Would giving Terminators the option of replacing Deep Strike with Jump packs (mini, ventable reactors built into the terminator suit) be an option you would be willing to consider for Terminators? What should be the cost ... 5 pts/model? Free?

They would still have Deep Strike since the Jump type comes with that. Indeed Jump would make Termies much more worth it, but only if it was about a 5-10pt upgrade.
But sadly, it would probably a 15-20pt upgrade, so Termies would still not be that great.

Indeed, Jump Termies exist already and no one takes them competitively. Check out Blood Angel Sanguinary Guard. They many has Artificer Armour rather than Termie armour, but a 2+ is a 2+. the only thing that makes SGs different is the lack of invul save.

I'm not a fan of the idea, personally. Part of the identity of terminators is that they're ridiculously heavy, bulky slabs of armor that don't move as gracefully as their power armored counterparts. I feel like letting them jump around 12" a turn would kind of take away from this part of their identity. It would be like having initiative 5 orks with fleet or Tau infantry that are better in melee than death company. It just doesn't match their shtick.

Also, my first instinct regarding giving them jump packs is to change their type to jump infantry.... which would give them deepstrike. You could make a special rule taking deepstrike away, but that just feels odd.

What's your intention in considering giving them jump packs? What would you like to accomplish?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

And yes, I know that terminators aren't very effective right now and that this might help them somewhat.

Terminators base cost is too high as it is.

Any extra cost adds on before you even consider weapons upgrades.

Adding weapons +jump packs plus terminator premium.
Gets expensive.

And there already vanguard, assault marines, sang guard, death company etc.
What does it do adding another jump.option. When vanguard could just bring a pretty similar loadout, and are fluffy.

SG look so good on paper, too. 33 pts for 2+ armor, jump pack, veteran stat line and a power weapon. But 7th ed just gaks all over them.

From a thematic point of view this sounds like the Dawn of War 2 assault teleport ability, which I'd think would be a long charge move with Hammer of Wrath as opposed to a change to the unit type.

I wonder how balanced it would be if Terminators could shunt like Grey Knight Dreadknights/Interceptors can.

 Vankraken wrote:
I wonder how balanced it would be if Terminators could shunt like Grey Knight Dreadknights/Interceptors can.

More balanced than letting Dreadknights do it, that's for sure. Handing a risk-free nigh-uncounterable 43" threat range to a gun that effectively RFPs any infantry that doesn't have at least a 3+ was a terrible design decision.

(Also if the Dreadknight were weaker they might actually try and fix the rest of the Codex instead of trying to prop up comically overpriced infantry with the goddamn baby carrier...)

*deep breath*

Rant done. The shunt move would be interesting, but from a game role perspective it's not that different from the unit having Deep Strike and it has the design problem of being a rule the other guy doesn't get to interact with. Frooping a unit through their defenses and parking a melee deathstar in their face is going to be by necessity either useless (because the unit gets shot to death too easily) or completely unfun (because you get to steamroll in melee too easily), there isn't really room for a middle ground.

I think having a "mini-shunt" move would be interesting. Instead of a once-per-game 30" shunt like the DKs, what about an 18" relocate ability? Remove the unit from the board an place them within 18" as if Deep Striking, but they only scatter D6 and cannot charge afterwards. They can choose to do this every turn.

I'm not sure that allowing it every turn would really match the established fluff, but I like the idea of letting them do a once/game shunt (mini or otherwise) if they didn't deepstrike. Basically representing the idea that whomever is manning the teleporter tech has been spending their time readying the next jump.

 Galef wrote:
I think having a "mini-shunt" move would be interesting. Instead of a once-per-game 30" shunt like the DKs, what about an 18" relocate ability? Remove the unit from the board an place them within 18" as if Deep Striking, but they only scatter D6 and cannot charge afterwards. They can choose to do this every turn.

It sort of exacerbates the core issue, though, doesn't it? The fundamental problem with Terminators is that they're paying way too much for mediocre shooting because everyone's forced to pay for a powerfist in a pricing model that's been calibrated against the costs HQ models pay for powerfists, and they have a hard time getting into melee unless you're going to invest five hundred points in a squad and a Land Raider that's going to lose to anything that would let them make their points back. Giving them a shunt that prohibits charging doesn't really help them survive to melee.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I think having a "mini-shunt" move would be interesting. Instead of a once-per-game 30" shunt like the DKs, what about an 18" relocate ability? Remove the unit from the board an place them within 18" as if Deep Striking, but they only scatter D6 and cannot charge afterwards. They can choose to do this every turn.

It sort of exacerbates the core issue, though, doesn't it? The fundamental problem with Terminators is that they're paying way too much for mediocre shooting because everyone's forced to pay for a powerfist in a pricing model that's been calibrated against the costs HQ models pay for powerfists, and they have a hard time getting into melee unless you're going to invest five hundred points in a squad and a Land Raider that's going to lose to anything that would let them make their points back. Giving them a shunt that prohibits charging doesn't really help them survive to melee.

Partially disagree. Iirc a tac marine is 13 points and a terminator is 35. A power fist for a character is 25. A storm bolter is like, 5 or something. So if they were actually paying the character price for their gear, they'd be paying something like 43 points plus whatever GW decided the cost of terminator on a one-wound guy would be. But you're right about them being too pricey for what they get.

I know people often complain about terminator shooting, but I've never really thought of them as a "shooty" unit. To me, they're basically tac marines with an assault cannon mixed in terms of shooting. Even non-assault terminators, in my eyes, should be striving to get into melee where they can hide from ranged AP2 and bring their power fists to bare. So their shooting isn't great, but I've always thought of it as a nice bonus rather than their main role.

They are difficult to get into melee because land raiders are expensive and deepstriking is risky/inaccurate. Giving them a shunt move, however, might not be a bad way to help deal with this. On the tables I generally play on, there tends to be some line of sight blocking terrain here and there, so shunting where the majority of your enemy's guns can't find you and then assaulting something the following turn isn't a bad way to go. Especially if you have the option to shunt on turn one so that you're getting into melee sooner. Even with shunt, they could probably do with a bit of a price drop or durability boost, but being able to hide them behind cover on turn 1, shunt them behind more cover on the bottom of turn 1, and then go looking for assault charges on turn 2 really isn't too shabby.

If you shunt them right in front of the enemy, then it's to be expected that they'll get shot up and/or assaulted by the ideal weapons for taking them down, but that's not really the terminators' fault at that point.

Terminators want to fight big things in CC, but big things ignore their armor. There are no good CC targets for tactical terminators.

Martel732 wrote:
Terminators want to fight big things in CC, but big things ignore their armor. There are no good CC targets for tactical terminators.

What about high toughness things like bikes? Or MCs that aren't great in melee (riptides). Or expensive vehicles that are tough to kill with shooting like serpents, russes, or shrouded land speeders? Or T4 tyranids with multiple wounds apiece? Or heck, you can just toss them into some generic infantry units that get too close and count on the terminators to come out on top.

Sure, a lot of these things aren't necessarily tournament winning units, but not every opponent is fielding a tournament list either. And a space marine list in a tournament probably isn't bringing terminators anyway so...

Terminators in casual games have some decent targets, even if those targets are just basic infantry. Normally, terminators aren't amazing, even in a casual game. Something like shunt might make them more viable in such games.

EDIT: Also, assault terminators (who would also theoretically be possible targets of a shunt/jump pack option) are actually pretty okay GMCs and such. Sure, you *might* lose guys to D-strength attacks or stomps, but a 3+ invul is going to shut down an expensive melee attack more often than not.

Terminators in Casual games don't have good targets either because Honour Guard exist.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Terminators in Casual games don't have good targets either because Honour Guard exist.

You mean because honor guard are just more cost-effective at similar tasks? Having a better alternative doesn't invalidate the less cost effective option. Especially in casual games. Or did I misunderstand your point?

Wyldhunt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Terminators want to fight big things in CC, but big things ignore their armor. There are no good CC targets for tactical terminators.

What about high toughness things like bikes? Or MCs that aren't great in melee (riptides). Or expensive vehicles that are tough to kill with shooting like serpents, russes, or shrouded land speeders? Or T4 tyranids with multiple wounds apiece? Or heck, you can just toss them into some generic infantry units that get too close and count on the terminators to come out on top.

Sure, a lot of these things aren't necessarily tournament winning units, but not every opponent is fielding a tournament list either. And a space marine list in a tournament probably isn't bringing terminators anyway so...

Terminators in casual games have some decent targets, even if those targets are just basic infantry. Normally, terminators aren't amazing, even in a casual game. Something like shunt might make them more viable in such games.

EDIT: Also, assault terminators (who would also theoretically be possible targets of a shunt/jump pack option) are actually pretty okay GMCs and such. Sure, you *might* lose guys to D-strength attacks or stomps, but a 3+ invul is going to shut down an expensive melee attack more often than not.

Riptides are fine in CC. They have smash and insane saves. Go get your expensive 2+ save models in CC with a model that ignores the save.

But what it really boils down to is that their shooting is SO BAD.

I honestly don't like the idea much. Imo to make termies viable and on par with other stuff, give them t5 and 2 wounds. That better represents the whole, hulking thick power armor and give them one more wound representing the armor.

Right now they are just as tough as a marine but with a 2+ always bugged me they are not T 5 or 2 wounds.

Right now centurions are pretty much what terminators should be like, but at a cheaper cost.

Therefore we need to fix Terminator offense, not make them as durable as Centurions.

Sorry but not my cup of tea. Terminator's main problem wasn't their speed, but rather their cost-to-performance ratio. Giving them jump packs unnecessarily buffs them in a field they were never suppose to be in.

This topuc has been done to death. Centurions have basically eaten Terminators lunch. There is no mathematical space left to squeeze in terminators. The original sin here is the storm bolter being straight up garbage like all bolt weapons.

Martel732 wrote:
This topuc has been done to death. Centurions have basically eaten Terminators lunch. There is no mathematical space left to squeeze in terminators. The original sin here is the storm bolter being straight up garbage like all bolt weapons.

This is why I think they need 2 would t5

What if we gave terminators rapid fire on storm bolters?

Terminators are supposed to be slow, plodding but almost unstoppabke (really a rules clean up for them would be to exchange relentless and their running restrictions for Slow and Purposeful). So giving them Jump Packs of sorts really stops them from being terminators anymore.

The Shunt idea is interesting, but the terminators rely on teleportation provided by their ships rather than personal teleportation. Perhaps the ability to go back into Ongoing Reserve in the movement phase. Then they deep strike back the following turn is the best emulation of this. Apologies to Swooping Hawks.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
This topuc has been done to death. Centurions have basically eaten Terminators lunch. There is no mathematical space left to squeeze in terminators. The original sin here is the storm bolter being straight up garbage like all bolt weapons.

This is why I think they need 2 would t5

What if we gave terminators rapid fire on storm bolters?

S4 AP5 is basically not a threat to most units in 7th ed.

Jefffar wrote:
Terminators are supposed to be slow, plodding but almost unstoppabke (really a rules clean up for them would be to exchange relentless and their running restrictions for Slow and Purposeful). So giving them Jump Packs of sorts really stops them from being terminators anymore.

The Shunt idea is interesting, but the terminators rely on teleportation provided by their ships rather than personal teleportation. Perhaps the ability to go back into Ongoing Reserve in the movement phase. Then they deep strike back the following turn is the best emulation of this. Apologies to Swooping Hawks.

Nah they need to kee relentless, slow and purposeful does not allow for over watch which is really dumb seeing as how they have always been able to overwatch

This problem goes away in a D10 based system, because then broadsides and riptides can be 3+, and we can leave terminators at 2+. A bit off topic, but in the current system, there is literally no niche for the terminator.

Deathwatch does Terminators better but not by much.

They need some of the 30k boosts.

Like they got 2 wounds. Some have more powerful weaponry and helps ots more balenced.

They need more wounds, maybe a T boost and more firepower.
There rules are stuck several editions ago.

What if they could teleport shunt like a Dreadknight once per game?

 jhe90 wrote:
They need some of the 30k boosts.

Like they got 2 wounds. Some have more powerful weaponry and helps ots more balenced.

They need more wounds, maybe a T boost and more firepower.
There rules are stuck several editions ago.

You can't give multiple wounds because MANZ.

Weapons, maybe, but all their weapons have been passed by as well.

Can't give T boost, because that's centurion.

Martel732 wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
They need some of the 30k boosts.

Like they got 2 wounds. Some have more powerful weaponry and helps ots more balenced.

They need more wounds, maybe a T boost and more firepower.
There rules are stuck several editions ago.

You can't give multiple wounds because MANZ.

Weapons, maybe, but all their weapons have been passed by as well.

Can't give T boost, because that's centurion.

True but your also taking terminators at a premium, they are base 200 cents at base 160 iirc so by logic the terms should be t5 w2 seeing as how that would be 10 wounds total to 6 total the cents have. So for 40 points your getting an invul, 5 more wounds and better movement.

But the draw back is, terminators are s8 at i1 stock. Where cents are striking, if you take drills, str 10 at I4 with like 3 attacks each so it all comes out in the wash. I think a t5 2w would be an great way to make the useful again.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
They need some of the 30k boosts.

Like they got 2 wounds. Some have more powerful weaponry and helps ots more balenced.

They need more wounds, maybe a T boost and more firepower.
There rules are stuck several editions ago.

You can't give multiple wounds because MANZ.

Weapons, maybe, but all their weapons have been passed by as well.

Can't give T boost, because that's centurion.

True but your also taking terminators at a premium, they are base 200 cents at base 160 iirc so by logic the terms should be t5 w2 seeing as how that would be 10 wounds total to 6 total the cents have. So for 40 points your getting an invul, 5 more wounds and better movement.

But the draw back is, terminators are s8 at i1 stock. Where cents are striking, if you take drills, str 10 at I4 with like 3 attacks each so it all comes out in the wash. I think a t5 2w would be an great way to make the useful again.

Compared to man portable strengh D.
Monsterous creatures
And more

It hardly makes them game breaking.

2 w, T5
And not sure how but boost the storm bolter...
Maybe some rule about supressive fire into assault reducing overwatch?

Terminators should teleport in game like warp spiders.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
They need some of the 30k boosts.

Like they got 2 wounds. Some have more powerful weaponry and helps ots more balenced.

They need more wounds, maybe a T boost and more firepower.
There rules are stuck several editions ago.

You can't give multiple wounds because MANZ.

Weapons, maybe, but all their weapons have been passed by as well.

Can't give T boost, because that's centurion.

True but your also taking terminators at a premium, they are base 200 cents at base 160 iirc so by logic the terms should be t5 w2 seeing as how that would be 10 wounds total to 6 total the cents have. So for 40 points your getting an invul, 5 more wounds and better movement.

But the draw back is, terminators are s8 at i1 stock. Where cents are striking, if you take drills, str 10 at I4 with like 3 attacks each so it all comes out in the wash. I think a t5 2w would be an great way to make the useful again.

It would be a great way to copy Centurions again like previous threads have done.

Make LC Terminators 30 with the TH/SS a 5 point upgrade. Make the Storm Bolter S5 and allow 2 Heavy Weapons per five Terminators. Bam, I just fixed them without completely altering their profile.

Presumably, only terminator armor would get S5 stormbolters.

Storm Bolters need to be thrown a bone. I'd even consider giving them 30" range with the S5. With Heavy Bolters then becoming Salvo 2/4 of course.

I honestly wish cents were not in the game, they are just always in a weird spot and vastly overshadow the terminators.

I would be ok with a SB getting a nice buff, i think a rapid fire would be worth while.

Centurions were really just a 'hey lets give the SM a new model' sort of thing rather than a well thought out rules concept to me. Possibly also a justification for Chaos Obliterators and Mutilators.


Really, better Terminator rules instead of Centurions was the way to go.

I'm also slightly bitter that they get to move and shoot effectively but Broadsides don't.

Terminators where here long before the centurions.

So there treading on the terminator ground.

Except they are actually functional.

A shunt teleport would be more fitting. Copy paste it from the dreadknight pretty much and I'd be happy.

Shunt only helps units that have a shooting alpha strike... I think I am a bit qualified to talk about that mechanic.

They would remain units that have trouble getting into melee as shunt of course prevents charges. Furthermore after that shunt they lose any mobility which means you either need a MSU of Termies to box them in, or hope your opponent makes a mistake in deployment and let's them get caught. The DK isn't scary because of the shunt, it's scary because it can chase you down consistently with its 12 inch move.

I think deepstrike mechanics themselves need to change as a whole in order to make Termies competitive again.

First the b2b contact followed by the flower pattern needs to go, it simply leaves a squad too vulnerable.
Second the scatter amount needs to be reduced based off the deepstrike method, teleporters would be more accurate they should only be D6.
Third deepstrike onto a teleporter Homer needs to allow 6 inch charges.

There are more changes for other deepstrike units I would go on about but these affect Termies the most.

Shunt would help Terminators a lot by allowing them to start on the board turn 1 and safely getting into the enemy's line for a turn 2 charge (or at the very least force a response from the enemy). Thing about terminators currently is they either deep strike in turn 2 or later (minus a few detachments like NSF that can have turn 1) or have to take an insanely expensive land box or flyer box to get to the enemy and assault out. Shunt would make it so terminators are a turn 2 threat every time and removes the reliance on overpriced transports for them to be functional.

For example having MSU Terminator units that could shunt up the flanks while having simultaneous drop pod or rhino rush pressure to overwhelm the enemy and cut off their mobility and retreat paths.

 Vankraken wrote:
Shunt would help Terminators a lot by allowing them to start on the board turn 1 and safely getting into the enemy's line for a turn 2 charge (or at the very least force a response from the enemy). Thing about terminators currently is they either deep strike in turn 2 or later (minus a few detachments like NSF that can have turn 1) or have to take an insanely expensive land box or flyer box to get to the enemy and assault out. Shunt would make it so terminators are a turn 2 threat every time and removes the reliance on overpriced transports for them to be functional.

For example having MSU Terminator units that could shunt up the flanks while having simultaneous drop pod or rhino rush pressure to overwhelm the enemy and cut off their mobility and retreat paths.

Getting up into the enemy is not the problem thats easy as hell to do becuse there is multiple ways to do it.

Drop pods with teleport homors
Bikes with teleport homers
Characters with teleport homers
Land raiders
Various air vehicles.

The problem with terminators is that where they should excel they dont, for being a 200 point base cost, they only get 5 wounds and are strikeing at I1, granted, they kill or wound almost anything with that attack, but they are other wise very thin. With a single wound each on guy, bam, down 2 attacks, 3 on a charge.

If you wanna fix terminators give them 2 wounds and a T5. Yes this is the same as a centurion blah blah blah, but thats fine, they are menat to be the elite of the elite. People like to throw out hte 5+ invul save that the centurions dont get, which is a very moot argument because if you are playing cents correctly you almost never end up useing it since your cents should be in a transport and dropped face to face with enemy blobs, and not getting shot at until they are done smashing. Not to mention they still get S10 AP1 at I4

" but thats fine,"

No, it's not fine because of MANZ.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
Shunt would help Terminators a lot by allowing them to start on the board turn 1 and safely getting into the enemy's line for a turn 2 charge (or at the very least force a response from the enemy). Thing about terminators currently is they either deep strike in turn 2 or later (minus a few detachments like NSF that can have turn 1) or have to take an insanely expensive land box or flyer box to get to the enemy and assault out. Shunt would make it so terminators are a turn 2 threat every time and removes the reliance on overpriced transports for them to be functional.

For example having MSU Terminator units that could shunt up the flanks while having simultaneous drop pod or rhino rush pressure to overwhelm the enemy and cut off their mobility and retreat paths.

Getting up into the enemy is not the problem thats easy as hell to do becuse there is multiple ways to do it.

Drop pods with teleport homors
Bikes with teleport homers
Characters with teleport homers
Land raiders
Various air vehicles.

The problem with terminators is that where they should excel they dont, for being a 200 point base cost, they only get 5 wounds and are strikeing at I1, granted, they kill or wound almost anything with that attack, but they are other wise very thin. With a single wound each on guy, bam, down 2 attacks, 3 on a charge.

All of those methods are turn 2 or later before they are on the board having any impact and generally turn 3 assaults (unless using the land raider which is a massive point sink). Making them self reliant on getting up the board turn 1 and into position for turn 2 to charge helps bring them into the turn 2 charge capable group of units.
Now granted I don't play vanilla space marines so apparently their terminators are different compared to what the wolves have (vanilla marines get some cheap claws and PFs). One thing it seems vanilla terminators lack that the wolves have (and what would make shunt useful) is the ability to take combi weapons. Being able to shunt in turn 1 to unload 5 combi plasmas into a unit and be set to charge in turn 2 with power weapons would make them impactful turn 1 and help justify their points cost instead of being a giant points sink. Also its surprising to me that vanilla terminators can't take power axes or mauls while only the squad leader gets a sword (which is worse than a PF....).

If you wanna fix terminators give them 2 wounds and a T5. Yes this is the same as a centurion blah blah blah, but thats fine, they are menat to be the elite of the elite. People like to throw out hte 5+ invul save that the centurions dont get, which is a very moot argument because if you are playing cents correctly you almost never end up useing it since your cents should be in a transport and dropped face to face with enemy blobs, and not getting shot at until they are done smashing. Not to mention they still get S10 AP1 at I4

At no points adjustment that would be silly. T5 with one wound is reasonable considering they are more bulky or maybe add FNP to give them some increased durability to all non instant death shooting.

Holy crap, why are you guys trying to make them as durable as Centurions? They will lack the offense of Centurions so all you did is make them useless still. You're not giving them a niche.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Holy crap, why are you guys trying to make them as durable as Centurions? They will lack the offense of Centurions so all you did is make them useless still. You're not giving them a niche.

We could delete Centurions...

There are models for them. Fat chance.

Martel732 wrote:
There are models for them. Fat chance.

A man can dream.

I still think an interesting fix would be all assault cannons.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Holy crap, why are you guys trying to make them as durable as Centurions? They will lack the offense of Centurions so all you did is make them useless still. You're not giving them a niche.

We could delete Centurions...

I'd probably be fine with this, really. Centurions basically came in and stepped on terminators' toes while the terminators were still suffering mechanically.

For the sake of argument, giving terminators the option of "shunting" instead of deepstriking would make them mobile but relatively squishy (and less hard-hitting) compared to centurions. So they'd basically become "centurions you don't have to buy a transport for." Personally, I rather like the idea of shunting terminators forward on turn 1 to meet up with a bunch of drop podding, scouting, infiltrating, etc. forces to hit my opponent hard on turn 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I still think an interesting fix would be all assault cannons.

I politely disagree. Going all assault cannons would up their shooting offense, but I'm not sure terminators are really mean to be a major shooting threat (despite having a melee-centric counterpart).

I feel like terminators are meant to be "super marines" in the sense that they take a marine's durability and then take it to the next level. They look at a bolter, then turn it into a storm bolter to take it to the next level. They see a marine punching a truck to death, and then bring a power fist that hits literally twice as hard. They see a tac marine packing a special weapon, and they bring their own plus they can shoot it on the move.

Which isn't a bad design concept in a game of a slightly smaller scale than a modern 1850 point 40k game, but it doesn't hold up in the face of riptides and such. Maybe part of the problem is that "normal" 40k is simply too large? How do terminators look in a game of 1500 points or even 1250? I don't play my marines very often, but I feel like they get a lot more useful when you're facing fewer big big guns and mostly just have to deal with small arms fire.

", but I'm not sure terminators are really mean to be a major shooting threat"

What they're meant to be doesn't function in the game anymore. It never really did. The humble plasma gun makes terminators incredibly inefficient. That and their regular gun being AP 5. I'm not paying 35-40 pts for more AP 5 shooting.

There's nothing next level about the stormbolter, and powerfists get you murdered vs MCs.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Holy crap, why are you guys trying to make them as durable as Centurions? They will lack the offense of Centurions so all you did is make them useless still. You're not giving them a niche.

We could delete Centurions...

Im not against this idea

As far as the initial suggestion of giving them a Jump Pack, this doesn't work on a number of levels for me, the first of which is it doesn't solve the problem. The next level is giving them Jump Packs doesn't really fit the "Vibe" of Terminators.

As for Centurions, I feel like they need a rework so that they're not treading on the niche that was supposed to be for Tactical and Assault Terminators. What the Centurions should be is something I can't speculate on, but they shouldn't be doing what Terminators were designed for.

And finally for the Terminators themselves, I reckon they should not only have two wounds, but should also ignore the Unwieldy Special Rule. The bane of the Assault Terminators is the Initiative 1 pitfall of Thunder Hammers combined with only having 1 Wound. Yes, they get some pretty terrific saves, but based on some relatively extensive personal experience with Assault Terminators, that save is a lot less valuable than the value of the save implies.

So MANZ get what? 3 wounds? 4 wounds?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Holy crap, why are you guys trying to make them as durable as Centurions? They will lack the offense of Centurions so all you did is make them useless still. You're not giving them a niche.

We could delete Centurions...

We aren't deleting unit entries because you're butthurt about how you feel about the models. How about you actually attempt on fixing Terminators by making them more dangerous instead whilst Centurions be less scary but more durable?

You all have yet to address Martel'so point about MANz too.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Holy crap, why are you guys trying to make them as durable as Centurions? They will lack the offense of Centurions so all you did is make them useless still. You're not giving them a niche.

Because Terminators' durability is supposed to what the Centurions emulate?

Centurions are durable walking gun platforms, Terminators are durable close ranged shock troops.

7th ed is about killing. You will never achieve true durability on a statline without having a buff like invisibility in play. Terminators need more offense the turn they arrive, because they likely won't ever get to charge. The fluff about terminators is already meaningless because of GW's other decisions like scatbikes.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Holy crap, why are you guys trying to make them as durable as Centurions? They will lack the offense of Centurions so all you did is make them useless still. You're not giving them a niche.

Because Terminators' durability is supposed to what the Centurions emulate?

Centurions are durable walking gun platforms, Terminators are durable close ranged shock troops.

I would agree with this IF you could assault out of deep strike.

That would be a very good way to buff them, turn them into actual shock troopers and let them assault on a deep strike, even if an unordered charge would be nice.

Its really frustrating when i run by DW knights they deep strike in and look like donkey-caves the first turn they come in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
7th ed is about killing. You will never achieve true durability on a statline without having a buff like invisibility in play. Terminators need more offense the turn they arrive, because they likely won't ever get to charge. The fluff about terminators is already meaningless because of GW's other decisions like scatbikes.

This, i mean, DW terminators are not that bad since they turn they come in everything is twin linked, but again, not being able to charge sucks.

They have twin-linked useless guns.

Martel732 wrote:
They have twin-linked useless guns.

Which comes back to why in the world are we still using these wildly outdated rules for Rapid Fire, why have Boltguns not been given Rending or a Strength boost, etc etc.

There's so many things that could be done to improve the damage output of Boltguns/Combi-Boltguns, Storm Bolters and Lasguns...it's silly that we just keep getting their stats copy/pasted every new book.

In a D6-based system, there aren't a lot of options when the heavy bolter is only one better in each category.

Martel732 wrote:
In a D6-based system, there aren't a lot of options when the heavy bolter is only one better in each category.

There's plenty of options. Rules like "Bladestorm" exist, don't they?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Holy crap, why are you guys trying to make them as durable as Centurions? They will lack the offense of Centurions so all you did is make them useless still. You're not giving them a niche.

Because Terminators' durability is supposed to what the Centurions emulate?

Centurions are durable walking gun platforms, Terminators are durable close ranged shock troops.

So you make them as durable as Centurions for no cost increase, which means Centurions still do better offensively and therefore I still have no reason to take Terminators. You guys still miss the mark by hundreds of feet.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
In a D6-based system, there aren't a lot of options when the heavy bolter is only one better in each category.

There's plenty of options. Rules like "Bladestorm" exist, don't they?

None that really fit.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Holy crap, why are you guys trying to make them as durable as Centurions? They will lack the offense of Centurions so all you did is make them useless still. You're not giving them a niche.

Because Terminators' durability is supposed to what the Centurions emulate?

Centurions are durable walking gun platforms, Terminators are durable close ranged shock troops.

So you make them as durable as Centurions for no cost increase, which means Centurions still do better offensively and therefore I still have no reason to take Terminators.

How many people think that Terminators are worth their points, even now with the reduced points costs they've had?

And there's plenty of reasons to take Terminators if they get turned into a durable close range shock unit. It's not like they and Centurions are competing for slots, seeing as how Centurions are HS and Terminators are Elites.

You guys still miss the mark by hundreds of feet.

And all you've done is sling mud on ideas. Why not contribute instead of just throw shade out there?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
In a D6-based system, there aren't a lot of options when the heavy bolter is only one better in each category.

There's plenty of options. Rules like "Bladestorm" exist, don't they?

None that really fit.

So?

Mass Reactive Bolts:
When a weapon with this special rule rolls To Wound, any To Wound roll of a 6 can only be mitigated by an Invulnerable Save.

It's not beyond belief that they could have come up with something like this ages ago.

I'd much rather have assault cannons. S4 shooting is not valuable for a marine list.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd much rather have assault cannons. S4 shooting is not valuable for a marine list.

S4 shooting that can, on 6's, wound targets that are not otherwise able to be harmed by S4 and also ignore armor saves is valuable for a Marine list.

It's just like the Rad Poisoning rule for Skitarii; even if the gun normally would do nothing those To Wound rolls of 6s cause Wounds.

Something like that for Boltguns would be a game changer, just as much as Special Issue Ammunition has been.

You can't roll enough sixes per point spent on the models to make them worth it. If we are talking terminators. If you make it a general rule, terminators are still useless because marines get way more bolter shots per point.

Martel732 wrote:
You can't roll enough sixes per point spent on the models to make them worth it. If we are talking terminators. If you make it a general rule, terminators are still useless because marines get way more bolter shots per point.

They do now, yes.

There's a lot of things that can be done to change that though.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd much rather have assault cannons. S4 shooting is not valuable for a marine list.

S4 shooting that can, on 6's, wound targets that are not otherwise able to be harmed by S4 and also ignore armor saves is valuable for a Marine list.

It's just like the Rad Poisoning rule for Skitarii; even if the gun normally would do nothing those To Wound rolls of 6s cause Wounds.

Something like that for Boltguns would be a game changer, just as much as Special Issue Ammunition has been.

And then you're taking rules from other armies, like many unoriginals have done. I've once seen someone suggest Bolt weapons gain a rule like Gauss! Bolts don't need a special rule; certain weapons and units need fixing.

Terminators were meant to be shock troopers that teleport on the field (because Land Raiders are garbage, lets be honest. Those things are worth 200 at most), but they don't have the offensive capabilities to reflect that at all. If you make them as durable as Centurions, we are at, using Assault Centurions as the baseline with no upgrades outside of the Centurion Veteren Sergeant:
1. 10 Bolter shots vs 9-18 Bolter shots, always TL with Flamers always TL
2. 8 S8 AP2 I1 melee attacks + 2 S4 AP3 I4 attacks vs 7 S10 AP2 I4 melee attacks
Once we get to upgrades, you see that Centurions can take Split Fire (which means you pepper a squad with one set of Hurricanes and shoot another up real bad, and charge the less shot one), or Melta Guns that are TL, which makes their MC hunting status much better.

So when we do that, outside the Deep Strike, Centurions are a better value because you can give them a pod to do almost the same thing. So we need to make Terminators themselves more offensively appealing. So I literally ALWAYS propose:
1. S5 Storm Bolters, two Heavy Weapons per 5 Terminators (so we can get a total of 4 in a 10 man squad)
2. Lightning Claw Terminators start at 30 base, and TH/SS is a 5 point upgrade, as I think 2+/3++ is roughly worth as much as 2+/5++ with the better flexibility

I fixed them without having to drastically alter their profile, made them offensively better without too much effort, and most of all they have a different feel when used compared to Centurions.

Martel732 wrote:
So MANZ get what? 3 wounds? 4 wounds?

I'd be fine with that, actually. I'm not a fan of boosting units in every other book just because an underpowered unit like terminators get boosted, but MANZ could probably stand a bit of a boost themselves. You'd still take them out the same way you do now. They'd just be less vulnerable to small arms fire. Seems reasonable to me. I'm also a fan of increasing the wounds of pretty much every non-HQ character (and maybe them as well) across the board.

Regarding improving storm bolters and bolters in general... Personally, I'd like to rework marines entirely to make them a half-step closer to being movie marines. They just don't reflect their own fluff very well as they are now. So while this change wouldn't necessarily exist in a vacuum, I'd be completely fine with strength 5 bolt weapons. It's simpler and cleaner than giving them a special rule, you'd have a similar damage output to tau fire warriors while having less range (thus avoiding stealing their thunder), and you'd be reasonably more threatening to a wide range of targets. Including light transports which you could now glance to death with basic bolt weapons. It helps terminators. It helps tac marines. i like the idea.

That's a lot of rebalancing in giving out more wounds.

Terminators are a big loser in the D6-based system. Moving to D10 would make a lot of these problems go away.

There's no way a bolter should be as strong as a heavy bolter.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Holy crap, why are you guys trying to make them as durable as Centurions? They will lack the offense of Centurions so all you did is make them useless still. You're not giving them a niche.

We could delete Centurions...

We aren't deleting unit entries because you're butthurt about how you feel about the models. How about you actually attempt on fixing Terminators by making them more dangerous instead whilst Centurions be less scary but more durable?

You all have yet to address Martel'so point about MANz too.

You can't have your cake (model size/power creep) and eat it (models falling off the bottom because the game's gotten too big).

This isn't a problem with a d6-based system, it's a problem with continually stacking new bigger things on top of the scale. Back in 4th a Terminator was about as big and scary as a single infantryman got. He took work to get rid of, got into combat frequently, did lots of killing, and could stand toe-to-toe with much bigger foes. 5th decided big fast MCs and AP2 blasts were a cool thing to do, 6th brought in aircraft, superheavies, and more AP2 shooting, et cetera.

The Terminator has been crowded out of the bottom of the heavy infantry niche by Centurions, who are tougher and killer in every way. If I try to make Terminators better without tearing down Centurions I'm going to continue escalating the power creep, someone else is going to fall off the bottom, and we're going to be having this discussion about how to make Space Marine infantry less terrible a few months down the line.

The problem is EXACTLY a d6-based system with so many different models. Models that crowd out the terminator. Terminators may have been functional in 4th, but were not in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, or 7th.

@Anomander kinda hit the nail on the head, we have already reached the point where troop choices are laughable to take, unless you are using them to abuse a formation, IE Lions blade strike force letting you take 350+ points of transports for free. They keep stacking more and more units atop the piller and things are getting pushed out.

Each Force org choice needs to be relative in power to point cost, and thats where most of the problem are at here, terminators are no where near their point cost. If they only ran 150 or 160 like cents did, we would not be having this conversation. But the fact that their are a very expensive elite choice for SM, compaired to the cent who cost 40 points less for more damage. Thats where the imbalance comes in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The problem is EXACTLY a d6-based system with so many different models. Models that crowd out the terminator. Terminators may have been functional in 4th, but were not in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, or 7th.

Which is why, imo, they need to be brought up to centurions power level, or have their points dropped to that of centurions. you are paying more for models and getting less outta them.


Note im basing this off of DW terminators so appologies if that gets lost in translation or effects the view im coming from.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Holy crap, why are you guys trying to make them as durable as Centurions? They will lack the offense of Centurions so all you did is make them useless still. You're not giving them a niche.

We could delete Centurions...

We aren't deleting unit entries because you're butthurt about how you feel about the models. How about you actually attempt on fixing Terminators by making them more dangerous instead whilst Centurions be less scary but more durable?

You all have yet to address Martel'so point about MANz too.

You can't have your cake (model size/power creep) and eat it (models falling off the bottom because the game's gotten too big).

This isn't a problem with a d6-based system, it's a problem with continually stacking new bigger things on top of the scale. Back in 4th a Terminator was about as big and scary as a single infantryman got. He took work to get rid of, got into combat frequently, did lots of killing, and could stand toe-to-toe with much bigger foes. 5th decided big fast MCs and AP2 blasts were a cool thing to do, 6th brought in aircraft, superheavies, and more AP2 shooting, et cetera.

The Terminator has been crowded out of the bottom of the heavy infantry niche by Centurions, who are tougher and killer in every way. If I try to make Terminators better without tearing down Centurions I'm going to continue escalating the power creep, someone else is going to fall off the bottom, and we're going to be having this discussion about how to make Space Marine infantry less terrible a few months down the line.

I started in 4th edition and I can tell you that Terminators were absolutely NOT scary back then, even with better Assault Cannons, and I say that as someone that had a small Daemonhunters army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
So MANZ get what? 3 wounds? 4 wounds?

I'd be fine with that, actually. I'm not a fan of boosting units in every other book just because an underpowered unit like terminators get boosted, but MANZ could probably stand a bit of a boost themselves. You'd still take them out the same way you do now. They'd just be less vulnerable to small arms fire. Seems reasonable to me. I'm also a fan of increasing the wounds of pretty much every non-HQ character (and maybe them as well) across the board.

Regarding improving storm bolters and bolters in general... Personally, I'd like to rework marines entirely to make them a half-step closer to being movie marines. They just don't reflect their own fluff very well as they are now. So while this change wouldn't necessarily exist in a vacuum, I'd be completely fine with strength 5 bolt weapons. It's simpler and cleaner than giving them a special rule, you'd have a similar damage output to tau fire warriors while having less range (thus avoiding stealing their thunder), and you'd be reasonably more threatening to a wide range of targets. Including light transports which you could now glance to death with basic bolt weapons. It helps terminators. It helps tac marines. i like the idea.

Bolt Weapons don't need to be S5. What we need is Tactical Marines that can double up on Special or Heavy weapons rather than 1 of each and then S5 for Storm Bolters.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Holy crap, why are you guys trying to make them as durable as Centurions? They will lack the offense of Centurions so all you did is make them useless still. You're not giving them a niche.

We could delete Centurions...

We aren't deleting unit entries because you're butthurt about how you feel about the models. How about you actually attempt on fixing Terminators by making them more dangerous instead whilst Centurions be less scary but more durable?

You all have yet to address Martel'so point about MANz too.

You can't have your cake (model size/power creep) and eat it (models falling off the bottom because the game's gotten too big).

This isn't a problem with a d6-based system, it's a problem with continually stacking new bigger things on top of the scale. Back in 4th a Terminator was about as big and scary as a single infantryman got. He took work to get rid of, got into combat frequently, did lots of killing, and could stand toe-to-toe with much bigger foes. 5th decided big fast MCs and AP2 blasts were a cool thing to do, 6th brought in aircraft, superheavies, and more AP2 shooting, et cetera.

The Terminator has been crowded out of the bottom of the heavy infantry niche by Centurions, who are tougher and killer in every way. If I try to make Terminators better without tearing down Centurions I'm going to continue escalating the power creep, someone else is going to fall off the bottom, and we're going to be having this discussion about how to make Space Marine infantry less terrible a few months down the line.

I started in 4th edition and I can tell you that Terminators were absolutely NOT scary back then, even with better Assault Cannons, and I say that as someone that had a small Daemonhunters army.

Might not be relatable, but i know in 5th, TH/SS termies in a LR was a solid deathstar combo. Sounds to me like its boiling down to bolters need to be better.

TH/SS in LR was not good in 5th.

Martel732 wrote:
TH/SS in LR was not good in 5th.

Thank you. Certainly MUCH better than they were, but not good.

Once per game moving as jump infantry would work combined with s8 ap2 hammer of wrath, representing the recharge delay on a personal teleporter and the ability to literally punch through the warp.

As for storm bolters, easy fix would be to-hit rolls of a 4+ cause 2 hits, 6+ 3 hits. This would make them worth 5 points in the army I think.

They'd be like Grey Knight Interceptors then.

AP3 on a a 5+ to wound rending on a 6 up?

 Backspacehacker wrote:
AP3 on a a 5+ to wound rending on a 6 up?

AP is not fixing this. Lack of shots and lack of shot strength is the problem. Even with this change, a unit of 5 terminators gets eight such shots, plus their crappy heavy weapon. *YAWN* If your target has cover, there goes this scheme almost entirely.

Termis need more attacks, a better weapon (a special stormbolter or something) and a secondary save (kinda like feel no pain) on a 4+ or something. They cost way to many points have way to few shots and attacks to be of real impact on the game.

 Capamaru wrote:
Termis need more attacks, a better weapon (a special stormbolter or something) and a secondary save (kinda like feel no pain) on a 4+ or something. They cost way to many points have way to few shots and attacks to be of real impact on the game.

So coming from a DW terminator perspective what about this.

give SB rapid fire rending. so a standard terminator load out, on a deep strike will be able to unload 16 bolter shots, that are twin linked, and rending on 6s on the turn they drop in assuming they are within 12 inches which is pretty likely if you are using teleport homers.

But the shots that don't rend don't accomplish much. Still not a big threat.

Martel732 wrote:
But the shots that don't rend don't accomplish much. Still not a big threat.

Then what do you suggest?

All assault cannons. Leave nothing to chance. If it's good enough for Eldar troops, then space elite super elites would be similarly equipped. This is the reality of 7th ed. What they're armed with in fluff no longer has any bearing. They deep strike in, and get 20 S6 AP4 rending shots. Still not enough to threaten the best units in the game, but it's not trivial.

I actually like something similar to Dark Heresy's "Storm" mechanic, where sufficiently successful to-hit rolls inflict multiple hits. We already have this - Tesla. Would it work for storm bolters to have something like that? For example:

Storm: All successful to-hit rolls with a weapon that has this special rule inflict two hits. To-hit rolls of 6 inflict four hits instead, unless snap-shooting (where they still inflict two).

Now yeah, that's still measly S4 AP5 shots, but this doesn't only buff Terminators - it buffs everything with a storm bolter. It probably wouldn't be enough for Terminators on its own, though. Maybe also give Termies the ability to take two heavies per 5, and for every model to exchange its storm bolter for a heavy bolter for 5 points, say?

Still just S4 failure firepower. Go assault cannons.

GK need something, but not this.

jade_angel wrote:
I actually like something similar to Dark Heresy's "Storm" mechanic, where sufficiently successful to-hit rolls inflict multiple hits. We already have this - Tesla. Would it work for storm bolters to have something like that? For example:

Storm: All successful to-hit rolls with a weapon that has this special rule inflict two hits. To-hit rolls of 6 inflict four hits instead, unless snap-shooting (where they still inflict two).

Now yeah, that's still measly S4 AP5 shots, but this doesn't only buff Terminators - it buffs everything with a storm bolter. It probably wouldn't be enough for Terminators on its own, though. Maybe also give Termies the ability to take two heavies per 5, and for every model to exchange its storm bolter for a heavy bolter for 5 points, say?

One free heavy weapon, one at a point cost.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
I actually like something similar to Dark Heresy's "Storm" mechanic, where sufficiently successful to-hit rolls inflict multiple hits. We already have this - Tesla. Would it work for storm bolters to have something like that? For example:

Storm: All successful to-hit rolls with a weapon that has this special rule inflict two hits. To-hit rolls of 6 inflict four hits instead, unless snap-shooting (where they still inflict two).

Now yeah, that's still measly S4 AP5 shots, but this doesn't only buff Terminators - it buffs everything with a storm bolter. It probably wouldn't be enough for Terminators on its own, though. Maybe also give Termies the ability to take two heavies per 5, and for every model to exchange its storm bolter for a heavy bolter for 5 points, say?

One free heavy weapon, one at a point cost.

Not. Enough. Dakka. Quit thinking small. Remember that you are facing Riptides and Wraithknights with these guys.

Assault cannons for all, and the add the option for heavy bolters with the following options:

Heavy Kraken Bolts: R42 S5 AP3 Salvo 3/3
Heavy Hellfire Rounds: R36 S1 AP4 Salvo 3/3, Fleshbane
Heavy Dragonfire Rounds: R36 S5 AP4 Salvo 3/3, Ignores Cover
Heavy Vengeance Rounds: R30 S5 AP1 Salvo 3/3, Gets Hot

For a points cost, of course - not free. But that's getting closer to enough dakka. Your choice, rending and volume or range and weirdness.

ETA: Salvo 3/3, not because it matters for Terminators, but because that's probably where all heavy bolters should be, except for Guard heavy weapons teams. (Give them Heavy 4 for a big mounted belt-fed dealy that's not really designed to move - for reasons of crunch, not fluff.)

jade_angel wrote:
Assault cannons for all, and the add the option for heavy bolters with the following options:

Heavy Kraken Bolts: R42 S5 AP3 Salvo 3/3
Heavy Hellfire Rounds: R36 S1 AP4 Salvo 3/3, Fleshbane
Heavy Dragonfire Rounds: R36 S5 AP4 Salvo 3/3, Ignores Cover
Heavy Vengeance Rounds: R30 S5 AP1 Salvo 3/3, Gets Hot

For a points cost, of course - not free. But that's getting closer to enough dakka. Your choice, rending and volume or range and weirdness.

Yup, this is much closer to Xeno weapons.

Personally, I would be fine with deleting Centurions; they should have fixed the issues with Terminators instead of muddying things by making a poor-looking model that contains the fixes Terminators should have had.

It seems though, moreso than movement, terminator firepower and durability is the real issue. GW seems to be locked into their performance in Space Hulk than on a general battlefield, and they could really use a top-down redesign/reimagining - which I suppose we got with Cetnturions, but I'm really disappointed in the visual style of those models.

BTW, What the heck is MANZ?

Mega Armor Nobz.

Martel732 wrote:
The problem is EXACTLY a d6-based system with so many different models. Models that crowd out the terminator. Terminators may have been functional in 4th, but were not in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, or 7th.

If you move to d10s or something else you're pushing the problem down the road instead of fixing it. Releasing larger and larger models is what's making things fall off the bottom of the scale, not using too small a die.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The problem is EXACTLY a d6-based system with so many different models. Models that crowd out the terminator. Terminators may have been functional in 4th, but were not in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, or 7th.

If you move to d10s or something else you're pushing the problem down the road instead of fixing it. Releasing larger and larger models is what's making things fall off the bottom of the scale, not using too small a die.

I disagree. Using a D10 would give terminators a niche back among their peers. They can't compete against their peers at the moment, much less the larger models. Remember that loyalist terminators were junk in 2nd ed as well.

Martel732 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The problem is EXACTLY a d6-based system with so many different models. Models that crowd out the terminator. Terminators may have been functional in 4th, but were not in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, or 7th.

If you move to d10s or something else you're pushing the problem down the road instead of fixing it. Releasing larger and larger models is what's making things fall off the bottom of the scale, not using too small a die.

I disagree. Using a D10 would give terminators a niche back among their peers. They can't compete against their peers at the moment, much less the larger models. Remember that loyalist terminators were junk in 2nd ed as well.

Using d10s would fix the problem for right now. You'd get things working again for all the models we have now, assuming no new models or units are released.

Once GW starts dropping more weird big kits you'd end up right back where we started.

The granularity problem is distinct from but related to GW's miscosting of models problem.

The terminator no longer has a niche at all mathematically speaking and so becomes nearly impossible to price appropriately.

In a D10 system, terminators would be one of the few rare 2+ save models. Not only is this an immediate boost vs all small arms, with a 90% save rate vs 83%, we can hand out 3+ armor, or the 80% save rate to riptides, broadsides, and other tough units that aren't terminator tough. Get it? Good old space marines would come in with 4+ armor.

The granularity problem is entirely and completely because GW keeps trying to stretch the scale. The 1-10 stat range/d6 system was designed to work in a game where the biggest thing around was a Greater Daemon, AP2 shooting was almost nonexistent, and small arms meant something. It's falling apart because GW's attempted to stretch it into a game of Titans, Hellstorm templates, and tank squadrons, not because it wasn't granular enough to begin with.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The granularity problem is entirely and completely because GW keeps trying to stretch the scale. The 1-10 stat range/d6 system was designed to work in a game where the biggest thing around was a Greater Daemon, AP2 shooting was almost nonexistent, and small arms meant something. It's falling apart because GW's attempted to stretch it into a game of Titans, Hellstorm templates, and tank squadrons, not because it wasn't granular enough to begin with.

I disagree. Simply adding in more variety of models stretches the system as badly or worse. Again, terminators can't compete against their peers. It has nothing to do with titans, etc. Eldar are nearly a 3+ armor save army now because there is no mathematical space for aspect armor in the current system.

There were several weapons in 2nd that were -6 armor save, including the humble krak missile. Loyalist terminators have NEVER been viable except maybe in 4th. It has NOTHING to do with scale changes. In fact, there are examples of large-scale models that are overcosted significantly. Notably, walker types that go down super-fast to melta.

Martel732 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The granularity problem is entirely and completely because GW keeps trying to stretch the scale. The 1-10 stat range/d6 system was designed to work in a game where the biggest thing around was a Greater Daemon, AP2 shooting was almost nonexistent, and small arms meant something. It's falling apart because GW's attempted to stretch it into a game of Titans, Hellstorm templates, and tank squadrons, not because it wasn't granular enough to begin with.

I disagree. Simply adding in more variety of models stretches the system as badly or worse. Again, terminators can't compete against their peers. It has nothing to do with titans, etc.

There were several weapons in 2nd that were -6 armor save, including the humble krak missile. Loyalist terminators have NEVER been viable except maybe in 4th.

Look. The problem is the power creep. You're proposing a 'solution' that doesn't do anything about the power creep. Buffing a unit makes the power creep worse, adjusting the core system doesn't change the problem.

I can't speak to 2nd. I can barely speak to 3rd. Terminators worked well in 4th and were useful in 5th before the gun size creep started.

Terminators were crap in 5th because their firepower was poor and any old power weapon cut them open like a tin can. We won't get into what fast las/plas razors did to them.

There is no power creep with respect to loyalist terminators being useless. 4th is the anomaly, not the rest of the editions. 3rd is when krak missiles went to AP 3 but plasma went from -2 armor save to an incredible AP 2. But terminators simply went from dying from one weapon to another.

What there IS a problem with is mathematical niche. Which my proposal directly addresses. Plasma would likely become AP 3 on a D10 system, which would no longer penetrate terminators. Given that they are designed to survive plasma reactors, that seems fair.

Currently, terminators would be worthless without centurions or super heavies in the game. It's not power creep in this case.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd much rather have assault cannons. S4 shooting is not valuable for a marine list.

I'm against this idea mostly because scaling up the power level of things to scat bike levels actually does more harm than good in my eyes. While we're discussing homebrew changes, I personally feel it's better to nerf problematic options than to make all options problematic. Asssault cannons everywhere invalidates things like footslogging marines in friendly games. Storm bolters don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
I actually like something similar to Dark Heresy's "Storm" mechanic, where sufficiently successful to-hit rolls inflict multiple hits. We already have this - Tesla. Would it work for storm bolters to have something like that? For example:

Storm: All successful to-hit rolls with a weapon that has this special rule inflict two hits. To-hit rolls of 6 inflict four hits instead, unless snap-shooting (where they still inflict two).

Now yeah, that's still measly S4 AP5 shots, but this doesn't only buff Terminators - it buffs everything with a storm bolter. It probably wouldn't be enough for Terminators on its own, though. Maybe also give Termies the ability to take two heavies per 5, and for every model to exchange its storm bolter for a heavy bolter for 5 points, say?

One free heavy weapon, one at a point cost.

Not. Enough. Dakka. Quit thinking small. Remember that you are facing Riptides and Wraithknights with these guys.

Power fists are pretty good at killing riptides and will put a dent in a wraithknight. It's okay for some units to not be backing wraithknight-killing firepower.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jade_angel wrote:
I actually like something similar to Dark Heresy's "Storm" mechanic, where sufficiently successful to-hit rolls inflict multiple hits. We already have this - Tesla. Would it work for storm bolters to have something like that? For example:

Storm: All successful to-hit rolls with a weapon that has this special rule inflict two hits. To-hit rolls of 6 inflict four hits instead, unless snap-shooting (where they still inflict two).

Now yeah, that's still measly S4 AP5 shots, but this doesn't only buff Terminators - it buffs everything with a storm bolter. It probably wouldn't be enough for Terminators on its own, though. Maybe also give Termies the ability to take two heavies per 5, and for every model to exchange its storm bolter for a heavy bolter for 5 points, say?

This is an interesting ideas. Despite Martel's cynicism towards the power of strength 4, generating that many hits per body actually isn't an awful way to take out bikes. Not sure how I feel about the heavy bolter part though.

" footslogging marines in friendly games."

Already invalidated, even in friendly games.

" It's okay for some units to not be backing wraithknight-killing firepower."

Not for what terminators cost. Be real; terminators are never going to get to use their power fists.

"I'm against this idea mostly because scaling up the power level of things to scat bike levels actually does more harm than good in my eyes"

Unless you refuse to play vs C:Eldar, GW is not giving you a design choice. Players react very negatively to nerfs; much less than other lists being buffed to their level. Don't worry, scatbikes are still better.

Martel732 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The granularity problem is entirely and completely because GW keeps trying to stretch the scale. The 1-10 stat range/d6 system was designed to work in a game where the biggest thing around was a Greater Daemon, AP2 shooting was almost nonexistent, and small arms meant something. It's falling apart because GW's attempted to stretch it into a game of Titans, Hellstorm templates, and tank squadrons, not because it wasn't granular enough to begin with.

I disagree. Simply adding in more variety of models stretches the system as badly or worse. Again, terminators can't compete against their peers. It has nothing to do with titans, etc. Eldar are nearly a 3+ armor save army now because there is no mathematical space for aspect armor in the current system.

There were several weapons in 2nd that were -6 armor save, including the humble krak missile. Loyalist terminators have NEVER been viable except maybe in 4th. It has NOTHING to do with scale changes. In fact, there are examples of large-scale models that are overcosted significantly. Notably, walker types that go down super-fast to melta.

I tend to agree with Anomander here, though Martel makes some good points. The difference between a 3+ armor save and a 2+ armor save matters a lot more when the scariest thing on the table is some heavy support choice tank. In a world of GMCs, abundant AP2, and high-strength-high-volume-of-fire spam, terminators have it kind of rough. I remember terminators doing reasonably well back in 5th edition. There were cheesier options, but they weren't frowned upon the way they are now.

They did not do well in 5th against strong lists. Terminators have been good in ONE edition. My group frowned on them a LOT in 5th. Power creep is not the problem as much as concept and mathematical niche.

Martel732 wrote:
" footslogging marines in friendly games."

Already invalidated, even in friendly games.

" It's okay for some units to not be backing wraithknight-killing firepower."

Not for what terminators cost. Be real; terminators are never going to get to use their power fists.

"I'm against this idea mostly because scaling up the power level of things to scat bike levels actually does more harm than good in my eyes"

Unless you refuse to play vs C:Eldar, GW is not giving you a design choice. Players react very negatively to nerfs; much less than other lists being buffed to their level. Don't worry, scatbikes are still better.

Even footslogging chaos marines work perfectly well in my friendly games. They aren't a choice you bring to a tournament, but there are plenty of fluffy, not-that-weird armies that foot marines can face off against and do reasonably well against.

My terminators make it into melee all the time. This is in friendly games (I don't bring marines to tournaments), but they get there without too much fuss.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to turn down a game against a guy bringing scat bike spam if you're just looking for a casual game. You're not wrong about people reacting worse to nerfs than buffs, but that doesn't mean nerfs are impossible to push through or get people to agree to. As someone who plays primarily eldar, I'd be quite happy if our next codex dialed back jetbikes to only allowing one in three models to have a heavy weapon again.

Something else to consider with the granularity problem: there are a LOT of AP 2 weapons and relatively few AP 3 weapons. I have no idea why this is the case, but that's what GW has done.

Something like the Riptide isn't just good because of 2+ armor. The 2+ armor stacks with T6 making regular melee useless and things like poison effectively useless as well. Riptide is backed up by a 3++ save and FNP that make it crazy.

Terminators have little of this. Yes, they have a 5++, but they are only T4. You can force saves on terminators with boltguns and do meaningful damage in a way that simply can't happen with Riptides.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The granularity problem is entirely and completely because GW keeps trying to stretch the scale. The 1-10 stat range/d6 system was designed to work in a game where the biggest thing around was a Greater Daemon, AP2 shooting was almost nonexistent, and small arms meant something. It's falling apart because GW's attempted to stretch it into a game of Titans, Hellstorm templates, and tank squadrons, not because it wasn't granular enough to begin with.

I disagree. Simply adding in more variety of models stretches the system as badly or worse. Again, terminators can't compete against their peers. It has nothing to do with titans, etc.

There were several weapons in 2nd that were -6 armor save, including the humble krak missile. Loyalist terminators have NEVER been viable except maybe in 4th.

Look. The problem is the power creep. You're proposing a 'solution' that doesn't do anything about the power creep. Buffing a unit makes the power creep worse, adjusting the core system doesn't change the problem.

These are pretty much my thoughts. Upping the power level of units that aren't already top tier just makes it even more difficult to field non-optimal options. I feel our time might be better spent discussing ways to tone down jetbikes, wraithknights, decurion, etc. than discussing ways to make terminators equally OP. If we just raise the average strength of all shooting in the game to 6, then all we're doing is getting rid of variety.

A d10 system isn't a bad idea so much as an unwieldy one. There are plenty of threads discussing the little problems that crop up with the d10 system. Basically, I feel like it would be a complicated, time-intensive bandaid to a problem that's more easily solved by simply fixing problem units. Rather than rewriting every statline and chart in the game, why not focus on a far less daunting task like putting together a reasonable list of modifications to problem units that tone them down without making them unplayable? This would obviously mostly be for use in friendly games, but I think that's implied to be the case for anything found in the proposed rules section of the forum.

Because I think it's important to be able to have some differences between marine armor and eldar armor. And broadside armor and terminator armor. And armor of 6+ and 5+ are both essentially useless except in niche cases.

I don't see any modifications under the current system that make terminators playable. It's been discussed over and over and nothing fits, because the armor is too easily ignored and their firepower is meaningless. By the time you run around and try to nerf stuff, you might as well rewrite under D10.

Martel732 wrote:
Something else to consider with the granularity problem: there are a LOT of AP 2 weapons and relatively few AP 3 weapons. I have no idea why this is the case, but that's what GW has done.

Something like the Riptide isn't just good because of 2+ armor. The 2+ armor stacks with T6 making regular melee useless and things like poison effectively useless as well. Riptide is backed up by a 3++ save and FNP that make it crazy.

Terminators have little of this. Yes, they have a 5++, but they are only T4. You can force saves on terminators with boltguns and do meaningful damage in a way that simply can't happen with Riptides.

I feel your point actually kind of ties in to Anomander's previous point. Part of the problem with terminators is the scale of the game. Not so much the presence of GMCs; those are more of a symptom than a direct problem. The sheer number and variety of units on the table, I think, are a big part of what's ailing terminators these days. Back in the day, fewer models and only a CAD for army construction meant less incoming fire. You were going to be facing off against fewer models, and at least some of those models were going to be troops who were unlikely to be packing a lot of AP2. Now, points deflation, the increase in average game size from ~1500 to ~1850, and the flexibility with which armies can be created (formations/detachments) means that opponents can bring a lot more big guns to the table.

Facing off against a CAD from the old days where you had some missile launcher squads and the occassional plasma gun mixed into a tac marine unit, a guy with a 2+ save and a power fist who could plop down behind enemy lines wasn't so bad. These days, you have to weather formations of riptides that get bonuses just for taking multiples of an optimal unit. You have to deal with the high-strength-high-shots spam that's in vogue for hull pointing out vehicles. You have to sit through at least one turn of all that firepower and then take a little more in the form of overwatch before you make it in.

Again, i'm really curious to see how terminators would perform in a ~1,000 point casual game against a vanilla enemy list. They would probably still need some love, but I imagine they'd seem like much more reasonable choices.

But terminators fared no better in 2nd ed with far fewer models. Because once again, they had a poor mathematical niche. The game scale was smaller, but that just mean you had fewer terminators to die miserably.

3rd ed was arguably worse with the introduction of the AP 2 plasma gun.

Even against a casual list, realize that terminators are less durable against small arms per point than a standard marine. They have no niche even then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An addendum to the above: 2nd ed CSM terminators were good. Why? They didn't have any extra durability, but the DID shoot much better.

Martel732 wrote:
Because I think it's important to be able to have some differences between marine armor and eldar armor. And broadside armor and terminator armor. And armor of 6+ and 5+ are both essentially useless except in niche cases.

I don't see any modifications under the current system that make terminators playable. It's been discussed over and over and nothing fits, because the armor is too easily ignored and their firepower is meaningless. By the time you run around and try to nerf stuff, you might as well rewrite under D10.

Not to derail the terminator conversation, but I'm not sure switching to d10 really helps with any of that. For starters, switching to d10 means rewriting literally every statline and chart in the game plus quite a few special rules (Preferred Enemy would be massively nerfed, for instance). I feel that it's much easier to say, "Hey, let's tone down access to heavy weapons and maybe ban problematic formations."

But fair enough. You're not looking at a small project one way or the other, so let's say we did decide to rewrite everything as d10 based. Assuming you're looking at essentially the same mechanics just scaled up for the new die size, directly translating things to a d10 equivalent doesn't really change much. For instance, a 2+ save has about an 83% chance of succeeding. So in a d10 system, you might call that a 3+ because a 3+ in a d10 has an 80% chance of succeeding. So then maybe you decide broadside armor should be just slightly better or worse than terminator armor. So call it a 2+ or 4+. That gives you a 10% difference from the 3+. Which isn't anything to sneeze at, but it's not really a massive change either. Especially when we're dealing with relatively elite models that will be few in number.

On the other side of things, a 6+ armor save on a gaunt might turn into a 9+ armor save in a d10 system. If you make no other changes to AP than to have it scale to d10 (by making AP6 into AP9, AP5 into AP7, etc.), then you're still going to be ignoring that save entirely thus preventing them from getting it, and they're still dying to enemy fire at the same rate. Let's say you want gaunt armor to be really bad so you make it a 10+ save. In situations where they actually get their save (against exploding vehicles for instance), this just means that now you'll now lose 9 gaunts for every 10 that are wounded instead of 8. Which isn't a huge difference really.

If you want to make additional changes that meaningfully change the likelihood of a thing hitting, missing, dying, living, etc, that's great, but those would all be entirely separate discussions independent of the d10 system idea. Unless they also happened to require the use of a d10 system for some reason.

If what you're really looking for from a d10 system is a sense of distinction and granularity (the difference between broadside and terminator durability), that's perfectly fine, but I'd put forward that such granular distinctions might be better suited to a skirmish-level game or RPG rather than a game of 40k's scale. Directly converting current 40k to a d10 system still sees high strength weapons wounding terminators ~80% of the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
But terminators fared no better in 2nd ed with far fewer models. Because once again, they had a poor mathematical niche. The game scale was smaller, but that just mean you had fewer terminators to die miserably.

3rd ed was arguably worse with the introduction of the AP 2 plasma gun.

Even against a casual list, realize that terminators are less durable against small arms per point than a standard marine. They have no niche even then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An addendum to the above: 2nd ed CSM terminators were good. Why? They didn't have any extra durability, but the DID shoot much better.

This is a fair point. Terminators are, in theory, supposed to be all but immune to small arms fire. So with that in mind, I'd be interested in hearing reasonable ways to make them reflect that durability on the tabletop. Assault cannon spam doesn't really accomplish this.

That's not necessarily true. Let's say marines are now T5 and plasma guns are still S7 for argument's sake. So the plasma gun still wounds around 80% of the time, but now the terminator gets a 2+ vs the plasma wound because we have changed plasma to AP 3! I would keep terminators 2+ on a D10, giving them a 90% save. Going form 83% save to 90% helps show the near immunity to small arms.

It wouldn't be a straight conversion, either. I'm not sure what all exactly would change, but I would try to keep the current AP system with maybe a tweak for AP equal to armor.

"Assault cannon spam doesn't really accomplish this."

That just makes them functional in the current system. There is no way to model them properly in the current system. That's my entire point.

Martel732 wrote:
That's not necessarily true. Let's say marines are now T5 and plasma guns are still S7 for argument's sake. So the plasma gun still wounds around 80% of the time, but now the terminator gets a 2+ vs the plasma wound because we have changed plasma to AP 3! I would keep terminators 2+ on a D10, giving them a 90% save. Going form 83% save to 90% helps show the near immunity to small arms.

It wouldn't be a straight conversion, either. I'm not sure what all exactly would change, but I would try to keep the current AP system with maybe a tweak for AP equal to armor.

"Assault cannon spam doesn't really accomplish this."

That just makes them functional in the current system. There is no way to model them properly in the current system. That's my entire point.

Ahhh. I see. I don't think that the d10 is a bad way to go. Your idea would probably work. It just seems like a very labor-intensive way to go about things. If you're looking to make terminators harder to wound and to give them armor saves against AP2 weapons, you could do something like:

* Change toughness to 5 OR give all enemy weapons a -1 to their to-wound rolls.
* Give them 1+ armor saves. As per the current RAW rules, this would still fail on a 1, but they'd get the save against AP2.

The -1 to-wound thing would require a the addition of a simple-to-resolve special rule (which bad because of rules bloat), but it's still a lot less to write and memorize than rewriting the statline for everything in the game.

Taking some ideas from paraih gear from horus heresy and the eldar formation from death masque.

Terminator armour (from any codex) gains an additional save that can be taken along with any other save. This includes armour, invuln, fnp, cover, etc. This is a 4+ save. However this save can only be used against attacks with a str of 5 or less. Against any attack higher than str5 it is reduced to a 6+.

This gives them doubled survival against massed small arms and helps to give a small bit of resistance to bigger guns.

Another idea I was thinking is that it was originally designed to survive inside plasma reactors. Maybe give them a rule that means plasma based weapons can never remove their armour saves, only reduce.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's not necessarily true. Let's say marines are now T5 and plasma guns are still S7 for argument's sake. So the plasma gun still wounds around 80% of the time, but now the terminator gets a 2+ vs the plasma wound because we have changed plasma to AP 3! I would keep terminators 2+ on a D10, giving them a 90% save. Going form 83% save to 90% helps show the near immunity to small arms.

It wouldn't be a straight conversion, either. I'm not sure what all exactly would change, but I would try to keep the current AP system with maybe a tweak for AP equal to armor.

"Assault cannon spam doesn't really accomplish this."

That just makes them functional in the current system. There is no way to model them properly in the current system. That's my entire point.

Ahhh. I see. I don't think that the d10 is a bad way to go. Your idea would probably work. It just seems like a very labor-intensive way to go about things. If you're looking to make terminators harder to wound and to give them armor saves against AP2 weapons, you could do something like:

* Change toughness to 5 OR give all enemy weapons a -1 to their to-wound rolls.
* Give them 1+ armor saves. As per the current RAW rules, this would still fail on a 1, but they'd get the save against AP2.

The -1 to-wound thing would require a the addition of a simple-to-resolve special rule (which bad because of rules bloat), but it's still a lot less to write and memorize than rewriting the statline for everything in the game.

I'd still like to rewrite, though, because having functional armor ranges from 2+ to around 8+ will provide for a great deal of unit AND weapon variety. Aspect armor can be different from carapace armor and both are different than power armor etc. Remember, terminators have a two-fold problem. Their durability is not great, and neither is their shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HANZERtank wrote:
Taking some ideas from paraih gear from horus heresy and the eldar formation from death masque.

Terminator armour (from any codex) gains an additional save that can be taken along with any other save. This includes armour, invuln, fnp, cover, etc. This is a 4+ save. However this save can only be used against attacks with a str of 5 or less. Against any attack higher than str5 it is reduced to a 6+.

This gives them doubled survival against massed small arms and helps to give a small bit of resistance to bigger guns.

Another idea I was thinking is that it was originally designed to survive inside plasma reactors. Maybe give them a rule that means plasma based weapons can never remove their armour saves, only reduce.

This is all much more easily modeled with a D10 system. You are having to do lots of system hacking because the D6 has squeezed out the terminator.

Martel732 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's not necessarily true. Let's say marines are now T5 and plasma guns are still S7 for argument's sake. So the plasma gun still wounds around 80% of the time, but now the terminator gets a 2+ vs the plasma wound because we have changed plasma to AP 3! I would keep terminators 2+ on a D10, giving them a 90% save. Going form 83% save to 90% helps show the near immunity to small arms.

It wouldn't be a straight conversion, either. I'm not sure what all exactly would change, but I would try to keep the current AP system with maybe a tweak for AP equal to armor.

"Assault cannon spam doesn't really accomplish this."

That just makes them functional in the current system. There is no way to model them properly in the current system. That's my entire point.

Ahhh. I see. I don't think that the d10 is a bad way to go. Your idea would probably work. It just seems like a very labor-intensive way to go about things. If you're looking to make terminators harder to wound and to give them armor saves against AP2 weapons, you could do something like:

* Change toughness to 5 OR give all enemy weapons a -1 to their to-wound rolls.
* Give them 1+ armor saves. As per the current RAW rules, this would still fail on a 1, but they'd get the save against AP2.

The -1 to-wound thing would require a the addition of a simple-to-resolve special rule (which bad because of rules bloat), but it's still a lot less to write and memorize than rewriting the statline for everything in the game.

I'd still like to rewrite, though, because having functional armor ranges from 2+ to around 8+ will provide for a great deal of unit AND weapon variety. Aspect armor can be different from carapace armor and both are different than power armor etc. Remember, terminators have a two-fold problem. Their durability is not great, and neither is their shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HANZERtank wrote:
Taking some ideas from paraih gear from horus heresy and the eldar formation from death masque.

Terminator armour (from any codex) gains an additional save that can be taken along with any other save. This includes armour, invuln, fnp, cover, etc. This is a 4+ save. However this save can only be used against attacks with a str of 5 or less. Against any attack higher than str5 it is reduced to a 6+.

This gives them doubled survival against massed small arms and helps to give a small bit of resistance to bigger guns.

Another idea I was thinking is that it was originally designed to survive inside plasma reactors. Maybe give them a rule that means plasma based weapons can never remove their armour saves, only reduce.

This is all much more easily modeled with a D10 system. You are having to do lots of system hacking because the D6 has squeezed out the terminator.

I don't personally share your desire for detailed variety in armor (or statlines for that matter). Having some acknowledgment of the difference between aspect armor and carapace armor or between ork, marine, and guardsman strength scores would be nice, but I feel an abstract "4+" works reasonably well. More variety would be neat, but it's not very high on my personal wishlist. I think I'd be a lot more excited about/open to it if we were talking about a system for a game that doesn't already exist. I kind of see it as both interesting and unnecessary. You do you though. I'd be interested in seeing what values you chose to assign to things.

To use an awkward analogy, switching to a d10 system is sort of like putting a lightbulb fixture into a house. It's not a bad idea and can be done pretty easily while you're building the house. Once the house is already built however, you're probably better off plugging in a lamp than tearing down the room and redoing all the wiring.

But 4+ is the cut off for useful armor in 40K. So there are three armor types: 2+, 3+, 4+. Kinda boring and makes for unimaginative weapon systems and decisions.

GW: "Heavy bolters are too good vs Eldar! Give them more 3+ armor, so there can be even MOAR power armor in the game!"

 HANZERtank wrote:
Taking some ideas from paraih gear from horus heresy and the eldar formation from death masque.

Terminator armour (from any codex) gains an additional save that can be taken along with any other save. This includes armour, invuln, fnp, cover, etc. This is a 4+ save. However this save can only be used against attacks with a str of 5 or less. Against any attack higher than str5 it is reduced to a 6+.

This gives them doubled survival against massed small arms and helps to give a small bit of resistance to bigger guns.

Another idea I was thinking is that it was originally designed to survive inside plasma reactors. Maybe give them a rule that means plasma based weapons can never remove their armour saves, only reduce.

I very much like the 4+ VS small arms idea. Basically a ward save for very rare and especially durable units like terminators. The plasma thing is cool, but I think the list of things that terminator armor is meant to be proof against would be a very long one if we went that route. You'd be adding in flamers, poison, maybe certain flesh bane weapons, etc. to that list. ^_^;

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a flat "-1 to all to-wound rolls against models in terminator armor." It means that even the biggest of weapons would have at least a 33% chance of failing to get through the armor (before saves), and it would reduce the number of wounds generated by small arms fire significantly.

But this doesn't help a unit like sanguinary guard who are in the exact same situation as terminators. 2+ infantry are bad in general.

Also terminators would still suffer from poor firepower and ap 2 prevalence. And look how much text the fix involves. And a mechanic that nothing else has.

Why not make them like 3ed thousand sons weapons less then str 5 did not work vs them

I will say this in some army's they all ready are a pain to kill

Which lists?

Martel732 wrote:
But this doesn't help a unit like sanguinary guard who are in the exact same situation as terminators. 2+ infantry are bad in general.

Also terminators would still suffer from poor firepower and ap 2 prevalence. And look how much text the fix involves. And a mechanic that nothing else has.

You know, sanguinary guard have all the makings of a half-decent assault unit. Their save is good (even if it's weak in the meta), they're fast with various options for deepstriking relatively reliably (if that's your thing), and they hit reasonably hard in melee. Considering they're less iconic and less directly comparable to other units than terminators, I think you could probably "fix" them by lowering their price tag to something reasonable for the current meta. What are they? 50 points apiece base? Drop that down to about 30, and I think you have something reasonably durable, fast, and powerful for its cost. I don't normally go for the "just make it cheaper" approach, but I think it's a neat, reasonable solution for a unit that isn't innately bad so much as it's just bad for its points like SG. They fit their fluff reasonably well.

Terminators would suffer less from AP2 prevalence with my suggested changes (which I'm not married too; they're spitballs) if they're taking fewer wounds in general. Adding the 4+ ward save to the mix wouldn't hurt either. Sure, a lascannon would still kill a guy pretty reliably, but it took a lascannon to kill him. As for the amount of text the rule uses, it seems like it would fit reasonably snugly into the terminator wargear section of the armory. Pin on a sentence to the effect of...

"To-wound rolls made against a model in terminator armor suffer a -1 penalty. This penalty also applies when rolling to wound against units clad exclusively in terminator armor." Someone could probably trim that down further. Not too bad for a piece of wargear that appears in about half the major codices out there.

The problem is with all 2+ infantry, though. You are hacking in a fix for a specific source of 2+ save, but all others are just terrible.

Sanguinary guard are already 33 pts a model, but just get destroyed by any real CC unit, so I'm really just buying a bully unit. I can get much cheaper bully units.

Remember that every MC in the game completely ignores all armor AND strike on initiative. I would change this drastically in a D10 system. MCs go a long way to making both terminators and 2+ infantry in general useless.

How many units are we going to reduce in price or hack in new rules to before it's better to just rewrite.

As I look more and more at Terminators and their derivatives (partly from the comments so far, thanks for everyone chiming in), I see that the Terminator "design niche" is really messed up.

1) These guys are supposed to be walking tanks, but are susceptible to small-arms fire.

2) They are capable of packing man-portable or light vehicle ranged weapons (and fire it on the move) but are saddled with anti-infantry weapons that have not even paced well with the increasing scale of ranged firepower

3) In melee, they are armed in a manner they can terrorize vehicles (but not walkers), but are unlikely to survive to be of use against MC's or infantry.

4) Though they can quickly arrive to an engagement, but are either shortly vulnerable doing so or have to pay a premium to be near-immediately useful. Re-positioning them once deployed can be painfully slow.

In short, they have options that should make them excel at being resilient and striking hard, but when put to play their drawbacks overshadow their usefulness and actually get in the way of performing their job - which is neither tankhunter, infantry killer or objective taker/holder.

Hence my desire to realign everything in a D10 system. I can build in a niche for every unit much easier when there is more than three types of effective armor. I can tell you now, the Tau ion accelerator is not going to penetrate terminator armor, but the hammerhead and rail rifles will.

My basic design philosophy will be that only single shot weapons will be AP 2 or AP 1. I've also heavily leaning towards the mechanic in which if a weapon matches target armor, like AP 2 vs 2+, that shot halves armor effectiveness rounded down. So AP 2 causes 2+ to still get a 7+ roll to save. Only AP 1 and AP 0 will completely penetrate terminators.

With storm bolters, it's going to take a lot more thinking, and a lot more unit conversion to see where bolt weapons need to be to make sense. Currently, they are an embarrassment.

Another thought that struck me:

I beleive that the following units "started" all in the same design space, to fill the same basic role - Superheavy Infantry. I also thing they should be more or less equivilant, in their own way:

1 - (Chaos) Space Marine Terminators - should be "All arounders"/ general purpose
2 - Mega-Armor Orc Nobz - orc mirrors of Terminators, though a bit more melee focused
3 - Eldar Wraithguard/blade - more lithe (higher Init and Move), but more fragile (lower T?)
4 - Tau Crisis Suit - better ranged (longer weapon ranges, jet packs)

I think Terminators (and probably MANZ) have been neglected and allowed to fall out of their design space, while at least the Eldar have been pushed to a "too good" position. Tau *seem* like the only one on target for their design space, if not a notch above.

Terminators have rarely been in their dezign space. Realize that in their glory days of 2nd they were still easy to dakka down or penetrate.

Yeah, I'm beginning to realize that while terminators have a great model asthetic and are fluffy they've had a messed up design that 40K can't disguise or hide any more.

While going D10 might fix the issues, I'm wondering if the following ideas might correct their issues D6-wise (no idea on points cost effects):

1) Armor becomes 1+ (Still only save on 2+, but now resiliant to AP 2 weapons)
2) They can reroll missed Armor saves (Infantry weapons go from 1 in 6 chance to wreck them to 1 in 36)
3) All models can take a Heavy Weapon
4) Slow and Purposeful removes Unwieldy from Power Fist so that Terminators strike at Init in hand-to-hand (would likely have to expand this to Vehicle Walkers and anything with Relentless as well - it makes sense to me though; if Heavy can be mitigated, why can't Unwieldy?)
5) Options for Jump Packs (Hammer of Wrath - yes please?) or on-board Teleportation (possibly One Use only?).

You can't just give them a 1+ save because that makes the point of TH/SS Terminators useless.

Storm Shield still has its uses (will help against AP 1 attacks). Just give the Thunderhammer Instant Death?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You can't just give them a 1+ save because that makes the point of TH/SS Terminators useless.

Again, we are trapped by the D6 system. AP 2 is a necessary evil and there is no mathematical space for any other armor type. Agreed, 1+ armor is a no-go in the current game. However, in the D10 system, AP 1 and 0 would still exist, so TH/SS terminators still have a purpose. Additionally, the storm shield would be superior to the halved 2+ save in the case of AP 2 as well. Storm shield would probably be a 4++ invulnerable save on a D10. Maybe 5++ depending.

Allowing the reroll of failed armor saves overshoots the mark imo. 90% save rate vs small arms is about right. 1 in 36 is only a 2.7% failure rate, which is almost four times more durable than the 90% save! That's too much!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
Storm Shield still has its uses (will help against AP 1 attacks). Just give the Thunderhammer Instant Death?

You are making way too many changes to try to make a *single* unit viable. We still haven't addressed MANZ, sanguinary guard, or broadsides. Instant death has nothing to do with AP, btw.

Don't feel bad, it's just another data point supporting my hypothesis that there is no good fix for terminators in the current system.

To address the original question, I don't like the idea of jump Terminators, it feels intrinsically wrong.
I do however agree that they need to be improved and couldn't agree more with Martel that the d10 system is the way to do it. It would give a wider scope of options when giving models and weapons their stats and reduce the need for so many special rules. Which in turn would speed up the game. Personally I'd argue you could keep going up the scale on the size of the dice but that would be splitting hairs.
And the argument Martel makes with regards to plasma weapons is spot on. (terminator armour being 2+ on a d10, plasma weaponry being ap3)
This system could be taken further with Terminators. A standard Space Marine would now hit on say 4+ on a d10, but the more elite Terminators could hit on 3+. The d6 simply doesn't allow enough variation and too many units get shoehorned into the same level

Martel732 wrote:


You are making way too many changes to try to make a *single* unit viable. We still haven't addressed MANZ, sanguinary guard, or broadsides. Instant death has nothing to do with AP, btw.

Don't feel bad, it's just another data point supporting my hypothesis that there is no good fix for terminators in the current system.

I'm doing work on my own complete revamp of the entire game system, so in the end Terminators won't be the only one touched; I'm just working on what will fix them here, though I'm tangently interested in the fallout this will create for other units. I'm trying to stay within the confines of a D6 system, as that is what my offshoot system will use - though it uses a different AP system (such as AP 2 becomes AP +4, turning a 2+ armor save into a 6+ armor save, for example; this allows me to give Terminators a 1+ save in my system without breaking things).

Also, I'm aware the TH modification has no effect on AP - it's a lateral move; an AP 2 weapon with Instant Death makes it a very nice monster hunter, whout the evils giving it, say AP 1 would cause - making it a too-tempting choice to smash absolutely everything)

I think tyranid players are going to strenuously object. My idea for the d10 system is to get rid of instant death completely.

Giving Thunder Hammers ID is stupidly good and quite frankly steps on the toes of equipment that Deathwatch have.

I kind of don't care what Deathwatch have, but ID on any staple weapon is too good in general.

Well as much as it would be cool, the idea of a D10 system is to far fetched from being iplimented at this point, and honestly trying to gear it toward that is just none productive. We need to work with the tools we have which is a D 6 system.

So what can we do in our D6 system to fix the issue?

We have 3 problems
survivability
Firepower
Lack of engagement

So lets go down the list and address each issue one at a time.

survivability; what can we do to make them more resilient with the current meta, with the amount of AP2 on the field, and ease of access to it, the 2 ups get turned into a 5+ really easily.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Well as much as it would be cool, the idea of a D10 system is to far fetched from being iplimented at this point, and honestly trying to gear it toward that is just none productive. We need to work with the tools we have which is a D 6 system.

So what can we do in our D6 system to fix the issue?

We have 3 problems
survivability
Firepower
Lack of engagement

So lets go down the list and address each issue one at a time.

survivability; what can we do to make them more resilient with the current meta, with the amount of AP2 on the field, and ease of access to it, the 2 ups get turned into a 5+ really easily.

Without D10, it can't be done. Fixing terminators in the D6 system is even more far-fetched. No matter what you do, you can't can overcome interceptor ion accelerators and remain a sane unit.

you can

"terminator teleporter"

Terminators have the deep strike rule, in addition due to the blinding light and concussive burst of the terminators arrival via deep strike, they are not subject to the interceptor rule or any similar rules.

 Formosa wrote:
you can

"terminator teleporter"

Terminators have the deep strike rule, in addition due to the blinding light and concussive burst of the terminators arrival via deep strike, they are not subject to the interceptor rule or any similar rules.

So they shoot you on their real turn? So much better. Because everyone is so terrified of terminator shooting ability.

Martel732 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Well as much as it would be cool, the idea of a D10 system is to far fetched from being iplimented at this point, and honestly trying to gear it toward that is just none productive. We need to work with the tools we have which is a D 6 system.

So what can we do in our D6 system to fix the issue?

We have 3 problems
survivability
Firepower
Lack of engagement

So lets go down the list and address each issue one at a time.

survivability; what can we do to make them more resilient with the current meta, with the amount of AP2 on the field, and ease of access to it, the 2 ups get turned into a 5+ really easily.

Without D10, it can't be done. Fixing terminators in the D6 system is even more far-fetched. No matter what you do, you can't can overcome interceptor ion accelerators and remain a sane unit.

Well if thats the case, then i mean this is no rude way, but if you dont believe it can be fixed, stop saying we cant so that people who do want to can come up with viable solutions.

With that said, survivability, what would give them a better chance? A T increase or a wound increase, personally i would vote for a 2 wound each model. Still is going to leave them susceptible to insta death, but still not loosing models right and left on the turn they drop in.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Well as much as it would be cool, the idea of a D10 system is to far fetched from being iplimented at this point, and honestly trying to gear it toward that is just none productive. We need to work with the tools we have which is a D 6 system.

So what can we do in our D6 system to fix the issue?

We have 3 problems
survivability
Firepower
Lack of engagement

So lets go down the list and address each issue one at a time.

survivability; what can we do to make them more resilient with the current meta, with the amount of AP2 on the field, and ease of access to it, the 2 ups get turned into a 5+ really easily.

Without D10, it can't be done. Fixing terminators in the D6 system is even more far-fetched. No matter what you do, you can't can overcome interceptor ion accelerators and remain a sane unit.

Well if thats the case, then i mean this is no rude way, but if you dont believe it can be fixed, stop saying we cant so that people who do want to can come up with viable solutions.

With that said, survivability, what would give them a better chance? A T increase or a wound increase, personally i would vote for a 2 wound each model. Still is going to leave them susceptible to insta death, but still not loosing models right and left on the turn they drop in.

I'm saying this because there has been 20+ threads about this. You're going to have to give MANZ more wounds at a minimum if you do this. And then centurions are going to need more wounds as well. And maybe things like TWC. There is no mathematical space.

Even if you changed them to centurion durability, their guns would still be far inferior, so again, they'd get no use and step on many, many toes.

Martel732 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Well as much as it would be cool, the idea of a D10 system is to far fetched from being iplimented at this point, and honestly trying to gear it toward that is just none productive. We need to work with the tools we have which is a D 6 system.

So what can we do in our D6 system to fix the issue?

We have 3 problems
survivability
Firepower
Lack of engagement

So lets go down the list and address each issue one at a time.

survivability; what can we do to make them more resilient with the current meta, with the amount of AP2 on the field, and ease of access to it, the 2 ups get turned into a 5+ really easily.

Without D10, it can't be done. Fixing terminators in the D6 system is even more far-fetched. No matter what you do, you can't can overcome interceptor ion accelerators and remain a sane unit.

Well if thats the case, then i mean this is no rude way, but if you dont believe it can be fixed, stop saying we cant so that people who do want to can come up with viable solutions.

With that said, survivability, what would give them a better chance? A T increase or a wound increase, personally i would vote for a 2 wound each model. Still is going to leave them susceptible to insta death, but still not loosing models right and left on the turn they drop in.

I'm saying this because there has been 20+ threads about this. You're going to have to give MANZ more wounds at a minimum if you do this. And then centurions are going to need more wounds as well. And maybe things like TWC.

I understand that, but thats not the conversation thats happening yet. We are still talking about terminators, so again, not trying to be an arse, but unless you have actual help other then, cant do that, or make it d10, your not helping.

My suggestion from the start has been make terminators baseline 200 points, giving them a 2 wounds each, fluff wise, and game waise this helps them survive more, that way on turns they drop in, they are going going to be loosing 2 or 3 models before they can charge in, where they really shine.

Other then simply, this wont work, or go to D10 or, need to adjust other models does anyone have an actual suggestion, criticism or suggestion to this idea.

Martel732 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
you can

"terminator teleporter"

Terminators have the deep strike rule, in addition due to the blinding light and concussive burst of the terminators arrival via deep strike, they are not subject to the interceptor rule or any similar rules.

So they shoot you on their real turn? So much better. Because everyone is so terrified of terminator shooting ability.

yep, no interceptor though, and that was the point being made, that you cant make interceptor immunity without making termies OP

That makes them too much better than MANZ. You can't propose this without adjusting a bunch of other models.

This addresses one aspect: sub S8 fire vulnerability. This is the exact reason many people favor MANZ over terminators, actually. And you are taking it away.

At this point, I'm just representing Ork players because I've seen these exact discussions before. And they weren't as nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
you can

"terminator teleporter"

Terminators have the deep strike rule, in addition due to the blinding light and concussive burst of the terminators arrival via deep strike, they are not subject to the interceptor rule or any similar rules.

So they shoot you on their real turn? So much better. Because everyone is so terrified of terminator shooting ability.

yep, no interceptor though, and that was the point being made, that you cant make interceptor immunity without making termies OP

Okay I should have been more general, then. Ion accelerator to the face in any form.

Martel732 wrote:
That makes them too much better than MANZ. You can't propose this without adjusting a bunch of other models.

This addresses one aspect: sub S8 fire vulnerability. This is the exact reason many people favor MANZ over terminators, actually. And you are taking it away.

At this point, I'm just representing Ork players because I've seen these exact discussions before. And they weren't as nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
you can

"terminator teleporter"

Terminators have the deep strike rule, in addition due to the blinding light and concussive burst of the terminators arrival via deep strike, they are not subject to the interceptor rule or any similar rules.

So they shoot you on their real turn? So much better. Because everyone is so terrified of terminator shooting ability.

yep, no interceptor though, and that was the point being made, that you cant make interceptor immunity without making termies OP

Okay I should have been more general, then. Ion accelerator to the face in any form.

Then wahat are the stats of MANZ lets so how they stack up to terminators

assumeing the extra wound we are looking at the following

4s for S WS BS and T, 2 W I4 Ld9

at 40 points a model at 200 for 5 bare bones.

that 5 SB, 5 power fists which on a charge will give you 12 S8 AP 2 I1 strikes and 3 S4 AP 3 I4 strikes, on a charge. 8 S8 AP2 I1 hits and 2 S4 ap 3 I4 hits in combat.

What do MANZ look like.

thats going to be 6 wounds, so 4 less, but thats 12 S8 AP2 I1 attacks

excluding the sergeant, which still get armor saves, they are even when attacking. On top of that MANZ are only 120 points compaired to the suggested 200 point price tag for terminators im suggesting the premiem you are getting is 4 extra wounds, which will still be going up against insta death so it wont matter much. You could include 2 more MANZ to have it 5v5 and the nobs will vastly out perform the terminators even with 2 wounds, so the idea you keep going on about MANZ being better is clearly not the case with the suggested change of 200 points per 5 models 2 wounds each.

in a 5v5 assumeing no charge bonus, 200 points for base models you get the following

S8 AP 2 I1 x8
S4 AP3 I4 x2

vs

S8 AP2 I1 x15

So even if the Powersword managed to get all its wounds off you still have 5 MANZ that are going to strike at the same Init as the rest of the terminators and will be doing insta death on the terminators

Martel732 wrote:
That makes them too much better than MANZ. You can't propose this without adjusting a bunch of other models.

This addresses one aspect: sub S8 fire vulnerability. This is the exact reason many people favor MANZ over terminators, actually. And you are taking it away.

At this point, I'm just representing Ork players because I've seen these exact discussions before. And they weren't as nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
you can

"terminator teleporter"

Terminators have the deep strike rule, in addition due to the blinding light and concussive burst of the terminators arrival via deep strike, they are not subject to the interceptor rule or any similar rules.

So they shoot you on their real turn? So much better. Because everyone is so terrified of terminator shooting ability.

yep, no interceptor though, and that was the point being made, that you cant make interceptor immunity without making termies OP

Okay I should have been more general, then. Ion accelerator to the face in any form.

then ill fix that too

WS 5
BS 5
S 4
T 6
W 1
I 4
A 3
LD 9
SV 2+/4++
Terminator teleporter: on the turn the unit arrives, you may only fire snap shots at it.
Terminator Storm Bolter: str4 ap5 assault 4 "mass reactive" when rolling to would with Terminator storm bolters, a roll of a 6+ to wound causes an automatic wound at AP2
Terminator power fist: str x2 ap2 "lumbering strike" -1 to terminator I when in combat.
Terminator Assault cannon: str 6 ap4 assault 6 rending
Terminator Heavy Flamer: str5 ap4 torrent
Terminator Multi melta:

30pts per model

Terminator armour: 40pts for a character +2 to toughness, 2+/4++

Not even slightly OP these days, can shoot like a boss, can tank small arms quite well and plasma, now become a real viable alternative to sternguard etc., also now competes with bike lords/chapter masters

 Formosa wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That makes them too much better than MANZ. You can't propose this without adjusting a bunch of other models.

This addresses one aspect: sub S8 fire vulnerability. This is the exact reason many people favor MANZ over terminators, actually. And you are taking it away.

At this point, I'm just representing Ork players because I've seen these exact discussions before. And they weren't as nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
you can

"terminator teleporter"

Terminators have the deep strike rule, in addition due to the blinding light and concussive burst of the terminators arrival via deep strike, they are not subject to the interceptor rule or any similar rules.

So they shoot you on their real turn? So much better. Because everyone is so terrified of terminator shooting ability.

yep, no interceptor though, and that was the point being made, that you cant make interceptor immunity without making termies OP

Okay I should have been more general, then. Ion accelerator to the face in any form.

then ill fix that too

WS 5
BS 5
S 4
T 6
W 1
I 4
A 3
LD 9
SV 2+/4++
Terminator teleporter: on the turn the unit arrives, you may only fire snap shots at it.
Terminator Storm Bolter: str4 ap5 assault 4 "mass reactive" when rolling to would with Terminator storm bolters, a roll of a 6+ to wound causes an automatic wound at AP2
Terminator power fist: str x2 ap2 "lumbering strike" -1 to terminator I when in combat.
Terminator Assault cannon: str 6 ap4 assault 6 rending
Terminator Heavy Flamer: str5 ap4 torrent
Terminator Multi melta:

30pts per model

Terminator armour: 40pts for a character +2 to toughness, 2+/4++

Not even slightly OP these days, can shoot like a boss, can tank small arms quite well and plasma, now become a real viable alternative to sternguard etc., also now competes with bike lords/chapter masters

Or even take a look at my suggestion making them 200 points for 5 bare bones, with 2 wounds each would work.

That's at least worth playtesting, but Ork players are going to lose their minds.

Martel732 wrote:
That's at least worth playtesting, but Ork players are going to lose their minds.

Not really, since most people never run terminators in favor of more powerful units, even with this change, and even still even at 120, 3 models MANZ are still going to stand toe to toe with a 5 man squad of terminators, they only need to get 5 wounds in to wipe out the whole squad, assuming they dont make the invul save.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's at least worth playtesting, but Ork players are going to lose their minds.

Not really, since most people never run terminators in favor of more powerful units, even with this change, and even still even at 120, 3 models MANZ are still going to stand toe to toe with a 5 man squad of terminators, they only need to get 5 wounds in to wipe out the whole squad, assuming they dont make the invul save.

There's more than just heads up comparison. This proposed unit is way better vs the field.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's at least worth playtesting, but Ork players are going to lose their minds.

Not really, since most people never run terminators in favor of more powerful units, even with this change, and even still even at 120, 3 models MANZ are still going to stand toe to toe with a 5 man squad of terminators, they only need to get 5 wounds in to wipe out the whole squad, assuming they dont make the invul save.

OR we could not stand on the MANZ toes and just simply adjust their shooting and price.

Seriously, the obsession with increasing their durability is absurd. You're not going to take them with increased durability because they're not doing damage still. See how that leads to the actual problem?

Another problem we're getting here: deep strike leads to turn 3 charges at the soonest. Durability does not address this at all. When you drop in turn 2, shooting has to matter or they will never be used.

Well, the question is - what is their battlefield role?

Are they supposed to be objective holders? They will need extreme durability and weapons to fend off anything thrown at them, but they won't need a mobility boost.

Are they supposed to be infantry killers? Then they should be all but immune to small arms fire and need lots of midrange dakka to deal with hordes and melee weapons for mixing it up in assaults. They'll need some mobility to hunt down troops.

Are they supposed to be tank killers? Then they need to be able to deal with being hit with AP 2 effectively and have access to a range of heavy-duty weapons (perhaps options beyond those currently modelled, like access to Plasma, Melta, Las and anti-tank Cyclone launchers). They may need a mobility boost based on the range of their weaponry, and could drop access to always included melee weapons (aka, Power Fists).

Right now, they're schitzophrenic, trying to be pinch hitters or objective takers but not really excelling at dealing with any particular situation well.

Formosa seems to be shifting them towards melee assault against mobs or elite infantry. BackspaceHacker seems to be advocating them as anti-horde troops. Personally, I'd like to see them kitted out as infantry killers, with options to make them into tank hunters.

Their battlefield role is basically dictated by the storm bolter, which right now, sucks out loud. The power fists on a slow, predictable unit are NOT useful. Yeah, they're schitzophrenic, but they are good at NONE of the roles. No one takes tac marines for the bolters, they take them for the grav cannon and obj sec and to power the Gladius. Terminators are like super tac marines, so they are an amped up version of a failed concept.

What are MANZ?

Mega Nobz - the Orky TEQ unit. (And the only non-Terminator that's really a TEQ in the original sense)

Broadsides are basically teqs, though as well. It's interesting. Broadsides lose a powerfist, stormbolter, ATSKNF and pick up a wound and HYMP for extra cost.

Martel732 wrote:
Broadsides are basically teqs, though as well. It's interesting. Broadsides lose a powerfist, stormbolter, ATSKNF and pick up a wound and HYMP for extra cost.

I'd equate Broadsides more akin to Dreadnoughts, not Terminators personally. I would ascribe Crisis Suits being more akin to Terminators.

Broadsides and Crisis Suits straddle the TEQ line: Crisis are closer by role, Broadsides by statline.

Wraithguard are kinda, substituting T6 for Sv 2+, and Tyranid Warriors too, subbing in W3 for Sv 2+, but they're the weird nontraditional types.

Speaking of other races, I'm not sure what would equate to Tyranid versions of Terminators - Warriors are too fragile and Carnifexs seem to equate more to Dreadnoughts - I guess Tyrant Guard?

Eldar have their wraith constructs - do Dark Eldar have any TEQs?

 Stormonu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Broadsides are basically teqs, though as well. It's interesting. Broadsides lose a powerfist, stormbolter, ATSKNF and pick up a wound and HYMP for extra cost.

I'd equate Broadsides more akin to Dreadnoughts, not Terminators personally. I would ascribe Crisis Suits being more akin to Terminators.

Broadsides aren't vehicles, they can't be a dreadnought equivalent.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That makes them too much better than MANZ. You can't propose this without adjusting a bunch of other models.

This addresses one aspect: sub S8 fire vulnerability. This is the exact reason many people favor MANZ over terminators, actually. And you are taking it away.

At this point, I'm just representing Ork players because I've seen these exact discussions before. And they weren't as nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
you can

"terminator teleporter"

Terminators have the deep strike rule, in addition due to the blinding light and concussive burst of the terminators arrival via deep strike, they are not subject to the interceptor rule or any similar rules.

So they shoot you on their real turn? So much better. Because everyone is so terrified of terminator shooting ability.

yep, no interceptor though, and that was the point being made, that you cant make interceptor immunity without making termies OP

Okay I should have been more general, then. Ion accelerator to the face in any form.

then ill fix that too

WS 5
BS 5
S 4
T 6
W 1
I 4
A 3
LD 9
SV 2+/4++
Terminator teleporter: on the turn the unit arrives, you may only fire snap shots at it.
Terminator Storm Bolter: str4 ap5 assault 4 "mass reactive" when rolling to would with Terminator storm bolters, a roll of a 6+ to wound causes an automatic wound at AP2
Terminator power fist: str x2 ap2 "lumbering strike" -1 to terminator I when in combat.
Terminator Assault cannon: str 6 ap4 assault 6 rending
Terminator Heavy Flamer: str5 ap4 torrent
Terminator Multi melta:

30pts per model

Terminator armour: 40pts for a character +2 to toughness, 2+/4++

Not even slightly OP these days, can shoot like a boss, can tank small arms quite well and plasma, now become a real viable alternative to sternguard etc., also now competes with bike lords/chapter masters

Or even take a look at my suggestion making them 200 points for 5 bare bones, with 2 wounds each would work.

That won't fix it, terminators will still suck, but suck for a little longer on the tt, what I propose is a lot more radical, but WOULD make them viable, people would take them, as they would eat through infantry as they are supposed to, the change to the fist would also buff them slightly in cc, t6 terminators would also gain a partial immunity to small arms and high str weapons, lastly the teleport change would give them a much needed boost in the turn they drop.

All in all what I propose is making terminators fit the roll they are supposed to have, very resilient shock troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
Well, the question is - what is their battlefield role?

Are they supposed to be objective holders? They will need extreme durability and weapons to fend off anything thrown at them, but they won't need a mobility boost.

Are they supposed to be infantry killers? Then they should be all but immune to small arms fire and need lots of midrange dakka to deal with hordes and melee weapons for mixing it up in assaults. They'll need some mobility to hunt down troops.

Are they supposed to be tank killers? Then they need to be able to deal with being hit with AP 2 effectively and have access to a range of heavy-duty weapons (perhaps options beyond those currently modelled, like access to Plasma, Melta, Las and anti-tank Cyclone launchers). They may need a mobility boost based on the range of their weaponry, and could drop access to always included melee weapons (aka, Power Fists).

Right now, they're schitzophrenic, trying to be pinch hitters or objective takers but not really excelling at dealing with any particular situation well.

Formosa seems to be shifting them towards melee assault against mobs or elite infantry. BackspaceHacker seems to be advocating them as anti-horde troops. Personally, I'd like to see them kitted out as infantry killers, with options to make them into tank hunters.

Assault 4 pseudo rending and assault 6 assault cannons is my proposal, i3 power fists is to better represent the fluff of them wading through units of chaff.

I want terminators to be a terror on the battlefield

 Stormonu wrote:
Well, the question is - what is their battlefield role?

Are they supposed to be objective holders? They will need extreme durability and weapons to fend off anything thrown at them, but they won't need a mobility boost.

Are they supposed to be infantry killers? Then they should be all but immune to small arms fire and need lots of midrange dakka to deal with hordes and melee weapons for mixing it up in assaults. They'll need some mobility to hunt down troops.

Are they supposed to be tank killers? Then they need to be able to deal with being hit with AP 2 effectively and have access to a range of heavy-duty weapons (perhaps options beyond those currently modelled, like access to Plasma, Melta, Las and anti-tank Cyclone launchers). They may need a mobility boost based on the range of their weaponry, and could drop access to always included melee weapons (aka, Power Fists).

Right now, they're schitzophrenic, trying to be pinch hitters or objective takers but not really excelling at dealing with any particular situation well.

Formosa seems to be shifting them towards melee assault against mobs or elite infantry. BackspaceHacker seems to be advocating them as anti-horde troops. Personally, I'd like to see them kitted out as infantry killers, with options to make them into tank hunters.

Their role is to be shocked troops, represented by the fact they can deep strike and that they can supposedly take a Land Raider and make it somewhere. Hence why my proposal is to straight up make them offensive machines.

 Stormonu wrote:
Speaking of other races, I'm not sure what would equate to Tyranid versions of Terminators - Warriors are too fragile and Carnifexs seem to equate more to Dreadnoughts - I guess Tyrant Guard?

Eldar have their wraith constructs - do Dark Eldar have any TEQs?

Tyranid Warriors are the equivalent in theory if not in practice. The Craftworld equivalent is Wraithguard, the DE equivalent in size are Grotesques and in combat role it's probably Incubi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
...then ill fix that too

WS 5
BS 5
S 4
T 6
W 1
I 4
A 3
LD 9
SV 2+/4++
Terminator teleporter: on the turn the unit arrives, you may only fire snap shots at it.
Terminator Storm Bolter: str4 ap5 assault 4 "mass reactive" when rolling to would with Terminator storm bolters, a roll of a 6+ to wound causes an automatic wound at AP2
Terminator power fist: str x2 ap2 "lumbering strike" -1 to terminator I when in combat.
Terminator Assault cannon: str 6 ap4 assault 6 rending
Terminator Heavy Flamer: str5 ap4 torrent
Terminator Multi melta:

30pts per model

Terminator armour: 40pts for a character +2 to toughness, 2+/4++

Not even slightly OP these days, can shoot like a boss, can tank small arms quite well and plasma, now become a real viable alternative to sternguard etc., also now competes with bike lords/chapter masters

...'Cheaper and better Dreadknight' could be read as 'slightly OP', actually...

Dreadknights have 4 wounds, these have 1, Dreadknights are still more survivable, faster and a mc with all the advantages that entails, plus they strike at I with a force weapon and ap2....

Sorry, these are not "better" just different, also, imagine paladins with this change, suddenly become a terrifying prospect on the table don't they, as opposed to "ok"
Deathwing would become very good, th/S's termies a nightmare to behold.

Im not saying my idea couldn't use refinement, but I'll be frank, it's a damn site better than any of the other proposed rules, which are just band aids for a terrible unit, which is indicative of the rules proposal community at large, far too conservative, i see so many chaos, nid and Ork rewrites that just try to band aid gw awful writing, where a complete re work is needed, from the ground up.

So please rip apart my idea, break it down so it's workable, adjust it, whatever, just don't be hide bound by the awful adherence to the current terminator unit, as it is a 3Rd ed unit, using 3Rd ed balancing in 7th, it's out of date and doesn't work anymore.

 Formosa wrote:
Dreadknights have 4 wounds, these have 1, Dreadknights are still more survivable, faster and a mc with all the advantages that entails, plus they strike at I with a force weapon and ap2....

Sorry, these are not "better" just different, also, imagine paladins with this change, suddenly become a terrifying prospect on the table don't they, as opposed to "ok"
Deathwing would become very good, th/S's termies a nightmare to behold.

Im not saying my idea couldn't use refinement, but I'll be frank, it's a damn site better than any of the other proposed rules, which are just band aids for a terrible unit, which is indicative of the rules proposal community at large, far too conservative, i see so many chaos, nid and Ork rewrites that just try to band aid gw awful writing, where a complete re work is needed, from the ground up.

So please rip apart my idea, break it down so it's workable, adjust it, whatever, just don't be hide bound by the awful adherence to the current terminator unit, as it is a 3Rd ed unit, using 3Rd ed balancing in 7th, it's out of date and doesn't work anymore.

150pts for 5 T6 wounds with a 2+/4++ save, who have pseudo-Invisibility the turn they arrive from Deep Strike, start with twenty BS5 shuriken catapult shots, and hit with fifteen S8/AP2 attacks at I3 in melee.

By comparison a Dreadknight is 130pts for 4 T6 wounds with a 2+/5++ save, starts with no shooting, and hits with four S10/AP2 attacks at I4 in melee.

Your unit is tougher (one more wound, can't be IDed or lose multiple wounds to a D weapon) and has 5x the melee output against anything that isn't a Gargantuan Creature. If you're holding the gun prices constant you're also paying about half what the Dreadknight is for the same guns with -1S and +1BS on top of your ten free BS5 shuriken catapults. On top of that you've got pseudo-Invisibility for free the turn you land from Deep Strike.

You hit harder for cheaper and get more firepower. The only things the Dreadknight can get over you are Move Through Cover from the MC type and the personal teleporter, which it has to pay an extra thirty points for and which you wouldn't really care about having (given that your unit uses Deep Strike to engage in the first place, doesn't care about picking its melee fights since it'll win all of them, and can engage a lot more effectively at range).

So yes. Your Terminators are dramatically better than an already very good unit. I'd call that OP, personally, but I can go find more math if you want. Any guesses as to how many Codexes in the game can't kill them efficiently? (My guess is 18 to 20 out of 23)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
...a complete re work is needed, from the ground up...

If a complete rework is needed you may want to propose changes to the environment in addition to the one unit. We're all looking at your Terminators and thinking how they'd work in the current game, if you want to explain what you'd do to, say, Monstrous Creatures when T6 is now the province of 40mm-based heavy infantry that might help.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Dreadknights have 4 wounds, these have 1, Dreadknights are still more survivable, faster and a mc with all the advantages that entails, plus they strike at I with a force weapon and ap2....

Sorry, these are not "better" just different, also, imagine paladins with this change, suddenly become a terrifying prospect on the table don't they, as opposed to "ok"
Deathwing would become very good, th/S's termies a nightmare to behold.

Im not saying my idea couldn't use refinement, but I'll be frank, it's a damn site better than any of the other proposed rules, which are just band aids for a terrible unit, which is indicative of the rules proposal community at large, far too conservative, i see so many chaos, nid and Ork rewrites that just try to band aid gw awful writing, where a complete re work is needed, from the ground up.

So please rip apart my idea, break it down so it's workable, adjust it, whatever, just don't be hide bound by the awful adherence to the current terminator unit, as it is a 3Rd ed unit, using 3Rd ed balancing in 7th, it's out of date and doesn't work anymore.

150pts for 5 T6 wounds with a 2+/4++ save, who have pseudo-Invisibility the turn they arrive from Deep Strike, start with twenty BS5 shuriken catapult shots, and hit with fifteen S8/AP2 attacks at I3 in melee.

By comparison a Dreadknight is 130pts for 4 T6 wounds with a 2+/5++ save, starts with no shooting, and hits with four S10/AP2 attacks at I4 in melee.

Your unit is tougher (one more wound, can't be IDed or lose multiple wounds to a D weapon) and has 5x the melee output against anything that isn't a Gargantuan Creature. If you're holding the gun prices constant you're also paying about half what the Dreadknight is for the same guns with -1S and +1BS on top of your ten free BS5 shuriken catapults. On top of that you've got pseudo-Invisibility for free the turn you land from Deep Strike.

You hit harder for cheaper and get more firepower. The only things the Dreadknight can get over you are Move Through Cover from the MC type and the personal teleporter, which it has to pay an extra thirty points for and which you wouldn't really care about having (given that your unit uses Deep Strike to engage in the first place, doesn't care about picking its melee fights since it'll win all of them, and can engage a lot more effectively at range).

So yes. Your Terminators are dramatically better than an already very good unit. I'd call that OP, personally, but I can go find more math if you want. Any guesses as to how many Codexes in the game can't kill them efficiently? (My guess is 18 to 20 out of 23)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
...a complete re work is needed, from the ground up...

If a complete rework is needed you may want to propose changes to the environment in addition to the one unit. We're all looking at your Terminators and thinking how they'd work in the current game, if you want to explain what you'd do to, say, Monstrous Creatures when T6 is now the province of 40mm-based heavy infantry that might help.

You missed in addition to your list
Psyker
Force
Initiative 4 str10 multi attacks
Warp shunt
Concussion attacks

And t6 is only for mc is a 3rd ed throwback, now we have wraithguard and nurgle bikes, mc don't need any help in the modern game, they are good enough, this doesn't change that in the slightest.

I will concede however that I broke a personal rule with this concept, every unit should have a weakness, so I'd change the attacks from 3 to 1, these are tactical terminators, assault terminators would remain 2.

As to your offer of mathematics for this unit, yeah, go ahead, let's see how tough this unit is, I'm want them to shrug off small arms as they should, then do the maths for the storm bolters, let's see if they can mow down infantry like they should.

 Formosa wrote:
...You missed in addition to your list
Psyker
Force
Initiative 4 str10 multi attacks
Warp shunt
Concussion attacks

And t6 is only for mc is a 3rd ed throwback, now we have wraithguard and nurgle bikes, mc don't need any help in the modern game, they are good enough, this doesn't change that in the slightest.

I will concede however that I broke a personal rule with this concept, every unit should have a weakness, so I'd change the attacks from 3 to 1, these are tactical terminators, assault terminators would remain 2.

As to your offer of mathematics for this unit, yeah, go ahead, let's see how tough this unit is, I'm want them to shrug off small arms as they should, then do the maths for the storm bolters, let's see if they can mow down infantry like they should.

Psyker knowing Banishment (the most useless power in the game) and Sanctuary (which brings him to the 4++ you've given your Terminators). S10 and Force don't make up for the attack differential unless you've deleted chainfists and are only looking at attacking massed Carnifexes. Shunt/jump is a 30pt upgrade that, as I believe I've stated, wouldn't add much to your Terminators. And Concussive is the third most useless USR in the game and could be replaced with blank space without changing the unit's performance.

Wraithguard have a 3+ armour save, no invul, no Deep Strike, and have either a gun or a melee weapon, not both. We can add that to the list of units your Terminators are strictly better than (at one Attack your Terminator is an axe/shield Wraithblade with +1S, I3 instead of Unwieldy, pseudo-invis Deep Strike, two 24" range shuriken catapults, +1 WS/BS, and ATSKNF/Chapter Tactics instead of Fearless and Rage, at the same price). Nurgle Bikers are faster, but again they've got a 3+ armour save, no invul, no Deep Strike, and have a twin-linked bolter, at prices in that book they'd also be 51pts with a power fist.

You could do your own math, you know. What I've checked suggests to me that the current Terminators would be more effective and fairer if they were to gain a 4++, two Wounds, and be 30pts with a power weapon with the option to upgrade to a power fist for +5ppm. It'd give you the resistance to small arms without making you the toughest non-vehicle model on the ground for your cost (yes, your Terminators as written take as much effort to remove as a Wraithknight, adjusted for cost), and if we try to counteract size creep instead of supporting it you might find normal storm bolters more useful.

"we try to counteract size creep instead of supporting it you might find normal storm bolters more useful"

There is no hope for the stormbolter.

Martel732 wrote:
"we try to counteract size creep instead of supporting it you might find normal storm bolters more useful"

There is no hope for the stormbolter.

If you can't make Terminators work without making them T6 then no, there isn't.

Personally my favorite buffs I have seen so far bein to let relentless ignore unwieldy or to make them 40 points and give them two wounds.

I like Formosa's proposal, but they are a bit OP. He said it needs refining so here is my refinement:
Same points cost as now.
WS 4
BS 4
S 4
T 5
W 1
1 4
A 2
LD 9
Sv 2+/4++

•Terminator armour makes unwieldy -1 initiative instead of a straight initiative 1 (this way it will work for Space Wolves with axes and also with Thunder hammers).

•All storm bolters in the game become assault 3, with ap3 auto wound when you roll a 6 to wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't see why they should be more skilled than vanguard or sternguard vets since they are the same guys wearing different armour on different occasions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok how's this as an alternative:

•Terminator armour confers 2+/4++. The 2+ can be re-rolled. The 4++ can be re-rolled on a roll of 1. It also makes unwieldy -1 initiative instead of initiative 1.

•Storm bolters have pseudo rending at ap3.

This way we are not altering the statline. They become mostly immune to small arms fire and more durable against heavy weaponry. They can fight better in close combat and become more dangerous to MEQ or lower. Storm bolters should not be able to go through 2+ armour. They are only bolters after all.

Maybe tactical terminators should be able to be equiped like devastators in terms of being able to take a bunch of heavy weapons to improve their ranged fire power as well as a points lowering, again this is something the centurions try to steal away from them but you can give them stuff like autocannons to make them stand out a little more too. Unless I'm remembering wrong I don't think the cents have the option of autocannons.

Kind of feel like a full termie squad with heavy flamers would be like a fluffy boarding party too in some cases.

One thing they definitely need to be able to do is take 2 Heavy Weapons for every 5 Terminators. That way you get 4 in a max squad.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
One thing they definitely need to be able to do is take 2 Heavy Weapons for every 5 Terminators. That way you get 4 in a max squad.

I don't think what would help much as most the heavy weapons they can take kinda suck.

 mew28 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
One thing they definitely need to be able to do is take 2 Heavy Weapons for every 5 Terminators. That way you get 4 in a max squad.

I don't think what would help much as most the heavy weapons they can take kinda suck.

The weapons themselves are okay, but aren't putting out enough firepower because they can't be taken in large numbers. That's part of the reason Scatterlasers are so blasted good; they can be taken almost anywhere.

Scatterlasers have the best weapon profile in the game for the points AND are spammable. The assault cannon is overcosted, so it would have to be cheapened to even be good spammed. Everyone overvalues rending. Praying for "6s" isn't killing that Riptide or GMC.

Martel732 wrote:
Scatterlasers have the best weapon profile in the game for the points AND are spammable. The assault cannon is overcosted, so it would have to be cheapened to even be good spammed. Everyone overvalues rending. Praying for "6s" isn't killing that Riptide or GMC.

...The point on which we differ is whether Scatterlasers SHOULD be spammable. Personally I think 'the best weapon profile in the game for the points' is better read as 'underpriced' than 'a good benchmark'.

(For the record Rending makes the assault cannon about twice as effective as a scatter laser against 2+ armoured targets regardless of Toughness and at least 30% more effective against 3+-armoured targets. If the scatter laser were more fairly priced at 15pts the assault cannon's 20pt price tag would be pretty accurate.)

Except the scatterlaser can do it from 36" away with impunity. A lot goes wrong when you get within 24" Like vindicators.

Scatterlasers should be 20 or 25 pts the way it plays on the table top. They are actually more valuable than powerfists.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Scatterlasers have the best weapon profile in the game for the points AND are spammable. The assault cannon is overcosted, so it would have to be cheapened to even be good spammed. Everyone overvalues rending. Praying for "6s" isn't killing that Riptide or GMC.

...The point on which we differ is whether Scatterlasers SHOULD be spammable. Personally I think 'the best weapon profile in the game for the points' is better read as 'underpriced' than 'a good benchmark'.

(For the record Rending makes the assault cannon about twice as effective as a scatter laser against 2+ armoured targets regardless of Toughness and at least 30% more effective against 3+-armoured targets. If the scatter laser were more fairly priced at 15pts the assault cannon's 20pt price tag would be pretty accurate.)

However, when we are stuck at the current prices, you NEED to compare two Scatterlasers and one Assault Cannon. Right there, they perform exactly the same against 4+ and then the Assault Cannon fails at everything else outside AV13-14, which nobody cares about because Gauss or Haywire or Grav etc.

Scatterlasers would be fair at 15 points for sure, though. A much greater range and cheaper price would be an okay comparison to the straight AP4 and Rending. However, the Assault Cannon still wouldn't be able to be taken in large numbers. That's part of the issue ya know.

15 pt is still too cheap. Scatterlaser is at least as good as the assault cannon, if not better.

Martel732 wrote:
15 pt is still too cheap. Scatterlaser is at least as good as the assault cannon, if not better.

...A scatterlaser is a 36" range assault cannon with no AP and no Rending. If 15pts is too cheap for a scatterlaser then 20pts is too cheap for an assault cannon.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
15 pt is still too cheap. Scatterlaser is at least as good as the assault cannon, if not better.

...A scatterlaser is a 36" range assault cannon with no AP and no Rending. If 15pts is too cheap for a scatterlaser then 20pts is too cheap for an assault cannon.

The extra foot of difference makes a pretty damn difference to be fair.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
15 pt is still too cheap. Scatterlaser is at least as good as the assault cannon, if not better.

...A scatterlaser is a 36" range assault cannon with no AP and no Rending. If 15pts is too cheap for a scatterlaser then 20pts is too cheap for an assault cannon.

The 36" range is worth a lot. Everyone underestimates this like they overestimate rending. Rending outright sucks without at least 12 shots, imo.

...Okay, then. If 12" of range is worth more than 50%-ish of your damage output why are heavy bolters so cheap?

Because losing a str and shot makes the heavy bolter far less versatile. S6 is a sweet spot.S5 is not.

Also don't forget that almost every platform for the assault cannon sucksm

So gaining 12" of range and losing 30-50% of your damage output is a positive change when it's a scatter laser and a negative change when it's a heavy bolter?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So gaining 12" of range and losing 30-50% of your damage output is a positive change when it's a scatter laser and a negative change when it's a heavy bolter?

Heavy bolters do far less damage. It's a much bigger drop off than 30-50%. Those numbers seem high given how unreliable rending is anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And again, most heavy bolter platforms are terrible as well.

Martel732 wrote:
...It's a much bigger drop off than 30-50%. Those numbers seem high given how unreliable rending is anyway...

Fine. Show me your math. How much worse is a heavy bolter, exactly?

I'll be back in a bit.

Scatter Laser, Heavy Bolter, and Assault Cannon.

4 shots at S6 AP6, 3 shots at S5 AP4, and 4 shots at S6 AP4 Rending.

Against a Marine, you will kill an average of:
SL-8/3 hits, 40/18 wounds, 40/54 with saves... 74% of one marine
HB-6/3 hits (so 2), 4/3 wounds, 4/9 with saves... 44% of one marine
AC-8/3 hits, 32/18 regular wounds and 8/18 rends (16/9 and 4/9), 16/27 with saves plus 4/9... 103% of one marine

The assault cannon beats the scatter laser on marines. But it's only about 40% more effective for twice the cost, so...

 JNAProductions wrote:
Scatter Laser, Heavy Bolter, and Assault Cannon.

4 shots at S6 AP6, 3 shots at S5 AP4, and 4 shots at S6 AP4 Rending.

Against a Marine, you will kill an average of:
SL-8/3 hits, 40/18 wounds, 40/54 with saves... 74% of one marine
HB-6/3 hits (so 2), 4/3 wounds, 4/9 with saves... 44% of one marine
AC-8/3 hits, 32/18 regular wounds and 8/18 rends (16/9 and 4/9), 16/27 with saves plus 4/9... 103% of one marine

The assault cannon beats the scatter laser on marines. But it's only about 40% more effective for twice the cost, so...

If the scatter laser's cost is fair. If it isn't and should be closer to 15pts (which it is) then the assault cannon's price is pretty fair.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the scatter laser's cost is fair. If it isn't and should be closer to 15pts (which it is) then the assault cannon's price is pretty fair.

That's legit. You're paying an extra 33% of points for an extra 40% effectiveness.

Let's check on, say, a GUO though... (no FNP or Armour.)

SL-8/3 hit, 8/9 wound, 16/27 with saves... 59% of a wound
HB-2 hit, 1/3 wound, 2/9 with saves... 22% of a wound
AC-8/3 hit, 8/9 wound, 16/27 with saves... 59% of a wound

So it's JUST as effective on a big ol' monstrous creature. It's basically exactly as effective against anything that DOESN'T rely on armour saves, such as Nurgle Daemon Princes, GUO, Lords of Change... Lot of Daemons, really.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 mew28 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
One thing they definitely need to be able to do is take 2 Heavy Weapons for every 5 Terminators. That way you get 4 in a max squad.

I don't think what would help much as most the heavy weapons they can take kinda suck.

The weapons themselves are okay, but aren't putting out enough firepower because they can't be taken in large numbers. That's part of the reason Scatterlasers are so blasted good; they can be taken almost anywhere.

Even if you could spam them they all cost to many points for the kind of platform they are on. No one wants to pay 25 points for a missile launcher that shots two times or 20 for an assault cannon on a T4 1W platform. At that kind of points you can just get centurions and they will be more durable and do more damage.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If the scatter laser's cost is fair. If it isn't and should be closer to 15pts (which it is) then the assault cannon's price is pretty fair.

That's legit. You're paying an extra 33% of points for an extra 40% effectiveness.

Let's check on, say, a GUO though... (no FNP or Armour.)

SL-8/3 hit, 8/9 wound, 16/27 with saves... 59% of a wound
HB-2 hit, 1/3 wound, 2/9 with saves... 22% of a wound
AC-8/3 hit, 8/9 wound, 16/27 with saves... 59% of a wound

So it's JUST as effective on a big ol' monstrous creature. It's basically exactly as effective against anything that DOESN'T rely on armour saves, such as Nurgle Daemon Princes, GUO, Lords of Change... Lot of Daemons, really.

So the two are exactly as effective against Monstrous Creatures with no armour. I don't know about you but pricing a weapon based on how it does against Greater Daemons as opposed to based on how it does against everything else in the game doesn't strike me as a useful approach.

Monstrous Creatures that don't NEED armour. Nurgle Princes, for instance, often have armour. They just happen to have a better jink save.

It seems common to me, since I'm a big Nurgle guy, but I admit, it's a relatively small margin. So let's check the math on Riptides!

SL-8/3 hits, 4/3 wounds, 2/9 with saves... 22% of a wound
HB-2 hits, 2/3 wounds, 1/9 with saves... 11% of a wound
AC-8/3 hits, 8/9 wounds, 4/9 rends, 4/27 with armour saves and 8/27 with invuln saves, for 12/27 total... 44% of a wound

...

What? I thought it was gonna do worse, but turns out it outright DOUBLES the performance of a scatter laser when 2+ is a factor, even with an invuln!

Huh. Weird.

The above math doesn't look right. Let's see.

vs MEQs

Scatterlaser: 2.667 hits * .83333 wound *.3333 saves = 0.74 dead

Heavy bolter: 2 hits * .6666 wound * .333 saves = 0.44 dead

Assault cannon: 2.6667 hit * .16666 rend = 0.44 dead + 2.6667 hit * .66666 nonrend *.333 saves = 0.59 dead = 1.03 dead, which becomes 0.88 dead if the marine has cover.

Cover really makes the scatterlaser favorable in this case.

Also consider that it takes 13.5 scatterlaser shots to hull point out AV 11, but it takes 27 heavy bolter shots. That's nine heavy bolters to do the job of four scatterlasers!

VS Riptide without stims for simplicity

Scatterlaser: 2.667 hits * .50000 wound *.166666 save = 0.222 wounds cleared

Heavy bolter: 2 hits * .3333 wound * .16666 save = 0.111 wounds cleared

Assault cannon: 2.6667 hits * .1666 rend * .66666 save = 0.29 wounds + 2.6667 hits * .3333 nonrend *.166666 save = 0.15 wounds = 0.44 wounds cleared


The scatter laser kills 3/4 of a marine vs 1 marine from 12" further away than an assault cannon and for MUCH cheaper. That's assuming no cover. With cover, they become much closer. The heavy bolter kills less than half a marine.

Also are we comparing similar number of shots or points? You get 2 Scatterlasers for 2 Heavy Bolters or an Assault Cannon.

Looks like my math holds. Cool.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also are we comparing similar number of shots or points? You get 2 Scatterlasers for 2 Heavy Bolters or an Assault Cannon.

No, I did the results for one of each. You can simply double the numbers as you see fit.

The heavy bolter is frankly embarrassing. AP4 is a joke.

Martel732 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also are we comparing similar number of shots or points? You get 2 Scatterlasers for 2 Heavy Bolters or an Assault Cannon.

No, I did the results for one of each. You can simply double the numbers as you see fit.

The heavy bolter is frankly embarrassing. AP4 is a joke.

I'd contest that. AP4 is great-Tau, Scouts, Eldar, 'eavy Orks... AP4 counters a lot of stuff.

Heavy Bolters, though, suck. Heavy Flamers, though, kick butt.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also are we comparing similar number of shots or points? You get 2 Scatterlasers for 2 Heavy Bolters or an Assault Cannon.

We're using one of each gun to make a point about the costs.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also are we comparing similar number of shots or points? You get 2 Scatterlasers for 2 Heavy Bolters or an Assault Cannon.

No, I did the results for one of each. You can simply double the numbers as you see fit.

The heavy bolter is frankly embarrassing. AP4 is a joke.

I'd contest that. AP4 is great-Tau, Scouts, Eldar, 'eavy Orks... AP4 counters a lot of stuff.

Heavy Bolters, though, suck. Heavy Flamers, though, kick butt.

The problem is that most cover is 5++, though. So put in some shrubs, and all those units get 66% of their save back. AP4 is terrible. I stand by this.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also are we comparing similar number of shots or points? You get 2 Scatterlasers for 2 Heavy Bolters or an Assault Cannon.

No, I did the results for one of each. You can simply double the numbers as you see fit.

The heavy bolter is frankly embarrassing. AP4 is a joke.

I'd contest that. AP4 is great-Tau, Scouts, Eldar, 'eavy Orks... AP4 counters a lot of stuff.

Heavy Bolters, though, suck. Heavy Flamers, though, kick butt.

As someone using Skitarii recently, AP4 doesn't counter much thanks to cover. Also everyone knows Eavy Armor Orks are overpriced by a point or two, so claiming them to be good against a bad unit doesn't help your case.

However, we are in agreement for the Heavy Flamer. It fething ROCKS.

That's because ignore cover AP4 IS useful. And it doesn't roll to hit, so one less point of failure. But, it doesn't rock so hard that BA aren't terrible :\

As a salamander player, Twinlinked Heavy flamers are awesome. I only wish I could get them on Tac Squads.

AS per terminators, what one could try to do is make them debuff/buff units.

Previous posts have mentioned giving them blind on entry, which is a good start. If the Terminators deepstruck and caused a 12" blind check at -1 initiative, they would start carving themselves a different niche, Because even though they aren't explicitly more survivable, they become more survivable because units can't hurt them as effectively. Whats more is that this doesn't only benefit the termies, it helps the entire army by reducing enemy damage for a round. At the same time there is viable counterplay, mechanized infantry, high In units, or good ol' bubblewrapping.

Anyways, Instead of outright changing stats (because buffing the stats is just going to lead to even more severe power creep) its possible to carve out a buff/debuff niche that centurions can't do.

Stormbolters - 12" assault 3

Terminator Armor - Reduce AP of wounds allocated to the wearer by 1 (So AP2 becomes AP3) in the shooting phase.

Suddenly Terminators are great at tanking AP2 units (But not AP1), and comes out pretty even vs most MCs in CC. (5 attacks, 3-4 hits, 2-3 dead terms, 4-6 powerfist returns attacks, 2-3 hits, 2-3 wounds).

The role of a Termie is similar to that of a tac marine, albeit they're much much tougher. 2+ saves are fine. Only specialised weaponry (shooty or stabby) can penetrate that. And when it does they still have their invul save. And on top of that many SM players throw on the stupid shield too and get the silly invul save. Compared to tac marines that's a perfectly good boost to defence. They shouldn't be Cent levels of protection nor should they be dreadnaughts. You should in fact see the four units 0 tac's, termies, cents and dreads as a continuing escalation of armour and protection for the not-so-humble space marine. Also the DS situation is fine. Assaulting from DS should be the perview of specific units in specific factions only, not a universal rule for SM's that will further break the game. Termies are not specialised DSing assault troops anyway, they're generalist troops like tacs, just heavier.

The issue's termies face come down to cost. Either they're a little too expensive or the other top-tier stuff is too cheap. Probably the latter, but GW wants to reduce points cost to drive up table model count so the solution is to bring termies down in price so they can be fielded.

Once upon a time Termies were the shizzle, they were way tougher than anything else and hit hard. Now not so much, their conceptual role has changed over the years. The way to make them better now is to make them better at being the generalist they are.

Shooting - the weapon limitations are too severe. They need more heavy weapons. Why would you build a platform that can move and fire heavy weapons and not load it with heavy weapons? Where are the dreads sporting only storm bolters? They don't exist. Every second termie (not counting the sergeant/champion) should be able to upgrade to a heavy weapon (heavy flamers missiles or assault/auto-cannons are fine for them). Or GW could go the simple route of 2 heavies per standard 3/5 man squad and 4 per 10 man squad.

Combat - they're fine having built in fists but the initiative hit is bad. Now we can't have them hitting with fists/hammers at full I value as that would be broken but why not allow them to hit at I2 instead? They're slower with that weaponry but all those servo's working their arms give them some advantage in swinging the slow weapons.. They'd still attack after anything that doesn't fight with fists or hammers but vs regular marines/guard with said fists they're hitting first.

Termies should be able to take on anything that comes their way but they don't need to be specialised at taking down any specific thing. Storm Bolters and the heavy weaponry they can take are good for clearing infantry, fists are good for clearing vehicles, walkers or monsters. None of these make them top-tier at dealing with any of those specific targets but what they can do is take on all of them adequately. They don't deal well in combat vs hordes but that's their weakness - with more heavy weapons they could shoot a horde to death instead. With a little cost reduction they'll become very good support units to bolster your tac squads. With the option of a land raider transport too (which itself could probably do with a cost reduction) it' should be a nice unit to have. There's something to be said for a unit that can deal with any target in front of it when it needs to. If you only field ultra-specialised troops you run the risk of being caught in a non-optimal situation where you're expensive specialised unit is now next to useless. Think of termies as tac marines+, give them a little buffing and they're good to go. They don't need to be cent levels of toughness of devastator levels of dakka, or death company levels of CC. They just need to be pretty good at all of them. Like tac marines.

"Once upon a time Termies were the shizzle"

This was never true, except perhaps in 4th. They have been a steaming pile of poo in every other edition.

The fists fail because every MC in the game ignores their armor and then strikes first.

I personally would like to see terminators in a tactical shock troop role. Think heavy sterngaurd with teleport.

I would be fine with:
-armor save 1+/5++
-relentless makes unwieldy -1 to I (MANZ problem? orks need overhaulin anyway)
-RF or salvo type for the SB(just change the darn thing already)
-Heavy weapons 2 per 5man
-PWs with CC options for all
(adjust points accordingly)

I think making termies T5 or W2 adds to power creep(not that 1+ won't) and doesn't solve the AP2 problem. The relentless change with a RF or salvo SB would give them usable small arms fire and means they would get to use a PF if they bring it. The usable SB and options for HWs and PWs/PFs fits with the tactical shock flavor I would like to see. I think this bump in firepower and survivability would let them make a dent if they DS and make it to the next turn. They could sit and hold with PFs in cover, they could be a marching gun line, or they could be a hack and slash delivery. They would still die if you shoot/punch them enough or start dropping AP1.

I personally hate the centurian models but it is true that termies have sucked for a long time are get outperformed but they look so cooooool. I also am one of the people who thinks 40k has crept up way too big and agree that stuff is just falling off the back now.

skysky wrote:
I personally would like to see terminators in a tactical shock troop role. Think heavy sterngaurd with teleport.

I would be fine with:
-armor save 1+/5++
-relentless makes unwieldy -1 to I (MANZ problem? orks need overhaulin anyway)
-RF or salvo type for the SB(just change the darn thing already)
-Heavy weapons 2 per 5man
-PWs with CC options for all
(adjust points accordingly)

I think making termies T5 or W2 adds to power creep(not that 1+ won't) and doesn't solve the AP2 problem. The relentless change with a RF or salvo SB would give them usable small arms fire and means they would get to use a PF if they bring it. The usable SB and options for HWs and PWs/PFs fits with the tactical shock flavor I would like to see. I think this bump in firepower and survivability would let them make a dent if they DS and make it to the next turn. They could sit and hold with PFs in cover, they could be a marching gun line, or they could be a hack and slash delivery. They would still die if you shoot/punch them enough or start dropping AP1.

I personally hate the centurian models but it is true that termies have sucked for a long time are get outperformed but they look so cooooool. I also am one of the people who thinks 40k has crept up way too big and agree that stuff is just falling off the back now.

I think you mean a 2+ roll friend, a 1+ would mean i pass every save outside of AP 1 weapons.

Ones always fail. But a 1+ would mean Termies could ignore AP 2 weapons with ease.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Ones always fail. But a 1+ would mean Termies could ignore AP 2 weapons with ease.

Im not against AP 2 getting them, i think it would be a bit better with 2 wounds though, that said, the idea for relentless doing a -1 to unwhildly is nice, still would always go last lol.

Im not against AP 2 getting them, i think it would be a bit better with 2 wounds though, that said, the idea for relentless doing a -1 to unwhildly is nice, still would always go last lol.

T4 with W1 means you can still swamp them with wounds and they die when they role a 1. Wounds are probably the most expensive stat line increase because you are (in a sense) almost getting another life. Look at the point increase from a captain to a CM, or from a boy to a nob. The W1 S1+ means they still get wounded normally from volume and strength, they just won't get rolled with AP2. If you want some bigger platform that can soak wounds and need even heavier weapons/dakka, then take centurians. I don't want termies to be broken, just usable. Also, on the I3 powerfist, you would still be going before tau, necron, carnifex, orks, human PFs, simultaneous with other I3. In certain situations though you would have to decide between which PWs to bring, like you do already with the other veteran options that can mix and match PWs. Again, not trying to break them, just make them flexible and usable with some differentiation in role from the other stuff. Like I said, uparmored sterngaurd.