fraser1191 wrote:
One thing I always wanted was guard at T3, a Sob at T4, a marine scout T4, a Tac marine T5 and finally a Termie at T6. But that would require an entire new edition...

I feel like if ap is supposed to represent the level of Armour penetration, then the Toughness value of the model should represent the entity as a whole.
Edit, The save value I would have represent more of the amours ability to shrug off the shot. Terminator Armour can clearly shrug off more than a flakk jacket

A scout has carapace Armour which more or less is modern body armour in style. A marines suit of Armour is totally enclosed with little to no gaps but he's still the same T as a scout? A Lasgun has equal odds of doing the same damage to say the shoulder?

Well I see the T as being how well the model can tank hits that gets past its armour. Sv representing both how well it covers the model and how hard it is to penetrate. A 2+ Sv represents both the areas of the armour that are nigh-on imprenetrable and the weak points and everything inbetween. A 0 AP weapon can only go through the weakest spots on the armour, eyes, joints, etc. -1 AP will cause enough damage to cause a wound when it hits more points, -3 will go through pretty much anywhere, but might not cause any damage if it's at a bad angle on the wrong spot on the armour.

36 lasgun hits will kill 9 scouts or 6 in cover, 6 marines or 3 in cover, 1,5 termies with or without cover. Why do you need toughness changes when the amount of skin the armour covers is already represented?

 vict0988 wrote:
Why do you need toughness changes when the amount of skin the armour covers is already represented?

We are just spit-balling different ideas to make Termies worthwhile. A T bump might not be thematically ideal, but it certainly makes them functionally a bit different, which it the point.
Also, with the To-wound chart being fairly different than it has been for the past decade, there is now a bit more design space available for small changes. The same goes for adding wounds to models since Instant Death no longer exists and weapon can do more damage per shot than in prior editions
All Marines no longer need to be T4 1W. Tacticals, maybe, as a baseline, but Termies and Bikes can get more than just +1W plus armour or toughness boost respectively. TEQs could easly be T5 (T6 for DG) and it really wouldn't make a HUGE difference, but certainly a noticeably (and potentially needed one)
S4/5 & S8 in particular would be affected, but all other S values would not care. But there are enough S4/5/8 weapons out there that the Termies would get a minimal defense boost.
Bikes being T6 would only really matter against S3/5/6, but again, it's a minimal, but noticeable boost

And I think that is the point. In most cases, changes should be "minimal, but noticeable".

At the end of the day, there are just so, so many potential changes to TEQs that would make them at least playable, if not competitive
Just to name a few:
- +1W
- +1T
- WS/BS+2
- 1+ armour save
- Damage -1
- or just a good ole drop in points (seems most likely via CA)

Any one of those changes would make Termies playable, and a combo of any 2 might even make them competitive

-

 Galef wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Why do you need toughness changes when the amount of skin the armour covers is already represented?

We are just spit-balling different ideas to make Termies worthwhile. A T bump might not be thematically ideal, but it certainly makes them functionally a bit different, which it the point.
Also, with the To-wound chart being fairly different than it has been for the past decade, there is now a bit more design space available for small changes. The same goes for adding wounds to models since Instant Death no longer exists and weapon can do more damage per shot than in prior editions
All Marines no longer need to be T4 1W. Tacticals, maybe, as a baseline, but Termies and Bikes can get more than just +1W plus armour or toughness boost respectively. TEQs could easly be T5 (T6 for DG) and it really wouldn't make a HUGE difference, but certainly a noticeably (and potentially needed one)
S4/5 & S8 in particular would be affected, but all other S values would not care. But there are enough S4/5/8 weapons out there that the Termies would get a minimal defense boost.
Bikes being T6 would only really matter against S3/5/6, but again, it's a minimal, but noticeable boost

And I think that is the point. In most cases, changes should be "minimal, but noticeable".

At the end of the day, there are just so, so many potential changes to TEQs that would make them at least playable, if not competitive
Just to name a few:
- +1W
- +1T
- WS/BS+2
- 1+ armour save
- Damage -1
- or just a good ole drop in points (seems most likely via CA)

Any one of those changes would make Termies playable, and a combo of any 2 might even make them competitive

-

Can I just ask why are people saying T5 terminators means that bikes have to be T6?
Really in 8th edition mechanics bikes giving +1T makes no sence
If anything they should grant +1W as while some shots might hit the bike anything like stubber etc should be putting enough round out to not care and likewise why should an anti tank weapon find a dude in normal armour with a bike harder to wound than someone in specialist armour designed to make them a walking tank?

Really the more you think about this the more the marine book looks like a 7th edition port than a written for 8th edition mechanics book.

Ice_can wrote:

Can I just ask why are people saying T5 terminators means that bikes have to be T6?
Really in 8th edition mechanics bikes giving +1T makes no sence
If anything they should grant +1W as while some shots might hit the bike anything like stubber etc should be putting enough round out to not care and likewise why should an anti tank weapon find a dude in normal armour with a bike harder to wound than someone in specialist armour designed to make them a walking tank?

Really the more you think about this the more the marine book looks like a 7th edition port than a written for 8th edition mechanics book.

Good point. 3W T5 bikes certainly make more sense than 2W T6 ones. Although for Bikes, I think a simple points drop but keeping them as-is otherwise would probably work just fine
Bikes in general are still good units (whether Marines, Eldar, Orks, whatever) they are just too expensive as a result of being too good in prior editions

-

 Galef wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Can I just ask why are people saying T5 terminators means that bikes have to be T6?
Really in 8th edition mechanics bikes giving +1T makes no sence
If anything they should grant +1W as while some shots might hit the bike anything like stubber etc should be putting enough round out to not care and likewise why should an anti tank weapon find a dude in normal armour with a bike harder to wound than someone in specialist armour designed to make them a walking tank?

Really the more you think about this the more the marine book looks like a 7th edition port than a written for 8th edition mechanics book.

Good point. 3W T5 bikes certainly make more sense than 2W T6 ones. Although for Bikes, I think a simple points drop but keeping them as-is otherwise would probably work just fine
Bikes in general are still good units (whether Marines, Eldar, Orks, whatever) they are just too expensive.

-

The more I think about the mechanics and how to represent the units qualities in the marine book the more I'm not sure what can be done as they really need to hard reset what each stat is trying to represent.

If we start with guard as a base line and work up from them

A scout should be T4 1W 4+ A1
A Tac marine T4 1W 3+ A2
Vet T4 1W 3+ A3
Primaris T4 2W 3+ A2
Biker T4 2W 3+ A2
Aggressor T5 2W 3+ A2
Terminator T5 2W 2+ A3

I'm glad to see people are mostly sticking to a proper discussion of the topic.

All the stats of marine units are not gunna be changed (so does not align with this discussion). In CA they are only gunna either adjust points value of termie armor/units or adjust points value + 1 other non complicated thing (cause has to affect many factions/armies).

Though a lot of people have commented now and has been a crap tonne of repetition of ideas, what are peoples top 2 things to happen?
(remember if it is to terminator armour, it does not just affect SM terminators, it will affect Terminator units/Characters of: Space marine codex variant chapters, Grey Knights (plus paladins), Deathwatch, Dark Angels (plus knights), Blood angels, Space wolves, Inquisition and Chaos. If more I forget).

For me is:
1. Points re-adjustment (dictated by my number 2)
2. Reduce all damage suffered by each wound by 1, to a minimum of 1

I did an assessment before on most common suggestions and this was it (of previous skim of posts etc and tbh this is what I think still should happen). We have all seen the arguments for and against certain abilities. I am asking now everyone who posts give their most wanted 2 things to happen in CA in regards to Termie armour.

Yeah sure

1. Chapter approved can go in the fire.
2. This is our tournament we'll make the rules thanks.

Sure reduce the damage to 1. But then try and apply that to special characters in any army equipped with terminator armour and see how you go at killing them. When you do this also apply a points reduction and see how your opponent feels about that too.

Subtracting ~10ppm might just do the trick and is by far the more likely change given CA.
But that doesn't mean it's the best fix, so other options are fully "on topic " if it makes Terminators worthwhile.

-

I have already explained how the extra wound/reducing damage scales badly. Did you people not even bother to read that post?

Clearly, Slayer, people either didn't read it or they didn't think it was worth mentioning. I think it might be pretty disingenuous when spectral ceramite didn't acknowledge that the have been problems raised, but maybe he legit disregarded that objection because he's more interested in finding out what's popular and then discussing it.

Either way I can' t see why you'd expect people to specifically call out your irreplaceable insights when you call them you people.

So what do you think, spectral ceramite, do you care that there's a pretty valid structure problem that you might want to talk about or has it be talked about enough?

It seems just as effective to be peremptory and make remarks about how Chapter Approved isn't very important and should get burnt. Is that wrong, Galef? You said -10ppm is more likely given Chapter Approved, but like you also said, that's probably not the best fix, because it is the process of codexes and Chapter Approved that perpetuate the problem in the first place.

CA is only going to change a limited and suboptimal range of things. Also, it's made by a flawed process. There is definitely a good set of rules for terminators to be written, and CA isn't going to do it.

What's the most playable? I think points changes have lots of drawbacks, because they mean if you're going to use them in your group then all the players using terminators would need to change their lists, and even when they do that the feedback on changes doesn't work right because they have a whole different list which isn't finely tuned yet.

Personally, I'm for 1+ SV and A3. Remove the Crux, it's never going to be used (It rarely is anyway).

This may need a points increase, but I don't think their issue is weak firepower killing them.

Sir Heckington wrote:
Personally, I'm for 1+ SV and A3. Remove the Crux, it's never going to be used (It rarely is anyway).

This may need a points increase, but I don't think their issue is weak firepower killing them.

Agreed - also let the use power fists etc at normal WS

1. T6
2. 16ppm + wargear

I disagree on T6. The way I see it, toughness is what's underneath the suit of armour, and SV is the actual suit its self.

Which follows on with plague marine's being T5.

Two of the following:
1+ Save
T5
W3

I won't field Terminators right now due to point cost. It's just not enough for the investment. They need a point drop to maybe 20ppm. Your stock Term is what? 40pt after Wargear? Terminators with a powerfist and sotrm bolter do not really strike any fear into opponents.

Do we even see them represented in tournaments? I hardly ever see them being used at the local shops.

 Karthicus wrote:
I won't field Terminators right now due to point cost. It's just not enough for the investment. They need a point drop to maybe 20ppm. Your stock Term is what? 40pt after Wargear?

Do we even see them represented in tournaments? I hardly ever see them being used at the local shops.

The cheapest possible base Terminator that exists is the basic CSM Terminator with a energysword/mace and a combibolter at 37 pts.
I belive you could confortably cut 10 pts off of the termi and still would not see them spammed to infinity.

 Galef wrote:

Bharring wrote:
-Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there.
-Primaris are weak. 2W... as above.
-Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.

Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?

Yeah, that's why I really REALLY want all MEQs and TEQ to just get +1W. Some units would clearly need to be 2-3ppm more, like Tacticals potentially. Although I'd keep Primaris at 2W, but give then T5 instead.
Overally you would get less models in an army (so things like WS/BS2+ on Termies, VV and SG would be even more needed) but the army would FEEL like you're playing "tough as nails" Marines.
D2 weapons at this point would be fine in their current multitude. Termies and Bike wouldn't get outright splatted by them, but Marines and Primaris still would

Another option is to play the Toughness game. With the change to the S vs T chart in 8E, increases in T are less dramatic. TEQs could be T5 (DG being T6) and Bikes also T6
For Termies, that would make a slight different vs Overcharged Plasma

-

This is really what we all really want, and what it should have been in the first place... But points drop is the only thing we could expect... Your picture still gives me hope that some day, we will back with our marines.
THEY SHALL KNOW NO FEAR!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Can I just ask why are people saying T5 terminators means that bikes have to be T6?
Really in 8th edition mechanics bikes giving +1T makes no sence
If anything they should grant +1W as while some shots might hit the bike anything like stubber etc should be putting enough round out to not care and likewise why should an anti tank weapon find a dude in normal armour with a bike harder to wound than someone in specialist armour designed to make them a walking tank?

Really the more you think about this the more the marine book looks like a 7th edition port than a written for 8th edition mechanics book.

Good point. 3W T5 bikes certainly make more sense than 2W T6 ones. Although for Bikes, I think a simple points drop but keeping them as-is otherwise would probably work just fine
Bikes in general are still good units (whether Marines, Eldar, Orks, whatever) they are just too expensive as a result of being too good in prior editions

-

Honestly, if we only look at bikes and termies, I think +1T for Termies and +1A for bikes should be enough (so they would have 3, 2+1 for chainsword; I just stuck knifes on them and removed all pistols). Drop maybe 1 point for the latter and 18 points base for Termies and you have two decent units.
Of course, special rules are always way more interesting when changing units, but GW isn't doing that soon. Only points drop and minor stats at best

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Karthicus wrote:
I won't field Terminators right now due to point cost. It's just not enough for the investment. They need a point drop to maybe 20ppm. Your stock Term is what? 40pt after Wargear?

Do we even see them represented in tournaments? I hardly ever see them being used at the local shops.

The cheapest possible base Terminator that exists is the basic CSM Terminator with a energysword/mace and a combibolter at 37 pts.
I belive you could confortably cut 10 pts off of the termi and still would not see them spammed to infinity.

I think its a pipe dream to see them cut below 20 (not that I would complain in the least), but 16ppm would be nice. You would have to cut costs of tac at that point I think, but given that Term's have higher cost equipment baking into the unit.... 16 base could work.

Bikers really just need a price cut. They can still do the same job.

However, them not being able to be troops anymore hurts a lot. Otherwise people actually weren't taking Bikers. They were taken because Tactical Marines were THAT bad after they met their quota for how many Scouts they needed. Gladius nipped that in the butt at the cost of being hilariously imbalanced.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bikers really just need a price cut. They can still do the same job.

However, them not being able to be troops anymore hurts a lot.

I feel the same way about my Eldar Windriders. I actually LOVE all the stat/rules changes they made to them going from 7E to 8E, but they are still priced as if they could be Troops, which they cannot be anymore . A simple points reduction would probably make them worthwhile again, but they need to be about half the cost of a Shining Spear for that to happen.

Bikes having +1A and +1T over their infantry counterparts is fair enough, but it isn't costed properly as-is.
Terminators are similar. Their armour giving +1W and better Armour save should be enough in theory, but combined with a much higher points cost and the relative ease they are killed, it just doesn't seem enough. A point reduction is a good start, but unless they end up being almost as cheap as Primaris Marines, I don't think it'll make a difference.
And if they are almost as cheap as Primaris, they step on their toes, which GW is NOT going to allow

So points changes only are not the best solution, even if it is the only realistic one we will get.

-

Honestly Windriders need to be troops again. They already took hits to their weapons and their armor. Knocking them to Fast Attack, when they've been a troop choice for quite a while, was an insult to people that really liked their bikes. They needed to be hit with the nerf bat, not the aluminum bat.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly Windriders need to be troops again. They already took hits to their weapons and their armor. Knocking them to Fast Attack, when they've been a troop choice for quite a while, was an insult to people that really liked their bikes. They needed to be hit with the nerf bat, not the aluminum bat.

While I wholeheartedly agree, I do think there would be a good portion of players that would get their 7E pitchforks out of storage if that happened.

Dropping their points cost quite a bit and making it so that Outrider detachments aren't a CP liability (or rather make Battalions no longer "required") and Windirders would be playable again.
I think the best way to do this is to lower the CPs for Battalions back down to 3CPs and start giving more CPs just for BF lists. I'd pay 2 CPs for decently priced WRs to be my "core", but as it stands, I'd be paying 4CPs for overprices units to be my "core". So I don't play them at all anymore, which is sad as they have been my core army since 4E

-

The specialist Heavy Support/Elite/Fast Attack could be 2CP and the Battalion 4 or stick to 5.

 Karthicus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Karthicus wrote:
I won't field Terminators right now due to point cost. It's just not enough for the investment. They need a point drop to maybe 20ppm. Your stock Term is what? 40pt after Wargear?

Do we even see them represented in tournaments? I hardly ever see them being used at the local shops.

The cheapest possible base Terminator that exists is the basic CSM Terminator with a energysword/mace and a combibolter at 37 pts.
I belive you could confortably cut 10 pts off of the termi and still would not see them spammed to infinity.

I think its a pipe dream to see them cut below 20 (not that I would complain in the least), but 16ppm would be nice. You would have to cut costs of tac at that point I think, but given that Term's have higher cost equipment baking into the unit.... 16 base could work.

With the 10pts cut a Termie would still be 21 without weapons, and i'd rather go slowly on the balance Meter then what gw does now, Either nerfing into the ground or buffing into the heavens.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I have already explained how the extra wound/reducing damage scales badly. Did you people not even bother to read that post?

pelicaniforce wrote:
Clearly, Slayer, people either didn't read it or they didn't think it was worth mentioning. I think it might be pretty disingenuous when spectral ceramite didn't acknowledge that the have been problems raised, but maybe he legit disregarded that objection because he's more interested in finding out what's popular and then discussing it.

Either way I can' t see why you'd expect people to specifically call out your irreplaceable insights when you call them you people.

So what do you think, spectral ceramite, do you care that there's a pretty valid structure problem that you might want to talk about or has it be talked about enough?

It seems just as effective to be peremptory and make remarks about how Chapter Approved isn't very important and should get burnt. Is that wrong, Galef? You said -10ppm is more likely given Chapter Approved, but like you also said, that's probably not the best fix, because it is the process of codexes and Chapter Approved that perpetuate the problem in the first place.

CA is only going to change a limited and suboptimal range of things. Also, it's made by a flawed process. There is definitely a good set of rules for terminators to be written, and CA isn't going to do it.

What's the most playable? I think points changes have lots of drawbacks, because they mean if you're going to use them in your group then all the players using terminators would need to change their lists, and even when they do that the feedback on changes doesn't work right because they have a whole different list which isn't finely tuned yet.

I would have read all posts if doing an analysis (though I cant remember now, been ages). My perception was, I want everyone's number 1 and 2 change to come in chapter approved. They are not going to remake a codex or change a system for 1 unit/armour type for 8th edition. They are not going to do anything drastic. The question really is what is realistic for GW to do to improve the unit/armour (in CA, is where they make changes nowadays) and what are the top 2 opinions of everyone posting. That is it, simple. You may have detailed a synopsis of why/how -1 to to dmge affect/s Dmg 2 weapons (if remember? idk if that was it cbf going back and reading), if was maybe, but the cost relevant to others... idk, -1 isnt to bad (personal opinion, the collective is what may become apparent).

Secondly, I don't expect people to do anything. I was asking for an insight for their views marginalised to a specific focus, is easier to read and probably will give more pertinent information to something that can be changed.

EDIT:

I don't think we will see a 10pts cost reduction. Cost adjustment (whether positive, negative or neutral) inline with an increase in survive-ability or something would be awesome. But who knows, any change will be good...

Bharring wrote:
-Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there.
-Primaris are weak. 2W... as above.
-Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.

Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?

This is something that's been getting me for a while, I'm starting to think jacking the cost of special weapons more or less across the board would benefit the game massively. Given the mass proliferation of them and the view of troops as a tax rather than a core of your combat capability perhaps we need to revalue the worth of having feet on the board and heavy armor against the gun that nukes those feet off the board each turn.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

Bharring wrote:
-Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there.
-Primaris are weak. 2W... as above.
-Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.

Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?

This is something that's been getting me for a while, I'm starting to think jacking the cost of special weapons more or less across the board would benefit the game massively. Given the mass proliferation of them and the view of troops as a tax rather than a core of your combat capability perhaps we need to revalue the worth of having feet on the board and heavy armor against the gun that nukes those feet off the board each turn.

My opinion (take with a grain of salt). How does this help the system? Changing the cost of special weapons across the board, will change every army atm. Think of the difference between Deathwach (which majority tbh are troops) and Imperial Guard, or Necrons (no special) and Harlequins (no special, but if change special have to change pistols etc, cascading)... Talk about small things to change (that can be changed) and addressing these issues, 1 at a time will lead to a better 8th addition and a better future addition.

Example: 40k could do better to follow the AoS format of rend or -AP to the 2 or 3 being rare or well above average but it is to late for 40k, so they have to deal with what they have. Maybe next edition.

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

Bharring wrote:
-Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there.
-Primaris are weak. 2W... as above.
-Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.

Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?

This is something that's been getting me for a while, I'm starting to think jacking the cost of special weapons more or less across the board would benefit the game massively. Given the mass proliferation of them and the view of troops as a tax rather than a core of your combat capability perhaps we need to revalue the worth of having feet on the board and heavy armor against the gun that nukes those feet off the board each turn.

My opinion (take with a grain of salt). How does this help the system? Changing the cost of special weapons across the board, will change every army atm. Think of the difference between Deathwach (which majority tbh are troops) and Imperial Guard, or Necrons (no special) and Harlequins (no special, but if change special have to change pistols etc, cascading)... Talk about small things to change (that can be changed) and addressing these issues, 1 at a time will lead to a better 8th addition and a better future addition.

Example: 40k could do better to follow the AoS format of rend or -AP to the 2 or 3 being rare or well above average but it is to late for 40k, so they have to deal with what they have. Maybe next edition.

It "helps" the system by making high AP multi-damage weapons less prevalent, thereby making high-armour multi-wound models more viable. Not that they aren't viable, Custodes are a top army. Terminators are just slightly overpriced, 30% cost reduction and they become meta defining. 20% and they're perfectly fine. 20% cost reduction means 25% increased survivability and damage output. That's like giving them T5 and WS/BS 2+ at the same time, except it's super easy to implement and literally the only people who get hurt are the people who want their individual Elites to be better than my HQs and their Terminator characters to be better than my HQ with a warlord trait and a relic without taking either. Sorry buddy, not fair.

 vict0988 wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

Bharring wrote:
-Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there.
-Primaris are weak. 2W... as above.
-Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.

Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?

This is something that's been getting me for a while, I'm starting to think jacking the cost of special weapons more or less across the board would benefit the game massively. Given the mass proliferation of them and the view of troops as a tax rather than a core of your combat capability perhaps we need to revalue the worth of having feet on the board and heavy armor against the gun that nukes those feet off the board each turn.

My opinion (take with a grain of salt). How does this help the system? Changing the cost of special weapons across the board, will change every army atm. Think of the difference between Deathwach (which majority tbh are troops) and Imperial Guard, or Necrons (no special) and Harlequins (no special, but if change special have to change pistols etc, cascading)... Talk about small things to change (that can be changed) and addressing these issues, 1 at a time will lead to a better 8th addition and a better future addition.

Example: 40k could do better to follow the AoS format of rend or -AP to the 2 or 3 being rare or well above average but it is to late for 40k, so they have to deal with what they have. Maybe next edition.

It "helps" the system by making high AP multi-damage weapons less prevalent, thereby making high-armour multi-wound models more viable. Not that they aren't viable, Custodes are a top army. Terminators are just slightly overpriced, 30% cost reduction and they become meta defining. 20% and they're perfectly fine. 20% cost reduction means 25% increased survivability and damage output. That's like giving them T5 and WS/BS 2+ at the same time, except it's super easy to implement and literally the only people who get hurt are the people who want their individual Elites to be better than my HQs and their Terminator characters to be better than my HQ with a warlord trait and a relic without taking either. Sorry buddy, not fair.

Custodes arn't a top army for me (its swing or miss if play against pure Custodes, so if cant be average all the time, various objective games, is not top), Shield captains on Dawn eagles are good additions to armies. Maybe you quoted wrong person. I said not to reduce cost by 10pts. I agree the AP value etc is to prevalent.

GW just has the bite the bullwt and let termies be fielded in 3 models, let sergeant take all normal termie equipment plus sergeant equipment, and reduce it a few points. Termies have a niche role and 192 pts base is too big a premium.

To compensate, they can add fixed price stratagem that scales better with larger units.

If termies get brought to 22 ppm, that's 100 pt squad (2x PF/SB, 1x PS/SB). Allow up to 3 special weapons per every three. Oh, and that chain fist thing needs to go down in points by MILES.

I'd roll my squad with 1x AC/PF, 1x SB/CF, 1x Sarge w/ TH/SS as deepstriking side line harassment unit

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

Bharring wrote:
-Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there.
-Primaris are weak. 2W... as above.
-Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.

Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?

This is something that's been getting me for a while, I'm starting to think jacking the cost of special weapons more or less across the board would benefit the game massively. Given the mass proliferation of them and the view of troops as a tax rather than a core of your combat capability perhaps we need to revalue the worth of having feet on the board and heavy armor against the gun that nukes those feet off the board each turn.

Troops aren't viewed as a tax until they're as useless as a tax. You need to fix the core troops. You think bumping Special and Heavy Weapons would help Tactical Marines?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

Bharring wrote:
-Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there.
-Primaris are weak. 2W... as above.
-Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.

Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?

This is something that's been getting me for a while, I'm starting to think jacking the cost of special weapons more or less across the board would benefit the game massively. Given the mass proliferation of them and the view of troops as a tax rather than a core of your combat capability perhaps we need to revalue the worth of having feet on the board and heavy armor against the gun that nukes those feet off the board each turn.

Troops aren't viewed as a tax until they're as useless as a tax. You need to fix the core troops. You think bumping Special and Heavy Weapons would help Tactical Marines?

Could always make it so that each space marine unit has its own special rules unique to it if you take a veteran sarge that gives all sarges +1 wound and +1 attack. Thus increasing their viability.

Maybe each could be similar to the Aspect Warriors of eldar?

It would go a long way in giving each unit in the space marine roster a much-needed niche or job to do.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
GW just has the bite the bullwt and let termies be fielded in 3 models, let sergeant take all normal termie equipment plus sergeant equipment, and reduce it a few points. Termies have a niche role and 192 pts base is too big a premium.

To compensate, they can add fixed price stratagem that scales better with larger units.

If termies get brought to 22 ppm, that's 100 pt squad (2x PF/SB, 1x PS/SB). Allow up to 3 special weapons per every three. Oh, and that chain fist thing needs to go down in points by MILES.

I'd roll my squad with 1x AC/PF, 1x SB/CF, 1x Sarge w/ TH/SS as deepstriking side line harassment unit

Agreed. Terminators are too expensive, I remember posting a thread about how ineffective they are as an army.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

Bharring wrote:
-Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there.
-Primaris are weak. 2W... as above.
-Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.

Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?

This is something that's been getting me for a while, I'm starting to think jacking the cost of special weapons more or less across the board would benefit the game massively. Given the mass proliferation of them and the view of troops as a tax rather than a core of your combat capability perhaps we need to revalue the worth of having feet on the board and heavy armor against the gun that nukes those feet off the board each turn.

Troops aren't viewed as a tax until they're as useless as a tax. You need to fix the core troops. You think bumping Special and Heavy Weapons would help Tactical Marines?

I think de-emphasizing heavy/special weapons spam would make a more interesting less blast units off the table game. And yes, more or less by definition cranking up the cost of extra powerful stuff would help out under powered things. A lascannon shouldn't be standard equipment, plasma shouldn't be standard equipment, they should be specialized units intended for a specific purpose rather than a generic 'remove that side of the board' unit.

When most of what determines if a unit is good or not is based on the weapons it's allowed to spam, how does that not imply that perhaps those weapons need to be adjusted?

If we want to really make it viable to give specific weapons a point to cost more, make armor rolls for vehicles and possibly terminators 2d6, make those heavy weapons make grease stains out of anything not featuring heavy armor due to APs of -4 and up. And make them cost appropriately for what they're capable of doing. At that point it wouldn't be worth it to just point squads of weapons designed to take out tanks at infantry. Suddenly heavy armor is much more scary due to how much in small arms it really can shrug off, heavy weapons have an actual purpose in life rather than simply being better than their counterparts and more or less the entire game needs repointing. Don't really expect it to happen, but yeah, I think special weapons not being generically points efficient and actually having special purposes would boost standard troops considerably.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

Bharring wrote:
-Termies are weak. 2W doesn't mean enough because of all the D2 weapons out there.
-Primaris are weak. 2W... as above.
-Bikes are weak. 2W... as above.

Mayhaps the problem with the plethera of D2 weapons is the D2, not the 2W models?

This is something that's been getting me for a while, I'm starting to think jacking the cost of special weapons more or less across the board would benefit the game massively. Given the mass proliferation of them and the view of troops as a tax rather than a core of your combat capability perhaps we need to revalue the worth of having feet on the board and heavy armor against the gun that nukes those feet off the board each turn.

Troops aren't viewed as a tax until they're as useless as a tax. You need to fix the core troops. You think bumping Special and Heavy Weapons would help Tactical Marines?

I think de-emphasizing heavy/special weapons spam would make a more interesting less blast units off the table game. And yes, more or less by definition cranking up the cost of extra powerful stuff would help out under powered things. A lascannon shouldn't be standard equipment, plasma shouldn't be standard equipment, they should be specialized units intended for a specific purpose rather than a generic 'remove that side of the board' unit.

When most of what determines if a unit is good or not is based on the weapons it's allowed to spam, how does that not imply that perhaps those weapons need to be adjusted?

If we want to really make it viable to give specific weapons a point to cost more, make armor rolls for vehicles and possibly terminators 2d6, make those heavy weapons make grease stains out of anything not featuring heavy armor due to APs of -4 and up. And make them cost appropriately for what they're capable of doing. At that point it wouldn't be worth it to just point squads of weapons designed to take out tanks at infantry. Suddenly heavy armor is much more scary due to how much in small arms it really can shrug off, heavy weapons have an actual purpose in life rather than simply being better than their counterparts and more or less the entire game needs repointing. Don't really expect it to happen, but yeah, I think special weapons not being generically points efficient and actually having special purposes would boost standard troops considerably.

You're just going back to 7th, GW wanted to move in a direction of everything being a little less rock/paper/scissors, which is IMO a good thing. There needs to be counters, but if the game just becomes a list check to see if you brough the right units to counter your opponent then that isn't much fun. Even if you balance this version of the game perfectly, you'll have a 50% win rate for every list, but a much larger percentage of games will be decided by lists rather than tactics and dice which is hugely unfun. No the current system is good, it's just not balanced and 7th wasn't balanced either so we'd see the same lack of balance most likely with your version of the game.

"You think bumping Special and Heavy Weapons would help Tactical Marines?"
If you consider "Special and Heavy weapons" to be the IoM options, then sure, it won't help Tactical Marines.

If you consider "special weapons more or less across the board" to be all those special weapons with better-than-0 AP, then yes, that would help Tacs.

But this thread is about Termies. Bumping the cost of multiwound good-AP weapons across the board certainly would help Termies.

But terminators also die to crap like sternguard, gauss and volley guns. Terminators lose half their protection against AP -1. That's all that's really needed; multi damage is just salt in the wound.

AP-1 is too good in this game, against most things. Termies have it worse than most things, but they aren't the only units impacted by it. The AP-1/AP-2 weapons really need a nerf/points increase.

It's a direct mathematical consequence of the system they have adopted. But yes, they are still priced like they are AP 4/3.

Also, context matters. Bolt rifle intercessors suck, for example.

Bharring wrote:
AP-1 is too good in this game, against most things. Termies have it worse than most things, but they aren't the only units impacted by it. The AP-1/AP-2 weapons really need a nerf/points increase.

They literally have the same durability to AP-1 weapons now outside VERY specific scenarios (Autocannon). Otherwise this is the edition where they've been the most durable. Do the math if you don't believe me.

They also went *up* in durability against Lasguns. But I thought it was typically agreed upon that Termies aren't good vs Lasguns.

AP4 in 6e/7e was AP-nobody-cares. It was common, but most people forgot about it. Many SM players would swear up and down not a single weapon in their list was AP4 (despite that never being true).

Now, AP-1 is gold. Increases your killiness across the board. So people stock up on it. So it's a lot more common.

And TEQ got a lot more vulnerable to AP3, which became AP-2.

Dark reapers say "hi!".

Bharring wrote:
They also went *up* in durability against Lasguns. But I thought it was typically agreed upon that Termies aren't good vs Lasguns.

AP4 in 6e/7e was AP-nobody-cares. It was common, but most people forgot about it. Many SM players would swear up and down not a single weapon in their list was AP4 (despite that never being true).

Now, AP-1 is gold. Increases your killiness across the board. So people stock up on it. So it's a lot more common.

And TEQ got a lot more vulnerable to AP3, which became AP-2.

I'm fine with the durability against lasguns. I'm not fine with their offensive output, which really is the main problem that needs to be fixed.
It used to be 18 total hits from a Lasgun to make it kill a Terminator. Now they doubled in that and it takes 36 total. They've got the durability against weapons they used to have so little against for the price. Now they need to kill for their price.

Why?

To put it another way, aren't 5 Powerhammer Termies already reasonably killy for a unit that's supposed to be tough to kill?

Not really.

Bharring wrote:
Why?

To put it another way, aren't 5 Powerhammer Termies already reasonably killy for a unit that's supposed to be tough to kill?

And how exactly are they going to get to kill anything? You can't footslog them, they'll die. You can't transport them, Land Raiders are too expensive and it'll die, then they will die. You can't deep strike them, because 50%+ failure rate, Bubblewrap and Consequence Free Fall Back, so they'll die.

Let me put this another way.

Lets say we gave PF Termies A4 S10 AP-5 D3.

They'd be really killy.

Isn't everything BCB just posted still true?

My point is that killiness isn't their problem.

10 TH swings for 200+ points still isn't that impressive.

Bharring wrote:
Why?

To put it another way, aren't 5 Powerhammer Termies already reasonably killy for a unit that's supposed to be tough to kill?

6-7 attacks landing with 4 wounds and then getting through the Invul your targets probably have or a FNP equivalent.

That ain't worth 45 points a model and you know that, just based on anything they hit. That's why I'm always for WS/BS2+ and an extra attack.

Shining Spears are super killy at 2 attacks each w/S6 and D2. PF Termies hit at S8, don't go down to S3 if they didn't charge, and have better damage, all for a -1-to-hit.

If Shining Spears are less killy than Termies, then how can Spears be killy in CC and Termies not?

(I do agree with +1A and am ok with WS/BS2+. I just don't think anything short of punching way above their weight changes anything.)

Spears are more killy because you get more for the same cost and they actually get to use their melee profile.
Termies may as well have S1, 1atk, and hit on 6. Because if you are never IN combat, your stats done matter.

Termies need to be cheaper, which we can all agree on, but unless they also get something to increase their chances of getting into melee, +1Atk or WS/BS2+ won't matter.
+1W and being cheaper could make this happen

-

Bharring wrote:
Shining Spears are super killy at 2 attacks each w/S6 and D2. PF Termies hit at S8, don't go down to S3 if they didn't charge, and have better damage, all for a -1-to-hit.

If Shining Spears are less killy than Termies, then how can Spears be killy in CC and Termies not?

(I do agree with +1A and am ok with WS/BS2+. I just don't think anything short of punching way above their weight changes anything.)

Because you're paying more? Genestealers are killy because they punch nicely for their weight class, TH SS Termies don't.

Bharring wrote:
Shining Spears are super killy at 2 attacks each w/S6 and D2. PF Termies hit at S8, don't go down to S3 if they didn't charge, and have better damage, all for a -1-to-hit.

If Shining Spears are less killy than Termies, then how can Spears be killy in CC and Termies not?

(I do agree with +1A and am ok with WS/BS2+. I just don't think anything short of punching way above their weight changes anything.)

If you only look at the individual model you have a point. Pray tell what the cost of a Shining Spear is. Not to mention they shoot as well but that's a whole different discussion as to why the Tactical and Assault Terminators need to stop being separated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
Spears are more killy because you get more for the same cost and they actually get to use their melee profile.
Termies may as well have S1, 1atk, and hit on 6. Because if you are never IN combat, your stats done matter.

Termies need to be cheaper, which we can all agree on, but unless they also get something to increase their chances of getting into melee, +1Atk or WS/BS2+ won't matter.
+1W and being cheaper could make this happen

-

There are theoretically ways to do that. However, Land Raiders and basically other transports are garbage, and you only have a 28% chance to land a charge from Deep Strike without any rerolls courtesy of different sources (reroll a dice stratatgem, Black Templars, Asterion, Khorne banner). There's a good amount of shooting Stratagems already courtesy of Dark and Blood Angels (who really shouldn't get those exclusively. That's just silly). If you want them in combat, it isn't impossible without Transports but you ended up putting a bunch of support into these models that don't really hit hard after that fact.

Spears are more killy primarily because they can get in. They cost two thirds the price, and hit at about two thirds the killiness per model. They're less durable but a heck of a lot faster. And have decent shooting too.

What analogues of Termies aren't bad? Wraithlords play a similar role - and are similarly bad. Wraithnouns play a similar role, and are in about the same place (although there was one tournament they were in a top list). Custodes on foot are in a similar role, and are considered bad (or at least not good). Mutilators? Assault Cents?

Bharring wrote:
What analogues of Termies aren't bad? Wraithlords play a similar role - and are similarly bad. Wraithnouns play a similar role, and are in about the same place (although there was one tournament they were in a top list). Custodes on foot are in a similar role, and are considered bad (or at least not good). Mutilators? Assault Cents?

Indeed. GW needs to knock down the cost of most heavy infantry. Just because it has +1W and a better Armour save doesn't mean it is instantly 2-3x as effective and thus 2-3x the cost. But GW seems to think they are.

-

Or they need to make heavy infantry *feel* heavier. Such as by bumping up the costs of all the Ap-1/-2 weapons, and all the multiwound weapons.

I think we're seeing the same problem, but hoping for different solutions.

Bharring wrote:
Spears are more killy primarily because they can get in. They cost two thirds the price, and hit at about two thirds the killiness per model. They're less durable but a heck of a lot faster. And have decent shooting too.

What analogues of Termies aren't bad? Wraithlords play a similar role - and are similarly bad. Wraithnouns play a similar role, and are in about the same place (although there was one tournament they were in a top list). Custodes on foot are in a similar role, and are considered bad (or at least not good). Mutilators? Assault Cents?

The only nearly mediocre Terminator variants are Blightlords, regular Chaos Terminators, and Paladins. They're all still bad but they do slightly better.

Custodes are decent but not really Terminators.

Mutilators got the proper price cut, but need to get rerolls for their weapons if near a Warpsmith or something. I'd ask for the same thing on Obliterators too but mostly because the Warpsmith doesn't do a terrible amount of anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Centurions suffer from being priced like an actual wall but aren't. THEY are the unit that needs an extra wound.

By "analogues of Termies", I meant other units that fill the same role. Not other units that wear TDA.

Marines are only half the armies of the game.

Bharring wrote:
By "analogues of Termies", I meant other units that fill the same role. Not other units that wear TDA.

Marines are only half the armies of the game.

However the other comparisons don't work from what you listed. Only Mutilators and Custodes were close.

Then why aren't Wraithblades/guards analogues? I see them as very close to Termies.

Bharring wrote:
Then why aren't Wraithblades/guards analogues? I see them as very close to Termies.

As do I. Some goes for Necron Lychguard and Ork Meganobs
TEQs may typically be T4 2+ armour models, but they should also include Xenos heavy infantry as they are all slow, tougher versions on the army's main infantry, typically in an Elite slot

-

Remember that Terminators lost 33% of their attacks on the charge. That's a pretty meaty nerf.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Remember that Terminators lost 33% of their attacks on the charge. That's a pretty meaty nerf.

SO did everyone else, though. An Termies went from striking last with fists and going first on the charge. So it evens out

-

Also, while they now do more Wounds, most targets have more wounds, no more ID, no more rear AV, and no more Vehicle Damage Chart.

In 7th, a Power Fist was Bad News Bears if it got to swing against just about anything. They're still scary, but not as scary, for a lot of the big stuff. 1 unsaved wound would kill most HQs back then.

Bharring wrote:
Also, while they now do more Wounds, most targets have more wounds, no more ID, no more rear AV, and no more Vehicle Damage Chart.

In 7th, a Power Fist was Bad News Bears if it got to swing against just about anything. They're still scary, but not as scary, for a lot of the big stuff. 1 unsaved wound would kill most HQs back then.

Yeah, terminators (and a lot of other heavy infantry come to think of it) have lost their teeth against vehicles and other larger targets. Powerfists certainly aren't what they used to be.

 Galef wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Remember that Terminators lost 33% of their attacks on the charge. That's a pretty meaty nerf.

SO did everyone else, though. An Termies went from striking last with fists and going first on the charge. So it evens out

-

No, not everyone lost 33% of their offense on the charge. It hits elite units with a small number of powerful attacks disproportionately hard.

It hit units with small numbers of attacks per model hard, elite or not.

 Galef wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Then why aren't Wraithblades/guards analogues? I see them as very close to Termies.

As do I. Some goes for Necron Lychguard and Ork Meganobs
TEQs may typically be T4 2+ armour models, but they should also include Xenos heavy infantry as they are all slow, tougher versions on the army's main infantry, typically in an Elite slot

-

I would maybe equate Meganobz for TEQ (they lack the natural Deep Strike of course), but Lychguard aren't fitting the bill at all. They're more akin to being a bodyguard of sorts, but whether they fulfill that role is a different discussion (they don't).

I would be willing to see Praetorian get made into their TEQ by making them WS/BS2+ and making their Stratagem into a +1 to wound in both phases. Not sure if that requires any different pricing but that's my vision for them at least.

Bharring wrote:
It hit units with small numbers of attacks per model hard, elite or not.

I think it hurt units with more models per unit more, does it not?

A unit of 5 with base 2A is affected equally as a unit of 5 with base 1A (both used to get +5A on charge), as opposed to a unit of 10 with base 1A vs unit of 5 with base 2A (10x1+10 vs 5x2+5)?

But it's proportional. My Plaguebearers (1 Attack each) lost 50% of their damage output on the charge.

Terminators lost only 33%.

By that argument, a unit of 5 with 4A each is affected equally as a unit of 5 with 2A each. They each lose the +5 attacks. The first loses 20% of it's attacks. The second loses 33% of it's attacks.

It hurts a 5man Termie squad more than a 5man Storm Guardian squad more per model, certainly. But it hurts a 200pt Termie squad less than it hurts 200 points of Storm Guardians.

I would argue per-point is the more accurate way of looking at it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Remember that Terminators lost 33% of their attacks on the charge. That's a pretty meaty nerf.

SO did everyone else, though. An Termies went from striking last with fists and going first on the charge. So it evens out

-

No, not everyone lost 33% of their offense on the charge. It hits elite units with a small number of powerful attacks disproportionately hard.

Yeah this is actually part of the real problem terminators have. I think they underperform because most SM lists are not assault oriented while termies could be a good back up unit when you have 2-3 other squads that hit hard first. With my SW a unit of 5 termies with 3 TH/SS and two swords/storm bolters costs 211 points and it's useless on its own but if you have Arjac they got +1A, with Wulfen or a character wearing the Wulfen Stone it's another +1A. Combined with the re-rolls granted by Wolf Lords, Arjac, Battle Leaders and/or Wolf Priests and they become decent. Of course there would be TWC, Wulfen, Blood Claws or 1 or more units of Wolf Guard (bikes, jump packs) to fight with them so the charactes could buff multiple units, but theese combinations let a 200ish points unit of terminators worth something. SW termies also have a +1 to hit in combat like pretty much the entire army, which also helps.

They just lack synergies with most of the SM lists, that's their problem. More buffs? Certainly, but not as a consequence of re-writting their profile but thanks to buffing characters and/or strategems.

Ork Meganobz are 35 points each, almost not shooting, 3 attacks but dealing D3 wounds instead of the flat 3 granted by hammers, 3W but no invuln at all and just 4'' movement, deep striking them costs 2 CPs. And yet they are a unit that performs well. Not because of their profile, but because they may have decent synergies with the rest of the list.

Units like terminators or meganobz are terrible if they act as the single melee unit that should clear the battlefield of the biggests threats. That's not their role.

bananathug wrote:
The problems with termies are lack of offensive output and limited mobility, IMHO.

Regular termies, replace regular powerfist stats with +1 attack, +2 str, -2 ap, 1d, let them mount 2x storm bolters, let the heavy use grav/plasma (1mw on overheat)/melta,AC,dual HB, 2+WS/BS, invlun to a 4++, 3rd wound and allow them to teleport shunt for 1 cp (basic deepstrike but can do it from on the table, not a strat so multiple units can do it?)

Assault termies add 1-2 to movement and charge/advance rolls. Can charge after advancing. No negatives to hit rolls for melee weapons. +1 str, 3w, 4++, 3rd wound, teleport shunt and maybe a native -1 to hit vs shooting attacks outside of 12.

With all that at current cost I think they'd see the table (they may even need a couple more points). I don't want them cheaper as the race to the bottom isn't a war that marines should try to win (leave that to guard).

Are you serious? 1. if change power fist stats for them have to change for every faction that has a power fist or access to termie armour (a lot), + other stuff crazy talk. To much if they have to change this across multiple factions. They have to make a change to termie armour that can be easily implemented across the multiple armies that use termie armour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Only a few weeks and CA will be out so lets see what will be


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm still betting on reduced cost as a must to all termie armour units. If give extra will be -1 to all damage suffered if stay the same cost, or as an addition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
IDK every few pages read this thread and people are always spamming stuff for SM termie units only. They are not the only termies, there are a lot of characters and units + SM + factions and special sub factions like; GK, Deathwatch, Deathwing, Inquisitor and many many more all have access to termie armour. Changes have to affect all. So they can't be radical but something that is inclusive and easy.

I've already made that point long ago, hence my suggestions.

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
IDK every few pages read this thread and people are always spamming stuff for SM termie units only. They are not the only termies, there are a lot of characters and units + SM + factions and special sub factions like; GK, Deathwatch, Deathwing, Inquisitor and many many more all have access to termie armour. Changes have to affect all. So they can't be radical but something that is inclusive and easy.

The change does have to affect all, but they can absolutely and should be radical. Terminators are absolute joke of a unit - FLGS and GW brick and mortars don't stock on termies anymore because it sells maybe 1 box a year for new player.

I wouldn't be surprised if GW actually stopped the production for termies already.

Many kits that are not about troops and transports sell just 1 maybe 2 boxes a year for new player though. Even more competitive units.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nobody ran Deathwing competitively and had success. Sorry. I'm calling you on your crap.

Wow... Haven't been back on the board in a bit, had to catch back up.

You're wrong, and calling my a liar isn't going to change that. I don't appreciate the insult either.

txaggieof08 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nobody ran Deathwing competitively and had success. Sorry. I'm calling you on your crap.

Wow... Haven't been back on the board in a bit, had to catch back up.

You're wrong, and calling my a liar isn't going to change that. I don't appreciate the insult either.

By all means find all the times Deathwing did anything in any tournament then to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting for a reply.

Termies in general just need a buff in terms of strategems, special rules, and damage output. The fact they suffer from movement while trying to fire heavy weapons equally stupid. AS they have had the relentless special rule for 4+ editions until 8th.

Give termies access to grenade harnesses on all of em. its free so why the helk not?

It would give them so devastating fire power and retaining their role as anti-infantry. (plus you can do that in 30k).

I think giving termies a strategem that ignores all penalties to hit would go along way as well.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

txaggieof08 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nobody ran Deathwing competitively and had success. Sorry. I'm calling you on your crap.

Wow... Haven't been back on the board in a bit, had to catch back up.

You're wrong, and calling my a liar isn't going to change that. I don't appreciate the insult either.

By all means find all the times Deathwing did anything in any tournament then to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting for a reply.

...I don't know where to find 3e/4e-vintage tournament results.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

txaggieof08 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nobody ran Deathwing competitively and had success. Sorry. I'm calling you on your crap.

Wow... Haven't been back on the board in a bit, had to catch back up.

You're wrong, and calling my a liar isn't going to change that. I don't appreciate the insult either.

By all means find all the times Deathwing did anything in any tournament then to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting for a reply.

...I don't know where to find 3e/4e-vintage tournament results.

Oh please

Terminators were at MOST mediocre in 4th thanks to double Assault Cannons with old Rending. Deathwing didn't change that, and it would be a shame for you to lie to yourself about that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

txaggieof08 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nobody ran Deathwing competitively and had success. Sorry. I'm calling you on your crap.

Wow... Haven't been back on the board in a bit, had to catch back up.

You're wrong, and calling my a liar isn't going to change that. I don't appreciate the insult either.

By all means find all the times Deathwing did anything in any tournament then to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting for a reply.

...I don't know where to find 3e/4e-vintage tournament results.

Oh please

Terminators were at MOST mediocre in 4th thanks to double Assault Cannons with old Rending. Deathwing didn't change that, and it would be a shame for you to lie to yourself about that.

This is some classy debating going on right here. Makes me wonder why I bother looking on the forum sometimes.

Andykp wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

txaggieof08 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nobody ran Deathwing competitively and had success. Sorry. I'm calling you on your crap.

Wow... Haven't been back on the board in a bit, had to catch back up.

You're wrong, and calling my a liar isn't going to change that. I don't appreciate the insult either.

By all means find all the times Deathwing did anything in any tournament then to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting for a reply.

...I don't know where to find 3e/4e-vintage tournament results.

Oh please

Terminators were at MOST mediocre in 4th thanks to double Assault Cannons with old Rending. Deathwing didn't change that, and it would be a shame for you to lie to yourself about that.

This is some classy debating going on right here. Makes me wonder why I bother looking on the forum sometimes.

What debate is there? Terminators weren't good in early editions, and pretending they were doesn't solve the problem because you want to be nostalgic about the all-or-nothing AP system.

Funny thing is bullgryns, which are probably the most commonly found TEQ in the imperium, are the most efficient unit out there IMHO. Cheaper than a custodes dude, more durable than any termi, they have many attacks and are great against anything but toughness 8 stuff.
I have 9 and there rare times i get to field them (as imp guards are waaaay too numerous where i play, hence i face opponents who'd rather fight against something else) they always do incredebly well.
They should be the measure stick for TEQs. Evis sunz Meganobz are great too thanks to da jump.

For the life of me, can't get why GW is so bad at costing termis and such...

I mean it's pretty obvious most termi units should cost a lot less than bullgryns, even if fluffwise it makes no sense (well one could say training a bullgryn takes so much time and imperial manpower that we could get thinking "ok, that is why costs more than an sm termi"

Just give termi a special rule to move, shoot, move again, shoot again, and charge, get retro hammer of wrath hits on the charge.

Give termi special rule to shoot twice on over watch.

Give special rule for termi to get additional attacks in combat for each wound suffered.

 CadianGateTroll wrote:
Just give termi a special rule to move, shoot, move again, shoot again, and charge, get retro hammer of wrath hits on the charge.

Give termi special rule to shoot twice on over watch.

Give special rule for termi to get additional attacks in combat for each wound suffered.

Just make them close combat specialists instead of heavy generalist infantries, which is something that many SM armies lacks. 5 dudes with power fists and shields only cost 170 points now, 10W with 2+/3++, free deepstrike, and powerful hits. Just give them the appropriate buffs.

My SW termies have the +1 to hit in combat chapter trait, +1 or +2 A thanks to some auras, and re-rolling 1s to hit and/or to wound thanks to other buffing auras. Priests can give them the full re-roll to the hit rolls in combat and can even heal wounded models.

To make termies worth it just bring a list that synergizes well with them without centering the list itself around them. They can work decently with SW because all the buffing auras are due to characters, wargear and other units you may want anyway. With wulfen, arjac and a wolf priest (or even no wulfen but the relic wulfen stone on him) for 170 points you get 21A hitting on 3s at S8 AP-3 DD3, re-rolling all failed hits and all 1s to wound. Those two characters also buff the wulfen at the same time, especially the priest is almost an auto take with wulfen and wulfen are almost an auto take in any SW list.

I think Terminators were 'good/OK' back in 2nd edition.

Well, at least Space Wolf versions were!

We'd need to go back to a proper AP system with termies saving on 2d6 in order for them to be good again!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

txaggieof08 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nobody ran Deathwing competitively and had success. Sorry. I'm calling you on your crap.

Wow... Haven't been back on the board in a bit, had to catch back up.

You're wrong, and calling my a liar isn't going to change that. I don't appreciate the insult either.

By all means find all the times Deathwing did anything in any tournament then to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting for a reply.

...I don't know where to find 3e/4e-vintage tournament results.

Oh please

Terminators were at MOST mediocre in 4th thanks to double Assault Cannons with old Rending. Deathwing didn't change that, and it would be a shame for you to lie to yourself about that.

This is some classy debating going on right here. Makes me wonder why I bother looking on the forum sometimes.

What debate is there? Terminators weren't good in early editions, and pretending they were doesn't solve the problem because you want to be nostalgic about the all-or-nothing AP system.

That’s my point, one side is trying have a discussion while you just seem to shout “WRONG!” and “LIAR!” all the time. It’s tiring.

 Alpharius wrote:
I think Terminators were 'good/OK' back in 2nd edition.

Well, at least Space Wolf versions were!

We'd need to go back to a proper AP system with termies saving on 2d6 in order for them to be good again!

Isn't a 3++ enough?

 Blackie wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
I think Terminators were 'good/OK' back in 2nd edition.

Well, at least Space Wolf versions were!

We'd need to go back to a proper AP system with termies saving on 2d6 in order for them to be good again!

Isn't a 3++ enough?

That's only a 2/3 chance of success. 3+ on 2D6 is 35/36 chance of success against a lasgun. Even against a -1 AP weapon you have a better than 90% chance to save with 3+ 2D6.
Terminators were very durable then, you really needed to direct anti-tank fire at them to reliably kill them, which meant your AT weapons weren't shooting at actual tanks...

Now they appear only marginally less squishy than regular Space Marines - which as many people agree, are still a bit too squishy.

 Kcalehc wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
I think Terminators were 'good/OK' back in 2nd edition.

Well, at least Space Wolf versions were!

We'd need to go back to a proper AP system with termies saving on 2d6 in order for them to be good again!

Isn't a 3++ enough?

That's only a 2/3 chance of success. 3+ on 2D6 is 35/36 chance of success against a lasgun. Even against a -1 AP weapon you have a better than 90% chance to save with 3+ 2D6.
Terminators were very durable then, you really needed to direct anti-tank fire at them to reliably kill them, which meant your AT weapons weren't shooting at actual tanks...

Now they appear only marginally less squishy than regular Space Marines - which as many people agree, are still a bit too squishy.

They aren't marginally more durable. For the points they're way more durable, and this is the most durable Marines have been for several editions.

If you decided to look at the actual math rather than using those rose tinted glasses to decide, you'd know that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They aren't marginally more durable. For the points they're way more durable, and this is the most durable Marines have been for several editions.

If you decided to look at the actual math rather than using those rose tinted glasses to decide, you'd know that.

Marines may be the most durable for several editions, but still not durable enough - which was the main gist of the point.

And I did do some maths, Terminators were more durable against small arms fire (lasguns/boltguns) in 2E by about 30-40% per point than they are now. Which I think many put forward as a problem - they die too easily to massed small arms than they should.

.

 Kcalehc wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They aren't marginally more durable. For the points they're way more durable, and this is the most durable Marines have been for several editions.

If you decided to look at the actual math rather than using those rose tinted glasses to decide, you'd know that.

Marines may be the most durable for several editions, but still not durable enough - which was the main gist of the point.

And I did do some maths, Terminators were more durable against small arms fire (lasguns/boltguns) in 2E by about 30-40% per point than they are now. Which I think many put forward as a problem - they die too easily to massed small arms than they should.

.

It isn't Marines aren't durable enough, it is that every other army benefits from the new AP system way too much.

2E was like 25 years ago, it's dishonest to compare that edition to this one. Compare 5th or 7th edition termies with the new ones. Now you get 2W and 3++ for dirt cheap. Even without the shield you'll get a save against many weapons that used to bypass their armor completely.

Orks meganobz cost 35 points with the equivalent of stormbolter and power fist. They have 3W, 3A at S10 instead of 2 at S8 but also BS5+, no deepstrike, and no chance to get an invuln. No ork player says they're too squishy despite being actually less durable than terminators with shields.

Termies are already fine, they just need synergies to work and some SM armies simply don't have those combos.

No Ork player says that Meganobz are too squishy because they have an additional wound compared to Terminators and because, despite what you assert, they can Deep Strike. Just not innately. I promise you that if you could have Terminators that had a +1 to charge distance and could reroll one or both dice without having to pay a CP you'd see more Terminators too.

"Reroll failed charges" is my Chapter Tactics. "Reroll failed charges, except better because feth you" is just an innate ability of Orks in general. Of course Meganobz aren't complained about, they've got a bunch of special rules that you conveniently left out, and are cheaper to boot.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No Ork player says that Meganobz are too squishy because they have an additional wound compared to Terminators and because, despite what you assert, they can Deep Strike. Just not innately. I promise you that if you could have Terminators that had a +1 to charge distance and could reroll one or both dice without having to pay a CP you'd see more Terminators too.

"Reroll failed charges" is my Chapter Tactics. "Reroll failed charges, except better because feth you" is just an innate ability of Orks in general. Of course Meganobz aren't complained about, they've got a bunch of special rules that you conveniently left out, and are cheaper to boot.

They don't have deepstrike as a rule in their profile, you must use a stratagem to give them that, but at this point basically every army in the game can deep strike infantries using CPs. Deepstriking meganobz costs 2 CPs, for an army that heavily relies on burning CPs pretty much everywhere and everytime is something that should be taken into account. +1W but also no invuln which makes termies way more resilient than them against anything but anti infantry weapons, which should target something else in a balanced list. Things like plasmas, lascannons, thunder hammer melt meganobz with no effort while a 3++ termy can tank them very well.

The +1 charge is only for evil sunz though, and meganobz are also played using other kulturs. SM also have characters' buffing auras that are easier to field. With my SW I can rely on the full re-rolls to hit rolls and the 1s to wound, +1A thanks to wulfen or character with wulfen stone, +1A thanks to Arjac (which also gives the re-roll wound of 1s). Orks can't have re-rolls, just +1A if you bring the super expensive (and goffs only) ghaz or a weirdboy (which have better power to cast). The banner nob gives +1 to hit but it's 77 points, not an HQ so no useful to unlock detachments, and very hard to give his aura to meganobz if they deepstrike. SW have +1 to hit for free pretty much everytime.

I actually expect meganobz to become cheaper by the next round of FAQs since pks should drop to 9pts like power fists.

 Alpharius wrote:
I think Terminators were 'good/OK' back in 2nd edition.

Well, at least Space Wolf versions were!

We'd need to go back to a proper AP system with termies saving on 2d6 in order for them to be good again!

Not really. -2 and -3 spam was everywhere. Plus pulsa rockit spam.

Still say drop the difference Tac and Asault Terminator and allow mix and match for all weapon systems.

 Blackie wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No Ork player says that Meganobz are too squishy because they have an additional wound compared to Terminators and because, despite what you assert, they can Deep Strike. Just not innately. I promise you that if you could have Terminators that had a +1 to charge distance and could reroll one or both dice without having to pay a CP you'd see more Terminators too.

"Reroll failed charges" is my Chapter Tactics. "Reroll failed charges, except better because feth you" is just an innate ability of Orks in general. Of course Meganobz aren't complained about, they've got a bunch of special rules that you conveniently left out, and are cheaper to boot.

They don't have deepstrike as a rule in their profile, you must use a stratagem to give them that, but at this point basically every army in the game can deep strike infantries using CPs. Deepstriking meganobz costs 2 CPs, for an army that heavily relies on burning CPs pretty much everywhere and everytime is something that should be taken into account. +1W but also no invuln which makes termies way more resilient than them against anything but anti infantry weapons, which should target something else in a balanced list. Things like plasmas, lascannons, thunder hammer melt meganobz with no effort while a 3++ termy can tank them very well.

The +1 charge is only for evil sunz though, and meganobz are also played using other kulturs. SM also have characters' buffing auras that are easier to field. With my SW I can rely on the full re-rolls to hit rolls and the 1s to wound, +1A thanks to wulfen or character with wulfen stone, +1A thanks to Arjac (which also gives the re-roll wound of 1s). Orks can't have re-rolls, just +1A if you bring the super expensive (and goffs only) ghaz or a weirdboy (which have better power to cast). The banner nob gives +1 to hit but it's 77 points, not an HQ so no useful to unlock detachments, and very hard to give his aura to meganobz if they deepstrike. SW have +1 to hit for free pretty much everytime.

I actually expect meganobz to become cheaper by the next round of FAQs since pks should drop to 9pts like power fists.

All those rerolls are completely pointless if you can't get into combat in the first place. Meganobz are far superior because they can reliably charge from Deep Strike, whether that is through a Stratagem or Da Jump. Going straight into combat from Deep Strike also provides for a far more potent survivability buff than a 3++.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Still say drop the difference Tac and Asault Terminator and allow mix and match for all weapon systems.

This would be something I want proposed as well. Two different entries is completely silly.

"What debate is there? Terminators weren't good in early editions, and pretending they were doesn't solve the problem because you want to be nostalgic about the all-or-nothing AP system."

Early editions... 1,2,3,4...

They sucked in 7th and they currently suck in 8th.

Were they good in 5th and 6th?

 fraser1191 wrote:

"What debate is there? Terminators weren't good in early editions, and pretending they were doesn't solve the problem because you want to be nostalgic about the all-or-nothing AP system."

Early editions... 1,2,3,4...

They sucked in 7th and they currently suck in 8th.

Were they good in 5th and 6th?

5th they had their uses, but in deathwing they shined brightly.

While they competed against sternguard, terminators still could deal a lot of damage and were a lot bang for their buck now.... I don't know they just seem lack luster with so much firepower everywhere.

Terminators weren't really good in 5th. They were awful in 3rd and very marginal at best in 2nd.

 fraser1191 wrote:

"What debate is there? Terminators weren't good in early editions, and pretending they were doesn't solve the problem because you want to be nostalgic about the all-or-nothing AP system."

Early editions... 1,2,3,4...

They sucked in 7th and they currently suck in 8th.

Were they good in 5th and 6th?

Yeah they were only mediocre in 4th because of Assault Cannon saturation. Anything else is bad, including 5th and 6th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

"What debate is there? Terminators weren't good in early editions, and pretending they were doesn't solve the problem because you want to be nostalgic about the all-or-nothing AP system."

Early editions... 1,2,3,4...

They sucked in 7th and they currently suck in 8th.

Were they good in 5th and 6th?

5th they had their uses, but in deathwing they shined brightly.

While they competed against sternguard, terminators still could deal a lot of damage and were a lot bang for their buck now.... I don't know they just seem lack luster with so much firepower everywhere.

Deathwing was bad in 5th too. Stop trying to be a revisionary of how it was.

Deathwing was bad in 5th too. Stop trying to be a revisionary of how it was.

Then who was the good termies in 5th or where there no good termies in 5th?

I thought the only good termies were from Grey Knights because Paladins were too easy to abuse the wound allocation rules at the time, plus with Draigo making them troops and i would say GK in general were broken before 6th.

 Grimskul wrote:
I thought the only good termies were from Grey Knights because Paladins were too easy to abuse the wound allocation rules at the time, plus with Draigo making them troops and i would say GK in general were broken before 6th.

That about sums it up to be honest. Anything with 2 wounds was good.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


All those rerolls are completely pointless if you can't get into combat in the first place. Meganobz are far superior because they can reliably charge from Deep Strike, whether that is through a Stratagem or Da Jump. Going straight into combat from Deep Strike also provides for a far more potent survivability buff than a 3++.

Again, only evil sunz has +1 to charge.

And deepstriking with a melee anti tank unit is always a trap against a competitive army since everyone has screening units that must be dealt with. Unfortunately orks are also terrible in clearing screens outside combat. With SW I have the flyer, long fangs, ass cannons from the razorbacks, WG on bikes or jump packs with storm bolters... orks basically just have the dakkajet to do that job.

Meganobz aren't better than termies because of their stats or combos, they perform better because orks are an assault oriented army so they will be backed up by other choppy units. In many SM armies those termies will be the only dudes that worth something in melee. Even meganobz would be terrible in a full shooting ork list.

 Blackie wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


All those rerolls are completely pointless if you can't get into combat in the first place. Meganobz are far superior because they can reliably charge from Deep Strike, whether that is through a Stratagem or Da Jump. Going straight into combat from Deep Strike also provides for a far more potent survivability buff than a 3++.

Again, only evil sunz has +1 to charge.

But every Ork has "Black Templars +1". Base Meganobz, without any Klan, are better than Terminators with any Chapter Tactic applied to them.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


All those rerolls are completely pointless if you can't get into combat in the first place. Meganobz are far superior because they can reliably charge from Deep Strike, whether that is through a Stratagem or Da Jump. Going straight into combat from Deep Strike also provides for a far more potent survivability buff than a 3++.

Again, only evil sunz has +1 to charge.

But every Ork has "Black Templars +1". Base Meganobz, without any Klan, are better than Terminators with any Chapter Tactic applied to them.

For vanilla marines, maybe. +1 to wound or to hit for either SW or BA Termies are closer though if we discount Klan kultures. I feel your pain though as a BT enthusiast. Every time I see an army and get hyped up from their looks or fluff like Helsreach, I see their rules and then weep. Getting into combat means jack all if you can't do any meaningful damage when you get there. It hurts my soul to see min max crusader squads with las/plas or combi-plas/plas. Even their weird Vigilus Detachment does little for them, other than making a good killy HQ unit which the Emp's champion kinda already does. I guess at least we got the Holy Orb back? :(

Martel732 wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
I think Terminators were 'good/OK' back in 2nd edition.

Well, at least Space Wolf versions were!

We'd need to go back to a proper AP system with termies saving on 2d6 in order for them to be good again!

Not really. -2 and -3 spam was everywhere. Plus pulsa rockit spam.

Pulsa spam maybe, but making a 5 or a 6 or 2d6 was...remarkably easy!

Anyway, this many pages in, are we closing in on a way to make Terminators worthwhile?

 Grimskul wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


All those rerolls are completely pointless if you can't get into combat in the first place. Meganobz are far superior because they can reliably charge from Deep Strike, whether that is through a Stratagem or Da Jump. Going straight into combat from Deep Strike also provides for a far more potent survivability buff than a 3++.

Again, only evil sunz has +1 to charge.

But every Ork has "Black Templars +1". Base Meganobz, without any Klan, are better than Terminators with any Chapter Tactic applied to them.

For vanilla marines, maybe. +1 to wound or to hit for either SW or BA Termies are closer though if we discount Klan kultures.

No, +1 to wound or to hit is the Kulture equivalent. Add in that and the Meganobz can get the far-superior +1 to move/advance/charge. The equivalent to the "Black Templars +1" would be And They Shall Know No Fear which... yeah...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


All those rerolls are completely pointless if you can't get into combat in the first place. Meganobz are far superior because they can reliably charge from Deep Strike, whether that is through a Stratagem or Da Jump. Going straight into combat from Deep Strike also provides for a far more potent survivability buff than a 3++.

Again, only evil sunz has +1 to charge.

But every Ork has "Black Templars +1". Base Meganobz, without any Klan, are better than Terminators with any Chapter Tactic applied to them.

And black templars, like other SM have lots of other things that are better compared to orks, like shooting options, BS, armours and invulns availability.

5 termies with PF and SS cost basically like 5 meganobz, 170 vs 175 points. Despite the fact that meganobz are my favorite models in the entire 40k catalogue I play more with my SW termies than meganobz. SW termies are usually more effective and more resilient, they have all the buffs with no real drawbacks as you'll probably want wulfen and buffing characters anyway and come with a built in +1 to hit. At the end of the day SW dudes usually have 21 S8 AP-3 DD3 attacks hitting on 3s with re-rolls, meganobz have 15 S10 AP-3 DD3 attacks hitting on 4s with no re-rolls.

Meganobz also suffer from the current competitive meta where there's anti tank and anti heavy infantries everywhere and they simply melt against things like dissies or lascannons. They can tank low S shots better than terminators, sure, but with orks there are always better targets than meganobz for those weapons. In fact, as I said, I'm expecting meganobz to go down in points next round of FAQs.

Fixing terminators is actually easy, they just need to be played like SW ones. Full melee and with auras that improve them without being a pure tax. Many SM chapters don't have effective close combat synergies but lots of other shooting options available, so termies aren't a good choice in both loadouts, that's why they seem to be trash. People advocate for better AP on bolters, more W on models, price reductions.... IMHO what SM reallly need is more effective synergies: buffing auras, stratagems, traits, psychic powers....

 Alpharius wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
I think Terminators were 'good/OK' back in 2nd edition.

Well, at least Space Wolf versions were!

We'd need to go back to a proper AP system with termies saving on 2d6 in order for them to be good again!

Not really. -2 and -3 spam was everywhere. Plus pulsa rockit spam.

Pulsa spam maybe, but making a 5 or a 6 or 2d6 was...remarkably easy!

Anyway, this many pages in, are we closing in on a way to make Terminators worthwhile?

Anyone?

Is the answer to not worry about making them more durable, but rather make them more effective via lower points and/or the ability to carry more of the more effective weaponry?

I'm gonna back Slayers BS/WS upgrade fix

I can't remember if he also said to give them an additional attack as well but I am, only because I think marines should have 2 attacks base.

Anyway, this many pages in, are we closing in on a way to make Terminators worthwhile?

Sorta kind of. I am not really sure honestly, but i think we need a poster here to summarize the big major points made?

 fraser1191 wrote:
I'm gonna back Slayers BS/WS upgrade fix

I can't remember if he also said to give them an additional attack as well but I am, only because I think marines should have 2 attacks base.

I'm for giving them an extra attack.

As is, this is the most durable they've been since perhaps 2nd. The issue is their offense, and those two minor fixes actually do a lot while not being terribly hard to implement.

With power fists at "WS3" 5 terminators with no extra attacks can on average rip apart a rhino. Which I'd consider the bare minimum for melee, for terminators anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer what do you think of terminators with a 3+ save but reroll ones? Might be too broken but isn't that what the rule of 3 is for?

 fraser1191 wrote:
With power fists at "WS3" 5 terminators with no extra attacks can on average rip apart a rhino. Which I'd consider the bare minimum for melee, for terminators anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer what do you think of terminators with a 3+ save but reroll ones? Might be too broken but isn't that what the rule of 3 is for?

3+ RR1s is worse than 2+.

Why not t5 termies ?

Because T5 does nothing for survivablity.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because T5 does nothing for survivablity.

It helps against S4, S5, S8, and S9. That's a lot of weapons in the game, including noted terminator killers like Overcharged Plasma.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Why not t5 termies ?

That's the shtick of Centurions. The trick is to make them distinctive from one another.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Anyway, this many pages in, are we closing in on a way to make Terminators worthwhile?

Sorta kind of. I am not really sure honestly, but i think we need a poster here to summarize the big major points made?

There have been half a dozen such posts already. This thread just needs to be closed.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because T5 does nothing for survivablity.

It absolutely does have a direct impact just like Toughness 4 does over Toughness 3- just maybe not enough in this particular case.

Still say 1+ armour,
- no penalties mods on power fists etc.
Mix-match all temrinator weapons in squads

job done

I just think termies need the synergies SW ones have. Basically free +1 to hit in combat trait and up to +2A with buffing auras. Plenty of characters that also give them full re-roll to hit, 1s to hit or 1s to wound.

Add similar synergies for other SM armies. Problem solved. Wolf Guard termies with fists and shields cost 170 points which sounds very fair from 10 T4 2+/3++ W with free deepstrike that can have up to 21 attacks at S8 AP-3 DD3 in total plus re-rolls just with auras you may want anyway, no pure taxes.

Maybe they'd need to be also S5 but SW termies are already fine and I think other termies could be ok with similar synergies. Of course players need to adapt and stop thinking about SM as pure silly gunlines, like some sort of AM-1.

Terminators of all things should NOT be dependent on HQ buffs. That's the problem with that line of thinking. You can't price units around a buff that may or may not exist. You cost said buffer appropriately.

On top of that, Relentless would do nothing for most of the Terminator loadouts that actually exist in this game. Same thing goes for a strict 3+ to hit for Power Fists. You guys keep looking at ONE unit and applying it to a bunch of units and don't fix them.

That's why I keep hammering WS/BS2+ and an extra attack.

I think Termies should be WS/BS2+ OR an extra attack, not both. Personally, WS/BS2+ makes the most sense with them being the Chapter's "best of the best". The boost is WS is almost as good as an extra attack, but the boost in BS makes them fair more decent with Storm bolters.

But I'd also like to see some boost in durability, preferable 3Ws, but a 1+ save would be cool instead and certainly set them apart from Cents & Aggressors.
I like 3Ws far better than T5, bc it guarantees that Supercharged Plasma won't one-shot 1 or even 2 terminators, rather than making it 17% less likely.
Remember that most Plasma weapons have, or can be multiple shots via RF. So even a 3W Terminator can die from a single RF range Supercharged Plasma gun. But that same single gun cannot kill 2 whole 3W Terminators, which it currently can at 2W.

-

That brings them in the same lines as Centurions, which should be the wall, compared to Terminators being elite shock troopers.

The issue is Marines have too many damn units. (Okay, ONE of the issues.)

Do we really need three or four different types of heavy troopers?

 JNAProductions wrote:
The issue is Marines have too many damn units. (Okay, ONE of the issues.)

Do we really need three or four different types of heavy troopers?

I agree for sure there's a lot of units, which is why you've heard me repeat consolidation of Marine codices almost like a broken record.
It isn't terribly hard to differentiate that role overall but it requires work.

Personally I'm for consolidating the Tactical Terminator and Assault Terminators into a singular unit, which takes care of the issue that it makes no sense only Death Angels and their successors do that out of literally any Chapter that exists. The other Mk armors of Terminators perhaps need to be consolidated as one single profile into that statline as well; yeah it's nice to have a 4++ or an extra inch of movement, but there isn't a whole lot different with weapon profiles anyway. I'm iffy though as I said.

Centurions I would knock just a small amount of points off but give them an extra wound. It doesn't help vs D2 weapons, but helps with every random Damage roll and helps put two of them being closer to a Dread in durability. Dreads are at least now fine for durability with their price but they have the separate issue of not having a point of using melee weapons.

I'm off topic though with that.

Would improving BS/WS of all SM entries by 1 break them as a faction? I mean, SM as a whole does need to be a bit more killy to keep in line with the rest of the codex.

And yes, this would mean those currently BS 2+ would go to BS 1+

I mean there aren’t enough natural hit modifiers to give 1+ imo. If fighting someone who had a better ws caused your own hit roll to get worse, or fighting someone who had a sword of any kind caused your hit roll to get worse, like the old parry rules, then 1+ maybe. I don’t like it for just marines, but w/e.

A basic marine costs 13 points. A termie should cost 26 base.

You gain the ability to deep strike, and a 2+ save and a 5+, the ability to buy more gear, and 1 higher ld.


You loose the ability to soak up two multi-damage wounds, the troops slot, and obsec.


The tradeoff's are almost dead even. A termie is worth 2 marines.

 skchsan wrote:
Would improving BS/WS of all SM entries by 1 break them as a faction? I mean, SM as a whole does need to be a bit more killy to keep in line with the rest of the codex.

And yes, this would mean those currently BS 2+ would go to BS 1+

This is an absolutely dreadful idea.

 skchsan wrote:
Would improving BS/WS of all SM entries by 1 break them as a faction? I mean, SM as a whole does need to be a bit more killy to keep in line with the rest of the codex.

And yes, this would mean those currently BS 2+ would go to BS 1+

No BS1+ should be illegal, a hit roll of 1 after the eventual re-roll should always fail.

Why people think that SM firepower isn't powerful enough and want to turn them even more into AM or tau? It's definitely not their issue. They lack lots of other things, not the firepower. Many SM chapters have litterally zero close combat abilities which is absurd.

 skchsan wrote:
Would improving BS/WS of all SM entries by 1 break them as a faction? I mean, SM as a whole does need to be a bit more killy to keep in line with the rest of the codex.

And yes, this would mean those currently BS 2+ would go to BS 1+

and the same for all equally or more elite troops and characters I assume

 Blackie wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Would improving BS/WS of all SM entries by 1 break them as a faction? I mean, SM as a whole does need to be a bit more killy to keep in line with the rest of the codex.

And yes, this would mean those currently BS 2+ would go to BS 1+

No BS1+ should be illegal, a hit roll of 1 after the eventual re-roll should always fail.

Why people think that SM firepower isn't powerful enough and want to turn them even more into AM or tau? It's definitely not their issue. They lack lots of other things, not the firepower. Many SM chapters have litterally zero close combat abilities which is absurd.

All a 1+ would do is ignore the first -1 to hit. 1s would still miss.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Would improving BS/WS of all SM entries by 1 break them as a faction? I mean, SM as a whole does need to be a bit more killy to keep in line with the rest of the codex.

And yes, this would mean those currently BS 2+ would go to BS 1+

No BS1+ should be illegal, a hit roll of 1 after the eventual re-roll should always fail.

Why people think that SM firepower isn't powerful enough and want to turn them even more into AM or tau? It's definitely not their issue. They lack lots of other things, not the firepower. Many SM chapters have litterally zero close combat abilities which is absurd.

All a 1+ would do is ignore the first -1 to hit. 1s would still miss.

Actually, due to Special Snowflake FAQ, a 1+ means they are an unmodifiable 2+.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Would improving BS/WS of all SM entries by 1 break them as a faction? I mean, SM as a whole does need to be a bit more killy to keep in line with the rest of the codex.

And yes, this would mean those currently BS 2+ would go to BS 1+

No BS1+ should be illegal, a hit roll of 1 after the eventual re-roll should always fail.

Why people think that SM firepower isn't powerful enough and want to turn them even more into AM or tau? It's definitely not their issue. They lack lots of other things, not the firepower. Many SM chapters have litterally zero close combat abilities which is absurd.

All a 1+ would do is ignore the first -1 to hit. 1s would still miss.

Actually, due to Special Snowflake FAQ, a 1+ means they are an unmodifiable 2+.

This is the proposed rules section. I think that if we're giving people a 1+ BS or WS, we can fix that too.

Has anyone tried playtesting some of the proposed fixes and seeing what happens?
Not just for terminators but for marines as a whole, play a bunch of games against a buddy with a competetive list, either with increased SM stats or with reduced points costs. I'm sure we'd all be interested in the outcome.

This is the proposed rules section. I think that if we're giving people a 1+ BS or WS, we can fix that too.

Psht, we all know all proposed changes must be taken in a vacuum and can't go along with any other changes. Duh!

 RobS wrote:
Has anyone tried playtesting some of the proposed fixes and seeing what happens?
Not just for terminators but for marines as a whole, play a bunch of games against a buddy with a competetive list, either with increased SM stats or with reduced points costs. I'm sure we'd all be interested in the outcome.

I've field-tested the "Primaris statlines for everyone" fix a few times and it just ends up being a giant middle finger to small arms; FRF/SRF and Fireblades exist right now because basic small arms with no AP are so incredibly pointless they need free* (*built into the minimum cost of fielding a detachment) bonus shots to be fielded. It takes something like eighty lasgun shots to kill a Primaris Marine in cover; so you get scary-ass Space Marines, yes, but you also create an environment that frustrates everyone else because they need to spam plasma to participate in the game and the size creep just keeps getting worse.

It feels like Space Marines as they currently exist in the lore aren't fundamentally compatible with how 8e is written; they could be way more expensive than chaff in older editions because vehicles were smaller/rarer/easier to kill quickly so the infantry v. infantry game (in which the Marine statline is always stronger) was a lot more important, and because the morale rules let a few Space Marines wipe big squads by running them off the table. These days with model/gun size creep and rules written around killing things rather than impeding them I don't think you can really do "Space Marines" properly.

not sure that's a bad thing tho….as it might actually make IG take a special weapons here or there instead of cheapest possible....or just erase the Marines with tanks and artillery as IG have more than enough of those anyway as well as the bodies to make the block line.

Also you used a worst case small arms exchange....throw in eldar or Tau and the marines arent near as survivable vs their small arms fire even with 2 wounds.

In fact I would say you used the weakest small arms fire represtentation in the game to come up with that ratio. Dark eldar and other marines or most other armies will get better kill ratios with their standard weapon load outs.

It feels like Space Marines as they currently exist in the lore aren't fundamentally compatible with how 8e is written; they could be way more expensive than chaff in older editions because vehicles were smaller/rarer/easier to kill quickly so the infantry v. infantry game (in which the Marine statline is always stronger) was a lot more important, and because the morale rules let a few Space Marines wipe big squads by running them off the table. These days with model/gun size creep and rules written around killing things rather than impeding them I don't think you can really do "Space Marines" properly.

It’s funny that it’s exactly true that eighth edition doesn’t work for marines but GW made Epic where marines do work. They work because you can’t spam anti-tank guns at infantry, anti tank guns don’t work well against them, and because when you shoot at infantry they can shoot back, and marines are pretty good at it.

Marines could sweeping advance to kill enemies. It would make sense if you could do a sweeping advance in the shooting phase, and if Terminators were really good at it. A terminator squad and an IG squad exchange fire. The guard can’t make the terminators duck, so the terminators are able to win combat which lets them really punish the guard.

Aren't some of those true today:
-"You can’t spam anti-tank guns at infantry," Lascannons/Brightlances aren't cost effective at killing Marines
-"anti tank guns don’t work well against them" Kinda a restatement of the first - you only kill 1 Marine per gun, at best

Isn't another big problem Marines have that anti-Marine guns are too effective at killing Tanks, so some people take them for that?

The biggest problem is that a marine just doesn't add up to 13 points of value, and intercessors don't add up to 17 and scouts don't add up to 11. There are multiple reasons for this, not always the same for each unit. Not just lethality. Many reasons. That's why these threads never agree on a problem, because there are MANY.

As with everything in 8th, making them cheaper is the way to make them more worthwhile. Lower cost fixes all in 8th. You bleed points slower, have more table coverage, and have more guns. Wonky rules have unpredictable effects. Getting cheaper has very predictable effects.

GW might be consciously soft squatting several marine lines, however. That is also a non-zero possibility.

having played against DG termies yesterday I'm pretty sure that's how they should work for the termy platform as a whole

5++ .. like what's the point ... what AP-4 or more weapons are so prevalent that this provides any benefit? 4++ might mean something

Feel no Pain would be boss.

and -1 to hit on their weapons ... whut?

so yeah there's a few different things that would need fixing but there's a start right there

5++ is a holdover from AP2 being an issue.

Martel732 wrote:


As with everything in 8th, making them cheaper is the way to make them more worthwhile. Lower cost fixes all in 8th.

Just like increasing cost for undercosted units though. The castellan is the meta breaking at the point that every player builds his list in order to 1-shot a knight. Make it 900 pts, which is where it belongs. Fixed.

13ppm marines aren't a problem, even if they are overpriced it's just for 1-2ppm which means 30-40 points saved in a 2000 points list at most if they get a price decrease. The problem is those 4-6ppm dudes that not only unlock CPs for dirt cheap, but are also quite resilient against anti infantry weapons and have their decent (if not very good) firepower. Make guardsmen 7ppm, problem fixed. 4ppm was ok when most weapons were AP5 or better, blasts and templates used to deal more hits than the same ones using the D6 system, CPs didn't exist and S3-4 couldn't do anything against most vehicles. If a former 4ppm dude is now 2x more effective (if not even more) than it used to be it should definitely get a significant price hike, not just a +1ppm.

The answer isn't to make marines 9-10ppm but to make no troops cheaper than 7ppm, unless it's something very squishy like T2 no save and with little offensive output, or a typical T3 dude but melee only. Alternatively make guardsmen T2 no save, eventually changing their lasgun to a single shot rifle. Even at 9-10ppm a 4ppm guardsmen would be a better choice for an imperium army. If guardsmen were 7ppm and marines like 12ppm they'd both be interesting choices, maybe not exactly at the same level but way closer than now. Units like scouts or rangers should be elites.

Going back to the topic I don't think termies are overpriced at all. In fact a dude with a PF and 3++ save can't be considered expensive at 34 points. It just doesn't have a role in armies that want to play as AM. I always compare termies to meganobz: the latter have the same cost (meganobz are actually 1ppm more expensive) and similar profile (+1S, W and A but no invuln and less free buffing auras than SM especially choppy ones like the wolves) but they do work, even if they aren't a top unit, because they have synergies with the rest of the army. Terminators usually don't. That's what would make them worthwhile. I strongly disagree with the concept of a 170 points unit being very good on its own, it should give its points back with some tactics around it, which means CPs invested on the unit, buffing auras and the support of other units that work within the same range.

Meganobz having 3 W is brilliant though. Die to dissy cannons half as fast.

Also LOL at saying the 5++ is a bonus for a 2+ model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also saying that the 170 point unit shouldn't just be good on its own is a real issue. Everything is being priced like you have an aura, except you pay even more for that aura.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also LOL at saying the 5++ is a bonus for a 2+ model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also saying that the 170 point unit shouldn't just be good on its own is a real issue. Everything is being priced like you have an aura, except you pay even more for that aura.

Well in fact 5++ is basically useless on a 2+ model since most of the anti tank weapons are AP-3 or even AP-2 which means that the standard armor is enough to give the model a 5+ or 4+ save, that 5++ is a legacy from older editions when AP2 weapons completely bypassed the 2+ save and that 5+ was a real bonus. I assumed 3++ base because for 2pts there's no reason not to take termies with shields. And even with the storm shield termies are cheaper than meganobz.

Yes, I don't think units should be very good on their own. IMHO 170 points for the actual stats of termies are already a good deal. To have better termies you should invest more (CPs, auras or supporting units) on them. I'm afraid we have different concepts of what is good, termies are already good with SS and PF, but to be a top unit they need to cost more somehow. Otherwise they'd be auto take and any auto take for armies that have lots of units are the result of a bad game design.

Wulfen are terrible alone, but they are amazing with supporting units because they buff them so they get more value and also desperately want the re-rolls in combat. Oh they also need a CP to outflank. Talos and grotesques have much more value with an haemonculus behind them, urien rakhart also give them +1S which is another huge buff. Litterally no one plays coven monsters without the buffing HQ. Orks are extremely CPs dependant, take lootas, a terrible overcosted that has no sense to exist for 5/7 clans and a mediocre unit for the other 2. But one of those clans can make them competitive with tons of CPs invested (6 per turn usually) and supporting units (a weirdboy and screening gretchins). Meganobz are mediocre without those 2 CPs invested on them to be tellyported and gain a lot by supporting characters. SW termies work decent because of the buffing auras.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Meganobz having 3 W is brilliant though. Die to dissy cannons half as fast.

SM termies tank those dissies with a 3++ though, meganobz only have 5+ to tank them. Against thunder hammers and other 3+ damage weapons that's no context here.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also LOL at saying the 5++ is a bonus for a 2+ model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also saying that the 170 point unit shouldn't just be good on its own is a real issue. Everything is being priced like you have an aura, except you pay even more for that aura.

I think perhaps you missed the 'Holdover' part of the statement

Termies had a 2+ 5++ in 7th where AP2 bypassed their save entirely.

in the transition to 8th it has obviously been missed in design that the majority high damage weapons are AP-3 (Las cannons et al) and as such that's a 5+ save so the 5++ that they carried over is pretty much redundant.

not sure termies with 4++ is the way to go ... I'd prefer higher toughness and a 4+++ FNP vs single damage weapons.

 Blackie wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Meganobz having 3 W is brilliant though. Die to dissy cannons half as fast.

SM termies tank those dissies with a 3++ though, meganobz only have 5+ to tank them. Against thunder hammers and other 3+ damage weapons that's no context here.

But the TH/SS variant is quite a bit more expensive than a Meganob. You seriously need to stop thinking every Space Marine army is Space Wolves. Factions that don't have a history of being Marines +1 every single damn edition can't mix and match weapons and shields on Terminators at will.

Then there's the fact that the Meganobz have far superior delivery mechanisms.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Meganobz having 3 W is brilliant though. Die to dissy cannons half as fast.

SM termies tank those dissies with a 3++ though, meganobz only have 5+ to tank them. Against thunder hammers and other 3+ damage weapons that's no context here.

But the TH/SS variant is quite a bit more expensive than a Meganob. You seriously need to stop thinking every Space Marine army is Space Wolves. Factions that don't have a history of being Marines +1 every single damn edition can't mix and match weapons and shields on Terminators at will.

Then there's the fact that the Meganobz have far superior delivery mechanisms.

I wasn't compare TH/SS to PKs, aka the units' loadouts, I was comparing the fact that 3++ termies can soak heavy hits like thunder hammers ones way better than meganobz. That's the difference between a 2+ save and a 2+ save with invuln, the latter can soak the dedicated anti tank very well, meganobz simply melt against anti tank weapons.

I also strongly disagree with the idea of SW being marines +1. SM were vastly superior in 7th thanks to their broken formations and actually no SW lists were top tiers, only soups with a single TWC deathstar and maybe some wulfen, but not a single pure SW list. In this edition if SW are SM+1 then ultramarines are SM+10. SM lists performed way better than SW at competitive levels so far, even after the SW codex dropped. BA aren't inferior to SW, they're probably superior.

Delivery mechanism is also the same one, a simple deepstrike. The meganobz one costs 2 CPs though, while the terminator one is free.

So Space Marines had Gladius (for ONE edition, mind you) and now you're convinced Space Wolves are never Space Marines +1?
You really need to do some critical thinking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also LOL at saying the 5++ is a bonus for a 2+ model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also saying that the 170 point unit shouldn't just be good on its own is a real issue. Everything is being priced like you have an aura, except you pay even more for that aura.

Well in fact 5++ is basically useless on a 2+ model since most of the anti tank weapons are AP-3 or even AP-2 which means that the standard armor is enough to give the model a 5+ or 4+ save, that 5++ is a legacy from older editions when AP2 weapons completely bypassed the 2+ save and that 5+ was a real bonus. I assumed 3++ base because for 2pts there's no reason not to take termies with shields. And even with the storm shield termies are cheaper than meganobz.

Yes, I don't think units should be very good on their own. IMHO 170 points for the actual stats of termies are already a good deal. To have better termies you should invest more (CPs, auras or supporting units) on them. I'm afraid we have different concepts of what is good, termies are already good with SS and PF, but to be a top unit they need to cost more somehow. Otherwise they'd be auto take and any auto take for armies that have lots of units are the result of a bad game design.

Wulfen are terrible alone, but they are amazing with supporting units because they buff them so they get more value and also desperately want the re-rolls in combat. Oh they also need a CP to outflank. Talos and grotesques have much more value with an haemonculus behind them, urien rakhart also give them +1S which is another huge buff. Litterally no one plays coven monsters without the buffing HQ. Orks are extremely CPs dependant, take lootas, a terrible overcosted that has no sense to exist for 5/7 clans and a mediocre unit for the other 2. But one of those clans can make them competitive with tons of CPs invested (6 per turn usually) and supporting units (a weirdboy and screening gretchins). Meganobz are mediocre without those 2 CPs invested on them to be tellyported and gain a lot by supporting characters. SW termies work decent because of the buffing auras.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Meganobz having 3 W is brilliant though. Die to dissy cannons half as fast.

SM termies tank those dissies with a 3++ though, meganobz only have 5+ to tank them. Against thunder hammers and other 3+ damage weapons that's no context here.

Literally all the other codices get units that work on their own (including the Wulfen you name dropped, because honestly synergy =/= a transport or using the strategem), so you would have to actually make several units worse than buffing Terminators.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also assuming Terminators have a 3++ needs to stop. Scarab Occult, Blightlords, Deathshroud, Paladins, Chaos Terminators, Tactical Terminators, the other two Mk Terminators...they don't have that.
There is clearly a universal problem you're ignoring because you're spoiled playing a faction that has almost never been bad.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So Space Marines had Gladius (for ONE edition, mind you) and now you're convinced Space Wolves are never Space Marines +1?
You really need to do some critical thinking.

Anything prior 7th edition is now 6-7+ years ago. SM in 7th had plenty of broken tools that SW didn't have: grav spam, skyhammer formation, invisibility, etc. In the entire 8th edition SM have been vastly superior than SW. And I'm not even that sure that in 6th SW were superior to other SM chapters, but I admit I'm not an expert of that edition since I've basically skipped it entirely.

So yeah, this +1 thing really belongs to some ancient past.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also assuming Terminators have a 3++ needs to stop. Scarab Occult, Blightlords, Deathshroud, Paladins, Chaos Terminators, Tactical Terminators, the other two Mk Terminators...they don't have that.
There is clearly a universal problem you're ignoring because you're spoiled playing a faction that has almost never been bad.

Well SM players always mention lootas as if they were bad moons only. Coven stuff as prophets of flesh only. Ravagers as black heart only with doom buff, etc.

If a faction has 45 units that look identical then the problem is that there are too many of them, and some of them should disappear. The thread's title is how to make termies worthwhile, it isn't about tactics involving the current units but it's about some proposed rules: my answer is to make termies like SW ones, just with a few small differences between the factions but still very similar. Simple. Just one unit of termies per faction, not 99 of them. Melee only (or mostly).

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So Space Marines had Gladius (for ONE edition, mind you) and now you're convinced Space Wolves are never Space Marines +1?
You really need to do some critical thinking.

Anything prior 7th edition is now 6-7+ years ago. SM in 7th had plenty of broken tools that SW didn't have: grav spam, skyhammer formation, invisibility, etc. In the entire 8th edition SM have been vastly superior than SW. And I'm not even that sure that in 6th SW were superior to other SM chapters, but I admit I'm not an expert of that edition since I've basically skipped it entirely.

So yeah, this +1 thing really belongs to some ancient past.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also assuming Terminators have a 3++ needs to stop. Scarab Occult, Blightlords, Deathshroud, Paladins, Chaos Terminators, Tactical Terminators, the other two Mk Terminators...they don't have that.
There is clearly a universal problem you're ignoring because you're spoiled playing a faction that has almost never been bad.

Well SM players always mention lootas as if they were bad moons only. Coven stuff as prophets of flesh only. Ravagers as black heart only with doom buff, etc.

If a faction has 45 units that look identical then the problem is that there are too many of them, and some of them should disappear. The thread's title is how to make termies worthwhile, it isn't about tactics involving the current units but it's about some proposed rules: my answer is to make termies like SW ones, just with a few small differences between the factions but still very similar. Simple. Just one unit of termies per faction, not 99 of them. Melee only (or mostly).

1. Nice revisionism. They didn't have Grav spam, they had Devastator Centurions and that's it. Skyhammer wasn't broken, and Invisibility was available to anyone (and you had it cast for Space Wolves units)
Seriously, Space Wolves players are frickin spoiled.
2. Different faction =/= different codex. The units I named literally come from other codices and don't have Storm Shields. Lootas don't have universal problems, they simply work better when rerolling to hit. That's simply dishonest of you.
And honestly, you need to quit listing Storm Shields as a reason for Terminators being fine because a lot of other units are using those same Storm Shields a LOT better (such as your precious Wulfen). 2 point Storm Shields didn't help Terminators, it simply made a lot of other units stupid (Deathwatch being a notorious example, assuming you have that many shield dudes laying around).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So Space Marines had Gladius (for ONE edition, mind you) and now you're convinced Space Wolves are never Space Marines +1?
You really need to do some critical thinking.

Anything prior 7th edition is now 6-7+ years ago. SM in 7th had plenty of broken tools that SW didn't have: grav spam, skyhammer formation, invisibility, etc. In the entire 8th edition SM have been vastly superior than SW. And I'm not even that sure that in 6th SW were superior to other SM chapters, but I admit I'm not an expert of that edition since I've basically skipped it entirely.

So yeah, this +1 thing really belongs to some ancient past.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also assuming Terminators have a 3++ needs to stop. Scarab Occult, Blightlords, Deathshroud, Paladins, Chaos Terminators, Tactical Terminators, the other two Mk Terminators...they don't have that.
There is clearly a universal problem you're ignoring because you're spoiled playing a faction that has almost never been bad.

Well SM players always mention lootas as if they were bad moons only. Coven stuff as prophets of flesh only. Ravagers as black heart only with doom buff, etc.

If a faction has 45 units that look identical then the problem is that there are too many of them, and some of them should disappear. The thread's title is how to make termies worthwhile, it isn't about tactics involving the current units but it's about some proposed rules: my answer is to make termies like SW ones, just with a few small differences between the factions but still very similar. Simple. Just one unit of termies per faction, not 99 of them. Melee only (or mostly).

1. Nice revisionism. They didn't have Grav spam, they had Devastator Centurions and that's it. Skyhammer wasn't broken, and Invisibility was available to anyone (and you had it cast for Space Wolves units)
Seriously, Space Wolves players are frickin spoiled.
2. Different faction =/= different codex. The units I named literally come from other codices and don't have Storm Shields. Lootas don't have universal problems, they simply work better when rerolling to hit. That's simply dishonest of you.
And honestly, you need to quit listing Storm Shields as a reason for Terminators being fine because a lot of other units are using those same Storm Shields a LOT better (such as your precious Wulfen). 2 point Storm Shields didn't help Terminators, it simply made a lot of other units stupid (Deathwatch being a notorious example, assuming you have that many shield dudes laying around).

I have to agree 2ppm stormshields are way better on anything else but terminators as you now paying out the points for a 2+5++, which only comes into play against Ap0 weapons.
Your also forgetting that Space furries +1 to hit makes a huge swing in effectiveness when you have low volume expensive CC weapon models.

If Terminators are paying for durability and damage output that's just not how they really play on the table.

3w models are much better than 2w models in 8th. Full stop. Especially given my primary strategy of spamming -1 save 2 damage weapons into terminators. Who is tanking better now? Lots of players are building to short circuit invulns because they are everywhere.

And 40k before 7th absolutely counts. And sw have always been sm+1.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. Nice revisionism. They didn't have Grav spam, they had Devastator Centurions and that's it. Skyhammer wasn't broken, and Invisibility was available to anyone (and you had it cast for Space Wolves units)
Seriously, Space Wolves players are frickin spoiled.

So don't you agree that SM have been better than SW since 6+ years now? Ooooook. SM are far superior than SW at competitive levels since years, that's a fact. No pure SW list was able to be top tier since a lot of time, several pure SM lists won tournaments in 7th and 8th. Invisibility wasn't available in the SW codex, and most of the SW+SM soups were actually SM lists plus some SW superfriend, not SW plus a few SM allied. Saying that invisibility was available to anyone it's like saying that the castellan, the most overpowered unit at the moment, is available to anyone, just ally it in.

As Martel732 said, 40k before 7th absolutely counts, I totally agree with that, but it doesn't count to balance and fix the current version of 40k because it's another game now. If things have been different since years, it's disohnest to keep saying that SW are SM+1 because they're not. And not since yesterday or a month ago, but at least since two whole editions.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

2. Different faction =/= different codex. The units I named literally come from other codices and don't have Storm Shields. Lootas don't have universal problems, they simply work better when rerolling to hit. That's simply dishonest of you.
And honestly, you need to quit listing Storm Shields as a reason for Terminators being fine because a lot of other units are using those same Storm Shields a LOT better (such as your precious Wulfen). 2 point Storm Shields didn't help Terminators, it simply made a lot of other units stupid (Deathwatch being a notorious example, assuming you have that many shield dudes laying around).

Well you're simply wrong about lootas as you won't see any of them in a list that isn't bad moons. Maybe freebotas but still hard to see, as they have better options. Which means that the unit IS mediocre and overcosted. Lootas can only be good with a gimmick that involves a single clan buff, tons of CPs and supporting units like 90 points or more of gretchins. Sorry if you have no clue about how the armies you don't play work, just watch the lists posted in this site or elsewhere and you'll notice yourself.

I know that different factions have different codexes, in fact I'm suggesting a fix to termies, I'm not saying how should they play now. Let them be melee specialists in each codex, all with the chance of getting the 3++ and all with possible and helpful buffing auras from other characters or units. That would fix them. Of course different armies will be different options, like different weapons, GK or 1000 sons with psychic powers, etc... but the role of the unit should be that one. Again I'm not suggesting tactics and giving advice about how to play the current units of termies and their equivalents, we're in the proposed rules section.

It's true that 2pts storm shields also favor other units but you mentioned wulfen and they are useless, if not dead weight, if played on their own. They are amazing if they give some other units their aura and in a list with multiple assault oriented units. You and other SM players only want super dudes that are able to do the heavy work alone, which is silly. Enjoy your 20 points T5 4W 2++ 2+++ dudes. Not even wulfen, which are supposed to be melee superstars, are that good if unsupported. A unit of WG termies can definitely be paired with wulfen, I've recently played a list with both of them. I'd suggest watching some bat reps if you're not able to play an actual game, because it does look like you always do some theoryhammer without actually playing.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. Nice revisionism. They didn't have Grav spam, they had Devastator Centurions and that's it. Skyhammer wasn't broken, and Invisibility was available to anyone (and you had it cast for Space Wolves units)
Seriously, Space Wolves players are frickin spoiled.

So don't you agree that SM have been better than SW since 6+ years now? Ooooook. SM are far superior than SW at competitive levels since years, that's a fact. No pure SW list was able to be top tier since a lot of time, several pure SM lists won tournaments in 7th and 8th. Invisibility wasn't available in the SW codex, and most of the SW+SM soups were actually SM lists plus some SW superfriend, not SW plus a few SM allied. Saying that invisibility was available to anyone it's like saying that the castellan, the most overpowered unit at the moment, is available to anyone, just ally it in.

As Martel732 said, 40k before 7th absolutely counts, I totally agree with that, but it doesn't count to balance and fix the current version of 40k because it's another game now. If things have been different since years, it's disohnest to keep saying that SW are SM+1 because they're not. And not since yesterday or a month ago, but at least since two whole editions.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

2. Different faction =/= different codex. The units I named literally come from other codices and don't have Storm Shields. Lootas don't have universal problems, they simply work better when rerolling to hit. That's simply dishonest of you.
And honestly, you need to quit listing Storm Shields as a reason for Terminators being fine because a lot of other units are using those same Storm Shields a LOT better (such as your precious Wulfen). 2 point Storm Shields didn't help Terminators, it simply made a lot of other units stupid (Deathwatch being a notorious example, assuming you have that many shield dudes laying around).

Well you're simply wrong about lootas as you won't see any of them in a list that isn't bad moons. Maybe freebotas but still hard to see, as they have better options. Which means that the unit IS mediocre and overcosted. Lootas can only be good with a gimmick that involves a single clan buff, tons of CPs and supporting units like 90 points or more of gretchins. Sorry if you have no clue about how the armies you don't play work, just watch the lists posted in this site or elsewhere and you'll notice yourself.

I know that different factions have different codexes, in fact I'm suggesting a fix to termies, I'm not saying how should they play now. Let them be melee specialists in each codex, all with the chance of getting the 3++ and all with possible and helpful buffing auras from other characters or units. That would fix them. Of course different armies will be different options, like different weapons, GK or 1000 sons with psychic powers, etc... but the role of the unit should be that one. Again I'm not suggesting tactics and giving advice about how to play the current units of termies and their equivalents, we're in the proposed rules section.

It's true that 2pts storm shields also favor other units but you mentioned wulfen and they are useless, if not dead weight, if played on their own. They are amazing if they give some other units their aura and in a list with multiple assault oriented units. You and other SM players only want super dudes that are able to do the heavy work alone, which is silly. Enjoy your 20 points T5 4W 2++ 2+++ dudes. Not even wulfen, which are supposed to be melee superstars, are that good if unsupported. A unit of WG termies can definitely be paired with wulfen, I've recently played a list with both of them. I'd suggest watching some bat reps if you're not able to play an actual game, because it does look like you always do some theoryhammer without actually playing.

1. And yeah, basically anyone can ally in a Castellan. They need to be fixed. So your point is what?
Also the moment Space Wolves got their 7.5th formation stuff they became better once again. They would show up more with those formations than an army with free vehicles. It's laughable. The moment they get their codex, they're Marines +1. The fact you deny this is amazing, because basically everyone else would agree outside you.
Pure Marine lists also aren't winning right now, even with the large amount of Marines being brought to the tournament. It proves flat out they need a rewrite. Even Slamguinus is showing up less because GW did the right thing and hit CP farming (whether it was too strong a hit was a different question).

2. You actually ARE telling people to L2P when you've been spoiled for rules using Space Wolves. Wulfen are functional without support, like units should be. Why would you even deny that?

 Blackie wrote:

Delivery mechanism is also the same one, a simple deepstrike. The meganobz one costs 2 CPs though, while the terminator one is free.

Except Orks have reroll one or both dice on failed charges. Stop ignoring the fact that Orks get into melee much more reliably than any Chapter in Codex: Space Marines.

 Blackie wrote:


I wasn't compare TH/SS to PKs, aka the units' loadouts, I was comparing the fact that 3++ termies can soak heavy hits like thunder hammers ones way better than meganobz. That's the difference between a 2+ save and a 2+ save with invuln, the latter can soak the dedicated anti tank very well, meganobz simply melt against anti tank weapons.

I know, I was commenting on the fact that the only Terminators with a 3++ save costs a bunch more than a Meganob unless you're Space Wolves and can just mix and match. Hence my point: stop pretending everyone is Marines +1.

SW are indeed struggling atm. TWC are countered by guardsmen at this point. And melee anything is just down in 8th. SW have nice devs, and some nice gear, but power shooting lists and lists with extensive screens just dont care.

Martel732 wrote:
SW are indeed struggling atm. TWC are countered by guardsmen at this point. And melee anything is just down in 8th. SW have nice devs, and some nice gear, but power shooting lists and lists with extensive screens just dont care.

TWC are only countered by Infantry because everyone was used to throwing a bunch of expensive weapons on them. They switched roles from what they used to be, essentially.

S3 frfsrf wrecks them. Straight up wrecks them.

Martel732 wrote:
S3 frfsrf wrecks them. Straight up wrecks them.

S3 frgsrf wrecks everyone

Martel732 wrote:
S3 frfsrf wrecks them. Straight up wrecks them.

Not sure I'd call an average of about 1 wound from a 10 man squad of guardsmen 'wrecking them'.

I would given the relative costs.

Ignoring the Officer giving the orders, isn't the cost 40pts? So it's a less-than-50% return. Still a really good return, but not what most people consider "straight up wreck", though.

I'm factoring in the cock-block factor too. Your twc gets to charge 4 point dum dums. I guess I should have said that. S3 is greatly improved vs t5 in 8th.

Would still like a 1+ save (so a terminator in cover will be a nightmare - and they are meant for such environments).

Astartes bolters in general should have a boost. As the training is better and the armour more integrated compared to say a sister of battle or imperial guard commander carrying a bolter...

Bolters (pistols, storm, regular) should be -1 to armour save.

Astartes bolters become assault 2 (storm bolters assault 4) and have an alt fire mode as elite assault troops. In this mode they become rapid fire 2 (storm bolters rapid fire 4), str 3, ap 0 weapons, to represent them using the mass reactive ammo and auto targeting senses to sow confusion in a charging hordes ranks with airbursts, delayed detonation, shrapnel fragments, etc.

So better protection and better firepower...

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Astartes bolters in general should have a boost. As the training is better and the armour more integrated compared to say a sister of battle or imperial guard commander carrying a bolter...

You must be psychic!

I came here literally to talk about the Bolters Beta as well.
They still get -1 to hit on them, but an extra 2 shots or 4 at 12" helps make up a little, but that still doesn't affect the Assault Cannon or Cyclone. But hey, why are we taking Cyclones at that cost. Its worse than a pair of other missiles these days.

Honestly more vehicles and Termies all need some form of the old Relentless. I moved a heavy weapons firing platform weighing several dozen tonnes a foot or two, and suddenly the tracking augers go on the fritz. I know AdMech aren't the best, but we had tank gun stabilisers in the 1930s.

Kai Calimatinus wrote:
I came here literally to talk about the Bolters Beta as well.
They still get -1 to hit on them, but an extra 2 shots or 4 at 12" helps make up a little, but that still doesn't affect the Assault Cannon or Cyclone. But hey, why are we taking Cyclones at that cost. Its worse than a pair of other missiles these days.

Honestly more vehicles and Termies all need some form of the old Relentless. I moved a heavy weapons firing platform weighing several dozen tonnes a foot or two, and suddenly the tracking augers go on the fritz. I know AdMech aren't the best, but we had tank gun stabilisers in the 1930s.

That's not how it works.Storm Bolters are Rapid Fire 2, so you get a max of 4 shots per Terminator equipped with one.

It's just you now get the 4 shots past 12".

As above.

The beta rule is more defensive than offensive as far as its impact on termies go.

Practical use of the beta rule is that you can now deep strike your termies greater than 12"+M value of target away, denying your opponent a rapid fire range on their subsequent turn.

i.e. You deepstrike termies to shoot at guardsmen:
Pre-beta rule:
Deepstrike @ +9" to double tap, gamble on a 9" charge. If charge is failed, guardsmen now shoot in RF range against termies.

Beta rule in effect:
Deepstrike at +18" to double tap. Guardsmen cannot move into RF range w/ their 6" move and must fire only once per model.

While we're here, let's also drop 1 pt from SB - SB is not a 2 pt weapon.

To be fair, an entire squad of Guardsmen in Rapid Fire range with FRFSRF shooting at Terminators do an average of just over 1 wound. (36 shots to the wound, and they get 37.)

True. It was an example to explain the superiority among mid-range units. Guardsmen just get used all the time because reasons.

Played a few test games with a couple of friends over the weekend. We home brewed the following:

Terminator Armor:

A model wearing Terminator Armor never suffers the -1 to hit penalty in close combat when using unwieldy weapons.

Reduce the damage of incoming ranged attacks by 1 to a minimum of 1. If the strength of the weapon is less than the toughness of the model, re-roll armor saves of 1 in addition.

We noticed a sizable increase in the use-ability of the unit after applying these home-brew rules.

 JNAProductions wrote:


That's not how it works.Storm Bolters are Rapid Fire 2, so you get a max of 4 shots per Terminator equipped with one.

It's just you now get the 4 shots past 12".

Ah, it was late when I first read it last night, I now see how it works as an extension to when you get the double attacks.

Ok so that does add a bit more punch at longer ranges for termies but it doesn't help them any up close advancing to charge.

I see it more as:
DS close to what you want to punch with your fists. You can now shoot your incidental fire at anything within 24" instead of 12". Because what you want to punch with their fists is usually not what you want the incidental fire to go into.

Maybe I just run a lot of stuff that dies fast to Boltguns. I don't see it as meta-breaking, but I do see it help Termies be less-bad.

Nothing dies fast bolt guns. Some things die less slowly, though.

Bharring wrote:
I see it more as:
DS close to what you want to punch with your fists. You can now shoot your incidental fire at anything within 24" instead of 12". Because what you want to punch with their fists is usually not what you want the incidental fire to go into.

Maybe I just run a lot of stuff that dies fast to Boltguns. I don't see it as meta-breaking, but I do see it help Termies be less-bad.

9" charge is still bad and can't be relied on IMO.

The point isn't to charge on the turn you come down. The point is that you have a somewhat durable threat that needs to be removed in one turn. Not arguing that they're good enough to do that job well, just slightly better than before (because of additional incidental fire against secondary targets).

"Nothing dies fast bolt guns. Some things die less slowly, though."
Swooping Hawks. Dire Avengers. Fire Dragons. Warp Spiders. Dark Reapers. Banshees. Striking Scorpions. Harlequins. Guardian Defenders. Shadow Spectres.

Lots of things die fast to boltguns. You're just not used to facing them.

Bharring wrote:
The point isn't to charge on the turn you come down. The point is that you have a somewhat durable threat that needs to be removed in one turn. Not arguing that they're good enough to do that job well, just slightly better than before (because of additional incidental fire against secondary targets).

"Nothing dies fast bolt guns. Some things die less slowly, though."
Swooping Hawks. Dire Avengers. Fire Dragons. Warp Spiders. Dark Reapers. Banshees. Striking Scorpions. Harlequins. Guardian Defenders. Shadow Spectres.

Lots of things die fast to boltguns. You're just not used to facing them.

Because those units with the exception of Harlequins have been used maybe 4 times collectively across all of 8th edition. The reason you're "not used to facing them" is because NOBODY USES THEM.

 skchsan wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I see it more as:
DS close to what you want to punch with your fists. You can now shoot your incidental fire at anything within 24" instead of 12". Because what you want to punch with their fists is usually not what you want the incidental fire to go into.

Maybe I just run a lot of stuff that dies fast to Boltguns. I don't see it as meta-breaking, but I do see it help Termies be less-bad.

9" charge is still bad and can't be relied on IMO.

In a gimmick list, you would run them as Black Templars or anything else as Minotaurs with Asterion's effect bubble.

Honestly i am surprised we can't take terminators all with power swords + storm bolters.

Honestly the equipment that termies use should be halved in costs.

A squad of 5 termies with heavy weapons should be costed at around 140 - 150pts. not 170+.

Give them strategems like the proposed "Halve incoming damage" or abilities that benefit their deep strike. There are many things that can be done to improve terminators and stats are not the only way.

"Because those units with the exception of Harlequins have been used maybe 4 times collectively across all of 8th edition. "
With the exception of Spectres, I've used them more than 4 times *myself*. They aren't used often, sure. But they *do* exist. And there are many more like them.

I chose that list, specifically, because most of those are usually in my lists. There are units out there that fear Boltguns, but I agree that they're not meta favorites.

Bharring wrote:
"Because those units with the exception of Harlequins have been used maybe 4 times collectively across all of 8th edition. "
With the exception of Spectres, I've used them more than 4 times *myself*. They aren't used often, sure. But they *do* exist. And there are many more like them.

I chose that list, specifically, because most of those are usually in my lists. There are units out there that fear Boltguns, but I agree that they're not meta favorites.

Aren't Spectres one of those units with that innate -1 to hit them? Even at their cost I wouldn't really say they're that fearful.

Let me get this straight:
13ppm T4 3+: dies in droves to S3
28ppm T3 3+: Unkillable with S4 if it has -1 to hit

Unless you're BS6+, you're full of it. It's just a doublestandard.

Bharring wrote:
Let me get this straight:
13ppm T4 3+: dies in droves to S3
28ppm T3 3+: Unkillable with S4 if it has -1 to hit

Unless you're BS6+, you're full of it. It's just a doublestandard.

I'm not the person complaining about Marine durability you DO realize, right?

Bharring wrote:
The point isn't to charge on the turn you come down. The point is that you have a somewhat durable threat that needs to be removed in one turn. Not arguing that they're good enough to do that job well, just slightly better than before (because of additional incidental fire against secondary targets).

"Nothing dies fast bolt guns. Some things die less slowly, though."
Swooping Hawks. Dire Avengers. Fire Dragons. Warp Spiders. Dark Reapers. Banshees. Striking Scorpions. Harlequins. Guardian Defenders. Shadow Spectres.

Lots of things die fast to boltguns. You're just not used to facing them.

They still die slowly. I'm used to being dead completely around turn 4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Let me get this straight:
13ppm T4 3+: dies in droves to S3
28ppm T3 3+: Unkillable with S4 if it has -1 to hit

Unless you're BS6+, you're full of it. It's just a doublestandard.

How do the boltguns live vs Eldar to begin with? That's the real question.

Wait what dire avengers die quickly to bolt guns? Wait what? they have a +4 save.

Warp Spiders and Fire Dragons, Striking Scorpions have a +3 save

If you have a unit of warp spiders by themselves you've honestly screwed up somewhere. A dire avenger squad not having a warlock nearby casting conceal and or invig is that players fault. Dire Avengers will outshoot the marines very easily.

Swooping hawks will not be locked down by a tactical squad.

Guardian Defenders there are a lot of them they are supposed to die.

Honestly to add to this thread again. The only way we can truly improve terminators now (especially with the new beta rule) is to give them a stratagem of some kind that allows them to ignore specific deep strike rules and charge the same turn they arrive. Or maybe they get to ignore in their combat phase -1 and gain an additional attack.

Or maybe you get a 'Veterans of the First Company' which gives +1 attack and +1 bs and ws up to three units that cost up to 3cp (1 cp each). Thus giving you an incentive to get more CP with marines.

There is a bunch you can do, and I think with these new beta rules, some point cost reduction (heavy flamer, assault cannon, missile launcher), some more weapon options (like allowing all terminators to take power swords, storm shields, etc) would go a long way in making terminators worthwhile along with good stratagems.

Give Terminators a "roll 3D6 for charge distance" stratagem. Bloodletters can do it, with +1 to charge range to boot. Orks can do a similar thing, with 'Ere We Go and +1 to charge distance, but without the 3D6.

Bharring wrote:
Let me get this straight:
13ppm T4 3+: dies in droves to S3
28ppm T3 3+: Unkillable with S4 if it has -1 to hit

Unless you're BS6+, you're full of it. It's just a doublestandard.

The issue is it's never just-1 to hit it's-1 for spectrrs, -1 alitoc
That marinrs on 5+, and the real threat of guardsmen on 6's (can be made 7+if needed) that makes a big difference it's not so much that thier more resilient directly, but they can out fox the meta infantry choice.

So let me get this straight:
S3 kills a whole 13*(1/2 hit)(1/3 wound)(1/3 failed armor save)
or 0.722 points/shot, so Marines die in droves to Lasguns.

S4 only kills 28*(1/3 hit)(2/3 wound)(1/3 failed armor save) or 2.1 points/shot, so Boltguns aren't a threat to Spectres?

And that's including a Chapter Tactic on Spectres but not Marines.

That's just bad math.

I don't disagree that Spectres are better than Marines for a host of other reasons, but Boltguns are a threat to them.

"Wait what dire avengers die quickly to bolt guns? Wait what? they have a +4 save."
They die exactly *twice* as fast to Boltguns as Marines.

"Warp Spiders and Fire Dragons, Striking Scorpions have a +3 save"
They're still dying faster per model than Marines. Warp Spiders and Fire Dragons cost a lot more than Marines, too. Striking Scorpions, though, fair point.

"A dire avenger squad not having a warlock nearby casting conceal and or invig is that players fault."
You get one Conceal per turn. Using it on Dire Avengers is a waste. It still doesn't make them very durable. Depending on what you mean by Invig (Fortune? Protect?), likely the same deal. Having both makes them not die too quickly to Boltguns, but you've just spent two powers to up 5 GEQs to basically MEQ survivability. If DAs are really the most in need of either, the CWE player has already lost. A Libby casting Smite is more impactful than this.

"Swooping hawks will not be locked down by a tactical squad."
True. But they'll be outshot. They now lose the firefight at 24" vs basic Tac Marines.

"Dire Avengers will outshoot the marines very easily."
Not at all. They're actually very evenly matched.
11 Tacs shooting DAs: 11x2x(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 4.88.. dead DAs, or 53.68 points
13 DAs shooting Tacs: 13x2x(2/3)[(1/3)(1/3)+(1/6)(5/6)] = 4.33 dead Marines, or 56.33 points

My point in all this isn't that Marines are good, or that CWE (or even the units listed) are bad; it's that the BoltGun *is* a threat to certain units. So try to use it as that.

My point, specific to this thread, is that the Beta Rule gives your Termies more options. You can drop 9" away from waht you want to charge next turn, or where you want to deny the enemy, but still shoot that squishy target behind them - any target within 24" at full efficiency.

Again, I'm not saying that makes Termies good. I'm saying that it makes Termies slightly less bad, as you can better leverage their kit now. Because, most of the time, what you want to put your Termies in front of isn't what you want their shots going into.

You need more context around you maths as you have used 1 bolter shots and 1 lasgun shots apparently instead of the 3.25 you get for the same points.
Not to mention the bonus of orders?

It also didn't factor in Marine CTs (-1-to-hit or 6+ FnP both change the numbers), or Marine reroll-hits/reroll-wounds. Or the doubletap-at-24-under-conditions. But it's always Alaitoc outside 12" for some reason. There's a lot not factored in.

Marines are getting 32% return on killing Spectres with Boltguns. In conditions favorable to the Spectres. That's a fairly good return.

*Reapers* get lower returns shooting *Marines*, despite being OP and glass cannons.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Give Terminators a "roll 3D6 for charge distance" stratagem. Bloodletters can do it, with +1 to charge range to boot. Orks can do a similar thing, with 'Ere We Go and +1 to charge distance, but without the 3D6.

They could. Overall marines just need better stratagems (mentioned it in another thread). While also giving marines a bonus to being taken as a mono army. Infact every army should get bonuses for being a mono army. Similar to how in 4th you could take a rule that barred you from taking allies and what you would do is get a whole army wide ability from the chapter tactics in exchange. (very helpful) unforunately we don't have stratagems useful to terminators, or any other unit that isn't primaris. Hell Dreadnoughts and land raiders have none to speak of.

Bharring wrote:
It also didn't factor in Marine CTs (-1-to-hit or 6+ FnP both change the numbers), or Marine reroll-hits/reroll-wounds. Or the doubletap-at-24-under-conditions. But it's always Alaitoc outside 12" for some reason. There's a lot not factored in.

Marines are getting 32% return on killing Spectres with Boltguns. In conditions favorable to the Spectres. That's a fairly good return.

*Reapers* get lower returns shooting *Marines*, despite being OP and glass cannons.

That's because the preferred target of Reapers isn't W1 models and you know that.

I'm not saying Eldar infantry don't die to Bolters. I'm simply saying that to "fear" them is probably the most ludicrous thing I've ever read in a long time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Give Terminators a "roll 3D6 for charge distance" stratagem. Bloodletters can do it, with +1 to charge range to boot. Orks can do a similar thing, with 'Ere We Go and +1 to charge distance, but without the 3D6.

Yeah but ththe difference a lot of the units that get those benefits aren't in significantly bulky armor that actually prohibits movement a lot. It kinda makes sense for Jump Packs and I'm surprised Bikers didn't get it. To suggest it on Terminators is along the silliness of them doing back flips which I KNOW some of you criticized.

As I said, they die less slowly. But still slowly.

Now run math vs fire warriors or guardsmen, not overcosted eldar infantry. Minus reapers, who are still undercosted.

I wouldn't call Harlies, Scorpions, or DAs overcosted. I'd call them "units that aren't horde".

Back on point, the problem with "roll 3d6" on Termies, is that an easy charge might break them in the *other* direction. In theory, their threat is that if they aren't wiped in one round after DS, they charge whatever they're aiming for. They are relatively slow and durable, with one hell of a punch. A "roll 3d6" stratagem turns them into a fast-hitting threat. That shouldn't be their role.

Scorpions are definitely overcosted for the role they were now given, especially when they don't have their regular Infiltrate like they used to and got a generic Deep Strike. That alone would be an incredible fix for them.

Termies still have pretty expensive gear to boot (power fists). The biggest problem right now is that termies never see combat cause well combat this edition sucks making them less useful.

A great point by point is comparing Aggressors to Terminators

Terminators' equipment is 23pts pr and has 11pts in total for weapons

While Aggressors being 21pts per and their gear is 14pts for weapons.

For 2 less points Aggressors have +1 toughness -1 save no invulnerable save with assault 6, and d6 s4 attacks compared to a terminators rapid fire 4, s4, (longer range but it gets a bit more painful for terminators in terms of shooting).

So an aggressor is shooting 9 shots, compared to a termies 4 shots, both have the exact same melee capabilities. 5 extra shots is quite a bit, but not only that but they are not mandated to take more than 3 aggressors. so they at most would be 111 pts compared to a Tartaros 165pts for 5 Terminators.

in total you would get 20 (23 if you use Tartaros) shots from the terminator squad, while the aggressors would get on the average 27 shots, if they didn't move the last turn they get 54 shots at S4.

Aggressors don't outpace terminators but they are comparable in terms of equipment costs, both need their costs to be brought down, especially as is, close combat is too expensive and does not actually contribute much unless they change the rules for this edition.

But for this edition the best thing to do is to give terminators an option to take all power swords (4pts) or chain axes (0). This would significantly decrease the cost of all terminators, (From 34pts to just 25pts or 29pts). Currently Wolf Guard can do this similarly with having stormshields + storm bolters for only 27pts and have a +3 invulnerable save. And maybe a stratagem that allows them to double their rapid fire for 1 turn.

Termies are a slow CC unit, they pay too much for CC to use them solely as a shooting unit.

Look at Incubi and Wraithblades - Termies aren't the only such unit to have this problem.

Bharring wrote:
Termies are a slow CC unit, they pay too much for CC to use them solely as a shooting unit.

Look at Incubi and Wraithblades - Termies aren't the only such unit to have this problem.

Oh i agree. My poor wraithblades and scorpions are down in the dumps of forgotten land because CC is underwhelming.

I've used them with objective secured thanks to the new crimson fists warlord trait, and honestly it instantly makes them worth their points. A cataphractii squad that can hold an objective as if they were troops is almost impossible to move.

Bharring wrote:
Termies are a slow CC unit, they pay too much for CC to use them solely as a shooting unit.

Look at Incubi and Wraithblades - Termies aren't the only such unit to have this problem.

Incubi definitely suffer the most as they don't even get Kabal effects as far as I'm aware. Not that ANY of them help them out of course, but still.

Give them a third wound.

Bharring wrote:
It also didn't factor in Marine CTs (-1-to-hit or 6+ FnP both change the numbers), or Marine reroll-hits/reroll-wounds. Or the doubletap-at-24-under-conditions. But it's always Alaitoc outside 12" for some reason. There's a lot not factored in.

Marines are getting 32% return on killing Spectres with Boltguns. In conditions favorable to the Spectres. That's a fairly good return.

*Reapers* get lower returns shooting *Marines*, despite being OP and glass cannons.

The point I was trying to make was if you compair 1 marine boltgun shooting at a Spector to 3 guardsmen shooting at them and that shows the problems.

Same when you shoot a bolter at a marine vrs 3.25 Lasguns at a marine.

It compared 1 Marine Boltgun firing at a Spectre to 1 Guardsman Lasgun firing at a Marine. It was comparing what Boltguns do to Spectres vs another matchup that is commonly considered as killing something quickly.

"Same when you shoot a bolter at a marine vrs 3.25 Lasguns at a marine."
Fine, we'll do the math your way:
Marine Boltgun vs Spectre: 2.1 pts per shot
Marine Boltgun vs Marine: 13x(2/3)(1/2)(1/3), or 1.4 pts per shot
Again, that's Spectres with a Chapter Trait and outside 12", with no trait on the Marine.

We should just abandon that line of discussion; we're clearly not on the same page.

28x3.25x(1/6)×(1/2)x(1/3)= 2.53 points.

Guardsmen without orders still outshoot marines point for point.
Seams like your specters should be more worried about jimbob and his lasgun than a bolter still.

That's part of the fundamentally flawed balance in 8th edition.
With this 6 always nonsence GW hasn't expanded the stats enough for things to be different.

3 wounds or reduce all damage tecived by 1 to a minimum of 1. Terminator armor should also remove the penalty for using a powerfist or thunderhammer and should also remove the penalty for moving with a heavy weapon. Slight points increase and all set.

 buddha wrote:
3 wounds or reduce all damage tecived by 1 to a minimum of 1. Terminator armor should also remove the penalty for using a powerfist or thunderhammer and should also remove the penalty for moving with a heavy weapon. Slight points increase and all set.

So why even include lightning class as an option then?
I can hit on 3+ with a thunderhammers or 3+ with a lighning claw.

3 wounds is custodes territory and GW already has enough trouble trying to make marines and custodes diffrent.

Because LC give re-rolls to wound and extra attacks.

Ice_can wrote:

 buddha wrote:
3 wounds or reduce all damage tecived by 1 to a minimum of 1. Terminator armor should also remove the penalty for using a powerfist or thunderhammer and should also remove the penalty for moving with a heavy weapon. Slight points increase and all set.

So why even include lightning class as an option then?
I can hit on 3+ with a thunderhammers or 3+ with a lighning claw.

3 wounds is custodes territory and GW already has enough trouble trying to make marines and custodes diffrent.

Now you know why I was hammering in on the WS/BS2+ and A3 as a fix. It's basically universal for all elite Terminators without actually having to change points essentially.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 buddha wrote:
3 wounds or reduce all damage tecived by 1 to a minimum of 1. Terminator armor should also remove the penalty for using a powerfist or thunderhammer and should also remove the penalty for moving with a heavy weapon. Slight points increase and all set.

So why even include lightning class as an option then?
I can hit on 3+ with a thunderhammers or 3+ with a lighning claw.

3 wounds is custodes territory and GW already has enough trouble trying to make marines and custodes diffrent.

Now you know why I was hammering in on the WS/BS2+ and A3 as a fix. It's basically universal for all elite Terminators without actually having to change points essentially.

Been on the same page as you on the WS2+/BS2+ thing for a long time, it's just a shame GW havn't got on board yet.
The A3 or I've wavered been as it could be busted by some of the newer chapters.

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 buddha wrote:
3 wounds or reduce all damage tecived by 1 to a minimum of 1. Terminator armor should also remove the penalty for using a powerfist or thunderhammer and should also remove the penalty for moving with a heavy weapon. Slight points increase and all set.

So why even include lightning class as an option then?
I can hit on 3+ with a thunderhammers or 3+ with a lighning claw.

3 wounds is custodes territory and GW already has enough trouble trying to make marines and custodes diffrent.

Now you know why I was hammering in on the WS/BS2+ and A3 as a fix. It's basically universal for all elite Terminators without actually having to change points essentially.

Been on the same page as you on the WS2+/BS2+ thing for a long time, it's just a shame GW havn't got on board yet.
The A3 or I've wavered been as it could be busted by some of the newer chapters.

A3 with Power Fists at WS3+ isn't that absurd. It simply makes them better at cracking open tanks.
Plus A4 WS2+ Lightning Claws or A3 WS3+ Power Fists+Storm Bolter/TH+SS feels like a legit way to think about what you want and what you need.

Ice_can wrote:

 buddha wrote:
3 wounds or reduce all damage tecived by 1 to a minimum of 1. Terminator armor should also remove the penalty for using a powerfist or thunderhammer and should also remove the penalty for moving with a heavy weapon. Slight points increase and all set.

So why even include lightning class as an option then?
I can hit on 3+ with a thunderhammers or 3+ with a lighning claw.

3 wounds is custodes territory and GW already has enough trouble trying to make marines and custodes diffrent.

Custodes should have 5 wounds. More than a grotesque.

Martel732 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 buddha wrote:
3 wounds or reduce all damage tecived by 1 to a minimum of 1. Terminator armor should also remove the penalty for using a powerfist or thunderhammer and should also remove the penalty for moving with a heavy weapon. Slight points increase and all set.

So why even include lightning class as an option then?
I can hit on 3+ with a thunderhammers or 3+ with a lighning claw.

3 wounds is custodes territory and GW already has enough trouble trying to make marines and custodes diffrent.

Custodes should have 5 wounds. More than a grotesque.

Ehm.... no. Grotesques are ok with +1 or even +2W compared to custodes. Custodes should just have a better armor save, and of course they have better weapons to fight. But I'm also totally against the primaris concept and strongly feel that marines on 32mm base should be 1W, 2W for dudes on 40mm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

A3 with Power Fists at WS3+ isn't that absurd. It simply makes them better at cracking open tanks.
Plus A4 WS2+ Lightning Claws or A3 WS3+ Power Fists+Storm Bolter/TH+SS feels like a legit way to think about what you want and what you need.

I agree. A3 WS3+ PF and A4 WS2+ Claws are tipycal for SW termies and they don't seem overpowered at all but not even bad, just an additional viable option on the table.

The survivability of Terminators is what gets to me the most. Experimented with house rules on saving throws, the two we found most useful were:

- Roll 2 dice on Invul saves

- Reroll Invul saves

The first felt right, it was just incredibly hard to kill them. The second felt balanced, more like it would work with other armies.

Then I stopped using Terminators because of the limited offensive output. Bolter Discipline has me thinking they may be useful again...

 techsoldaten wrote:
The survivability of Terminators is what gets to me the most. Experimented with house rules on saving throws, the two we found most useful were:

- Roll 2 dice on Invul saves

- Reroll Invul saves

The first felt right, it was just incredibly hard to kill them. The second felt balanced, more like it would work with other armies.

Then I stopped using Terminators because of the limited offensive output. Bolter Discipline has me thinking they may be useful again...

They'd be too strong if they have access to the 3++ though. At that point they'd need a price hike. Or maybe shields should be like 10 ppm, which is appropriate considering what they're adding to a model.

I honestly don't understand why bothering with termies if you give them bolter shots, as SM has plenty of other ranged anti infantry sources which are way more effective. Termies may be worth taking in a SM army only if they have a role that the army currently lacks: heavy melee specialists. I think all the changes to make termies worthwhile should go into that direction. Last thing SM need is another viable shooting platform.

If SM were the only ones who get terminators that would be nice.

But would you advocate on melee changes for Scarab Occults for example?

topaxygouroun i wrote:
If SM were the only ones who get terminators that would be nice.

But would you advocate on melee changes for Scarab Occults for example?

I think they should be very different rules wise. Even orks have terminators, but they have different rules and profile stats from the SM ones as it should be. I was referring to terminators with only the loyalist ones in mind.

Balancing a unit doesn't mean that all the equivalents from different codexes should be identical. T sons are a complete different army than vanilla SM and their standalone chapters.

Some termies could have access to 3++ for the entire squad, other ones could re-roll invulns, have a 5+++, fire twice, get +1W, +1WS and/or 1A... that's not the point, the terminators versions from different codexes should be different, and designed to have a role that is actually worthy for the faction they belong. I think the only way to fix imperium termies is to make them effective melee specialists. Other factions can have very different terminators equivalents, I don't think there's a universal way to fix and balance them all that doesn't make them OP. .

I don't think you can have melee specialist terminators without letting them drop T1. Even if you could, they just feel off. 2 attacks, no rerolls, standard SM statline and then powerfist nerfs their ws on top of that.

They are also not fast enough to become melee specialists. to me terminators should be average performing offense wise but should be the beasts of survivability. They are supposed to be thrown where the battle is the hottest and just take the punishment. 3 wounds, -1 damage from all sources to a minimum of 1, 4++ base with a 3++ max possibility, counting incoming fire as if having 1 ap less, this kind of thing. Just an incredibly unbreakable brick to drop in your opponent's rear and annoy them enough that they can't ignore them completely.

That depends on what kind of specialists they are.

Drop in fast, get in fast? That's Vanguard Vets (or ASM). Things like Scorpions, Storm Boyz, Alpha Zerkers and such are their counterparts in other armies.

Move up fast, move around fast, but not super-flimsy? SM Bikes (Vets or otherwise). Things like Spears, Biker Boys, Necron Wraiths, and Demon Princes do the same in other codexes.

In theory, Termies are show up late, hard to remove quickly, hit hard if not removed. We can look at MegaNobz, Wraithblades, and Incubi for how other armies pull it off. Cliff notes: this is a common role, but rarely works.

Giving them a Get-Stuck-In-Easy button without toning down their survivability or killiness in CC shifts their slot; without a price *hike*, they'd simply outperform their counterparts (within and without the codex). Giving them tons of maneuverability, same deal.

We could make them better at their role, but not much does that role well. The closest I can think of to filling that role and not sucking is IKs.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Give Terminators a "roll 3D6 for charge distance" stratagem. Bloodletters can do it, with +1 to charge range to boot. Orks can do a similar thing, with 'Ere We Go and +1 to charge distance, but without the 3D6.

Yeah but ththe difference a lot of the units that get those benefits aren't in significantly bulky armor that actually prohibits movement a lot. It kinda makes sense for Jump Packs and I'm surprised Bikers didn't get it. To suggest it on Terminators is along the silliness of them doing back flips which I KNOW some of you criticized.

And one of the units that gets it is Meganobz.

Just let them DS within 6" as opposed to 9" then, to simulate the superiority of teleportation compared to other forms of Deep Strike.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Give Terminators a "roll 3D6 for charge distance" stratagem. Bloodletters can do it, with +1 to charge range to boot. Orks can do a similar thing, with 'Ere We Go and +1 to charge distance, but without the 3D6.

Yeah but ththe difference a lot of the units that get those benefits aren't in significantly bulky armor that actually prohibits movement a lot. It kinda makes sense for Jump Packs and I'm surprised Bikers didn't get it. To suggest it on Terminators is along the silliness of them doing back flips which I KNOW some of you criticized.

And one of the units that gets it is Meganobz.

Just let them DS within 6" as opposed to 9" then, to simulate the superiority of teleportation compared to other forms of Deep Strike.

And I will argue that Meganobz have less holding them back in terms of technology than Terminators.

Broken record time. A third wound fixes the majority of their issues. Not ws/bs 2.