kveldulf wrote: I think the easiest way to resolve the AP2 issue with terminators would be to make their armour save a 1+ [Remember a roll of a 1 always fails].
Thoughts?
A roll of a 1 doesn't always fail, but in the case of saves you're correct. (semantics, sure, but it's an important one)
However, there's also the issue of
BRB, page 38, Maximum save wrote: ... However, no save (armour, cover, or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+ ...
I'll assume this is supposed to be an exception to that rule.
I get where you're going with this, trying to make it so only AP1 will actually ignore their armour save. It's better off to word it as "Models in Terminator Armour can make armour saves against AP2 weapons, even though they are not normally allowed to".
niv-mizzet wrote: No he's saying it wouldn't change other than to make termies only die to melta/fusion etc without an armor save. (@doomshaka)
While I think that ap2 is a bit heavy in the game, I take more issue with them dying to 6 lasgun wounds, so I'd support 2w over the 1+ save.
Ok, I see what you mean now.
Letting terminators take their armor save would be a godsend. I mean lets be honest, who's going waste an ap1 shot on terminators when grav/ plasma and the like can be fired en masse at them.
Now they'd have a legitimate choice to make between the two.
The issue with Terminators isn't vulnerability to AP2 so much as it is vulnerability to everything. They're weaker to lasguns point-for-point than Tactical Marines because everything else keeps getting cheaper and better and Terminators today are functionally identical to Terminators in fourth edition.
Martel732 wrote: AP2 wouldn't be as big of an issue if terminators had some way to hurt their opponent at range.
I don't see their purpose/utility lacking; I see their lack of survivability the main problem, as that is the inherent purpose for even fielding them - being a bulwark.
Giving them more ranged options will diminish further reason for fielding devastators.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AnomanderRake wrote: The issue with Terminators isn't vulnerability to AP2 so much as it is vulnerability to everything. They're weaker to lasguns point-for-point than Tactical Marines because everything else keeps getting cheaper and better and Terminators today are functionally identical to Terminators in fourth edition.
I agree. As to rectifying this particular issue, I see a few options:
Make terminators T7 - thus being immune to S3 weaponry and gaining more of a resistance to plasma/AP2 issue. This would really make them impressive human shields - which is what they are suppose to be.
Terminator armour rerolls armour saves - this is pretty simple, but it does add an extra level of rolling that could be a bit annoying.
Make a special rule in which weapons shooting at terminators must be Strength 4+ to inflict a wound.
AnomanderRake wrote: The issue with Terminators isn't vulnerability to AP2 so much as it is vulnerability to everything. They're weaker to lasguns point-for-point than Tactical Marines because everything else keeps getting cheaper and better and Terminators today are functionally identical to Terminators in fourth edition.
I agree. As to rectifying this particular issue, I see a few options:
Make terminators T7 - thus being immune to S3 weaponry and gaining more of a resistance to plasma/AP2 issue. This would really make them impressive human shields - which is what they are suppose to be.
Terminator armour rerolls armour saves - this is pretty simple, but it does add an extra level of rolling that could be a bit annoying.
Make a special rule in which weapons shooting at terminators must be Strength 4+ to inflict a wound.
Of those 3 I, personally, wouldn't only be happy with the 2nd option. No way are you making Termis tougher than a Keeper of Secrets/as tough as a C'Tan. The 3rd option doesn't make them any tougher to bolter equivalents (which is what everyone compares them to) and so only increases their strength against IG.
Actually the way option 3 is worded would probably make them immune to most (all?) poison/fleshbane weapons as they're Str 1/0, as the auto-wound on a certain roll is only regardless of toughness...
Actually, I take back the AP2 thing. The problem with Terminators is not AP2/1 weaponry. The problem with them is their lack of firepower and their main weakness: cheap units that put out massive amounts of firepower. In all my life, the best unit I've ever seen at dealing with Terminators is a 50-man unit of conscripts. WS2 & BS2 they may be, but 100 shots at rapid-fire range is nothing to be scoffed at and with so many wounds, you will definitely roll a few ones. So, to put in my 2 cents, we need to do the following:
1. +1S & +1T for Terminator-equipped models
2. Power weapons by default, with access to power fists as options
3. Access to combi-weapons (assault 2)
4. Re-Rolls for failed armour saves against anything less than AP2
scuzz_bucket wrote: Honestly, it feels like terminators should get their own sticky thers are so many threads started about it.
And anyway, just make it a 4+ invul, none of this 1+ armor save nonsense.
Still garbage with a 4+ invul.
Yeah, i was kinda thinking that as I typed it, but I still feel 1+ as is nonsense. I figured giving them 3+ invul would just invalidate storm shields, but maybe making termies with shields 2+ invul? It seems like people dont like 2+ invul, but theyre termies, theyre supposed to be scary, thats what this thread (and countless others) is about right?
Martel732 wrote: "Giving them more ranged options will diminish further reason for fielding devastators. "
Who fields devastators anyway? They are not good as it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
scuzz_bucket wrote: Honestly, it feels like terminators should get their own sticky thers are so many threads started about it.
And anyway, just make it a 4+ invul, none of this 1+ armor save nonsense.
Still garbage with a 4+ invul.
Aye I agree with Martel. Even with the 4+ your are still looking at a 50% chance to be wiped from 10 plasma shots (So like a few squads and/or support weapons shooting at them). In two rounds, they are most likely toast. A 5+ or a 4+ isn't going to fix their efficiency issue.
In order for terminators to be justifiable, they need to be distinguished enough point per point like what AnomanderRake mentioned earlier. Increasing their invulnerable save won't fix that problem, it will incrementally make them less crappy. Compared to a tactical marine they are just not near efficient at fulfilling roles.
If they dropped terminators to 25 points, then they would be viable.
natpri771 wrote: Actually, I take back the AP2 thing. The problem with Terminators is not AP2/1 weaponry. The problem with them is their lack of firepower and their main weakness: cheap units that put out massive amounts of firepower. In all my life, the best unit I've ever seen at dealing with Terminators is a 50-man unit of conscripts. WS2 & BS2 they may be, but 100 shots at rapid-fire range is nothing to be scoffed at and with so many wounds, you will definitely roll a few ones. So, to put in my 2 cents, we need to do the following:
1. +1S & +1T for Terminator-equipped models
2. Power weapons by default, with access to power fists as options
3. Access to combi-weapons (assault 2)
4. Re-Rolls for failed armour saves against anything less than AP2
I kind of like the options you put out, but in regards to the principle of giving them more firepower, I don't see that as really fixing things. If anything it's making the game more rock paper scissors - he who goes first wins. There's already enough of that mentality in the game, and I don't mind certain armies playing that way. As for space marines, I wouldn't want to see them going in that direction further.
Terminators will never have as much firepower as 50 IG. SM's should never match them in them so symmetrically. That's just my opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fenris Frost wrote: Easier solution: Terminator Armor loses the invul and instead incoming attacks add +1 to their AP.
Hmmmm....
Hmmmmm.....
Hmmmmmmmmmm....
Not bad..... Honestly, yours is probably the better idea, as it jumps around the 2+ cap the rules have.
If they dropped terminators to 25 points, then they would be viable.
25 points is too low... that's the same as Lychguard.
27/8 points is more fair (2/3 points for a shooting weapon, slightly better defense, Deep Strike and ATSKNF)
The problem with terminators has nothing to do with their saves. It has everything to do with their firepower.
You're paying for the power fist or twin lightning claws, depending. So you're spending a ton of points for melee prowess on a unit that absolutely sucks at getting into close combat. You have to spend 240 points on a delivery system, ffs. Deep striking them is a bad idea because their own shooting won't accomplish much, and then they get drowned in gunfire on your opponent's next turn.
Even then, they aren't as good at close quarters combat as basic space marines! THEY CAN'T SWEEPING ADVANCE. Functionally, they serve no purpose.
They need their dreadful shooting fixed, and that's it. I've proposed before, and I'll say it again, making Storm Bolters Salvo 2/3. Conceptually, Storm Bolters are supposed to spit ammo, right? It doesn't make sense they are basically regular boltguns with slightly more shots beyond 12". It'd also bolster, very slightly, the pathetic weaponry on other space marine vehicles. It'd also make it so there's a point to have every last terminator rocking Relentless.
Doesn't solve the problem, no. But it does mean they make up their points cost a little bit. 15 shots is a lot better than 10.
natpri771 wrote: Actually, I take back the AP2 thing. The problem with Terminators is not AP2/1 weaponry. The problem with them is their lack of firepower and their main weakness: cheap units that put out massive amounts of firepower. In all my life, the best unit I've ever seen at dealing with Terminators is a 50-man unit of conscripts. WS2 & BS2 they may be, but 100 shots at rapid-fire range is nothing to be scoffed at and with so many wounds, you will definitely roll a few ones. So, to put in my 2 cents, we need to do the following:
1. +1S & +1T for Terminator-equipped models
2. Power weapons by default, with access to power fists as options
3. Access to combi-weapons (assault 2)
4. Re-Rolls for failed armour saves against anything less than AP2
I kind of like the options you put out, but in regards to the principle of giving them more firepower, I don't see that as really fixing things. If anything it's making the game more rock paper scissors - he who goes first wins. There's already enough of that mentality in the game, and I don't mind certain armies playing that way. As for space marines, I wouldn't want to see them going in that direction further.
Terminators will never have as much firepower as 50 IG. SM's should never match them in them so symmetrically. That's just my opinion.
I'm not saying they should, all I'm saying is that they should have access to more shooty stuff like combi-weapons. They should also get rid of the whole compulsory power fists thing. They should drop their price 25pts with power weapons as their default load out with power fists as a 5pt option and chain fists as a 7pt option for everyone in the squad.
SRSFACE wrote: The problem with terminators has nothing to do with their saves. It has everything to do with their firepower.
You're paying for the power fist or twin lightning claws, depending. So you're spending a ton of points for melee prowess on a unit that absolutely sucks at getting into close combat. You have to spend 240 points on a delivery system, ffs. Deep striking them is a bad idea because their own shooting won't accomplish much, and then they get drowned in gunfire on your opponent's next turn.
Even then, they aren't as good at close quarters combat as basic space marines! THEY CAN'T SWEEPING ADVANCE. Functionally, they serve no purpose.
They need their dreadful shooting fixed, and that's it. I've proposed before, and I'll say it again, making Storm Bolters Salvo 2/3. Conceptually, Storm Bolters are supposed to spit ammo, right? It doesn't make sense they are basically regular boltguns with slightly more shots beyond 12". It'd also bolster, very slightly, the pathetic weaponry on other space marine vehicles. It'd also make it so there's a point to have every last terminator rocking Relentless.
Doesn't solve the problem, no. But it does mean they make up their points cost a little bit. 15 shots is a lot better than 10.
Give them all assault cannons. Then fix the cost of an assault cannon terminator. This will actually make the Imperial assault cannon almost as useful as the Eldar scatter laser (but not quite), because there would finally be a platform to mass them up, which is where they would be effective. Any variant of the stormbolter is useless garbage. S4 shooting on "elite" models needs to go. It's awful and useless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AnomanderRake wrote: My short fix: 4+ Inv, 30ppm with power weapons (can still upgrade back to power fists/chainfists), two upgrade weapons per five guys.
Still garbage, because you have 3 30 point models that are useless.
Terminators have a 2+ 5++with access to double rocket launcher, and assault cannons and heavy flamers. Your complaining about them because they die. They die because people think "Ohh wow this is amazing a 2+ save they wont die" and then my boyz charge them and kill 2-4 of them in the first turn of combat because I swing at Init 2 and I have 120 attacks on the charge :-p. Terminators serve a purpose, GW needs to refine it a bit because at this point people are using them instead of tactical marines. Tactical marines are probably the best unit a space marine can bring. Take 3 tactical squads and you have 30 models with 3 heavy weapons and 3 specialist weapons and a ton of accurate shooting. Terminators right now are to go after big scary things and die doing it, if your trying to make your termies gods of war your not using them right.
Automatically Appended Next Post: if you want to find something to complain about, my Meganobz, TEQs cost 40pts a model and dont get the invul save and their weapons ARE garbage! unless you give them Kombia skorchas you wont do much with the gun except club people to death with it
then you might not be using them right, thats not a knock at you, just my experience when playing space marines is they DS them in and I shoot them and then charge and poof no more terminators, you need to utilize them for one purpose or another, if they have ranged weapons, parkem on an objective and it will be a pain to get them off, if they are assaulting givem a LR and some CCW
Ghazkuul wrote: Terminators have a 2+ 5++with access to double rocket launcher, and assault cannons and heavy flamers. Your complaining about them because they die. They die because people think "Ohh wow this is amazing a 2+ save they wont die" and then my boyz charge them and kill 2-4 of them in the first turn of combat because I swing at Init 2 and I have 120 attacks on the charge :-p. Terminators serve a purpose, GW needs to refine it a bit because at this point people are using them instead of tactical marines. Tactical marines are probably the best unit a space marine can bring. Take 3 tactical squads and you have 30 models with 3 heavy weapons and 3 specialist weapons and a ton of accurate shooting. Terminators right now are to go after big scary things and die doing it, if your trying to make your termies gods of war your not using them right.
Automatically Appended Next Post: if you want to find something to complain about, my Meganobz, TEQs cost 40pts a model and dont get the invul save and their weapons ARE garbage! unless you give them Kombia skorchas you wont do much with the gun except club people to death with it
Meganobz are infinitely better than Tactical Terminators because they have 2 wounds and access to assault transports that don't cost 200+ points. Meganobz are more durable against everything that isn't S8+ AP2-, which is most of the weapons in the game. But please, tell us all about how they're worse.
you answered your own question actually, yes all nobz have 2 wounds and we can go run around in a trukk...which blows up when you sneeze at it. But your forgetting the plethora of high strength AP2-1 weapons in this game.
Ghazkuul wrote: you answered your own question actually, yes all nobz have 2 wounds and we can go run around in a trukk...which blows up when you sneeze at it. But your forgetting the plethora of high strength AP2-1 weapons in this game.
Battlewagons are much sturdier, assault vehicles and still don't come anywhere near 200+ points. There's also the advantage of not having to take 5 Meganobz per squad; 3 Meganobz in a Trukk is a viable threat to most units in the game (and sturdier against most shooting than 200 points of Tactical Terminators!), 5 Tactical Terminators on foot is a joke.
Honestly, better survivability against more or less any shooting not coming from a Wraithknight, Riptide, or <12" is much better than a 5++. Compared to the absolutely immense amount of mid-high strength (5-7) mid-AP weapons out there, the number of long-range S8+ AP2- weapons actually being fielded is not very high at all.
Ghazkuul wrote: then you might not be using them right, thats not a knock at you, just my experience when playing space marines is they DS them in and I shoot them and then charge and poof no more terminators, you need to utilize them for one purpose or another, if they have ranged weapons, parkem on an objective and it will be a pain to get them off, if they are assaulting givem a LR and some CCW
They're not really a pain to get off an objective. One volley from grav bikers usually does the trick.
Land Raiders are overscosted junk piles as well. And now you are talking about a 450 pt ish assault element. No thanks.
I'm not using them, because there is not way to use them "right". Whenever my opponent has terminators, they almost always get schooled.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: you answered your own question actually, yes all nobz have 2 wounds and we can go run around in a trukk...which blows up when you sneeze at it. But your forgetting the plethora of high strength AP2-1 weapons in this game.
All those lascannons nobody uses anymore? Maybe meltas? That's getting really close to Orks though.
BW are 110pt transports, open topped with 0 weapons. when you upgrade them ALL the way to be useful, 4 big shootas, a lobba or rokkit and a killkannon you have a VERY expensive model. your looking at 175pt model that has side armor 12 and rear armor 10. Yes its a good vehicle but not as good as a Landraider. I don't know about you, but every game I play my nobz and mega nobz get focus fired by lascannons and such weapons because people don't want them coming nearem. On top of that, if i do put them in a trukk it can literally die from bolter fire :-P. No man Terminators are good, you just need to focus them to a specific task and then launchem. Thats how i use the meganobz and it works...ish, i think i still prefer regular nobz./
BW are much better than LR just because of the price tag. LR are terrible in my experience because of how much they gimp your model count.
" No man Terminators are good, you just need to focus them to a specific task and then launchem"
You need to be much more specific for me to take your point seriously. There are no tasks at which they are any good, though, so I'm not even sure what you are taking about.
Givem CCW and sendem against vehicles and shooty thinz that need to die. Givem da cyclone rokkit launcha and stikkem on obj and you got a helluva good unit to hold objz.
you say "Duh" but every single game I play Space marines they either DS them or use drop pods. And then I kill them easily. you bring a Land raider and some assault terminators and Im in trouble, I have a wicked hard time killing the raider and its firing TWLC and TWHB at me the entire time its driving up to thwack whatever you want your CCW termies to kill. No they are a good unit, they need a few more options but they are still good enough without them. 5 Termies can take a lot of different toyz you just need to customize them a bit more
" you bring a Land raider and some assault terminators and Im in trouble"
No, you're not. You just need to game against their model count at that point. Land Raiders are terrible units; especially in a TAC list. I've won many games when my opponent still had 3 LRs on the table, they just had nothing else. Remember that assault elements have to assault what you let them assault, unlike shooting, where they choose what gets shot.
I still maintain that terminators are awful unit no matter how they are used because they are very ignorable at range, and if they get close, I can cripple them with one or two shooting volleys.
" I play Space marines they either DS them or use drop pods."
They are not paying attention to their opponent then. As BA, I spend a lot of movement running AWAY from Orks. Or, as I call them, the coward angels.
Give terminators walker status with 1hp. avf11 avs11 avb10 = immunity to str3 and str4 weapons but easy kill to plasma since you already dont get an armor save. Also as a walker the termi retain snp n now can shoot all guns.
We have a house rule that has changed the Terminator stat line to 2 wounds and they are immune to instant death for a cost of 5pts more. It seems to work pretty well.
SRSFACE wrote: The problem with terminators has nothing to do with their saves. It has everything to do with their firepower.
You're paying for the power fist or twin lightning claws, depending. So you're spending a ton of points for melee prowess on a unit that absolutely sucks at getting into close combat. You have to spend 240 points on a delivery system, ffs. Deep striking them is a bad idea because their own shooting won't accomplish much, and then they get drowned in gunfire on your opponent's next turn.
Even then, they aren't as good at close quarters combat as basic space marines! THEY CAN'T SWEEPING ADVANCE. Functionally, they serve no purpose.
They need their dreadful shooting fixed, and that's it. I've proposed before, and I'll say it again, making Storm Bolters Salvo 2/3. Conceptually, Storm Bolters are supposed to spit ammo, right? It doesn't make sense they are basically regular boltguns with slightly more shots beyond 12". It'd also bolster, very slightly, the pathetic weaponry on other space marine vehicles. It'd also make it so there's a point to have every last terminator rocking Relentless.
Doesn't solve the problem, no. But it does mean they make up their points cost a little bit. 15 shots is a lot better than 10.
I agree that the problem isn't their saves (although a 4+ invul might be warranted), it's their inability to get into close combat, where their main strength lies (especially Wolf Guard Terminators, who gain access to a significantly more diverse selection of melee weapons). Personally, though, I'd as soon jump them up a couple points and give terminators a rule allowing them to assault out of deep strike (maybe with a -2 penalty to their charge range, as if they were charing into difficult terrain), rather than make them more shooty. Terminators are supposed to teleport onto the field straight into the thick of battle.
kveldulf wrote: that is the inherent purpose for even fielding them - being a bulwark.
This would really make them impressive human shields - which is what they are suppose to be.
Is... Is this what people thnk Terminators are supposed to be?
I could disagree more strongly. They are vital, ancient, valuable suits of armour for the most skilled warriors in the chapter. They are for situations when power armour doesn't provide enough oomph. They are for bursting into the middle of the enemy, smacking heads and brecking the enemy.
Close fire in hulks. Narrow corridors. Thick industrial complexes. Heck, even heavy forest would suit.
But bulwarks on an open battlefield? No. Not ever.
This may explain why I disagree with every proposed 'solution' to terminators that I've seen thus far...
Give them all assault cannons. Then fix the cost of an assault cannon terminator. This will actually make the Imperial assault cannon almost as useful as the Eldar scatter laser (but not quite), because there would finally be a platform to mass them up, which is where they would be effective. Any variant of the stormbolter is useless garbage. S4 shooting on "elite" models needs to go. It's awful and useless.
You've got a point about S4 shooting on an elite unit. However, the Assault Cannon idea is too powerful I think. Assuming they'd make that function the same as Devastator squads where up to 4 guys could use the heavy weapons, you're looking at 280 points for 2+ sv 5++, 16 S6 Ap4 Rending shots. That's extreme.
Then again, Iron Warriors in 30k have access to terminators that are 50 points a dude and every last guy in the whole squad is equipped with cyclone missile launchers, so what the hell do I know.
Besides, if you want a platform to mass Assault Cannons, there already is one. Land Speeders are cheap (points wise) mobile units with a lot of firepower. If anything, they need to make Assault Cannons a flat 20 points all around like Terminators have them, so assault cannon Land Speeders would be more viable.
I also think S4 shooting is just fine, at BS4. It's perfectly capable of inflicting casualties against enemy infantry. The issue with it being for an elite unit like Terminators is they are not shooting at enemy infantry as they have higher priority targets. As such, they aren't equipped with guns that can even do anything to what they want to go punch, and all their heavy weapons make target priority even that much weirder for shooting phases. Deathwing Terminators having splitfire prove it for me, as I can easily tag down some light vehicle with an assault cannon while killing 3 or so dudes in some infantry squad.
Another issue with "JUST GIVE THEM ALL HEAVY WEAPONS" is that GW would have to backtrack years of world-building and alienate fans of the units. Terminators have stormbolters. That's it. That's what they got, just deal with it. I know I wouldn't want to go hack off 15 terminator shooting arms for spare bits from other people's boxes if they just decided terminators are all utilizing assault cannons now. From a rules AND fluff standpoint, the stormbolter needs to be changed for the better if we're going to improve Terminator shooting.
Give them all assault cannons. Then fix the cost of an assault cannon terminator. This will actually make the Imperial assault cannon almost as useful as the Eldar scatter laser (but not quite), because there would finally be a platform to mass them up, which is where they would be effective. Any variant of the stormbolter is useless garbage. S4 shooting on "elite" models needs to go. It's awful and useless.
You've got a point about S4 shooting on an elite unit. However, the Assault Cannon idea is too powerful I think. Assuming they'd make that function the same as Devastator squads where up to 4 guys could use the heavy weapons, you're looking at 280 points for 2+ sv 5++, 16 S6 Ap4 Rending shots. That's extreme.
Then again, Iron Warriors in 30k have access to terminators that are 50 points a dude and every last guy in the whole squad is equipped with cyclone missile launchers, so what the hell do I know.
Besides, if you want a platform to mass Assault Cannons, there already is one. Land Speeders are cheap (points wise) mobile units with a lot of firepower. If anything, they need to make Assault Cannons a flat 20 points all around like Terminators have them, so assault cannon Land Speeders would be more viable.
I also think S4 shooting is just fine, at BS4. It's perfectly capable of inflicting casualties against enemy infantry. The issue with it being for an elite unit like Terminators is they are not shooting at enemy infantry as they have higher priority targets. As such, they aren't equipped with guns that can even do anything to what they want to go punch, and all their heavy weapons make target priority even that much weirder for shooting phases. Deathwing Terminators having splitfire prove it for me, as I can easily tag down some light vehicle with an assault cannon while killing 3 or so dudes in some infantry squad.
Another issue with "JUST GIVE THEM ALL HEAVY WEAPONS" is that GW would have to backtrack years of world-building and alienate fans of the units. Terminators have stormbolters. That's it. That's what they got, just deal with it. I know I wouldn't want to go hack off 15 terminator shooting arms for spare bits from other people's boxes if they just decided terminators are all utilizing assault cannons now. From a rules AND fluff standpoint, the stormbolter needs to be changed for the better if we're going to improve Terminator shooting.
Assault cannons are not too powerful given that Eldar suitcases probably have scatter lasers mounted on them. Scatter lasers EVERYWHERE in that army.
Landspeeders are a damn joke with assault cannons.
"I also think S4 shooting is just fine, at BS4. It's perfectly capable of inflicting casualties against enemy infantry. "
When do I get shoot at that, though?
"GW would have to backtrack years of world-building and alienate fans of the units"
I don't care about that. Stormbolters are joke. Especially on a 40 pt model. The stormbolter is a lost cause. S4 shooting is a joke. If terminators keep S4 shooting, they will always be a joke.
"That's extreme. "
Have you played this game lately? In 6th, I got shot by 52 S6/7 shots by Eldar in one turn once. But you want to talk extreme?
"I wouldn't want to go hack off 15 terminator shooting arms for spare bits from other people's boxes if they just decided terminators are all utilizing assault cannons now"
I'd gladly do it if it made them usable. As they are now, they are dust collectors.
kveldulf wrote: I think the easiest way to resolve the AP2 issue with terminators would be to make their armour save a 1+ [Remember a roll of a 1 always fails].
Thoughts?
If terminators are going to be appropriately costed to reflect their 2+ invulnerable save, then go right ahead. I expect SM players will get right back to complaining about how their terminators now cost twice as much and die to lasguns just as easily.
If they dropped terminators to 25 points, then they would be viable.
25 points is too low... that's the same as Lychguard.
27/8 points is more fair (2/3 points for a shooting weapon, slightly better defense, Deep Strike and ATSKNF)
Good - they're worse than Lychguard. Lychguard trade S8 at I1 for S7 at I2. They trade deep strike for the ability to sweeping advance. They trade weak shooting for T5. They trade ATSKNF for LD10 and armourbane. On top of that, their flying transport is cheaper, they're better vs AP2 and, if in a Decurian or with a cryptek (aka the only times you take Lychguard) then they're better vs everything other than exactly AP3. If anything they should cost less still, because Lychguard are better VS literally every commonly taken unit in the game - tanks, infantry, elite infantry, MCs, shooting, you name it.
TheSilo wrote:
kveldulf wrote: I think the easiest way to resolve the AP2 issue with terminators would be to make their armour save a 1+ [Remember a roll of a 1 always fails].
Thoughts?
If terminators are going to be appropriately costed to reflect their 2+ invulnerable save, then go right ahead. I expect SM players will get right back to complaining about how their terminators now cost twice as much and die to lasguns just as easily.
Lychguard with shields in either a Decurian or with crypteks already basically have T5 2++s. Having a unit which costs 10 points more doing the same on T4 is hardly going to break the game.
kveldulf wrote: I think the easiest way to resolve the AP2 issue with terminators would be to make their armour save a 1+ [Remember a roll of a 1 always fails].
Thoughts?
If terminators are going to be appropriately costed to reflect their 2+ invulnerable save, then go right ahead. I expect SM players will get right back to complaining about how their terminators now cost twice as much and die to lasguns just as easily.
? Huh.... my proposition wasn't about giving them an invulnerable save. They may get a save from most weapons on a 1+ but not all.
kveldulf wrote: I think the easiest way to resolve the AP2 issue with terminators would be to make their armour save a 1+ [Remember a roll of a 1 always fails].
Thoughts?
If terminators are going to be appropriately costed to reflect their 2+ invulnerable save, then go right ahead. I expect SM players will get right back to complaining about how their terminators now cost twice as much and die to lasguns just as easily.
? Huh.... my proposition wasn't about giving them an invulnerable save. They may get a save from most weapons on a 1+ but not all.
Your proposal is a 2+ invulnerable for all intents and purposes. They aren't vulnerable to melta bombs, so rail guns and melta guns are literally the only weapons that could bypass the armor. The only other weapons would be those that allow no armor saves (c'tan phase sword, psychic shriek).
Keep them expensive but give them:
Two wounds
Ignore unwieldy effect
Wrist mount bolters to power/chain fist, claws
Let them attack at initiative with power weapons.
So if you take a claw and and chainfist you get two bolters or they become twin-linked.
I mean isn't or wasn't their armor called tactical dreadnought armor? This way they're more akin to dreads.
So the trade off is have ranged and melee attacks or have 3++ with hammer and shield
kveldulf wrote: I think the easiest way to resolve the AP2 issue with terminators would be to make their armour save a 1+ [Remember a roll of a 1 always fails].
Thoughts?
If I understand what your saying, 1+ armour save means you have a 2+ armour save (since 1s always fail) on anything but AP1? I think that's an amazing idea! You'd have to change rending to AP1 but I agree that it's much needed
Why would we buff the units that are already worth having?"
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think if you want to go the tactical dreadnought armor approach then make them av8,8,8 give them 1hp,keep the Ds rule,make them strength 5, and a 5+ invul save.
Also things like dreadknights, riptides, etc. which are incorrectly labeled MCs should be made walkers.
SGTPozy wrote: Out of curiosity, do you guys suggest the same buffs to other 2+ save units like Broadsides or will this be a strictly Terminator thing?
Broadsides are already incredible. Terminators are currently on the other end of the spectrum. I myself don't advocate the 2+ save buff, but instead a firepower increase to make them worth having.
A 1+ save is still pointless. Terminators die to small arms pretty easily too, a 2+ is only as durable as two 3+ saves vs bolters and no-one has trouble murdering MEQ. They need more wounds or a points cut - nothing else makes them usable. Even in combat they're not great any more. In the Necron dex alone, here's a list of things which beat Tactical Terminators in assault:
-Flayed ones (15 for cost of 5)
-Lychguard
-Praetorians
-Wraiths
-Spyders
Of those, Praetorians frankly shame them. Compared to a base terminator you get:
+1 T
Jump (inc. 12" move, potential to reroll assault, hammerr of wrath)
Can sweeping advance
You trade the following:
S8 AP2 at I1 vs S5 AP2 at I2 (usually better)
2 S4 AP5 shots at 24" range vs 1 S5 AP2 shot at 12" range (Praetorians take this the majority of the time)
2+/5++ vs 3+ followed by 5+ (just a bit less durable, same vs AP2)
Now, if they're in a Decurian, they get the following:
4+ RP (become more durable VS anything not exactly AP3)
Reroll to hit, wound and pen in shooting phase vs 1 unit
Terminators can't even hope to compete with them really, and they cost 12 points LESS. It's absurd how overcosted Terminators are currently. It doesn't help that the transport dedicated too getting them into combat is also overcosted. I swear, someone lost hard at Space Hulk back in the day, and has never allowed Terminators to be good since.
Why would we buff the units that are already worth having?"
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think if you want to go the tactical dreadnought armor approach then make them av8,8,8 give them 1hp,keep the Ds rule,make them strength 5, and a 5+ invul save.
Also things like dreadknights, riptides, etc. which are incorrectly labeled MCs should be made walkers.
AV8 is functionally equivalent to T4. You're effectively advocating reducing their save from a 2+ to a 5++.
Some suggestions. Reduce str of shooting against TDA by 1 and increase ap of shooting by 1. Make storm bolters str5 ap5 salvo 2/3. Up to 2 special/heavy weapons per 5 units. Terminators are 28ppm and start with power weapon and storm bolter (power and chain fists as an upgrade). TDA allows shooting and assault from deepstrike. I am not saying do all of these things but doing 2 or 3 of them might help.
Why would we buff the units that are already worth having?"
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think if you want to go the tactical dreadnought armor approach then make them av8,8,8 give them 1hp,keep the Ds rule,make them strength 5, and a 5+ invul save.
Also things like dreadknights, riptides, etc. which are incorrectly labeled MCs should be made walkers.
AV8 is functionally equivalent to T4. You're effectively advocating reducing their save from a 2+ to a 5++.[/quote
And what about Av 9 or 10? And let them hit at initiative since they'd be walkers.
SGTPozy wrote: Out of curiosity, do you guys suggest the same buffs to other 2+ save units like Broadsides or will this be a strictly Terminator thing?
Broadsides are already incredible. Terminators are currently on the other end of the spectrum. I myself don't advocate the 2+ save buff, but instead a firepower increase to make them worth having.
Well that's debatable; the HYMP is incredible, everything else about the Broadside is just okay or good.
What about mutilators and oblitorators? Will they get this buff too?
SGTPozy wrote: Out of curiosity, do you guys suggest the same buffs to other 2+ save units like Broadsides or will this be a strictly Terminator thing?
Broadsides are already incredible. Terminators are currently on the other end of the spectrum. I myself don't advocate the 2+ save buff, but instead a firepower increase to make them worth having.
Well that's debatable; the HYMP is incredible, everything else about the Broadside is just okay or good.
What about mutilators and oblitorators? Will they get this buff too?
Obliterators already have heavy weapons. I'm proposing just giving tactical terminators all assault cannons. This will make the assault cannon worth a damn on an Imperial platform. I haven't seen a mutilator in a long time, so I forget what they do or need.
Broadsides have two wounds and can get ablative drone bullet catchers, so that forces your Imperial opponent to at least have lascannons or MM to kill them efficiently. With terminators, it's just "LULZ, plasmas say you all die now!". If the terminators all had assault cannons, they might actually be able to hurt the squad at range that was about to plasma them to death.
SGTPozy wrote: Out of curiosity, do you guys suggest the same buffs to other 2+ save units like Broadsides or will this be a strictly Terminator thing?
Broadsides are already incredible. Terminators are currently on the other end of the spectrum. I myself don't advocate the 2+ save buff, but instead a firepower increase to make them worth having.
Well that's debatable; the HYMP is incredible, everything else about the Broadside is just okay or good.
What about mutilators and oblitorators? Will they get this buff too?
Obliterators already have heavy weapons. I'm proposing just giving tactical terminators all assault cannons. This will make the assault cannon worth a damn on an Imperial platform. I haven't seen a mutilator in a long time, so I forget what they do or need.
Broadsides have two wounds and can get ablative drone bullet catchers, so that forces your Imperial opponent to at least have lascannons or MM to kill them efficiently. With terminators, it's just "LULZ, plasmas say you all die now!". If the terminators all had assault cannons, they might actually be able to hurt the squad at range that was about to plasma them to death.
Mutilators need some sort of delivery system buff, same as Terminators if you want them to ever reach melee. I almost pity the poor things, they're not only ugly, they're also incredibly bad rules-wise.
Bharring wrote: Just how many points would they cost for all-ACs? That sounds stupidly good.
I have no idea. It's not any better than Eldar war walkers; actually, its worse because 36" range is so much better than 24". 24" puts you within range of all kinds of unpleasant things in this game. I'm in the minority, but I really don't think the assault cannon is that great of a weapon; largely because it comes on terrible platforms and has a gimpy range. Rather than stupid good, it would make it so the unit can't be ignored like it can now. Oh and take off the power fists that no one ever uses anyway.
Swap out their storm bolters for heavy stubbers. Increased range and improved performance in all situations. Call it a marine super-bolter or something, since everyone seems to take fluff issues with giving them stubbers.
So let me get this straight. Pseudorending on a glass cannon platform at 18" s4 ap5 is broken. But twice the shots at 24" s6 ap4 with real rending on a t4 2+ 5++ is no big deal? Wtf?
And as for warwallkers. Again, glass cannons (av10 open topped). 36" range, ap6 vs ap4 rending. ACs pen av12 just as often as SLs glance. So for about half the points you get t4 instead of AV10 open topped, 12" less range, and half the shots, but you also get a 2+, ap4, and *rending*. And great melee (yes, dedicated Termie killers will beat them, but basic tacs or orks on the charge will destroy WWs)On a platform that can be joined by ICs.
So WW are more mobile. They can scout and battlefocus, and have 12" more range. Termies can deep strike or ride in Land Raiders. Advantage, WW.
When shooting anything with a 6+ or worse, or reliant on other saves, SL and AC are equals. AC is a little better against 5+, and *twice* as good against 4+. AC kicks SL's ass against 3+ and 2+ as well.
Against AV10/11, AC and SL are equals. Against AV12, AC pens any time SL would glance, making it much, much better. Against AV13+, ACs do a decent amount of damage (glance or pen AV14 on (1/6)(2/3), or 1/9, compared to a Lascannon doing so at 1/3. But 4 shots compared to 1. So better at killing Land Raiders than Lascannons!). ACs dominate SLs at killing medium and heavy vehicles. And tie on light vehicles.
So, the AC is much better than a SL. Maybe not worth twice as much, but termies much cheaper than WW, so by points would have absurdly better dakka.
Then comes range. Yes, they would have to get closer. If a WW had to get within 24". I'll get to that.
Survivability. T4 2+/5++ vs AV10 open topped 5++ 2hp.
Termies cost about half, but have half the AP.
Against s4 ap3+, its (1/2)(1/6) to cause a wound vs (1/6)(2/3) to glance a HP. Before considering points, Termies come out ahead. By noticeably less than half.
Against s6ap3+, its (5/6)(1/6) vs (4/6)(4/6). (5/36) vs (16/36). More than 3x as likely to hurt a WW than a Termie. And most of those (2/3) are pens at +1.
Against s8ap2, its (5/6)(2/3) vs (5/6)(2/3). Equal on standard HP loss, but AP2 pens (80% of WWHP loss) roll at +2, for a 1/3 of causing an explodes, 2/3 of any other effect. I'd give this instance to Termies.
So Termies are much more durable for their points.
In melee, WW have 1 s5 ap- attack at initiative. Termies have 2 s8 ap2 attacks each At i1. I shouldn't need to run numbers there - Termies kill stuff hard. War Walker CC is trivial. Termies punk anything in melee short of AP2 CC units. War Walkers lose to anything better than s3.
So Termies can afford to be within 24" of the enemy. With few exceptions, the closer the better. WW cannot. Must stay far away.
Termies are more survivable. Termies are great in CC. Termie dakka with ACs would be a little worse than WW, model to model. Lower mobility, but it won't help WW even things out.
So, unless we're talking 80 ppm, Assault Cannons on Termies make Termies better WW than WW. While also retaining being better Termies than WW. Just not fair.
Termies aren't Devastators. If you play them as such, you're using them wrong. If you buff them to be better Devs while they retain their survivability, you just break the game further.
It's the only change I can think of that would make me actually use them.
Buffing the stormbolter is more useless S4 shooting that I already have an entire army of. Getting them into melee is not cost effective, and increasingly they will just run into a tarpit like Wraiths that they can't win against. I largely agree with the Xeno players that buffing 2+/5++ saves would leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Maybe give them heavy bolters? But I still wouldn't take them because heavy bolters suck. Because S5 in practice is almost as bad as S4.
"ACs dominate SLs at killing medium and heavy vehicles. And tie on light vehicles."
Too bad for AC users that SLs usually outnumber their ACs by a stupid amount.
"So Termies can afford to be within 24" of the enemy."
Unless that enemy is grav cents, which would still dominate this AC terminator squad, which is why the terminators can't cost 80 ppm.
"Just not fair."
I find myself not able to care about fair vis a vis the Eldar. Is it fair for an entire list to spit S6/7 shots, some pseudo rending, non stop all game?
Terminators are awful. Laughable, really, especially compared to their fluff. They have no mathematical niche in this game now that weapons must exist to stop MCs with 2+ saves. Not to mention units that are faster and more durable like TWC and Wraiths. I'm just trying to give them a new niche. Maybe change the squads to 50% TH/SS and 50% assault cannon default then?
If you gave them all ACs for less than 80 ppm, ACs would outnumber SLs by a stupid amount. I mean, wow.
DevCents and grav bikers are a large part of what makes termies 'bad'. Those things are stupid.
The other large part, though, is the meta. If I need to handle t6 2+/5++ 4-5wounds, I need to stack weapons that can handle them. Those weapons are generally the hard counter to Termies. So I will always be well geared for Termie killing. Any reasonable model will have a problem with things specifically designed to kill it. And, with what the meta is now, Termies, like Land Raiders, are too similar to the current cornerstones of the meta. So most lists they go up against are designed to kill them.
Look at the #2 from LVO. Scout spam. Everyone is so geared for killing hard targets and death stars and Knights, MSU with little for hard targets won the day.
So, if you play someone planning for Termies, don't bring Termies. Don't buff them to the point that nothing can counter them.
"DevCents and grav bikers are a large part of what makes termies 'bad'. Those things are stupid. "
Doesn't matter. They exist and are legal. Terminators must evolve to compensate or become dust collectors.
"Don't buff them to the point that nothing can counter them."
I just want them to have a job that they are good at. Right now they have nothing. You don't need specialized weapons to kill terminators. This has been shown over and over.
They are awful even against the weapons they should be great against. And one reason they are awful is that they can't get enemy models off the board so they have to weather turn after turn of fire that can stack huge numbers of wounds on T4. As it stands now, EVERYTHING is designed to kill terminators.
For the OP, there is no easy fix for terminators. Most proposed solutions leave them still garbage, and any attempts to give them their own niche get them labeled as "OP". More durability is not the answer to me, as people are already gaming against 2+ save MCs.
Bharring wrote: My point is that a fix for Termies would be changing other units, not them.
That's a non-fix, as they are vulnerable to everything in the game currently. As I pointed out above. They need a niche that means something. They haven't been good... ever.
Assuming Guardsmen are within 12", they need to be 2.5 ppm or cheaper to outshoot Termies point-for-point.
Its quite extreme - and inaccurate - to say they lose to anything. As shown, the Lasgun isn't the Termie killer you make it to be.
Shhh, if you start bringing in the math, people will actually realize that marines aren't underpowered.
Apply that same exercise on the much maligned Tac Marines and you'll see that they're almost three times more points efficient than guardsmen when going head to head.
Terminators being better at killing Guardsmen than the reverse is beside the point; it's not the Guardsmen that are dangerous, it's the fact that there's a few Special Weapons hidden in a sea of wounds, or that the units that are actual threats to the Terminators annihilate them as efficiently as the same number of points in Guardsmen with volume of fire.
Let's check the durability of Terminators vs. Guardsmen, shall we?
Effective wounds of 200 points of Terminators vs. bolter-quality fire (S4 AP5): 30.
Effective wounds of 200 points of Guardsmen vs. bolter-quality fire: 40.
The guardsmen are going to take 1/3 more wounds from every hit, since they're only T3 as opposed to T4, so the 33% more effective wounds even out, making Guardsmen in the open as durable to bolter fire as Terminators. Add in cover and the Guardsmen are 33% more resilient to small-arms than Terminators (assuning 5+ cover, 4+ cover just makes it hilarious). Anything AP2 will also hilariously skew the comparison. Anything S6 or above (you know, part of what we're complaining about) wound both Marines and Guardsmen on a 2+, making the T4 pointless.
Moving on:
Lost efficiency per dead model of Terminators: 20%.
Lost efficiency per dead Guardsman: 2.5%.
Average number of wounds to reduce power by 20% for Terminators is 6. The same number for Guardsmen is 8, Guardsmen lose out slightly due to T3 vs T4 but are ahead again as soon as there's cover. There's also the fact that the Guardsmen are much more consistent; rolling for two Terminator saves is 40% of your unit down the drain, whereas it's a whopping 5% of the Guardsmen (if they even get to save). Sure, it means that there's also the possibility of Terminators tanking absolutely everything thrown at them, but list building is supposed to be done on a basis of minimizing the bad outcomes as to reduce risk.
Once the Guardsmen start toting Plasma Guns it's not even a contest anymore, even if the Terminators get an Assault Cannon.
In summary, the ability to ignore statistical flukes, generating consistency, is much more valuable than the theoretical maximum output of a unit, because it lets you plan around how the unit is likely to perform. Guardsmen are much better at this than Terminators, and are also more durable against pretty much everything in the game that isn't a Sweeping Advance.
That said, what Terminators do is provide force concentration; they're essentially a Tactical Squad squeezed into a smaller footprint, with Power Fists to punch the living crap out of things. The problem is that melee units that are reliant on walking across the board to get into combat are awful. The Tactical Terminators are costed with their Power Fists in mind, but you're rarely if ever going to get to use them against anything other than what your opponent lets you.
Assuming Guardsmen are within 12", they need to be 2.5 ppm or cheaper to outshoot Termies point-for-point.
Its quite extreme - and inaccurate - to say they lose to anything. As shown, the Lasgun isn't the Termie killer you make it to be.
Shhh, if you start bringing in the math, people will actually realize that marines aren't underpowered.
Apply that same exercise on the much maligned Tac Marines and you'll see that they're almost three times more points efficient than guardsmen when going head to head.
Maybe, but they never get to go head to head with guardsmen. They've been blown apart by artillery by the time they get to bolter range. What makes tacs bad is sometimes hard to quantify with pure math. You can do the math of tacs heads up against guardsmen, but if that scenario never comes up, then it doesn't matter. The IG minimizes the troop tax, which is desirable to a jack-of-all-trades-but-accomplishes-nothing-in-practice expensive trooper.
Assuming Guardsmen are within 12", they need to be 2.5 ppm or cheaper to outshoot Termies point-for-point.
Its quite extreme - and inaccurate - to say they lose to anything. As shown, the Lasgun isn't the Termie killer you make it to be.
But 200 pts gets you 40 guardsmen vs 5 terminators. Those 40 guardsmen kill about 80 pts of terminators and the terminators coming back kill only 23 pts of guardsmen. So they are indeed being outshot by the guardsmen. The terminators don't have the durability/pt to compete. Give the terminators an assault cannon and the guardsmen some melta/plasma and it gets worse quickly. It's embarrassing.
As for tac marines, 200 pts gets you 14. This will go much better, since the marines have far more shots. The guardsmen only kill about 56 pts of marines, whereas the marines frag 62 pts of guardsmen. This is pretty much an even trade, not the three times efficiency claimed up above. This also illustrates the failure of terminators being centered around the inability to put enough shots in the air. Hence wanting to give them assault cannons.
Terminators being better at killing Guardsmen than the reverse is beside the point; it's not the Guardsmen that are dangerous, it's the fact that there's a few Special Weapons hidden in a sea of wounds, or that the units that are actual threats to the Terminators annihilate them as efficiently as the same number of points in Guardsmen with volume of fire.
Let's check the durability of Terminators vs. Guardsmen, shall we?
Effective wounds of 200 points of Terminators vs. bolter-quality fire (S4 AP5): 30.
Effective wounds of 200 points of Guardsmen vs. bolter-quality fire: 40.
The guardsmen are going to take 1/3 more wounds from every hit, since they're only T3 as opposed to T4, so the 33% more effective wounds even out, making Guardsmen in the open as durable to bolter fire as Terminators. Add in cover and the Guardsmen are 33% more resilient to small-arms than Terminators (assuning 5+ cover, 4+ cover just makes it hilarious). Anything AP2 will also hilariously skew the comparison. Anything S6 or above (you know, part of what we're complaining about) wound both Marines and Guardsmen on a 2+, making the T4 pointless.
Moving on:
Lost efficiency per dead model of Terminators: 20%.
Lost efficiency per dead Guardsman: 2.5%.
Average number of wounds to reduce power by 20% for Terminators is 6. The same number for Guardsmen is 8, Guardsmen lose out slightly due to T3 vs T4 but are ahead again as soon as there's cover. There's also the fact that the Guardsmen are much more consistent; rolling for two Terminator saves is 40% of your unit down the drain, whereas it's a whopping 5% of the Guardsmen (if they even get to save). Sure, it means that there's also the possibility of Terminators tanking absolutely everything thrown at them, but list building is supposed to be done on a basis of minimizing the bad outcomes as to reduce risk.
Once the Guardsmen start toting Plasma Guns it's not even a contest anymore, even if the Terminators get an Assault Cannon.
In summary, the ability to ignore statistical flukes, generating consistency, is much more valuable than the theoretical maximum output of a unit, because it lets you plan around how the unit is likely to perform. Guardsmen are much better at this than Terminators, and are also more durable against pretty much everything in the game that isn't a Sweeping Advance.
That said, what Terminators do is provide force concentration; they're essentially a Tactical Squad squeezed into a smaller footprint, with Power Fists to punch the living crap out of things. The problem is that melee units that are reliant on walking across the board to get into combat are awful. The Tactical Terminators are costed with their Power Fists in mind, but you're rarely if ever going to get to use them against anything other than what your opponent lets you.
The last thing marines need is to be giving up more points on a failed save. Force concentration essentially fails in this game.
If you're giving Guardsmen first salvo, why? Did they just pop your LR?
If you're within 12" of them, it should be for a charge. If you're 12-24" away, halve the Guard's shooting.
I wasn't saying Termies are the end-all-be-all of killing Guard. I was showing that Lasguns don't kill them very quickly. At 5ppm, I suppose you can't ignore them either.
Want to see them shine? Charge Tac squads or Land Raiders or Hammerheads. Engage Howling Banshees or Scorpions. Go after Noise Marines. Don't stand in the killzone twiddling your thumbs and wonder why you aren't winning.
Bharring wrote: If you're giving Guardsmen first salvo, why? Did they just pop your LR?
If you're within 12" of them, it should be for a charge. If you're 12-24" away, halve the Guard's shooting.
I wasn't saying Termies are the end-all-be-all of killing Guard. I was showing that Lasguns don't kill them very quickly. At 5ppm, I suppose you can't ignore them either.
Want to see them shine? Charge Tac squads or Land Raiders or Hammerheads. Engage Howling Banshees or Scorpions. Go after Noise Marines. Don't stand in the killzone twiddling your thumbs and wonder why you aren't winning.
I don't need terminators to deal with anything you listed. In fact, there are cheaper, more effective solutions to all of those units. In my experience, anywhere within 36" of the Xenos is the killzone. It's hard to avoid that. You just have to get through it fast, where terminators fail again.
" Did they just pop your LR? "
Now you are comparing guardsmen to a 450 point combo. 450 pts of IG can bring a staggering amount of dakka. Citing the land raider just weakens the position of the terminators, because that vehicle is also overcosted and not very good, imo.
The LR cite was just pointing out that in most situations, Guardsmen en masse won't be shooting at Termies within 12" before the termies can shoot at all. You're misreading it.
And how the hell does all Xenos - not just Serpent Spam - have a 36" kill zone? Tau are long range, so I get that. Necrons are mostly 24", like Marines, but fewer long range weapons. Orkz... No. Dark Eldar? 24" generally, 36" for heavies comparable to 48" range SM weapons. Other Eldar? Most infantry is 18" or shorter.
Compare everything to the Serpent and it keeps coming up short. Compare to Kalabites or Avengers or Ork Boys, and things get more fair.
TheSilo wrote: The next step is of course to point out that in CC terminators go from 2 S4 Ap5 attacks to 2 S8 Ap2 attacks. So that makes a bit of difference.
Assuming your opponent lets you get there. Or gives you a unit where S8 AP2 matters. Assault is very, very weak unless you are TWC or Wraiths. Even the dreaded DC are, in practice, kinda meh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: The LR cite was just pointing out that in most situations, Guardsmen en masse won't be shooting at Termies within 12" before the termies can shoot at all. You're misreading it.
And how the hell does all Xenos - not just Serpent Spam - have a 36" kill zone? Tau are long range, so I get that. Necrons are mostly 24", like Marines, but fewer long range weapons. Orkz... No. Dark Eldar? 24" generally, 36" for heavies comparable to 48" range SM weapons. Other Eldar? Most infantry is 18" or shorter.
Compare everything to the Serpent and it keeps coming up short. Compare to Kalabites or Avengers or Ork Boys, and things get more fair.
I keep forgetting about the Xenos I never get to play against. I'm talking about endless streams of H Wraith Cannons, scatter lasers, star cannons, and serpent shields. And HYMP/Ion accelerators. Pretty much lays waste to me at 36". I keep hearing about Xenos that can't melt me at 36", but my opponents don't seem to want to give up the 36" advantage.
Another people spammed 2+ save deathstars and then the meta evolved to deal with it and now my terminators are useless thread.
Seriously though, Invisible cents are so good because they dish out damage and take non in return. Cents aren't very threatening without invisibility but they are considered one of the marines best units. Just make your terminators invisible and they'll survive to combat while dealing some ranged damage on the way.
TLDR; use your psychic powers to make termies invisible and your durability problems are solved.
For the rest of it, we're back to the meta being what's wrong with Termies, not the Termies themselves?
I completely disagree. Stormbolters are pathetic for a 40 pt model. And just because YOUR terminators make it to combat doesn't mean that other folks don't have massive, massive problems.
Why would we buff the units that are already worth having?"
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think if you want to go the tactical dreadnought armor approach then make them av8,8,8 give them 1hp,keep the Ds rule,make them strength 5, and a 5+ invul save.
Also things like dreadknights, riptides, etc. which are incorrectly labeled MCs should be made walkers.
I like a lot of the thought process here, but two things.
1) I would still give them 2 hull points, just to make them a middle ground in durability between PA and Dreadnoughts.
2) I would give them AV 11 all around, or maybe 11/11/10. At 8 all around, they would actually become, in many ways, less durable than they are now. Plasma would auto glance on a successful hit, and pen on a 2+. Meltas, krak missiles, lascannons, etc, would auto-pen.
Other than that, I like the idea of just treating them like small, weak dreadnoughts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Punisher wrote: Another people spammed 2+ save deathstars and then the meta evolved to deal with it and now my terminators are useless thread.
Seriously though, Invisible cents are so good because they dish out damage and take non in return. Cents aren't very threatening without invisibility but they are considered one of the marines best units. Just make your terminators invisible and they'll survive to combat while dealing some ranged damage on the way.
TLDR; use your psychic powers to make termies invisible and your durability problems are solved.
Ah, well, that fixes everything. As long as everybody uses the exact same power-gaming tactic, everything is good.
Seriously, people shouldn't have to rely on one particular power (which they may not even reliably generate), or playstyle, to make a unit that is supposed to be elite actually worth so,ething. Not to mention that doesn't help the marine armies that don't have access to telepathy.
I just Fixed Terminators! here it is, I can't believe SM players haven't thought about this before, it is so simple. Ok, here we go, Rule changes....None.
Now when you play with terminators, put them in a Landraider and drive them to where they need to go.. THEN! assault win and reboard your transport keeping in cover as much as possible.
God its so simple how did you guys not think of this before now?
Serious note. People are commenting on how termies die to shooting...well no $hit thats why we shoot at them....so they die. To solve this keep them in a transport until absolutely necessary to get them out. "they die to AP weapons to easily" Again no $hit thats the point of having PK and PF and LCMM and regular Melta weapons. there is no fix for this except that you get a 5+ invul save against them. Is it perfect? no but if you buffed it anymore terminators would be OP and you would have to increase their point cost. You should think of terminators as one shot weapons. Launch them at what you NEED dead and forget about them. If they survive then WOOHOO! bonus. If they die, well they more then likely accomplished their mission before dying to 120 Lasgun shots or whatever else shot at them.
Ghazkuul wrote: I just Fixed Terminators! here it is, I can't believe SM players haven't thought about this before, it is so simple. Ok, here we go, Rule changes....None.
Now when you play with terminators, put them in a Landraider and drive them to where they need to go.. THEN! assault win and reboard your transport keeping in cover as much as possible.
God its so simple how did you guys not think of this before now?
Serious note. People are commenting on how termies die to shooting...well no $hit thats why we shoot at them....so they die. To solve this keep them in a transport until absolutely necessary to get them out. "they die to AP weapons to easily" Again no $hit thats the point of having PK and PF and LCMM and regular Melta weapons. there is no fix for this except that you get a 5+ invul save against them. Is it perfect? no but if you buffed it anymore terminators would be OP and you would have to increase their point cost. You should think of terminators as one shot weapons. Launch them at what you NEED dead and forget about them. If they survive then WOOHOO! bonus. If they die, well they more then likely accomplished their mission before dying to 120 Lasgun shots or whatever else shot at them.
If things worked the way you claim, no one would have a complaint. Using an overcosted transport that is frankly a terrible concept to ferry around an overcosted assault unit is not the path to victory. In my experience, terminators almost never accomplish their mission. They get fed a throwaway unit and then get shot to death the next turn after accomplishing nothing. It's kind of annoying having to do this with marines, but against something like a Guard list or Ork list, terminators are t-totally worthless. Yet another reason that marines are a poor troop concept.
Terminators are one of the worst units in the game right now. No one can agree on how to change this, but there are a number of buffs that could be given without making them "OP", because they are just about the furthest thing from OP right now.
Using a queen to take a piece is a terrible concept. Pawns have the same damage, and you get 8 of them for every queen. Queens get fed a throwaway power pieces, then get captured by anything standing nearby. Obviously, the Queen. Is brokenly bad. Its not so bad when you don't lose half your pieces early on, but if you still have all your pieces, feeding a queen a rook isn't so painful.
Queens are the worst unit in the game. Nobody cares much for them.
Bharring wrote: Using a queen to take a piece is a terrible concept. Pawns have the same damage, and you get 8 of them for every queen. Queens get fed a throwaway power pieces, then get captured by anything standing nearby. Obviously, the Queen. Is brokenly bad. Its not so bad when you don't lose half your pieces early on, but if you still have all your pieces, feeding a queen a rook isn't so painful.
Queens are the worst unit in the game. Nobody cares much for them.
If only terminators were as good as a Queen in chess. Which they aren't. In fact, the more terminators my opponent has, the easier the game goes usually for me.
They're more like rooks. Direct. Tough. Lock things down. But rarely the pieces that get the kill. Rarely can take other pieces without being lost. But nobody considers rooks trash.
Bharring wrote: They're more like rooks. Direct. Tough. Lock things down. But rarely the pieces that get the kill. Rarely can take other pieces without being lost. But nobody considers rooks trash.
But chess doesn't have point values like 40K. Terminators are trash relative to their cost. They are trash compared to how many points of enemies it takes to cripple them. The are trash compared to how many points of enemies they can take off the board.
Bharring wrote: They're more like rooks. Direct. Tough. Lock things down. But rarely the pieces that get the kill. Rarely can take other pieces without being lost. But nobody considers rooks trash.
They might, if the other player could field twice as many rooks for the same price, their rooks also got to move on a diagonal and had a 5+ Feel No Pawn.
Okay, that metaphor got away from me.
My point is, chess is a terrible analogy, because in chess, both players have the exact same pieces, in the exact same quantities, and capable of doing the exact same things. In 40k, where different armies have different units, and pay a price to fied those units, you can't just look at a unit in a vacuum, you have to compare them to other units to achieve balance.
The analogy was only supposed to be that there is more to a unit than exactly how many points it removes from the table. Sometimes, a unit can win you the game without getting a kill.
Bharring wrote: The analogy was only supposed to be that there is more to a unit than exactly how many points it removes from the table. Sometimes, a unit can win you the game without getting a kill.
I don't think terminators are such a unit, because their durability/pt is also very poor. There are good at soaking AP 3 firepower. That's it. That's too narrow of a job.
Bharring wrote: The analogy was only supposed to be that there is more to a unit than exactly how many points it removes from the table. Sometimes, a unit can win you the game without getting a kill.
But it's pretty hard for a unit to win you the game when it can't get you a kill, can't endure return fire, and can't move particularly quickly.
Terminators in a Land raider is the best way to use them. And you can argue about the land raider and how terminators are bad but when I did play marines I had a Unit of termies in a LR and I used it as mobile reserve. Whenever a special unit or character overreached support my termies would pounce! Watching a DE player realize that his elite CC unit that doesnt have any AP2 weapons just walked into the killing field for a unit of termies is always amusing. Or when I ambushed an IG artillery park and blew up 3 tanks in a single turn. Totally worth the points cost.
Ghazkuul wrote: Terminators in a Land raider is the best way to use them. And you can argue about the land raider and how terminators are bad but when I did play marines I had a Unit of termies in a LR and I used it as mobile reserve. Whenever a special unit or character overreached support my termies would pounce! Watching a DE player realize that his elite CC unit that doesnt have any AP2 weapons just walked into the killing field for a unit of termies is always amusing. Or when I ambushed an IG artillery park and blew up 3 tanks in a single turn. Totally worth the points cost.
Your examples required the cooperation of your opponent. Every unit is fantastic if your opponent cooperates with you. Rest assured you will never catch my BA elite CC units if they are not geared for fighting 2+ armor. The only unit likely to offer themselves up is a speed bump unit or the melta team. With the melta team, you probably just lost your ride which means your terminators will be shot to pieces as well. Trading ~135 ish pts for 450 ish is how terminators end up backfiring spectacularly.
Well Martel I tend to use this thing called "Tactics" I make the opponent do what I want him to by maneuvering and subterfuge. When he over extends I pounce. Im sorry you didn't realize that to be effective in a war game you have to use tactics.
Ghazkuul wrote: Well Martel I tend to use this thing called "Tactics" I make the opponent do what I want him to by maneuvering and subterfuge. When he over extends I pounce. Im sorry you didn't realize that to be effective in a war game you have to use tactics.
Tactics is exactly why you'll never be able to pounce me. I won't overextend, and you have no way to force me to do so.
And any list that contains a LR + terminators will probably be outgunned by my typical list and so you'll have to come to me and waste precious time driving the LR across the battlefield, potentially immobilizing yourself and not being very effective at shooting. You'll likely be the one overextending, because you are facing superior firepower. I get to the be Eldar for once.
what would you pop my land raider with from a distance if i choose to keep him in the back and with a bit of bubble wrap? LC? they only glance on a 5 so you would be hoping for a 5 with a full LCdev squad or Las pred. And the entire time your shooting my LR the rest of my army would not be suffering those shots. You have to use what you have at hand. Like I said I play Orks primarily and I 99% of the time am the one assaulting, but the last game I played I fought against 2 marine players who had a lot of anti infantry and CCW so I went shooty on them with my lootas and battlewagonz in a gun line while my boyz stayed in the back with my bikers to provide counter charges. I won because I fooled one marine player to attack a flank that he thought was weak and then I ambushed his forces with my bikers and my boyz squad that jumped forwards and blew up his Baal pred before it got t fire. On the same turn my Koptas attacked the other marine players rear and popped his heavy armor with TL rokkitz and buzzsaws. You can't beat an opponent who has a customized list that was designed to beat yours when you didn't do likewise but their is a lot of room to squeeze out victories when your opponent tries to do this and fails in a small measure. In this case he didn't think much of my lootas (Dont blame him lootas tend to suck against the things he brought) but he didn't plan on my putting them in the BW instead of the boyz squads he thought were going to be rushing him. In the end an Ork gunline beat two marine players, BA and DA.
If you keep the LR back with bubble wrap, I can ignore it because you just paid a ton of points to do nothing. As I said, it's an ignorable unit in general. Take your potshots at me. The Eldar fire WAVES of high STR at my lists. I care not for you two lascannons for 250 pts.
So you would ignore me the entire game and then the last turn or two I would drive up and seize an objective with the termies inside and you wouldn't be able to get them off in one turn. Or, you ignore me completely and I kill between 1-3 of your vehicles and you realize that my 250pt model just did more then his fair share of dmg and he still is free to move around and do things. The only reason I can think you bash on termies and LR is that you got thrashed by some Eldar trickery and will never forget the absolute butt kicking you received. Everyone who plays acknowledges that Eldar got a bit OP in the last codex/edition. Try the LR and Termies against a non Eldar player and see how it works. I loved mine until i switched to Orks completely.
Ghazkuul wrote: So you would ignore me the entire game and then the last turn or two I would drive up and seize an objective with the termies inside and you wouldn't be able to get them off in one turn. Or, you ignore me completely and I kill between 1-3 of your vehicles and you realize that my 250pt model just did more then his fair share of dmg and he still is free to move around and do things. The only reason I can think you bash on termies and LR is that you got thrashed by some Eldar trickery and will never forget the absolute butt kicking you received. Everyone who plays acknowledges that Eldar got a bit OP in the last codex/edition. Try the LR and Termies against a non Eldar player and see how it works. I loved mine until i switched to Orks completely.
You won't kill 1-3 vehicles with a land raider. And I'm fine with you paying 450 pts for an objective when the rest of your list is dead.
There's no trickery to Eldar. They are pure brute force.
then whoever your playing against isn't a very good Eldar player. The Eldar are loaded with trickery. Psychic phase OP, skimmer tanks that can out shoot any other vehicle in the game pretty much, Jet bikes that can turbo boost across the board in a single turn and take away your objectives last turn. A unit that can literally appear from reserve each turn and drop a bomb and then run away. Yeah lots of trickery. But depending on the game A single objective for 450pts isnt very cost efficient but you keep making assumptions about my lists, you think you would kill my entire list and be able to ignore 450pts of it and never have consequences. All I can say is I wish you the best of luck in whatever fantasy world you live in that allows you to self hate your army so much and still lose to players who don't know how to utilize their codex very well.
In regards to the idea of giving terminators more firepower to solve the issue, that will not fix their problem.
If you simply add more options that will not fix terminators, it will imbalance the purpose of other units more directly. I can already see variants of devastator squads having issues finding purpose in serious lists, but if you give terminators the option to fulfill essentially a devastator role, then they are going to have the next major issue.
What separates space marines from guardsman isn't just their stat line, its their armour, of course. With that being said, consider then how a space marine army should play - they should be able to soak damage, generally. Terminator armour is essentially that concept on drugs; its meant to play like a mobile bulwark you cannot ignore.
This role is not happening in 40k. Lists can field butt loads of AP2 and thus making it feel pretty silly for even thinking about any armoured troops on the field. Its a counter intuitive design of mechanics/lore really.
As I see it, the only ways to fix that universal issue is to improve armour saves abroad, or reduce AP2 weaponry in different ways. Maybe even both - with particular wargear.
The band aid I propose is simply to help carry terminators cost efficiency without being too intrusive. Making them cheaper is alternative, but if it were price equivalent to the AP1 idea, I fear it would be too cheap, and thus throw off Elite choices.
Alcibiades wrote: Lists can field buttloads of AP2 but this would be pretty stupid if your enemies were mainly Orks or Guard.
The real problem is that so many people play Marines, which requires the opponent to lod up on AP2 weapons.
How much of a drawback would it really be - loading up on higher AP weapons than template/salvo things vs a horde army? I guess if there was nothing but tarpit fodder then maybe...?
And.... why would AP2 weaponry be bad vs Orks or guard???
Alcibiades wrote: Lists can field buttloads of AP2 but this would be pretty stupid if your enemies were mainly Orks or Guard.
The real problem is that so many people play Marines, which requires the opponent to lod up on AP2 weapons.
How much of a drawback would it really be - loading up on higher AP weapons than template/salvo things vs a horde army? I guess if there was nothing but tarpit fodder then maybe...?
And.... why would AP2 weaponry be bad vs Orks or guard???
cause you're paying premium for an ap 2 weapon whereas it's effectiveness is no much more than of a regular bolter.
Alcibiades wrote: Lists can field buttloads of AP2 but this would be pretty stupid if your enemies were mainly Orks or Guard.
The real problem is that so many people play Marines, which requires the opponent to lod up on AP2 weapons.
How much of a drawback would it really be - loading up on higher AP weapons than template/salvo things vs a horde army? I guess if there was nothing but tarpit fodder then maybe...?
And.... why would AP2 weaponry be bad vs Orks or guard???
cause you're paying premium for an ap 2 weapon whereas it's effectiveness is no much more than of a regular bolter.
So they are not at all effective vs ork or guard tanks, elite infantry, walkers, speeders, etc ?.... Most AP 2 weapons do have a higher strength too right?
koooaei wrote: What do you feel when you shoot a lazcannon at an ork boy?
Is that after the round the tank blows up or before?
There are no tanks - just ork boyz.
One lascannon vs a group of orks... that sounds pretty one sided. There is no other support infantry or.. support thing around? Also, how far away are they?
At this point you wish you wouldn't have spammed lazcannons and took some regular guyz with bolters for a change.
Nah at this point I will wonder why I have one lonely lascannon without any support on the frontline - sounds like a strategic mistake. Then again, maybe he just blew up a vehicle and has paid for himself.
koooaei wrote: What do you feel when you shoot a lazcannon at an ork boy?
Is that after the round the tank blows up or before?
There are no tanks - just ork boyz.
One lascannon vs a group of orks... that sounds pretty one sided. There is no other support infantry or.. support thing around? Also, how far away are they?
We've not talking about 1 lazcannon. We're talking about lazcannon spam.
koooaei wrote: What do you feel when you shoot a lazcannon at an ork boy?
Is that after the round the tank blows up or before?
There are no tanks - just ork boyz.
At this point you wish you wouldn't have spammed lazcannons and took some regular guyz with bolters for a change.
You have a point if it weren't for the fact that the weapons people are spamming are Plasma Guns, not Lascannons, and Plasma Guns most certainly murder Ork Boyz more efficiently than Lasguns.
koooaei wrote: What do you feel when you shoot a lazcannon at an ork boy?
Is that after the round the tank blows up or before?
There are no tanks - just ork boyz.
One lascannon vs a group of orks... that sounds pretty one sided. There is no other support infantry or.. support thing around? Also, how far away are they?
We've not talking about 1 lazcannon. We're talking about lazcannon spam.
Well.. even with lascannon spam, you are going to have mandatory troops. Never mind the fact that this also goes out into an extreme - that goes into a realm of absolutist reasoning.....
Its an exception that isn't meant for generalities.
Terminators in particular are generally bad because of the prevalence of high AP weapons.
koooaei wrote: What do you feel when you shoot a lazcannon at an ork boy?
Is that after the round the tank blows up or before?
There are no tanks - just ork boyz.
At this point you wish you wouldn't have spammed lazcannons and took some regular guyz with bolters for a change.
You have a point if it weren't for the fact that the weapons people are spamming are Plasma Guns, not Lascannons, and Plasma Guns most certainly murder Ork Boyz more efficiently than Lasguns.
1 guard with a plasma gun costs 20 pts - shoots 2 times, hits once, wounds 5/6 the time and kills 5/6 of an ork boy before cover.
4 guards with lazguns cost 20 pts - shoot 8 times, hit 4 times, wound 1/3 of the time and kill 8/6 orks with or without cover.
So, lazgun guards kill ~2 times more orks than plazmagun guards and are 4 times more durable themselves due to numbers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kveldulf wrote: Never mind the fact that this also goes out into an extreme - that goes into a realm of absolutist reasoning.....Terminators in particular are generally bad because of the prevalence of high AP weapons.
Isn't it extremes too? That's not me who was claiming we're bathing in ap2.
koooaei wrote: What do you feel when you shoot a lazcannon at an ork boy?
Is that after the round the tank blows up or before?
There are no tanks - just ork boyz.
At this point you wish you wouldn't have spammed lazcannons and took some regular guyz with bolters for a change.
You have a point if it weren't for the fact that the weapons people are spamming are Plasma Guns, not Lascannons, and Plasma Guns most certainly murder Ork Boyz more efficiently than Lasguns.
1 guard with a plasma gun costs 20 pts - shoots 2 times, hits once, wounds 5/6 the time and kills 5/6 of an ork boy before cover.
4 guards with lazguns cost 20 pts - shoot 8 times, hit 4 times, wound 1/3 of the time and kill 8/6 orks with or without cover.
So, lazgun guards kill ~2 times more orks than plazmagun guards and are 4 times more durable themselves due to numbers.
And less utility than the squads with plasma guns....
kveldulf wrote: Never mind the fact that this also goes out into an extreme - that goes into a realm of absolutist reasoning.....Terminators in particular are generally bad because of the prevalence of high AP weapons.
Isn't it extremes too? That's not me who was claiming we're bathing in ap2.
Terminators are an extreme? Or that AP2 weaponry prevalent is the extreme?
In regards to the latter, yes it is ones choice to choose various load-outs, and there are consequences to those (like the min max example you were conveying) but usually, even with a balanced army, there will be enough going AP or better around to mute in particular, terminators.
When one brings an infantry squad, they usually have options that most players will end up doing ( because it gives them utility). So a balanced force (that usually fields the utility spots) has too common of a counter versus terminators. As a matter of fact, I might just argue, high AP weapons in general are too common/ or not expensive enough.
Or too necessary. Which is more likely to completely shaft a player these days in the current meta: having too little AP2 to handle DK/Tide/WK/etc, or having too few boltguns to handle massed orkz?
Too much AP2 is partly that its too easy to get, but also partly selection bias.
Alcibiades wrote: Lists can field buttloads of AP2 but this would be pretty stupid if your enemies were mainly Orks or Guard.
The real problem is that so many people play Marines, which requires the opponent to lod up on AP2 weapons.
You can kill marines without AP 2. I do it all the time. What you can't kill without AP 2? MCs with 2+ saves.
"In regards to the idea of giving terminators more firepower to solve the issue, that will not fix their problem. "
I think it absolutely will. They will have a game impact before the get gunned down, at least.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Or too necessary. Which is more likely to completely shaft a player these days in the current meta: having too little AP2 to handle DK/Tide/WK/etc, or having too few boltguns to handle massed orkz?
Too much AP2 is partly that its too easy to get, but also partly selection bias.
I can also punch Orks in the face or use flamer templates. I don't need bolters.
As for your earlier post, don't forget that AP 3 works fine against WKs. It's their biggest weakness. That, and losing their good guns if they want a 5++. The Riptide and DK are the two model that have really doomed terminators in terms of durability.
Here's my question about the Terminator armor, what I don't get is why they have to remain T4? If the rules want to fit the fluff, and be functional at the same time, they don't need to make any sort of weird special rule for Terminator saves. It makes a lot of sense IMO to just raise their toughness to 6 or 7, it really fits the fluff for Terminators being hard to take down and its a functionally simple fix IMO. Death by a thousand cuts is still possible with T6, just now those Bolters are wounding on 6's instead of 4's.
ultimentra wrote: Here's my question about the Terminator armor, what I don't get is why they have to remain T4? If the rules want to fit the fluff, and be functional at the same time, they don't need to make any sort of weird special rule for Terminator saves. It makes a lot of sense IMO to just raise their toughness to 6 or 7, it really fits the fluff for Terminators being hard to take down and its a functionally simple fix IMO. Death by a thousand cuts is still possible with T6, just now those Bolters are wounding on 6's instead of 4's.
Because terminators are clearly not as tough as Dreadknights or Riptides. They aren't monsters, they are infantry. Infantry with no job niche anymore. And T6 2+ save is effectively immune to low STR shooting. See DK and Riptides.
Alcibiades wrote: Lists can field buttloads of AP2 but this would be pretty stupid if your enemies were mainly Orks or Guard.
The real problem is that so many people play Marines, which requires the opponent to load up on AP2 weapons.
You can kill marines without AP 2. I do it all the time. What you can't kill without AP 2? MCs with 2+ saves.
"In regards to the idea of giving terminators more firepower to solve the issue, that will not fix their problem. "
I think it absolutely will. They will have a game impact before the get gunned down, at least.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Or too necessary. Which is more likely to completely shaft a player these days in the current meta: having too little AP2 to handle DK/Tide/WK/etc, or having too few boltguns to handle massed orkz?
Too much AP2 is partly that its too easy to get, but also partly selection bias.
I can also punch Orks in the face or use flamer templates. I don't need bolters.
This is why I am saying this -
Keep them the same points but give them:
Two wounds
Ignore unwieldy effect - Let them attack at initiative
Wrist mount bolters to power/chain fist, claws - So if you take a claw and chainfist they become twin-linked. Doesn't abaddon have a jacked-up one of these? So its not like it doesn't exist as a concept.
Make players choose between ranged/melee mix or have mini tank 2+/3++ with hammer/fist and shield
Make them mini-dreadnoughts like they were originally envisioned to be.
I'd also add, that change to T5 moves them into bike/TWC and almost MC territory. I'd also give them eternal warrior, denying insta-death. They'd have their invulnerable save and additional wound to keep them in the fight against high str weapons.
Please by all means spam plasma weapons against my ork lists. After I swamp your units with tons of boyz you will realize you should have saved those points for different weapons.
Ghazkuul wrote: Please by all means spam plasma weapons against my ork lists. After I swamp your units with tons of boyz you will realize you should have saved those points for different weapons.
Plasma is still the right choice. It's the most TAC of all marine special weapons.
it is definitely a nice weapon, right up until you kill yourself with it
Twice I have played a DA player who brought a terminator with a plasma cannon, twice on the first shot the termy killed himself and I laughed uncontrollably! yeah plasma spam is fine to kill lots of different things but when I bring 120boyz to the table that Plasma gun doesnt do much, especially since if your in range to shoot me with it then I am in range to possibly charge you the next turn or at worst the turn after that.
Ghazkuul wrote: it is definitely a nice weapon, right up until you kill yourself with it
Twice I have played a DA player who brought a terminator with a plasma cannon, twice on the first shot the termy killed himself and I laughed uncontrollably! yeah plasma spam is fine to kill lots of different things but when I bring 120boyz to the table that Plasma gun doesnt do much, especially since if your in range to shoot me with it then I am in range to possibly charge you the next turn or at worst the turn after that.
But I have to game against all possible lists, not just Orks. I'll take my chances. Against 120 boyz with BA, I'm completely relying on mobility to save the day.
Plasma on guardsmen, Thudd gun in elite slots, I've had one of those gun kill 20 boys in 2 rounds, I can have 12 in my elite slots, with more than enough points left for other units.
Bharring wrote: More options in Termie squads could be nice.
If you gave them all ACs for less than 80 ppm, ACs would outnumber SLs by a stupid amount. I mean, wow.
DevCents and grav bikers are a large part of what makes termies 'bad'. Those things are stupid.
The other large part, though, is the meta. If I need to handle t6 2+/5++ 4-5wounds, I need to stack weapons that can handle them. Those weapons are generally the hard counter to Termies. So I will always be well geared for Termie killing. Any reasonable model will have a problem with things specifically designed to kill it. And, with what the meta is now, Termies, like Land Raiders, are too similar to the current cornerstones of the meta. So most lists they go up against are designed to kill them.
Look at the #2 from LVO. Scout spam. Everyone is so geared for killing hard targets and death stars and Knights, MSU with little for hard targets won the day.
So, if you play someone planning for Termies, don't bring Termies. Don't buff them to the point that nothing can counter them.
WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS...
Just because a unit exists and does a job excellently, doesn't mean that the other unit magically becomes good if they disappear. If neither of the above units existed, it doesn't make Terminators good and all the sudden reasonable. You still wouldn't take them, because the firepower and melee power isn't worth the cost you're paying.
I think the point he was trying to make was that just because I happened to bring a counter to a certain play style that doesn't make that play style bad or under powered. I just had good intel on what to expect and planned accordingly. If I brought a list of CC orks with no AP 2 weapons then termies would be amazing. yeah they would die to my onslaught but you could use them to remove key parts of my army before they eventually succumbed to mass shooting/assaulting. And in the mean time you can use your other units to destroy more of my army. As I have said from the start it is a matter of tactics that makes them useful or useless
Ghazkuul wrote: I think the point he was trying to make was that just because I happened to bring a counter to a certain play style that doesn't make that play style bad or under powered. I just had good intel on what to expect and planned accordingly. If I brought a list of CC orks with no AP 2 weapons then termies would be amazing. yeah they would die to my onslaught but you could use them to remove key parts of my army before they eventually succumbed to mass shooting/assaulting. And in the mean time you can use your other units to destroy more of my army. As I have said from the start it is a matter of tactics that makes them useful or useless
You ignore the mathematics, however. I can use tactics with any unit. If tactics are used with more potent units, the results are better than when tactics are used with inferior units like terminators.
" If I brought a list of CC orks with no AP 2 weapons then termies would be amazing."
No, they'd still die miserably after accomplishing nothing if the Ork player plays it right. I don't think there's any tactic you can use that makes these things actually useful in a general sense. That's why I never use them, despite owning about 30. Yeah, you might get lucky once in a while if your opponent slips up, but across many games, I think they are very detrimental.
Ghazkuul wrote: I think the point he was trying to make was that just because I happened to bring a counter to a certain play style that doesn't make that play style bad or under powered. I just had good intel on what to expect and planned accordingly. If I brought a list of CC orks with no AP 2 weapons then termies would be amazing. yeah they would die to my onslaught but you could use them to remove key parts of my army before they eventually succumbed to mass shooting/assaulting. And in the mean time you can use your other units to destroy more of my army. As I have said from the start it is a matter of tactics that makes them useful or useless
You ignore the mathematics, however. I can use tactics with any unit. If tactics are used with more potent units, the results are better than when tactics are used with inferior units like terminators.
" If I brought a list of CC orks with no AP 2 weapons then termies would be amazing."
No, they'd still die miserably after accomplishing nothing if the Ork player plays it right. I don't think there's any tactic you can use that makes these things actually useful in a general sense. That's why I never use them, despite owning about 30. Yeah, you might get lucky once in a while if your opponent slips up, but across many games, I think they are very detrimental.
Yep the AP2 is just one issue with them. Like you said, even In a game with no AP2+, terminators are indeed a hard unit to be efficient with.
CrownAxe wrote: Which is why just making cost less points is the best answer. It fixes all of their problems at once
I'm not at all opposed to this, but the problem is that for them to be cost efficient, I see them at least needing to be dropped to 25-30 points a model. That would be a hard thing for most people to swallow.
Just as a general comment.
I think the real problem is there are too many units fighting over limited amount of values and roles in the 40k game.
Coupled with a very restricted game play focus,makes getting things to work as they should ,attaining internal and external balance very difficult.
The problem with just tweeking PV is the fact is does not address core issues.And this just tends to move the problems to other areas.
The only way you can make a game of 40k with ALL units being viable options.Is to write rules to cover the scale and scope of the units currently in the game .
This is the only way to get all units to perform in synergy with the background. and achieve a game that is as inspiring as the models and background.IMO.
Ghazkuul wrote: I just Fixed Terminators! here it is, I can't believe SM players haven't thought about this before, it is so simple. Ok, here we go, Rule changes....None.
Now when you play with terminators, put them in a Landraider and drive them to where they need to go.. THEN! assault win and reboard your transport keeping in cover as much as possible.
God its so simple how did you guys not think of this before now?
Serious note. People are commenting on how termies die to shooting...well no $hit thats why we shoot at them....so they die. To solve this keep them in a transport until absolutely necessary to get them out. "they die to AP weapons to easily" Again no $hit thats the point of having PK and PF and LCMM and regular Melta weapons. there is no fix for this except that you get a 5+ invul save against them. Is it perfect? no but if you buffed it anymore terminators would be OP and you would have to increase their point cost. You should think of terminators as one shot weapons. Launch them at what you NEED dead and forget about them. If they survive then WOOHOO! bonus. If they die, well they more then likely accomplished their mission before dying to 120 Lasgun shots or whatever else shot at them.
So I should put 1/3 - 1/4 of my army on hold for how many turns for a 500+ point single use that could be blocked by any half dead squad for 1-2 turns just by standing in the way? Youve pretty pretty much ruled out deepstriking and footin it aswell if hiding inside a transport is the only alternative. Why bring a hood ornament to the table when I can spend 500+ points on units that's active every turn instead?
On the turn TDA's Deepstrike, TDA can only be fired upon by overwatch rule, would make them survive that first turn shootout and would prevent assault from getting completely wiped before they even get to swing.
Deepstriking is a broken game mechanic in its own right. placing a bunch of models in concentric circles around a single model and then not letting them move that turn means you have effectively made a big blob that I will enjoy shooting at. Twice i have played a weirdboy and got the deepstrike power, i basically never used it because the idea of 30 boyz in a giant concentric circle around my weirdboy makes me sick. yeah you can run but if you get a bad dice roll then your in trouble.
as to the suggestion I made and your counter argument, yeah its not amazing or OP which is what I feel a lot of people want (and by how OP recent codexs have been i understand). But you put some termies in a land raider and you have a mobile strong point that can fire a decent amount of firepower. Martel hates LRs to and thinks they suck but when you team it up with a terminator squad you have a great delivery system for decapitating HQs and removing heavy support. Everyone keeps saying they get bogged down to garbage units, well im sorry your opponents are so used to playing against marines they have figured out good counters but that doesn't mean you stop, you just need to find a new tactic that allows you to get around this.
I know this has been said befor buth I think the best solution for AP2 spam is changing cover saves. Why would you opt to take a round to your armor over ducking and letting it hight the wall your behind, or, how in the hell-oo does a round penertrate through a wall then magically pen you involnerable/armor save. So cover saves should work something like a pre-FNP; coversave /armor or invulv/ FNP.
Lanrak wrote: Just as a general comment.
I think the real problem is there are too many units fighting over limited amount of values and roles in the 40k game.
Coupled with a very restricted game play focus,makes getting things to work as they should ,attaining internal and external balance very difficult.
The problem with just tweeking PV is the fact is does not address core issues.And this just tends to move the problems to other areas.
The only way you can make a game of 40k with ALL units being viable options.Is to write rules to cover the scale and scope of the units currently in the game .
This is the only way to get all units to perform in synergy with the background. and achieve a game that is as inspiring as the models and background.IMO.
This is the default argument for fixing nothing. Expecting a wholesale rewrite of the rules in order to validate a few underpowered units will lead to disappointment.
The problem is the unit and rules inflation, the IG codex used to be 50 pages, now it's 200 pages. Dark Eldar and Nids used to be 40 pages, now they're also in the 200 page range. Every unit in the codex is competing with five other units that do similar jobs, but GW is not about to take half their stock off the shelves in the interest of better internal balance. IMO adjusting the points cost is always the preferred means to balancing a unit. But considering that every marine player I've gone against deploys his terminators in the open, right in front of my tank line, I'm unsympathetic to the complaints regarding terminators.
Ghazkuul wrote: Deepstriking is a broken game mechanic in its own right. placing a bunch of models in concentric circles around a single model and then not letting them move that turn means you have effectively made a big blob that I will enjoy shooting at. Twice i have played a weirdboy and got the deepstrike power, i basically never used it because the idea of 30 boyz in a giant concentric circle around my weirdboy makes me sick. yeah you can run but if you get a bad dice roll then your in trouble.
as to the suggestion I made and your counter argument, yeah its not amazing or OP which is what I feel a lot of people want (and by how OP recent codexs have been i understand). But you put some termies in a land raider and you have a mobile strong point that can fire a decent amount of firepower. Martel hates LRs to and thinks they suck but when you team it up with a terminator squad you have a great delivery system for decapitating HQs and removing heavy support. Everyone keeps saying they get bogged down to garbage units, well im sorry your opponents are so used to playing against marines they have figured out good counters but that doesn't mean you stop, you just need to find a new tactic that allows you to get around this.
"Martel hates LRs to and thinks they suck but when you team it up with a terminator squad you have a great delivery system for decapitating HQs and removing heavy support."
No one is going to let you decapitate HQs or remove heavy support like that. Speaking of which, what heavy support choices warrant being assaulted by terminators anyway?
People don't have to be used to playing against marines to know how to play. People rarely use LRs in my meta because they are so bad, but everyone still knows how to bone them. There is no tactic that lets you control your opponent's movement phase. That is the weak part of your argument.
" fire a decent amount of firepower"
But it's not decent firepower at all. That's a big part of the problem. Your bar is far too low for 250 pt model. You also don't ever explain WHY it's good, you just say "because tactics". Let's pretend we are in a situation where tactics are roughly equal. In this scenario, why would I use a LR?
Lanrak wrote: Just as a general comment.
I think the real problem is there are too many units fighting over limited amount of values and roles in the 40k game.
Coupled with a very restricted game play focus,makes getting things to work as they should ,attaining internal and external balance very difficult.
The problem with just tweeking PV is the fact is does not address core issues.And this just tends to move the problems to other areas.
The only way you can make a game of 40k with ALL units being viable options.Is to write rules to cover the scale and scope of the units currently in the game .
This is the only way to get all units to perform in synergy with the background. and achieve a game that is as inspiring as the models and background.IMO.
This is the default argument for fixing nothing. Expecting a wholesale rewrite of the rules in order to validate a few underpowered units will lead to disappointment.
The problem is the unit and rules inflation, the IG codex used to be 50 pages, now it's 200 pages. Dark Eldar and Nids used to be 40 pages, now they're also in the 200 page range. Every unit in the codex is competing with five other units that do similar jobs, but GW is not about to take half their stock off the shelves in the interest of better internal balance. IMO adjusting the points cost is always the preferred means to balancing a unit. But considering that every marine player I've gone against deploys his terminators in the open, right in front of my tank line, I'm unsympathetic to the complaints regarding terminators.
That just proves you play lazy marine players. Also, loyalist terminators sucked back when codices were small. They've always sucked. Except wolf guard.
Ghazkuul wrote: Deepstriking is a broken game mechanic in its own right. placing a bunch of models in concentric circles around a single model and then not letting them move that turn means you have effectively made a big blob that I will enjoy shooting at. Twice i have played a weirdboy and got the deepstrike power, i basically never used it because the idea of 30 boyz in a giant concentric circle around my weirdboy makes me sick. yeah you can run but if you get a bad dice roll then your in trouble.
as to the suggestion I made and your counter argument, yeah its not amazing or OP which is what I feel a lot of people want (and by how OP recent codexs have been i understand). But you put some termies in a land raider and you have a mobile strong point that can fire a decent amount of firepower. Martel hates LRs to and thinks they suck but when you team it up with a terminator squad you have a great delivery system for decapitating HQs and removing heavy support. Everyone keeps saying they get bogged down to garbage units, well im sorry your opponents are so used to playing against marines they have figured out good counters but that doesn't mean you stop, you just need to find a new tactic that allows you to get around this.
"Martel hates LRs to and thinks they suck but when you team it up with a terminator squad you have a great delivery system for decapitating HQs and removing heavy support."
No one is going to let you decapitate HQs or remove heavy support like that. Speaking of which, what heavy support choices warrant being assaulted by terminators anyway?
People don't have to be used to playing against marines to know how to play. People rarely use LRs in my meta because they are so bad, but everyone still knows how to bone them. There is no tactic that lets you control your opponent's movement phase. That is the weak part of your argument.
" fire a decent amount of firepower"
But it's not decent firepower at all. That's a big part of the problem. Your bar is far too low for 250 pt model. You also don't ever explain WHY it's good, you just say "because tactics". Let's pretend we are in a situation where tactics are roughly equal. In this scenario, why would I use a LR?
Lanrak wrote: Just as a general comment.
I think the real problem is there are too many units fighting over limited amount of values and roles in the 40k game.
Coupled with a very restricted game play focus,makes getting things to work as they should ,attaining internal and external balance very difficult.
The problem with just tweeking PV is the fact is does not address core issues.And this just tends to move the problems to other areas.
The only way you can make a game of 40k with ALL units being viable options.Is to write rules to cover the scale and scope of the units currently in the game .
This is the only way to get all units to perform in synergy with the background. and achieve a game that is as inspiring as the models and background.IMO.
This is the default argument for fixing nothing. Expecting a wholesale rewrite of the rules in order to validate a few underpowered units will lead to disappointment.
The problem is the unit and rules inflation, the IG codex used to be 50 pages, now it's 200 pages. Dark Eldar and Nids used to be 40 pages, now they're also in the 200 page range. Every unit in the codex is competing with five other units that do similar jobs, but GW is not about to take half their stock off the shelves in the interest of better internal balance. IMO adjusting the points cost is always the preferred means to balancing a unit. But considering that every marine player I've gone against deploys his terminators in the open, right in front of my tank line, I'm unsympathetic to the complaints regarding terminators.
That just proves you play lazy marine players. Also, loyalist terminators sucked back when codices were small. They've always sucked. Except wolf guard.
I agree with you Martel. Land Raiders are overpriced by at the minimum 50 points. The only land raider worth anything is the achilles and I only take that because I am iron hands and can throw a MotF with Iron Stone and 3 servo arm servitors and sometimes another tech marine in it. Take two deimos preds with las cannons and heavy conversion beamers within 6in of the achilles and you have decent backfield support. makes great support for biker army. If the game is big enough i can even take a fellblade. And no way am I gonna take terminators. I'll just take either more bikes or land speeders or something else. I have yet to find anything for a terminator to do that some other unit can't already do better, usually for a cheaper price point.. Terminators and their dedicated transports are probably the most egregious offenders of the overcosted model syndrome many space marines models/units/upgrades have. Not saying all space marine stuff is horribly overcosted, in fact many items are close but not quite there so to speak. I sometimes think space marines should be able to buy all upgrades in the first 5 men then can get the next 5 at a discount. As they are now I would price a terminator with power weapon and storm bolter at 25 or 26 points since they about as tough and useful as honour guard and HG are a tad over priced for what they do and have. Command squads are actually right on i think with what they have for options and their superior usefulness compared to HG.
Marines have lots of good units. It's just that terminators aren't one of them. Neither are LRs. Even the much maligned tac marine is costed far more fairly than terminators. It's also fair to point out that marine have lots of bad units, too. Terminators are just one of them.
Martel732 wrote: Marines have lots of good units. It's just that terminators aren't one of them. Neither are LRs. Even the much maligned tac marine is costed far more fairly than terminators. It's also fair to point out that marine have lots of bad units, too. Terminators are just one of them.
I agree with you completely. There are a lot of good units. And most things are costed more fairly than terminators. I don't think tacs are horrible per say. Just lacking in focus a bit, but that is an issue for a different thread. The advantage of space marines is their are generally all around good but not great which is their weakness as well and they pay a premium for this general usefulness (again really a topic for another thread lol). The problem with terminators I think isn't just points unfortunately. Even though the points are a HUGE factor in their current uselessness. TDA on it's own seems to suffer from crummy rules. It is almost always better to choose something else for a HQ than TDA.
Martel732 wrote: Marines have lots of good units. It's just that terminators aren't one of them. Neither are LRs. Even the much maligned tac marine is costed far more fairly than terminators. It's also fair to point out that marine have lots of bad units, too. Terminators are just one of them.
I agree with you completely. There are a lot of good units. And most things are costed more fairly than terminators. I don't think tacs are horrible per say. Just lacking in focus a bit, but that is an issue for a different thread. The advantage of space marines is their are generally all around good but not great which is their weakness as well and they pay a premium for this general usefulness (again really a topic for another thread lol). The problem with terminators I think isn't just points unfortunately. Even though the points are a HUGE factor in their current uselessness. TDA on it's own seems to suffer from crummy rules. It is almost always better to choose something else for a HQ than TDA.
It is the only way to get a libby an invuln save, but I usually just take my chances and save the points. Plus, I can't give them a jump pack then. I use libbies as buff monkeys, not beat sticks.
Hi, my suggestion is that a terminator armour gains a special 2+ that is only totally negated by AP1 (of course they still have the 5++ )
att AP 2 they will instead get a 4+ save. That will boost them a little bit. I apologise if some one already suggested this didn't read al comments.
An other suggestion would be to change armour for everyone - that AP with the same nummer as armour would only make a -2 for the roll. And a AP that is lower totally negate armour.
So a Marine in power armour 3+ hit by a power sword AP 3 would still get a 5+ armour save. A Tau Fire warrior 4+ hit by a Assault cannon AP 4 would get a 6+ armour save.
That would make Ap a little bit more complicated but not very much.
Just make them cost 30 points, allow them to take 2 weapon upgrade per five (and drop the cost of AC while we're at it), replace the fist with power weapon (power axe and all) and make the goddamn sergaent useful by allowing the squad to split fire while he's alive or even make him upgradable to be a super sergeant with 2 PV (he's almost a captain after all).
Do the same with assault terminator : 30 points and CC5 (for the vanguard veterans too).
They probably still wouldn't be the best unit ever but they don't need to be as broken as centurion.
Aenarel wrote: Just make them cost 30 points, allow them to take 2 weapon upgrade per five (and drop the cost of AC while we're at it), replace the fist with power weapon (power axe and all) and make the goddamn sergaent useful by allowing the squad to split fire while he's alive or even make him upgradable to be a super sergeant with 2 PV (he's almost a captain after all).
Do the same with assault terminator : 30 points and CC5 (for the vanguard veterans too).
They probably still wouldn't be the best unit ever but they don't need to be as broken as centurion.
At most I would go up to 28 and I am honestly leaning towards the 25-26 price point. They are a bit on par with honour guard, but the honour guard gets better melee and slightly worse shooting and a WAY cheaper transport. I am taking into account that the assault orientated space marine units are overcosted. I could probably live with 3 ranged upgrades total (and a slight price drop for all these options except one) if the assault and reg terms were folded together so you could put some TH+SS termies in the front to better tank wounds. And how exactly are centurions broken? They are very expensive, slow moving, and have short range. They have great firepower and 2 wounds but id say their negatives balance things out. If you aren't careful with them they get blown up
Aenarel wrote: Just make them cost 30 points, allow them to take 2 weapon upgrade per five (and drop the cost of AC while we're at it), replace the fist with power weapon (power axe and all) and make the goddamn sergaent useful by allowing the squad to split fire while he's alive or even make him upgradable to be a super sergeant with 2 PV (he's almost a captain after all).
Do the same with assault terminator : 30 points and CC5 (for the vanguard veterans too).
They probably still wouldn't be the best unit ever but they don't need to be as broken as centurion.
At most I would go up to 28 and I am honestly leaning towards the 25-26 price point. They are a bit on par with honour guard, but the honour guard gets better melee and slightly worse shooting and a WAY cheaper transport. I am taking into account that the assault orientated space marine units are overcosted. I could probably live with 3 ranged upgrades total (and a slight price drop for all these options except one) if the assault and reg terms were folded together so you could put some TH+SS termies in the front to better tank wounds. And how exactly are centurions broken? They are very expensive, slow moving, and have short range. They have great firepower and 2 wounds but id say their negatives balance things out. If you aren't careful with them they get blown up
Cheaper termies with split fire mix tac/ass gear. cheaper termies that tread a lot on Dark angels Deathwing schtick.?
Aenarel wrote: Just make them cost 30 points, allow them to take 2 weapon upgrade per five (and drop the cost of AC while we're at it), replace the fist with power weapon (power axe and all) and make the goddamn sergaent useful by allowing the squad to split fire while he's alive or even make him upgradable to be a super sergeant with 2 PV (he's almost a captain after all).
Do the same with assault terminator : 30 points and CC5 (for the vanguard veterans too).
They probably still wouldn't be the best unit ever but they don't need to be as broken as centurion.
At most I would go up to 28 and I am honestly leaning towards the 25-26 price point. They are a bit on par with honour guard, but the honour guard gets better melee and slightly worse shooting and a WAY cheaper transport. I am taking into account that the assault orientated space marine units are overcosted. I could probably live with 3 ranged upgrades total (and a slight price drop for all these options except one) if the assault and reg terms were folded together so you could put some TH+SS termies in the front to better tank wounds. And how exactly are centurions broken? They are very expensive, slow moving, and have short range. They have great firepower and 2 wounds but id say their negatives balance things out. If you aren't careful with them they get blown up
Cheaper termies with split fire mix tac/ass gear. cheaper termies that tread a lot on Dark angels Deathwing schtick.?
I don't know if you would need to give them splitfire if you did the other things i mentioned. What is the DA shtick? I haven't looked closely at them and no one in my area plays them. And if you changed base terminators you would have to adjust other kinds of terminators as well. So Deathwing would probably get a points reduction.
Aenarel wrote: Just make them cost 30 points, allow them to take 2 weapon upgrade per five (and drop the cost of AC while we're at it), replace the fist with power weapon (power axe and all) and make the goddamn sergaent useful by allowing the squad to split fire while he's alive or even make him upgradable to be a super sergeant with 2 PV (he's almost a captain after all).
Do the same with assault terminator : 30 points and CC5 (for the vanguard veterans too).
They probably still wouldn't be the best unit ever but they don't need to be as broken as centurion.
At most I would go up to 28 and I am honestly leaning towards the 25-26 price point. They are a bit on par with honour guard, but the honour guard gets better melee and slightly worse shooting and a WAY cheaper transport. I am taking into account that the assault orientated space marine units are overcosted. I could probably live with 3 ranged upgrades total (and a slight price drop for all these options except one) if the assault and reg terms were folded together so you could put some TH+SS termies in the front to better tank wounds. And how exactly are centurions broken? They are very expensive, slow moving, and have short range. They have great firepower and 2 wounds but id say their negatives balance things out. If you aren't careful with them they get blown up
Cheaper termies with split fire mix tac/ass gear. cheaper termies that tread a lot on Dark angels Deathwing schtick.?
I don't know if you would need to give them splitfire if you did the other things i mentioned. What is the DA shtick? I haven't looked closely at them and no one in my area plays them. And if you changed base terminators you would have to adjust other kinds of terminators as well. So Deathwing would probably get a points reduction.
Besides the split fire and able to mix assault and tac gear?
It would make regular termies more similar to Da ones but cheaper and it wouldn't really help Da termies even if they where made cheaper aswell.
Aenarel wrote: Just make them cost 30 points, allow them to take 2 weapon upgrade per five (and drop the cost of AC while we're at it), replace the fist with power weapon (power axe and all) and make the goddamn sergaent useful by allowing the squad to split fire while he's alive or even make him upgradable to be a super sergeant with 2 PV (he's almost a captain after all).
Do the same with assault terminator : 30 points and CC5 (for the vanguard veterans too).
They probably still wouldn't be the best unit ever but they don't need to be as broken as centurion.
At most I would go up to 28 and I am honestly leaning towards the 25-26 price point. They are a bit on par with honour guard, but the honour guard gets better melee and slightly worse shooting and a WAY cheaper transport. I am taking into account that the assault orientated space marine units are overcosted. I could probably live with 3 ranged upgrades total (and a slight price drop for all these options except one) if the assault and reg terms were folded together so you could put some TH+SS termies in the front to better tank wounds. And how exactly are centurions broken? They are very expensive, slow moving, and have short range. They have great firepower and 2 wounds but id say their negatives balance things out. If you aren't careful with them they get blown up
So what do want to drop my Incubi to? They are nowhere near as good as Terminators for most roles, except killing hard targets in melee. They currently cost 20ppm, for +1WS, +1I, -1S, -1T, -1Sv, no ranged weapon of any kind, an AP2 S+1 weapon(as compared to a Sx2 AP2 weapon)
Special Rules:
Fleet which is situational at best especially since fleet does not allow for assaulting after the run, you know, the only thing they can do
Night Vision.....Yep, no gun, so typically pointless unless I happen to have a purchased terrain piece, on the first turn of 50% of the games played
Power from Pain, which is a decent rule
Vs:
ATSKNF a decent rule
Chapter Tactics situational depending on the chapter taken
Relentless situational depending on if you take assault cannons or the missile launcher or not
Combat Squad situational depending on how you want to deploy them
Deepstrike Situational depending on deployment choice
Both occupy elites slots, and both have access to transports, The paper thin Dark Eldar ones allow for rapid redeployment if they live that long, the Land Raider is slower, but more likely to make it across the field, and has more guns. 2 Versions of the Land Raider allow you to count as having assault grenades.
Aenarel wrote: Just make them cost 30 points, allow them to take 2 weapon upgrade per five (and drop the cost of AC while we're at it), replace the fist with power weapon (power axe and all) and make the goddamn sergaent useful by allowing the squad to split fire while he's alive or even make him upgradable to be a super sergeant with 2 PV (he's almost a captain after all).
Do the same with assault terminator : 30 points and CC5 (for the vanguard veterans too).
They probably still wouldn't be the best unit ever but they don't need to be as broken as centurion.
At most I would go up to 28 and I am honestly leaning towards the 25-26 price point. They are a bit on par with honour guard, but the honour guard gets better melee and slightly worse shooting and a WAY cheaper transport. I am taking into account that the assault orientated space marine units are overcosted. I could probably live with 3 ranged upgrades total (and a slight price drop for all these options except one) if the assault and reg terms were folded together so you could put some TH+SS termies in the front to better tank wounds. And how exactly are centurions broken? They are very expensive, slow moving, and have short range. They have great firepower and 2 wounds but id say their negatives balance things out. If you aren't careful with them they get blown up
So what do want to drop my Incubi to? They are nowhere near as good as Terminators for most roles, except killing hard targets in melee. They currently cost 20ppm, for +1WS, +1I, -1S, -1T, -1Sv, no ranged weapon of any kind, an AP2 S+1 weapon(as compared to a Sx2 AP2 weapon)
Special Rules:
Fleet which is situational at best especially since fleet does not allow for assaulting after the run, you know, the only thing they can do
Night Vision.....Yep, no gun, so typically pointless unless I happen to have a purchased terrain piece, on the first turn of 50% of the games played
Power from Pain, which is a decent rule
Vs:
ATSKNF a decent rule
Chapter Tactics situational depending on the chapter taken
Relentless situational depending on if you take assault cannons or the missile launcher or not
Combat Squad situational depending on how you want to deploy them
Deepstrike Situational depending on deployment choice
Both occupy elites slots, and both have access to transports, The paper thin Dark Eldar ones allow for rapid redeployment if they live that long, the Land Raider is slower, but more likely to make it across the field, and has more guns. 2 Versions of the Land Raider allow you to count as having assault grenades.
ATSKNF is ok but less useful on Terminators
None of the chapter tactics boost Terminators up to usefulness
Deepstrike is less then stellar and usually gets the unit obliterated without a shot fired
Land Raiders of all types are horribly overcosted and lackluster,and make an expensive unit more expensive.
Terminators have absolutely nothing to do at an extrememly overcosted ppm.
The options of the terminators aren't great.
The way I see it the dark eldar unit have a use and a purpose, and if you play them right they will get back their points. The terminators will not.
That being said, the DE do get boned on a number of fronts. I wouldn't be opposed to some buffs for them. But I'd take Incubi over terminators any day.
Aenarel wrote: Just make them cost 30 points, allow them to take 2 weapon upgrade per five (and drop the cost of AC while we're at it), replace the fist with power weapon (power axe and all) and make the goddamn sergaent useful by allowing the squad to split fire while he's alive or even make him upgradable to be a super sergeant with 2 PV (he's almost a captain after all).
Do the same with assault terminator : 30 points and CC5 (for the vanguard veterans too).
They probably still wouldn't be the best unit ever but they don't need to be as broken as centurion.
At most I would go up to 28 and I am honestly leaning towards the 25-26 price point. They are a bit on par with honour guard, but the honour guard gets better melee and slightly worse shooting and a WAY cheaper transport. I am taking into account that the assault orientated space marine units are overcosted. I could probably live with 3 ranged upgrades total (and a slight price drop for all these options except one) if the assault and reg terms were folded together so you could put some TH+SS termies in the front to better tank wounds. And how exactly are centurions broken? They are very expensive, slow moving, and have short range. They have great firepower and 2 wounds but id say their negatives balance things out. If you aren't careful with them they get blown up
So what do want to drop my Incubi to? They are nowhere near as good as Terminators for most roles, except killing hard targets in melee. They currently cost 20ppm, for +1WS, +1I, -1S, -1T, -1Sv, no ranged weapon of any kind, an AP2 S+1 weapon(as compared to a Sx2 AP2 weapon)
Special Rules:
Fleet which is situational at best especially since fleet does not allow for assaulting after the run, you know, the only thing they can do
Night Vision.....Yep, no gun, so typically pointless unless I happen to have a purchased terrain piece, on the first turn of 50% of the games played
Power from Pain, which is a decent rule
Vs:
ATSKNF a decent rule
Chapter Tactics situational depending on the chapter taken
Relentless situational depending on if you take assault cannons or the missile launcher or not
Combat Squad situational depending on how you want to deploy them
Deepstrike Situational depending on deployment choice
Both occupy elites slots, and both have access to transports, The paper thin Dark Eldar ones allow for rapid redeployment if they live that long, the Land Raider is slower, but more likely to make it across the field, and has more guns. 2 Versions of the Land Raider allow you to count as having assault grenades.
ATSKNF is ok but less useful on Terminators
None of the chapter tactics boost Terminators up to usefulness
Deepstrike is less then stellar and usually gets the unit obliterated without a shot fired
Land Raiders of all types are horribly overcosted and lackluster,and make an expensive unit more expensive.
Terminators have absolutely nothing to do at an extrememly overcosted ppm.
The options of the terminators aren't great.
The way I see it the dark eldar unit have a use and a purpose, and if you play them right they will get back their points. The terminators will not.
If the proposed drop on Terminators to 28ppm happens, then Incubi are overpriced. You must look at all variables before you decide to make a drastic ppm change like that. Imagine trying to assault nearly twice as many Terminators with the Incubi, since the Terminators are the target of choice for an Incubi Squad. More hits, more wounds, more dead before they can even get there, not to mention that the Incubi's transport would not weather the extra ranged attacks. If they are dropped to 30-35ppm I would not bat an eye at the price drop, but the "28 at most" or "25-26" is just way to much without screwing the balance of other armies. With that drop, you would then need to adjust every other army, especially the specialist units who rely on their targets higher points cost to do their job effectively.
I am not denying Terminators need a price break, but a 40-50% price drop is far to much.
Aenarel wrote: Just make them cost 30 points, allow them to take 2 weapon upgrade per five (and drop the cost of AC while we're at it), replace the fist with power weapon (power axe and all) and make the goddamn sergaent useful by allowing the squad to split fire while he's alive or even make him upgradable to be a super sergeant with 2 PV (he's almost a captain after all).
Do the same with assault terminator : 30 points and CC5 (for the vanguard veterans too).
They probably still wouldn't be the best unit ever but they don't need to be as broken as centurion.
At most I would go up to 28 and I am honestly leaning towards the 25-26 price point. They are a bit on par with honour guard, but the honour guard gets better melee and slightly worse shooting and a WAY cheaper transport. I am taking into account that the assault orientated space marine units are overcosted. I could probably live with 3 ranged upgrades total (and a slight price drop for all these options except one) if the assault and reg terms were folded together so you could put some TH+SS termies in the front to better tank wounds. And how exactly are centurions broken? They are very expensive, slow moving, and have short range. They have great firepower and 2 wounds but id say their negatives balance things out. If you aren't careful with them they get blown up
So what do want to drop my Incubi to? They are nowhere near as good as Terminators for most roles, except killing hard targets in melee. They currently cost 20ppm, for +1WS, +1I, -1S, -1T, -1Sv, no ranged weapon of any kind, an AP2 S+1 weapon(as compared to a Sx2 AP2 weapon)
Special Rules:
Fleet which is situational at best especially since fleet does not allow for assaulting after the run, you know, the only thing they can do
Night Vision.....Yep, no gun, so typically pointless unless I happen to have a purchased terrain piece, on the first turn of 50% of the games played
Power from Pain, which is a decent rule
Vs:
ATSKNF a decent rule
Chapter Tactics situational depending on the chapter taken
Relentless situational depending on if you take assault cannons or the missile launcher or not
Combat Squad situational depending on how you want to deploy them
Deepstrike Situational depending on deployment choice
Both occupy elites slots, and both have access to transports, The paper thin Dark Eldar ones allow for rapid redeployment if they live that long, the Land Raider is slower, but more likely to make it across the field, and has more guns. 2 Versions of the Land Raider allow you to count as having assault grenades.
ATSKNF is ok but less useful on Terminators
None of the chapter tactics boost Terminators up to usefulness
Deepstrike is less then stellar and usually gets the unit obliterated without a shot fired
Land Raiders of all types are horribly overcosted and lackluster,and make an expensive unit more expensive.
Terminators have absolutely nothing to do at an extrememly overcosted ppm.
The options of the terminators aren't great.
The way I see it the dark eldar unit have a use and a purpose, and if you play them right they will get back their points. The terminators will not.
If the proposed drop on Terminators to 28ppm happens, then Incubi are overpriced. You must look at all variables before you decide to make a drastic ppm change like that. Imagine trying to assault nearly twice as many Terminators with the Incubi, since the Terminators are the target of choice for an Incubi Squad. More hits, more wounds, more dead before they can even get there, not to mention that the Incubi's transport would not weather the extra ranged attacks. If they are dropped to 30-35ppm I would not bat an eye at the price drop, but the "28 at most" or "25-26" is just way to much without screwing the balance of other armies. With that drop, you would then need to adjust every other army, especially the specialist units who rely on their targets higher points cost to do their job effectively.
I am not denying Terminators need a price break, but a 40-50% price drop is far to much.
Power weapon storm bolter terminators would be fairly priced at 28ppm. Upgrades would increase their cost. A drop in points for terminators doesn't mean other units should get a price drop just because someone can field more terminators. 20 points for an elite melee unit that is decent doesn't sound that bad. Space marines have to pay 25 points for a unit like that. Most likey people wouldn't be taking more terminators with a points drop. They would take other things to make up for the terminator's weaknesses. And no one here is suggesting looking at terminators in a vacuum. I suggested the rules I suggested with other units and armies in mind. With a 28ppm terminator you could still field more incubi than terminators quite easily. You might have to take a few less other things, but then a space marine with more terminators would have less stuff.
Did some number crunching, at 28 points, Incubi assaulting Terminators will leave identical points lost if Terminators are in cover. Though it does leave the Incubi in worse overall shape as they lose the combat by number of models lost, having only 3 from each squad, on average, left. I used 10 Incubi with no upgrades Vs 7 Terminators including their free Sgt. Out of Cover the Terminators die horribly, and Terminators lose if they charge, but with a 24" gun, they can move out of assault range for at least 2 turns before the Fleet ability gets the Incubi Close enough.
Meaning 30 points per model is a good cost for models that can both shoot, and survive an assault against a unit specialized to handle them.
I would agree a cost of less than 30 points makes them useable, if Terminators start loosing things, like that Invulnerable save, or their gun.
That Space Marine CC unit that costs 25 points for decent close combat also gets to shoot, doesn't it? The Incubi do not.
The catch is that Incubi technically get AP2 combat weapons that strike at initiative.
The other side of Termis/Honor Guard get guns, however, is that they generally have relatively poor guns. Bolter/Stormbolters are not that impressive when you're forced to compare them to Shuriken weapons (pseudo-rending), Gauss (auto-glance/-wound), Tesla (200% more hits on To-Hit of 6), Splinter weapons (4+ Poison), or Pulse Rifles (S5+30" range).
When the competition for "best infantry service rifle of 40K" is held, the bolter is definitely not going to be on top. I'd even rank lasguns higher, if only because there's the Order system to increase RoF, and Pulse weapons also have a similar mechanic in Fireblades+Ethereals. Throw in the previously-mentioned benefits of literally any other standard infantry rifle, and even the "mighty" stormbolter is pretty much worthless.
Terminator shooting is unimpressive. Which is unfortunate, because ACs and stormbolters are totally badass.
Whiskey144 wrote: The catch is that Incubi technically get AP2 combat weapons that strike at initiative.
The other side of Termis/Honor Guard get guns, however, is that they generally have relatively poor guns. Bolter/Stormbolters are not that impressive when you're forced to compare them to Shuriken weapons (pseudo-rending), Gauss (auto-glance/-wound), Tesla (200% more hits on To-Hit of 6), Splinter weapons (4+ Poison), or Pulse Rifles (S5+30" range).
When the competition for "best infantry service rifle of 40K" is held, the bolter is definitely not going to be on top. I'd even rank lasguns higher, if only because there's the Order system to increase RoF, and Pulse weapons also have a similar mechanic in Fireblades+Ethereals. Throw in the previously-mentioned benefits of literally any other standard infantry rifle, and even the "mighty" stormbolter is pretty much worthless.
Terminator shooting is unimpressive. Which is unfortunate, because ACs and stormbolters are totally badass.
But they at least get a gun, which is more than the Incubi get. If you remove all the terrain, more than a quarter of those Incubi will not even make it to the Terminators, then the following assault, though horrific for the Terminators will still see the Incubi Decimated. Here lets assume a 200 point Unbound game, with a squad of Terminators, and a squad of Incubi.
With no terrain to slow you down, you get 14 attacks per turn with no reprisal, 9.24 hits, 6.0984 wounds, 2.012472 kills every turn. The incubi get to move 7-12" per turn, then you move back 6", so assuming both set their squad up as near the opponent as possible, 24" away, then move, it will take the Incubi 3-4 truns to get close enough to launch an assault, because you know they can't assault after running. That is a little over 6 dead Incubi, leaving 4 in the squad, to attack the Terminators. The overwatch will likely kill/finish off the partial left from shooting. Leaving 9 really good attacks to go before the Terminators get their attacks, 5.94 hits, 2.97 wounds, 1.96 Terminators dead. Terminator Reprisal will net 5 hits, 4.167 wounds, all Incubi are now dead. Did I mention the Incubi cost 4 points more than the 7 terminators at 28 points each?
That "unimpressive" shooting is a huge benefit.
Now lets do the same thing at current price, both squads cost exactly 200points.
5 terminators get 10 shots, 6.6 hit, 4.356 wound, 1.43748 dead Incubi leaving a little over 4 dead Incubi, still lose 1 from overwatch, leaving 5 to assault.
15 attacks, 9.9 hit, 4.95 wounds, 3.267 dead Terminators.
Terminator Reprisal 4 attacks, 2 hit, 1.667 dead Incubi, following round Terminators are dead. and only 3 Incubi left.
Add in terrain, and the Terminators do a lot better, but not so much better that I believe the 40ppm is a good cost, However 28ppm is far to cheap. I stand by my assertion that 30-35ppm is a good range, or drop the cost of my Incubi, or remove that free sergeant, or remove the free Invulnerable save, or the "unimpressive" Storm Bolter.
Also note, that the Terminators/heavy Infantry are the target of choice for Incubi, their "specialization" if you will.
Yes, I realize that 30ppm will net the same result as 28ppm, however I am including, in my calculations, other synergistic effects that may occur/be planned for in both armies. How many Incubi squads actually make it to the table without a Raider? That alone increase the likelihood of them making it to those terminators intact.
Whiskey144 wrote: The catch is that Incubi technically get AP2 combat weapons that strike at initiative.
The other side of Termis/Honor Guard get guns, however, is that they generally have relatively poor guns. Bolter/Stormbolters are not that impressive when you're forced to compare them to Shuriken weapons (pseudo-rending), Gauss (auto-glance/-wound), Tesla (200% more hits on To-Hit of 6), Splinter weapons (4+ Poison), or Pulse Rifles (S5+30" range).
When the competition for "best infantry service rifle of 40K" is held, the bolter is definitely not going to be on top. I'd even rank lasguns higher, if only because there's the Order system to increase RoF, and Pulse weapons also have a similar mechanic in Fireblades+Ethereals. Throw in the previously-mentioned benefits of literally any other standard infantry rifle, and even the "mighty" stormbolter is pretty much worthless.
Terminator shooting is unimpressive. Which is unfortunate, because ACs and stormbolters are totally badass.
But they at least get a gun, which is more than the Incubi get. If you remove all the terrain, more than a quarter of those Incubi will not even make it to the Terminators, then the following assault, though horrific for the Terminators will still see the Incubi Decimated. Here lets assume a 200 point Unbound game, with a squad of Terminators, and a squad of Incubi.
With no terrain to slow you down, you get 14 attacks per turn with no reprisal, 9.24 hits, 6.0984 wounds, 2.012472 kills every turn. The incubi get to move 7-12" per turn, then you move back 6", so assuming both set their squad up as near the opponent as possible, 24" away, then move, it will take the Incubi 3-4 truns to get close enough to launch an assault, because you know they can't assault after running. That is a little over 6 dead Incubi, leaving 4 in the squad, to attack the Terminators. The overwatch will likely kill/finish off the partial left from shooting. Leaving 9 really good attacks to go before the Terminators get their attacks, 5.94 hits, 2.97 wounds, 1.96 Terminators dead. Terminator Reprisal will net 5 hits, 4.167 wounds, all Incubi are now dead. Did I mention the Incubi cost 4 points more than the 7 terminators at 28 points each?
That "unimpressive" shooting is a huge benefit.
Now lets do the same thing at current price, both squads cost exactly 200points.
5 terminators get 10 shots, 6.6 hit, 4.356 wound, 1.43748 dead Incubi leaving a little over 4 dead Incubi, still lose 1 from overwatch, leaving 5 to assault.
15 attacks, 9.9 hit, 4.95 wounds, 3.267 dead Terminators.
Terminator Reprisal 4 attacks, 2 hit, 1.667 dead Incubi, following round Terminators are dead. and only 3 Incubi left.
Add in terrain, and the Terminators do a lot better, but not so much better that I believe the 40ppm is a good cost, However 28ppm is far to cheap. I stand by my assertion that 30-35ppm is a good range, or drop the cost of my Incubi, or remove that free sergeant, or remove the free Invulnerable save, or the "unimpressive" Storm Bolter.
Also note, that the Terminators/heavy Infantry are the target of choice for Incubi, their "specialization" if you will.
Yes, I realize that 30ppm will net the same result as 28ppm, however I am including, in my calculations, other synergistic effects that may occur/be planned for in both armies. How many Incubi squads actually make it to the table without a Raider? That alone increase the likelihood of them making it to those terminators intact.
Terminators might as well not have guns. That's the problem.
If they don't have guns, they get either:
Claws: +1A, reroll wounds, retain their I (only relevant if Incubi charge into cover), and still wound on 3+ and AP Incubi. A huge improvement.
2x(1/2)(5/6)(1) = 5/6 kills/model w/PF 3x(1/2)(8/9)(1) = 8/6 kills/model w/claws.
More than 50% more killed.
Or Shield:
Same melee damage done.
Half the AP2 wounds failed (5+ -> 3+)
Also a massive improvement in melee.
Either way, they get better against a specific counter for them.
I use DA for the Emperors Sake! 44pts per model fitting them with an assault cannon and a chain fist suddenly cost 245points ~!!!!!!!!!!!! on the flip side on DS I do get to be twin linked, have switch fire and DS in first or second turn with out rolling! we also have the ability mix CCW and shooty weapons in the same squad and have a purpose built CC unit in the DW knights (135points) which have the ability to increas their toughness by 1 and have a once per game +6S bane of the traitor concussive AP2 CW attack
i think the best way to fix the issue of terminators is:
1 - Increase the strength of the Stormbolter to 5 and make it AP3
2 - Allow upto 3 terminators to take Cyclone missile launchers for 15 points but not allow it to take Flakk
3 - increase their S and T to 5
this would allow them greater tactical flexibilty and be worth the points that they are currently at.
Afraid Termies die inappropriately to large amount garbage fire?
Easy fix: armor 2+ re-rolls.
Still die to AP 2-1 fire which is the right weapon to kill them (still 5+ Inv).
Done.
Talizvar wrote: Afraid Termies die inappropriately to large amount garbage fire?
Easy fix: armor 2+ re-rolls.
Still die to AP 2-1 fire which is the right weapon to kill them (still 5+ Inv).
Done.
Doesn't everything die inappropriately to large amounts of fire?
A lot of attacks will do that to many things. And that "Garbage Fire" isn't so much garbage against a T3 model.
Talizvar wrote: Afraid Termies die inappropriately to large amount garbage fire?
Easy fix: armor 2+ re-rolls.
Still die to AP 2-1 fire which is the right weapon to kill them (still 5+ Inv).
Done.
Doesn't everything die inappropriately to large amounts of fire?
A lot of attacks will do that to many things. And that "Garbage Fire" isn't so much garbage against a T3 model.
But in the case of terminators, it doesn't have to be that large. They have only double durability against small arms, but cost more than twice as much. So they aren't even good against the things they are supposed to be good against. Their 5++ doesn't make them more durable against AP 2, either, because again, they are paying more than twice as many points.
1 - Increase the strength of the Storm Bolter to 5 and make it AP3: To much, maybe up the RoF to 3 and Possibly AP4
2 - Allow up to 3 terminators to take Cyclone missile launchers for 15 points but not allow it to take Flakk: That seems reasonable, and I would actually still think the flakk option would work giving marines a way to handle Flyer Spam. More points for Flakk just like every other army, maybe not allow the missile launchers to fire over watch.(I don't think heavy weapons should be allowed to over watch as a general rule anyway)
3 - increase their S and T to 5: I could see the T5, but the S5 is already made up with the Fist making them S8, S10 attacks in mass sounds a bit rough
this would allow them greater tactical flexibility and be worth the points that they are currently at.
A lot of the suggestions here are straight busted man. The ripple effect of such changes is huge.
Re-rolling 2+ saves? Thats 1/36 failing. Now consider ICs in TDA.. they get ridiculously durable. Papa smurf. smash*ucker. Lysander. Draigo.
Ignoring ap2 or worse? Again ICs, but even a nilla unit that can walk around shrugging plasma like bolter fire is just wrong.
26 ppm? So 5 guys with 2+/5+ saves, power weapons, better stock ranged weapons, relentless heavy weapons and deep strike costs 130 pts?
The problem with terminators isn't cost or durability its damage output. Increasing durability or decreasing cost throws everything else out of whack. Consider centurions for a moment. 80 ppm with no invuln no mobility outside of psych or transports yet they are broken because of grav.
I've been playing pure terminator armies in various iterations since 3rd edition. For most of that they have been underdogs. I would love for termies to get better but IMO besides bringing C:SM in line with wolves/gk the only way to do that is to increase damage output.. i.e. bring back 2 hvy weapons for 5 and boost stormbolters slightly. Maybe different weapon access idk. Anything else starts to get broken due to the access to TDA suits in HQ and troops.
Edit- To elaborate, the weapon options suck. Combis suck by virtue of 1 use only and nothing to be supplement to (like a reusable weapon). Hvy weapon options are the worst of the bunch. CMLs used to be relevant back in 5th (I ran upwards of 23 missiles iirc) but now they are meh. Now what if TDA had access to full special/heavy options.. then things get real. Dual multimelta terminators with 3 grav for example. Expensive but flexible and lethal to everything.
dominuschao wrote: A lot of the suggestions here are straight busted man. The ripple effect of such changes is huge.
Re-rolling 2+ saves? Thats 1/36 failing. Now consider ICs in TDA.. they get ridiculously durable. Papa smurf. smash*ucker. Lysander. Draigo.
Ignoring ap2 or worse? Again ICs, but even a nilla unit that can walk around shrugging plasma like bolter fire is just wrong.
26 ppm? So 5 guys with 2+/5+ saves, power weapons, better stock ranged weapons, relentless heavy weapons and deep strike costs 130 pts?
The problem with terminators isn't cost or durability its damage output. Increasing durability or decreasing cost throws everything else out of whack. Consider centurions for a moment. 80 ppm with no invuln no mobility outside of psych or transports yet they are broken because of grav.
I've been playing pure terminator armies in various iterations since 3rd edition. For most of that they have been underdogs. I would love for termies to get better but IMO besides bringing C:SM in line with wolves/gk the only way to do that is to increase damage output.. i.e. bring back 2 hvy weapons for 5 and boost stormbolters slightly. Maybe different weapon access idk. Anything else starts to get broken due to the access to TDA suits in HQ and troops.
probably one of the first people here who don't want to make terminators OP as hell by giving them all the above stated upgrades....2+ rerollable...LOL not on your life my friend.
lets say I bring 15 lootas, roll a 5 or 6 for shots so I have 3 shots each, 45 shots....hitting on 5-6 = 15 hits, wounding on 2s means 13 wounds. 2+ = 2.5 dead termies, lets say I got all 3 by a miracle. now rerolling you have a 50/50 chance of losing 1 terminator to a heavy weapon units torrent of fire...yeah that wouldnt be broken at all. all that mechanic would do would make me bring about 10x the number of AP2 weapons to get around your 2+ rerolling, meaning that 2+ armor would get even more broken and you would be back in here in a week complaining about how every army has to many AP2 weapons and terminators need a 3++ and so on.
S5 T5? yup, lets make them Ork Warboss equivalents. and he starts with a 6+ armor save and still costs 60pts.
dominuschao wrote: A lot of the suggestions here are straight busted man. The ripple effect of such changes is huge.
Re-rolling 2+ saves? Thats 1/36 failing. Now consider ICs in TDA.. they get ridiculously durable. Papa smurf. smash*ucker. Lysander. Draigo.
Ignoring ap2 or worse? Again ICs, but even a nilla unit that can walk around shrugging plasma like bolter fire is just wrong.
26 ppm? So 5 guys with 2+/5+ saves, power weapons, better stock ranged weapons, relentless heavy weapons and deep strike costs 130 pts?
The problem with terminators isn't cost or durability its damage output. Increasing durability or decreasing cost throws everything else out of whack. Consider centurions for a moment. 80 ppm with no invuln no mobility outside of psych or transports yet they are broken because of grav.
I've been playing pure terminator armies in various iterations since 3rd edition. For most of that they have been underdogs. I would love for termies to get better but IMO besides bringing C:SM in line with wolves/gk the only way to do that is to increase damage output.. i.e. bring back 2 hvy weapons for 5 and boost stormbolters slightly. Maybe different weapon access idk. Anything else starts to get broken due to the access to TDA suits in HQ and troops.
Edit- To elaborate, the weapon options suck. Combis suck by virtue of 1 use only and nothing to be supplement to (like a reusable weapon). Hvy weapon options are the worst of the bunch. CMLs used to be relevant back in 5th (I ran upwards of 23 missiles iirc) but now they are meh. Now what if TDA had access to full special/heavy options.. then things get real. Dual multimelta terminators with 3 grav for example. Expensive but flexible and lethal to everything.
This is what I've been saying as well, but everyone wants new wacky armor rules.
Well, we at least had a discussion of changes.
I am hearing much "but that sucks!", great, throw it out there then: what does not?
I already understood the odds of 1/36 with a 2+ re-roll, it just causes the rock-paper-scissors of plasma and melta having more primary targets.
How about Obliterators?
Look at those guys.
Too bloody expensive it appears but were looking pretty good in all other things by weaponry.
The +1 toughness for the armor may be a nice tweak, like when you throw someone on a bike.
This may be the least "objectionable" so we do not get the "LOL, not on your life comment...".
We are talking about better weapon load-outs however.
What would you want to give to a company commander that is even more nasty?
GK already have psi-cannons, so what can we do for an encore?
Here, next stab at making them work: I would be tempted to make 'em a "half-centurion" one lascannon and one missile launcher both can be equipped and both fired.
If we put on gravity guns, it may cause some meta freak-out.
So get some ideas out there with some pro-cons.
Easy to ridicule, what would you do to fix Terminators?
4+ Inv. Pros: Straightforward, helps durability. Cons: Comparison to Storm Shields, interaction with Sanctuary.
T5. Pros: Straightforward, there exist T5/3++ units in the game right now that are cheaper than Terminators so we know it's not the craziest thing on the field. Cons: T6 Nurgle Terminators, if we keep escalating T how long is it going to be before there are frequent/common T6 infantry units and Guard/Eldar can't function at S/T3 anymore?
Two heavy weapons per five. Pros: Fixes the firepower deficiency. Cons: Does nothing for Assault Terminators and they're still not tough enough for their cost.
Sternguard ammo. Pros: Cool, lets the bolter models do something. Cons: We're trying to take over Sternguard's battlefield role then, and there's no precedent for special-ammo storm bolters.
Move to a save penalty system. Pros: Fixes all the problems. Cons: Requires a lot of the game to be ground-up redesigned.
I'd like to fix Terminators without invalidating current models by introducing new weapon loadouts if possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: reduce by 5pts a model and stop adding ridiculous things to them like extra S T and a better save then a 2+
S5/T6 Wraithguard, T5/3++ Wraiths, and T5 Bikes haven't completely destroyed the game yet.
AnomanderRake wrote: 4+ Inv. Pros: Straightforward, helps durability. Cons: Comparison to Storm Shields, interaction with Sanctuary.
T5. Pros: Straightforward, there exist T5/3++ units in the game right now that are cheaper than Terminators so we know it's not the craziest thing on the field. Cons: T6 Nurgle Terminators, if we keep escalating T how long is it going to be before there are frequent/common T6 infantry units and Guard/Eldar can't function at S/T3 anymore?
Two heavy weapons per five. Pros: Fixes the firepower deficiency. Cons: Does nothing for Assault Terminators and they're still not tough enough for their cost.
Sternguard ammo. Pros: Cool, lets the bolter models do something. Cons: We're trying to take over Sternguard's battlefield role then, and there's no precedent for special-ammo storm bolters.
Move to a save penalty system. Pros: Fixes all the problems. Cons: Requires a lot of the game to be ground-up redesigned.
I'd like to fix Terminators without invalidating current models by introducing new weapon loadouts if possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: reduce by 5pts a model and stop adding ridiculous things to them like extra S T and a better save then a 2+
S5/T6 Wraithguard, T5/3++ Wraiths, and T5 Bikes haven't completely destroyed the game yet.
2 wounds, Attack at initiative for all weapons, eternal warrior - same price as now.
Naaris wrote: 2 wounds, Attack at initiative for all weapons, eternal warrior - same price as now.
Yeah, this one I'm kind of skeptical about. Eternal Warrior on a line unit doesn't exist, it's a rare/special rule, not something to be handed out willy-nilly, and attack-at-Initiative-with-powerfists makes the Lightning Claw option completely irrelevant unless you're getting tarpitted by Guardsmen a lot.
I think if you look purely at the statlines, you have 4 discrete types of infantry in the SM codex, across a pretty even price-to-power spectrum. Bikes, Jump Packs, and Veterans muddle things a little but this is your base.
- Scouts (4+, weakest stat line)
- Marines (3+, average stat line)
- Terminators (2+, average stat line w/+1A, +1LD)
- Centurions (2+, boosted stat line w/excellent ranged weapons)
Between Marines and Centurions, you're getting 2+ and an extra attack for 26pts, access to very good melee weapons, and access to some special weapons neither Scouts or Marines can kit. For default ranged weapons, Scouts/Marines get (rapid-fire) Bolters, Termies get (assault) Storm Bolters, Cents get (rapid-fire, TL) Hurricane Bolters. Terminators are definitely not a platform for lots of S4 AP5 "garbage fire". In addition, Termies get Relentless and Teleport, while Cents get SnP, no mobility bonuses, and can't sweep. So Termies are a platform for assaulting, a platform for special weapons, or both. Assaulting and Special Weapons are what we should look at to increase the usefulness of Terminators, and costing is simply to adjust their value relative to other choices. The stat line is fine, and Storm Bolters are probably ok as well. Your standard infantry units like Tacs should be your most-cost effective S4 output, and Termies shouldn't challenge Cents at all.
So basically the solution is :
- Look at the general usefulness of Terminators in assault (which concerns the Land Raider as their only DT)
- Look at the general usefulness of Terminator special weapons (as dominuschao mentioned, look at Grav Cents)
- Look at the issues caused by the meta (prevalence of AP1/AP2 negating the value of that 2+)
This last one is the easiest to pick apart -- a lot of units and armies perform completely differently at 1000pts or less. Looking at how Terminators perform at different points levels (Kill Team, 500pts+) would probably be a good indication if their main issues are due to poor scaling in bigger games, taking too big a points chunk out of the rest of your army at all levels, or simply underperforming their job on the tabletop (damage, mobility, survivability).
AnomanderRake wrote: 4+ Inv. Pros: Straightforward, helps durability. Cons: Comparison to Storm Shields, interaction with Sanctuary.
T5. Pros: Straightforward, there exist T5/3++ units in the game right now that are cheaper than Terminators so we know it's not the craziest thing on the field. Cons: T6 Nurgle Terminators, if we keep escalating T how long is it going to be before there are frequent/common T6 infantry units and Guard/Eldar can't function at S/T3 anymore?
Two heavy weapons per five. Pros: Fixes the firepower deficiency. Cons: Does nothing for Assault Terminators and they're still not tough enough for their cost.
Sternguard ammo. Pros: Cool, lets the bolter models do something. Cons: We're trying to take over Sternguard's battlefield role then, and there's no precedent for special-ammo storm bolters.
Move to a save penalty system. Pros: Fixes all the problems. Cons: Requires a lot of the game to be ground-up redesigned.
I'd like to fix Terminators without invalidating current models by introducing new weapon loadouts if possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: reduce by 5pts a model and stop adding ridiculous things to them like extra S T and a better save then a 2+
S5/T6 Wraithguard, T5/3++ Wraiths, and T5 Bikes haven't completely destroyed the game yet.
I agree, the game isnt broken yet, but when we start making Stat line changes to units because they are over priced we enter a world of bad juju, Just reduce the cost by 5 points or so and boom done.
Naaris wrote: 2 wounds, Attack at initiative for all weapons, eternal warrior - same price as now.
Yeah, this one I'm kind of skeptical about. Eternal Warrior on a line unit doesn't exist, it's a rare/special rule, not something to be handed out willy-nilly, and attack-at-Initiative-with-powerfists makes the Lightning Claw option completely irrelevant unless you're getting tarpitted by Guardsmen a lot.
I'm just saying that its a good way to keep them at toughness 4, if they have something that ignores instant death.
Maybe have it as a special rule that comes with terminator armor that ignores instance death due to strength 8+ weapons. This way force weapons or weapons that have instance death rules still work.
2 wounds gives them resilience in close combat.
And attacking at initiative is makes them better melee units. I would still say claws are viable due to re-rolling failed wounds due to shred and some that have rending attached.
Naaris wrote: 2 wounds, Attack at initiative for all weapons, eternal warrior - same price as now.
Yeah, this one I'm kind of skeptical about. Eternal Warrior on a line unit doesn't exist, it's a rare/special rule, not something to be handed out willy-nilly, and attack-at-Initiative-with-powerfists makes the Lightning Claw option completely irrelevant unless you're getting tarpitted by Guardsmen a lot.
I'm just saying that its a good way to keep them at toughness 4, if they have something that ignores instant death.
Maybe have it as a special rule that comes with terminator armor that ignores instance death due to strength 8+ weapons. This way force weapons or weapons that have instance death rules still work.
2 wounds gives them resilience in close combat.
And attacking at initiative is makes them better melee units. I would still say claws are viable due to re-rolling failed wounds due to shred and some that have rending attached.
Nobody would ever take lightnight claws, its 1 extra attack with rerolls vs S8 AP2 at init which is insta death for most things in this game. Furthermore that would give them a better at CC then a Meganob which is designed for CC. that means tis broken
So its agreed then, every terminator will cost 5pts less from now on, we will tell GW and they will promptly ignore us, good work team. GO TEAM VENTURE!
The problem is it doesn't fix whats wrong with them. Hordes of terminators is something that just shouldn't be. As relative as the term horde is..
Consider this for a moment, take a unit of centurion devs but replace the grav with eternal warrior and 3++ and cut the cost in half. The result is no one would care because they can't threaten anything. Uber durable slogging guys still doesn't address the issue.
Lower cost does, but in the wrong way. It doesn't make them better just makes bad units more plentiful.
GK terminators are the best of the bunch for multiple reasons. Compulsory troops, warp charge batteries, ability to increase strength and instant death. Grand masters same although the only reason anyone even takes a GM is because he has access to a psycannon. Remove that upgrade and he collects dust.
Give TDA suits full access to hvy and special weapons. Now tau ain't the only kids at the party.
Naaris wrote: 2 wounds, Attack at initiative for all weapons, eternal warrior - same price as now.
Yeah, this one I'm kind of skeptical about. Eternal Warrior on a line unit doesn't exist, it's a rare/special rule, not something to be handed out willy-nilly, and attack-at-Initiative-with-powerfists makes the Lightning Claw option completely irrelevant unless you're getting tarpitted by Guardsmen a lot.
I'm just saying that its a good way to keep them at toughness 4, if they have something that ignores instant death.
Maybe have it as a special rule that comes with terminator armor that ignores instance death due to strength 8+ weapons. This way force weapons or weapons that have instance death rules still work.
2 wounds gives them resilience in close combat.
And attacking at initiative is makes them better melee units. I would still say claws are viable due to re-rolling failed wounds due to shred and some that have rending attached.
I'd love to be able to keep the statline the same or as close to the same as makes no difference; my personal preferred package of changes is 30ppm with a power sword instead of a power fist, option to upgrade to power fist/chainfist/LC/THSS, two special guns per five guys, and 4+ Inv. Minimal changes, fixes durability, fixes price problem, fixes inadequate firepower problem.
Two Wounds and Eternal Warrior is a longer and more complicated fix than is necessary.
As to the lightning claws if you make power fists strike at Initiative the only thing lightning claws would be better than power fists at doing is killing large numbers of T3 models. When was the last time you saw a Terminator squad in melee with a Guard blob?
Ghazkuul wrote: So its agreed then, every terminator will cost 5pts less from now on, we will tell GW and they will promptly ignore us, good work team. GO TEAM VENTURE!
It's interesting to look at the balance process for online games like Starcraft as a parallel. As new units are introduced and new strategies evolve, there's a more or less constant fine-tuning of unit prices and special rules. Otherwise you usually end up with several abused units and many underperforming (and hence ignored) ones.
40k would need some kind of similar balance team that understands the whole of the game, monitors play, and adjusts as necessary. Honestly it's suprising there's no unofficial body doing so, at least for tournaments. But I suppose legal issues might preclude distributing balance changes, 40k doesn't have the same player base, and you can houserule anything you want with your friends.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Mixing wargear is hardly DA-unique, CSMs and SWs can too (though better)
Also NorseSig wasn't saying to give other termies Split Fire.
Anyway, isn't Deathwings shtick Deathwing Assault and Vengeful Strike?
Didnt say it was, allowing termies to mix gear dosent solve the issue it just makes it the only viable way to play termies. Why would anyone pick just a shooty squad or why would anyone pick just a melee squad.
price reduction by 5 pts a model and make them like orks have their Meganobs, Turnem into a missile.
Automatically Appended Next Post: heres another solution to that would make space marines a lot more fun but would definitely intrude upon orky warfare, Make Rhinos capable of carrying terminators, 1 termy is bulky so counts as 2 models, then allow termies to assault after disembarking, regardless of vehicle type. However a caveat to this would be *Except on Turn 1.
Ghazkuul wrote: price reduction by 5 pts a model and make them like orks have their Meganobs, Turnem into a missile.
Automatically Appended Next Post: heres another solution to that would make space marines a lot more fun but would definitely intrude upon orky warfare, Make Rhinos capable of carrying terminators, 1 termy is bulky so counts as 2 models, then allow termies to assault after disembarking, regardless of vehicle type. However a caveat to this would be *Except on Turn 1.
5ppm is still overpriced unless you are talking about powerfist stormbolter terminators, and if the terminator sergeant is still a power sword storm bolter guy who can't be upgraded I better get a points drop for him too. I would still suggest 2 heavy weapons per 5. And rather than the rhino idea how about just fix the cost of the horrendously overpriced Landraiders as well, or at least mitigate their horrible point cost by letting them treat the bulky rule and it's variants as one man smaller. This would allow a full unit of terminators into the land raider.
Ghazkuul wrote: heres another solution to that would make space marines a lot more fun but would definitely intrude upon orky warfare, Make Rhinos capable of carrying terminators, 1 termy is bulky so counts as 2 models, then allow termies to assault after disembarking, regardless of vehicle type. However a caveat to this would be *Except on Turn 1.
So, essentially:
Relentless = this unit may charge after disembarking a tranport or making a shooting attack. In addition, this unit always counts as stationary when firing XYZ weapon types.
This would give you more flexibility to use Battle Brother or FW transports, if you're so inclined.
NorseSig wrote: And rather than the rhino idea how about just fix the cost of the horrendously overpriced Landraiders as well, or at least mitigate their horrible point cost by letting them treat the bulky rule and it's variants as one man smaller. This would allow a full unit of terminators into the land raider.
I'm with Ghazzie, 90% of the time a points adjustment is the answer to balance. Unless the rules prevent a unit from functioning at all, a points adjustment is the better solution.
In this particular case, it's complicated by the fact that devastator centurions and terminators fill almost the exact same role, as do assault centurions and assault terminators. I'd rather get rid of standard terminators and assault centurions since they're utterly redundant. Give assault terminators wrist-mounted storm bolters, the same options as standard termies, and a 5 point drop and call it a day. Terminators hold the deep-strike option over centurions, and now you could get assault terminators with heavy flamers and/or heavy weapons. At 175 points for a squad they're slightly cheaper and much more flexible than before. Sorry SM players, you're just going to have to deal with the fact that ap 2 still kills them.
The idea of 2++ saves, 2 wound eternal warrior, etc...is disquieting. You're talking about making the models between 2 and 6 times as tough, which is crazy. That might work in the novels but it doesn't work on the table. Gameplay should take priority over fluff 100% of the time on the tabletop. Story should take priority over gameplay 100% of the time in the fluff.
megatrons2nd wrote: But they at least get a gun, which is more than the Incubi get. If you remove all the terrain, more than a quarter of those Incubi will not even make it to the Terminators, then the following assault, though horrific for the Terminators will still see the Incubi Decimated. Here lets assume a 200 point Unbound game, with a squad of Terminators, and a squad of Incubi.
With no terrain to slow you down, you get 14 attacks per turn with no reprisal, 9.24 hits, 6.0984 wounds, 2.012472 kills every turn. The incubi get to move 7-12" per turn, then you move back 6", so assuming both set their squad up as near the opponent as possible, 24" away, then move, it will take the Incubi 3-4 truns to get close enough to launch an assault, because you know they can't assault after running. That is a little over 6 dead Incubi, leaving 4 in the squad, to attack the Terminators. The overwatch will likely kill/finish off the partial left from shooting. Leaving 9 really good attacks to go before the Terminators get their attacks, 5.94 hits, 2.97 wounds, 1.96 Terminators dead. Terminator Reprisal will net 5 hits, 4.167 wounds, all Incubi are now dead. Did I mention the Incubi cost 4 points more than the 7 terminators at 28 points each?
That "unimpressive" shooting is a huge benefit.
Now lets do the same thing at current price, both squads cost exactly 200points.
5 terminators get 10 shots, 6.6 hit, 4.356 wound, 1.43748 dead Incubi leaving a little over 4 dead Incubi, still lose 1 from overwatch, leaving 5 to assault.
15 attacks, 9.9 hit, 4.95 wounds, 3.267 dead Terminators.
Terminator Reprisal 4 attacks, 2 hit, 1.667 dead Incubi, following round Terminators are dead. and only 3 Incubi left.
Add in terrain, and the Terminators do a lot better, but not so much better that I believe the 40ppm is a good cost, However 28ppm is far to cheap. I stand by my assertion that 30-35ppm is a good range, or drop the cost of my Incubi, or remove that free sergeant, or remove the free Invulnerable save, or the "unimpressive" Storm Bolter.
Also note, that the Terminators/heavy Infantry are the target of choice for Incubi, their "specialization" if you will.
Yes, I realize that 30ppm will net the same result as 28ppm, however I am including, in my calculations, other synergistic effects that may occur/be planned for in both armies. How many Incubi squads actually make it to the table without a Raider? That alone increase the likelihood of them making it to those terminators intact.
If your problem is that Incubi suck if they have to charge through terrain, then make a thread about giving them assault grenades or something to accomplish a similar effect. As it happens, not only would I support such a measure, but I also think it's complete BS that Incubi have no way to overcome the charge-through-cover penalty. Back with the 5th Ed DE book you could take an Archon with that grenade doohickey to give Incubi assault nades... but then they changed that and also ruined Hesperax's "League Apart" rule to boot.
If your problem is, OTOH, that Incubi don't get guns and that this somehow makes Tac Termies "better"... then you really don't realize that stormbolters are pretty much ass. Think about the other standardized infantry weapons in the game. They're either somewhat comparable and on significantly cheaper models (Orks+Shootas, Guard+Lasguns), or are better in some way (everything else). Tac Termies suckage, IMO, isn't really a durability issue. It's that their ability to kill things is ass, and so they're left behind. To that end, I would propose the following changes to Stormbolters:
New Trait: Tearing To-Wound rolls of "1" may be re-rolled; To-Wound rolls of "6" are also Pinning. All Bolt weapons have the Tearing trait.
That one is inspired by the various 40KRPGs; Bolt weapons have a trait (also called Tearing) that allows them to roll an extra die for damage, and discard the lowest die; IE, damage is 2D10, but you can roll 3D10 and discard the lowest if the weapon is Tearing. I've 40K-ified it, with a little bit of simplicity (no extra dice required), and also something that's a little extra. The Pinning part is to represent the psychological effects of some members of a unit suddenly exploding right next to their buddies. That's some scary crap right there.
New Trait: Storm Each successful To-Hit roll counts as two hits, rather than just one.
This ups the relative firepower of each shot; it's also inspired by the FFG works, which assign a trait of the same name to Stormbolters. This would represent the fact that each time the trigger is pulled on a Stormbolter, it's actually dumping out two separate bolt shells.
Stormbolters would then have the following profile:
Range 24" Assault 3 S4 AP5 Tearing, Storm
Yeah, I threw an extra shot on there as well. I'm not in the slightest opposed to having either Assault 3 or Assault 2+Storm as an alternative, but the above profile is, IMO, the ideal. The big thing is that this change propagates across a number of use cases. Not only are Shootynators of all flavors now more deadly with their basic weapons, but Stormbolters are a viable alternative to combi weapons on characters (mostly squad leaders), and it's likely that Stormbolters would become a useful special weapon choice for various Sisters squads (remember, SoB actually get Stormbolters as a special weapon).
The possible downsides of such a change mostly come down to:
1) How does this affect the GK army, which has Stormbolters on pretty much everything?
2) Do upgraded Stormbolters make Heavy Stubbers obsolete as a pintle weapon for IG tanks?
Of course, I'd also recommend that Assault and shooty Terminator squads be merged, with the caveat that a TH/SS model may not carry any ranged weapons of any kind (IE, a CML). I'd also perhaps recommend that Centurions be merged as a single unit entry that chooses a base loadout of either punchy or shooty flavors, which then determines what options can be taken. These unified Centurions would be a HS-only, while Termies are Elites-only. This should hopefully help with Termies being viable as a shooting platform compared to Cents, perhaps by dint of making Termis good for anti-horde shooting (ref. my Stormbolter upgrade idea), with Cents better for AT (LC+ML) or anti-HI (Grav).
For the record, I'm not too bothered by Terminator prices in reference to their durability, because 2+/5++ is quite good, IMO, for a T4/1W model. AP2/AP1 weapons are usually a specific weapon option that requires a point investment, and such weapons often have limited range and utility against lighter infantry- an Imperial Plasma Gun is not that much better than a much cheaper and longer-ranged Heavy Bolter when shooting T3/5+ or even T3/4+ infantry. Of course, that does ignore the fact that nobody takes Heavy Bolters anyways, so....
If your problem is that Incubi suck if they have to charge through terrain, then make a thread about giving them assault grenades or something to accomplish a similar effect. As it happens, not only would I support such a measure, but I also think it's complete BS that Incubi have no way to overcome the charge-through-cover penalty. Back with the 5th Ed DE book you could take an Archon with that grenade doohickey to give Incubi assault nades... but then they changed that and also ruined Hesperax's "League Apart" rule to boot.
If your problem is, OTOH, that Incubi don't get guns and that this somehow makes Tac Termies "better"... then you really don't realize that stormbolters are pretty much ass. Think about the other standardized infantry weapons in the game. They're either somewhat comparable and on significantly cheaper models (Orks+Shootas, Guard+Lasguns), or are better in some way (everything else). Tac Termies suckage, IMO, isn't really a durability issue. It's that their ability to kill things is ass, and so they're left behind. To that end, I would propose the following changes to Stormbolters:
No, my problem is that people are basically saying a gun of any sort on a unit does nothing, and should cost nothing. Then say that a unit with vastly superior durability should only cost a mere 8 points more than another unit, and further suggest that they should still get more bonuses. I was pointing out that the desired drop in cost completely destroys any balance for other units using a model that I know fairly well.
I can get my Incubi to do some damage when I use them. They are well worth their points for what they do, and their targets of choice, so long as their target of choice doesn't suddenly get simultaneously cheaper and better. I have also illustrated that the Storm Bolter does worlds of good for them, even if it isn't a super powerful gun as compared to other weapons. Moreover, I have postulated that at current stats, weapons, and abilities(note I do not include options) they are only a little over priced, not a drop them by nearly 50% over priced.
Of course you could take it as all elite units are over priced, as trying to match a Tactical Marines abilities, and dropping the cost of a Terminator to try to compensate exacerbates the durability issues other elite units, and even the comparable weaknesses of other armies Troops choices, forcing points drops on a whole lot more than just the Terminators to compensate.
The Incubi cost quite a bit more than they should as compared to other models in the codex too, just like Terminators.
I feel like we need to make TDA competitive with bikes for HQs somehow. As it is, bikes are just plainly superior, especially due to the existence of AA.
megatrons2nd wrote: No, my problem is that people are basically saying a gun of any sort on a unit does nothing, and should cost nothing. Then say that a unit with vastly superior durability should only cost a mere 8 points more than another unit, and further suggest that they should still get more bonuses. I was pointing out that the desired drop in cost completely destroys any balance for other units using a model that I know fairly well.
I can get my Incubi to do some damage when I use them. They are well worth their points for what they do, and their targets of choice, so long as their target of choice doesn't suddenly get simultaneously cheaper and better. I have also illustrated that the Storm Bolter does worlds of good for them, even if it isn't a super powerful gun as compared to other weapons. Moreover, I have postulated that at current stats, weapons, and abilities(note I do not include options) they are only a little over priced, not a drop them by nearly 50% over priced.
Of course you could take it as all elite units are over priced, as trying to match a Tactical Marines abilities, and dropping the cost of a Terminator to try to compensate exacerbates the durability issues other elite units, and even the comparable weaknesses of other armies Troops choices, forcing points drops on a whole lot more than just the Terminators to compensate.
The Incubi cost quite a bit more than they should as compared to other models in the codex too, just like Terminators.
I would like to point out that, personally, current Tac Terminator pricing is okay as long as they have firepower commensurate to their cost. I'm not particularly concerned with Termi durability, as IMO 2+ armor against small arms (S3/S4) or dedicated "heavy" anti-infantry (mostly intended to be S5, IMO) is quite good. The problem is that there's a good chunk of S6/7 weapons that are AP2, and they get spammed because mass S6/7 is amazeballs at everything, and so Termies get scythed down like wheat. Of course, there are some books that have AP2 on 99% of the units *cough* Eldar *cough*, but I'll just say that's an outlier for now.
I would also like to point out that Stormbolters under the current SB rules are ass. Yay, I get two S4/AP5 shots at 24". Quite frankly I'd say that the only reason Tac Termies can sort-of win against Incubi by shooting them comes down to:
1) Deciding to footslog Incubi
2) Incubi are T3, which is wounded on 3+ by S4 weapons
3) Before run moves, and assuming that Termies remain stationary, it takes 4 turns for Incubi to close the gap.
Obviously the Termie player won't keep his Termies static, and obviously the Incubi player will want to run his Incubi forward to get them into combat faster. We can't do anything about Incubi being T3, though we can throw Incubi into a Raider or Venom so that they can get into combat in a reasonable amount of time.
Now I realize the point of considering Termies vs Incubi in a vacuum and across the board from each other was to show that yes, Termies can indeed leverage their guns to a somewhat useful effect. The problem is that the scenario is entirely biased. Footslogging Incubi is at best viable at very small point levels. Most of the time it's idiotic. Similarly, Termies are not going to remain stationary. Not only that, but Termies technically want to punch things, on account of paying for a power fist that they don't actually need.
Incubi, IMO, are good because they do one thing, and do it well. Termies are bad because they don't actually know what they want to do. It's not that Shootynators are "generalist", it's that they have no focus whatsoever. They have Stormbolters which are passable- at best- against light infantry... but then they have power fists, which are better put to use punching things like MCs or cracking open heavy armor. It's not even that Tac Termies don't have a focus on "shooting generalist" or "melee generalist", it's that they have no idea what they should be turned against because the two types of targets their default weapons are "best" against are so diametrically opposed.
Tactical Marines are bad in a general sense because they're not very killy for their cost, though in a theoretical fashion they're reasonably durable. In practice Tacs are also bad because they struggle to survive in the face of mass S6/S7 shooting that simply drowns them in wounds.
Tactical Marines also have the (theoretical) advantage in that they're mostly focused around shooting. The only way to give them combat-related upgrades is to take melee options on the sergeant. In contrast, all Tac Termies come stock with a power fist (bar the sarge, who has a power sword), and they can all pay for the PF to be upgraded to a chainfist. Except as mentioned their basic firearm is geared towards killing light infantry.
Finally, stormbolters are, as I've said, ass. There's really only two guns I wouldn't really want to trade a bolter for; lasguns, which are weaker in every way and probably wouldn't even make a Tac Marine cheaper, and Ork shootas, which are basically just a sort-of-different bolter. But if I could take, say, a shuriken/splinter/gauss/pulse weapon of some variety, then hell yeah I would. I'd even trade out a stormbolter for a shardcarbine or gauss blaster (the rough equivalents, IMO)... preferably the latter, in fact, as 3 poison shots at 18" per dude has potential to drown MCs in wounds. Probably not going to kill a Riptide (though what does ), but against say, a Wraithknight/Dreadknight, not too shabby IMO.
This is why I think that some kind of upgrade to the Stormbolter would be appropriate. To quote myself a cleaned-up version of what I'd like to see Stormbolters changed to:
Whiskey144 wrote: New Trait: Tearing To-Wound rolls of "1" may be re-rolled; To-Wound rolls of "6" are also Pinning. All Bolt weapons have the Tearing trait.
New Trait: Storm Each successful To-Hit roll counts as two hits, rather than just one.
Stormbolters would then have the following profile:
Range 24" Assault 3 S4 AP5 Tearing, Storm
I'd like to mention two things in reference to my proposed Stormbolter buff:
1) Please give me your thoughts on whether this would make Tac Termies better for their cost, as well as making Stormbolters a more attractive gun upgrade for various Imperial character models (mostly squad leaders, like SM Sergeants)
2) Assault 3 and Storm is IMO ideal, but either Assault 2 and Storm or just Assault 3 would be good places to start as well.
As an aside, all Bolt weapons, from the humble Bolt Pistol and Bolter, to the maligned Heavy Bolter would have Tearing. I'd also say HBs should get Storm simply to make them more attractive anti-horde... but then there's the whole issue of HBs being the cheapest sponson gun for most Imperial (and Chaos) tanks.
Martel732 wrote: ". I have also illustrated that the Storm Bolter does worlds of good for them"
No, it really doesn't. They might as well not have them. That's how bad they are for a 40 pt model.
On that note, what are your thoughts regarding my Stormbolter buff?
Martel732 wrote: ". I have also illustrated that the Storm Bolter does worlds of good for them"
No, it really doesn't. They might as well not have them. That's how bad they are for a 40 pt model.
Yep, now how does that rate Vs a 20 point model without them, plus a reduced T, S, Sv, and not as many special rules? Oh yeah, both are also Elite Heavy infantry for their respective armies. Not to mention they outrange many other armies special weapons, and ignore the Sv of most of the non marine armies that they can come against. What did I forget? Um...The model I am comparing it to also has a special rule that does literally nothing except add to the models cost, Night Vision on a model with no gun does.....nothing. So of the 2 special rules they get exactly 50% of them do something. Don't forget you get a free sergeant also. Those points have to come from somewhere. What else? Terminators have the ability to hurt heavy vehicles, Incubi can't hurt anything over AV 10. What more do you want?
I will concede that they cost to much, but not that those Storm Bolters are worthless, and not that they need to cost 28ppm. At best 30ppm, but I still feel they should be 35ppm do to the capabilities of the model/unit. If you want to give up the Storm Bolters, fine I'm sure they are worth 5 points, but probably closer to 10 since a Burst Cannon is 10 points, with less range, more shots, more Strength, but worse BS. Yet another Elite Heavy Infantry Model that is comparable to a terminator that will suffer if they get cheaper. Right now even with those "worthless" Storm Bolters, Terminators will average the same number of wounds on an XV-8 as they will on the Terminators, when armed with 2 plasma rifles each at the 24" range. And then the Terminators will trounce them in melee. That is a minimum of 54points per model for that.
Try not comparing Terminators to Troops Choices, and remember that being an elites choice automatically makes them cost more.
But, but Jump shoot Jump, counter Deepstrike, they still need to have the space to move, combat squad, now I have 2 targets instead of one. You have answers, use them, don't demand more buffs, and cheaper. Don't tell me something is pointless to have, when it is useful, and I can see the use for it. If you can't see a use for a 24" A2 S4 AP5 weapon, then sorry, but depending on the opponent it can be a deterrent, meant to keep short range units at bay, an attack weapon to foil melee units, a defensive weapon to soften up a target before melee is engaged. This plus actually using the terrain, movement and tactics will make those models worth their points, don't expect godly units, use your abilities, tackle the challenges, you have the tools. Don't target units they weren't meant to go after, I won't use my Incubi against a horde, well..only as a last resort ie no other targets.
How about Fire Dragons? Same schtick as Incubi, Only Ranged, 9 of those are roughly equivalent, in points. At best with running, they get to threaten 18" of range, you will have 6 of them dead in 3 turns from shooting before they can even shoot you once. an lose an average of 1.5 Terminators in response, before you finish them off. And they, supposedly, have a better gun. The Terminators will stomp Fire Dragons in Melee as well.
I totally agree, that storm bolter doesn't need to exist, it is completely worthless. Would you like more? I will dig them up tomorrow if you like.
Stormbolters would then have the following profile:
Range 24" Assault 3 S4 AP5 Tearing, Storm
1) Please give me your thoughts on whether this would make Tac Termies better for their cost, as well as making Stormbolters a more attractive gun upgrade for various Imperial character models (mostly squad leaders, like SM Sergeants)
2) Assault 3 and Storm is IMO ideal, but either Assault 2 and Storm or just Assault 3 would be good places to start as well.
Whiskey, the problem is by layering on more and more special rules you end up making the game less simple, straightforward and streamlined. It solves the firepower issue but it's not necessarily good design. If even stock weapons need to have some kind of special rule to keep them competitive, something is going wrong. S6/S7 spam probably, I think you're on the money there.
The easiest way to address poor firepower is to simply the drop the effective points cost for the underperforming weapon, and let that unit wrap the savings into an upgrade. If you drop 25 pts across 5 Terminators, that pays for 2x Heavy Bolters with 5 left over. Let's compare:
5x Storm Bolter = 10x S4 AP5 shots at 24"
Versus:
3x Storm Bolter = 6x S4 AP5 shots at 24"
2x Heavy Bolter = 6x S5 AP4 shots at 36"
Obviously the second unit has much better firepower. Sling the HB under one arm so you don't touch melee attacks, and you're good to go. We increase firepower without dumping extra rules on players, or new weapons. Everyone already knows what a heavy bolter does right? If this still isn't enough, how about dropping 8ppm? You just added two free assault cannons with Rending, and that's an established rule to all 40k players. So basically you can tune this under the current ruleset.
I think you made a very cogent analysis BTW. I just think extra rules, especially very specific ones, are an overcomplicated solution. It's less flashy but it's better to keep things simple.
dominuschao wrote: A lot of the suggestions here are straight busted man. The ripple effect of such changes is huge.
Re-rolling 2+ saves? Thats 1/36 failing. Now consider ICs in TDA.. they get ridiculously durable. Papa smurf. smash*ucker. Lysander. Draigo.
Ignoring ap2 or worse? Again ICs, but even a nilla unit that can walk around shrugging plasma like bolter fire is just wrong.
26 ppm? So 5 guys with 2+/5+ saves, power weapons, better stock ranged weapons, relentless heavy weapons and deep strike costs 130 pts?
The problem with terminators isn't cost or durability its damage output. Increasing durability or decreasing cost throws everything else out of whack. Consider centurions for a moment. 80 ppm with no invuln no mobility outside of psych or transports yet they are broken because of grav.
I've been playing pure terminator armies in various iterations since 3rd edition. For most of that they have been underdogs. I would love for termies to get better but IMO besides bringing C:SM in line with wolves/gk the only way to do that is to increase damage output.. i.e. bring back 2 hvy weapons for 5 and boost stormbolters slightly. Maybe different weapon access idk. Anything else starts to get broken due to the access to TDA suits in HQ and troops.
Edit- To elaborate, the weapon options suck. Combis suck by virtue of 1 use only and nothing to be supplement to (like a reusable weapon). Hvy weapon options are the worst of the bunch. CMLs used to be relevant back in 5th (I ran upwards of 23 missiles iirc) but now they are meh. Now what if TDA had access to full special/heavy options.. then things get real. Dual multimelta terminators with 3 grav for example. Expensive but flexible and lethal to everything.
The whole purpose for terminators is to reliably soak enemy fire, particularly small arms and to complete an objective that normal infantry, space marine dude or not, would find difficult to complete (generally).
Making them the equivalent of devastators - in the realm of firepower - won't fix their role issue.
Back in the day, I remember when terminators felt like a tank @ 3d6 3+ armour save and then calculate modifiers (If I remember right - was very young). Since then, things have felt pretty marginalized for terminators. Granted, the rules during this time were built more for a wargame rpg than a straight up wargame (faster dice resolution) but dang, they look a lot more useful. Whoever decided to make the new terminator rule template in 3rd, didn't really understand how much terminator use revolved around their armour save (thus its role). They didn't translate this very well, no, not even close.
3rd left gradations in wargear rules for brevity, and in the process, left the tactical idea of terminator armour in 2nd - translating/representing it very poorly for 3rd.
megatrons2nd wrote: Yep, now how does that rate Vs a 20 point model without them, plus a reduced T, S, Sv, and not as many special rules? Oh yeah, both are also Elite Heavy infantry for their respective armies. Not to mention they outrange many other armies special weapons, and ignore the Sv of most of the non marine armies that they can come against. What did I forget? Um...The model I am comparing it to also has a special rule that does literally nothing except add to the models cost, Night Vision on a model with no gun does.....nothing. So of the 2 special rules they get exactly 50% of them do something. Don't forget you get a free sergeant also. Those points have to come from somewhere. What else? Terminators have the ability to hurt heavy vehicles, Incubi can't hurt anything over AV 10. What more do you want?
Terminators and Incubi really aren't very comparable. Incubi are (supposedly, I admit) designed to kill TEQ/2+ save infantry. Except they have no assault grenades, and they're only T3. They do have kickin' initiative value, and their AP2 melee weapons get to strike in initiative order (if you don't charge through cover), so it's not a complete wash.
I would also like to point out that making Tac Termies better at shooting things makes them even less comparable to Incubi. Also, I'd imagine that Dark Eldar actually pay very little for the Night Vision rule, given that it's army wide, and part of their "flavor"... since GeeDubs thinks that counts for something, I imagine.
megatrons2nd wrote: I will concede that they cost to much, but not that those Storm Bolters are worthless, and not that they need to cost 28ppm. At best 30ppm, but I still feel they should be 35ppm do to the capabilities of the model/unit. If you want to give up the Storm Bolters, fine I'm sure they are worth 5 points, but probably closer to 10 since a Burst Cannon is 10 points, with less range, more shots, more Strength, but worse BS. Yet another Elite Heavy Infantry Model that is comparable to a terminator that will suffer if they get cheaper. Right now even with those "worthless" Storm Bolters, Terminators will average the same number of wounds on an XV-8 as they will on the Terminators, when armed with 2 plasma rifles each at the 24" range. And then the Terminators will trounce them in melee. That is a minimum of 54points per model for that.
The Stormbolters are worthless because they are S4/AP5 shooting in an army whose basic weapons consist of nothing but S4/AP5 shooting. And let me reiterate that my personal opinion is that Stormbolters- as well as some of the other Termi gun options- should be improved, rather than Termis getting cheaper. This is mostly because then Stormbolters become worthwhile armaments for Space Marine/Sisters characters, as well as the vast majority of Imperial vehicles that desire a spare gun, if only to absorb Weapon Destroyed results.
megatrons2nd wrote: Try not comparing Terminators to Troops Choices, and remember that being an elites choice automatically makes them cost more.
1) Terminators get compared to Troops choices that are within their own book because Tac Termies bring very little to the table that Tac Marines do not, at a substantially higher price point and similarly heavy restrictions.
2) Being a non-Troops choice should not make anything "automatically cost more". This is stupid. If something automatically costs more for very little increase in capability (IE, current Tac Termies), then that something will only rarely be used.
megatrons2nd wrote: But, but Jump shoot Jump, counter Deepstrike, they still need to have the space to move, combat squad, now I have 2 targets instead of one. You have answers, use them, don't demand more buffs, and cheaper. Don't tell me something is pointless to have, when it is useful, and I can see the use for it. If you can't see a use for a 24" A2 S4 AP5 weapon, then sorry, but depending on the opponent it can be a deterrent, meant to keep short range units at bay, an attack weapon to foil melee units, a defensive weapon to soften up a target before melee is engaged. This plus actually using the terrain, movement and tactics will make those models worth their points, don't expect godly units, use your abilities, tackle the challenges, you have the tools. Don't target units they weren't meant to go after, I won't use my Incubi against a horde, well..only as a last resort ie no other targets.
Stormbolters are, as mentioned, bad because they are a lackluster weapon that lacks firepower and is merely more of the same shooting that the basic SM Troops choices bring in spades already. I'm fine with Stormbolters being "Like a Bolter, but more shots", as long as the increase in effective shot count is actually useful. Assault 2 vs Rapid Fire is of little utility. In practice, for Tac Marines, this would mostly mean that you can double tap at full range, instead of single shot at full range/double tap at half range. This is theoretically a statistically enormous increase in firepower... until you realize that Stormbolters are only available in volume from Tac Termies (GK excepted).
Also, the first sentence of this paragraph is disjointed and impossible to understand. At first it seems like you're providing a counter-argument to yourself as to why Termies are bad compared to Crisis suits or other JSJ-capable models, but then you go off saying Termies can counter-Deep Strike (yay, free pieplate shot on my dudes) or Combat Squad (which is sort of good). Here's an example of why Termies are overly expensive for their current level of firepower:
Such a squad is mostly useful for anti-horde duty, as two ACs are not going to Rend often enough to reliably threaten anything heavier than AV12/13, which sort of wastes the power fists/chainfists in the squad. Let's compare against equal cost in Tactical Marines (a Troops unit), Sternguard Veterans (an Elites unit), and Devastator Centurions (a very shooty high-end HI unit). I won't consider a dedicated transport for the Termies, as that simply makes the comparison worse and there doesn't exist a dedicated transport option that can hold ten Termies. But if you want a Land Raider so that your Termies can ride in style, then tack on around 250-300 extra points to the above.
Tactical Marines: you can have either:
2x 10-man Tac Squads with Flamers, HBs, a Stormbolter and meltabombs on each sarge and Vet Sarge upgrades, both of which are mounted in Rhinos with a HK missile, for 440 points
2x 10-man Tac Squads with Flamers, Plasma Cannons, a Stormbolter-equipped Vet Sarge, in Rhinos with HK missiles, for 440 points
2x 6-man Tac Squads with either a PG/Grav-gun, a Vet Sarge with 2 Combi-Weapons (yes this is legal), both mounted in Razorbacks with twin-linked ACs, a Stormbolter and HK missile, for 438 points; you can add meltabombs on the Sarges for 448 points if you so choose, or trim points by swapping into Meltaguns instead of Grav/Plasma
Addendum: you can juggle around the HK missiles and special/heavy options to get meltaguns and combi-weapons if you so choose. Probably also possible to juggle points to squeeze plas/grav specials into the 10-man squads.
Sternguard Veterans:
2x 5-man squads with 5 combi-weapons (your choice, as all combi options cost the same), for 440 points
2x 5-man squads with 2x combi-weapons, a HF (or 3 Combis, again your choice as HFs cost the same as combis, interestingly enough), in a Razorback with twin-linked AC and Stormbolter, for 460 points
1x 10-man squad, with 5 combis+2 HFs (or 7 combis, if you choose), meltabombs for the sarge, in a decked out Rhino (SB, HK, EA, Dozer Blade), for 370 points
Note: funny how you can get a much more mobile, twin-linked pair of ACs along with the awesome versatility of even a 5-man Sternguard squad with either 3x Combis, 2x Combis+1x HF, or 1x Combi+2x HF, for just twenty points more. Technically requires two Elites slots... but vanilla Marines have a somewhat lackluster (if generally flavorful) Elites selection anyways.
Notes: 6 bare DevCents put out nearly as many S4/AP5 shots at 24" as ten Tac Termies with Stormbolters, while against light infantry Heavy Bolters are a passable alternative to ACs, particularly when twin-linked. At 12" you get nearly twice as many S4/AP5 shots as a 10x Tac Termies with Stormbolters. Did I mention that DevCent S4/AP5 shots are also twin-linked? If you drop a Cent you can give them all Grav Cannons quite affordably, and Grav-Cannons make an excellent alternative (an arguably better one, in fact)
So we see that for their cost, you can get far more useful firepower by choosing something that is not a Tac Termie. For the exact same cost, you can get twenty Tacs in Rhinos (IE, more mans, more mobility), that can either carry meltabombs, flamers, and HBs, or flamers and plasma cannons. Or you can get 12 Tacs in two 6-man squads mounted in AC Razorbacks. So if you want some ACs, you can get them on a much more mobile platform and twin-linked. In the case of these Tac Marine squads, you can even juggle points around (mostly in the HK missiles, Vet Sarge upgrade, and Sarge weapons) to get meltaguns, plasma guns, or grav guns into the squad.
Alternately, looking at Sternguard, you could get two 5-man 'suicide melta' units by spending a little more on Drop Pods. I personally think that this is a waste of Sternguard versatility, but hey, it used to be all the rage. You can cut down on the number of combi-weapons- and maybe mix in some heavy flamers- and stick them into AC Razorbacks for 20 points over the Tac Termie squad. Not a bad deal for what you get- in comparison to Tac Termies, at least.
And then we look at DevCents and they completely blow Tac Termies out of the water. DevCents with their base equipment, in a full-strength squad with an Omniscope for the Sarge (as if you'll use that in an all Hurricane/Heavy Bolter unit) outshoot Termies. Plain and simple, they're far better at killing cheap horde infantry, and they cost less. The difference is enough that you could probably squeeze a Scout squad in to be a backfield objective holder. If you want Grav-Cannons (ah yes, GravCents. We have dismissed that claim), then you can drop a member of the squad to give all of them grav-cannons. This then makes them incredibly lethal against 2+/3+ save models (like Tac Termies...), while still retaining good anti-light-infantry capability from Hurricane Bolters and sheer weight of fire.
If you, for some reason, want to hunt tanks with your DevCents, you can give them all Lascannons and Missile Launchers... though this does come at the cost of having to run a 4-man squad, rather than a larger 5/6-man unit.
About the only thing Terminators have over their competition when building a list, is that Termies can DS, take HFs... and that's all I got. The power fist/chainfist options are not actually that great; when you have weapon options like ACs or CMLs, which have reasonable-to-significant range, then you really don't want to be in combat, since it prevents you from firing the expensive guns that you payed for. Not only that, but massed power fists are more suited to beating on very small units of very tough targets- like MCs or heavy armor. Almost all Terminator guns are more suited to killing light infantry than firing on MCs or anything with an armor value.
megatrons2nd wrote: How about Fire Dragons? Same schtick as Incubi, Only Ranged, 9 of those are roughly equivalent, in points. At best with running, they get to threaten 18" of range, you will have 6 of them dead in 3 turns from shooting before they can even shoot you once. an lose an average of 1.5 Terminators in response, before you finish them off. And they, supposedly, have a better gun. The Terminators will stomp Fire Dragons in Melee as well.
Fire Dragons are a terrible example, as their purpose is not really to engage 2+ save infantry, but rather to kill monstrous creatures or anything with an armor value, on account of carrying massed melta weapons. Melta weapons are AP1, though, so Fire Dragons can theoretically be quite effective at killing Termies of all stripes. The problem lies in the fact that Fire Dragons have about a hundred different things that are far better to point them at than Terminators.
megatrons2nd wrote: I totally agree, that storm bolter doesn't need to exist, it is completely worthless. Would you like more? I will dig them up tomorrow if you like.
The point is not that the Stormbolter is irrelevant because it's a gun. The point is that the Stormbolter is irrelevant because it does not offer any increased capability for its cost on the platforms it is most common on (IE, Terminators), and an equal cost of other units will either offer increased flexibility, increased firepower, or more resilient firepower. Or more likely, some combination of those three attributes.
Martel732 wrote: I think that kind of buff would be fine for terminators, but GK shmuckos would get it too.
That's really the primary obstacle in making Stormbolters better, is that whatever we do with them will affect GKs quite heavily. Of course, we could simply say that GKs have a special pattern of Stormbolter that sacrifices some attribute in order to become more easily controlled in automatic fire on a wrist mount, so....
Of course, it's also worth mentioning that most of the Marine armies have a gun relic of some type that is either a Stormbolter or pseudo-Stormbolter, so these would also have to be revised in light of the vast increase in capability that basic Stormbolters would receive.
Aside: thoughts on making Heavy Bolters Salvo 2/3 with Tearing and Storm? As well as giving all Bolt weapons (BP, Bolter, Hurricane Bolter, whatever the Nephilim Jetfighter's bolt weapon is) the Tearing trait?
TheSilo wrote: I'm with Ghazzie, 90% of the time a points adjustment is the answer to balance. Unless the rules prevent a unit from functioning at all, a points adjustment is the better solution.
In this particular case, it's complicated by the fact that devastator centurions and terminators fill almost the exact same role, as do assault centurions and assault terminators. I'd rather get rid of standard terminators and assault centurions since they're utterly redundant. Give assault terminators wrist-mounted storm bolters, the same options as standard termies, and a 5 point drop and call it a day. Terminators hold the deep-strike option over centurions, and now you could get assault terminators with heavy flamers and/or heavy weapons. At 175 points for a squad they're slightly cheaper and much more flexible than before. Sorry SM players, you're just going to have to deal with the fact that ap 2 still kills them.
The idea of 2++ saves, 2 wound eternal warrior, etc...is disquieting. You're talking about making the models between 2 and 6 times as tough, which is crazy. That might work in the novels but it doesn't work on the table. Gameplay should take priority over fluff 100% of the time on the tabletop. Story should take priority over gameplay 100% of the time in the fluff.
Accurately portraying a wargame is dependent on the lore. The assumption that you are having more fun with lore inaccuracies is a prerogative. I know you are attempting to be figurative, but you are particularly failing when using absolutes.
Game-play in a wargame is composed of elements in a strategic and tactical sense, whereby the whole of its parts is inherently loose in representation, but represents something nonetheless. As such, gameplay mechanics cannot be 100% of the concern during the game since there is a representation of lore. So, this makes that 100% figure less than 100, and something that you could argue to be more relative, and thus you might just argue, is a matter of popularity and market demands; expectations of the masses.
However, the masses did not create 40k nor the matter of mere popularity deciding its attraction. The gameplay is not solely about the majority's perspective but one that is gauged with intrinsic reasons as to the real attraction for the game. One of those key, immutable attractions is the lore, and it cannot be ignored as an important factor in deciding gameplay mechanics to represent them - in a wargame. I mean it could be ignored... but it would go into the realm of the contrived since it is roundabout ignoring fundamentals for its existence.
You may try to argue otherwise but I imagine it would still be convoluted - how I see it.
40k is indeed more mechanical than it is something depicting the lore with justice. The reason for this isn't that the mechanics of the game were invented first, it was, in my estimation mostly to cater to the strategically simple minded and newcomer; its more marketable this way.
It all depends on which 'lore' you prefer. You will get different results looking at stuff from different perspectives. One book portrayes marines and termies in particular as one-man armies who murderise thousands without a scratch and another depicts them as oversized retards who fall in every trap your cunning general places for them and die en masse.
Fluff is...inconsistent to tell the least. We've got eldar fluff with one person haulting a hive fleet. Should he get such rules?
It all depends on which 'lore' you prefer. You will get different results looking at stuff from different perspectives. One book portrayes marines and termies in particular as one-man armies who murderise thousands without a scratch and another depicts them as oversized retards who fall in every trap your cunning general places for them and die en masse.
Fluff is...inconsistent to tell the least. We've got eldar fluff with one person haulting a hive fleet. Should he get such rules?
It sounds like you're taking extreme exceptions in lore and using that as a generality?
There may be multiple times where captain x or aspect warrior y stopped apocalype of doom from happening, but in good sense, one should see the exceptionality of it before getting to the relative.
Warhammer may be more of a 'sandbox', but its novel fundamentals, its premise, can only be stretched so far...
I think if we buffed storm bolter to salvo 2/3 it would help terminators get a bit more firepower without boosting grey knights to a crazy level. This change would make storm bolters worth their 5 points. Maybe make terminators with storm bolters and power weapons (sword, axe, maul) 30ppm and allow them up to 4 ranged upgrade options and you can buy termintaors after the first 5 for 28ppm. In smaller games the 5 terminators would be standard and in bigger games people would take 10 for more ablative wounds. Allow upgrades to powerfist and chainfist as well.
Yoyoyo wrote: Whiskey, the problem is by layering on more and more special rules you end up making the game less simple, straightforward and streamlined. It solves the firepower issue but it's not necessarily good design. If even stock weapons need to have some kind of special rule to keep them competitive, something is going wrong. S6/S7 spam probably, I think you're on the money there.
You do have a point- more special rules does increase complexity, sometimes needlessly (Stealth and Shrouded, for example, should IMO be "Stealth L1/L2" or "Stealth (+x)" where x is the modifier). However, the main issue I see is that Stormbolters need to be better. It's not even just because they're the primary weapon of almost every Terminator model in the game (combi-bolters for Chaos Termies need a little work too IMO), it's also that Stormbolters are supposed to be a viable gun upgrade for various character models- especially squad leaders, in the case of Marine forces.
Stormbolters are also the only pintle weapon option for the majority of Imperial armies- IG get heavy stubbers that are almost universally preferred when pintle guns are taken in the first place (the value of pintle-mount guns on vehicles is an entirely different subject unfortunately). Not only that, but (somewhat bizarrely) SoB get to take Stormbolters as a special weapon. For it to be a viable choice when weighed against a flamer or meltagun (or combi-weapon, in the case of squad leaders across Marines/Sisters armies), it needs to have more oomph.
The problem is that the only ways to do that are to buff the strength/AP (both of which are nonsensical, as Stormbolters are basically a pair of boltguns that are strapped together in a more cohesive/encompassing way than a combi-bolter), increase RoF, add some special rules, or some combination of the above. Not only that, but the vast majority of basic infantry weapons seem to be getting some kind of special effect. The Storm trait I proposed I fully admit could be quite over the top- but I honestly feel like the Tearing trait I put forth for inclusion in all Bolt weapons would be a very modest addition- it's basically the Preferred Enemy rule, attached to only Bolt weapons, and only on the To-Wound roll. It's not the "triple hits on To-Hit of 6" that Tesla gets, and it's definitely not on the level of Bladestorm with it's pseudo-Rending effects.
The other issue is that the existing weapon traits can't really be tacked on to Stormbolters without making Stormbolters either mechanically or logically ridiculous- or both. Shred doesn't make sense and would be inordinately powerful, while Rending would not only be nonsensical but would have immense numbers of player in arms- particularly Eldar (though I'd enjoy Eldar players flipping out over Rending Stormbolters, TBQH). Changing the weapon type to, as I've seen mentioned, "Salvo 2/4" instead of "Assault 2" is completely slowed, as PAGKs then get completely screwed over and Stormbolters become worthless on non-relentless models.
It's not like a Hotshot Volley Gun, where it's AP3 and even has the benefit of slightly longer range than the primary weapon it's fielded alongside (the Hotshot Lasgun). Adding Pinning doesn't really have a lot of logic to it when so many weapons that should theoretically have pinning (Heavy Stubbers/Bolters, Burst Cannons, and Splinter Cannons, for example). I'd certainly take Pinning because it's something, but it just isn't enough.
Yoyoyo wrote: The easiest way to address poor firepower is to simply the drop the effective points cost for the underperforming weapon, and let that unit wrap the savings into an upgrade. If you drop 25 pts across 5 Terminators, that pays for 2x Heavy Bolters with 5 left over. Let's compare:
5x Storm Bolter = 10x S4 AP5 shots at 24"
Versus:
3x Storm Bolter = 6x S4 AP5 shots at 24" 2x Heavy Bolter = 6x S5 AP4 shots at 36"
Obviously the second unit has much better firepower. Sling the HB under one arm so you don't touch melee attacks, and you're good to go. We increase firepower without dumping extra rules on players, or new weapons. Everyone already knows what a heavy bolter does right? If this still isn't enough, how about dropping 8ppm? You just added two free assault cannons with Rending, and that's an established rule to all 40k players. So basically you can tune this under the current ruleset.
I think you made a very cogent analysis BTW. I just think extra rules, especially very specific ones, are an overcomplicated solution. It's less flashy but it's better to keep things simple.
Stormbolters lacking in firepower, as I've mentioned, isn't limited to Terminators; it's an across-the-board issue for any and every model that can carry a Stormbolter. This being said, I'd also love to see either 2x heavy/special for 5 men in Terminator squads, or increased heavy weapon selection. I also do not think Heavy Bolters would be a good Terminator weapon, as they really just come off as being a cheaper AC option, especially considering the only advantage a HB has over the AC, profile-wise, is that it has 12" more range. The only other failings an AC can be ascribed is cost and platform availability. Having access to, say, Plasma Cannons, Multi-Meltas, or maybe even a Grav-Cannon (minus Grav-Amp, as that should be a Centurion-specific gizmo) would be very desirable, IMO. Though I'm not too sure about the Plasma Cannon, as PC Termies seem a little like a DA/DW shtick.
Random thought: why are Cyclone and Typhoon MLs two different weapon entries, when they have the exact same profile? Literally, the only difference between these two weapons is the name.
For the record, I don't necessarily disagree that just making them cheaper and maybe giving increased special weapon availability is a bad idea... I just don't think it's the best option when Stormbolters are underperforming across all possible conditions that Stormbolters can be used for. To me that seems less symptomatic of an overcosted platform (though Termies are too expensive for what they currently offer), but more symptomatic that a gun is just flat-out terrible.
Is this background wise (which IMO should inform some of the TT game design), or is this the "they do this thing better than most of that armies options so this thing should be their role" purpose?
Because if it's the former then the primary purpose of Terminator-equipped Marines was to be an incredibly durable infantry unit when fighting in extreme close quarters and boarding actions. There's a reason why the titular Space Hulk game has only Terminator models, after all- and it's primarily due to the better resilience of a TDA-equipped Marine in the extremely close confines of a Space Hulk than a dude in PA.
kveldulf wrote: is to reliably soak enemy fire, particularly small arms and to complete an objective that normal infantry, space marine dude or not, would find difficult to complete (generally).
....I suppose that this is halfway accurate to the fluff. It's just that this feels... off, somehow. Like you're really close to the mark but for whatever reason you just barely miss it. Part of this, I feel, is that Terminators are already durable- at least in a vacuum- against average small arms. For the record, anything with "Rending", "Bladestorm", "S6+", or "AP2" is most definitely not average. Against AP2 Termies die easily, and I consider this to be reasonable and acceptable- Terminators do need a counter, and AP2 weapons are an acceptable one. The catch is that a great many S6/S7 weapons that the meta is obsessed with are also AP2 or even AP1, so it doubly screws over Termies.
kveldulf wrote: Making them the equivalent of devastators - in the realm of firepower - won't fix their role issue.
I would agree with this, insofar as Terminators are schizophrenic in purpose since most of their guns are geared towards anti-horde infantry, while their widespread power/chain fists are anti-MC/-heavy armor. Two very different kinds of targets, that require Terminators to attempt to fight both kinds simultaneously to be even remotely considered "cost effective"... and that's being very optimistic in itself.
kveldulf wrote: Back in the day, I remember when terminators felt like a tank @ 3d6 3+ armour save and then calculate modifiers (If I remember right - was very young). Since then, things have felt pretty marginalized for terminators. Granted, the rules during this time were built more for a wargame rpg than a straight up wargame (faster dice resolution) but dang, they look a lot more useful. Whoever decided to make the new terminator rule template in 3rd, didn't really understand how much terminator use revolved around their armour save (thus its role). They didn't translate this very well, no, not even close.
3rd left gradations in wargear rules for brevity, and in the process, left the tactical idea of terminator armour in 2nd - translating/representing it very poorly for 3rd.
Part of the problem is that the goalposts used to define "durable" have, in the changes between editions (especially going into 6th and then 7th), changed a great deal. I think it was Martel that once said that for something to be durable in the 7th-edition meta it had to be T5+ minimum. Of course, introducing 2+ armor MCs should probably have been stopped from ever happening, as that more than anything else IMO has devalued 2+ armor infantry like Termies. It also doesn't help that the primary transport options for Termies are extremely expensive and outside two FWflyers none of them can carry a full-strength Terminator squad, but that's neither here nor there.
NorseSig wrote: I think if we buffed storm bolter to salvo 2/3 it would help terminators get a bit more firepower without boosting grey knights to a crazy level. This change would make storm bolters worth their 5 points. Maybe make terminators with storm bolters and power weapons (sword, axe, maul) 30ppm and allow them up to 4 ranged upgrade options and you can buy termintaors after the first 5 for 28ppm. In smaller games the 5 terminators would be standard and in bigger games people would take 10 for more ablative wounds. Allow upgrades to powerfist and chainfist as well.
Saw this, and immediately saw a dumb idea (I apologize for the insult, but it's still true). Stormbolters being made "Salvo" anything is bad because PAGKs are screwed over even harder than they already are, and there is literally no reason to ever give any non-Relentless/SnP model a Stormbolter ever. I've seen so many suggestions to make Stormbolters Salvo that it makes me wonder if people remember the part of the Salvo rules that makes them cut their range in half when the firing model moves.
A Salvo 2/whatever Stormbolter is literally worse than a common Bolter if you have to move around and you're not Relentless/SnP, because you get the same RoF at 0-12", and infinity less RoF at 12-24". And no, that's not being melodramatic. If you were to actually graph that out (yay graphhammer!) then you'd see a linear progression for the Bolter, and an asymptotic progression for a moving, non-Relentless Stormbolter. It doesn't matter that you get 50% more shots at 0-12" and 200% more shots at 12-24" if you sit still. I mentioned Hotshot Volley Guns. Those work because they actually have a longer range than the weapon they accompany (HSVG is 24", Hotshot Lasgun is 18").
DE Splinter Cannons are a good example of Salvo weapons done right, as not only does it get twice as much RoF on the move, but it also has substantially greater range. When graphed a Splinter Cannon vs Rifle is still asymptotic vs linear, but the Cannon gets 200% more shots at 0-12", and 300% more shots at 12-18". Only in the (somewhat narrow) band of 18-24" does the Rifle outpace the Cannon, as this is the point at which Salvo halves Splinter Cannon range. This is also why Salvo Heavy Bolters could actually work.
Salvo special weapons (and a Salvo Stormbolter would effectively be an extra special weapon for a Marine squad, in much the same way a Combi-weapon is) only work when the special weapon has some kind of additional advantage beyond "it shoots more if you sit still". Now more than ever 40K is a game of maneuver, and weapons that force you to sit still for maximum effect but simultaneously lack range are a serious liability, IMO. HSVGs work because they get a very narrow range band where they fire more, and they have a slightly higher Strength value than Hotshot Lasguns. Splinter Cannons work because they have a substantial base range advantage and a substantial RoF advantage. Grav weapons are AP2 and inflict wounds on the same roll as the target model's armor save. Psycannons are only awesome if you sit still or you have Relentless, making them a good example of why a Salvo 2/whatever Stormbolter would be instantly useless for any non-Terminator model.
Currently, many things can be fixed with formations adding extra buffs but restricting you at the same time forcing you to take otherwise meh units or too many of them but making it worthwile. The above suggestion by Bishop feels like a nice formation rule. BTW, what about models carrying combi-bolters - aka CSM termies.
koooaei wrote: Currently, many things can be fixed with formations adding extra buffs but restricting you at the same time forcing you to take otherwise meh units or too many of them but making it worthwile. The above suggestion by Bishop feels like a nice formation rule. BTW, what about models carrying combi-bolters - aka CSM termies.
Fixing a problem like this with a formation sounds pretty cheesy. On multiple levels, and multiple types of cheese.
koooaei wrote: Currently, many things can be fixed with formations adding extra buffs but restricting you at the same time forcing you to take otherwise meh units or too many of them but making it worthwile. The above suggestion by Bishop feels like a nice formation rule. BTW, what about models carrying combi-bolters - aka CSM termies.
Fixing a problem like this with a formation sounds pretty cheesy. On multiple levels, and multiple types of cheese.
Helbrutes are meh. Formations make them effective. What's so bad about it?
koooaei wrote: Currently, many things can be fixed with formations adding extra buffs but restricting you at the same time forcing you to take otherwise meh units or too many of them but making it worthwile. The above suggestion by Bishop feels like a nice formation rule. BTW, what about models carrying combi-bolters - aka CSM termies.
Fixing a problem like this with a formation sounds pretty cheesy. On multiple levels, and multiple types of cheese.
Helbrutes are meh. Formations make them effective. What's so bad about it?
Giving more options to terminators - without it being chapter specific - is too universal a change. Why not just put in the SM codex or faq?
Making them ( or any unit) only viable in a formation is gimmicky.
Also, I don't think giving them more utility options is the fix - that's just one group advocating that. The issues that I see that needs addressing is their save resolution or AP weakness. If these were 'fixed' in a formation, that's too extreme of a bonus to be fixed like that. It would be the gouda of cheese formations if it do so. I don't think formations are intended to overshadow army list entries that much.
koooaei wrote: Currently, many things can be fixed with formations adding extra buffs but restricting you at the same time forcing you to take otherwise meh units or too many of them but making it worthwile. The above suggestion by Bishop feels like a nice formation rule. BTW, what about models carrying combi-bolters - aka CSM termies.
formations just feels like bloating a unit with excessive rules to force it to work than actually fixing the unit so it works.
Im not that vested in how CM works but how about this while equipped with a Combi bolter and wearing TDA the Combi part of the weapon can be fired again with the gets hot rule added, the gets hot rule cant be modified by any means. In this case Chaos termies would have acess to greater firepower but it would come at the increased risk of self damage.
An idea for lightning claws to make them more attractive, in the movment phase any TDA equipped with LC may roll D3 for additional movment, while rolling for charge range roll an additional D3 dice for each LC equipped, and measure from the closest TDA+ LC to the enemy, if the charge succeeds. would give TDA + LC a greater sense of mobility and more reliably make an assault. You still cant break unit cohesion.
I understand that simply being an elite unit shouldn't automatically make it cost more. The thing is...it does. There is no way a Howling Banshee should cost what it does, it is barely more effective than Storm Guardians, yet nearly costs twice as much. Of course, in GW's mind a power sword costs 15 points more in a Storm Guardian Squad too. I choose Banshees/Storm Guardians, as they are much easier to number crunch, with all Special rules lining up well.
Face it GW has no idea what it is doing. I also now see where are disagreement stems from. You want them balanced to your troops choice, and I am looking to balance it against other Elite Choices. Thus the difference in opinion on ppm change. Based on using Tactical Squads, yes 28ppm is fine, but now we have to go adjust every other book to balance their Elite Choices to their Troop Choices. Some of them will adjust the other way too, just because things like the Riptide are under priced for it's capabilities as compared to the Troops Choice.
megatrons2nd wrote: I understand that simply being an elite unit shouldn't automatically make it cost more. The thing is...it does. There is no way a Howling Banshee should cost what it does, it is barely more effective than Storm Guardians, yet nearly costs twice as much. Of course, in GW's mind a power sword costs 15 points more in a Storm Guardian Squad too. I choose Banshees/Storm Guardians, as they are much easier to number crunch, with all Special rules lining up well.
Face it GW has no idea what it is doing. I also now see where are disagreement stems from. You want them balanced to your troops choice, and I am looking to balance it against other Elite Choices. Thus the difference in opinion on ppm change. Based on using Tactical Squads, yes 28ppm is fine, but now we have to go adjust every other book to balance their Elite Choices to their Troop Choices. Some of them will adjust the other way too, just because things like the Riptide are under priced for it's capabilities as compared to the Troops Choice.
Sternguard don't suffer this elite penalty you speak of. Neither do Riptides. That's just two examples. I don't want terminators balanced to troops.I want them balanced to elites that don't suck. It sounds like Incubi suck. That's not a good balancing point. Sounds like they need buffed to.
Aren't Sternguard just a Tactical Squad moved to another slot though? The Riptide is another case, as the formula I run doesn't do well with Monstrous Creatures, or Vehicles.
Banshees, Scorpions, Incubi, Mandrakes, Stealth Suits, and Wracks do suffer the Elite Penalty. I'm sure I can find more if I had more books. It also doesn't mean my formula is right, but it works on most Troops choices, the offending units tend to be specialized units in a troops slot, like the Termigants, or was it Hormagaunts, anyway the one with no ranged weapons ended up being like 2 points to expensive in the previous Tyranid Codex. I haven't seen the new Codex so haven't checked for newer numbers. I've also recently adjusted my formula for adding in AP on melee weapons.
It use to be that Special rules were a "outnumbered" bonus, like ATSKNF was a bonus to Marines Because they cost 15 points at the time, and most non marine armies would outnumber them and overwhelm their ability to damage them, so they made it harder for them to completely flee the battle, thus giving them the ability to do more damage when lesser units would have fled the table completely. Yes I've been doing the "balance the game" thing a while. Each edition takes me back to square one, but time helps make the formula work better each time. Some one on the boards here has one for vehicles, haven't had the time to fully go over it though, the feed back from others seems to be good.
Maybe as pointed out, the use of terminator armor is so wide-spread that what little balance they have is easily broken with how they fit in the meta.
Sternguard and Centurions compete with them.
HQ use them as an option so can easily break things.
GK's people still hate for being over powered.
So maybe the title is a fallacy?
No easy way to fix.
Okay, keeping in mind fluff AND good game-play:
How about some silly rule like "Combat platform." OR "Braced power armor." where if the model wearing Terminator armor has not moved that turn, gets a X2 on baseassault non-template weapon and melee weapons attack.
So, the Storm bolter becomes 4 strength 4 shots if he has not moved. Any weapon not an assault profile does not get the bonus (flamers, Heavy weapons).
One extra hit with the power fist/lightening claw/thunder hammer if he has not moved in movement phase or assaulted a unit.
OR tweak this a bit to reduce all kinds of Lawyer wording "Integrated weapons platform" and say that only the weapons "out of the box" for that selection get the X2 due to being designed with those standard weapons in mind (Storm bolter, power fist/power weapon // lightening claw pair, thunder hammer,storm shield).
I am thinking around the line of extended hitting power in a protracted defensive fight, Sternguard are lightly armored in comparison but hit hard, Centurions heavier weapons no Inv., Termies we are looking for more durability and consistent damage output.
They need to have a niche or stay dusty on the shelf.
kveldulf wrote: The whole purpose for terminators is to reliably soak enemy fire, particularly small arms and to complete an objective that normal infantry, space marine dude or not, would find difficult to complete (generally).
At the end of the day Terminators are still an infantry unit. That's why they have access to DS and transports, rather than footslogging across the board like MCs and Walkers. The latter can soak fire more effectively having AV or High Toughness, 3 to 6 wounds or HP, and good armor or invul saves. And obviously that is correct. But in truth don't Dreadnoughts really suffer from a lot of the same durability problems as Terminators under sustained S6/S7 fire?
Massed S3-S5 fire that can't really hurt T8 or AV12 is a problem for Terminators, but that's EXACTLY why you are supposed to have an AV12+ transport to ferry them to the fight and help soften a blob up (artillery can help for DS). So now you're into the question of their deployment options again.
Martel732 wrote: Sternguard don't suffer this elite penalty you speak of. Neither do Riptides. That's just two examples. I don't want terminators balanced to troops.I want them balanced to elites that don't suck. It sounds like Incubi suck. That's not a good balancing point. Sounds like they need buffed to.
Martel, the problem is there's already LOTS of underpowered units in the game. The nerf bat should have come out long ago against these "choices that don't suck". When you're stacking 60-80% of your list into 1-2 "competitive" unit types there is a problem. WS/WK, Riptide/HYMP, Flyrants, Knights, Daemon Prince/Fateweaver, various deathstars, etc.
We perhaps should mention that all these units are very good versus Terminators (S5/S6/S7 spam, AP2, psykers, or MC-level melee). There's not an easy fix because short of making Terminators completely broken, you can't get around the meta!
But terminators aren't good against small arms either. Or Ork boyz. What exactly are they good against then? The answer is nothing. They might be the worst unit in the marine codex.
Terminators either need to be fixed defensively, so they become better bullet sponges without increasing damage output, or defence stays the same and output is increased.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Terminators either need to be fixed defensively, so they become better bullet sponges without increasing damage output, or defence stays the same and output is increased.
Salvo 2/4 storm bolters (maybe with shred?)
or
+4 FNP.
4+ FNP instead of an Invulnerable save would be a good plan maybe with a small price drop. Makes them tough, and gets rid of that stupid 5++ that was added because of the durability complaints in the first place. The Anti Tank weapon should nuke a Terminator, and the small arms fire will receive 2 saves against it, as well as those not anti tank weapons that have AP 2, like the Starcannon and such.
Alternatively you could go with standard FnP and leave the 5++. No price drop on this though.
Martel732 wrote: But terminators aren't good against small arms either. Or Ork boyz. What exactly are they good against then? The answer is nothing. They might be the worst unit in the marine codex.
They're very points-efficient if you can get them into melee with something bigger than they are that can't paste them at Initiative; the problem, of course, is that's a pretty rare situation. If, by some miracle, your Terminators live long enough to get into melee they can down tanks, Riptides, and Wraithknights fairly well.
5 termies
5x3x(1/2)(3/4)(1) = 45/8 dead Orks. About 6 dead Boys
24 remain
24x3x(1/2)(1/3)(1/6) = 72/36 dead Termies. 2.
(Unsure about Big Choppa, minor difference unless its AP2)
Orks test at -4. Probably stay, good chance Mob Rule hurts them. (EV on losing some guys?)
So, hitting GEQ with massed AP3 isn't really working great, but nearly gets the job done.
Termies could use a little help. But if it were 28ppm, it'd be laughable.
The whole purpose for terminators is to reliably soak enemy fire, particularly small arms and to complete an objective that normal infantry, space marine dude or not, would find difficult to complete (generally).
Making them the equivalent of devastators - in the realm of firepower - won't fix their role issue.
Are you speaking from a game-play standpoint or fluff?
Maybe I play a less narrative version of the game then some but making terminators durable is something an opponent just doesn't care about. They aren't mobile they aren't killy and they don't have objective secured outside of GK/DA. They literally don't have anything worth caring about so they can't be effective bullet sponges because there isn't a good reason to direct firepower at them. In fact added durability is a deterrent. Its like shooting at an invisible unit. I do see a conflict with devastators if their heavy weapons were increased but then again every single 'fix' ends up causing some form of competition for inclusion. Otohdevs aren't great either barring certain chapter tactics like sentinels of terra.
Fail that 2+, and that missile *will* destroy you. Fail that 3++/5++, and an Orbatal Bombardment should kill you. But Guardsmen are gonna have a bad day with their s3.
Martel732 wrote: But terminators aren't good against small arms either. Or Ork boyz. What exactly are they good against then? The answer is nothing. They might be the worst unit in the marine codex.
They're very points-efficient if you can get them into melee with something bigger than they are that can't paste them at Initiative; the problem, of course, is that's a pretty rare situation. If, by some miracle, your Terminators live long enough to get into melee they can down tanks, Riptides, and Wraithknights fairly well.
Counting on miracles is a good way to lose with a list that already has a small model count.
Bharring wrote: 5 termies
5x3x(1/2)(3/4)(1) = 45/8 dead Orks. About 6 dead Boys
24 remain
24x3x(1/2)(1/3)(1/6) = 72/36 dead Termies. 2.
(Unsure about Big Choppa, minor difference unless its AP2)
Orks test at -4. Probably stay, good chance Mob Rule hurts them. (EV on losing some guys?)
So, hitting GEQ with massed AP3 isn't really working great, but nearly gets the job done.
Termies could use a little help. But if it were 28ppm, it'd be laughable.
To be fair, it's generally around 5-15 boyz + nob striking - not all the squad.
Also, power fist wounds 5/6 times - not 3/4 but striking last.
If you mathhammer it: Termies charge a bunch of boyz - boyz are generally spread out for fear of blasts and to cover wider area. Let's assume, termies don't use a bottle-neck trick which is super-effective against hordes. Let's also assume that the character can't issue challenge to a nob which he absolutely should. Let's say ork's cunning enough to put nob out of challenge radius.
Termies shoot and inflict ~ 3 wounds with just bolters and some more with special weapons.
Sarge strikes before boyz if not chargin through terrain for 0.75 wounds with a power sword
`10-15 boyz can strike ~ 1 dead termie
termies and a nob strike strike - 3 power fist termies kill 3 boyz, nob kills 0.83 termie.
Resulting in 3+ dead boyz from shooting than ~4 dead boyz in mellee and ~2 dead termies.
Than boyz most likely fail ld7 - 2 and take a few mob rule hits resulting in 1-2 extra dead boyz.
Still not worth it for termies. And not that it's unexpected - termies don't work really well against tarpit cheap mellee-oriented hordes. Now if you pull off a charge on something like ork bikers, nobz, flash gitz or walkers - termies would win like no big deal. But hey, that's how orkses are supposed to work in the first place! We're an army of bullies.
Oh, sorry - missed that. I'd also expect FNP against claw termies.
Claw sarge has one tremendous advantage - he neutralises nob - and that's half of the whole ork's squad killiness. No ork in his right mind would throw a nob at a claw sarge even if the odds are even. Nobs are too important. While he might risk it vs a power sword one if situation calls for it.
But as an ork player, i'd definitely NOT accept a challenge with a nob until it's the only thing left to do.
Bharring wrote: I was wondering about that, but it looks like accepting with a PK gives you a very good chance to win the engagement.
Sarge has ~20-30% chance to kill a nob outright. For an ork player it's not just a chance to loose a nob. It's a chance to loose the whole squad. Nobz are important for s8-9 ap 2 attacks and for mob rule with BP. We're ld7 which means that we have ~45% to fail ld. And than we got only Mob rule that relies either in being in mellee, squad number or having a character. Neither of these will be sufficient enough for what remains of the mob after the engagement with termies if you somehow happen to not flee in the process.
Tl: Dr - Nobz are too important to risk challenges even vs regular sarges not telling about LC ones with 5++
But then, you're preserving your nob, but risking the entire squad?
I suppose the margin should be sufficient to eventually wear them down with Boys, but isn't it too much of a risk? Wouldn't there be a 20%+ risk of getting broken (not swept - Termies) before winning?
I think that's kind of a rabbit hole balance wise. Since LCs are the baseline for Assault Termies, and Boyz are very much a baseline unit, keeping things simple (Choppa Nob) allows you to see if things are overcosted.
It's pretty simple to control effectiveness by the adjusting the ppm of the LC Terminators against Boyz, then increase the price of the TH/SS upgrade subsequently. Given all units can fight at once, Bharring's formula, and no losses from Mob Rule:
8 LC Termies kill 9 Boyz while losing 2;
6 LC kills 7 Boyz while losing 1;
5 LC kill 6 Boyz while losing 1;
4 LC kill 4 Boyz while losing 0;
4 LC kill 4 Boyz, eliminating the Boyz squad.
Mob rule and issues of base contact in assault complicate things a little, in which case this scenario is even more lopsided. But at 200pts, at 25ppm, LC Termies would simply destroy Boyz (though GEQ blobs can work as a tarpit). Against MEQs, they would do even better, leveraging that LC AP3. We should do another scenario.
Their survivability in CC isn't bad in this case, it's simply costing and delivering them into combat.
Edit: Spaced out a bit, but Terminators should really have the chance to sweeping advance, it synergizes well with their good saves and fits the lore as a terror weapon against regular troops.
30ppm, up to four models my take a Terminator Cyclone Missile Launcher for 10pts each.
Termintator Cyclone Missile Launcher: Str 6 AP4 Heavy 2. May be fired in addition to Storm Bolter. Thus not losing the iconic weapon.
Other options the same.
TH/SS
35ppm
Defensive Protocols:
Upon arriving via DS all models with this rule may re-roll armour saves until the start of their next turn.
Helps mitigate the fish in a barrel syndrome after DS'ing. Maybe a bit too much?? Dunno.
Yoyoyo wrote: Whiskey, the problem is by layering on more and more special rules you end up making the game less simple, straightforward and streamlined. It solves the firepower issue but it's not necessarily good design. If even stock weapons need to have some kind of special rule to keep them competitive, something is going wrong. S6/S7 spam probably, I think you're on the money there.
You do have a point- more special rules does increase complexity, sometimes needlessly (Stealth and Shrouded, for example, should IMO be "Stealth L1/L2" or "Stealth (+x)" where x is the modifier). However, the main issue I see is that Stormbolters need to be better. It's not even just because they're the primary weapon of almost every Terminator model in the game (combi-bolters for Chaos Termies need a little work too IMO), it's also that Stormbolters are supposed to be a viable gun upgrade for various character models- especially squad leaders, in the case of Marine forces.
Stormbolters are also the only pintle weapon option for the majority of Imperial armies- IG get heavy stubbers that are almost universally preferred when pintle guns are taken in the first place (the value of pintle-mount guns on vehicles is an entirely different subject unfortunately). Not only that, but (somewhat bizarrely) SoB get to take Stormbolters as a special weapon. For it to be a viable choice when weighed against a flamer or meltagun (or combi-weapon, in the case of squad leaders across Marines/Sisters armies), it needs to have more oomph.
The problem is that the only ways to do that are to buff the strength/AP (both of which are nonsensical, as Stormbolters are basically a pair of boltguns that are strapped together in a more cohesive/encompassing way than a combi-bolter), increase RoF, add some special rules, or some combination of the above. Not only that, but the vast majority of basic infantry weapons seem to be getting some kind of special effect. The Storm trait I proposed I fully admit could be quite over the top- but I honestly feel like the Tearing trait I put forth for inclusion in all Bolt weapons would be a very modest addition- it's basically the Preferred Enemy rule, attached to only Bolt weapons, and only on the To-Wound roll. It's not the "triple hits on To-Hit of 6" that Tesla gets, and it's definitely not on the level of Bladestorm with it's pseudo-Rending effects.
The other issue is that the existing weapon traits can't really be tacked on to Stormbolters without making Stormbolters either mechanically or logically ridiculous- or both. Shred doesn't make sense and would be inordinately powerful, while Rending would not only be nonsensical but would have immense numbers of player in arms- particularly Eldar (though I'd enjoy Eldar players flipping out over Rending Stormbolters, TBQH). Changing the weapon type to, as I've seen mentioned, "Salvo 2/4" instead of "Assault 2" is completely slowed, as PAGKs then get completely screwed over and Stormbolters become worthless on non-relentless models.
It's not like a Hotshot Volley Gun, where it's AP3 and even has the benefit of slightly longer range than the primary weapon it's fielded alongside (the Hotshot Lasgun). Adding Pinning doesn't really have a lot of logic to it when so many weapons that should theoretically have pinning (Heavy Stubbers/Bolters, Burst Cannons, and Splinter Cannons, for example). I'd certainly take Pinning because it's something, but it just isn't enough.
Yoyoyo wrote: The easiest way to address poor firepower is to simply the drop the effective points cost for the underperforming weapon, and let that unit wrap the savings into an upgrade. If you drop 25 pts across 5 Terminators, that pays for 2x Heavy Bolters with 5 left over. Let's compare:
5x Storm Bolter = 10x S4 AP5 shots at 24"
Versus:
3x Storm Bolter = 6x S4 AP5 shots at 24"
2x Heavy Bolter = 6x S5 AP4 shots at 36"
Obviously the second unit has much better firepower. Sling the HB under one arm so you don't touch melee attacks, and you're good to go. We increase firepower without dumping extra rules on players, or new weapons. Everyone already knows what a heavy bolter does right? If this still isn't enough, how about dropping 8ppm? You just added two free assault cannons with Rending, and that's an established rule to all 40k players. So basically you can tune this under the current ruleset.
I think you made a very cogent analysis BTW. I just think extra rules, especially very specific ones, are an overcomplicated solution. It's less flashy but it's better to keep things simple.
Stormbolters lacking in firepower, as I've mentioned, isn't limited to Terminators; it's an across-the-board issue for any and every model that can carry a Stormbolter. This being said, I'd also love to see either 2x heavy/special for 5 men in Terminator squads, or increased heavy weapon selection. I also do not think Heavy Bolters would be a good Terminator weapon, as they really just come off as being a cheaper AC option, especially considering the only advantage a HB has over the AC, profile-wise, is that it has 12" more range. The only other failings an AC can be ascribed is cost and platform availability. Having access to, say, Plasma Cannons, Multi-Meltas, or maybe even a Grav-Cannon (minus Grav-Amp, as that should be a Centurion-specific gizmo) would be very desirable, IMO. Though I'm not too sure about the Plasma Cannon, as PC Termies seem a little like a DA/DW shtick.
Random thought: why are Cyclone and Typhoon MLs two different weapon entries, when they have the exact same profile? Literally, the only difference between these two weapons is the name.
For the record, I don't necessarily disagree that just making them cheaper and maybe giving increased special weapon availability is a bad idea... I just don't think it's the best option when Stormbolters are underperforming across all possible conditions that Stormbolters can be used for. To me that seems less symptomatic of an overcosted platform (though Termies are too expensive for what they currently offer), but more symptomatic that a gun is just flat-out terrible.
Is this background wise (which IMO should inform some of the TT game design), or is this the "they do this thing better than most of that armies options so this thing should be their role" purpose?
Because if it's the former then the primary purpose of Terminator-equipped Marines was to be an incredibly durable infantry unit when fighting in extreme close quarters and boarding actions. There's a reason why the titular Space Hulk game has only Terminator models, after all- and it's primarily due to the better resilience of a TDA-equipped Marine in the extremely close confines of a Space Hulk than a dude in PA.
kveldulf wrote: is to reliably soak enemy fire, particularly small arms and to complete an objective that normal infantry, space marine dude or not, would find difficult to complete (generally).
....I suppose that this is halfway accurate to the fluff. It's just that this feels... off, somehow. Like you're really close to the mark but for whatever reason you just barely miss it. Part of this, I feel, is that Terminators are already durable- at least in a vacuum- against average small arms. For the record, anything with "Rending", "Bladestorm", "S6+", or "AP2" is most definitely not average. Against AP2 Termies die easily, and I consider this to be reasonable and acceptable- Terminators do need a counter, and AP2 weapons are an acceptable one. The catch is that a great many S6/S7 weapons that the meta is obsessed with are also AP2 or even AP1, so it doubly screws over Termies.
kveldulf wrote: Making them the equivalent of devastators - in the realm of firepower - won't fix their role issue.
I would agree with this, insofar as Terminators are schizophrenic in purpose since most of their guns are geared towards anti-horde infantry, while their widespread power/chain fists are anti-MC/-heavy armor. Two very different kinds of targets, that require Terminators to attempt to fight both kinds simultaneously to be even remotely considered "cost effective"... and that's being very optimistic in itself.
kveldulf wrote: Back in the day, I remember when terminators felt like a tank @ 3d6 3+ armour save and then calculate modifiers (If I remember right - was very young). Since then, things have felt pretty marginalized for terminators. Granted, the rules during this time were built more for a wargame rpg than a straight up wargame (faster dice resolution) but dang, they look a lot more useful. Whoever decided to make the new terminator rule template in 3rd, didn't really understand how much terminator use revolved around their armour save (thus its role). They didn't translate this very well, no, not even close.
3rd left gradations in wargear rules for brevity, and in the process, left the tactical idea of terminator armour in 2nd - translating/representing it very poorly for 3rd.
Part of the problem is that the goalposts used to define "durable" have, in the changes between editions (especially going into 6th and then 7th), changed a great deal. I think it was Martel that once said that for something to be durable in the 7th-edition meta it had to be T5+ minimum. Of course, introducing 2+ armor MCs should probably have been stopped from ever happening, as that more than anything else IMO has devalued 2+ armor infantry like Termies. It also doesn't help that the primary transport options for Termies are extremely expensive and outside two FWflyers none of them can carry a full-strength Terminator squad, but that's neither here nor there.
NorseSig wrote: I think if we buffed storm bolter to salvo 2/3 it would help terminators get a bit more firepower without boosting grey knights to a crazy level. This change would make storm bolters worth their 5 points. Maybe make terminators with storm bolters and power weapons (sword, axe, maul) 30ppm and allow them up to 4 ranged upgrade options and you can buy termintaors after the first 5 for 28ppm. In smaller games the 5 terminators would be standard and in bigger games people would take 10 for more ablative wounds. Allow upgrades to powerfist and chainfist as well.
Saw this, and immediately saw a dumb idea (I apologize for the insult, but it's still true). Stormbolters being made "Salvo" anything is bad because PAGKs are screwed over even harder than they already are, and there is literally no reason to ever give any non-Relentless/SnP model a Stormbolter ever. I've seen so many suggestions to make Stormbolters Salvo that it makes me wonder if people remember the part of the Salvo rules that makes them cut their range in half when the firing model moves.
A Salvo 2/whatever Stormbolter is literally worse than a common Bolter if you have to move around and you're not Relentless/SnP, because you get the same RoF at 0-12", and infinity less RoF at 12-24". And no, that's not being melodramatic. If you were to actually graph that out (yay graphhammer!) then you'd see a linear progression for the Bolter, and an asymptotic progression for a moving, non-Relentless Stormbolter. It doesn't matter that you get 50% more shots at 0-12" and 200% more shots at 12-24" if you sit still. I mentioned Hotshot Volley Guns. Those work because they actually have a longer range than the weapon they accompany (HSVG is 24", Hotshot Lasgun is 18").
DE Splinter Cannons are a good example of Salvo weapons done right, as not only does it get twice as much RoF on the move, but it also has substantially greater range. When graphed a Splinter Cannon vs Rifle is still asymptotic vs linear, but the Cannon gets 200% more shots at 0-12", and 300% more shots at 12-18". Only in the (somewhat narrow) band of 18-24" does the Rifle outpace the Cannon, as this is the point at which Salvo halves Splinter Cannon range. This is also why Salvo Heavy Bolters could actually work.
Salvo special weapons (and a Salvo Stormbolter would effectively be an extra special weapon for a Marine squad, in much the same way a Combi-weapon is) only work when the special weapon has some kind of additional advantage beyond "it shoots more if you sit still". Now more than ever 40K is a game of maneuver, and weapons that force you to sit still for maximum effect but simultaneously lack range are a serious liability, IMO. HSVGs work because they get a very narrow range band where they fire more, and they have a slightly higher Strength value than Hotshot Lasguns. Splinter Cannons work because they have a substantial base range advantage and a substantial RoF advantage. Grav weapons are AP2 and inflict wounds on the same roll as the target model's armor save. Psycannons are only awesome if you sit still or you have Relentless, making them a good example of why a Salvo 2/whatever Stormbolter would be instantly useless for any non-Terminator model.
Oh, that's ok if you think it's dumb. I just take into account the poster and his obvious motivation for an overpowered cheap upgrade that originally was a terminator only item back when TDA didn't give relentless. You clearly expect something that is a 5 point upgrade to have a lot more dakka. Maybe you think stormbolters should be assault 5. Again, storm bolters were originally meant to be on terminators so it would make sense, and fitting in the fluff to make them better on that platform. See, I can be an arrogant, condescending jerk too.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Terminators either need to be fixed defensively, so they become better bullet sponges without increasing damage output, or defence stays the same and output is increased.
Salvo 2/4 storm bolters (maybe with shred?)
or
+4 FNP.
4+ FNP instead of an Invulnerable save would be a good plan maybe with a small price drop. Makes them tough, and gets rid of that stupid 5++ that was added because of the durability complaints in the first place. The Anti Tank weapon should nuke a Terminator, and the small arms fire will receive 2 saves against it, as well as those not anti tank weapons that have AP 2, like the Starcannon and such.
Alternatively you could go with standard FnP and leave the 5++. No price drop on this though.
Hmmm, I never thought of that really, I was thinking give them 4+ FNP on top of the invulnerable save, but that would give them 2 saves against a lascannnon (which is unreasonable) but also 2 against plasma (which I don't really think is, as they are one of the main problems for termies).
4+ FNP would give them a decent chance of surviving plasma in general, but also not giving them 2 against a lascannon.
Maybe.... 4+ FNP on top of the 2+, with the option to once per game turn, re-rollable FNP if they are all base to base (like the deathwing Knights), which would also make them slightly more secure when deep striking unless the enemy want to shell out a LOT of heavy anti-tank firepower.
8 LC Termies (200pts, 25ppm) would kill 6 of 7 Triarch Praetorians (196pts, 28ppm) or 6 of 8 Lychguard (200pts, 25ppm) in one turn, with 2 Necron models bouncing back each on a 5+ RP to kill 2 or 3 LC Termies respectively. 5 Wraiths with Whip Coils (215pts, 43ppm) can't get through the 2+ armor, but with Rending and Swiftstrike they can at least take out 2 LC's first before losing 2 themselves in the first round.
Let's look at the faster initiative factions!
10x Incubi (200pts, 20ppm) would take out about 7 LC Termies in the first round, I5 AP2 making all the difference. The lone remaining LC would kill one unlucky Incubi, DE maintaining total mastery in CC in this case. Without an Invul or FNP save, or boosted initiative, LC Termies stand no chance. It's even worse with Power from Pain! An Invul/FNP save here would make a big difference, but against anything with lower initiative, at 25ppm LC Terminators are doing well.
15 Tyranid Genestealers (215pts, 14ppm) do very well with I6 Rending, kiling 5 LC Termies out of 8 in the first turn. The surviving 3x LC Terminators kill 4x Genestealers in return, the LC damage is actually very good but the initiative is a killer. 3x Lictors (150pts, 50ppm) win as well, but 6x LC Termies (150pts) can just barely down a single Lictor out of a pack of three if they stack every wound on one.
25ppm actually seems pretty reasonable for a LC Terminator, 40ppm is just terrible. They do need help to get around their I4 against elite infantry from the faster factions, either through negating initiative or FNP/Invul saves to help against AP2 and Rending. However, neither Genestealers, Lictors or Incubi are nearly as resilient against small arms as Terminators, which can be taken as a form of balance.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Terminators either need to be fixed defensively, so they become better bullet sponges without increasing damage output, or defence stays the same and output is increased.
Salvo 2/4 storm bolters (maybe with shred?)
or
+4 FNP.
4+ FNP instead of an Invulnerable save would be a good plan maybe with a small price drop. Makes them tough, and gets rid of that stupid 5++ that was added because of the durability complaints in the first place. The Anti Tank weapon should nuke a Terminator, and the small arms fire will receive 2 saves against it, as well as those not anti tank weapons that have AP 2, like the Starcannon and such.
Alternatively you could go with standard FnP and leave the 5++. No price drop on this though.
Hmmm, I never thought of that really, I was thinking give them 4+ FNP on top of the invulnerable save, but that would give them 2 saves against a lascannnon (which is unreasonable) but also 2 against plasma (which I don't really think is, as they are one of the main problems for termies).
4+ FNP would give them a decent chance of surviving plasma in general, but also not giving them 2 against a lascannon.
Maybe.... 4+ FNP on top of the 2+, with the option to once per game turn, re-rollable FNP if they are all base to base (like the deathwing Knights), which would also make them slightly more secure when deep striking unless the enemy want to shell out a LOT of heavy anti-tank firepower.
How would this be affected by something like the Iron Hands chapter tactics or something like an apothecary?
@NorseSig: I'm with you, man. Complaining Salvo would hurt non-terminator units with Storm Bolters is essentially saying "this single unit in the entire game wouldn't be as good and they are already kind of bad!"
But it'd be fine. Literally no one I've ever met uses a storm bolter on a unit that isn't forced into it. That says to me it's a bad weapon. Hell, if they made it Salvo, it's still be a possible upgrade to that GK squad because at least they'd have the option of sitting on top of an objective and gaining a small rate of fire while doing so. Tactically there's potential.
Vehicles ignore salvo restrictions anyway so it'd be a minor upgrade to the entire Space Marine vehicle line. I think it makes a lot of sense, and definitely is an idea worth house-ruling to see if it's viable or not.
@Yoyoyo: Do Incubi have grenades? I don't think they do. Charging into terrain is an issue for them unless they've got some rule to ignore it I'm not aware of. If they don't, how would that incubi squad fair if it charged a squad of LC guys in cover? Alternatively, how does a thunderhammer squad hold up?
@Yoyoyo: Do Incubi have grenades? I don't think they do. Charging into terrain is an issue for them unless they've got some rule to ignore it I'm not aware of. If they don't, how would that incubi squad fair if it charged a squad of LC guys in cover? Alternatively, how does a thunderhammer squad hold up?
Incubi would get ripped to shreds at initiative, think one-shotted. T3 with no save and LC rerolls wounds. It'd be ugly!
Haven't looked at a TH/SS squad yet, but they are going after bigger game I think. MCs, Walkers, tanks. Looking at how they perform versus a Lictor Brood would be very interesting, since with Flesh Hooks there's no tactical way for LC Termies to outfight them. At T4, the TH/SS guys also stand a good chance of ID'ing the Lictors, so this is what you want to start transitioning into in assault.
SRSFACE wrote: @NorseSig: I'm with you, man. Complaining Salvo would hurt non-terminator units with Storm Bolters is essentially saying "this single unit in the entire game wouldn't be as good and they are already kind of bad!"
But it'd be fine. Literally no one I've ever met uses a storm bolter on a unit that isn't forced into it. That says to me it's a bad weapon. Hell, if they made it Salvo, it's still be a possible upgrade to that GK squad because at least they'd have the option of sitting on top of an objective and gaining a small rate of fire while doing so. Tactically there's potential.
Vehicles ignore salvo restrictions anyway so it'd be a minor upgrade to the entire Space Marine vehicle line. I think it makes a lot of sense, and definitely is an idea worth house-ruling to see if it's viable or not.
@Yoyoyo: Do Incubi have grenades? I don't think they do. Charging into terrain is an issue for them unless they've got some rule to ignore it I'm not aware of. If they don't, how would that incubi squad fair if it charged a squad of LC guys in cover? Alternatively, how does a thunderhammer squad hold up?
How would this be affected by something like the Iron Hands chapter tactics or something like an apothecary?
Simply put, it wouldn't. The higher value takes precedence.
I just thought I would ask because some might say shouldn't Iron Hands Terminators get a better FNP. I don't despite playing Iron Hands, but then again I'd like to replace the 6+FNP part of their rules with the 30k rules ie reduce the strength of shooting by 1. Then again the Iron Hands at a certain points level can take their Primarch and get the the 6+FNP as well.
Ok, looked at it. 5x TH/SS Terminators (225pts, 25ppm) versus 4x Lictors (200pts, 50ppm).
Lictors kill 2 in the first round, 1 from Rending and 1 from a failed armor save. The remaining TH/SS double out 2x Lictors with ID, leaving 1 remaining. Pretty good. In this case you want to swarm them with Genestealers, they will do much, much better.
It's pretty even with 2 Lictors versus 3 Termies, but TH/SS should take it. In this case, everything look pretty fairly costed. That points to TH/SS as a 20pt upgrade, from a 25pt LC base. Though it's not like we compared LC against anything else (WK, Riptides, Knights, S5+ MCs, etc).
NorseSig wrote: Oh, that's ok if you think it's dumb. I just take into account the poster and his obvious motivation for an overpowered cheap upgrade that originally was a terminator only item back when TDA didn't give relentless. You clearly expect something that is a 5 point upgrade to have a lot more dakka. Maybe you think stormbolters should be assault 5. Again, storm bolters were originally meant to be on terminators so it would make sense, and fitting in the fluff to make them better on that platform. See, I can be an arrogant, condescending jerk too.
Firstly, please learn how to snip quotes. Because when your reply is a small paragraph and the quote is enormous, it makes it tedious to actually find where your thoughts are.
Secondly, Terminators with Stormbolters have worse firepower than almost any other way to get S4/AP5 shooting in a Space Marine army. You can get much better results by taking 20 Tacs, mounted in a pair of Rhinos, and then spending out for some special/heavy weapons. Taking ACs doesn't do anything to change this- 10 Termies with 2 ACs costs 440 points. If you just want ACs, then you can get two 5-man Tac squads, give them a plas or grav gun, a combi-weapon for the sarge, and throw them into a barebones Razorback with an AC.
Boom, you now have two twin-linkedACs, 4 ObSec units, 2 Plas/Grav guns, 2 Combi-weapons, and the ability to put your ObSec dudes almost anywhere on the board. Price of admission for this combination is 370 points- a whopping 70 points less than a 10-man Tac Termie squad with ACs. That's enough for a 5-man Scout Squad with sniper rifles and camo cloaks to hold a backfield objective.
Stormbolters in general need to be better because they're the primary weapon of Terminators and can be taken on almost every Imperial vehicle as a pintle-mount, and pretty much every non-unique character in an loyalist Marine or a SoB force can take one. Not only that, but SoB can take Stormbolters as a special weapon! Should Stormbolters only be better on Termies, so that they're almost entirely useless in comparison to a flamer or meltagun for a Sisters squad? Because I think that's stupid and is almost borderline "this unit in my army should be better with this gun than everyone else, just because".
The fact is that you're ignoring that the fluff has changed, and so has the game and its mechanics. Stormbolters need to be better.
Now, with that out of the way, is my proposed profile a bit much? Maybe, I don't know. But I think that at a bare minimum it would be appropriate for Stormbolters to be Assault 3, thus gaining one extra shot. It's not much, but maybe it would become a cheaper alternative than a combi-weapon, instead of the never-take that it currently is.
SRSFACE wrote: @NorseSig: I'm with you, man. Complaining Salvo would hurt non-terminator units with Storm Bolters is essentially saying "this single unit in the entire game wouldn't be as good and they are already kind of bad!"
But it'd be fine. Literally no one I've ever met uses a storm bolter on a unit that isn't forced into it. That says to me it's a bad weapon. Hell, if they made it Salvo, it's still be a possible upgrade to that GK squad because at least they'd have the option of sitting on top of an objective and gaining a small rate of fire while doing so. Tactically there's potential.
Vehicles ignore salvo restrictions anyway so it'd be a minor upgrade to the entire Space Marine vehicle line. I think it makes a lot of sense, and definitely is an idea worth house-ruling to see if it's viable or not.
Making Stormbolters Salvo will not change the fact that there's only two ways Stormbolters are hitting the field:
1) a unit/model comes with one stock 2) as a spare gun to soak Weapon Destroyed results, so that a much more useful gun (like an Exorcist Launcher, or a Demolisher Cannon) is more likely to remain in the fight.
Complaining that Salvo Stormbolters would never be taken by non-Relentless infantry models that could help it, is valid. PAGKs are already kind of bad, Salvo SBs would make this problem even worse. Stormbolters are already never taken by any SM/SoB characters that have the option to, changing them from Assault 2 to Salvo whatever isn't going to change that.
The problem with Salvo for Stormbolters isn't that it cuts down the RoF if you move. It's the range loss. A Salvo 2/whatever Stormbolter is almost totally inferior to a regular Bolter, on account of never being able to eclipse a Bolter when moving around, and especially not anywhere beyond 12".
A good example of what that would look like is if you consider the DA book, and the dakka banner that they get which changes Bolters from Rapid Fire to Salvo 2/4. There are only two use cases for this banner:
1) You form a gunline. A tightly packed gunline that will get many pie plates to the face and then cease to exist. 2) You get a bunch of bikers together, and unleash 4 S4/AP5 shots that are also twin-linked. Because Bikes are Relentless and don't care about Salvo penalties.
Obviously one of these is actually a good idea, though I leave it as an exercise for the reader to discern which one that is.
In any case, Salvo Stormbolters will get used to make a gunline... which is bad game design. OR, they will only be fielded when a player has either no choice in the matter (IE, comes stock and can't be replaced), or the platform is Relentless.
In other words, best case? Salvo Stormbolters continue the status quo, with the minor caveat that those models which carry Stormbolters are slightly better under certain conditions. Worst case? Terminators and vehicles are the only times Stormbolters ever appear on the field.
Which is bad, IMO, especially considering that Stormbolters are a special weapon choice for Sisters players, and an option for almost every Marine/Sisters character in the entire game.
ADDENDUM: Forgot to go back through some other comments between here and my previous reply.
megatrons2nd wrote: I understand that simply being an elite unit shouldn't automatically make it cost more. The thing is...it does. There is no way a Howling Banshee should cost what it does, it is barely more effective than Storm Guardians, yet nearly costs twice as much. Of course, in GW's mind a power sword costs 15 points more in a Storm Guardian Squad too. I choose Banshees/Storm Guardians, as they are much easier to number crunch, with all Special rules lining up well.
So that's an excuse to allow Terminators to be blatantly and horrifically overcosted? Howling Banshees and Storm Guardians having cost issues is a separate problem. If it matters that much to you, then make a thread about it. I'm even going to take your word for it that Banshees cost too much for what they offer, since I don't really know. Since I don't really know, then I'd even throw my two cents in in favor of changes to make Banshees fairly costed.
By that logic, we should all give up and go home, since GW will almost certainly never see this thread and then make changes based on our feedback.
megatrons2nd wrote: I also now see where are disagreement stems from. You want them balanced to your troops choice, and I am looking to balance it against other Elite Choices. Thus the difference in opinion on ppm change. Based on using Tactical Squads, yes 28ppm is fine, but now we have to go adjust every other book to balance their Elite Choices to their Troop Choices. Some of them will adjust the other way too, just because things like the Riptide are under priced for it's capabilities as compared to the Troops Choice.
No, that's not the point of that comparison. My point is that Terminators do not offer any useful increase in capability compared to their competition. When you can fill your minimum required Troops choice to bring the same degree of firepower that Terminators can, in a more mobile form with more bodies, for the same price, then there's almost no reason to ever take Terminators. Why should I waste an Elites slot (not that Marines get many good Elites, but still) on something I can get in my Troops slots (of which I have twice as many), for the same point cost?
Now factor in the problem that 20 Tacs have just as many Bolter shots at 24", and twice as many at 12", compared to Terminators. And they get access to plas/grav/melta weapons. And cheap-as-chips transports to put them wherever you want.
Another factor in Termies vs Tac Marines is that the two units basically do the same job in the SM army. Riptides and FWs do very different things.
megatrons2nd wrote: Aren't Sternguard just a Tactical Squad moved to another slot though?
No; Sternguard have Veteran statlines (+1A, +1Ld compared to regular Marines), and come with Special Issue Ammunition, allowing them to choose several different profiles for their bolters; these profiles include a 2+ poison, ignores cover, AP3, and +6"/AP4 options. Sternguard also have the option to bring double special or double heavy, can take HFs (unlike Tac squads), and give every single Marine in the squad a combi-weapon.
You could, for example, take two 5-man units, all with combi-weapons, for less than the price of 10 Termies with two ACs. You can shave off ten points by using a single squad and then optionally Combat Squad them, and you've got around 100 points to play with. More than enough to give the squad a Razorback with a twin-linked AC, if you're obsessed with ACs anyway. You can mix in HFs, plas/grav/melta, and different transport/squad arrangement options to taste- when ten Sternguard all with combi-weapons costs almost 100 points less than ten Termies, then you've got room to play around with their equipment and transport options.
megatrons2nd wrote: The Riptide is another case, as the formula I run doesn't do well with Monstrous Creatures, or Vehicles.
Banshees, Scorpions, Incubi, Mandrakes, Stealth Suits, and Wracks do suffer the Elite Penalty. I'm sure I can find more if I had more books. It also doesn't mean my formula is right, but it works on most Troops choices, the offending units tend to be specialized units in a troops slot, like the Termigants, or was it Hormagaunts, anyway the one with no ranged weapons ended up being like 2 points to expensive in the previous Tyranid Codex. I haven't seen the new Codex so haven't checked for newer numbers. I've also recently adjusted my formula for adding in AP on melee weapons.
It use to be that Special rules were a "outnumbered" bonus, like ATSKNF was a bonus to Marines Because they cost 15 points at the time, and most non marine armies would outnumber them and overwhelm their ability to damage them, so they made it harder for them to completely flee the battle, thus giving them the ability to do more damage when lesser units would have fled the table completely. Yes I've been doing the "balance the game" thing a while. Each edition takes me back to square one, but time helps make the formula work better each time. Some one on the boards here has one for vehicles, haven't had the time to fully go over it though, the feed back from others seems to be good.
If other models suffer an "Elites penalty" where they are overcosted just because of the slot they are available in, then make a thread to discuss what could/should be done about it. Don't complain that other armies have "Overcosted Elites Syndrome" and try and use it as an excuse for why Terminators should not be cheaper or better. A far better approach is to say "hey, these units also have similar issues (IE, are overcosted/underperforming), what should we do to fix them?" instead of whining about it and trying to say that if some units have this problem then all of them should.
Because I can tell you that Sternguard certainly don't seem to suffer from "overcosted Elites Syndrome". I don't think Dreads do either, but Dreads have other problems.
Making Stormbolters Salvo will not change the fact that there's only two ways Stormbolters are hitting the field:
1) a unit/model comes with one stock
2) as a spare gun to soak Weapon Destroyed results, so that a much more useful gun (like an Exorcist Launcher, or a Demolisher Cannon) is more likely to remain in the fight.
Complaining that Salvo Stormbolters would never be taken by non-Relentless infantry models that could help it, is valid. PAGKs are already kind of bad, Salvo SBs would make this problem even worse. Stormbolters are already never taken by any SM/SoB characters that have the option to, changing them from Assault 2 to Salvo whatever isn't going to change that.
The problem with Salvo for Stormbolters isn't that it cuts down the RoF if you move. It's the range loss. A Salvo 2/whatever Stormbolter is almost totally inferior to a regular Bolter, on account of never being able to eclipse a Bolter when moving around, and especially not anywhere beyond 12".
A good example of what that would look like is if you consider the DA book, and the dakka banner that they get which changes Bolters from Rapid Fire to Salvo 2/4. There are only two use cases for this banner:
1) You form a gunline. A tightly packed gunline that will get many pie plates to the face and then cease to exist.
2) You get a bunch of bikers together, and unleash 4 S4/AP5 shots that are also twin-linked. Because Bikes are Relentless and don't care about Salvo penalties.
Obviously one of these is actually a good idea, though I leave it as an exercise for the reader to discern which one that is.
In any case, Salvo Stormbolters will get used to make a gunline... which is bad game design. OR, they will only be fielded when a player has either no choice in the matter (IE, comes stock and can't be replaced), or the platform is Relentless.
In other words, best case? Salvo Stormbolters continue the status quo, with the minor caveat that those models which carry Stormbolters are slightly better under certain conditions. Worst case? Terminators and vehicles are the only times Stormbolters ever appear on the field.
Which is bad, IMO, especially considering that Stormbolters are a special weapon choice for Sisters players, and an option for almost every Marine/Sisters character in the entire game.
My intention for salvo stormbolters is that they keep their range.
Another alternative might be is storm bolters act like a assault 2 24" pistol and grant an extra attack even if the weapon has Specialist but excluding two-handed for obvious reasons or they could forgo the extra attack to shoot at full BS with the storm bolter during overwatch.
As in, the Salvo range penalty would be ignored by Stormbolters?
I mean, if that's the case then for one it's not really a Salvo weapon (as it ignores one of the core mechanics of Salvo weaponry), and for two that halfway makes sense. I apologize for some of my aggression on the matter, it's just that I really do believe that Salvo mechanics as-is and applied to Stormbolters would not actually change the status quo, and would probably make it worse in fact.
I don't really like the "Stormbolter=big pistol" option, as Stormbolters are actually quite substantial weapons even if they are one-handed by Termies, though the "full BS in overwatch" is an interesting idea.
The only issue I see with it is that you'll probably still be tarpitted, or wiped out anyways, depending on what unit in particular is carrying an overwatch-buffed Stormbolter.
That said, I do still stand by the fact that Stormbolters with Assault 3 would be a usable improvement over the current- particularly in reference to Sisters, since for whatever strange reason the SoB squads get Stormbolters as a special weapon (side note: Sisters squads need better special/heavy selections).
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Terminators either need to be fixed defensively, so they become better bullet sponges without increasing damage output, or defence stays the same and output is increased.
Salvo 2/4 storm bolters (maybe with shred?)
or
+4 FNP.
4+ FNP instead of an Invulnerable save would be a good plan maybe with a small price drop. Makes them tough, and gets rid of that stupid 5++ that was added because of the durability complaints in the first place. The Anti Tank weapon should nuke a Terminator, and the small arms fire will receive 2 saves against it, as well as those not anti tank weapons that have AP 2, like the Starcannon and such.
Alternatively you could go with standard FnP and leave the 5++. No price drop on this though.
Hmmm, I never thought of that really, I was thinking give them 4+ FNP on top of the invulnerable save, but that would give them 2 saves against a lascannnon (which is unreasonable) but also 2 against plasma (which I don't really think is, as they are one of the main problems for termies).
4+ FNP would give them a decent chance of surviving plasma in general, but also not giving them 2 against a lascannon.
Maybe.... 4+ FNP on top of the 2+, with the option to once per game turn, re-rollable FNP if they are all base to base (like the deathwing Knights), which would also make them slightly more secure when deep striking unless the enemy want to shell out a LOT of heavy anti-tank firepower.
How would this be affected by something like the Iron Hands chapter tactics or something like an apothecary?
Iron hands would get no benefit (they shouldn't have many suits anyway, fluffy), well either they don't get any benefit, or they get a 6+ inv save also but are restricted to either 1 term or 1 assault squad (again, fluffy), and apoth's would make it so one failed FNP per turn could be re-rolled rather than boosting it also.
Whiskey144 wrote: As in, the Salvo range penalty would be ignored by Stormbolters?
I mean, if that's the case then for one it's not really a Salvo weapon (as it ignores one of the core mechanics of Salvo weaponry), and for two that halfway makes sense. I apologize for some of my aggression on the matter, it's just that I really do believe that Salvo mechanics as-is and applied to Stormbolters would not actually change the status quo, and would probably make it worse in fact.
I don't really like the "Stormbolter=big pistol" option, as Stormbolters are actually quite substantial weapons even if they are one-handed by Termies, though the "full BS in overwatch" is an interesting idea.
The only issue I see with it is that you'll probably still be tarpitted, or wiped out anyways, depending on what unit in particular is carrying an overwatch-buffed Stormbolter.
That said, I do still stand by the fact that Stormbolters with Assault 3 would be a usable improvement over the current- particularly in reference to Sisters, since for whatever strange reason the SoB squads get Stormbolters as a special weapon (side note: Sisters squads need better special/heavy selections).
Yeah it isn't really salvo, but that was the best term I could come up with without a huge wall of text. Which the explaination would take anyway so fail there. I over reacted myself. Maybe make them assault 3 with a full bs during overwatch? I am worried that it has potential for being too powerful there for the 5 points it costs. Maybe the full BS overwatch ability fires at salvo 2/3.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron hands would get no benefit (they shouldn't have many suits anyway, fluffy), well either they don't get any benefit, or they get a 6+ inv save also but are restricted to either 1 term or 1 assault squad (again, fluffy), and apoth's would make it so one failed FNP per turn could be re-rolled rather than boosting it also.
That is what I thought, but I thought I better ask for the sake of clarification.
Something to note y'all. Putting more wounds in the squad by adding wounds, FNP, or other saves won't increase damage output. Putting more wounds in the squad by adding more characters, will. Less models means you'll spend more time stuck in Tarpits, since you can't cut them away as quickly. You get less shooting. And you'll also be more vulnerable to getting doubled out to ID.
Doubling wounds is a solution but it's necessarily as strong as a pure points reduction. This way, you're also increasing effective damage. You also get the chance to run smaller squads and economize points, which can help list building.
For example, would you rather have:
10x Terminators for 200pts;
5x 2-wound Termies for 200pts; or
5x Terminators for 100?
It's definitely something to consider. Please not points values are not to scale
Yoyoyo wrote: Something to note y'all. Putting more wounds in the squad by adding wounds, FNP, or other saves won't increase damage output. Putting more wounds in the squad by adding more characters, will. Less models means you'll spend more time stuck in Tarpits, since you can't cut them away as quickly. You get less shooting. And you'll also be more vulnerable to getting doubled out to ID.
Doubling wounds is a solution but it's necessarily as strong as a pure points reduction. This way, you're also increasing effective damage. You also get the chance to run smaller squads and economize points, which can help list building.
For example, would you rather have:
10x Terminators for 200pts;
5x 2-wound Termies for 200pts; or
5x Terminators for 100?
It's definitely something to consider. Please not points values are not to scale
Personally, I would take 5 Terminators for 100pts. A 4+ or 5+ FNP instead of a 5++ Invul at that price point with a bump to the ability of Stormbolters and maybe 4 heavy weapon upgrades total for the squad (the upgrades would boost price point) would go a long way to fix terminators and the TDAHQ option.
The point is that by lowering the points, rather than adding wounds, it puts flexibility in your list by letting you build smaller squads. A 10-man Termie squad is LoW level in points. Put it in a LR and it just gets silly.
Cheaper, MSU-style Termie squads would give you more flexibility in your list, on the battlefield, and would start overstretching the enemy's special weapons. Do you want to DS 3x 5-man squads against 3x Iontides (which can double them out with ID), or 6 combat squads? Now all of a sudden, DS is viable and you get to assault. Plus it's easier to box the enemy in with Terminators all over the opponent's backfield.
Incidentally, 200pts of 2-wound LC performs more or less the same against elite CC infantry, but performs poorer against GEQ where due to less models you have less damage output. We've noted that's an issue with Boyz (probably worse with with Genestealers). Also, 225pts of 2-wound TH/SS nearly one-shots a 200pt Lictor Brood, killing 3 out of 4 models while losing only a single Terminator. Not balanced IMO (but very fluffy!)
A points value change is not glamourous -- no special rules, no special weapons, no rerolls, no complex BS. But the implications are huge. It increases damage, it increses survivability, it increases tactical flexibility, and it lets you choose your list with more finesse. It's also simple for your opponents -- a Terminator is still a Terminator. And for this reason it's probably the best solution.
Is this background wise (which IMO should inform some of the TT game design), or is this the "they do this thing better than most of that armies options so this thing should be their role" purpose?
Because if it's the former then the primary purpose of Terminator-equipped Marines was to be an incredibly durable infantry unit when fighting in extreme close quarters and boarding actions. There's a reason why the titular Space Hulk game has only Terminator models, after all- and it's primarily due to the better resilience of a TDA-equipped Marine in the extremely close confines of a Space Hulk than a dude in PA.
Exactly, their role is to be in close quarters and punching things. The storm bolters are a way to soften up the target a little. They worked better when assault made a bigger difference versus rapidfire weapons.
How about we make them a little easier to assault with?
Allow assaults from Deepstrike, but the assault counts as through difficult terrain and disordered. Representing the awkward nature of such an assault.
This means that many other troops become much more useful as well, andyou'd be willing to risk it and deep strike much closer to the enemy. The terminators powerfists mean the difficult terrain is negated in a sense. 2+ is much more survivable in combat, especially if you're picking the target more freely.
The point is that by lowering the points, rather than adding wounds, it puts flexibility in your list by letting you build smaller squads. A 10-man Termie squad is LoW level in points. Put it in a LR and it just gets silly.
Cheaper, MSU-style Termie squads would give you more flexibility in your list, on the battlefield, and would start overstretching the enemy's special weapons. Do you want to DS 3x 5-man squads against 3x Iontides (which can double them out with ID), or 6 combat squads? Now all of a sudden, DS is viable and you get to assault. Plus it's easier to box the enemy in with Terminators all over the opponent's backfield.
Incidentally, 200pts of 2-wound LC performs more or less the same against elite CC infantry, but performs poorer against GEQ where due to less models you have less damage output. We've noted that's an issue (probably worse with with Genestealers). Also, 225pts of 2-wound TH/SS nearly one-shots a 200pt Lictor Brood, killing 3 out of 4 models while losing only a single Terminator. Not balanced IMO (but very fluffy!)
A points value change is not glamourous -- no special rules, no special weapons, no rerolls, no complex BS. But the implications are huge. It increases damage, it increses survivability, it increases tactical flexibility, and it lets you choose your list with more finesse. It's also simple for your opponents -- a Terminator is still a Terminator. And for this reason it's probably the best solution.
I've concluded after some points made in this thread, that the most viable options to fix terminators either revolve around reducing point cost or giving them a defensive upgrade (FNP, armour save or AP reduction). However, reducing them to the right amount, which I would argue needs to be 25-28 ppm would unfortunately tip the scales around too much in the SM list - So, making them cheaper would require more point cost retooling in other entries in the SM list - in order for them to be balanced.
Adding a buff might actually be the simpler solution.
Is this background wise (which IMO should inform some of the TT game design), or is this the "they do this thing better than most of that armies options so this thing should be their role" purpose?
Because if it's the former then the primary purpose of Terminator-equipped Marines was to be an incredibly durable infantry unit when fighting in extreme close quarters and boarding actions. There's a reason why the titular Space Hulk game has only Terminator models, after all- and it's primarily due to the better resilience of a TDA-equipped Marine in the extremely close confines of a Space Hulk than a dude in PA.
Exactly, their role is to be in close quarters and punching things. The storm bolters are a way to soften up the target a little. They worked better when assault made a bigger difference versus rapidfire weapons.
How about we make them a little easier to assault with?
Allow assaults from Deepstrike, but the assault counts as through difficult terrain and disordered. Representing the awkward nature of such an assault.
This means that many other troops become much more useful as well, andyou'd be willing to risk it and deep strike much closer to the enemy. The terminators powerfists mean the difficult terrain is negated in a sense. 2+ is much more survivable in combat, especially if you're picking the target more freely.
Though getting them in close combat would help somewhat with their usefulness, I think there are a number of issues with your proposal still:
Why would terminators gain this and not other deep striking units? If anything, I would see terminators having more of an issue getting into close combat because of their lumbering nature.
The only viable way to use them would be DS?
What if they are not in charge range when they DS?
What if they are not deep striking?
How does this fix their more universal problem regarding point cost efficiency - compared to other units?
....
The main issues at hand is survivability and role: they die essentially 17% slower than tactical marines and have less tactical flexibility than any other SM unit in game. They either need to be much cheaper or get a static buff to be useful.
I think a secondary problem is how cheap tactical marines are. When I play space marine players its a rare game where they bring anything more then the bare minimum of troops. Space Marines are possibly the best standard infantry unit in the game. Bring a 3-5 Tactical Squads and you have 6-10 Combat squaded units with 5 heavy weapon teams and 5 assault teams with a sergeant and a flamer....
140pts basic with 40pts extra for missile launcher with flak, flamer and a veteran sergeant. so 180pts for a rather badass unit. 5 of them and you basically have a 1k list with room for a good commander. THIS is where terminators fail. Why bother with the price for a terminator squad that does the same thing as a tactical squad but better and for 3x the cost per model? Throw in some Rhino's and call it a day.
Though getting them in close combat would help somewhat with their usefulness, I think there are a number of issues with your proposal still:
Why would terminators gain this and not other deep striking units? If anything, I would see terminators having more of an issue getting into close combat because of their lumbering nature.
The only viable way to use them would be DS?
What if they are not in charge range when they DS?
What if they are not deep striking?
How does this fix their more universal problem regarding point cost efficiency - compared to other units?
....
The main issues at hand is survivability and role: they die essentially 17% slower than tactical marines and have less tactical flexibility than any other SM unit in game. They either need to be much cheaper or get a static buff to be useful.
I would give this to all units that Deepstrike actually... I'm all for assaults from non-assault transports being either Disordered or Difficult Terrain also.
And basically, yes, the only viable way to use them would be Deepstrike. Because that's what they are meant to be used for, deepstriking into a narrow confined area and punching things up close. People trying to walk them around in anything approaching the open, or spending time shooting with them, are upset that die; but that is a situation where someone in this suit of armour would get shot and die!
Martel732 wrote: Tactical marines are not cheap compared to their actual efficacy.
According to you martel that means that landraiders are broken, terminators are broken, and now Tactical marines are broken....>WTF IS NOT BROKEN IN YOUR F*CKING CODEX! seriously you don't have many units left to use in your lists if you don't use these.
Martel732 wrote: Tactical marines are not cheap compared to their actual efficacy.
According to you martel that means that landraiders are broken, terminators are broken, and now Tactical marines are broken....>WTF IS NOT BROKEN IN YOUR F*CKING CODEX! seriously you don't have many units left to use in your lists if you don't use these.
Not true at all. I just consider those some of the worst units in the codex. There's not much to say about the better units like Sternguard, drop pod ASM, bikers, attack bikers, preds, etc.
The assault from DS idea is not a great one. It's not because of balance, but because it reduces player agency. Player A can assault, but Player B can do very little but deploy defensively and watch. Not necessarily fun for a lot of people. That's why it's not a rule, along with why FMCs cannot assault from flight.
Buffs and new rules are simpler to houserule, yes. It's more difficult to apply to a wide audience because all of them will argue about the "proper solution", question your judgement, and fight with each other. Sound familiar?
Changing points shakes up the meta, that's the idea. It will most definitely affect the SM codex, and that's alright. It's an ongoing process for the entire game -- adjusting LC Terminators to 25ppm is basically part of a bracketing process that allows us to arrive at the final proper value. It may sound complicated, but it's not. We basically did the theory part in the last page. Now we apply it to the game, watch carefully, see if it works, and make necessary changes with the feedback we get. It's a lot of work though, yes.
Assault Terminators are less complicated than Tacs, but I think 25ppm is fine for LCs. TH/SS are somewhere around 40-45ppm, which is about equivalent to MegaNobz. The deployment system is the next real issue, being the Land Raider/DS. TH/SS will never make good DS without setting them up first, there are simply too few models. Their combat power is already very much in line with what it should be. 6x 5-man squads of LC Termies might be able to pull DS off, though they can't kill any target in the game. Sounds about right.
I think that's maybe acceptable? The Land Raider is the next problem to address regarding TH/SS Termies. Tacs are way, way more complicated with all their options, I think you want to take that on last.
Meganobz have 2 less BS 1 Less init, 2 less leadership and zero access to heavy weapons beyond Kombi Rokkitz. And most importantly, 0 access to invul saves.
Terminators have 1 Less attack and 1 less wound then Meganobz. and zero access to a CHEAP (read that paper thin) transport.
both cost EXACTLY the same. So if were reducing Terminators to 28pts a model then I want my Meganobz to be the same price as well. Make my man missile even cheaper.
Ghazkuul wrote: Meganobz have 2 less BS 1 Less init, 2 less leadership and zero access to heavy weapons beyond Kombi Rokkitz. And most importantly, 0 access to invul saves.
Terminators have 1 Less attack and 1 less wound then Meganobz. and zero access to a CHEAP (read that paper thin) transport.
both cost EXACTLY the same. So if were reducing Terminators to 28pts a model then I want my Meganobz to be the same price as well. Make my man missile even cheaper.
I'd rather make terminators worth 40 or more than reduce them to 28. However, as it stands now, 28 is the most I'd pay for one because that's double the cost of a tac marine and die at half the rate to non AP 2 weaponry.
Ghazkuul wrote: Thats absolutely fine, just so long as my Meganobz which are basically carbon copies of Terminators, the same price.
I'd argue the extra wound makes them slightly better in the current meta; ie they can suck down twice as many grav shots, for example. But I get your point. Neither unit are something I'd ever consider using as they currently are written. I'm picky like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yoyoyo wrote: MegaNobz actually make short work of LC Assault Terminators, even at 25ppm. The AP3 can't get through the 2+ Ork armor.
I think LC terminators are pretty much garbage, though. AP 3 is actually pretty poor the way things are now.
Yoyoyo, the basic terminator with fist and storm bolter has the same price as a meganob. Martel who is a self hating space marine thinks that his termies should be reduced by 12pts a model. and im fine with that so long as my meganobz are reduced as well. And when that happens that means my regular nobs will need to drop in price to make them viable as elite choices since Meganobz just became so cheap. So in the end what you lot of successfully done is broke the game :-)
Ghazkuul wrote: Yoyoyo, the basic terminator with fist and storm bolter has the same price as a meganob. Martel who is a self hating space marine thinks that his termies should be reduced by 12pts a model. and im fine with that so long as my meganobz are reduced as well. And when that happens that means my regular nobs will need to drop in price to make them viable as elite choices since Meganobz just became so cheap. So in the end what you lot of successfully done is broke the game :-)
I didn't say that. I said I'd prefer they be made worth 40 pts and the most I'd pay for the current incarnation is 28 pts because of the way the shooting phase of this game works. Making terminators not garbage isn't breaking the game. The game's already broken. Eldar are legal to play.
You would argue that having 1 extra wound is worth having a ranged attack that does something, leadership so you dont run away when you lose one model? ohh sorry i forgot to mention....The 5+ invul save that Nobz don't have access to.
Keep in mind most of the time Meganobz aren't shot with grav gunz its lascannons that double them and take away the armor so insta death for them. 40pt model dies to a lascannon dev marine...garbage.
"worth having a ranged attack that does something"
That's one of my primary complaints. Terminators' ranged attacks don't do anything in practice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: You would argue that having 1 extra wound is worth having a ranged attack that does something, leadership so you dont run away when you lose one model? ohh sorry i forgot to mention....The 5+ invul save that Nobz don't have access to.
Keep in mind most of the time Meganobz aren't shot with grav gunz its lascannons that double them and take away the armor so insta death for them. 40pt model dies to a lascannon dev marine...garbage.
Since the AP 2 vehicle nerf, lascannons have gotten a lot more scarce where I play.
2 shots at 24 inches S4AP5 meaning you kill 8/6th regular orks per gun per turn. Not wound mind you...KILL. 5 Termies shooting = 8ish dead orks for a shooting phase that you think is garbage. In return the nobz have a twin linked shoota which is S4 Ap6 ranged 18 assault 2. Same principle as the Storm Bolter except shorter range and less chance of hitting.
Ghazkuul wrote: 2 shots at 24 inches S4AP5 meaning you kill 8/6th regular orks per gun per turn. Not wound mind you...KILL. 5 Termies shooting = 8ish dead orks for a shooting phase that you think is garbage. In return the nobz have a twin linked shoota which is S4 Ap6 ranged 18 assault 2. Same principle as the Storm Bolter except shorter range and less chance of hitting.
8 dead Orks is how much compared to the terminator unit's cost? Yeah, try again if you think that is meaningful shooting from such an expensive unit. They might as well not have those guns, they are so weak in the current meta. Xeno players with cheap models always focus on how many models they are picking up and don't think about how expensive the marine unit is that is required to put out those shots. Marine shooting is horribly inefficient except for a select few units.
Bringing more wounds to the table is so valuable now in the era of Riptide pie plates and other such tomfoolery.
Martel you are looking at their guns and thinking "40pts for a storm bolter..garbage" What you need to think is 2+ save 5++ invul, high leadership, Power fist standard, 2 attacks base. That is why the terminator is 40pts a model.
You cherry pick stats out of your unit and compare it to other units. You compared terminators shooting to warp spiders but you don't compare survivability, just shooting. You compare CC oriented units and their ability to kill 2+ units. And then you fail to factor in their shooting of which they usually don't have any.
"Martel you are looking at their guns and thinking "40pts for a storm bolter..garbage" What you need to think is 2+ save 5++ invul, high leadership, Power fist standard, 2 attacks base. That is why the terminator is 40pts a model. "
But it's hard to get all those factors into play. It also doesn't change the math that they are less durable to nearly every weapon than a tac marine. Pathetic. They will almost always get shot to death before they can use most of the stats you listed off. They are perhaps the worst unit in the marine codex. And they have some stiff competition, let me tell you.
And again "They will almost always get shot to death before they can use most of the stats"
Yes and while im focus firing your scary terminators the other 5-10 units in your army are unhindered by the firepower im directing at your terminators, they do their job absolutely fine. they draw fire away from the rest of your army.
Ghazkuul wrote: And again "They will almost always get shot to death before they can use most of the stats"
Yes and while im focus firing your scary terminators the other 5-10 units in your army are unhindered by the firepower im directing at your terminators, they do their job absolutely fine. they draw fire away from the rest of your army.
Sadly, it doesn't take that many hits to cripple terminators. If they actually functioned as a true firepower sink, maybe. But they don't. They have crap durability/pt. I've seen a Tau list dust 15 Deathwing terminators in a single turn. You run out of terminators really fast at that rate.
Like I said, switch armies dude, clearly your getting destroyed in your area by other armies and you can't figure out how to win without buffing every model in your army.
Ghazkuul wrote: Like I said, switch armies dude, clearly your getting destroyed in your area by other armies and you can't figure out how to win without buffing every model in your army.
No, I beat other marines just fine. Except Tiggy stars. Not much I can do there with BA. And many of them are taking units that I wouldn't touch, and I am capitalizing on this. It doesn't sound like you are horribly choosy with your Ork lists, so I'd probably do fine against you as well.
I would give this to all units that Deepstrike actually... I'm all for assaults from non-assault transports being either Disordered or Difficult Terrain also.
And basically, yes, the only viable way to use them would be Deepstrike. Because that's what they are meant to be used for, deepstriking into a narrow confined area and punching things up close. People trying to walk them around in anything approaching the open, or spending time shooting with them, are upset that die; but that is a situation where someone in this suit of armour would get shot and die!
I agree, I advocate the use of SM as a rapid insertion force - like all SM's should really (lore wise). As to how much grace we should give them though (getting there and surviving) is the better, and related question in this thread.
If they are meant to get in and accomplish one thing, that's fine to a degree... but tactically that narrows them down so much that it sacrifices a lot of flexibility in an army - for how expensive they are right now. You better hope they take care of whatever you sent them after (which is a rough selection for them alone) and that they pay for themselves in points or somehow justify whatever tactical options you gave up to field them. There really isn't much room for forgiveness with using them.
In general, it's a tall order for them to fill already, and one that isn't going to change significantly enough by giving them disordered assault.
Ghaz, I agree with you, but overpriced isn't actually the real issue with Tacs. The issue is that Tac Terminators are saddled with that PF by default, it jacks up their default price and completely ruins their flexibility and purpose. MegaNobz are assault units, they're not trying to double-hat. The good news is the solution is actually pretty simple.
If we let Tac Terminators take a cheaper Power Weapon, they come out to about 30pts with a Storm Bolter. This seems about ballpark. You can now roll those points savings into your special weapons and get your MSU on with a 150pt DS squad. Let them take another special weapon per 5-man det, and you have a punchy unit that doesn't require a drop pod but still isn't too expensive to risk sacrificing. They certainly won't be taking on MegaNobz easily with S6 Power Axes, or AP3 anything, but they get a lot more flexible (and hence tactical).
Makes sense right? It doesn't break the game, and it gets Termies back on the table. I think that's about the best that you can do.
In conclusion :
- 25ppm, Assault Terminator w/ 2x LC - 45ppm, Assault Terminator w/ TH, SS - 30ppm, Tac Terminator w/ Storm Bolter and Power Weapon
- 40ppm, Tac Terminator w/ Storm Bolter and Power Fist
- Special weapons can be costed subsequently.
Giving Tac Terminators Split Fire would help a lot too, they can pop their special weapons at the relevant target and use their SB/Power Weapons against whatever else makes sense relevant to their assault capability.
Ghazkuul wrote: Martel you are looking at their guns and thinking "40pts for a storm bolter..garbage" What you need to think is 2+ save 5++ invul, high leadership, Power fist standard, 2 attacks base. That is why the terminator is 40pts a model.
You cherry pick stats out of your unit and compare it to other units. You compared terminators shooting to warp spiders but you don't compare survivability, just shooting. You compare CC oriented units and their ability to kill 2+ units. And then you fail to factor in their shooting of which they usually don't have any.
If you really think that is why they are 40ish pts a model, you should remember that the 5+ invuln was a tac-on 'chapter approved' to terminator survivability issues.... back in 3rd. I don't remember them changing the point value by giving them that. So, as to the metrics of their point values, GW handles it pretty subjectively.
I get a kick out of your posts man.... just really disagree with your point about this.
Edit: FYI, I'm trying not to make this a cherry picking issue myself - by comparing other army lists and what not. I find that pointless as I see the problem with terminators is more of an internally consistent problem that's been magnified with the introduction of centurions and flyers.
NorseSig wrote: Yeah it isn't really salvo, but that was the best term I could come up with without a huge wall of text. Which the explaination would take anyway so fail there. I over reacted myself. Maybe make them assault 3 with a full bs during overwatch? I am worried that it has potential for being too powerful there for the 5 points it costs. Maybe the full BS overwatch ability fires at salvo 2/3.
Then I definitely apologize for my excessive aggression over that. I'm not sure though, how Salvo 2/3 would interact with a full-BS overwatch trait... then again, I don't actually know off-hand how Salvo and Overwatch interact anyways, and whether or not there are some odd exceptions regarding the two.
In any case, I think my current preferred option, in the interest of simplifying the mechanics, would be to make Stormbolters as follows:
24" Assault 3 S4 AP5 Shred
This is a substantial mathematical loss in firepower compared to my proposed additional traits, but it's also mechanically simpler on account of reusing existing traits. Arguably it makes it better at fighting T5+, though with only S4 it's still not going to be helpful against anything particularly big and nasty. For the bonused Overwatch profile, then it could fire as follows:
24" Salvo 2/3 S4 AP5 (Overwatch bonus; "Wall of Fire" might be a good name and syncs well with the Template weapon=Wall of Death shtick)
I'd also say that if Shred is incorporated, you should have to pick between using Shred and "holding shots in reserve", so to speak, in order to get the Overwatch bonus.
Yoyoyo wrote: Something to note y'all. Putting more wounds in the squad by adding wounds, FNP, or other saves won't increase damage output. Putting more wounds in the squad by adding more characters, will. Less models means you'll spend more time stuck in Tarpits, since you can't cut them away as quickly. You get less shooting. And you'll also be more vulnerable to getting doubled out to ID.
Doubling wounds is a solution but it's necessarily as strong as a pure points reduction. This way, you're also increasing effective damage. You also get the chance to run smaller squads and economize points, which can help list building.
For example, would you rather have:
10x Terminators for 200pts;
5x 2-wound Termies for 200pts; or
5x Terminators for 100?
It's definitely something to consider. Please not points values are not to scale
My preference is to make Stormbolters worthwhile, expand the heavy weapon options, and allow 2 heavies per 5 dudes. Probably also need to make some heavies cheaper, as HBs and ACs both are overcosted. Making them 2 Wounds would be kind of... odd. Would it be a trait of TDA? In which case characters could start taking TDA for a bonus wound, which seems like it could be... inconvenient.
Slaanesh-Devotee wrote: Exactly, their role is to be in close quarters and punching things. The storm bolters are a way to soften up the target a little. They worked better when assault made a bigger difference versus rapidfire weapons.
I'd merely like to point out that the kind of things powerfists are good at punching to death are on the opposite end of the target spectrum that Stormbolters are good at killing. As in, powerfists want to be punching T6+, while Stormbolters want to be shooting T3 or at most T4 things. Very different target types.
Ghazkuul wrote: I think a secondary problem is how cheap tactical marines are. When I play space marine players its a rare game where they bring anything more then the bare minimum of troops. Space Marines are possibly the best standard infantry unit in the game. Bring a 3-5 Tactical Squads and you have 6-10 Combat squaded units with 5 heavy weapon teams and 5 assault teams with a sergeant and a flamer....
140pts basic with 40pts extra for missile launcher with flak, flamer and a veteran sergeant. so 180pts for a rather badass unit. 5 of them and you basically have a 1k list with room for a good commander. THIS is where terminators fail. Why bother with the price for a terminator squad that does the same thing as a tactical squad but better and for 3x the cost per model? Throw in some Rhino's and call it a day.
Aside from the part where you claim Tac Marines are actually capable, you are somewhat correct. It's not that Tacs are too cheap (much cheaper units that are far more effective exist all over the place... not really in the SM book, unfortunately), it's that Termies are too expensive. The Tac Marine is the baseline from which performance can be measured.
The fact that I could fill the mandatory troops requirement with two Tac squads, with Rhinos and special/heavy options, for the same cost as a single ten-strong Termi squad with 2 ACs, and get both more shots, deadlier shots (plasma/melta), and more versatile weapons (plasma/ML), means that Tac Termies are underperforming and need improvements.
Yoyoyo wrote: Ghaz, I agree with you, but overpriced isn't actually the real issue with Tacs. The issue is that Tac Terminators are saddled with that PF by default, it jacks up their default price and completely ruins their flexibility and purpose. MegaNobz are assault units, they're not trying to double-hat.
(emphasis mine)
Oh God, this this this this this. If Tac Termies were a melee unit, then most of their upgrades would be melee-related. It may come as a surprise Ghaz, but Tac Terminator upgrades are almost all guns. Oh sure, you can give every dude a chainfist if you want, but the "real" upgrades are either the AC, CML, or HF. IE, guns.
You want to compare MANz and Terminators? Try looking at Assault Termies instead, as both Assault Termies and MANz are meant to be punching things to death. Tac Termies are supposed to be shooty, and for whatever reason GW decreed that (almost) all Tac Termies must also carry power fists.
Yoyoyo wrote: The good news is the solution is actually pretty simple.
If we let Tac Terminators take a cheaper Power Weapon, they come out to about 30pts with a Storm Bolter. This seems about ballpark. You can now roll those points savings into your special weapons and get your MSU on with a 150pt DS squad. Let them take another special weapon per 5-man det, and you have a punchy unit that doesn't require a drop pod but still isn't too expensive to risk sacrificing. They certainly won't be taking on MegaNobz easily with S6 Power Axes, or AP3 anything, but they get a lot more flexible (and hence tactical).
Makes sense right? It doesn't break the game, and it gets Termies back on the table. I think that's about the best that you can do.
In conclusion :
- 25ppm, Assault Terminator w/ 2x LC - 45ppm, Assault Terminator w/ TH, SS - 30ppm, Tac Terminator w/ Storm Bolter and Power Weapon
- 40ppm, Tac Terminator w/ Storm Bolter and Power Fist
- Special weapons can be costed subsequently.
Giving Tac Terminators Split Fire would help a lot too, they can pop their special weapons at the relevant target and use their SB/Power Weapons against whatever else makes sense relevant to their assault capability.
I generally like this idea, minus the part where it somewhat ignores fixing Stormbolters (there's quite a few places that you can get SBs that the only reason to take it is to soak Weapon Destroyed results. Seriously, that should not be a thing).
