No. Terminators are supposed to be tough as nails, but that's supposed to be their armor. They are, beneath it, just normal space marines ('normal' space marines.. ha.) Meganobz, the often evoked comparison, are 2w with no invulnerable save. They cost the same amount as termies but don't get a lot of the perks. Lower leadership, no invul, way less options gear wise (none in comparison, actually), no deepstrike, ect ect.
Termies would need to get a price hike if they were to go to two wounds. Or, alternatively, TEQ in other armies would themselves mandate a big buff. You mind facing down some Meganobz armed with SS/TH equivilent gear and a 5+ invul?
There ARE terminators with two wounds, they're called paladins. Have you ever fought paladins? I have, they are quite annoying. Also Lone Wolves with their 2 wounds and FNP are also quite annoying. AP2 weapons are DESIGNED to kill models with tough armor. I mean terminators are tough, but a Meltagun shot is meant to kill tough units.
morganfreeman wrote: Termies would need to get a price hike if they were to go to two wounds. Or, alternatively, TEQ in other armies would themselves mandate a big buff. You mind facing down some Meganobz armed with SS/TH equivilent gear and a 5+ invul?
What would you recommend in terms of a price hike? They stand at 240 a 5 man squad, 44 per additional model. I'd like to terminators get an additional wound, as AP2 seems quite commonplace, making standard tac troops paper thin.
A reduction in price wouldn't do it for you instead?
I know some armies that would kill to get single wound 2+/5++ guys with those kinds of loadouts for 40ish points...
skoffs wrote: A reduction in price wouldn't do it for you instead?
I know some armies that would kill to get 2+/5++ guys with this kinds of loadouts for 40ish points...
I would settle for that. I guess its commonsense, but I feel like Terminators are more the kind of guys with a giant target on their back that everyone unloads on, so other than a LR, they seem to have limited survivability.
Deathwing Terminator wrote:I guess a better fix would be toning down the amount of large blast ap2 weaponry.
No freakin duh, dude.
How do you think we could do that?
Like, what about the game could be changed to prevent people from bringing so much of it?
Do you think taking away ap2 guns would be ok, or would that make things like riptides and terminators too powerful, since armies wouldn't have any way to deal with them?
jreilly89 wrote: AP2 seems quite commonplace, making standard tac troops paper thin.
So, isn't this your problem? How does that translate into changing terminators, instead of fixing the actual problem, the problem you just stated right there, that doesn't have "tactical dreadnought armor" anywhere in the statement?
Hey, but seriously feel free to start a new thread for everything and never look anywhere else.
starbomber109 wrote:There ARE terminators with two wounds, they're called paladins. Have you ever fought paladins? I have, they are quite annoying. Also Lone Wolves with their 2 wounds and FNP are also quite annoying. AP2 weapons are DESIGNED to kill models with tough armor. I mean terminators are tough, but a Meltagun shot is meant to kill tough units.
Yeah, here is this post, this is a good post.
Your problem is that a 2+ save, the best save possible, is supposed to make terminators hard to kill, but it doesn't. Terminators used to be scary, because they had 2+ saves, but then the game changed and now they aren't.
So you have this thing that doesn't work, and you know a reason why it doesn't work (more ap2 than there used to be). Your solution is to add something else, but keep the thing that doesn't work too.
morganfreeman wrote: No. Terminators are supposed to be tough as nails, but that's supposed to be their armor. They are, beneath it, just normal space marines ('normal' space marines.. ha.) Meganobz, the often evoked comparison, are 2w with no invulnerable save. They cost the same amount as termies but don't get a lot of the perks. Lower leadership, no invul, way less options gear wise (none in comparison, actually), no deepstrike, ect ect.
Average amount of AP2 wounds to kill a Terminator is 1.333…, the average amount of AP2 wounds to kill a Meganob is 2. The average amount of AP3 or worse wounds to kill a Meganob is 12, the average to kill a Terminator is 6. The only thing the Meganobz are worse against is S8+ AP2, due to Instant Death. The difference in durability is staggering.
Man, you should be happy you get even some invul. If every next codex is gona be designed like an ork one (which has good internal ballance but doesn't match well with all the rediculous stuff everyone else has right now), invulnerable saves are gona be extremely rare.
morganfreeman wrote: No. Terminators are supposed to be tough as nails, but that's supposed to be their armor. They are, beneath it, just normal space marines ('normal' space marines.. ha.) Meganobz, the often evoked comparison, are 2w with no invulnerable save. They cost the same amount as termies but don't get a lot of the perks. Lower leadership, no invul, way less options gear wise (none in comparison, actually), no deepstrike, ect ect.
Average amount of AP2 wounds to kill a Terminator is 1.333…, the average amount of AP2 wounds to kill a Meganob is 2. The average amount of AP3 or worse wounds to kill a Meganob is 12, the average to kill a Terminator is 6. The only thing the Meganobz are worse against is S8+ AP2, due to Instant Death. The difference in durability is staggering.
koooaei wrote: Man, you should be happy you get even some invul. If every next codex is gona be designed like an ork one (which has good internal ballance but doesn't match well with all the rediculous stuff everyone else has right now), invulnerable saves are gona be extremely rare.
morganfreeman wrote: No. Terminators are supposed to be tough as nails, but that's supposed to be their armor. They are, beneath it, just normal space marines ('normal' space marines.. ha.) Meganobz, the often evoked comparison, are 2w with no invulnerable save. They cost the same amount as termies but don't get a lot of the perks. Lower leadership, no invul, way less options gear wise (none in comparison, actually), no deepstrike, ect ect.
Average amount of AP2 wounds to kill a Terminator is 1.333…, the average amount of AP2 wounds to kill a Meganob is 2. The average amount of AP3 or worse wounds to kill a Meganob is 12, the average to kill a Terminator is 6. The only thing the Meganobz are worse against is S8+ AP2, due to Instant Death. The difference in durability is staggering.
Why don't you have a 3++ guy in front?
Because C: SM can't mix shooty and choppy Terminators?
Proxy your termies as meganobz. With Mob rule instead of ATSKNF, no deepstrike, no invul, SNP, ld7. Not trying to insult you or something, but you just picture things like: "Termies are garbage, maganobz are made of awesome, i want my termies to be meganobz".
Just don't add ld10 ATSKNF 3++ indeps in there cause we're comparing termies and meganobz in vacuum, right?
Op has a valid original point, termies are bad, we know this is due to other books and partly due to the termies themselves, they are and have always been over costed for what you get, this is compounded by the ease of access to ap2, so an already over costed unit becomes worse.
Would 2 wounds fix this? no, it would help but otherwise it would make gw just raise the cost and thus lower the effectiveness even further, as those high str large blast ap2 weapons still exist, the only realistic way to make termies good again is to limit ap2 by a large margin and lower the cost of termies to such an.extent they could actually be used.
Thier are several workarounds and all involve a massive point decrease.
Reducing AP2 would require a massive overhaul of all codex.
Reducing the price would only affect a fraction.
It's obvious which way they should go... but if they did so, it would hardly be fair to all the other TEQs out there.
(you don't think Lychguard wish they could have 2+ saves while carrying a Warscythe AND a shield, all while being able to take assault vehicles? Were that to happen, Necron players around the world would rush out to buy boxes of the things).
skoffs wrote: A reduction in price wouldn't do it for you instead?
I know some armies that would kill to get single wound 2+/5++ guys with those kinds of loadouts for 40ish points...
Right here brah. 45 points for a 3+/4++ with only an ap3 weapon. Yeah, T5 and can stand back up, but seriously......I want a 2+ save other than an overlord.
koooaei wrote: Proxy your termies as meganobz. With Mob rule instead of ATSKNF, no deepstrike, no invul, SNP, ld7. Not trying to insult you or something, but you just picture things like: "Termies are garbage, maganobz are made of awesome, i want my termies to be meganobz".
Just don't add ld10 ATSKNF 3++ indeps in there cause we're comparing termies and meganobz in vacuum, right?
You keep ignoring that the Meganobz have an additional wound, making them more durable against everything that isn't S8+. Drowning Meganobz in wounds is significantly harder than drowning Terminators in wounds (twice as hard, in fact). Further, Deep Striking is rather awful, and Meganobz don't have to pay their own cost again to get a Dedicated Transport.
My local Ork player always runs Meganobz of some sort in his lists, it's probably the unit I've fought the most in the game. If Meganobz lose combat and get swept, odds are they mauled the living gak out of whatever they fought, and whatever they fought has to have been significantly powerful/expensive to beat them in the first place. They're dead 'ard.
koooaei wrote: Proxy your termies as meganobz. With Mob rule instead of ATSKNF, no deepstrike, no invul, SNP, ld7. Not trying to insult you or something, but you just picture things like: "Termies are garbage, maganobz are made of awesome, i want my termies to be meganobz".
Just don't add ld10 ATSKNF 3++ indeps in there cause we're comparing termies and meganobz in vacuum, right?
You keep ignoring that the Meganobz have an additional wound, making them more durable against everything that isn't S8+. Drowning Meganobz in wounds is significantly harder than drowning Terminators in wounds (twice as hard, in fact). Further, Deep Striking is rather awful, and Meganobz don't have to pay their own cost again to get a Dedicated Transport.
My local Ork player always runs Meganobz of some sort in his lists, it's probably the unit I've fought the most in the game. If Meganobz lose combat and get swept, odds are they mauled the living gak out of whatever they fought, and whatever they fought has to have been significantly powerful/expensive to beat them in the first place. They're dead 'ard.
I think you misunderstood me. I suggested that termies become meganobz. That's all. But to make things more ballanced, disallow them to be joined by any HQ. Cause 3++ HQ in a meganobz squad is way too much.
It's no way you're gona have sm stats with 2 wounds and an invul. They'd just have to cost like HQ's.
A huge problem that I have with TDA in general is that for the same cost, giving a character Artificier Armor/Runic Armor is always better. They're not bulky, and they can sweeping advance, which is must in many characters like the SM Chapter Master. I can never find a reason NOT to chose Artificier Armor over Termie armie, especially when they cost the same to upgrade.
This might be offset if HQs could take heavy weapons like Lascannons and whatnot (also taking advantage of their BS 5) but don't think thats gonna happen.
Having at least +1 T or +1 W would make me seriously considering taking TDA instead of artificier armor on a character.
My suggestion: TDA confers 2+, 5++, relentless, Deep Strike, Bulky, +1 wound, prevents sweeps.
+1 wound greatly improves their survivability, while retaining their vulnerability to meltaguns, lascannons and the like to keep people happy with that. +1 wound also keeps it competetive against AA or a bike on characters, as these choices are otherwise simply superior.
5 wound TDA Chapter Masters will be a pain but they will at least be slow, and slow melee units generally do not fare well anyway.
I would gladly support an option where terminators got twice as many wounds, but only if they cost twice as much.
Terminators are "bad" because people use them foolishly most of the time. It's not the unit's fault if they're thrown in front of an entire army unsupported and then just die.
In any case, I don't think what 40k needs more of is units that are relatively immune to small arms fire. If you want to make them more survivable, then fix monstrous creatures instead. When you have garbage like riptides that everyone needs to pack in anti-terminator weapons to have any hope of beating, then of course termies are going to look bad, meta-wise.
Cap MCSv at 3+ or even 4+ and watch as terminators become suddenly extra-useful again.
Ailaros wrote: I would gladly support an option where terminators got twice as many wounds, but only if they cost twice as much.
An absurd notion. You could argue a small price bump, but double wounds will never be worth double price on anything. A 2W Terminator is as tough as 2 1W Terminators, justifying double price... But the latter have twice the attacks and twice the firepower.
I hope you were not seriously suggesting doubling the price for an extra wound.
Terminators are "bad" because people use them foolishly most of the time. It's not the unit's fault if they're thrown in front of an entire army unsupported and then just die.
You often dismiss complaints with 'l2p' justifications, but Terminators are bad even if you do not use them in a tanking role (Something that they are supposed to be good at.)
They can cut their way through units weaker than themselves, sure, but which unit can't do that?
In our meta, I have been permitted to apply a special upgrade to my Chaos Terminators, granting them +1 wound, +1 WS, +1 BS and VotlW for 15 PPM.
In combination with MoN it creates an expensive unit but one that can absorb a fair amount of damage, especially with attached, appropriately equipped ICs.
At 80 ppm with W2 they would be insanely underpowered even in the most friendly of games.
The meta is a problem, yes, but the very idea of this thread is a way to make Terminators more viable by changing them, not changing something else.
W2 Termies at 45 or 50 ppm or something would be fine.
Terminators are "bad" because people use them foolishly most of the time. It's not the unit's fault if they're thrown in front of an entire army unsupported and then just die.
You often dismiss complaints with 'l2p' justifications, but Terminators are bad even if you do not use them in a tanking role (Something that they are supposed to be good at.)
They can cut their way through units weaker than themselves, sure, but which unit can't do that?
I just want to go ahead and look once more at the lowly meganob, the most common comparison for this argument.
Meganobz are not often used to tank by ork players, and their primary role is beating the absolute snot out of weaker units. This is the exact same niche that terminators excel in, only they trade around a bit. Termies get invulnerable saves, can actually shoot things effectively (if you take non stabby ones I guess), have much larger gear options, and their assault variant is significantly scarier. Meganobz, on the flip side, get an extra wound, an extra attack, cheaper transport options, and are just sexier models because of customization options.
Both units are designed to be bullies, not deathstars. Use them to beat the crap out of -multiple- weaker units so that the rest of your army can handle the stuff which you don't want to risk your termies / manz against.
By-the-by, try having assault termies actually fight MANZ sometimes. The termies cornhole those poor orks so hard that you'll think twice about saying termies are useless whilst applauding MANZ. The same goes against monstrous creatures and any kind of unit that can beat 2+ in CC. MANZ are horde-killers that crumble if you can actually pierce their armor, termies are moderate sized unit killers (I.E. they're fine to take 10 tac marines or even 20 guardsmen, but you start having problem if a blob of 30 orks is throwing 120 attacks at you) which can trade effectively in CC with most non-deathstar units that still pack a punch.
Terminators are "bad" because people use them foolishly most of the time. It's not the unit's fault if they're thrown in front of an entire army unsupported and then just die.
You often dismiss complaints with 'l2p' justifications, but Terminators are bad even if you do not use them in a tanking role (Something that they are supposed to be good at.)
They can cut their way through units weaker than themselves, sure, but which unit can't do that?
I just want to go ahead and look once more at the lowly meganob, the most common comparison for this argument.
Meganobz are not often used to tank by ork players, and their primary role is beating the absolute snot out of weaker units. This is the exact same niche that terminators excel in, only they trade around a bit. Termies get invulnerable saves, can actually shoot things effectively (if you take non stabby ones I guess), have much larger gear options, and their assault variant is significantly scarier. Meganobz, on the flip side, get an extra wound, an extra attack, cheaper transport options, and are just sexier models because of customization options.
Both units are designed to be bullies, not deathstars. Use them to beat the crap out of -multiple- weaker units so that the rest of your army can handle the stuff which you don't want to risk your termies / manz against.
By-the-by, try having assault termies actually fight MANZ sometimes. The termies cornhole those poor orks so hard that you'll think twice about saying termies are useless whilst applauding MANZ. The same goes against monstrous creatures and any kind of unit that can beat 2+ in CC. MANZ are horde-killers that crumble if you can actually pierce their armor, termies are moderate sized unit killers (I.E. they're fine to take 10 tac marines or even 20 guardsmen, but you start having problem if a blob of 30 orks is throwing 120 attacks at you) which can trade effectively in CC with most non-deathstar units that still pack a punch.
The thing with Meganobz is that they don't have to pay 250 points to get where they need to be. Trukks, while fragile, lets them get where they need to be without breaking the bank. Yes, TH/SS Terminators will slaughter them, but the Terminators aren't getting anywhere without a Land Raider, and they're more expensive than the MANz to boot.
The only fix I want for Terminators is to keep their cost and give them a special rule that allows them to re-roll saves against anything lower than S6 (1-5). So no re-rolls vs an auto cannon or meltagun, but they would still be indomitable against guardsmen's lasfire... You know.. As they should be.
This would force the enemy to concentrate high AP weapons to kill terminators, and not just pick units and throw massive ammounts of dice and just drown the terminators in saves, which all codices seem to be able to these days.
Zewarth, I believe the reason large amounts of dice kill Termies is because the sheer number of shots is supposed to eventually hit a week spot in the armour, killing the marine.
Why are we having this discussion here where the original multi page thread about terminator is already on the same page with the same suggestions/arguments?
The thing with Meganobz is that they don't have to pay 250 points to get where they need to be. Trukks, while fragile, lets them get where they need to be without breaking the bank. Yes, TH/SS Terminators will slaughter them, but the Terminators aren't getting anywhere without a Land Raider, and they're more expensive than the MANz to boot.
On the flip-side, again, marines can (and generally do) have a vastly different playstyle than Orks. You don't charge across the field screaming WWAAAAGGGH! with marginal gun-fire support before getting into CC to make-it-or-break-it, quite the opposite in fact. Marines are generally there to shoot things, not beat their skills in. In essence you're still looking at terminators wrong; they're not your hammer, they're the anvil.
Use them to handle threats which actually reach your line. Depending on how you equip them their combined strength of decent ranged firepower and nasty CC potential means they can wipe out such threats with few to no losses, moving from one target to the next and making sure the rest of your army does its thing relatively unhindered. They can also take on non death-star (but still scary) threats and generally trade effectively with them, though that again boils down to how they're kitted out. Terminators can even use deep-strike to get where they need to be, and with homers they can do it without scattering.
I'm not saying the units are the exact same because they're not, but they most certainly fill a similar niche. And all this whining about how termies are just so god-awful is really grating because they truly are not. People just imagine they should be able to throw this 200-500 point unit against the entire enemy army and gak-stomp them, but then get upset when it doesn't work that way. They use terminators wrong and then blame them instead of themselves. Heck, I'm not even saying terminators are a great call in every list against every foe, lord knows MANZ are not. They do however have a role which they are good at, and they even have the tools to do it. People just want them to do another roll and become upset when they cannot.
Terminators need a buff, but +1 Wound is not the way to go. Also, comparing them to Meganobz doesn't work. Meganobz come from the Ork codex: They're naturally tough, resilient, and choppy. They bully weaker units, but crumple like wet toilet paper against genuinely strong enemies. As with all Ork things, they're better against weak enemies but worse against strong ones.
If you want them to be equal, fine. Give me a Warboss with 4 Wounds, a 3++ Invuln, and 2+ Armor even when he's on his bike. Thank you very much.
That would be drastically overpowered. T5 2W models with 2+5++ for 40 points? Heck, with the damage output available that's overpowered for 60 points. At 80 it would be reasonable. Plus, what happens when we import this to CSM? Do we give the Mark of Nurgle for T6?
Not to mention, then you'll have 5W T5 Chapter Masters. Is that what you really want?
That would be drastically overpowered. T5 2W models with 2+5++ for 40 points? Heck, with the damage output available that's overpowered for 60 points. At 80 it would be reasonable. Plus, what happens when we import this to CSM? Do we give the Mark of Nurgle for T6?
Not to mention, then you'll have 5W T5 Chapter Masters. Is that what you really want?
So as it is, terminators are drastically overpriced for what they do, what would make them more effective for what they cost points wise?
That would be drastically overpowered. T5 2W models with 2+5++ for 40 points? Heck, with the damage output available that's overpowered for 60 points. At 80 it would be reasonable. Plus, what happens when we import this to CSM? Do we give the Mark of Nurgle for T6?
Not to mention, then you'll have 5W T5 Chapter Masters. Is that what you really want?
So as it is, terminators are drastically overpriced for what they do, what would make them more effective for what they cost points wise?
Frankly, I don't feel like you can make many changes to Terminators that would fix them without a complete overhaul. They could be cheaper, but at this point, we're just treating a symptom, and the disease rages on. The fish rots from the head, as they say, so my thinking is why not cut off the head?
...
It's not a perfect metaphor.
Anyways, Terminators as they currently stand don't really have a role. They deal marginal shooting damage, and while they can be upgraded to have a little more it's certainly not their forte. They can put out plenty of S8 AP2 in Close Combat, but at only 3 attacks each on the charge, they aren't dealing massive amounts of damage. They can also take a variant to deal better damage, either with more attacks at Initiative (but with lower damage) or with a 3++ invuln and Concussive, but then they lose all ranged capacity. Their real problem is that their damage output just isn't up to snuff compared to most focused units these days, (Especially ones with the appropriate buffs,) and they are paying for durability that is almost irrelevant since their damage output is nil and their points cost is high.
With 2 Wounds and T5, or even just 2W, they would need a price hike for the durability. 10 Points just for the wound seems likely, since 5 isn't near enough for that kind of boost and GW rarely does things in 7s and 8s once you're past 30 points or so. But, no matter how durable you make them, you're still going to have marginal and pathetic damage output, and there is no real way to change that without drastically altering their stats and wargear options.
Making them have 2 Wounds will make them frustrating and annoying to play against, but not make them good.
I think the problem is that while the rules have advanced past the edition where Terminators were deadly in whatever role you assigned them, their rules weren't updated to suit the newer editions.
Honestly, give standard terminators two wounds wouldn't be insane, if they cost as much as paladins do. Of course, you have to factor in that they don't get the same sort of equipment selections that paladins do, so does it warrant a 50-60 ppm? Honestly, a higher toughness and maybe a better invulnerable save would make more sense, or maybe just one of the two.
Whoever mentioned before that people just play them wrong isn't completely incorrect. I've seen guys read the fluff behind them assuming their stats are commiserate with the power they display in the fluff, only to have them erased by shooting from a Gaunt squad. I think it's important to remember that terminators aren't supposed to be unstoppable, but a hard nut to crack or a wedge to open up a hole in enemies lines even more so.
All this talk of giving terminators a better invul, better gear options, higher toughness, and usually an extra wound into the equation all at the same time are absolutely insane.
Terminators aren't supposed to roll over armies all on their own, and trying to buff them so that they can is pretty silly.
Ashiraya wrote: Slippery slope fallacies won't convince anyone that they are fine.
Nobody has ever argued that they should roll over armies alone.
Which they won't, not even with all the buffs you mentioned.
Making terminators immune to small arms fire, which seems to be the biggest "want" here is one thing and a very dangerous thing at that. What am I supposed to do as an ork player against terminators if they get an extra wound or toughness 5? The only real strategy available to me at present is drowning them in boyz, and while that certainly works I'm not exactly thrilled at having to throw 30 boyz (+ nob) at 5 models and have a combat which soaks up several turns as a result. Giving terminators toughness or wound buffs would largely invalidate this strategy, and when it's gone what do I have left? As was already mentioned, terminators of all flavors (but particularly assault) brutalize my "elite" melee units. What's supposed to be my recourse, as an ork player, to terminators which have the one reliable weakness they have against me taken away?
This isn't a slippery slope fallacy, it's a legitimate point. Terminators have strengths and weaknesses, they have a niche. Just because that niche isn't useful against every list or every codex does not make them bad.
What would be the compensation of taking away one of their weaknesses which so many armies absolutely rely on to beat them? How exactly would you counter-act this to make sure that it remains enjoyable and fair to all parties involve? It seems that the most common requests are +1 toughness, +1 wound, and a more reliable invulnerable save. And, from where I'm sitting, any two of those buffs looks like it absolutely removes my ability to fight terminators in anything resembling an efficient matter, and I know I'm not the only one.
Making terminators immune to small arms fire, which seems to be the biggest "want" here is one thing and a very dangerous thing at that.
No suggested changes will make them immune.
morganfreeman wrote: What am I supposed to do as an ork player against terminators if they get an extra wound or toughness 5? The only real strategy available to me at present is drowning them in boyz, and while that certainly works I'm not exactly thrilled at having to throw 30 boyz (+ nob) at 5 models and have a combat which soaks up several turns as a result.
30 Boyz and a PK nob currently curbstomps 5 Terminators. 30 boys is 120 attacks is 60 hits is 30 wounds is 5 failed saves. This is assuming the charge and no casualties, but it does exclude the Nob, and you still wiped them out in one round of combat. (Plus, 30 boyz with a PK nob is what, 215 points? 5 Termies is 200 points, and the Boyz still wipe them out on the charge...)
morganfreeman wrote: Giving terminators toughness or wound buffs would largely invalidate this strategy, and when it's gone what do I have left? As was already mentioned, terminators of all flavors (but particularly assault) brutalize my "elite" melee units. What's supposed to be my recourse, as an ork player, to terminators which have the one reliable weakness they have against me taken away?
Oh dear, you mean the majority of the units in your codex are cost effective, instead of almost all? That's just dreadful. You'll have to use kustom mega kannons, or maybe even drown them in boyz which will still be a points-effective tactic.
morganfreeman wrote: This isn't a slippery slope fallacy, it's a legitimate point. Terminators have strengths and weaknesses, they have a niche. Just because that niche isn't useful against every list or every codex does not make them bad.
They have a niche, that is, doing very little before dying to almost everything that's not AP3. I'll admit they have this niche. But it's not a fun niche, nor is it very exciting gamewise. Thus they can use a few fixes.
What would be the compensation of taking away one of their weaknesses which so many armies absolutely rely on to beat them? How exactly would you counter-act this to make sure that it remains enjoyable and fair to all parties involve? It seems that the most common requests are +1 toughness, +1 wound, and a more reliable invulnerable save. And, from where I'm sitting, any two of those buffs looks like it absolutely removes my ability to fight terminators in anything resembling an efficient matter, and I know I'm not the only one.
Just +1 toughness or +1 wound would do miles and would leave the tactics you currently use merely adequate instead of lethal.
What a shame.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To clarify, you are saying that tactics are the way to go. But there are no useful Terminator tactics. They are useful for tanking AP3, that is all. This is depressing for a unit whose entire premise is tanking things. They can bully weaker units, but which SM unit can't do that? It's pointless to use tactics with them since they are mediocre on the best of days. Their offense does not match their price, their defence does not match their price, their mobility does not match their price, and altogether it makes a unit that is distinctly sub-par.
Making terminators immune to small arms fire, which seems to be the biggest "want" here is one thing and a very dangerous thing at that.
No suggested changes will make them immune.
morganfreeman wrote: What am I supposed to do as an ork player against terminators if they get an extra wound or toughness 5? The only real strategy available to me at present is drowning them in boyz, and while that certainly works I'm not exactly thrilled at having to throw 30 boyz (+ nob) at 5 models and have a combat which soaks up several turns as a result.
30 Boyz and a PK nob currently curbstomps 5 Terminators. 30 boys is 120 attacks is 60 hits is 30 wounds is 5 failed saves. This is assuming the charge and no casualties, but it does exclude the Nob, and you still wiped them out in one round of combat. (Plus, 30 boyz with a PK nob is what, 215 points? 5 Termies is 200 points, and the Boyz still wipe them out on the charge...)
morganfreeman wrote: Giving terminators toughness or wound buffs would largely invalidate this strategy, and when it's gone what do I have left? As was already mentioned, terminators of all flavors (but particularly assault) brutalize my "elite" melee units. What's supposed to be my recourse, as an ork player, to terminators which have the one reliable weakness they have against me taken away?
Oh dear, you mean the majority of the units in your codex are cost effective, instead of almost all? That's just dreadful. You'll have to use kustom mega kannons, or maybe even drown them in boyz which will still be a points-effective tactic.
morganfreeman wrote: This isn't a slippery slope fallacy, it's a legitimate point. Terminators have strengths and weaknesses, they have a niche. Just because that niche isn't useful against every list or every codex does not make them bad.
They have a niche, that is, doing very little before dying to almost everything that's not AP3. I'll admit they have this niche. But it's not a fun niche, nor is it very exciting gamewise. Thus they can use a few fixes.
What would be the compensation of taking away one of their weaknesses which so many armies absolutely rely on to beat them? How exactly would you counter-act this to make sure that it remains enjoyable and fair to all parties involve? It seems that the most common requests are +1 toughness, +1 wound, and a more reliable invulnerable save. And, from where I'm sitting, any two of those buffs looks like it absolutely removes my ability to fight terminators in anything resembling an efficient matter, and I know I'm not the only one.
Just +1 toughness or +1 wound would do miles and would leave the tactics you currently use merely adequate instead of lethal.
What a shame.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To clarify, you are saying that tactics are the way to go. But there are no useful Terminator tactics. They are useful for tanking AP3, that is all. This is depressing for a unit whose entire premise is tanking things. They can bully weaker units, but which SM unit can't do that? It's pointless to use tactics with them since they are mediocre on the best of days. Their offense does not match their price, their defence does not match their price, their mobility does not match their price, and altogether it makes a unit that is distinctly sub-par.
I'm not gonna go through with the quotes-on-quotes boxes, because I don't fond Dakka's layout very friendly to that sort of thing. So bullet points it is.
1: I can kill an Imperial Knight with naught but a waboss with a klaw on the charge if the dice gods decide they really like me that day, yet that does not mean it is anything near a reliable strategy. When I say "immune" to small arms fire I don't mean immune in the definitive sense of it can never possibly hurt them. However making terminators toughness five wounds two would make them essentially immune to small-arms in a real-world scenario. Sure, you have a chance to kill them with lasguns / bolt guns / shootas / what have you, but the volume of fire needed is so massive that it's not generally worth it to try.
2: In order to get 120 attacks out of my boyz when they charge a unit of terminators I have to be forming a very nice concave around them, have suffered 0 casualties to shooting (and not suffer any to overwatch), and roll very well on the charge dice. In order for these conditions to be met, the terminators would have had the opportunity to charge me in the previous turn and decided to just stand in one spot and not shoot at my boyz. If the terminators charge they cut out 25% of the attacks, reducing all the other numbers by 25%. Furthermore, you essentially can't get 30 boyz to all strike against 5 termies, so let's be generous and say you get 20 into combat. That further reduces the failed saves to much more manageable levels. The final twist? Challenge out the Nob and you will have a good chance of killing him if you have a termy assault squad; the people I know who run assault termies equip the sergeant with lighting claws specifically so he can crunch lots of things in challenges, and with those claws he will reliably kill the nob.
You can throw numbers at me all you like, but that doesn't mean they're the truth. Just because 30 boyz and an unchallenged nob statistically beat a group of termies to death when they do not have to consider things such as B2B contact, getting shot before they got there, and need to be in ideal conditions which would require the enemy to refuse to charge the previous turn does not make terminators bad. Lots of things are bad if you look at raw numbers in the worst scenarios for them (MANZ come to mind as a great example), but in reality they do much better.
When you consider real-world conditions and that boyz now kill themselves when they lose combat, terminators are actually cost effective against boyz. A truly shocking notion.
EDIT: This has devolved, and I'll have no further part in it. My point still stands. It is my opinion that Terminators are simply misused, and the couple of players I know who field them do so with decent effect. I am truly sorry if you disagree and take offence at my opinion, but I am entitled to it just as you are to yours.
I'm getting really tired of people saying "you're just not using them right/TACTICS!" when it comes to crap units. By that logic, any unit in the game can be effective, even Flayed Ones and Pyrovores, so long as you "play them right."
That does not change the face that the units are utter sh!t and others units in the same army can do their job far better.
The burden should be on GW to write better rules, not the players.
EDIT: This has devolved, and I'll have no further part in it. My point still stands. It is my opinion that Terminators are simply misused, and the couple of players I know who field them do so with decent effect. I am truly sorry if you disagree and take offence at my opinion, but I am entitled to it just as you are to yours.
Ah yes, the old "only my opinion" defense. Why is it only those that are losing the argument always resort to it?
morganfreeman wrote: EDIT: This has devolved, and I'll have no further part in it. My point still stands. It is my opinion that Terminators are simply misused, and the couple of players I know who field them do so with decent effect. I am truly sorry if you disagree and take offence at my opinion, but I am entitled to it just as you are to yours.
Ah yes, the old "only my opinion" defense. Why is it only those that are losing the argument always resort to it?
morganfreeman wrote: EDIT: This has devolved, and I'll have no further part in it. My point still stands. It is my opinion that Terminators are simply misused, and the couple of players I know who field them do so with decent effect. I am truly sorry if you disagree and take offence at my opinion, but I am entitled to it just as you are to yours.
Ah yes, the old "only my opinion" defense. Why is it only those that are losing the argument always resort to it?
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: I'm getting really tired of people saying "you're just not using them right/TACTICS!" when it comes to crap units. By that logic, any unit in the game can be effective, even Flayed Ones and Pyrovores, so long as you "play them right."
That does not change the face that the units are utter sh!t and others units in the same army can do their job far better.
The burden should be on GW to write better rules, not the players.
EDIT: This has devolved, and I'll have no further part in it. My point still stands. It is my opinion that Terminators are simply misused, and the couple of players I know who field them do so with decent effect. I am truly sorry if you disagree and take offence at my opinion, but I am entitled to it just as you are to yours.
Ah yes, the old "only my opinion" defense. Why is it only those that are losing the argument always resort to it?
This is the proposed rules section, pretty sure that means the players can discuss rules changes.
The 'only my opinion' defense is perfectly reasonable in this regard. He finds them useful in their current state and is able to play them effectively, perhaps you should try to rebuff any of the points he made rather than attacking the poster.
As for Terminators, I think that everyone on the internet always uses them correctly, all the time. Always. But for those of us who don't, or rather expect more of our 240 point 5 man elite choice, I think +1T might actually be better than a wound increase. Maybe +1 strength too? Or maybe a discount on weapons or something.
Either +1 T or +1 W would work for me. Both is too much since it would require a pts hike and they are already far too expensive for what they offer (at the end of the day, its still only one model of an elite unit yours paying 60+ points for. If it was a HQ it could be justified but not an elite unit).
+1 Strength? Maybe. I would prefer instead that TDA ignores the unweidly rule.
Then there are the weapons. Storm bolters are crap. They should have two firing modes: Assault 2 and Heavy 4. That would give Tactical Termies the "withering firepower" their fluff describes.
Tac Termies should be able to take 2 special weapons per 5 guys, not just 1
Assault termies are fine, though if Termies did become +1 T or +1 W, Storm Shields should be only 4++ (and with the TH should be a free upgrade from dual-LC).
A huge buff would be to allow Termies to run and shoot after deepstriking. That would help alleviate the massive LR tax anyone who runs termies pays.
This is the whole problem in the end as someone said: Terminators need a complete reevaluation of their rules and wargear. Simply boosting one stat and/or lowering their pts cost is only a band-aid.
Buffing TDA has another benefit. Currently AA+bike is indisputably the best choice for captains and chapter masters, but with a buff to TDA, it becomes a realistic choice in certain situations, or at the very least more able to compete.
+1W is too much without a points bump. I could see a +1T fo that slightly added resistance to small arms, but I'm not sure if that's too much or just right under the current points costs. A strength modifier really wouldn't rectify anything.
Changes to the Stormbolter are a tad dangerous as they are found on a very large variety of platforms.
I think that going the Chaos/Space Wolves way in which each terminator is customizable (including Combi options for deadly shooting attacks) rather than having dedicated Assault and Tactical terminator units might be a good start. A slight discount either on base price or upgrades (about 5 points per model, but no more) would probably do better than trying to push the stats higher.
Jefffar wrote: +1W is too much without a points bump. I could see a +1T fo that slightly added resistance to small arms, but I'm not sure if that's too much or just right under the current points costs. A strength modifier really wouldn't rectify anything.
Changes to the Stormbolter are a tad dangerous as they are found on a very large variety of platforms.
I think that going the Chaos/Space Wolves way in which each terminator is customizable (including Combi options for deadly shooting attacks) rather than having dedicated Assault and Tactical terminator units might be a good start. A slight discount either on base price or upgrades (about 5 points per model, but no more) would probably do better than trying to push the stats higher.
I have to disagree with you on the price. Termies aand the TDA option for hqs in general (barring Librarian which seema about right) are extremely overpriced for what they have and what they do. They are only slightly better than honour guard which I feel try and fill the same roll as Termies. At most Termies should be 30pts. And that is probably being generous considering honour guard, like most Space Marine options, are overpriced as well. Honour Guard just aren't overpriced as badly.
On a side note why is this discussion not happening in the original post? Is there a way the two could be merged? No sense having the same discussion in two different posts.
Maybe you want to play chaos terminators-style instead?
Tactical termies with power weapons stock. Thus, you can have 31 pts termies and 33 pts sergeant.
I think that the point problem is the main issue with them right now. You pay for power fists that you quite likely won't use. So why not get just 1 or 2 in a 5 strong squad and save 27-36 pts?
I think it's gona be enough allready. With atsknf they're a reliable annoyance and now cost almost 20% cheaper. That's a steal.
Making terminators immune to small arms fire, which seems to be the biggest "want" here is one thing and a very dangerous thing at that.
No suggested changes will make them immune.
morganfreeman wrote: What am I supposed to do as an ork player against terminators if they get an extra wound or toughness 5? The only real strategy available to me at present is drowning them in boyz, and while that certainly works I'm not exactly thrilled at having to throw 30 boyz (+ nob) at 5 models and have a combat which soaks up several turns as a result.
30 Boyz and a PK nob currently curbstomps 5 Terminators. 30 boys is 120 attacks is 60 hits is 30 wounds is 5 failed saves. This is assuming the charge and no casualties, but it does exclude the Nob, and you still wiped them out in one round of combat. (Plus, 30 boyz with a PK nob is what, 215 points? 5 Termies is 200 points, and the Boyz still wipe them out on the charge...)
morganfreeman wrote: Giving terminators toughness or wound buffs would largely invalidate this strategy, and when it's gone what do I have left? As was already mentioned, terminators of all flavors (but particularly assault) brutalize my "elite" melee units. What's supposed to be my recourse, as an ork player, to terminators which have the one reliable weakness they have against me taken away?
Oh dear, you mean the majority of the units in your codex are cost effective, instead of almost all? That's just dreadful. You'll have to use kustom mega kannons, or maybe even drown them in boyz which will still be a points-effective tactic.
morganfreeman wrote: This isn't a slippery slope fallacy, it's a legitimate point. Terminators have strengths and weaknesses, they have a niche. Just because that niche isn't useful against every list or every codex does not make them bad.
They have a niche, that is, doing very little before dying to almost everything that's not AP3. I'll admit they have this niche. But it's not a fun niche, nor is it very exciting gamewise. Thus they can use a few fixes.
What would be the compensation of taking away one of their weaknesses which so many armies absolutely rely on to beat them? How exactly would you counter-act this to make sure that it remains enjoyable and fair to all parties involve? It seems that the most common requests are +1 toughness, +1 wound, and a more reliable invulnerable save. And, from where I'm sitting, any two of those buffs looks like it absolutely removes my ability to fight terminators in anything resembling an efficient matter, and I know I'm not the only one.
Just +1 toughness or +1 wound would do miles and would leave the tactics you currently use merely adequate instead of lethal.
What a shame.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To clarify, you are saying that tactics are the way to go. But there are no useful Terminator tactics. They are useful for tanking AP3, that is all. This is depressing for a unit whose entire premise is tanking things. They can bully weaker units, but which SM unit can't do that? It's pointless to use tactics with them since they are mediocre on the best of days. Their offense does not match their price, their defence does not match their price, their mobility does not match their price, and altogether it makes a unit that is distinctly sub-par.
I'm not gonna go through with the quotes-on-quotes boxes, because I don't fond Dakka's layout very friendly to that sort of thing. So bullet points it is.
1: I can kill an Imperial Knight with naught but a waboss with a klaw on the charge if the dice gods decide they really like me that day, yet that does not mean it is anything near a reliable strategy. When I say "immune" to small arms fire I don't mean immune in the definitive sense of it can never possibly hurt them. However making terminators toughness five wounds two would make them essentially immune to small-arms in a real-world scenario. Sure, you have a chance to kill them with lasguns / bolt guns / shootas / what have you, but the volume of fire needed is so massive that it's not generally worth it to try.
2: In order to get 120 attacks out of my boyz when they charge a unit of terminators I have to be forming a very nice concave around them, have suffered 0 casualties to shooting (and not suffer any to overwatch), and roll very well on the charge dice. In order for these conditions to be met, the terminators would have had the opportunity to charge me in the previous turn and decided to just stand in one spot and not shoot at my boyz. If the terminators charge they cut out 25% of the attacks, reducing all the other numbers by 25%. Furthermore, you essentially can't get 30 boyz to all strike against 5 termies, so let's be generous and say you get 20 into combat. That further reduces the failed saves to much more manageable levels. The final twist? Challenge out the Nob and you will have a good chance of killing him if you have a termy assault squad; the people I know who run assault termies equip the sergeant with lighting claws specifically so he can crunch lots of things in challenges, and with those claws he will reliably kill the nob.
You can throw numbers at me all you like, but that doesn't mean they're the truth. Just because 30 boyz and an unchallenged nob statistically beat a group of termies to death when they do not have to consider things such as B2B contact, getting shot before they got there, and need to be in ideal conditions which would require the enemy to refuse to charge the previous turn does not make terminators bad. Lots of things are bad if you look at raw numbers in the worst scenarios for them (MANZ come to mind as a great example), but in reality they do much better.
When you consider real-world conditions and that boyz now kill themselves when they lose combat, terminators are actually cost effective against boyz. A truly shocking notion.
EDIT: This has devolved, and I'll have no further part in it. My point still stands. It is my opinion that Terminators are simply misused, and the couple of players I know who field them do so with decent effect. I am truly sorry if you disagree and take offence at my opinion, but I am entitled to it just as you are to yours.
I have been following this exchange from one side, and I am sorry about the way it is turning out. I really value the lived experience re: meganobz, model placement, etcetera. I think that the good half of the conversation has a lot of insight. It is another situation of wishing someone would just go away.
It would be silly for Terminators to chew their way through ork units without having very good shooting for 2+ turns. You'll notice they have bad shooting.
I'll to add, ashiraya, that is not surprising to see you suggest something like armor that can add wounds. This is not possible or correct. The test cases are your tau battlesuits, centurions, and nemesis dreadknights, all of which incorporate the pilot into a larger creature, for which it is possible to shoot off or mangle a limb without hurting the pilot, therefore adding a wound very literally. Terminators wear armor that merely reinforces their existing bodies. Of course, different schema prevail for character models with many wounds, but that does not relate.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:Either +1 T or +1 W would work for me. Both is too much since it would require a pts hike and they are already far too expensive for what they offer (at the end of the day, its still only one model of an elite unit yours paying 60+ points for. If it was a HQ it could be justified but not an elite unit).
+1 Strength? Maybe. I would prefer instead that TDA ignores the unweidly rule.
Then there are the weapons. Storm bolters are crap. They should have two firing modes: Assault 2 and Heavy 4. That would give Tactical Termies the "withering firepower" their fluff describes.
Tac Termies should be able to take 2 special weapons per 5 guys, not just 1
Assault termies are fine, though if Termies did become +1 T or +1 W, Storm Shields should be only 4++ (and with the TH should be a free upgrade from dual-LC).
A huge buff would be to allow Termies to run and shoot after deepstriking. That would help alleviate the massive LR tax anyone who runs termies pays.
This is the whole problem in the end as someone said: Terminators need a complete reevaluation of their rules and wargear. Simply boosting one stat and/or lowering their pts cost is only a band-aid.
There are two hugely important parts in here. You are completely right, boosting the profile or lowering points is a band-aid. If you have something that is broken, piling on additional gizmos will only make repairs more difficult.
The other is the storm bolter? addressed below a bit.
Possibly also that this is not an HQ unit. MANZ are basically personalities and they have usually been dependent on HQ to be taken. Terminators are veteran troopers. Paladins are basically personalities, terminators are veteran troopers.
There is kind of the problem that if you could ignore unwieldy, you'd never take a ccw other than a thunder hammer, and of course this thing with assault 2.
Jefffar wrote:+1W is too much without a points bump. I could see a +1T fo that slightly added resistance to small arms, but I'm not sure if that's too much or just right under the current points costs. A strength modifier really wouldn't rectify anything.
Changes to the Stormbolter are a tad dangerous as they are found on a very large variety of platforms.
I think that going the Chaos/Space Wolves way in which each terminator is customizable (including Combi options for deadly shooting attacks) rather than having dedicated Assault and Tactical terminator units might be a good start. A slight discount either on base price or upgrades (about 5 points per model, but no more) would probably do better than trying to push the stats higher.
CHANGES TO THE STORM BOLTER ARE A TAD DANGEROUS AS THEY ARE FOUND ON A LARGE VARIETY OF PLATFORMS.
So this is interesting. I think that the dangerous change already happened. The rules for the storm bolter are dictated by terminators. Obviously in second edition they had a whole cascade of rules involving jam dice and sustained fire. Then, when andy chamber was trying to figure out third edition, they had a problem. At the time, if you had given a terminator a bolter, he would move and fire one shot at 12" and nothing else. Relentless was not a rule that existed, and in that edition if a model moved and fired a rapid fire weapon it was basically a pistol shot. You can see very clearly that the reason they are assault two is specifically tied to their use by terminators.
The problem is that you're right, they are found on a large variety of platforms. For instance, a guard officer or inquisitorial henchman can take one, and they can fire it just as easily as they can fire a sawn off shotgun. This because terminators needed a workaround for third edition rules. It's bad. Storm bolters are two already large guns stuck together, they need to be harder for unarmored humans to use than exo-armored transhumans. Assault 2 is wrong for storm bolters. Twin-linked rapid fire is much better.
This is the whole problem in the end as someone said: Terminators need a complete reevaluation of their rules and wargear. Simply boosting one stat and/or lowering their pts cost is only a band-aid.
You are never going to fix terminators by adding stuff to terminators. That is it. It would be better to start further afield.
Ork boyz have a 6+ armor save. Obviously they almost never get it except in close combat. So lots of people, lots of ork players, have suggested getting rid of the armor save completely, so they are armor save -, and giving them fnp 6+. That gives them saves much more often, but results in rolling the same number of dice (where armor save + fnp would add way too much dice rolling to the time a game takes to play) This also means you might be able to use fewer models for more points per model, and actually speed up games by having to pick up and put down fewer models in the deployment, movement, run, assault, and consolidation phases.
If you can have army-wide fnp in orks, you can use army-wide fnp in space marines as an excuse to nerf power armor down to 4+, or 4+ with a +1 to rolls, and that will drastically change the kind of weapons people use, because whereas plasma would be weaker against a 5+ fnp save, heavy bolters would be vastly stronger than plasma (20% stronger) against power armor with better range, and would therefore displace plasma to a large extent. Now there are terminators that are stronger against plasma, see less plasma, and survive better against small arms.
Do you want better offense? So do literally all marines. Power armor is a weapons system that helps kill scum, not just protective plates. In exchange for being 4+, power armor lets you shoot two shots with bolt pistols and three shots with bolters. TDA does same, and storm bolters just count as twin linked bolters.
If you think this is too complicated, you have to consider that there are way bigger problems than just terminators' problems, and if all those things are changed then the problems terminators have will be completely different, and the "fixes" will be different too.
While it is true that changing the whole system would be ideal, it is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is 'Terminators are too weak, how should we change them to make them more viable?'
The limit that a suit must have limbs to blast off to get additional wounds is arbitrary and unnecessary. If a company commander can get 3 wounds for no particular reason other than game balance, a terminator can get two without having to sit in some 'ablative limb' category.
Ashiraya wrote: While it is true that changing the whole system would be ideal, it is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is 'Terminators are too weak, how should we change them to make them more viable?'
The limit that a suit must have limbs to blast off to get additional wounds is arbitrary and unnecessary. If a company commander can get 3 wounds for no particular reason other than game balance, a terminator can get two without having to sit in some 'ablative limb' category.
I agree with you as to why terminators could have 2 wounds. Heck, you could say it was to their unique training. An extra wound may not be simply due to extra limbs, bigger suit ect. I am leary to give terminators a second wound because inevitably you would have to make changes to other terminator units in other armies too. Like Grey Knight Paladins. A unit of 3 wound terminators seems pretty powerful. And I agree the best solution would probably be a reworking of space marine armies in general, but like you said it is not the topic of this thread.
Has anyone suggested the easy fix of -1 to the ap of attacking weapons ? Yeah enough weight of fire would still kill them but it would mistigate the massive amount of ap2 that's out there.
Formosa wrote: Has anyone suggested the easy fix of -1 to the ap of attacking weapons ? Yeah enough weight of fire would still kill them but it would mistigate the massive amount of ap2 that's out there.
That's basically a 2+ Invuln. How many AP1 weapons even exist? Meltaguns, and... Um... Railguns? I suppose Eldar has AP1 on to-wound rolls of 6s, so they'll still laugh at you. Besides a couple snowballing relics (The ones that increase S and AP with every kill) I can't think of any AP1 Close Combat weapons off the top of my head. This would be blatantly overpowered against everyone except hordes who already drown Terminators rather than penetrating them.
Formosa wrote: Has anyone suggested the easy fix of -1 to the ap of attacking weapons ? Yeah enough weight of fire would still kill them but it would mistigate the massive amount of ap2 that's out there.
That's basically a 2+ Invuln. How many AP1 weapons even exist? Meltaguns, and... Um... Railguns? I suppose Eldar has AP1 on to-wound rolls of 6s, so they'll still laugh at you. Besides a couple snowballing relics (The ones that increase S and AP with every kill) I can't think of any AP1 Close Combat weapons off the top of my head. This would be blatantly overpowered against everyone except hordes who already drown Terminators rather than penetrating them.
Necrons have AP1 Warscythes, with plenty of AP1 otherwise.
But considering how easily terminators die to horde fire, it's not gonna help, I mean Wave Serpents drown them in shots regardless.
If you want turn to fill a specific role in your army you could add a house rule that would allow you to do it. For example if you want to resist alpha strike without a Land Raider how about:
Tactical Void Shield Array
Unit upgrade: +75 pts
2+ Invulnerable save on the turn they arrive
Save degrades by 1 at the start of each of your turns
If the unit shoots, assaults, is assaulted, or any model is removed as a casualty the PSS collapses and no longer works for the rest of the game.
As an Ork player I'd play against something like that. But I'd also want to do some kustomization myself...
I see a lot of comparing to Mega Nobz here, and I don't like it. Each of my MNobz costs me 50 points for a 2+ save on a T4 model. No invul is allowed for these guys unless we bring a KFF, meaning we only get Invuls from ranged combat.
We have 2 wounds...but ID to S8, which is tossed around like candy and pens our armor. We have a more expensive model, with little to no options, and ID's very, very easily.
Your Termy problems pale in comparison to Mnobs. Be grateful for what you have.
Melevolence wrote: I see a lot of comparing to Mega Nobz here, and I don't like it. Each of my MNobz costs me 50 points for a 2+ save on a T4 model. No invul is allowed for these guys unless we bring a KFF, meaning we only get Invuls from ranged combat.
We have 2 wounds...but ID to S8, which is tossed around like candy and pens our armor. We have a more expensive model, with little to no options, and ID's very, very easily.
Your Termy problems pale in comparison to Mnobs. Be grateful for what you have.
Meganobz suck too, and something should be done about.
What specifically is it that people feel terminators should be able to do that they currently aren't?
That is: is it that they are being killed too much by volume of fire or by high-AP antitank weapons?
In close combat, I've found them devastating with some armies and fragile as hell with others - the results of AP values in close combat plus the option of challenges makes a real difference against most opponents but doesn't really help against (a) the horde of 30 boyz or (b) monstrous creatures. However, storm shields really, really mess with the latter - the terminator assault squad with thunder hammers is one of the scariest things in the entire marine codex.
Everyone keeps talking about mega armoured Nobz. A couple of other examples to consider:
Centurions. This is a terminator with T5 and 2 wounds. Essentially they're immune to bolter fire and chainswords. How often do you see them for anything other than go-go-gadget grav cannons?
Chaos Terminators. Cheaper, Twin-linked bolters and power weapons as standard, with the option of Marks to make them T5. I see these things used every so often, but still not that regularly.
Deathwing Terminators: I've seen pure deathwing used a bit recently and it's scary as hell - an entire army deep-striking in turn 1 and firing with twin-linked weapons is a terrifying thing to be on the receiving end of.
They should make this much more simple. Any unit (not characters) that is on a medium base is 2 wounds. If MegaNobz aren't on medium bases, adjust them up so they are. Adjust point, toughness, saves and wargear as needed. I think removing the invulnerable and going T5 with 2 wounds is the way to go for these models like terminators.
One of my best friends plays chaos terminators with a cqc loadout in a landraider. Since he advances his army in a coherent battle line it is harder to get at his terminators IF I can kill the landraider relatively soon. They usually beat the living tar out of something, most often my vengeance weapon batteries. Terminators are tough to kill unless you spam high ap weapons, which require you to lose sheer number of dice against horde armies. The trick with terminators is to get them into range of their combat type. Terminators CANNOT footslog due to slow and purposeful making them easy targets when very far away. Drive them in close, and drop them off to do their job >
Nah, they should be able to ignore unwieldy on their power fists. Then they would have a niche in wounding on a 2+ with no save in close combat, instead of being a meganob clone for marines.
You are right. Sorry, my friend has been playing terminators wrong and I need to slap her in the face. If termies can take run moves then they can footslog, although it isn't the optimum way to get them into pain range.
sing your life wrote: Nah, they should be able to ignore unwieldy on their power fists. Then they would have a niche in wounding on a 2+ with no save in close combat, instead of being a meganob clone for marines.
It would be more accurate to say that meganobs are a clone of termies for Orks, since termies have been around for (slightly) longer.
I think ignoring unwieldy would be a better fix than +1 wound. Most AP2 weapons (the ones that termie players are complaining so much about) are S 8 or higher, meaning they ID termies anyway. So an extra wound will make a tough unit tougher against things they already shrug off, and won't help against the things they're weak against one bit. At least with ignoring unwieldy, they'll pack a meaner punch if used strategically. Another option would be to give termies Relentless, so they can move and fire heavy weapons without snap firing.
Ok, from what I can gather, the problem with Terminators is the vulnerability to AP2 weapons. While this was fine in the past, the abundance of AP2 in the current meta means Terminators now suck pretty bad.
We *could* give them +1 wound, but then there's the problem that:
A) They heavily outclass similar types of infantry in other codexes.
B) They're still vulnerable to most AP2 weaponry, which is typically S8 or better, making this particular upgrade rather worthless. They get better vs small arms, but not vs S8 AP2 or better - aka, the issue at hand.
Another option is FNP. This gives marginally better protection against high S AP2 weapons (unless 7th changed that), but then it makes them tougher against small arms too. The biggest problem here is that it would invalidate several existing options Termies have to gain FnP anyway; namely Apothecaries.
I think the best fix would be to increase INV saves to a natural 4+. This gives them better survival vs the high S low AP weapons they struggle with, while still allowing them additional buffs through FnP. This would also balance them against high volume of fire weapons - while they should be more durable, they shouldn't be able to walk through an army of Orks or Guardsmen. Not outside of Ashiraya's fluff anyway.
While the above fix doesn't help TH/SS termies out, I have to ask, do they really need buffing? Some more mobility would be nice, but do they need it compared to Tac Termies (which we all know need fixing).
Ashiraya wrote: Isn't tanking massive amounts of small arms fire the actual point of TDA?
Depends on what you think they should do.
Most people seem to think they should be nigh invulnerable gods of the battlefield. Wading through massive amounts of small arms fire whilst also not crumpling to anti-tank guns which would leave little more than a smoking crater against most targets.. These same people also want them to beat the living snot out of anything they touch in close combat, and also tend to think they should have better shooting on the way there.
Others like myself (and potentially you, if I catch your drift correctly) think they should simply be a combination between bully and tank units. There to squash moderate to low threats single-handedly whilst leaving the Riptide and Carnifex hunting to the rest of the army.
Ashiraya wrote: Isn't tanking massive amounts of small arms fire the actual point of TDA?
Yes, and I believe they're still rather efficient at it. At least, my grasp of what the community thinks the issue with them is is S8 Ap2+
If they were being killed by small arms too easily, I'd say +1T.
Of course, I'd then say give Death guard Terminators T6 and FnP. And make them exist. That's the biggest problem with Terminators, the fact that Cut Terminators still aren't a thing.
The thing is that Terminators are not efficient at tanking small arms fire. They are nearly thrice the price of a Tactical but only twice as good at tanking small arms. This makes small arms an actual weakness of theirs.
Ashiraya wrote: The thing is that Terminators are not efficient at tanking small arms fire. They are nearly thrice the price of a Tactical but only twice as good at tanking small arms. This makes small arms an actual weakness of theirs.
Terminators also put out vastly more damage than a tac squad will, can deepstrike, and are more versatile in general.
I'm not saying that 5 terminators will stand upto 40 guardsmen for an entire game, but barring bad / great luck it does take a massive amount of fire to put them down.
Hell, I'm not even saying Terminators are in a good spot - they're definitely not. My point from the get-go has been that "fixing" terminators whilst leaving their counter-parts swinging in the breeze is a bad idea.
Ashiraya wrote: The thing is that Terminators are not efficient at tanking small arms fire. They are nearly thrice the price of a Tactical but only twice as good at tanking small arms. This makes small arms an actual weakness of theirs.
True. They're good at it in theory, but the numbers don't add up. T increase to 5 or a price drop would both work to fix that.
Ashiraya wrote: The thing is that Terminators are not efficient at tanking small arms fire. They are nearly thrice the price of a Tactical but only twice as good at tanking small arms. This makes small arms an actual weakness of theirs.
Terminators also put out vastly more damage than a tac squad will, can deepstrike, and are more versatile in general.
I'm not saying that 5 terminators will stand upto 40 guardsmen for an entire game, but barring bad / great luck it does take a massive amount of fire to put them down.
Hell, I'm not even saying Terminators are in a good spot - they're definitely not. My point from the get-go has been that "fixing" terminators whilst leaving their counter-parts swinging in the breeze is a bad idea.
Well the idea would be to apply as similar a change to other TEQs as needed. If Terminators dropped in points, MANZ, would drop too. I can't think of any other unit with a 2+ save that isn't a HQ.
Ashiraya wrote: The thing is that Terminators are not efficient at tanking small arms fire. They are nearly thrice the price of a Tactical but only twice as good at tanking small arms. This makes small arms an actual weakness of theirs.
Terminators also put out vastly more damage than a tac squad will, can deepstrike, and are more versatile in general.
I'm not saying that 5 terminators will stand upto 40 guardsmen for an entire game, but barring bad / great luck it does take a massive amount of fire to put them down.
Hell, I'm not even saying Terminators are in a good spot - they're definitely not. My point from the get-go has been that "fixing" terminators whilst leaving their counter-parts swinging in the breeze is a bad idea.
I do not really see who you are arguing to, have I been saying that they should have a 2++ re-rollable in this thread somewhere?
Terminators are better than tactical marines at melee, but they have significant difficulties getting there to begin with. Footslogging makes it really easy to shoot them down before they get anywhere, deep striking means they are sitting ducks an entire turn (Something they are highly unlikely to survive) and the only other option is a land raider, something that costs more than the squad itself.
I guess you could argue that deepstriking them means they draw fire, but as said above, they don't do that cost-effectively either. Tacticals in a pod do it just as well and cheaper.
At range, they are simply outclassed by the tactical marines.
If we built a Terminator from the ground up off a Tactical marine, what would that cost?
You'd have to buy +1 Attack and 1 Ld, A power fist, Storm bolter, nick a refractor field from the IG and of course the terminator armour itself. Plonk that on a Tac marine body and it would run...
Roughly 37 points, sans the Terminator armour. Taking certain liberties of course.
Out of interest, what price range per model do people think the standard Terminator should be? Not talking assault, just normal SB/PF Terminators.
morganfreeman wrote: No. Terminators are supposed to be tough as nails, but that's supposed to be their armor. They are, beneath it, just normal space marines ('normal' space marines.. ha.) Meganobz, the often evoked comparison, are 2w with no invulnerable save. They cost the same amount as termies but don't get a lot of the perks. Lower leadership, no invul, way less options gear wise (none in comparison, actually), no deepstrike, ect ect.
Termies would need to get a price hike if they were to go to two wounds. Or, alternatively, TEQ in other armies would themselves mandate a big buff. You mind facing down some Meganobz armed with SS/TH equivilent gear and a 5+ invul?
By that logic, why do Crisis Suits, Commanders, Broadsides, Riptides, etc get more than 1 wound? All of them are Fire Warriors on the inside of the suit.
A model is often more (Or less) than the sum of its parts.
For example, say that there is an upgrade granting Feel no Pain, at the price of 10 points.
Do you think it should cost this much on both a Carnifex and a Guardsman?
GW has failed horribly here; power weapons often cost equally much on Guardsman Sergeants and Chapter Masters.
In this case, the Power Fist's value is overrated; it is deadly, but in practice the Terminators do not get to use it that often.
And so on.
Indeed. Hence why I ballparked the PF at 10 points rather than 15 - in fact, it's probably closer to 5. That would leave your basic Terminator at 32 points before armour, which really I'm questioning whether it's worth anything over PA. It's a 2+/5++, bulky, no SA, pseudo relentless frame with DS. Bulky and no SA being the problems here.
I think 32-35 points for a Terminator before upgrades is fair, though I'd want to reshuffle upgrades anyway. TH/SS are probably a little good for what they would cost now.
Terminators are victims of the meta. Though buffs may seem illogical, you either need to give them a proper rub or shift the game itself to make them truly useful.
I'd prefer the latter technically but ITT the former is the only real option.
Well it really depends on what you see their main problem as. I figured most people saw the problem as a meta of high S low Ap weaponry. T5 wouldn't fix that as it still wounds on a 2+. a 4++ does for obvious reasons.
On the other hand, the 4++ means nothing if weight of fire is the problem, whereas T5 makes a fairly big difference in that field.
A price drop works both ways, but then altering price is always a little difficult when it comes to house rules for stated reasons.
The Termies have more than one problem. Both AP2 and weight of fire is highly effective against them. I'd argue one of these should be adjusted. If I am to choose, I'd say a toughness boost. AP2 being too common is a problem but it's not something we can fix here without risking breaking them in the other direction. A boost to toughness would make them much better at taking small arms, something that they are supposed to do well.
They shouldn't be immune to anything either though.
Instead of making them super tough, why not just price them accordingly. It avoids any serious balance repercussions, is easier to house rule among friends, and matches their durability/points ratio better with stock marines.
Give tactical termies special ammo too and you're set.
Blacksails wrote: They shouldn't be immune to anything either though.
Both you and morgan freeman said this, but I still do not understand why you are saying it. Is there an invisible poster in this thread saying Terminators should be immune to something?
Instead of making them super tough, why not just price them accordingly. It avoids any serious balance repercussions, is easier to house rule among friends, and matches their durability/points ratio better with stock marines.
Give tactical termies special ammo too and you're set.
Can take the following as a 5 man unit:
1 assault cannon or 1 heavy flamer, and 1 cyclone launcher (I believe the DA can do this part already).
Can take two of the heavy flamer/assault cannon at 10 man.
The sergeant can replace his storm bolter and power fist with a thunder hammer and storm shield, or can replace his storm bolter with a combi-weapon
Price drop to 35 pts base
That'd make me happy without any goofy rules changes
Keep them the same points there are now or maybe 5 pts more, but have them be T5 with 3 attacks (TDA should give an extra attack like in the old editions.)
Give tactical termies special ammo too and you're set.
Would probably work too.
Interestingly, this was apparently going to be a thing at one point. At one point in early drafts, the 5th edition marine codex had no such unit as the 'Terminator Squad' or 'Terminator Assault Squad', but instead had a 'take Terminator Armour' option for Sternguard and Vanguard respectively.
I get the comment about firepower. The major issue with the stormbolter is that it's no better at close quarters than a bolter - yes, it's an assault weapon but terminators are relentless anyway, and they'll never voluntarily engage in a 24" range stand-off fire-fight against someone with more and better heavy weapons than them. I think the twin-linked bolter of chaos terminators is actually a better choice, upping the firepower by 1/3 in close range as well as allowing them to charge afterwards. Been on the receiving end of white scars enough to know that twin-linked rapid fire plus charging hurts like hell.
Blacksails wrote: They shouldn't be immune to anything either though.
Both you and morgan freeman said this, but I still do not understand why you are saying it. Is there an invisible poster in this thread saying Terminators should be immune to something?
Instead of making them super tough, why not just price them accordingly. It avoids any serious balance repercussions, is easier to house rule among friends, and matches their durability/points ratio better with stock marines.
Give tactical termies special ammo too and you're set.
Would probably work too.
Well, let's consider what happens when you increase Terminators to T5.
S3 wounds on a 6, not 5.
S4 wounds on a 5, not 4.
S5 wounds on a 4, not 3.
S6 wounds on a 3.
S7+ wounds on a 2.
For standard Terminators, this means they get better against small arms in a significant way (well, for my guardsmen at least), but they still go down to high S AP2 weapons - which is fair, considering the vast majority of those are AT weapons. It is Tactical Dreadnought armour after all.
You could argue that this breaks TH/SS termies, but in reality they're only as durable vs small arms as Tactical Terminators, and again, High S low AP weapons won't change in their damage output.
I never understood why Terminators, veterans of the first company, were no better than the scrubs holding the ammo for the Devastators. Special Ammo just makes sense IMO.
