the only viable way to do this. (Or ever updating codices downloaded to tablet, although I hope to god this doesn't happen. Having to buy a tablet to support my plastic crack addiction would be too much).

The downside to this of course is that powergaming in SC2 involves using your vitual resources to make what you deem to be the most OP combination. In W40K power gaming involves spending real world money. Suddenly nerfing lists that people had spent hundreds of dollars/pound to build would be a hard pill for the community to swallow.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

The downside to this of course is that powergaming in SC2 involves using your vitual resources to make what you deem to be the most OP combination. In W40K power gaming involves spending real world money. Suddenly nerfing lists that people had spent hundreds of dollars/pound to build would be a hard pill for the community to swallow.

You nailed it. Money decides.
Also, GW sucks handling the good pricing. Whenever someone says out loud that GW should lower their prices, one of their employees drops a spoon and the whole production line becomes quiet for a second.

Make them 30pts base so they can compete points-wise with Honor Guard, give a 5man squad the option to take a pod, let them take 2 Heavy Weapons no matter the squad size, and let the sergeant change his weaponry.

So, it's the ability to sweep and an extra attack (due to BP/PW) for the power fist, +5 Invuln Save, and the ability to teleport (though I'd probably give them a pod if i had the option to) in terms of combat ability, where as the Terminators would finally maybe be able to compete with Sternguard if you could take a small, cheaper squad with some Missiles or Assault Cannons. Heck, Heavy Flamers and the option to be decent in combat is still good, too.

Storm Shields + Hammers cost +10pts per model, so their survivability and damage capability is at least somewhat moderated by points cost in compared to what a LC one would be, as it's still a no brainer at +5ppm.

I think they (alongside the other ridiculously expensive near-useless elite units, like Lychguard) need 2W/T5, if not both.

Then you have 45 points for T5 2+/3++ 2W tank that throws 2 S8 AP2 attacks after being charged.

That sounds reasonable to me.

In the brackets I mentioned Lychguards, which cost the same as Termies and are a lot less difficult to kill. a 2+ save & 2W fixes them, and for 40 points you then have a T5 2+ 2W model that throws 2 S7 AP1 attacks after being charged.

+1 W&T seems to work as a fix for me (+1 W & -1 S) for the Lychguard

 Neorealist wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But GW isn't even that clever. The mysteriously leave units they could be selling as garbage for multiple editions.

Because like I said, some models have to be obviously poor selections in order for all players to have tactical considerations to make.

Even the worst players need to be able to point at two different units and confidently say 'this one is good' and 'this one is bad' in order to have a reason to select one from the other. The only way to insure this can happen is for some units to cost more than they should or simply suck in other obvious ways compared to other models.

Even Tzeentch lingered for a moment bewildered.

Choosing a unit should be for what purpouse said unit can perform, not chosen to not be chosen because it was unfavorably ballanced so you can choose a better unit over it, thats the inferior units sole purpouse, to not be chosen over others, to not be used.

That dosent fly, and economiclly dosent work either because now you have these unsellable boxes of useless units in a store occypying shelf space that could be used to sell more worthwhile units instead.

That GW would make a mold, shelf its models in stores for years, so it takes up valuable shelf space for more attractive models with better stats to teach new players to not choose and to not buy certain models based on their stat lines foregoing profits in the process by making the inferior unsellable product compete, not with other minature companies but with GW's own brand by taking up valuable shelf space.

Thats a bit hard to swallow.

I would probably stay away from the +1 W, if only to avoid making them the sames stats as centurions, but more mobile and 30% cheaper. The more I mull it over, I like +1T, but for all terminator armour. It would make terminator characters more of an option over bike characters, which seem to be auto takes now.

I think they should probably either get a cost decrease as well, as I think their powerfists are overvalued, or some sort of offensive buff to make them appropriately powerful as throw away units. Perhaps give them access to assault 2 versions of sternguard ammo to avoid buffing GK? Salvo 2/4 seems reasonable until you think about how much fire a PAGK squad can put out if it's stationary. There is always the option of making a 'new' stormbolter exclusive to the non-GK codices.

Oh, and I'd like to add my vote against Neorealists ideas. There should be no bad units in a tabletop miniature game. GW can make their money by making new awesome models, not by making my current ones rules so bad that I have to either pony up or lose. How many people who already had sternguard bought the new ones because the box was just so awesome?

Just a heads up, its going to be 750 of my CSM -vs- my buddy's deathwing. I'm using zhufor + some khorne CSM, and actually buying plasma pistols for my zerkers. I'll throw up a quick AAR here, but I did some dice rolling and it seemed to make termies worth it. But as we all know mathhammer =/= actual gameplay.

Things like boltguns termies literally laugh at, as a bunch of what come into be effectively s3 shots barely scratch the paint, while lasguns are almost completely ignored

And as an addendum, I'm going to pose it to my group to make this a BRB homemade USR, so we can apply it to other units with 2+/something++ t4/1w that are largely useless, but are usually perceived as being able to soak ridiculous amount of damage for their size.

The idea that GW should balance their games like M:TG is absolutely bizarre.

M:TG uses an entirely different model of purchasing game pieces than 40k, where you buy a pack (or a box) and you have the chance to get "good" cards or "bad" cards every time. Granted, you do have the option of buying singles to build your deck at a premium, but in order to do so, somebody had to buy the packs/boxes to open them up and sell individually. Anybody who sells the individual cards is not devoting a lot of shelf space (just binder space usually, sometimes a showcase with other cards) to do so. Now the cost to Hasbro to make these cards is somewhat minimal...they have the R&D and then just printing the cards, they can easily cover the cost of the "bad" cards as part of the overhead.

Meanwhile, with 40K, GW sells the kits individually (except, of course, for the occasional bundle pack). Each kit has to be sculpted, boxed, and then sent to whichever store is going to sell them.

A bad card in M:TG just takes up space in the store binder, occasionally sold as an impulse buy to some player trying to find the next Necropotence (usually at what, a couple of bucks?). A bad unit for 40K means boxes sitting on the shelf at the store at $50.00+, or in GW's warehouses waiting for orders that never come.

It's in GW's best interests to make all models "good" in some way or fashion in order to make certain that they are moving the product that it takes money to design and manufacture.

Now, that being said, Terminators in the background are incredibly resilient and the tactical ones are shooty. Perhaps the big problem right now is indeed an issue with the metagame, however it is in GW's best interests to address this as right now the end effect is that Terminators are just $50.00 fill-in boxes for shelves.

M:TG uses an entirely different model of purchasing game pieces than 40k, where you buy a pack (or a box) and you have the chance to get "good" cards or "bad" cards every time.

And even then the 'Bad' cards are better for different formats like Draft.

Someone should make an app that allows you to 'draft' a 40k list, so that we can all use our terminator models again.

nobody wrote:
The idea that GW should balance their games like M:TG is absolutely bizarre.

M:TG uses an entirely different model of purchasing game pieces than 40k, where you buy a pack (or a box) and you have the chance to get "good" cards or "bad" cards every time. Granted, you do have the option of buying singles to build your deck at a premium, but in order to do so, somebody had to buy the packs/boxes to open them up and sell individually. Anybody who sells the individual cards is not devoting a lot of shelf space (just binder space usually, sometimes a showcase with other cards) to do so. Now the cost to Hasbro to make these cards is somewhat minimal...they have the R&D and then just printing the cards, they can easily cover the cost of the "bad" cards as part of the overhead.

Meanwhile, with 40K, GW sells the kits individually (except, of course, for the occasional bundle pack). Each kit has to be sculpted, boxed, and then sent to whichever store is going to sell them.

A bad card in M:TG just takes up space in the store binder, occasionally sold as an impulse buy to some player trying to find the next Necropotence (usually at what, a couple of bucks?). A bad unit for 40K means boxes sitting on the shelf at the store at $50.00+, or in GW's warehouses waiting for orders that never come.

It's in GW's best interests to make all models "good" in some way or fashion in order to make certain that they are moving the product that it takes money to design and manufacture.

Now, that being said, Terminators in the background are incredibly resilient and the tactical ones are shooty. Perhaps the big problem right now is indeed an issue with the metagame, however it is in GW's best interests to address this as right now the end effect is that Terminators are just $50.00 fill-in boxes for shelves.

This is why Starcraft is a better model for balancing. If there are units seeing constant use, nerf them, and buff model that never get used.

Martel732 wrote:

nobody wrote:
The idea that GW should balance their games like M:TG is absolutely bizarre.

M:TG uses an entirely different model of purchasing game pieces than 40k, where you buy a pack (or a box) and you have the chance to get "good" cards or "bad" cards every time. Granted, you do have the option of buying singles to build your deck at a premium, but in order to do so, somebody had to buy the packs/boxes to open them up and sell individually. Anybody who sells the individual cards is not devoting a lot of shelf space (just binder space usually, sometimes a showcase with other cards) to do so. Now the cost to Hasbro to make these cards is somewhat minimal...they have the R&D and then just printing the cards, they can easily cover the cost of the "bad" cards as part of the overhead.

Meanwhile, with 40K, GW sells the kits individually (except, of course, for the occasional bundle pack). Each kit has to be sculpted, boxed, and then sent to whichever store is going to sell them.

A bad card in M:TG just takes up space in the store binder, occasionally sold as an impulse buy to some player trying to find the next Necropotence (usually at what, a couple of bucks?). A bad unit for 40K means boxes sitting on the shelf at the store at $50.00+, or in GW's warehouses waiting for orders that never come.

It's in GW's best interests to make all models "good" in some way or fashion in order to make certain that they are moving the product that it takes money to design and manufacture.

Now, that being said, Terminators in the background are incredibly resilient and the tactical ones are shooty. Perhaps the big problem right now is indeed an issue with the metagame, however it is in GW's best interests to address this as right now the end effect is that Terminators are just $50.00 fill-in boxes for shelves.

This is why Starcraft is a better model for balancing. If there are units seeing constant use, nerf them, and buff model that never get used.

Oh I agree, I was just posting my confusion at the idea that GW should spend the several thousand putting together molds for "bad" units.

I'm confused by that as well.

Models in terminator Armour can choose to double tap their storm bolter, or fire it as normal with sternguard ammo, models in terminator Armour have FNP, models in terminator Armour are immune to interceptor shots and lastly, a terminator squad may choose one turn per game to re-roll failed saves (must be declared at the start of an opponents turn).

That's actually the best set of suggestions yet, I think. Although how important is immune to interceptor?

I'd probably say, once per game a squad of terminators can attack in close combat with their powerfists ignoring the unwieldy rule.

Deep strike in, immune to interceptor, unleash their firepower, opponents turn, they activate their armour save re-roll, next turn they fire and charge into their target, striking at initiative with their powerfists.

A very very very strong counter unit, but after the first two turns they lose their buffs and become their normal selves, except the FNP business for a slight boost.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I'd probably say, once per game a squad of terminators can attack in close combat with their powerfists ignoring the unwieldy rule.

Deep strike in, immune to interceptor, unleash their firepower, opponents turn, they activate their armour save re-roll, next turn they fire and charge into their target, striking at initiative with their powerfists.

A very very very strong counter unit, but after the first two turns they lose their buffs and become their normal selves, except the FNP business for a slight boost.

Now that is interesting...perhaps make it so Relentless units don't strike at I1 when using Unwieldy weapons?

1+ armor save

Sorry, I am not being productive today. Just ignore me.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Models in terminator Armour can choose to double tap their storm bolter, or fire it as normal with sternguard ammo, models in terminator Armour have FNP, models in terminator Armour are immune to interceptor shots and lastly, a terminator squad may choose one turn per game to re-roll failed saves (must be declared at the start of an opponents turn).

As I calculate:
AP 3+
S1: 1/54 WPS
S2: 1/54 WPS
S3: 1/27 WPS
S4: 1/18 WPS
S5: 2/27 WPS
S6: 5/54 WPS
S7: 5/54 WPS
S8: 5/36 WPS
S9: 5/36 WPS
S10: 5/36 WPS

AP 2-
S1: 1/9 WPS
S2: 1/9 WPS
S3: 2/9 WPS
S4: 3/9 WPS
S5: 4/9 WPS
S6: 5/9 WPS
S7: 5/9 WPS
S8: 5/6 WPS
S9: 5/6 WPS
S10: 5/6 WPS

I think 99% of us agree they need a points drop & an extra heavy weapon at the bare minimum. Let's say 5 termies & 2 ACs for 200 points?

As for their toughness its a little divided: some saying extra toughness &/or wounds, while more are suggesting some help in the invulnerable save area.

The terminators movement still needs a little discussion IMHO. I like the idea of TPing rendering termies immune to Intercept. TPing is suposed to be THEE most rapid deployment. There should be something more than just normal DS to it. But maybe more? I think its unique (sorta) to termiess, & TPing into the middle of an army is part of why termies need TDA. It also goes well with the suggestions of one time buffs. The idea being that termies come in hard & have a better chance than most to pull it off. The other option is the Land Raider. Maybe a tiny points reduction, like assault marines get?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I'd probably say, once per game a squad of terminators can attack in close combat with their powerfists ignoring the unwieldy rule.

Deep strike in, immune to interceptor, unleash their firepower, opponents turn, they activate their armour save re-roll, next turn they fire and charge into their target, striking at initiative with their powerfists.

A very very very strong counter unit, but after the first two turns they lose their buffs and become their normal selves, except the FNP business for a slight boost.

Now that is interesting...perhaps make it so Relentless units don't strike at I1 when using Unwieldy weapons?

If you take into account the other buffs I suggested with the one per game Armour reroll, and FNP, I wouldn't want Thunder Hammer termies to be buffed too much, hence why make it for powerfists only, it buffs them once a game...

I see it as giving them adequate enough buffs to shoot, survive and then assault after deep striking to attack their target, which should be some big unit in the opposing army... It's fluffy at least, called in to tackle the big nasties as an elite counter unit.

Just take a good amount of the AP2 in the game and make it AP3.

The only thing that actually solves it.

Doesn't solve lack of offense or weight of fire.

Martel732 wrote:
Doesn't solve lack of offense or weight of fire.

They are acceptable at offense. Powerfist on almost every model means it hits hard, and it trades the durability of a 3++ for the utility of ranged weapons when required. An additional heavy weapon, perhaps one more shot with their stormbolters, would leave it at a good place.

Weight of fire would be much less threatening if there is less plasma, rending etc out there.

(Eldar, I am looking at you.)

Overall, the issue is with everything else except the Terminators, not the Terminators themselves.

Their offense is miserable. From a shooting respect, they can be practically ignored. Yes, power fists are scary, but the delivery of said power fists is expensive or unreliable.

By weight of fire, I mean specifically things that they get their armor save against, but just can't make enough saves.

Martel732 wrote:
Their offense is miserable. From a shooting respect, they can be practically ignored. Yes, power fists are scary, but the delivery of said power fists is expensive or unreliable.

By weight of fire, I mean specifically things that they get their armor save against, but just can't make enough saves.

Leave the points the same, give FNP 4+ and adding an extra heavy weapon would probably be the best option for increasing tacitcal terminator efficiency in a simple manner. The FNP on assault terminators would give a nice boost too, since their biggest deficiency is still resistance to weight of fire. FNP should also work with chaos terminators too. This is also something that could easily be implemented via FAQ/Errata.

In keeping with the idea of a sudden arrival and a powerful first blow, how about they get Shrouded when they arrive & Ignores Cover? The flash of light they arrive in makes it hard to see them & the sudden arrival means people can't react fast enough.

Anymore thoughts on how to help the stormbolter? Most people seem to say more shots. There's also been a few votes for Shred. The overall fear seems to be buffing the Grey Knights. We could just make it for TDA, Crux Terminatus pattern SBs.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Their offense is miserable. From a shooting respect, they can be practically ignored. Yes, power fists are scary, but the delivery of said power fists is expensive or unreliable.

By weight of fire, I mean specifically things that they get their armor save against, but just can't make enough saves.

Leave the points the same, give FNP 4+ and adding an extra heavy weapon would probably be the best option for increasing tacitcal terminator efficiency in a simple manner. The FNP on assault terminators would give a nice boost too, since their biggest deficiency is still resistance to weight of fire. FNP should also work with chaos terminators too. This is also something that could easily be implemented via FAQ/Errata.

Just the regular FNP (5+) should be fine.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Their offense is miserable. From a shooting respect, they can be practically ignored. Yes, power fists are scary, but the delivery of said power fists is expensive or unreliable.

By weight of fire, I mean specifically things that they get their armor save against, but just can't make enough saves.

Leave the points the same, give FNP 4+ and adding an extra heavy weapon would probably be the best option for increasing tacitcal terminator efficiency in a simple manner. The FNP on assault terminators would give a nice boost too, since their biggest deficiency is still resistance to weight of fire. FNP should also work with chaos terminators too. This is also something that could easily be implemented via FAQ/Errata.

Just the regular FNP (5+) should be fine.

Not really. My BA have access to FNP terminators and they don't really hold up that well. Having only 5 W in the whole squad is just absolute murder. Well, 6 including the priest. Tau still cripple the unit with a single pie plate. And Eldar keep going "LOL your defenses are funny, little marine!"

This whole thread can be looked at this way: I hate the units with 2++/2+ rerollable saves, but that's what it takes to be truly durable in the environment that the Eldar and Tau have created. Without at least similar durability, terminators will never fit their fluff nor price per model. Note that the units with 2++/2+ rerollable are also fast and deadly in HTH.

Martel732 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Their offense is miserable. From a shooting respect, they can be practically ignored. Yes, power fists are scary, but the delivery of said power fists is expensive or unreliable.

By weight of fire, I mean specifically things that they get their armor save against, but just can't make enough saves.

Leave the points the same, give FNP 4+ and adding an extra heavy weapon would probably be the best option for increasing tacitcal terminator efficiency in a simple manner. The FNP on assault terminators would give a nice boost too, since their biggest deficiency is still resistance to weight of fire. FNP should also work with chaos terminators too. This is also something that could easily be implemented via FAQ/Errata.

Just the regular FNP (5+) should be fine.

Not really. My BA have access to FNP terminators and they don't really hold up that well. Having only 5 W in the whole squad is just absolute murder. Well, 6 including the priest. Tau still cripple the unit with a single pie plate. And Eldar keep going "LOL your defenses are funny, little marine!"

This whole thread can be looked at this way: I hate the units with 2++/2+ rerollable saves, but that's what it takes to be truly durable in the environment that the Eldar and Tau have created. Without at least similar durability, terminators will never fit their fluff nor price per model. Note that the units with 2++/2+ rerollable are also fast and deadly in HTH.

My point was that a 4+ FNP doubles their survivability against non-S8+ weapons (otherwise none as anti-tank weapons).