I would love to field Terminators but they just aren't great....especially for the points.
I know you can take another detachment but I don't think you should have to if you want Terminators.

I mean Grey Knight Terminators are 33 points as are Space Wolf Termies but the main codex ones are still overpriced!

Do you think GW will ever fix Space Marine Terminators?

No, because they are making you pay for that power fist.

GW can't into point balance. Even now when they were doing pretty good with the 7th books, they got to necrons and went off the deep end again.

They don't seem to realize that a whole bunch of valuable gear that dies on the way to the enemy isn't worth as much as if it were on something that can make it there.

The only way to actually make Marine termies balanced (but would unbalance them at the same time) is to make that fist strike at initiative. That way you still have a 2/5+ model with some CC oompf but it would be a scary cc unit rather than just a mediocre unit that once "ruled" the battlefield but now has fallen far far behind

How about they leave the points the same but make them T5
Might help a bit

I think t5 would be an okay start. My big problem with termies is how easily they die to small arms. Couple that with an "ignore unwieldy" ability and I might actually take them.

No because you can't fix what isn't broken.

It depends on how they're selling. I could see tactical termies getting a points drop in the next dex. Assault termies seem fine as is.

If they did get correct it in the not too distant future, I believe it would start with DA.

Deathwing terminators are currently the most overpriced terminators in the game, and definitely one of the underperforming parts of an underperforming codex.

If they did change DA, then other terminators would follow suit in later codices.

Personally I would like to see all basic terminators go down to 35 points. For DA that is a 9 point drop, but at the moment they are basically paying for chapter tactics, which all other SM chapters do not do.

35 points each, TH/SS still costs 5 points, 2 heavy weapons per squad, and all heavy weapons are reduced by 5 points each.

5 terminators with 2 CML for 215 points wouldn't be too much to ask for.

Perhaps a very slight pts drop for Tact Termies, but rather than that, I'd like to see the weapon upgrade option mirror the Noise Marine verison, hence;
1-5 per squad = 1 Heavy flamer/Asscan/Cyclone
6-10 per squad = 2 Heavy flamer/Asscan/Cyclone

You pay a little bit of an added 'tax' to min/max the weapon upgrades, but you can easily get the pair of upgrades for less than 300pts. Would allow the Tacs to gain that flexibility they're currently badly in need of.

Since they just dropped the Necron Termiator-equivalent down to half its previous points, I suspect we'll see something similar in the next Space Marine book.

Too many people own them now to have any reason to make them good.

There's no profit on GW end for making them good.

Nonetheless, every new Space Marines player still buys a box b/c everyone things mole people look cool. I'll never understand it.

Waht tends to make Termiantors bad is they die too easily to the all too prevalent AP2 weaponry, including the thing the suits were specifically built to pretect against (Plasma).

A 2+ save is only significantly better in combat, and only because they took away "AP2" from power swords and made tehm Ap3 or worse, so at-init AP2 is now uncommon.

The same needs to happen to ranged weaponry, if you want to make them worth the points they pay for their 2+ save

The problem is that they die to everything Massed small arms kills them, just by forcing armor saves until the ones come up. Heavy weapons kill them, as the 5++ is not enough to reliably keep them standing.

How to save them is a question that keeps on being raised. If, what, and when GW decides to do something about it is another issue.

It could be worse, they didn’t always have the 5++, and they got that for free.

That can be done as well by just taping a special rule like the armour reduces the AP of a ranged weapon hitting it by 1.

 Nevelon wrote:
The problem is that they die to everything Massed small arms kills them, just by forcing armor saves until the ones come up. Heavy weapons kill them, as the 5++ is not enough to reliably keep them standing.

How to save them is a question that keeps on being raised. If, what, and when GW decides to do something about it is another issue.

It could be worse, they didn’t always have the 5++, and they got that for free.

I've long felt "immune to weapons with AP5 or higher" would make them a real threat without being broken. One would probably need to alter the SS rules or Ass Termies points, otherwise 2+/3++ immune to AP5 may be a tad too much.

Feel No Pain would certainly help and keep them from getting additional protection from S8 and higher.

Against plasm, a FNP Termie would get two 5+ saves. Not bad.

Could give them an extra wound.

Breazeal wrote:
There's no profit on GW end for making them good.

Nonetheless, every new Space Marines player still buys a box [gibberish snipped]

Impressive contradiction there.

Extra T, reduction of 3 or 4 pts and the ability to take 2 heavies in a 5 man squad. Then they would just reach good.

 Portugal Jones wrote:

Breazeal wrote:
There's no profit on GW end for making them good.

Nonetheless, every new Space Marines player still buys a box [gibberish snipped]

Impressive contradiction there.

Not really. The kits already sell. They have no incentive to buff them, as making them good just means they come out of the display case, rather than driving sales of a product that isn't moving.

I would like to have the ignoring Unwieldy for Terminators.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
The problem is that they die to everything Massed small arms kills them, just by forcing armor saves until the ones come up. Heavy weapons kill them, as the 5++ is not enough to reliably keep them standing.

How to save them is a question that keeps on being raised. If, what, and when GW decides to do something about it is another issue.

It could be worse, they didn’t always have the 5++, and they got that for free.

I've long felt "immune to weapons with AP5 or higher" would make them a real threat without being broken. One would probably need to alter the SS rules or Ass Termies points, otherwise 2+/3++ immune to AP5 may be a tad too much.

At which point they become immune to the entire Orks codex.

Remember that Xenos exist, people.

Give Storm Bolters rending.

Not until they stop "feeling" for the right points instead of actually balancing there points.

Been playing for 3 editions...tac marines and terminators have always been rubbish. Except assualt terms are still kinda of decent out of land raiders the two units combined costs almost 500 points for a min squad - when spending 500 points on a single assault unit and transport it should be amazing - not decent.

In my opinion, Terminators have been having problems with massed fire since weapons profiles changed, becoming "AP" with 3rd edition. Back in 2nd edition, it was impossible to kill them with massed fire of weak weapons. Such guns simply weren't strong enough to make them fail armor saves the way they were handled back then.

And nowadays, it's not the armor that is a problem, it's the huge and increasing plethora of AP2 weapons and the like.

Used to be that you needed specialized weapons to handle terminators.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
If they did get correct it in the not too distant future, I believe it would start with DA.

Deathwing terminators are currently the most overpriced terminators in the game, and definitely one of the underperforming parts of an underperforming codex.

If they did change DA, then other terminators would follow suit in later codices.

Personally I would like to see all basic terminators go down to 35 points. For DA that is a 9 point drop, but at the moment they are basically paying for chapter tactics, which all other SM chapters do not do.

35 points each, TH/SS still costs 5 points, 2 heavy weapons per squad, and all heavy weapons are reduced by 5 points each.

5 terminators with 2 CML for 215 points wouldn't be too much to ask for.

That seems reasonable.

 Charles Rampant wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
The problem is that they die to everything Massed small arms kills them, just by forcing armor saves until the ones come up. Heavy weapons kill them, as the 5++ is not enough to reliably keep them standing.

How to save them is a question that keeps on being raised. If, what, and when GW decides to do something about it is another issue.

It could be worse, they didn’t always have the 5++, and they got that for free.

I've long felt "immune to weapons with AP5 or higher" would make them a real threat without being broken. One would probably need to alter the SS rules or Ass Termies points, otherwise 2+/3++ immune to AP5 may be a tad too much.

At which point they become immune to the entire Orks codex.

Remember that Xenos exist, people.

I had forgotten that orks didn't have custom mega blastas, rokkits, and deffguns. Not to mention power claws

Termis either need a massive point decrease or the need two wounds and maybe feel no pain to make them worthwhile. As it stands only wolves and knight can reliably field them and that's cause knights get them cheap and with psyhi powers while wolves sacrifice power weapons for free ss.

 Tinchebrai wrote:
Could give them an extra wound.

Boom. Two wounds, like obliterators. Some of the Forge World HH terminators have 2 wounds (World Eaters and Salamanders come to mind). They seemed reasonably costed for it, too.

Sure, they'll get doubled out by Str8 and higher, but then getting hit in the face with a meltagun should hurt...

Points don't balance, and terminators don't need to be changed.

If you think they should, feel free to add a new thread to the hundreds on the subject over in the proposed rules forum.

 smurfwedge wrote:
I would love to field Terminators but they just aren't great....especially for the points.
I know you can take another detachment but I don't think you should have to if you want Terminators.

I mean Grey Knight Terminators are 33 points as are Space Wolf Termies but the main codex ones are still overpriced!

Do you think GW will ever fix Space Marine Terminators?

Well I think a Terminator able to carry heavy bolters would be a really cool change. I mean they can already take assault Cannons and their Devastator brethren can take big old cannons. a cheak heavy bolter upgrade on terminators would be kinda neat.

Is there any possibility that people's expectations are at least partially to blame?

There seems to be this expectation that Terminators should be able to wade through infinite amounts of enemy fire, taking no casualties whatsoever. And, worse still, that they're somehow reasonably costed for this.

I think a small price drop is reasonable (to bring them in line with GK and SW ones), but a lot of the buff suggestions seem like massive overkill that will just create a ton of issues down the line.

 Ailaros wrote:
Points don't balance, and terminators don't need to be changed.

If you think they should, feel free to add a new thread to the hundreds on the subject over in the proposed rules forum.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Since they just dropped the Necron Termiator-equivalent down to half its previous points, I suspect we'll see something similar in the next Space Marine book.

Ailaros, if there are hundreds of threads on the same subject, it probably has some validity!

I agree with Miko, we'll likely see a points drop in the next SM book (that has been a trend anyway - transports used to be so much more expensive than they are now, for example).

 vipoid wrote:
Is there any possibility that people's expectations are at least partially to blame?

There seems to be this expectation that Terminators should be able to wade through infinite amounts of enemy fire, taking no casualties whatsoever. And, worse still, that they're somehow reasonably costed for this.

Partly. Some people do seem to think that a 2+ armor save means that a unit will never die against AP 3+ weapons, and want to ragequit the game every time they fail a "guaranteed" save. But the problem isn't just stupid people who don't understand math, terminators simply aren't a competitive choice. They cost too many points for what you get and their primary defense is severely devalued in a metagame full of AP 2 weapons and shooting-focused armies with 9999999999999 dice to throw at a unit. So either they need an increase in power to match their point cost, or a decrease in point cost to match their power. The second option would be just fine with a lot of the people who want terminators fixed.

 vipoid wrote:


I think a small price drop is reasonable (to bring them in line with GK and SW ones), but a lot of the buff suggestions seem like massive overkill that will just create a ton of issues down the line.

SM TDA are more expensive because they have powerfists included. GW probably wont get rid of that because then people would complain that there are not enough power swords in the TDA boxes. Try SW TDA out, the point cost reduction isn't magic that makes them better and more viable. Now, when you use champions of fenris and they all gain +1WS and PE in challenges, then they start to get awesome. Especially with the cool formations like void claws and Arjacs shield brothers. Though both formations are rather expensive, however, a TDA with 3 WS5 attacks base that are S6 ap3 rending with shred is pretty awesome point for point.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
If they did get correct it in the not too distant future, I believe it would start with DA.

Deathwing terminators are currently the most overpriced terminators in the game, and definitely one of the underperforming parts of an underperforming codex.

If they did change DA, then other terminators would follow suit in later codices.

Personally I would like to see all basic terminators go down to 35 points. For DA that is a 9 point drop, but at the moment they are basically paying for chapter tactics, which all other SM chapters do not do.

35 points each, TH/SS still costs 5 points, 2 heavy weapons per squad, and all heavy weapons are reduced by 5 points each.

5 terminators with 2 CML for 215 points wouldn't be too much to ask for.

Yes

As for the question of whether GW will fix terminators, I doubt it. Remember, GW doesn't play the same game we play. Their main rule authors are "casual at all costs" players who love to include silly mission rules, "fluffy" armies that deliberately take lots of bad units and upgrades, etc. Classic example: at the beginning of 7th there was a WD article about the awesome new psychic phase and how psykers needed a buff because everyone was using melee chaplains as their HQ and ignoring the poor librarians. Meanwhile in the real world everyone understood that chaplains suck, librarians are awesome, and the only non-librarian HQ worth taking is a bike captain (and only because of the FOC swap).

Once you assume you're playing in a "battleforce" metagame where armies are all a random mix of units terminators don't look so bad. Nobody has enough shooting to overwhelm their armor saves, especially if units like IG veterans/crisis suits/etc are using a random mix of weapons instead of all melta/plasma. And nobody has melee death stars that laugh at a mere terminator squad. So ~200 points gives you a unit that can reasonably expect to survive long enough to get into melee range, and to kill anything it successfully charges. In fact, right now one of GW's rule authors is probably complaining about how their TFG opponent brought two squads of terminators and massacred everything. Expect the next C:SM update to put a 0-1 limit on terminators and give them a major point increase.

 RiTides wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Points don't balance, and terminators don't need to be changed.

If you think they should, feel free to add a new thread to the hundreds on the subject over in the proposed rules forum.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Since they just dropped the Necron Termiator-equivalent down to half its previous points, I suspect we'll see something similar in the next Space Marine book.

Ailaros, if there are hundreds of threads on the same subject, it probably has some validity!

I agree with Miko, we'll likely see a points drop in the next SM book (that has been a trend anyway - transports used to be so much more expensive than they are now, for example).

This is the dude that tried telling me Heavy Bolters were useful back in the day. He's hardcore casual, and maybe even beyond that.

 GreyHamster wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:

Breazeal wrote:
There's no profit on GW end for making them good.

Nonetheless, every new Space Marines player still buys a box [gibberish snipped]

Impressive contradiction there.

Not really. The kits already sell. They have no incentive to buff them, as making them good just means they come out of the display case, rather than driving sales of a product that isn't moving.

I'm puzzled by this continued thought that selling more is somehow a disincentive to them...

Just making the Terminators armoursave a 1+ would make them more playable.

Meaning they would get their save against AP2 weaponry, but a roll of 1 always fails.

 Portugal Jones wrote:
I'm puzzled by this continued thought that selling more is somehow a disincentive to them...

Because it doesn't necessarily mean selling more. If people are already buying terminators because they're an iconic marine unit then improving the rules doesn't guarantee a lot of additional sales. They're an expensive unit (point-wise) and most armies aren't going to take many of them even if they're balanced. So that one box of terminators a C:SM player bought because they look cool might be all they're ever going to buy no matter what rules they have, and the only thing improving the rules will do is get that box of terminators off the display shelf and into an army. On the other hand, if GW improves the rules for a unit that nobody buys right now that probably will generate additional sales. And when you're obsessively focused on sales numbers at the expense of quality that's the obvious choice to make.

Hh termies are generally quite good fir the cost, they lack know no fear but come with stubborn (rarely) and implacable advance making them scoring (or ob sec when playing 40k), the 4++ really helps them survive.

But as a dark angels player I think even 30pts is too much for a tac terminator, comparing it to other units for a similar cost its just a joke, 27/8 seems fairer to me (then 5 for the fist that you will never want)

I'm really wondering if the problem is so much with normal Terminators, as opposed to Hammernators simply being just that much better due to the increase in resiliency for the relatively small trade off in flexibility.

Honestly, I don't see anything spectacularly wring with basic Terminators in and of themselves. More often of late, the issue is that GW has created alternative heavy CC units that are simply so much better that everyone assumes is the new "balanced" instead of acknowledging they're overdone. Stuff like TWC's, Necron Wraiths, 2+/3++ Hammernators, etc. Stuff like this has become more and more common and the stupid increase in resiliency is simply insane, and as a result there's relatively little thought or ability needed to use these, just don't put them in the most obvious and heaviest firelane and aside from that they pretty much function on auto-pilot, and a more flexible use unit like Terminators get left behind as a result.

They're already fine.

Please see the hundreds of other threads on the same subject.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
They're already fine.

Please see the hundreds of other threads on the same subject.

How often do you seriously see terminators being played? Especially in this edition with necromancer Wraiths and such that just won't go down. They need a buff and for people to stop being denialistic at how bad they are in comparison to everything else at their point range.

While I think Terminators could use a bit of a boost, but I don't think that even if they were more appropriately cost that they would be used anyway, and this is due to a meta problem. Because think about what you're mostly likely to face: Space Marines. And then beyond that, it's usually cheap transports, mounters creatures, Knights, other elite infantry, and death stars, so it very much encourages taking krak missiles, plasma, melta, and equivalent. You rarely see a need for anti-infantry special weapons, and when you do see anti-infantry it's something that can put a lot of hits out (Like shoota boyz) or can pull additional duty else where (like barrage weapons sniping characters or weapons with rending).

They're also a few other problems, like how over priced their transport, the Land Raiders, are (Meganobz are a similar unit to terminators, but they're well liked in the new ork codex, and part of that is being able to take trukks or a cheap battlewagon), or that how they're a flexible unit in a meta that's mostly shooty, or just how poorly deep striking works.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
They're already fine.

Please see the hundreds of other threads on the same subject.

If they were fine, there wouldnt be hundreds of other threads on the subject

Things being 'fine' doesnt generate discussion

The problem isnt Terminators themselves though, its costly terminators in a cheap ap 2/1 meta. Melta, melta everywhere

 Piroko wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
They're already fine.

Please see the hundreds of other threads on the same subject.

How often do you seriously see terminators being played? Especially in this edition with necromancer Wraiths and such that just won't go down. They need a buff and for people to stop being denialistic at how bad they are in comparison to everything else at their point range.

Again, is the issue with Terminators, or does the issue lie with the massive failure in game design, proofreading, and testing that allowed Wraiths to come out as stupidly overpowered?

I still don't see what Terminators are supposed to do.

Even if you replace the powerfists with powerweapons and reduce their cost accordingly, Tactical Marines are still better at being Terminators than the Terminators themselves are, and Tactical Marines are quite mediocre as-is.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Piroko wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
They're already fine.

Please see the hundreds of other threads on the same subject.

How often do you seriously see terminators being played? Especially in this edition with necromancer Wraiths and such that just won't go down. They need a buff and for people to stop being denialistic at how bad they are in comparison to everything else at their point range.

Again, is the issue with Terminators, or does the issue lie with the massive failure in game design, proofreading, and testing that allowed Wraiths to come out as stupidly overpowered?

Well the issue is clearly both, seeing as Terminators aren't worth playing, even without Wraiths in the equation.

Would they be better, if they could take more heavy weapons or had access to some sort of special weapon along side the heavy weapon?

Makumba wrote:
Would they be better, if they could take more heavy weapons or had access to some sort of special weapon along side the heavy weapon?

Both. Stormbolters aren't worth the hassle compared to being able to buy Combi-Weapons, and having only one heavy weapon kills their damage output ALL while not being able to make use of their Relentless.

Terminators suffer from doing two jobs. They are shooty shooty, with the option to take heavy weapons and choppy choppy, because SM ones come with Powerfists. GW then charges you extra for the option for doing both of these choices, much like the CSM defiler.

Which is why CSM ones are so much better. They start off cheap, and then you customise them into what you want them to do. Minimum squad size 3 does help.

They need to be T5 and treat all plasma weapons as being ap3 against them.

The problem with this tho is how you reconcile this with wolf and gk termies, which are good already for the most part.

Terminator
Walker (squadron)
WS:4 BS:4 s:4/8 i:4 FA 10 SA 10 RA 10 hp: 1 (equal to wounds if on a Multi wound model)

Crux terminatus: models in tactical...yada yada etc 5+ invuln save.

Pseudo-vehicle: On a glance or penetrate of AP higher than 2, in which the invuln save has failed, the TDA model ignores the hull point loss on a 3+.

Haywire only glances on a 4+ and pens on a 6.

Do not roll on the vehicle damage chart at any time for a TDA model. If the model is stripped of its last hull point, it is removed from the table instead of becoming terrain.

TDA models count as infantry for transports, but are bulky.

can't sweep advance etc etc.

Independent characters in TDA may join squads of other TDA.

Whatcha think? they can still be taken down by s4, and are still pretty tough against s5+, and are still easily fried by anti-vehicle.

I'm sure there are issues, but it's more of a funny idea.


Oh and they can be krak grenaded and melta bombed!

niv-mizzet wrote:
Terminator
Walker (squadron)
WS:4 BS:4 s:4/8 i:4 FA 10 SA 10 RA 10 hp: 1 (equal to wounds if on a Multi wound model)

Crux terminatus: models in tactical...yada yada etc 5+ invuln save.

Pseudo-vehicle: On a glance or penetrate of AP higher than 2, in which the invuln save has failed, the TDA model ignores the hull point loss on a 3+.

Haywire only glances on a 4+ and pens on a 6.

Do not roll on the vehicle damage chart at any time for a TDA model. If the model is stripped of its last hull point, it is removed from the table instead of becoming terrain.

TDA models count as infantry for transports, but are bulky.

can't sweep advance etc etc.

Independent characters in TDA may join squads of other TDA.

Whatcha think? they can still be taken down by s4, and are still pretty tough against s5+, and are still easily fried by anti-vehicle.

I'm sure there are issues, but it's more of a funny idea.


Oh and they can be krak grenaded and melta bombed!

Careful, with that type of thinking, you might get a call from GW HR offering you a position in rules design

Seriously, as has been said, termies aren't the problem, it's the GAME that's the problem. "Fix" termies so that they're worth taking, and you break a dozen other things in the game that are working as intended. At one time, the rules were a quaint, modest one family home. GW is the crazy contractor who convinced us to add 7 new floors, a sunroom, a few balconies, an in ground pool, a wine cellar, an indoor bowling alley, a 4-car garage, and a rotating cupola with telescope. That leaky foundation wall and termite damage? Nah, nothing to worry about...

I kind of wish termis got the centurion treatment. You have terminator devestator teams and assault terminators. You could upgrade the devestator teams to have multiple heavy weapons and the assault teams stay as is. All cheaper and or buffed stats of course.

T5 or +1 wound

And allow them to have assault 4 bolters. Then they'd earn their points.

 RiTides wrote:

Ailaros, if there are hundreds of threads on the same subject, it probably has some validity!

There are hundreds of threads on the subject of tactical marines being bad. Yet, a roster with nothing but droppod tactical marines + Calgar got 2-d at BAO.

 Lobukia wrote:
T5 or +1 wound

And allow them to have assault 4 bolters. Then they'd earn their points.

S4 shooting is still bad, though.

Martel732 wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
T5 or +1 wound

And allow them to have assault 4 bolters. Then they'd earn their points.

S4 shooting is still bad, though.

Yeah, I saw someone recommend giving terminator bolters heavy bolter stats. Not a bad idea.

 kronk wrote:

 Tinchebrai wrote:
Could give them an extra wound.

Boom. Two wounds, like obliterators. Some of the Forge World HH terminators have 2 wounds (World Eaters and Salamanders come to mind). They seemed reasonably costed for it, too.

Sure, they'll get doubled out by Str8 and higher, but then getting hit in the face with a meltagun should hurt...

2 wounds seems like the simplest solution to me. Paladins seem to have the survivability that terminators ought to.

 MadSoul wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Tinchebrai wrote:
Could give them an extra wound.

Boom. Two wounds, like obliterators. Some of the Forge World HH terminators have 2 wounds (World Eaters and Salamanders come to mind). They seemed reasonably costed for it, too.

Sure, they'll get doubled out by Str8 and higher, but then getting hit in the face with a meltagun should hurt...

2 wounds seems like the simplest solution to me. Paladins seem to have the survivability that terminators ought to.

Assuming that Chaos Terminators would get the same treatment it would be a lot of annoying book keeping to keep track of the wounds of up to 10 models. The same proposal came up in a similar thread (How to improve marines).

I think it is hard for GW to do large changes to things like Tac Marines, Terminators, Devastators, and everything else that is shared between codices, since if something is changed, it should preferably be done in all codices at the same time. I do not think that terminators should be buffed at all honestly, buffing units can be a lazy way of balancing and causes power creep. A better solution might be to lower the availability of ap2 weapons.

I'd prefer them to go back to mix and match Terminator Squads

The first terminator issue is the forced power fists. Nobody needs that many.

"budget " terminators like CSM, SW and GK works perfectly, because they are not forced to take an expensive fist for each member, and can settle for power weapons.
Not to mention having more versatile options.

If codex and BA terminators were the same, they too would be decent.

They definitely need to make shooty terminators more playable:
1. Give them access to combi-weapons (storm Bolter versions)
2. Increase strength and toughness to 5
3. Either give them 2 wounds, feel no pain, a 4+ invul or remove the invul and give them a special rule that says AP2/1 weapons just force you to re-roll your successful armour saves
4. Give them power weapons by default and let the sergeant take a power/chain fist

However, it seems GW is very hostile to the concept of new sprues.

make storm bolters salvo 2/4

20x bolter rounds at 24" from a relentless platform is nothing to sneeze at

then give tactical termies power weapons by default instead of power fists, with the option to upgrade to fists for x points per model

reduce point cost

done

Why are they broken? Taking into consideration that SM dispose of assault vehicles and means to deploy them where they want? My wraithguard have a 12' gun, the CC variants are always worse than the other armies equivalent, no assault vehicle, no DS, 1 attack, 3+ armor save, no inv save or 5+ at best with a crappy unwieldy axe. Ok T6, which makes a litle more durable against small arms but completly dead against the usual things people use to kill Terminators, like plasma, laser cannons etc.

natpri771 wrote:
They definitely need to make shooty terminators more playable:
1. Give them access to combi-weapons (storm Bolter versions) Do strom-bolter combi-weapons even exist? .
2. Increase strength and toughness to 5 Unnecessary.
3. Either give them 2 wounds, feel no pain, a 4+ invul or remove the invul and give them a special rule that says AP2/1 weapons just force you to re-roll your successful armour saves Entirely unnecessary.
4. Give them power weapons by default and let the sergeant take a power/chain fist Why not just let them mix and match power fists, rather than only allowing the sergeant one?.

However, it seems GW is very hostile to the concept of new sprues.

 j31c3n wrote:
make storm bolters salvo 2/4

20x bolter rounds at 24" from a relentless platform is nothing to sneeze at

then give tactical termies power weapons by default instead of power fists, with the option to upgrade to fists for x points per model

reduce point cost

done

I'd be fine with that, though you'd need to be careful in terms of improving terminators that are already good (e.g. GK ones) with the storm bolter buff. Likewise, GK SMs may not approve of making Storm Bolters Salvo - as it would screw them over with both range and the ability to assault after shooting.

Maybe give SM/DA terminators a different default weapon (a Cyclone Bolter or somesuch), with the profile you suggest?

Arnais wrote:
Why are they broken? Taking into consideration that SM dispose of assault vehicles and means to deploy them where they want? My wraithguard have a 12' gun, the CC variants are always worse than the other armies equivalent, no assault vehicle, no DS, 1 attack, 3+ armor save, no inv save or 5+ at best with a crappy unwieldy axe. Ok T6, which makes a litle more durable against small arms but completly dead against the usual things people use to kill Terminators, like plasma, laser cannons etc.

tactical terminators cost too much for what they are and players are forced to pay for suboptimal weapons loadouts that they don't want (powerfists, in this case)

their 2+ armor save is easily circumvented by easy access to AP2 in almost every codex

they have 1 wound and toughness 4

 j31c3n wrote:
make storm bolters salvo 2/4

20x bolter rounds at 24" from a relentless platform is nothing to sneeze at

then give tactical termies power weapons by default instead of power fists, with the option to upgrade to fists for x points per model

reduce point cost

done

Is that all Storm Bolters or just Terminator mounted ones?

I think another wound would do the trick. However, the problem is that if you change the basic termies, hammernators get even better. I don't think that can be fixed as long as SS grants a 3++ save.

You should be careful with buffing stormbolters as they're present on many sm vehicles. Droppods, Rhinos. Must bump the price if you make them 2 times more effective. They'd actually be better than heavy bolters this way. Don't get me wrong - they should be good. You'll just need to adjust the price accordingly. Like 40+ pt droppods and rhinos base and stuff like that.

 koooaei wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

Ailaros, if there are hundreds of threads on the same subject, it probably has some validity!

There are hundreds of threads on the subject of tactical marines being bad. Yet, a roster with nothing but droppod tactical marines + Calgar got 2-d at BAO.

Actually it goes beyond this, in the top 10 there were 3 players who each ran a mighty 5 tactical squads in either rhinos (WS) or drop pods (ultramarines). They ranked 2nd, 5th and 8th, so a pretty good showing for the tac marines.
(Their success might have had more to do with calgar + UM chapter tactics and hit and run though).

With that said, I do agree that the number of terminator 'fix' threads is a symptom of their currently lacklustre rules.

I encourage those who believe terminators to be well balanced at the moment to try fielding a full DW force against a tac list from any other codex. A fun challenge for sure, but not balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
You should be careful with buffing stormbolters as they're present on many sm vehicles. Droppods, Rhinos. Must bump the price if you make them 2 times more effective. They'd actually be better than heavy bolters this way. Don't get me wrong - they should be good. You'll just need to adjust the price accordingly. Like 40+ pt droppods and rhinos base and stuff like that.

If they made terminator specific rules for firing storm bolters it would be ok. Letting a model in terminator armour count his storm bolter as rapid fire 2, and a specialist pistol in cc or something.

My preference is:

permit them to sweep after successful assault

2x heavy per 5 models

points reduction

improve the invul to 4++ standard.

...which doesnt sort the root cause, which is that they are OK in melee, but poor from shooting, as there is to much in the way of AP2 or 1 weaponry out there, because AP3 has historically been almost sacrosanct.

Fix the balance of shooting, an d they have a place again. Now not every man and his dog can bypass their armour in CC, do the same in shooting.

 koooaei wrote:
You should be careful with buffing stormbolters as they're present on many sm vehicles. Droppods, Rhinos. Must bump the price if you make them 2 times more effective. They'd actually be better than heavy bolters this way. Don't get me wrong - they should be good. You'll just need to adjust the price accordingly. Like 40+ pt droppods and rhinos base and stuff like that.

Or just give Termies "Vanguard Pattern Stormbolters" or similar and make them distinct from standard SB, it isn't like GW show any inclination to keep things simple and streamlined.

 Diggory_x wrote:
No because you can't fix what isn't broken.

Terminators are massively overpriced to the point that basiclly no one plays them.

I really hope so, as I really wanted to do an all Terminator army and shelved the idea (and become more angry with 40k and happier with my desire to not play it) because they would be insanely fluffy and almost impossible to win with :(

Honestly it made me physically mad because there's zero good reason I should be punished for wanting to make one of the fluffiest possible armies in 40k. Especially as I wanted to play casually and wasn't concerned with competitive tournament play, and even in casual games my army would suck for no reason other than I picked the wrong units.

I am waiting for a DW Formation. Then, at least, the tactical terminator army list can possibly shine even if some others lag behind.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

Ailaros, if there are hundreds of threads on the same subject, it probably has some validity!

There are hundreds of threads on the subject of tactical marines being bad. Yet, a roster with nothing but droppod tactical marines + Calgar got 2-d at BAO.

Actually it goes beyond this, in the top 10 there were 3 players who each ran a mighty 5 tactical squads in either rhinos (WS) or drop pods (ultramarines). They ranked 2nd, 5th and 8th, so a pretty good showing for the tac marines.
(Their success might have had more to do with calgar + UM chapter tactics and hit and run though).

With that said, I do agree that the number of terminator 'fix' threads is a symptom of their currently lacklustre rules.

I encourage those who believe terminators to be well balanced at the moment to try fielding a full DW force against a tac list from any other codex. A fun challenge for sure, but not balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
You should be careful with buffing stormbolters as they're present on many sm vehicles. Droppods, Rhinos. Must bump the price if you make them 2 times more effective. They'd actually be better than heavy bolters this way. Don't get me wrong - they should be good. You'll just need to adjust the price accordingly. Like 40+ pt droppods and rhinos base and stuff like that.

If they made terminator specific rules for firing storm bolters it would be ok. Letting a model in terminator armour count his storm bolter as rapid fire 2, and a specialist pistol in cc or something.

So they make the topping once, and now they're viable? There was two Necron lists that topped in 6th, one with Typhus zombies and the other with old Flayed Ones. Unless this is consistent, this isn't proof of something becoming viable all the sudden. Also, Hit And Run is fantastic on Sternguard.

Another fix could be that they come with Heavy Bolters standard, or we fix the overall Bolter problem...

So they make the topping once, and now they're viable?

Not to be pedantic, but they actually 'made the topping' 3 times lol.
With 5 tac squads in each army it is a sizeable amount of points, and as said armies did well they must have at least pulled their own weight.

Back on topic: I wouldn't want terminators with heavy bolters, leave that to the centurions.

One thing I would love to see for my DW (but am 100% certain I never will), is a cheaper transport option for terminators.

Terminators are expensive, but having to buy a transport that costs the same as the squad it is carrying really starts to make them extortionate.

 Mumblez wrote:
I think another wound would do the trick. However, the problem is that if you change the basic termies, hammernators get even better. I don't think that can be fixed as long as SS grants a 3++ save.

why is hammernators having 2 wounds a problem? 45 points is steep for an assault only unit. For comparison, look to the Necron Wraiths, 40 points, 2 wounds, 3++ AND T5, Wraithflight, and Beast. While looking to the single most OP unit in the game is probably the wrong approach, it certainly puts perspective on the situation.

I don't want GW to reduce the points cost of terminators, I want them to improve them to actually make them WORTH the points. They should still be an uber elite unit in an army of allegedly elite soldiers, so a points drop isn't the answer. 2 wounds is a start.

In addition to two wounds, upping the basic Invulnerable save to a 4++ would help bring tactical termies back to the game. If you are going to force a unit into an assault role (and lets be honest here, tactical termies were always intended as an assault unit), and then force an unwieldy weapon on them, either make them far more durable or have them ignore unwieldy. This also makes LC assault termies more viable and only improves hammernators by upping their wound total.

While we are at it, can we put an invulnerable save on poor Mega Nobz or give them T5 at the very least?

 koooaei wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

Ailaros, if there are hundreds of threads on the same subject, it probably has some validity!

There are hundreds of threads on the subject of tactical marines being bad. Yet, a roster with nothing but droppod tactical marines + Calgar got 2-d at BAO.

LOL I've seen that army list - it was a bad army list. Pretty obvious by looking at his list he got very lucky.

Someday there will be a new Terminator box, and on that day, GW will release new Terminator rules that make them terrifyingly powerful and Terminator-spam lists will become the order of the day.

 BoomWolf wrote:
The first terminator issue is the forced power fists. Nobody needs that many.

"budget " terminators like CSM, SW and GK works perfectly, because they are not forced to take an expensive fist for each member, and can settle for power weapons.
Not to mention having more versatile options.

If codex and BA terminators were the same, they too would be decent.

Well... budget Terminators are definitely better. They're useable, at least. Though for CSM it's mainly for deepstriking combi melta and for GKs it's because your only other option is the now-crappy Strike Squad. None of the units you mention are actually any good. They're just... a lot less terrible.

I like how people don't like Terminators and want them cheaper. How cheap could you possibly go? Especially when you pay 5 points.....FIVE points for a 3++ and a Thunderhammer. Lychguard got good in the new book, but even then, they're 30 points for a 3+/3++ save, but can't punch through 2+ armor or vehicles well.

Also, I'm not okay with them being T5. That's what made Lychguard (Necron's "terminator" equiv) unique.

Ha!

I remember the uproar on the concept of "AP": ignores your armor? MADNESS!
Double your toughness: insta-kill all wounds. MADNESS!

Do you see the next GW fix for this? Create an "AD" value! = "Armor Deflect": AD of 4 = immunity to small arms fire!

Or the magic "IDF" (Internal dampener field) rule where it doubles your toughness to a maximum of 8!

Or the extra magical "IMD" (Internal medical dispense) rule where after taking a wound on a 4+ you get it back!

Or the supremely magical "FLSS" (Full Life Support System) rule where it doubles your wounds to a maximum of 6!

Pick any of the above to restore the former glory of Terminator Armor so a Warhound can perform a tapdance on them and only chip the paint!!!

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
While I think Terminators could use a bit of a boost, but I don't think that even if they were more appropriately cost that they would be used anyway, and this is due to a meta problem. Because think about what you're mostly likely to face: Space Marines. And then beyond that, it's usually cheap transports, mounters creatures, Knights, other elite infantry, and death stars, so it very much encourages taking krak missiles, plasma, melta, and equivalent. You rarely see a need for anti-infantry special weapons, and when you do see anti-infantry it's something that can put a lot of hits out (Like shoota boyz) or can pull additional duty else where (like barrage weapons sniping characters or weapons with rending).

They're also a few other problems, like how over priced their transport, the Land Raiders, are (Meganobz are a similar unit to terminators, but they're well liked in the new ork codex, and part of that is being able to take trukks or a cheap battlewagon), or that how they're a flexible unit in a meta that's mostly shooty, or just how poorly deep striking works.

Yes, it doesn't matter what happens to terminators when infantry of all kinds is ignored. AP 4, 5, 6, and even 3 are worthless, s4 is worthless, so why is anyone surprised that terminaor-killing guns are everywhere?

Oh yeah, there is "mass fire." Well if it's from infantry, terminators should be mowing them down, but their weapons and the game structure prevent it. Scatter lasers? Well, apparently they are as strong as anti-tank grenades, so yeah I expect they would be pretty good against wearable tank armor.

 Peregrine wrote:
As for the question of whether GW will fix terminators, I doubt it. Remember, GW doesn't play the same game we play. Their main rule authors are "casual at all costs" players who love to include silly mission rules, "fluffy" armies that deliberately take lots of bad units and upgrades, etc. Classic example: at the beginning of 7th there was a WD article about the awesome new psychic phase and how psykers needed a buff because everyone was using melee chaplains as their HQ and ignoring the poor librarians. Meanwhile in the real world everyone understood that chaplains suck, librarians are awesome, and the only non-librarian HQ worth taking is a bike captain (and only because of the FOC swap).

Once you assume you're playing in a "battleforce" metagame where armies are all a random mix of units terminators don't look so bad. Nobody has enough shooting to overwhelm their armor saves, especially if units like IG veterans/crisis suits/etc are using a random mix of weapons instead of all melta/plasma. And nobody has melee death stars that laugh at a mere terminator squad. So ~200 points gives you a unit that can reasonably expect to survive long enough to get into melee range, and to kill anything it successfully charges. In fact, right now one of GW's rule authors is probably complaining about how their TFG opponent brought two squads of terminators and massacred everything. Expect the next C:SM update to put a 0-1 limit on terminators and give them a major point increase.

I don't know dude, melee chaplains were pretty great about thirteen years ago. You could also get a free thunder hammer if you used salamanders, who, coincidentally, had like 32 point terminators. Nobody was exactly raring to codex hop for that.

Terminators suck out loud. Even if they reduced them to 33 points, as they still are i wouldnt touch them with a ten foot pole. Statements to the contrary are pure trollage.

The idea that fixing them is diffucult is pure bs. They can just release a 99 cent data slate with a realistic terminator unit choice, usable by the appropriate codexes. Points reduc and 2 heavy weapons is an absolute no-brainer. Where to go from there is hard to say but I think that these posts are a good place to look.

Have a look at Praetorians and Lynchguard.
Both got a significant pt reduction from 40 pts to less than 30 pts.
Termies would need a similar treatment.

 Red Marine wrote:
Terminators suck out loud. Even if they reduced them to 33 points, as they still are i wouldnt touch them with a ten foot pole. Statements to the contrary are pure trollage.

The idea that fixing them is diffucult is pure bs. They can just release a 99 cent data slate with a realistic terminator unit choice, usable by the appropriate codexes. Points reduc and 2 heavy weapons is an absolute no-brainer. Where to go from there is hard to say but I think that these posts are a good place to look.

30ppm, power sword, 4++ base, two upgrade weapons per five. Done, Terminators are now useable.

Yeah, assuming GW 'Lycheguards' Termies they'll probably end up costing 28-32 points w/ PF and SB/Twin Claws, 33/37 with TH/SS.

And then BA/DA/GK/SW Termis will follow suit, and CSM Termies will be increased to 50pts because GW.

If GW wants to keep Terminators unattractive to field, for whatever reason, I would prefer that they go the other way -- make them expensive, but really durable with a modicum of damage.

Fluffwise, it would be cool to have a line of Terminators advance and not just be disintigrated by enemy fire before they get within storm bolter range. I mean, what would be the point of storm bolters if this actually happens on the battlefield

 Xenomancers wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

Ailaros, if there are hundreds of threads on the same subject, it probably has some validity!

There are hundreds of threads on the subject of tactical marines being bad. Yet, a roster with nothing but droppod tactical marines + Calgar got 2-d at BAO.

LOL I've seen that army list - it was a bad army list. Pretty obvious by looking at his list he got very lucky.

5 times in a row? And for 2 other guyz in top 10? I guess, tactical marines attract luck at grand tournaments, than!

I find that they work well for me in for fun games. Since I don't have to play competitively. I've also found they make good distractions to defend your assault termies

Martel732 wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
T5 or +1 wound

And allow them to have assault 4 bolters. Then they'd earn their points.

S4 shooting is still bad, though.

man when everyone insists on every gun ever made being an anti-tank gun, no wonder terminators are suddenly less useful!

seriously though, I think you've hit on the problem here. GW basicly designs their units for an imaginary meta where guard and orc are the standard fare, and space Marines are the rare exception. Terminators would be pretty effective if you where going up against a list with a guard infantry platoon and a Leman russ,

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
T5 or +1 wound

And allow them to have assault 4 bolters. Then they'd earn their points.

S4 shooting is still bad, though.

man when everyone insists on every gun ever made being an anti-tank gun, no wonder terminators are suddenly less useful!

I think there is just some frustration in that the most super-elite SM unit, in of itself part of a, in theory, super-elite army has the 2nd worst small arm in the game (after the boltgun). The issue is so many guns offer something on top of S4; Necrons auto-glance/wound on a 6, Eldar pseudo-rend and are assault weapons, Orks have high volume of fire and are dirt cheap, Lasguns are super-duper-ultra cheap and buffable via orders, Dark Eldar have poison, etc. and those are all basic troop weapons.

Terminators are, in theory, the same "tier" of units as Crisis Suits, Wraithguard and Meganobz, but are so massively inferior to all other army's penultimate elite choice that it's funny. Even their heavy weapon choices are pretty mediocre compared to their compatriot's choices.

I would much prefer an extremely durable, expensive unit more akin to Meganobz with better wargear but more expensive with some actual resistance to basic small arms via 2 wounds, increased T or FNP (or a combination thereof) with improved storm bolters (which on the whole are a mediocre weapon no one voluntarily takes, so just straight buffing that gun might help). Charge a king's ransom points wise for them and you'd have an interesting unit which might actually "feel" like a Space marine on the tabletop. Making them cheaper ultimately just turns them into Honour Guard with heavy weapons and a 5++, and redundancy is never good for a codex. (and Honour Guard are actually pretty good too; leave it GeeDubs to continually invent new units which fill the niche of old, underperforming units.)

What Id like to see would be a change in the gun rules that would ultimately help fix 2+ save units. For the most part I'd like to see rending and any weapon that is multi-shot, including rapidfire be no better than AP3. If there wasn't quite the threat to 2+ save units then their inv protection wouldnt need to be as strong either. So along those lines any model that has an armor save cannot have an inv save better than 4+

I think that inv saves of 2+ and 3+ are just as responsible for the problems of the plethera of low ap shooting.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
2nd worst small arm in the game (after the boltgun).

...What.

The Storm Bolter is solidly midrange; before you start bringing the price of the body it's attached to in consider that "Terminators are overpriced" and "Storm Bolters are bad" are different statements.

Wow, lots of Terminator hate.

Terminators are fantastic except when shot at with antitank guns.

If there are too many antitank guns, bring horde, not terminators - then the enemy will be forced to bring flamers and missile launchers/heavy bolters.

Against armies kitted to fight hordes is where Terminators shine - not banzai charging antitank guns.

 Jayden63 wrote:
What Id like to see would be a change in the gun rules that would ultimately help fix 2+ save units. For the most part I'd like to see rending and any weapon that is multi-shot, including rapidfire be no better than AP3.

Rending as AP3 seems overly harsh. Multi-shot weapons I can accept to some degree, though I'm not sure about plasmaguns (since they at least come with a downside). I certainly think we could do with far fewer AP2 pie plates.

Regardless, do bear in mind that a) there are units in the game with 2+ saves that are not terminators, and many of them do not need this sort of buff. Also, AP2 does not just affect infantry.

I wonder if part of the solution would be changing the vehicle damage rules. e.g. AP3 weapons like Missile Launchers got a whole lot worse in 7th, as they can no longer explode vehicles. If the vehicle damage system was less favourable towards AP1/2 weapons, we might see fewer of them.

 vipoid wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
What Id like to see would be a change in the gun rules that would ultimately help fix 2+ save units. For the most part I'd like to see rending and any weapon that is multi-shot, including rapidfire be no better than AP3.

Rending as AP3 seems overly harsh. Multi-shot weapons I can accept to some degree, though I'm not sure about plasmaguns (since they at least come with a downside). I certainly think we could do with far fewer AP2 pie plates.

Regardless, do bear in mind that a) there are units in the game with 2+ saves that are not terminators, and many of them do not need this sort of buff. Also, AP2 does not just affect infantry.

I wonder if part of the solution would be changing the vehicle damage rules. e.g. AP3 weapons like Missile Launchers got a whole lot worse in 7th, as they can no longer explode vehicles. If the vehicle damage system was less favourable towards AP1/2 weapons, we might see fewer of them.

What AP2 pie plates are there?

Demolishers, Vindicators, Doomsday Arks, Riptides, Plasma cannons... and...? That's like, 5. In the whole game.

Edit: sometimes the SAG

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:
2nd worst small arm in the game (after the boltgun).

...What.

The Storm Bolter is solidly midrange; before you start bringing the price of the body it's attached to in consider that "Terminators are overpriced" and "Storm Bolters are bad" are different statements.

Exactly. Storm Bolters, as they are, are just fine. But being the primary weapon for a 40pt model, however, is not fine. Perhaps the solution to make Terminators a better shooting unit (because, as it is now, they're really just a delivery system for the heavy weapon), is to do something about their primary weapon. We can't change the basic Storm Bolter itself, as that would have a significant ripple effect throughout all armies that have Storm Bolters. Perhaps there could be an "Astartes Terminator Pattern Storm Bolter" that has three shots or something else to improve it? Now you've fixed the shooting for tactical terminators, without altering the shooting of everyone else that carries a Storm Bolter.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:
2nd worst small arm in the game (after the boltgun).

...What.

The Storm Bolter is solidly midrange; before you start bringing the price of the body it's attached to in consider that "Terminators are overpriced" and "Storm Bolters are bad" are different statements.

Exactly. Storm Bolters, as they are, are just fine. But being the primary weapon for a 40pt model, however, is not fine. Perhaps the solution to make Terminators a better shooting unit (because, as it is now, they're really just a delivery system for the heavy weapon), is to do something about their primary weapon. We can't change the basic Storm Bolter itself, as that would have a significant ripple effect throughout all armies that have Storm Bolters. Perhaps there could be an "Astartes Terminator Pattern Storm Bolter" that has three shots or something else to improve it? Now you've fixed the shooting for tactical terminators, without altering the shooting of everyone else that carries a Storm Bolter.

The problem with "fixing the shooting" is they have powerfists - it's what they're paying for. Making them way better at shooting would just mean you have a generalist who can outshoot specialist shooters and outfight specialist fighters.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
What Id like to see would be a change in the gun rules that would ultimately help fix 2+ save units. For the most part I'd like to see rending and any weapon that is multi-shot, including rapidfire be no better than AP3.

Rending as AP3 seems overly harsh. Multi-shot weapons I can accept to some degree, though I'm not sure about plasmaguns (since they at least come with a downside). I certainly think we could do with far fewer AP2 pie plates.

Regardless, do bear in mind that a) there are units in the game with 2+ saves that are not terminators, and many of them do not need this sort of buff. Also, AP2 does not just affect infantry.

I wonder if part of the solution would be changing the vehicle damage rules. e.g. AP3 weapons like Missile Launchers got a whole lot worse in 7th, as they can no longer explode vehicles. If the vehicle damage system was less favourable towards AP1/2 weapons, we might see fewer of them.

What AP2 pie plates are there?

Demolishers, Vindicators, Doomsday Arks, Riptides, Plasma cannons... and...? That's like, 5. In the whole game.

Edit: sometimes the SAG

Knight Errants with their AP1 pie plates are pretty common these days

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:
2nd worst small arm in the game (after the boltgun).

...What.

The Storm Bolter is solidly midrange; before you start bringing the price of the body it's attached to in consider that "Terminators are overpriced" and "Storm Bolters are bad" are different statements.

Exactly. Storm Bolters, as they are, are just fine. But being the primary weapon for a 40pt model, however, is not fine. Perhaps the solution to make Terminators a better shooting unit (because, as it is now, they're really just a delivery system for the heavy weapon), is to do something about their primary weapon. We can't change the basic Storm Bolter itself, as that would have a significant ripple effect throughout all armies that have Storm Bolters. Perhaps there could be an "Astartes Terminator Pattern Storm Bolter" that has three shots or something else to improve it? Now you've fixed the shooting for tactical terminators, without altering the shooting of everyone else that carries a Storm Bolter.

The problem with "fixing the shooting" is they have powerfists - it's what they're paying for. Making them way better at shooting would just mean you have a generalist who can outshoot specialist shooters and outfight specialist fighters.

That's where the "drop back to a power sword base the way other thirty-point Terminators do" suggestion came from.

I think the simple T5 upgrade would be easiest, and give them something, even if everything else remained the same. The salvo ideas are interesting, but you still can't really down a unit of guardsmen in one round of shooting. (Not that that needs to be the barometer).

The issue really is the increase in total output of a lot of weapons nowadays. I can remember feeling "wow", look at the heavy 4 assault cannons. Now we have heavy 20 tank turrets, and a mob of boys lays out 60 s4 shots. That's what really does the current termies in. Throw enough lasguns at them, and they drop.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
What Id like to see would be a change in the gun rules that would ultimately help fix 2+ save units. For the most part I'd like to see rending and any weapon that is multi-shot, including rapidfire be no better than AP3.

Rending as AP3 seems overly harsh. Multi-shot weapons I can accept to some degree, though I'm not sure about plasmaguns (since they at least come with a downside). I certainly think we could do with far fewer AP2 pie plates.

Regardless, do bear in mind that a) there are units in the game with 2+ saves that are not terminators, and many of them do not need this sort of buff. Also, AP2 does not just affect infantry.

I wonder if part of the solution would be changing the vehicle damage rules. e.g. AP3 weapons like Missile Launchers got a whole lot worse in 7th, as they can no longer explode vehicles. If the vehicle damage system was less favourable towards AP1/2 weapons, we might see fewer of them.

What AP2 pie plates are there?

Demolishers, Vindicators, Doomsday Arks, Riptides, Plasma cannons... and...? That's like, 5. In the whole game.

Edit: sometimes the SAG

Knight Errants with their AP1 pie plates are pretty common these days

Okay, six. And a third, for the SAG, since a third of the time it's AP2/1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cruentus wrote:
I think the simple T5 upgrade would be easiest, and give them something, even if everything else remained the same. The salvo ideas are interesting, but you still can't really down a unit of guardsmen in one round of shooting. (Not that that needs to be the barometer).

The issue really is the increase in total output of a lot of weapons nowadays. I can remember feeling "wow", look at the heavy 4 assault cannons. Now we have heavy 20 tank turrets, and a mob of boys lays out 60 s4 shots. That's what really does the current termies in. Throw enough lasguns at them, and they drop.

I always hear this from people and am like .

It takes 180 lasgun shots to kill a 5 man terminator squad, on average.

That's not really viable.

AP 2 pie plates arent the problem though, its cheap melta/plasma guns in every army, and barring that just volume of fire.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:
2nd worst small arm in the game (after the boltgun).

...What.

The Storm Bolter is solidly midrange; before you start bringing the price of the body it's attached to in consider that "Terminators are overpriced" and "Storm Bolters are bad" are different statements.

Exactly. Storm Bolters, as they are, are just fine. But being the primary weapon for a 40pt model, however, is not fine. Perhaps the solution to make Terminators a better shooting unit (because, as it is now, they're really just a delivery system for the heavy weapon), is to do something about their primary weapon. We can't change the basic Storm Bolter itself, as that would have a significant ripple effect throughout all armies that have Storm Bolters. Perhaps there could be an "Astartes Terminator Pattern Storm Bolter" that has three shots or something else to improve it? Now you've fixed the shooting for tactical terminators, without altering the shooting of everyone else that carries a Storm Bolter.

The problem with "fixing the shooting" is they have powerfists - it's what they're paying for. Making them way better at shooting would just mean you have a generalist who can outshoot specialist shooters and outfight specialist fighters.

That's where the "drop back to a power sword base the way other thirty-point Terminators do" suggestion came from.

Which is an Honour Guard for 5 points more which can't sweep, but can deepstrike, has slightly better shooting, and gains a 5++.

it's incredibly redundant unit wise, and I also think the continual trend of making stuff cheaper = better is overdone, it's one of the reasons behind model count bloat and most Marine units just being expensive, above average cannon fodder rather than expensive, good units.

While the balance behind them is atrocious, the idea behind Eldar and Necrons of making them more powerful rather than cheaper is more attractive, and thematically sound for certain armies, Marines being one of them.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
AP 2 pie plates arent the problem though, its cheap melta/plasma guns in every army, and barring that just volume of fire.

Cheap melta and plasma isn't "cheap," trust me, I'd love to be able to take flamers and grenade launchers. But I have to take the melta and plasma to fight Terminators and Tanks.

Like, you're literally saying "The problem with terminators is that people have access to things to counter terminators."

Bring a horde of orks or something and see how well those plasma and meltaguns do.

 MajorStoffer wrote:

Which is an Honour Guard for 5 points more which can't sweep, but can deepstrike, has slightly better shooting, and gains a 5++.

it's incredibly redundant unit wise

But then, are you sure that the problem is with Terminators and not Honour Guard?

Maybe the mistake was giving the latter 2+ saves.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
What Id like to see would be a change in the gun rules that would ultimately help fix 2+ save units. For the most part I'd like to see rending and any weapon that is multi-shot, including rapidfire be no better than AP3.

Rending as AP3 seems overly harsh. Multi-shot weapons I can accept to some degree, though I'm not sure about plasmaguns (since they at least come with a downside). I certainly think we could do with far fewer AP2 pie plates.

Regardless, do bear in mind that a) there are units in the game with 2+ saves that are not terminators, and many of them do not need this sort of buff. Also, AP2 does not just affect infantry.

I wonder if part of the solution would be changing the vehicle damage rules. e.g. AP3 weapons like Missile Launchers got a whole lot worse in 7th, as they can no longer explode vehicles. If the vehicle damage system was less favourable towards AP1/2 weapons, we might see fewer of them.

What AP2 pie plates are there?

Demolishers, Vindicators, Doomsday Arks, Riptides, Plasma cannons... and...? That's like, 5. In the whole game.

Edit: sometimes the SAG

Knight Errants with their AP1 pie plates are pretty common these days

Vortex of Doom, D-Scythes (not technically pie plates, I know, but close enough), Heavy D-Scythes, the Prism Cannon, Suncannons, D-Cannons, several different kinds of plasma cannons, whatever the Exocrine's gun is called, Infernal Gateway, Conversion Beamers, Dark Scythes, Implosion Missiles, Boom Bombs, Kustom Mega-Kannons, and Helfrost Destructors.

That's 23 and I haven't even started on high rate-of-fire AP2 weapons or the Forge World books.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
AP 2 pie plates arent the problem though, its cheap melta/plasma guns in every army, and barring that just volume of fire.

Cheap melta and plasma isn't "cheap," trust me, I'd love to be able to take flamers and grenade launchers. But I have to take the melta and plasma to fight Terminators and Tanks.

Like, you're literally saying "The problem with terminators is that people have access to things to counter terminators."

Bring a horde of orks or something and see how well those plasma and meltaguns do.

Because clearly the current meta is full of horde armies, and not armies that melta/plasma is effective against (Vehicles, knights, high toughness MCS and 2+ saves)

Melta and plasma are very cheap compared to how much you can actually put in most armies. Terminators being caught in that arms escalation has been an issue since 5th.

Its not that they have counters, its that the counters are so prevalent because of the actual units that the melta/plamsa is being taken for is so prevalent

 MajorStoffer wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
LONG

Which is an Honour Guard for 5 points more which can't sweep, but can deepstrike, has slightly better shooting, and gains a 5++.

it's incredibly redundant unit wise, and I also think the continual trend of making stuff cheaper = better is overdone, it's one of the reasons behind model count bloat and most Marine units just being expensive, above average cannon fodder rather than expensive, good units.

While the balance behind them is atrocious, the idea behind Eldar and Necrons of making them more powerful rather than cheaper is more attractive, and thematically sound for certain armies, Marines being one of them.

Doesn't require a Chapter Master and comes with vastly better guns. It's not redundant because it's not an HQ bodyguard or a dedicated assault unit.

Model count bloat is a result of GW continually making bigger and bigger toys to remove whole squads at once, the price drops are a symptom, not the problem.

And the Eldar and Necrons got more powerful and cheaper, I'm putting a lot more space elf bodies on the table today than I was when I started playing.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
What Id like to see would be a change in the gun rules that would ultimately help fix 2+ save units. For the most part I'd like to see rending and any weapon that is multi-shot, including rapidfire be no better than AP3.

Rending as AP3 seems overly harsh. Multi-shot weapons I can accept to some degree, though I'm not sure about plasmaguns (since they at least come with a downside). I certainly think we could do with far fewer AP2 pie plates.

Regardless, do bear in mind that a) there are units in the game with 2+ saves that are not terminators, and many of them do not need this sort of buff. Also, AP2 does not just affect infantry.

I wonder if part of the solution would be changing the vehicle damage rules. e.g. AP3 weapons like Missile Launchers got a whole lot worse in 7th, as they can no longer explode vehicles. If the vehicle damage system was less favourable towards AP1/2 weapons, we might see fewer of them.

What AP2 pie plates are there?

Demolishers, Vindicators, Doomsday Arks, Riptides, Plasma cannons... and...? That's like, 5. In the whole game.

Edit: sometimes the SAG

Knight Errants with their AP1 pie plates are pretty common these days

Vortex of Doom, D-Scythes (not technically pie plates, I know, but close enough), Heavy D-Scythes, the Prism Cannon, Suncannons, D-Cannons, several different kinds of plasma cannons, whatever the Exocrine's gun is called, Infernal Gateway, Conversion Beamers, Dark Scythes, Implosion Missiles, Boom Bombs, Kustom Mega-Kannons, and Helfrost Destructors.

That's 23 and I haven't even started on high rate-of-fire AP2 weapons or the Forge World books.

most of those aren't pie plates. D-scythes aren't "close enough," they're a line. "Several kinds of plasma cannons" are just plasma cannons - they may be prolific, but they're still one kind of weapon. The exocrine's gun isn't a pie plate. Implosion Missiles are AP- (their "roll a wounds test" mechanic hardly counts as AP2), Helfrost Destructors are, IIRC, AP3 unless they fire focussed blasts.

Also, many of them have risks to firing them, such as the boom bomb and the plasma weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
AP 2 pie plates arent the problem though, its cheap melta/plasma guns in every army, and barring that just volume of fire.

Cheap melta and plasma isn't "cheap," trust me, I'd love to be able to take flamers and grenade launchers. But I have to take the melta and plasma to fight Terminators and Tanks.

Like, you're literally saying "The problem with terminators is that people have access to things to counter terminators."

Bring a horde of orks or something and see how well those plasma and meltaguns do.

Because clearly the current meta is full of horde armies, and not armies that melta/plasma is effective against (Vehicles, knights, high toughness MCS and 2+ saves)

Melta and plasma are very cheap compared to how much you can actually put in most armies. Terminators being caught in that arms escalation has been an issue since 5th.

Its not that they have counters, its that the counters are so prevalent because of the actual units that the melta/plamsa is being taken for is so prevalent

Perhaps the problem, then, is a meta that favors melta and plasma, rather than Terminators themselves.

Fix the problem, not the symptoms.

 vipoid wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:

Which is an Honour Guard for 5 points more which can't sweep, but can deepstrike, has slightly better shooting, and gains a 5++.

it's incredibly redundant unit wise

But then, are you sure that the problem is with Terminators and not Honour Guard?

Maybe the mistake was giving the latter 2+ saves.

Honour Guard are, in my opinion, one of only two cost effective assault units the Marines have, aside from TH/SS Termies. Making Honour Guard worse to make Terminators look more attractive isn't really a solution, as it won't make tactical terminators any better, just Space Marines in general less effective in assault.

Instead, making terminators an expensive unit with multiples wounds or high T or FNP or whatever would give Marines a unit that's durable against most kinds of small arms, attracts attention, and would make a teensy bit of thematic sense. They're supposed to be tough, above all else, not out-shooting devestators, nor out-punching their assault bretheren, but enduring immense punishment, which is something Marines could really stand to have. They've got extremely limited access to FNP, multi-wound models, no MCs, two toy-skimmers, a few durable transports for a king's ransom, but no infantry which can soak firepower without a biomancy psyker, which by rights should be something a guy in a walking tank designed to stand inside plasma reactors going, "There are some wonderfully pretty colours in here"

it'd fill a gameplay and thematic niche currently lacking in that army, and would make people actually react with more than contempt to Terminators.

I run ten of the bastards with Asterion Moloc, an EW Terminator chapter master who kills stuff dead, and most people can afford to ignore the unit, or just throw small arms fire at it and whittle it down (or tie it up with a melee unit with decent invulns) and always come out ahead in cost effeciency. My ten honour guard with a rage-granting Chaplain, now that actually gets a reaction. They've got the same survival rating against small arms, usually the same against Ap1/2 weapons due to how cover works, and one's about half the price. Sure, you can make the unit that's current good bad, but what does that solve?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
LONG

Which is an Honour Guard for 5 points more which can't sweep, but can deepstrike, has slightly better shooting, and gains a 5++.

it's incredibly redundant unit wise, and I also think the continual trend of making stuff cheaper = better is overdone, it's one of the reasons behind model count bloat and most Marine units just being expensive, above average cannon fodder rather than expensive, good units.

While the balance behind them is atrocious, the idea behind Eldar and Necrons of making them more powerful rather than cheaper is more attractive, and thematically sound for certain armies, Marines being one of them.

Doesn't require a Chapter Master and comes with vastly better guns. It's not redundant because it's not an HQ bodyguard or a dedicated assault unit.

Model count bloat is a result of GW continually making bigger and bigger toys to remove whole squads at once, the price drops are a symptom, not the problem.

And the Eldar and Necrons got more powerful and cheaper, I'm putting a lot more space elf bodies on the table today than I was when I started playing.

As I said, the execution on Eldar and 'Crons was terribad and has nearly ruined the game in my area (at least to those with really unlucky codexes, like Tyranids), but the idea of making something better my making it objectively better, rather than just cheaper makes sense for the "elite" armies and units. Putting 10 terminators on the table should be a statement and make people go, "Well, I need to kill that" rather than "oh look, mobile slightly more durable devastators that I'd probably rather shoot than assault." I'm not saying it's a bad idea mechanically, as you are right Honour Guard do only have one job and only come with a CM, so the redundancy isn't huge (I just love Honour Guard and almost always use them), but it's part of a larger trend which GW uses to "balance" marines which irks me enormously.

 MajorStoffer wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:

Which is an Honour Guard for 5 points more which can't sweep, but can deepstrike, has slightly better shooting, and gains a 5++.

it's incredibly redundant unit wise

But then, are you sure that the problem is with Terminators and not Honour Guard?

Maybe the mistake was giving the latter 2+ saves.

Honour Guard are, in my opinion, one of only two cost effective assault units the Marines have, aside from TH/SS Termies. Making Honour Guard worse to make Terminators look more attractive isn't really a solution, as it won't make tactical terminators any better, just Space Marines in general less effective in assault.

Instead, making terminators an expensive unit with multiples wounds or high T or FNP or whatever would give Marines a unit that's durable against most kinds of small arms, attracts attention, and would make a teensy bit of thematic sense. They're supposed to be tough, above all else, not out-shooting devestators, nor out-punching their assault bretheren, but enduring immense punishment, which is something Marines could really stand to have. They've got extremely limited access to FNP, multi-wound models, no MCs, two toy-skimmers, a few durable transports for a king's ransom, but no infantry which can soak firepower without a biomancy psyker, which by rights should be something a guy in a walking tank designed to stand inside plasma reactors going, "There are some wonderfully pretty colours in here"

it'd fill a gameplay and thematic niche currently lacking in that army, and would make people actually react with more than contempt to Terminators.

I run ten of the bastards with Asterion Moloc, an EW Terminator chapter master who kills stuff dead, and most people can afford to ignore the unit, or just throw small arms fire at it and whittle it down (or tie it up with a melee unit with decent invulns) and always come out ahead in cost effeciency. My ten honour guard with a rage-granting Chaplain, now that actually gets a reaction. They've got the same survival rating against small arms, usually the same against Ap1/2 weapons due to how cover works, and one's about half the price. Sure, you can make the unit that's current good bad, but what does that solve?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
LONG

Which is an Honour Guard for 5 points more which can't sweep, but can deepstrike, has slightly better shooting, and gains a 5++.

it's incredibly redundant unit wise, and I also think the continual trend of making stuff cheaper = better is overdone, it's one of the reasons behind model count bloat and most Marine units just being expensive, above average cannon fodder rather than expensive, good units.

While the balance behind them is atrocious, the idea behind Eldar and Necrons of making them more powerful rather than cheaper is more attractive, and thematically sound for certain armies, Marines being one of them.

Doesn't require a Chapter Master and comes with vastly better guns. It's not redundant because it's not an HQ bodyguard or a dedicated assault unit.

Model count bloat is a result of GW continually making bigger and bigger toys to remove whole squads at once, the price drops are a symptom, not the problem.

And the Eldar and Necrons got more powerful and cheaper, I'm putting a lot more space elf bodies on the table today than I was when I started playing.

As I said, the execution on Eldar and 'Crons was terribad and has nearly ruined the game in my area (at least to those with really unlucky codexes, like Tyranids), but the idea of making something better my making it objectively better, rather than just cheaper makes sense for the "elite" armies and units. Putting 10 terminators on the table should be a statement and make people go, "Well, I need to kill that" rather than "oh look, mobile slightly more durable devastators that I'd probably rather shoot than assault." I'm not saying it's a bad idea mechanically, as you are right Honour Guard do only have one job and only come with a CM, so the redundancy isn't huge (I just love Honour Guard and almost always use them), but it's part of a larger trend which GW uses to "balance" marines which irks me enormously.

The problem is that T5 W2 makes them centurions.

And they really are quite durable against small arms - 180 lasgun shots to kill 5, or 90 bolter shots from Marines.

I will say objectively that Centurions are a problem.

They are probably, to me at least, the most Obvious "GWism" I've yet seen released (save for what happened to Dire Avengers, for which I'd feel more righteously angry, but, you know, Eldar...) in where they created a new unit which represents an improved version of an older, underperforming unit in statline, wargear and so on, but is more expensive and aesthetically questionable. I personally pretend they don't exist, and have trained my eyes to not even see them listed on Battlescribe.

Now there's an idea though, "counts-as" centurions, using terminators!

Pure genius.

As for survival versus small arms, while it does take a fair volume of fire to kill a terminator, all a Guardsmen squad needs to do in the entire game is kill 1 terminator to just about make its points back. I can say with some confidence that my Death Korps don't particularly fear terminators, as they're 200+ points for 5 wounds, and 200+ points of lasguns can get through 5 T4 wounds.

The stand-outs, to me, for small-arms durability are Lychguard and MegaNobz, a 2+ T4 is nice, but at the price Terminators are it's not effecient, and yes, making them cheaper will help on that front, it doesn't make them feel any more "walking tank piloted by veteran of dozens of apocalyptic wars," which is a big thing for me with 40k.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
[LONG]

most of those aren't pie plates. D-scythes aren't "close enough," they're a line. "Several kinds of plasma cannons" are just plasma cannons - they may be prolific, but they're still one kind of weapon. The exocrine's gun isn't a pie plate. Implosion Missiles are AP- (their "roll a wounds test" mechanic hardly counts as AP2), Helfrost Destructors are, IIRC, AP3 unless they fire focussed blasts.

Also, many of them have risks to firing them, such as the boom bomb and the plasma weapons.

You listed plasma cannons so I made a list of AP2 weapons with any kind of AoE, if we're talking just 5" blasts and larger the list goes down some. "Several kinds of plasma cannons" is three different S7/AP2/Gets Hot blasts with different ranges and rates of fire that have different names (Ectoplasma Cannon, Executioner Plasma Cannon, and plain old Plasma Cannon). The exocrine's gun is indeed a 5" blast (it has two fire modes, six shots or one 5" blast), Implosion Missiles are S6/AP2 blasts now and were AP2 even last book with the Wounds test, and I put the Helfrost Destructor there because there's a typo in the Space Wolves summary section that claims it is AP2, it isn't really.

Absent the Helfrost Destructor and rolling back to blasts or large blasts only we're still at 21 before Forge World, and we haven't gotten into high rate of fire AP2 guns or things like Psychic Shriek that make Terminator Armour about as useful as flak armour in games where people decide they want to bring something large and obnoxious.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wow, lots of Terminator hate.

Terminators are fantastic except when shot at with antitank guns.

If there are too many antitank guns, bring horde, not terminators - then the enemy will be forced to bring flamers and missile launchers/heavy bolters.

Against armies kitted to fight hordes is where Terminators shine - not banzai charging antitank guns.

No, they suck against small arms as well.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wow, lots of Terminator hate.

Terminators are fantastic except when shot at with antitank guns.

If there are too many antitank guns, bring horde, not terminators - then the enemy will be forced to bring flamers and missile launchers/heavy bolters.

Against armies kitted to fight hordes is where Terminators shine - not banzai charging antitank guns.

No, they suck against small arms as well.

90 bolter shots or 180 lasgun shots?

What is the world coming to, when something that can tank 180 shots "sucks against small arms."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wow, lots of Terminator hate.

Terminators are fantastic except when shot at with antitank guns.

If there are too many antitank guns, bring horde, not terminators - then the enemy will be forced to bring flamers and missile launchers/heavy bolters.

Against armies kitted to fight hordes is where Terminators shine - not banzai charging antitank guns.

No, they suck against small arms as well.

90 bolter shots or 180 lasgun shots?

What is the world coming to, when something that can tank 180 shots "sucks against small arms."

Because the math is a lot weirder than it sounds. Terminators may take a hundred and eighty shots to kill on paper but when we're talking that many dice you don't have to deviate very far from perfectly statistical to start losing models. If you have to roll, say, twelve armour saves on a Terminator squad you're probably losing two guys, right? That outcome has about a thirty percent chance of actually happening, there's a forty percent chance you lose less and a thirty percent chance you lose more, and since losing more models than appears statistically accurate is pulling forty points of stuff that could actually turn around and kill things off the table...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wow, lots of Terminator hate.

Terminators are fantastic except when shot at with antitank guns.

If there are too many antitank guns, bring horde, not terminators - then the enemy will be forced to bring flamers and missile launchers/heavy bolters.

Against armies kitted to fight hordes is where Terminators shine - not banzai charging antitank guns.

No, they suck against small arms as well.

90 bolter shots or 180 lasgun shots?

What is the world coming to, when something that can tank 180 shots "sucks against small arms."

Because they have less durability per point than a tactical marine against small arms. That's why they suck. The ONLY weapon type they are better against is AP 3.

Durability is one problem, but terminators commit the #1 sin in 7th ed: they have pitiful offense for their points. Just awful.

Terminators are not underpowered or overcosted- it's just that over the editions a good chunk of the rest of the game has become more and more overpowered and undercosted.

Used to be units like Terminators were a big deal and each army had models like them that represented the cream of each army's crop, but then GW does things like Centurions to drive new sales which continually move those goalposts.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Terminators are not underpowered or overcosted- it's just that over the editions a good chunk of the rest of the game has become more and more overpowered and undercosted.

Used to be units like Terminators were a big deal and each army had models like them that represented the cream of each army's crop, but then GW does things like Centurions to drive new sales which continually move those goalposts.

Yeah, they are. They are actually one of the worst units in the IoM in practice. Terminators can't reach the goal post of "tactical marine", which is pathetic, because tactical marines themselves are terrible.

That's bad game design that is not centered on Terminators. They are just a symptom, not a cause.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
That's bad game design that is not centered on Terminators. They are just a symptom, not a cause.

No, it's not centered on them, but a side effect, I agree. But it's still a lot easier just to change terminators than try to change the rest of the game. That being said, Imperial terminators have NEVER been good, not even in 2nd ed.

So, making another unit meet the OP meta is better than fixing the game's actual problems?

well, I guess we can forgive GW then. Apparently it's easier to overpower individual units than it is to actually fix their game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So, making another unit meet the OP meta is better than fixing the game's actual problems?

well, I guess we can forgive GW then. Apparently it's easier to overpower individual units than it is to actually fix their game.

I don't forgive them. You can drop the hyperbole, though. I just want to bring terminators in line, not over power them. This IS possible. as shown by many entries in 7th ed codices. But they are still making quite a few mistakes. I'm just tired of terminators being bad.

OK, I see two arguments here in this thread over and over.

1. Terminators (and tac marines) are bad because bolters are S4. S4 is weak and puny and can't kill Marines. They should be made better.

2. Terminators (and tac marines) are bad because they are too easily killed by small arms. Such as bolters.

Which is it? You can't have both of these at the same time.

I'd make Termie suits confer a +1 Toughness to the wearer. That way there is a point to officers in Termie armor and Terminators get a durability bonus. Give bolt weapons shred and now we are talking about a fluffy and effective unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alcibiades wrote:
OK, I see two arguments here in this thread over and over.

1. Terminators (and tac marines) are bad because bolters are S4. S4 is weak and puny and can't kill Marines. They should be made better.

2. Terminators (and tac marines) are bad because they are too easily killed by small arms. Such as bolters.

Which is it? You can't have both of these at the same time.

Elfdar, IG and Orkz can drown Termies in shots and Boltguns lack punch for how much you pay for them. People are basically saying that everyone cept Spess Muhreens can kill Terminators easily.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Terminators are not underpowered or overcosted- it's just that over the editions a good chunk of the rest of the game has become more and more overpowered and undercosted.

Used to be units like Terminators were a big deal and each army had models like them that represented the cream of each army's crop, but then GW does things like Centurions to drive new sales which continually move those goalposts.

They clearly are overcosted, because I wouldn't run them without Centurions in the equation. That's a pretty poor excuse on your end.

Alcibiades wrote:
OK, I see two arguments here in this thread over and over.

1. Terminators (and tac marines) are bad because bolters are S4. S4 is weak and puny and can't kill Marines. They should be made better.

2. Terminators (and tac marines) are bad because they are too easily killed by small arms. Such as bolters.

Which is it? You can't have both of these at the same time.

S4 is not weak and puny because it can't kill marines. It's weak and puny because it's coming from a 14 or even 40 pt model and you can't get enough of it. It's also weak and puny because all MCs are practically immune to it, as is AV 11. Models that care about bolters are either out of range or in something that makes them immune or come in number so enormous that the cost of marines caps their firepower too much.

Tac marines don't have bad resilience against small arms. In fact, they have good resilience against small arms. Terminators are worse because they have double durability for more than double the price. But the problem is that neither deliver any counter punch for what they cost. Because they aren't removing enemy models, they take the fire turn after turn after turn. You are bound to roll poorly at that rate.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Terminators are not underpowered or overcosted- it's just that over the editions a good chunk of the rest of the game has become more and more overpowered and undercosted.

Used to be units like Terminators were a big deal and each army had models like them that represented the cream of each army's crop, but then GW does things like Centurions to drive new sales which continually move those goalposts.

They clearly are overcosted, because I wouldn't run them without Centurions in the equation. That's a pretty poor excuse on your end.

That's a direct result of every edition seeing units' costs going ever lower, but in a buckshot manner that isn't balanced over all units and seeing some units get more powerful at the same time. Making everything cheaper when it seems it's not worth it's price is not a sustainable sulution, because the problem is that other units that they are being compared to are too cheap for what they do .

Over each edition the balance is not being kept the same, and it slews things in the wrong direction. If things are killing termis too easy, it is more likely that they are too cheap for what they can do rather than the other way around.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Terminators are not underpowered or overcosted- it's just that over the editions a good chunk of the rest of the game has become more and more overpowered and undercosted.

Used to be units like Terminators were a big deal and each army had models like them that represented the cream of each army's crop, but then GW does things like Centurions to drive new sales which continually move those goalposts.

They clearly are overcosted, because I wouldn't run them without Centurions in the equation. That's a pretty poor excuse on your end.

That's a direct result of every edition seeing units' costs going ever lower, but in a buckshot manner that isn't balanced over all units and seeing some units get more powerful at the same time. Making everything cheaper when it seems it's not worth it's price is not a sustainable sulution, because the problem is that other units that they are being compared to are too cheap for what they do .

Over each edition the balance is not being kept the same, and it slews things in the wrong direction. If things are killing termis too easy, it is more likely that they are too cheap for what they can do rather than the other way around.

Terminators are not only too easy to kill, but they have little battlefield impact as well. Which is the bigger problem you think?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I'd make Termie suits confer a +1 Toughness to the wearer. That way there is a point to officers in Termie armor and Terminators get a durability bonus. Give bolt weapons shred and now we are talking about a fluffy and effective unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alcibiades wrote:
OK, I see two arguments here in this thread over and over.

1. Terminators (and tac marines) are bad because bolters are S4. S4 is weak and puny and can't kill Marines. They should be made better.

2. Terminators (and tac marines) are bad because they are too easily killed by small arms. Such as bolters.

Which is it? You can't have both of these at the same time.

Elfdar, IG and Orkz can drown Termies in shots and Boltguns lack punch for how much you pay for them. People are basically saying that everyone cept Spess Muhreens can kill Terminators easily.

OK, let's figure this out. Termies cost 40 points. That's, what, 8 Guardsmen, about 3 tactical marines, about 6 shoota boys, and 3 Dire Avengers. Let's assume that everybody is in range enough to get off 2 shots.

Math says that

8 Guardsmen kill 1/2 x 1/3 x 1/6 = 1/36 x 16 = 16/36 = 4/9 Terminators.

3 bolter Tacs kill 2/3 x 1/2 x 1/6 = 1/18 x 6 = 1/3 Terminators. OK, Guardsmen do a wee bit better.

6 shoota boys kill 1/3 x 1/2 x 1/6 = 1/36 x 12 = 1/3 Terminators. The same as the tacs.

3 dire avengers kill --

Bladestorm 2/3 x 1/6 x 2/3 = 4/54 = 2/27 x 6 = 12/27 + regular 2/3 x 1/3 x 1/6 = 2/54 = 1/27 x 6 = 6/27 = total 2/3 terminators.

So actually all variants are about as good as killing Terminators at an equivalent points cost with the exception of Dire Avengers, who are significantly better. If I didn't screw up the math,

Now compare those same units firepower against other units versus the single terminator. The single terminator only gets two S4 shots. That is terrible firepower compared to all those other units.

Certainly not making them cheaper and cheaper and cheaper like lots of people give for a solution for any random under-performing unit. Because when in later years that stops working, you suddenly have to turn around and make them more and more powerful.

Especially when at the same time every ranged weapon either has a special rule that makes it more deadly, or is one that doesn't have one but people think it should get one.

Case in point: in this same thread people are thinking it's too easy for armies to have weapons that kill Terminators, but other people say some of those exact same weapons should be more powerful because in the hands of Terminators they are too wimpy.

Taken together it almost seems like everyone wants Terminators to be cheaper and more powerful, and for their basic weapon to be more powerful than a Stormbolter.

Maybe my local gaming was far different than everyone claims, but I remember when a Chaos Terminator getting the Nurgle mark to gain +1 toughness was a pretty good deal, and that's at a higher Terminator price than now and with a weapon that was arguably less effective than a Stormbolter.

To make terminators really work, I think the game would have to be rebuilt around the D10. This would allow armor ranging from 2+ to 10+.

Even removing the mandatory power fist, being armed with a storm bolter is unacceptable. I don't know what the fix is in the current game. Not using them is my fix for the moment.

They worked in 2nd edition. There is was a 2+ on a 2d6 (combined rather than the other units having only one die for their saves), and the weapons were very different. For instance a Lascannon had a -6 Save Modifier, so a Terminator had to roll 8+ on 2D6 to not be killed. Small arms simply could not kill them at all, as a bolter only had a -1.

Changing the weapon profiles with 3rd edition removed lots of breathing room with the scaling of weapon damage. The mechanisms of AP are way too small a range.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
They worked in 2nd edition. There is was a 2+ on a 2d6 (combined rather than the other units having only one die for their saves), and the weapons were very different. For instance a Lascannon had a -6 Save Modifier, so a Terminator had to roll 8+ on 2D6 to not be killed. Small arms simply could not kill them at all, as a bolter only had a -1.

Changing the weapon profiles with 3rd edition removed lots of breathing room with the scaling of weapon damage. The mechanisms of AP are way too small a range.

No, they didn't. They got owned by the various weapons systems and schemes of Xenos. And again, because the stormbolter was awful in 2nd, they themselves had no offense.

Terminators were 3+ armor on 2D6, not 2+. So bolters killed them on a "2" or "3". They needed "9"s to save lascannons and krak missiles. So they have actually improved against krak missiles a ton. They were still awful, though. They still died miserably after accomplishing nothing in 2nd as well.

"The mechanisms of AP are way too small a range."

Hence my call for a D10.

Sorry, I thought it was a 2+ for some reason. I guess that was only Abaddon. It's been a few decades.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Sorry, I thought it was a 2+ for some reason. I guess that was only Abaddon. It's been a few decades.

It's been a long time for sure. In a lot of ways, 6/7th reminds me a lot of 2nd. Power armor/terminator armor is garbage, and the game is all about offense; with only a select few models capable of selecting defensive abilities to survive the offense-based meta.

Alcibiades wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I'd make Termie suits confer a +1 Toughness to the wearer. That way there is a point to officers in Termie armor and Terminators get a durability bonus. Give bolt weapons shred and now we are talking about a fluffy and effective unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alcibiades wrote:
OK, I see two arguments here in this thread over and over.

1. Terminators (and tac marines) are bad because bolters are S4. S4 is weak and puny and can't kill Marines. They should be made better.

2. Terminators (and tac marines) are bad because they are too easily killed by small arms. Such as bolters.

Which is it? You can't have both of these at the same time.

Elfdar, IG and Orkz can drown Termies in shots and Boltguns lack punch for how much you pay for them. People are basically saying that everyone cept Spess Muhreens can kill Terminators easily.

OK, let's figure this out. Termies cost 40 points. That's, what, 8 Guardsmen, about 3 tactical marines, about 6 shoota boys, and 3 Dire Avengers. Let's assume that everybody is in range enough to get off 2 shots.

Math says that

8 Guardsmen kill 1/2 x 1/3 x 1/6 = 1/36 x 16 = 16/36 = 4/9 Terminators.

3 bolter Tacs kill 2/3 x 1/2 x 1/6 = 1/18 x 6 = 1/3 Terminators. OK, Guardsmen do a wee bit better.

6 shoota boys kill 1/3 x 1/2 x 1/6 = 1/36 x 12 = 1/3 Terminators. The same as the tacs.

3 dire avengers kill --

Bladestorm 2/3 x 1/6 x 2/3 = 4/54 = 2/27 x 6 = 12/27 + regular 2/3 x 1/3 x 1/6 = 2/54 = 1/27 x 6 = 6/27 = total 2/3 terminators.

So actually all variants are about as good as killing Terminators at an equivalent points cost with the exception of Dire Avengers, who are significantly better. If I didn't screw up the math,

It gets even more skewed once you factor in whole unit costs. 200 points of Guardsmen can get you....

PCS
+2x Plasma Guns
PIS
Plasma Gun
PIS
Plasma Gun

That's four Plasma Guns and, once you pop FRFSRF, you are looking at 8 Plasma Gun shots and 60 Lasgun shots. That's about 3-4 Termies dead.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Terminators are not underpowered or overcosted- it's just that over the editions a good chunk of the rest of the game has become more and more overpowered and undercosted.

Used to be units like Terminators were a big deal and each army had models like them that represented the cream of each army's crop, but then GW does things like Centurions to drive new sales which continually move those goalposts.

Exactly. Terminators are victims of the power creep. Everything else around them has got cheaper or better, Terminators are essentially same they were during 3rd edition.

Tactical Terminators became obsolete upon 4th edition Ork Codex which just put too much dakka on the field for Terminators to compete. Dark Eldar finished the job with Poison attacks and Disintegrators. Assault Terminators remained semi-viable until 6th edition, when Lightning Claws were nerfed and Fearless wounds disappeared: since Terminators have few attacks, they often relied on Fearless wounds when inflicting damage in close combat. Coincidentally, 6th edition also made Rapid fire weapons much better, eliminating one thing Tactical termies had going for them. Then came 6th edition Tau Codex: if you compare Fire Warrior damage output between 4th and 6th edition Tau Codecii, the new Fire Warrior has at least DOUBLE the damage output compared to old ones. T4 models just won't survive against that kind of onslaught, no matter what the save. If there was any doubt, Grav weapons removed it.

So how to fix it? There is no instant cure.
-reverse the power creep with subsesquent books. Tone down AP2 armament and crazy dakka units like HYMP Broadsides etc.
-Terminators should be able to use Storm Bolters as CCW's as if they were pistols.
-Give them S5 or T5, or both

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
[LONG]

most of those aren't pie plates. D-scythes aren't "close enough," they're a line. "Several kinds of plasma cannons" are just plasma cannons - they may be prolific, but they're still one kind of weapon. The exocrine's gun isn't a pie plate. Implosion Missiles are AP- (their "roll a wounds test" mechanic hardly counts as AP2), Helfrost Destructors are, IIRC, AP3 unless they fire focussed blasts.

Also, many of them have risks to firing them, such as the boom bomb and the plasma weapons.

You listed plasma cannons so I made a list of AP2 weapons with any kind of AoE, if we're talking just 5" blasts and larger the list goes down some. "Several kinds of plasma cannons" is three different S7/AP2/Gets Hot blasts with different ranges and rates of fire that have different names (Ectoplasma Cannon, Executioner Plasma Cannon, and plain old Plasma Cannon). The exocrine's gun is indeed a 5" blast (it has two fire modes, six shots or one 5" blast), Implosion Missiles are S6/AP2 blasts now and were AP2 even last book with the Wounds test, and I put the Helfrost Destructor there because there's a typo in the Space Wolves summary section that claims it is AP2, it isn't really.

Absent the Helfrost Destructor and rolling back to blasts or large blasts only we're still at 21 before Forge World, and we haven't gotten into high rate of fire AP2 guns or things like Psychic Shriek that make Terminator Armour about as useful as flak armour in games where people decide they want to bring something large and obnoxious.

Let's not forget the good ol' Ectoplasma Cannons.

Plasmafiends and their S8 guns are the absolute bane of Terminators everywhere. S8 is a major threat to TDA characters and three blasts per salvo means that even Hammernators melt before it.

A shame the Plasmafiend isn't that great in a vacuum, but against Terminators specifically...

I usually take one anyway because it's so cool.

Terminators suffer because the unit is designed as if 2+ was impressive. It isn't, unless it's on a MC or rock-hard HQ.

Backfire wrote:
Dark Eldar finished the job with Poison attacks and Disintegrators.

How did poison attacks hurt terminators so badly?

Also, why are the new disintegrators so much worse than their previous incarnations? I'd have thought plasma cannons would have been far more of a problem than 3 S5 AP2 shots.

S5 AP2 really is very good against Terminators...

It's like a plasma gun with 3+ to wound instead of 2+, but with an extra shot and without gets hot.

What if terminators got to reroll failed saves and got PE infantry. Too much? This way no stats change, no weapon profiles change, just all things terminator get those rules.

Martel732 wrote:
To make terminators really work, I think the game would have to be rebuilt around the D10. This would allow armor ranging from 2+ to 10+.

This is a myth. The absolute AP system, range/movement ratio, turn structure, and release schedule would remain crippling problems, d10s or no d10s.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
To make terminators really work, I think the game would have to be rebuilt around the D10. This would allow armor ranging from 2+ to 10+.

This is a myth. The absolute AP system, range/movement ratio, turn structure, and release schedule would remain crippling problems, d10s or no d10s.

I didn't say it would be the only change. But I was illustrating how D6 does not have enough graduations for a game with this many units.

I think the old 2nd edition style of weapon profiles would be just great alongside the otherwise current rules. A very simple stat line gave different weapons variations of accuracy at different ranges, a range of strength, a huge range of armor penetration, and a very easy way of having weapons do varying amounts of damage.

The vehicle armor penetration was too combersome, but the modern style would synch right into the old 2e profiles, bacause as far as I can tell, weapon strentghs stayed (generally) the same, especially on the traditional anti-tank weapons like lascannons.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I think the old 2nd edition style of weapon profiles would be just great alongside the otherwise current rules. A very simple stat line gave different weapons variations of accuracy at different ranges, a range of strength, a huge range of armor penetration, and a very easy way of having weapons do varying amounts of damage.

The vehicle armor penetration was too combersome, but the modern style would synch right into the old 2e profiles, bacause as far as I can tell, weapon strentghs stayed (generally) the same, especially on the traditional anti-tank weapons like lascannons.

The D6 was too small of a graduation for that system, too. I'd go with a hybridized system. Rank armor from 2+ to 10+, then assign weapon AP values just as it is now. However, weapons within 1 AP value of the target give a -2 to the save, and within 2 give a -1 to the save. The old armor save system made power armor useless, which made loyalist marines unplayable.

There's a several issues here methinks

First, is a fundamental problem of scale, both in terms of what a D6 system can portray, and the scale of battles the game is attempting to portray. You can only have infantry be so hardy before it goes from being "wow these guys are tough" to "ok, this is obnoxious" as we've seen with Wraiths, TH/SS termi's, TWC's, Centurions, etc and units that can/were able to play wound allocation gimmicks (like 5E Nob Bikers). The problem we're having is that these ultra tough units are more and more getting into detail that's far more appropriate to games with far fewer models in general along with requiring far more power than is justified to kill, and a lot of people seem to view these units as what "should" be the norm as opposed to the system being out of whack. In too many cases we get units where simple weight of fire just is not sustainable to deal with such units, and in others (Wraiths, TH/SS termi's, looking at you), their resiliency to both quantity and quality of fire is absurd. Far more than the gap between vehicles or MC's and basic infantry, we have a gap between such heavy infantry and basic infantry. When it takes an entire platoon's worth of lasgun fire in optimal rapid-fire doubletap range to kill a single Wraith or Thunderwolf for example, and you're having to bring to bear not just equal or double or triple but quadruple the unit's value to inflict any casualties, it really makes these otherwise "baseline" units rather worthless for anything other than the value of their physical presense on the board. This is not something that really needs to be further reinforced with absurd buffs to Terminators.

Another issue that's always bugged me is that the Sv value of armor has been the sole determinant of both protective quality and resistance to penetration in most cases. One could have armor that would effectively give 2+ coverage against things like fists, claws, blades, axes, etc but do absolutely nothing against a bullet, or lets say you've got an otherwise naked individual wearing a terminator armor helmet, meaning you'd need AP2 to penetrate that helmet but it's coverage is such that you'd probably otherwise only rate it as 6+ armor in terms of how often it would actually save despite its quality otherwise.

Finally, yes there's lots of AP2 weapons in the game. This also isn't new, but the quantity of AP2 doesn't bother me. Weapons of such quality should be "relatively" common given the setting, and not every weapon needs to physically penetrate armor to kill what's inside (when facing a dude in plate armor, bring a warhammer, and you'll kill him without ever having to penetrate his armor, likewise an ISU-152 throwing a high explosive shell at a Panther tank may not penetrate the armor but may likely kill the crew inside anyway from the concussive blast). There's a lot of AP2 and always has been (nobody seems to remember 1500pt 3E/4E IG armies with ~45 plasma and melta guns?). There's a more expansive range of types, but massed AP2 has always been available.

TL;DR the game has issues with scale, many heavy infantry units are already getting progressively more ridiculous and we need to recognize that as bad game design as opposed to the new baseline by which to measure everything else, the AP system is wonky, and massed AP2 is nothing new.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
I will say objectively that Centurions are a problem.

They are probably, to me at least, the most Obvious "GWism" I've yet seen released (save for what happened to Dire Avengers, for which I'd feel more righteously angry, but, you know, Eldar...) in where they created a new unit which represents an improved version of an older, underperforming unit in statline, wargear and so on, but is more expensive and aesthetically questionable. I personally pretend they don't exist, and have trained my eyes to not even see them listed on Battlescribe.

Now there's an idea though, "counts-as" centurions, using terminators!

Pure genius.

As for survival versus small arms, while it does take a fair volume of fire to kill a terminator, all a Guardsmen squad needs to do in the entire game is kill 1 terminator to just about make its points back. I can say with some confidence that my Death Korps don't particularly fear terminators, as they're 200+ points for 5 wounds, and 200+ points of lasguns can get through 5 T4 wounds.

The stand-outs, to me, for small-arms durability are Lychguard and MegaNobz, a 2+ T4 is nice, but at the price Terminators are it's not effecient, and yes, making them cheaper will help on that front, it doesn't make them feel any more "walking tank piloted by veteran of dozens of apocalyptic wars," which is a big thing for me with 40k.

I think there is a place for centurions alongside terminators but they need to shfit the durability of terminators up and centurions be shuifted potentially down.

Terminators should be T5, 2+ 5++ 2 wounds. and if you really wanna play up the "veteran space marine elites" angle give em WS 5 BS 5.

Centurions should be WS 4 BS 4, T5 2+ 1 wound. Terminators basicly would be the choice for durability, while centurions would be your choice for raw firepower.

I suppose you could also try upgrading termies to monsterous creatures too. but that might be a tad silly.

The fine line between "not tough enough" and "okay, this is obnoxious" is a result of the one-model-one-Wound system, the absolute AP mechanic, the three-roll gate, and the flat to-hit roll. Using anything other than a d6 wouldn't address any part of the problem.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The fine line between "not tough enough" and "okay, this is obnoxious" is a result of the one-model-one-Wound system, the absolute AP mechanic, the three-roll gate, and the flat to-hit roll. Using anything other than a d6 wouldn't address any part of the problem.

I disagree, but okay.

No matter the dice used, you still have to get past GW's approach to game design, which is where everything is stemming from.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The fine line between "not tough enough" and "okay, this is obnoxious" is a result of the one-model-one-Wound system, the absolute AP mechanic, the three-roll gate, and the flat to-hit roll. Using anything other than a d6 wouldn't address any part of the problem.

In part I would agree. However a big issue is that a lot of these overly-tough units are coming in at way too few points. A lot of these super tough units effectively require either identical units or anti-tank weaponry to be turned against them, when they really shouldn't be *that* hardy, and attempting to engage them with relatively standard infantry or even relatively elite infantry in many cases, is simply a non-starter without having to sacrifice far more of your force than you really should have to.

The big issue aside from these units in and of themselves is that they become the basis by which other units are measured, which otherwise really wouldn't seem quite as bad, but in comparison there's no real choice as to the winner.

I think a lot of the problems with terminators could be fixed by treating them like Wolfguard terminators. except start their cost at 30 points for power weapon and storm bolter. This would reflect them not having the extra abilits the wolfguard termies have. Storm bolters should probably have either rending or salvo 2/3 or salvo 2/4. TDA giving toughness +1 would help as well. as Is they aren't worth their points and neither is the hq upgrade which should be 25 points across the board imo. Of course this idea would get rid of the 2 profiles. If this were to be done there would need to be a boost to storm bolters to make them an attractive option.

Terminators don't need fixing. They need a purpose. They cant do long range, centurions do it better. They cant do close combat because close combat is dead, better off to throw jet pack marines at the bad guy with the points cost it doesnt hurt as much when you lose a few.

So perhaps we need to look at the role a terminator can fill. I personally think they should have an inspiring aura. they are the baddest marines who are too alive to get jammed into a dreadnought they should be able to inspire the tac squads to fight harder to impress these battlemasters. Or give them a better base weapon to suit the point cost or adjust more free weapons in. Cant do much about the stats really, they are space marines at the end of the day but the loadout is what needs to be considered better. Like " I dont want to take centurions" mod list for a squad of heavy bolter terminators or "I dont want to close combat but i want to get in close and personal" Terminator with storm bolter and storm shield (great for a Hq defense squad too) every other space marine can fill a job except the terminators.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The fine line between "not tough enough" and "okay, this is obnoxious" is a result of the one-model-one-Wound system, the absolute AP mechanic, the three-roll gate, and the flat to-hit roll. Using anything other than a d6 wouldn't address any part of the problem.

In part I would agree. However a big issue is that a lot of these overly-tough units are coming in at way too few points. A lot of these super tough units effectively require either identical units or anti-tank weaponry to be turned against them, when they really shouldn't be *that* hardy, and attempting to engage them with relatively standard infantry or even relatively elite infantry in many cases, is simply a non-starter without having to sacrifice far more of your force than you really should have to.

The big issue aside from these units in and of themselves is that they become the basis by which other units are measured, which otherwise really wouldn't seem quite as bad, but in comparison there's no real choice as to the winner.

Both of you have good points; GW mechanics really don't reward footslogging infantry with good saving throws with the underlying mechanics; absolute AP means obnoxiously tough units can ignore volume of fire from anything other than the "right" ap value; there's no whittling someone down, whether it be battlecannon or lasgun, and how such units interact with cover (or don't, rather) decreases their perceived value, driving their cost down edition to edition resulting in, what are they now, 30 point lychguard? THey also become mechanically simple and uninteresting, with little the player can do in-game to improve their performance; cover doesn't increase their chance to survive, they need not worry about anything but specific wargear, etc. The game's design makes the high-end units awkward to balance and function. GW's inability to see how some unit types are flatly superior to others further complicates matters; bikes, skimmers and the like being vastly superior to footslogging infantry, and infantry with good transports are again above the footsloggers in all respects, but the points values rarely respect these facts, thus a kitted out thunderwolf is only marginally more expensive than a tactical terminator, in spite of being vastly superior.

d6 -> d10 is not a great change, because values would be still linear. Maybe 12 sided dice which contains values 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6 would be better. Now you have 1/12 probability to get 1 and 3/12 probability to get 1 or 2.

You do not even need to change rules, only dices.

I've decided to start a GK army sometime in the near future. Looked at termie stats and I think they actually need a 3+ armour.

Da Stormlord wrote:
I've decided to start a GK army sometime in the near future. Looked at termie stats and I think they actually need a 3+ armour.

those are called strike squads.

 vipoid wrote:

natpri771 wrote:
They definitely need to make shooty terminators more playable:
1. Give them access to combi-weapons (storm Bolter versions) Do strom-bolter combi-weapons even exist? .
2. Increase strength and toughness to 5 Unnecessary.
3. Either give them 2 wounds, feel no pain, a 4+ invul or remove the invul and give them a special rule that says AP2/1 weapons just force you to re-roll your successful armour saves Entirely unnecessary.
4. Give them power weapons by default and let the sergeant take a power/chain fist Why not just let them mix and match power fists, rather than only allowing the sergeant one?.

However, it seems GW is very hostile to the concept of new sprues

1. Would assault 2 combi-weapons be that much of a big deal? What do you have against adding new stuff to the game?
2. So, guys in terminator armour should be as tough as guys in power armour?
3. Not all of those simultaneously, I don't see how that is unnecessary
4. I meant that and let the sergeant take a power/chain fist as well

Thinking about it, Terminators are Space Marines. So technically, they've already been fixed.

Nice one miko.

But as I've said many times before, the answer is simply-don't force the power fists.

The power weapon terminators of SW, CSM and GK works out just fine.

The only way to fix terminators is to go back to the drawing board and totally rewrite the way the game is fundamentally played. There will need to be huge changes to a lot of things in the game and it would need to radically approach the shooting and melee combat of the game. Their current systems do not work with the terminator in mind at all.

As a hotfix there are a few things that can be done but really it's cleaning and disenfecting a gunshot wound, your not making the problem go away your making it look not as serious. Cor starters a points drop to 32ppm would help, next give them all the ability to assault from deepstrike, finally we could discuss granting them fnp and maybe strip shuriken catapults of rending.

But really here we are just cleaning an covering up a horrible internal injury here. What would really change things would be to totally rework of shooting combat, melee combat, and saves. One idea I tossed around would be the addition of armor tokens. Each infantry having his own at value that a player could elect to expend in place of a wound. A shooting attack that was not of a high enough ap would simply go onto the token and expend it. And each unit having a varying number.

For example an ork boy would gave one wt and one w, while a centurion could have 2 wounds and 4 wt. This means a lot more math on the player end of things but now cheap gunfire drowning is officially a dead end for killing 2+ armor saves units in fact even 3+ armor is not that bad. And there will be the odd time an ork boy would actually fail his saves and live (a strange thought I know). The fluff being that the armor stopped the bullet rather than the shot bounce off like the armor save would represent.

And this retains the fact that low ap weapons still instagib them but with the correct removal of them as weapon options from some units, price jacks on others, and a total rebalancing and reassessment of weapon statlines it could work.

This means that while a giant pile of conscripts might dump 40 saves on 5 terminators each of those has 4 wounds for them to chew through and if the executioner down the way would only rotate his gun this unit could be removed with only a single blast.

natpri771 wrote:

1. Would assault 2 combi-weapons be that much of a big deal? What do you have against adding new stuff to the game?

I'm not against it - I was genuinely curious as to whether such things exist in he fluff.

natpri771 wrote:

2. So, guys in terminator armour should be as tough as guys in power armour?

Yes. Because the difference is their armour - which is precisely what armour saves represent.

natpri771 wrote:

3. Not all of those simultaneously, I don't see how that is unnecessary

Because the solution to escalation is not 'more escalation'. I believe Vaktathi summed it up very well - one of the major problems at the moment is that several units are far too durable for their cost. We should be looking to tone such units down, not use them as the new standard and try to make every elite unit equally durable.

natpri771 wrote:

4. I meant that and let the sergeant take a power/chain fist as well

 BoomWolf wrote:
Nice one miko.

But as I've said many times before, the answer is simply-don't force the power fists.

The power weapon terminators of SW, CSM and GK works out just fine.

They don't "work out fine" - the only reason GK terms are "okayish" is because they get a relentless psycannon for 185 points and you have to put your librarian somewhere - might as well put him with scoring termies. Strike squads were much much better than GKT before they made psycannons salvo. I still consider termies a troop tax and yes they are STILL overpriced.

When you say that Strike Squads were better, you seem to be neglecting the price drop GK terminators got.

Maybe make a power weapon storm bolter termie 30ppm. TDA gives T5 and reduce the ap of all shooting against models wearing it by 1 (ap1 becomes ap2, and ap2 becomes ap3 ect). Buff storm bolters a bit to make them worth the 5 points they cost (salvo 2/3 or 2/4 maybe with rending on 2/3 profile). Maybe even make them like wolfguard terminators in that they can also be made into assault variant which would make a single unit profile instead of two. The mixing and matching could really help them out.

 NorseSig wrote:
Maybe make a power weapon storm bolter termie 30ppm. TDA gives T5 and reduce the ap of all shooting against models wearing it by 1 (ap1 becomes ap2, and ap2 becomes ap3 ect). Buff storm bolters a bit to make them worth the 5 points they cost (salvo 2/3 or 2/4 maybe with rending on 2/3 profile). Maybe even make them like wolfguard terminators in that they can also be made into assault variant which would make a single unit profile instead of two. The mixing and matching could really help them out.

Really? ALL of that AND a point reduction? If we're going with that then Grots for Orks should be free (or be negative points thus rewarding you for using them)

I always write the same in each of thouse threads.

Terminators are a CC unit with some "bonus" shoting.

To be playable they need:
1. accurate deep strike
2. T5 and fnp
3. Unit size 3+

If terminators become T5 then Tau Broadsides will have to become T6 (since they should clearly have a higher toughness value) and this means that the Riptide will have to become either T7 or T8.

Do you see how it will have a domino effect on other armies?

Like Eldar Wraithguard would have to become T7 or T8 too (meaning the Wraithknight becoming T9 or T10).

elotar wrote:
I always write the same in each of thouse threads.

Terminators are a CC unit with some "bonus" shoting.

To be playable they need:
1. accurate deep strike
2. T5 and fnp
3. Unit size 3+

Or for CC to not hinge on being hilariously fast and durable (i.e. not like Wraiths, the other kind of Wraiths, or TWC). If there were ways for infantry on foot to get into combat without having to spend half the game advancing, that'd be great. Perhaps increase run distance to 6+D6"? It'd certainly make everything that much more manouvreable.

SGTPozy wrote:
If terminators become T5 then Tau Broadsides will have to become T6 (since they should clearly have a higher toughness value) and this means that the Riptide will have to become either T7 or T8.

Do you see how it will have a domino effect on other armies?

Like Eldar Wraithguard would have to become T7 or T8 too (meaning the Wraithknight becoming T9 or T10).

You're making the assumption that Broadsides have to be tougher than Terminators. Don't they already have 2 wounds?

Yes, but given the fact they are the size of a dreadnaut, 2W 4T is hardly a statline fitting the model to begin with.

But that's a whole other matter.




As for the guy saying that the GK terminators are "tax" and that CSM and SW termies are still bad, you have got to be kidding me.
Any cheaper or stronger and they become no-brainer choice.

A marine is 14 points, budget terminators are 33.
That's 19 points for power weapons, upgrade from PA to TDA, bolters to storm bolters and +1 to A and Ld.
They are more than twice as hard to kill (half damage from small arms, massive reduction from AP3 and thanks to invuls they can tank AP2 better too), attack twice as much, pack power weapons so they can punch through power armor in CC (or get S6 attacks with mauls, or take axes for killing other 2+ units), can shoot and charge and are harder to brake.

Honestly, had both be troops, I'd take budgetminators any time.


And for GK, you got 20 points strike, VS 33 point termi.
+1 A, +1 Ld and PA to TDA for 13 points? not as much of a steal as the wolf guard to wolf guard termies, or the chaos chosen to chaos termies, (15 and 13 points respectively, and they buy the PW and stormbolter/combibolter too) but still a damn good deal.

The problem is that you guys look at what terminators do on their own, compared to the biggest, baddast things out there, and expect them to be supposed to hold out forever against everything and anything. but that's just comparing apples to phones.
But compared to the SANE side of 40k? the budget terminators are pretty damn solid. they got gecent defenses, they hit well in CC and they shoot better than most assault units. and that's what they are, even the "tactical" terminators-assault units.

They may not be the fastest, but they need not be. they endure. for their price they can take a decent beating. they have little need to use cover and can afford to just march up field and they can deepstrike into positions should the situation call for it.
Perfect? far from it. but they got their uses and nieches.
And in a world where the insanity picks do not exist, they are great.
Problem is half the people try to bring up their favorite units into the same level as the insanity picks (while calling the nerf the same insanity picks to begin with!)

Terminators need just to be withot forced power fists. after that the only "fix" they need, is that the few truly absurd things out there (decution, WS, ion accelerators, HYMP, gravcents, etc.) to be toned down, and by that alone the terminators will take back their spot as a line unit that is a serious pick.

And not all the absurd buffs I see here that will turn them instantly into no-brainer picks that would make everyone to ally gray knights for their cheap troop terminators.

The things being brought up in this thread illustrate exactly what's wrong with this game and player perceptions.

Terminators *need* T5 FNP and accurate Deep Strike to be playable? Rules that allow them to reroll failed 2+ armor saves? S5 T5 W2?

WAT?

These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them. They're supposed to be hardy infantry that pack a punch. They do that. They could perhaps use a small price discount or the return of some 2E wargear like integral teleport homers for other units to follow up on or something, but a lot of these suggestions are insane, and simply duplicate an already existing unit, Centurions.

That said, Centurions I think were a mistake in the first place, upstaging Terminators at exactly what Terminators are supposed to be, and reinforcing terrible notions of what heavy infantry should be.

"These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them."

I agree, but there needs to be some reason to take them. Which there currently isn't.

Martel732 wrote:
"These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them."

I agree, but there needs to be some reason to take them. Which there currently isn't.

Yes there is - they're badass models. They look better than Centurions, and beefier and tougher than a Space Marine, which they are, per model.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them."

I agree, but there needs to be some reason to take them. Which there currently isn't.

Yes there is - they're badass models. They look better than Centurions, and beefier and tougher than a Space Marine, which they are, per model.

Actually, only against AP 3 weapons. Against all other weapons, space marines are tougher on a per point basis. They are almost unplayably bad.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them."

I agree, but there needs to be some reason to take them. Which there currently isn't.

Yes there is - they're badass models. They look better than Centurions, and beefier and tougher than a Space Marine, which they are, per model.

Actually, only against AP 3 weapons. Against all other weapons, space marines are tougher on a per point basis. They are almost unplayably bad.

Per point, sure, but terminators are tougher per model, like I said.

And I still stand by my statement that a reason to field them is that they look cool!

Looking cool is not a sufficient reason for me to ever field them. I think they are embarrassing, actually. I would probably get mocked mercilessly and then tabled.

Martel732 wrote:
Looking cool is not a sufficient reason for me to ever field them. I think they are embarrassing, actually. I would probably get mocked mercilessly and then tabled.

You have an interesting play group there, friend. Last game I played 3 Baneblades, and 3 Hydras against another unbound list - Black Templar Terminator Squads each with a Chaplain and each in an LRC. It was hilarious fun, and I lost because of objectives (among other things), but neither of us mocked eachother and neither of us got tabled.

He literally brought nothing but terminators, LRs, and chaplains.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Looking cool is not a sufficient reason for me to ever field them. I think they are embarrassing, actually. I would probably get mocked mercilessly and then tabled.

You have an interesting play group there, friend. Last game I played 3 Baneblades, and 3 Hydras against another unbound list - Black Templar Terminator Squads each with a Chaplain and each in an LRC. It was hilarious fun, and I lost because of objectives (among other things), but neither of us mocked eachother and neither of us got tabled.

He literally brought nothing but terminators, LRs, and chaplains.

Many are rather serious about number crunching. For a while there, how many turns it took to table 5th ed BA with 6th ed codices was a metric they were measuring. The record I remember was top of the 3rd turn.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Looking cool is not a sufficient reason for me to ever field them. I think they are embarrassing, actually. I would probably get mocked mercilessly and then tabled.

You have an interesting play group there, friend. Last game I played 3 Baneblades, and 3 Hydras against another unbound list - Black Templar Terminator Squads each with a Chaplain and each in an LRC. It was hilarious fun, and I lost because of objectives (among other things), but neither of us mocked eachother and neither of us got tabled.

He literally brought nothing but terminators, LRs, and chaplains.

Many are rather serious about number crunching. For a while there, how many turns it took to table 5th ed BA with 6th ed codices was a metric they were measuring. The record I remember was top of the 3rd turn.

You need friends who play 40k less competitively. It really doesn't function well in that environment (as you seem to be learning).

It's actually magnificent for those with power codices and power lists. For too many gamers, no contest is their kind of contest.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Looking cool is not a sufficient reason for me to ever field them. I think they are embarrassing, actually. I would probably get mocked mercilessly and then tabled.

You have an interesting play group there, friend. Last game I played 3 Baneblades, and 3 Hydras against another unbound list - Black Templar Terminator Squads each with a Chaplain and each in an LRC. It was hilarious fun, and I lost because of objectives (among other things), but neither of us mocked eachother and neither of us got tabled.

He literally brought nothing but terminators, LRs, and chaplains.

You must understand that 'looking cool" isn't good enough for some people. How a unit performs on the table is why they take or don't take them.

Plus, I think terminators look kinda dumb.

Martel732 wrote:
It's actually magnificent for those with power codices and power lists. For too many gamers, no contest is their kind of contest.

Although based on what you've said it seems terrible for everyone else.

 NorseSig wrote:
I think a lot of the problems with terminators could be fixed by treating them like Wolfguard terminators. except start their cost at 30 points for power weapon and storm bolter. This would reflect them not having the extra abilits the wolfguard termies have. Storm bolters should probably have either rending or salvo 2/3 or salvo 2/4. TDA giving toughness +1 would help as well. as Is they aren't worth their points and neither is the hq upgrade which should be 25 points across the board imo. Of course this idea would get rid of the 2 profiles. If this were to be done there would need to be a boost to storm bolters to make them an attractive option.

What extra abilities? If you are talking about counter attack and acute senses then you are really just referencing our chapter tactics...which normal space marines have their own versions of. Also don't try to and just pluck the wolves version of termis, the stats and points need a change, not war gear. Let's not try to make this homogenized 40k now.

 BoomWolf wrote:

As for the guy saying that the GK terminators are "tax" and that CSM and SW termies are still bad, you have got to be kidding me.
Any cheaper or stronger and they become no-brainer choice.

GKT aren't bad, but they're not even close to no-brainers. Maybe if you eliminated all the Wave Serpents and Wraithknights and Broadsides and whatever else happens to be OP from the game, then they'd fall into the 'pretty good' category, but as they are they're still just mediocre. For ~200pts for a 5-man unit, you don't get a whole lot of firepower, once they take a couple casualties they lose their punch in assault, and they're too slow to reposition to grab maelstrom objective and the like. As it stands, they mostly just let Dreadknights and Draigo do all the heavy lifting, even if they help out a little bit.

 Vaktathi wrote:

These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them.

They are dreadnoughts. Litteraly (TDA)

They are slow and with weak shooting, as well as with no sweeping advance - they must be invincible to be any good.

elotar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them.

They are dreadnoughts. Litteraly (TDA)

They are slow and with weak shooting, as well as with no sweeping advance - they must be invincible to be any good.

Except nowhere, anywahere, are they described as having the power or resiliency of an actual Dreadnought. They're heavy power armored infantry, not gigantic walkers or monstrous creatures.

If you need a unit to be invincible for it to be good, well, the problem isn't with the unit.

Likewise, if you make them invincible, how much more invincible do you then need to make TH/SS terminators to compensate?

 Vaktathi wrote:
The things being brought up in this thread illustrate exactly what's wrong with this game and player perceptions.

Terminators *need* T5 FNP and accurate Deep Strike to be playable? Rules that allow them to reroll failed 2+ armor saves? S5 T5 W2?

WAT?

These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them. They're supposed to be hardy infantry that pack a punch. They do that. They could perhaps use a small price discount or the return of some 2E wargear like integral teleport homers for other units to follow up on or something, but a lot of these suggestions are insane, and simply duplicate an already existing unit, Centurions.

That said, Centurions I think were a mistake in the first place, upstaging Terminators at exactly what Terminators are supposed to be, and reinforcing terrible notions of what heavy infantry should be.

Well, technically speaking, they should be close to as tough as a dreadnaught, it IS called Tactical Dreadnaught Armour for a reason.

However, some of the suggestions seem to be piling on a bit much. IMO, 2 wounds and ignore the powerfist's unwieldy is just enough to make them worth their points and keep with their intended use intact. I'd prefer a 4++ on basic termie armour as well, but I think that might be too much at 40 points. Maybe an extra shot with the SB, make it assault 3? Assault termies with a TH keep the unwieldy (its not as integrated into the armour and its a freakin' sledge hammer), thus the trade off for getting a vastly superior invulnerable save with 2 wounds.

Another thing to consider is some of the suggested changes would require rewrites of existing 7th edition codexes or the core rules, and also dilutes some of the flavor for those chapters that are not locked in to the stock termie armour. Updating the armour itself to +1 Wound on the profile and introduce a "Terminator Powerfist" that replaces existing powerfist rules for all terminator units and doesn't include Unwieldy is an easy White Dwarf update away and can be a blanket update for all armies that include terminator armour.

 Vaktathi wrote:

If you need a unit to be invincible for it to be good, well, the problem isn't with the unit.

Invincible was obviously exagerration. With T5 fnp they still be kind of on par with necron wraths (plain, not 4+ RP Decurion), which are faster.
In fluff TDA is much more durable.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The things being brought up in this thread illustrate exactly what's wrong with this game and player perceptions.

Terminators *need* T5 FNP and accurate Deep Strike to be playable? Rules that allow them to reroll failed 2+ armor saves? S5 T5 W2?

WAT?

These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them. They're supposed to be hardy infantry that pack a punch. They do that. They could perhaps use a small price discount or the return of some 2E wargear like integral teleport homers for other units to follow up on or something, but a lot of these suggestions are insane, and simply duplicate an already existing unit, Centurions.

That said, Centurions I think were a mistake in the first place, upstaging Terminators at exactly what Terminators are supposed to be, and reinforcing terrible notions of what heavy infantry should be.

Well, technically speaking, they should be close to as tough as a dreadnaught, it IS called Tactical Dreadnaught Armour for a reason.

However, some of the suggestions seem to be piling on a bit much. IMO, 2 wounds and ignore the powerfist's unwieldy is just enough to make them worth their points and keep with their intended use intact. I'd prefer a 4++ on basic termie armour as well, but I think that might be too much at 40 points. Maybe an extra shot with the SB, make it assault 3? Assault termies with a TH keep the unwieldy (its not as integrated into the armour and its a freakin' sledge hammer), thus the trade off for getting a vastly superior invulnerable save with 2 wounds.

Another thing to consider is some of the suggested changes would require rewrites of existing 7th edition codexes or the core rules, and also dilutes some of the flavor for those chapters that are not locked in to the stock termie armour. Updating the armour itself to +1 Wound on the profile and introduce a "Terminator Powerfist" that replaces existing powerfist rules for all terminator units and doesn't include Unwieldy is an easy White Dwarf update away and can be a blanket update for all armies that include terminator armour.

Methinks people would find W2 4++sv I4 powerfist Terminators worth a fair bit more than 40pts. 60ppm perhaps, but certainly not 40.

Lets look at the closest equivalent, GK Paladins. They're 65ppm with a 5++ when they've got a hammer, and they're still I1. Granted they have some different things (WS5, BoP, but no Chapter Tactics) but largely, they're what we're talking about here.

elotar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

If you need a unit to be invincible for it to be good, well, the problem isn't with the unit.

Invincible was obviously exagerration. With T5 fnp they still be kind of on par with necron wraths (plain, not 4+ RP Decurion), which are faster.
In fluff TDA is much more durable.

And Necron Wraiths are widely seen as being overpowered, far too durable and fast for their points cost. We shouldn't be balancing around that. If anything it's the Wraiths that should be getting toned down.

If you want units to be good going forward, the wraith must be taken into account, as the bar is continually being raised bit by bit.

Martel732 wrote:
If you want units to be good going forward, the wraith must be taken into account, as the bar is continually being raised bit by bit.

I would think it should be treated as an outlier and a failure of playtesting, not as a balance point. Doing the latter only means you now need to start shifting *everything*, and acts to push otherwise balanced units into uselessness.

Id like tpo echo whats already been said, Terminators dont have muc purpose anymore. They need that again. They were once the defacto deathstar for SMs. Now theyve been outdone by Cents and....wellfor CC i dont know whats really out there for SMs. Terminatorssuffer from that great and all pervading SM problem of being a genarlist. That being said, id suggest tiny improvements in all factors.Staying power, firepower and CC.

Firepower- An additional heavy is a given, but i like the sugestions of Salvo 2/3. Id also think that CSM should get it too.

CC- I like the suggestions of using PFs at initiative, or getting an additional attack from using combi and stormbolters as exra mellee weapons. For TH/SS termies id say let them get an extra atack from the shield, and give LC termies rend.

Survivability- The extra toughness seems good, but would also make TDA characters more resilient to instant death. I think the that should be what you get from bikes. A reduction of weapon strength for the purposes of wounding, but not ID seems more in line with TDA

Id also go with a 5 point reduction if the cost of termies and thier heavy weapons.

Teleporting- Id say that teleporting termies would only be hit with Snap Shots when the arrive via DS. Thereby making the classic terminator DS method more attracive.

They are what they are, slow moving mini tanks. I love them in a zone mortalis setting, like them in a city scape with lots of buildings and hate them out in the open field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are what they are, slow moving mini tanks. I love them in a zone mortalis setting, like them in a city scape with lots of buildings and hate them out in the open field.

I don't think the problem is that Terminators are unplayably weak, so much as that the things which are effective against them, which are supposed to be rare and in short supply, are easily taken by almost every army, all the time.

That doesn't call for terminators to be beefed up beyond all recognition. It calls for the whole damn game to be rebalanced, which is unfortunately unlikely to happen.

In the background, Terminator armor is proof against almost all threats. The suits are perceived as almost invulnerable against all but the most exceptional arms. Then you have a game with easy, inexpensive access to both weapons which should have very good AP, and weapons which have a low AP because they want people to take them. There's no particular reason that hellguns need low AP. There's no particular reason why Rubric Marines should have low AP bolter rounds. Things like plasma weapons should be very effective vs. armor, but their supposed rarity and scarcity isn't reflected in their cost at all.

I do think Terminators would work better with 2 wounds, but that's for two reasons. First, I think that the 40mm base size should be indicative of 2+ wound models. Second, I think it would help represent the terminator resistance to small arms better (in that it's going to be almost futile to bring them down with lasguns or knives). It would do that without making them unrealistically resistant to anti-tank weaponry.

Terminators suffer from the same problem as Power-armored marines in the game. They are supposed to be clad in some of the best armor in the galaxy, but it's almost trivially easy to get weapons which penetrate it. They just suffer more because they pay so much more for their 'invulnerable' armor which gets ignored too often. If GW would go over the rules carefully and remove low AP from things which don't actually seem to have it in the fluff, and rework points costs so that incredibly rare, amazingly powerful weapons weren't handed out to every chap who can carry one, Terminators would be just fine. I seem to remember them being quite good for several editions (basically, after Chapter Approved gave them the invulnerable save) until every Tom, Dick, and Harry got AP 2 weapons.

" It calls for the whole damn game to be rebalanced, which is unfortunately unlikely to happen. "

So we are back to buffing terminators.

I would drop AP# on hellguns in a heartbeat in exchange for something like an S3 AP5 or AP- Assault 3 18" weapon and a 2-3ppm price cut. The AP3 is absolutely useless on Stormtroopers with S3 guns and a shortened range, it simply unnecessarily increases their cost.

Again however, with the whole 2 Wounds thing, I can't think of anything that gets both a 2+sv and W2 for less than 55pts, and that's without Powerfists. The adjustment you'd have to do to TH/SS Termi's with 2+/3++Sv's and W2 would have to probably make them no less than 70ppm.

And, also again, massed AP2 fire isn't anything new. terribad IG armies of 4th edition were routinely putting down 40 or more Plasma & Melta guns in 1500pt games. There's nothing new about that, and that was when Plasma Guns were 10ppm not 15ppm.

You can't price wargear by supposed fluff rarity. If we're going to do that then, we have to apply this to Terminators as well (can't pick and choose here), and then we're talking to each Terminator there's thirty thousand Regiments of Leman Russ tanks.

"Again however, with the whole 2 Wounds thing, I can't think of anything that gets both a 2+sv and W2 for less than 55pts, and that's without Powerfists. The adjustment you'd have to do to TH/SS Termi's with 2+/3++Sv's and W2 would have to probably make them no less than 70ppm. "

These are not buffs I'm thinking of. Shooting terminators need more offense.

Aren't they roughly in-line with their general principle though? They're supposedly to be heavily armored to defend or spearhead and not necessarily be like devastators. To this end they have their 2+, invuln save, storm bolters, and fists with options for missiles and canons should you wish for more of a firebase.

What type of offense do you have in mind?

 Parity wrote:
Aren't they roughly in-line with their general principle though? They're supposedly to be heavily armored to defend or spearhead and not necessarily be like devastators. To this end they have their 2+, invuln save, storm bolters, and fists with options for missiles and canons should you wish for more of a firebase.

What type of offense do you have in mind?

Stormbolters are awful weapons. Likewise, a single assault cannon or missile launcher is equally useless. I'm open to ideas. As it stands, they can't defend, can't assault, can't spearhead, and can't shoot. There is good justification in the thread for why they shouldn't be tougher, so they need more offense.

Martel732 wrote:
" It calls for the whole damn game to be rebalanced, which is unfortunately unlikely to happen. "

So we are back to buffing terminators.

Lets look at some stuff they used to have then.

They used to have Teleport Homers incorporated into their wargear so additional units could follow them after they've broken through an enemy line.

Likewise, they used to have Targeters, these could be used to give something like "reroll to-hit rolls of 1 when shooting" or ignore the effects of Stealth/Shrouded or something. Maybe Preferred Enemy?

SGTPozy wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
Maybe make a power weapon storm bolter termie 30ppm. TDA gives T5 and reduce the ap of all shooting against models wearing it by 1 (ap1 becomes ap2, and ap2 becomes ap3 ect). Buff storm bolters a bit to make them worth the 5 points they cost (salvo 2/3 or 2/4 maybe with rending on 2/3 profile). Maybe even make them like wolfguard terminators in that they can also be made into assault variant which would make a single unit profile instead of two. The mixing and matching could really help them out.

Really? ALL of that AND a point reduction? If we're going with that then Grots for Orks should be free (or be negative points thus rewarding you for using them)

Sorry I phrased things poorly. What I meant was maybe one or some of these things be applied, but probably not all of them. And the points reduction for what they are currently is inline with other armies like space wolves who get some extra rules that help them out (about 3 ppm worth). And storm bolters are at best right now a 1point upgrade. they aren't worth the 5 points they are now. I was just throwing ideas out there to try and fix the problem. Just because I worded things poorly doesn't give you the right to be condescending. If you don't agree with me then fine. But how about actually contributing to the discussion in a mature and productive manner.

I disagree with making them any harder to kill. Things in 40K are supposed to die. If nothing dies in the game, then at the end of the game, you still are where you started.

Yes it sucks when your guys die, but you like it when the other guys stuff dies. Its all part of the game. Making Terminators unkillable will suddenly be no fun at all for half of the people playing the game.

You want to make them more attractive, increase the damage output. But not by adding more shots, just make them better at what they do. Bump weapon skill to 5 and BS to 5. Retcon the fluff that only the biggest baddest marines get the honor of wearing terminator armor. Thus the WS5. BS 5 could easily be achieved by internal targeting systems.

Now most of your attacks are hitting more often. Thus giving you a better change to enjoy the killing aspect of the game, but havent really ruined the fun for the other guy either.

Making them BS/WS5 would have a neglible impact, as Deathwing Knights show us. Not being able to hit often enough isn't their problem- having garbage-tier ranged weaponry is their problem.

If upping their offensive capabilities is preferable to making them tougher, then the only way to realistically do that is to give them more access to decent weaponry.

Combine the assault/tactical tactical terminator profiles into one, just called "terminators", and make them 30ppm for the termie armor and storm-bolter/power weapn stock.

Then take a page out of the TWC playbook and remove the unit size requirements for what they can take- allow each model to take whatever they want.

A 5-man unit with 5 assault cannons would cost 250 points. That's fair for a unit that can be crippled if not outright killed by units that are half their cost in a single round of shooting. You want to take storm-shields on top of that so that you're 2+sv dudes with assault cannons also get a 3++? Go right ahead man. You're now paying 300 points for 5 t4 wounds but hey whatever dude. It works out mechanically.

Terminator problems:
Expensive
Poor shooting per point
Poor surivability per point
Slow speed
Expensive transport options
Low number of special/heavy weapons
No sweeping advance

If they reduced or removed any number of these problems they would be better.

Just minor modifications:
-Terminator with power weapon and storm bolter 32p
-each terminator can take special/heavy weapon
-At least one ap2 close combat weapon with iniative (or ignore unwieldly rule)

Maybe ignore unwieldly would be enought alone.

The underlying problem that can't be fixed is that terminators have lost their job. Back in fourth edition they were solid becuase units like sternguard and centurions didn't exist. They were your mobile heavy weapons platform and put out more dakka per model at 24 inches than anything else in the book. But with every new edition marines got a new book, and with that new bling. But Ohh no, you can't take out the old stuff, but it can't be made as cool as the new stuff or the new stuff won't sell. Rince and repeat for 20 years and you have units like terminators and tactical squads that just can't keep up. And you end up with tbey current codex that has way too many cooks in the kitchen. 40k needs a knife, not an upgrade. Too many codexs just have too many units. Old Units that just fattened the book without actually doing anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So lets get rid of the competition. Dump both sternguard and centurions from the codexs. Allow tactical terminators to take two heavy weapons at five models and give the sternguard special ammo options to the ones that retain their stormbolters

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Making them BS/WS5 would have a neglible impact, as Deathwing Knights show us. Not being able to hit often enough isn't their problem- having garbage-tier ranged weaponry is their problem.

If upping their offensive capabilities is preferable to making them tougher, then the only way to realistically do that is to give them more access to decent weaponry.

Combine the assault/tactical tactical terminator profiles into one, just called "terminators", and make them 30ppm for the termie armor and storm-bolter/power weapn stock.

Then take a page out of the TWC playbook and remove the unit size requirements for what they can take- allow each model to take whatever they want.

A 5-man unit with 5 assault cannons would cost 250 points. That's fair for a unit that can be crippled if not outright killed by units that are half their cost in a single round of shooting. You want to take storm-shields on top of that so that you're 2+sv dudes with assault cannons also get a 3++? Go right ahead man. You're now paying 300 points for 5 t4 wounds but hey whatever dude. It works out mechanically.

Aside from the fact that 5 assault cannons would be a ludicrous amount of firepower that's effective against literally everything in the game, you'd be introducing a false sense of choice.

Effectively what you'd see is a bunch of small-minimum sized units loaded with heavy weapons, or something like 3 AC's and 2 Stormshields to tank wounds.

Why is it mostly Tactical Terminators, which are complained about? Two lightning claws compared to a Power fist doesn't seem as much more utility. Is it the cheap upgrade to thunder hammer and storm shield which makes the difference?

Chaospling wrote:
Why is it mostly Tactical Terminators, which are complained about? Two lightning claws compared to a Power fist doesn't seem as much more utility. Is it the cheap upgrade to thunder hammer and storm shield which makes the difference?

Aye, it's the TH/SS upgrade. That 3++ largely nullifies AP2 weapons, meaning that you can only really kill them the hard way, making them a pretty auto-pilot unit that doesn't require much support to use effectively, and you can often muck up with them and still be OK.

Back when Stormshields were just a 4++ (and only against CC attacks), Lightning Claw terminators were much more popular, particularly when there was more access to Furious Charge which at the time also could make them I5.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
Why is it mostly Tactical Terminators, which are complained about? Two lightning claws compared to a Power fist doesn't seem as much more utility. Is it the cheap upgrade to thunder hammer and storm shield which makes the difference?

Aye, it's the TH/SS upgrade. That 3++ largely nullifies AP2 weapons, meaning that you can only really kill them the hard way, making them a pretty auto-pilot unit that doesn't require much support to use effectively, and you can often muck up with them and still be OK.

Back when Stormshields were just a 4++ (and only against CC attacks), Lightning Claw terminators were much more popular, particularly when there was more access to Furious Charge which at the time also could make them I5.

Ok, if the cost of a thunder hammer and storm shield were doubled, do you think that it would still be an interesting upgrade or is the current cost well balanced?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Aside from the fact that 5 assault cannons would be a ludicrous amount of firepower that's effective against literally everything in the game,

It's not that ludicrous in the context of what you're paying. 20 Assault cannon shots at BS4 is killing 5 marines or knocking 2 HP off AV14 on average. Assuming no invulns/cover on either. For 250 points. Whoopie.

you'd be introducing a false sense of choice.

Effectively what you'd see is a bunch of small-minimum sized units loaded with heavy weapons, or something like 3 AC's and 2 Stormshields to tank wounds.

Compared to the current situation in which we see none at all because no one in their right minds would ever take Tactical Terminators in an even slightly competitive environment.

I don't see how them being used as MSU is a bad thing, though. That's generally how most expensive ppm units are run. Few people take max sized TWC or Centurion squads, for example.

The Tyrant Siege Terminators have missile launchers in every model.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Aside from the fact that 5 assault cannons would be a ludicrous amount of firepower that's effective against literally everything in the game,

It's not that ludicrous in the context of what you're paying. 20 Assault cannon shots at BS4 is killing 5 marines or knocking 2 HP off AV14 on average. Assuming no invulns/cover on either. For 250 points. Whoopie.

In that case we're talking about as many dead marines as from 4 or 5 double-tapping plasma guns, and as many HP's on AV14 as 9 BS4 Lascannons, while still packing enough anti-horde firepower to average 11-12 IG/Ork/Eldar/Tau infantry a turn.

It's not just about the raw firepower (which isn't unimpressive), but the versatility of being incredibly effective against *everything*.

Compared to the current situation in which we see none at all because no one in their right minds would ever take Tactical Terminators in an even slightly competitive environment.

The point was that you might as well just include the heavy weapons at that point in the base wargear and cost, because people aren't going to *not* take them en-masse, You'd be taking them from a generalist heavy infantry unit to effectively another Centurion unit.

Chaospling wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
Why is it mostly Tactical Terminators, which are complained about? Two lightning claws compared to a Power fist doesn't seem as much more utility. Is it the cheap upgrade to thunder hammer and storm shield which makes the difference?

Aye, it's the TH/SS upgrade. That 3++ largely nullifies AP2 weapons, meaning that you can only really kill them the hard way, making them a pretty auto-pilot unit that doesn't require much support to use effectively, and you can often muck up with them and still be OK.

Back when Stormshields were just a 4++ (and only against CC attacks), Lightning Claw terminators were much more popular, particularly when there was more access to Furious Charge which at the time also could make them I5.

Ok, if the cost of a thunder hammer and storm shield were doubled, do you think that it would still be an interesting upgrade or is the current cost well balanced?

I'm not sure, though that's what about what I'd have costed them at in the first place.

 Draco wrote:
The Tyrant Siege Terminators have missile launchers in every model.

Keep in mind that HH units are designed and costed to an entirely different design paradigm, where Space Marines have Jetbikes and Devastator equivalent units can have up to 10 heavy weapons and whatnot.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Retcon the fluff that only the biggest baddest marines get the honor of wearing terminator armor.

That's... not a retcon...

Besides, Terminators are cool because Cyclones, so... give them more Cyclones!

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Draco wrote:
The Tyrant Siege Terminators have missile launchers in every model.

Keep in mind that HH units are designed and costed to an entirely different design paradigm, where Space Marines have Jetbikes and Devastator equivalent units can have up to 10 heavy weapons and whatnot.

Aye, Terminators in HH work, and work well on account of the hard counters to them being far less present. Standard Imperial Guard and the Xeno armies either have the volume of Ap1/2 weapons, available in template form at range in some cases, or have such obscenely higher volume of fire and/or durability as to make Terminators a) cost ineffecient versus their foes, and b) very lacklustre versus their non-MEQ codex counterparts.

There are relatively few stand-out Terminator counters in HH aside from other terminators; tactical support squads with plasma/melta (but those can't be mandatory troops), Vindicators/Demolishers, max-size Tactical squads double-tapping and Lords of War. They're a lot more impressive via less common counters and power bloat, and that they're often given specific niches via their Legion rules; Iron Hands Gorgon terminators tank fire like nothing else, Emperor's Children Phoenix Guard are meant to be charging amidst a larger melee force, Imperial Fists get to deepstrike and use assault cannons, Iron Warriors' Tyrant Guard shoot, shoot some more and then shoot a little bit more, etc. They have specific roles related to the flavour of their army, and don't have to worry about being wiped off the table in a single shot by weapons notably cheaper than they are. They also score (HH uses 6th edition scoring rules; troops and specific units only).

They work, by virtue of small buffs to make them attractive base don your legion and with some more customization (Tartaros versus Cataphractii pattern, more gun options, more melee options, etc) and a wider rules environment which is reasonably well balanced, which 40k is not. What I'd like is for 40k to be toned down so Terminators aren't bad choices, but the easier thing from GW's perspective, if they care (which is doubtful) is to buff up those underperforming units to the current "Crank Everything up to 11!!!!1!!1one!!1"

 Vaktathi wrote:
In that case we're talking about as many dead marines as from 4 or 5 double-tapping plasma guns,and as many HP's on AV14 as 9 BS4 Lascannons, while still packing enough anti-horde firepower to average 11-12 IG/Ork/Eldar/Tau infantry a turn.

And? Pask in a Punisher does as much damage to MEQ as thirteen heavy bolters, and can mulch MC's and vehicles up to AV14 to boot.

"It does as much damage as X weapon" is a terrible metric for gauging whether something is overpowered.

It's not just about the raw firepower (which isn't unimpressive), but the versatility of being incredibly effective against *everything*.

Well, they aren't incredibly effective against everything- as the math shows- they're middling against everything. For significantly less points I can do much better against any one unit type- 100 point TFC's will do better against infantry and grav will do better against everything else.

The point was that you might as well just include the heavy weapons at that point in the base wargear and cost,

I don't see how you could do that, considering the weapons all have different points costs...

because people aren't going to *not* take them en-masse,

People don't *not* take special weapons on veteran squads, people don't *not* take storm shields on TWC, people don't *not* take specials on their tactical marines.

So? Your argument is that the unit will have an optimal configuration and unoptimal configurations like every other unit in the game?

You'd be taking them from a generalist heavy infantry unit to effectively another Centurion unit.

What is a "centurion unit" in your context?

What about Heavy Bolters instead of Assault Cannons?

Much more effective than Storm Bolters, but not as versatile as assault cannons.

Heavy bolters would be a cheaper option.

SInce coming up with the idea earlier, I've been working on a full profile for the unit with points values, full weapon options etc.

I'll make a Proposed Rules thread about it in a bit.

1. Wraths (non-decurion) are not overpowered, they are at the normal level of power for HtH unit in the game to be playable. (others are 100+ ork mob with fnp, seer consil, beaststar... even the last ones are questionable)

2. T5 fnp = T4 2W (approximately) But first is easier to implement as just rules of TDA.

3. Paladins (55 for 2W + BoP + force weapons) was really playable only in deathstar with wound shenanigans, +1 A banner, FNP, blessings and drago for tanking. Now they are overcosted as well.

4. TS/SS terminators aren't much more playable either - they are still wery vulnerable to small arms as well as absolutely pointless when they have nothing to charge.

5. More firepower is pointless - SM got centurions for it.

elotar wrote:
1. Wraths (non-decurion) are not overpowered, they are at the normal level of power for HtH unit in the game to be playable. (others are 100+ ork mob with fnp, seer consil, beaststar... even the last ones are questionable)

Sigh.

Statements like this are why the game does nothing but escalate.