I looooove Terminators! The idea of being in a nigh invulnerable suit just slowly walking forward with super heavy weapons to clear out hordes of tyranids sounds awesome! I was really hyped when I finally decided to play Space Marines this year (after being and Ork player) because it finally meant I was going to be able to grab some Terminators! A few people told me Terminators sucked but I'm not a competitive player so I just went ahead with it. However, I played a few games with them now and i'm highly disappointed... I wanted a cool looking squad so I got some Tartaros Termies and the finale cost of everything came to about 250pts. I was a little shocked but figured it must be worth it for the extra inch or better weapons or something... (I actually think the normal T's ain't far off 250pts for 5 guys). I put them into battle for the first time by 9" deep striking a Necron armies flanks to hit their heavy weapons and..... Despite making the charge I didn't kill the Vehicle... the Vehicle just pulled out because it had fly and the 20 Necron warriors just turned around and shot me to death.... I couldn't even believe it when I opened the codex to see my Toughness was T4. XD With the 3 up save (due to necrons) and a bunch of shots coming through I didn't stand a chance! I was actually confused because for the same Value I could get 10 Nobz in my Ork army with similar weapons and a 5 up invuln... And I think Nobz are over priced! So I figured it was a bad game and moved onto the next one... I was vs Ad Mech and there was a perfect chance for me to Deep Strike! His Robots were lined up with some kind of character sat behind them. I sent my Guys in and.... They didn't cause a single wound... So I charged them in and finally killed the 2 characters! Then the robots turned around and shot me to death because they were father than 3" for the consolidation... Well.... Erm.... So I did a game vs IG! I thought this was it! Their low S weapons must mean my guys can push in and slaughter their way up to the Lord Commissar sat on the back objective! The the dude DS some scions in with plas and kill all mah dudes... granted I did fail all my invulns...
This is all anecdotal and I have no maths to back myself up... but am i just playing wrong or is there really something wrong with Terminators? And if so how would we fix it?
Termies are weak at the moment (and have been for a long time before 8th). This is general consensus.
Plasma is really popular and it's really good at killing them. At 40 to 50 points a model that's not acceptable.
If you want to be competitive, don't use them basically. In casual games you can do ok with them sometimes (Deathwing Knights can pull their weight in the right circumstances, or Chaos ones loaded up with Melta for instance), but they are just subpar.
What would fix them? Well, there's lots of ideas out there. Reduce all AP by one step, give them an extra wound, increasing toughness. But that's all theoretical. Unless GW decide to do something then I'm afraid they're just bad.
They are just weak at the moment. Both offensively and defensively. 2 wounds is a crime in a universe where everyone and their mother have overcharged plasma AND reroll 1's. And powerfists with -1 to hit are also very weak for only str 8. They need a third wound asap and then some other funky rule too to justify the fact that they are elites. Their trick used to be that they could deep strike, but now almost everyone can do it also.
I will say, Termies are both better and worse than prior editions.
Better due to having multiple wounds (which would have instantly fixed them in prior editions)
Worse because of the AP and Damage mechanics. Having that extra wound means little when you rarely get your 2+ save and a single failed save can kill them outright
A potential fix would be for them to have a 1+ save naturally. A roll of 1 would still fail, but it would allow them to effectively reduce AP modifiers by 1 (AP -2 becomes AP -1, etc).
Another fix could be to bump their invulnerable by 1 to a 4+
Another fix (and personally my favorite) is to leave them as is by drop them by around 10-15ppm
2 wounds +1 invulnerable save Ability to place in 1 stormshield, expanded wargear Specific stratagems to benefit them +1 toughness +2 extra attacks
Terminators become gods that are generally super badass. I like to think a couple of these things would really help terminators, without making them stupid unkillable like custodes.
Previously you either got a good 2+ save or a 5++ save. Terminators could shrug off a lot of incoming fire. 8th has weakened them by having armour save modifers which ensure that you are not going to get decent saves for the points.
Terminators only lived up to their fluff in 2nd due to their 3+ save on 2D6. When GW "streamlined" the game in 3rd, Terminators became an overcosted and fragile unit. They either die to massed lasgun fire or to the nowadays overabundance of plasma fire.
A simple fix for all terminators would be to reduce AP of incoming fire by 1, period. All weapons. So yes, this means anything with AP 0 cannot hurt a terminator (obviously this would have to override the natural roll of 1 rule). Broken? No, these suits should shrug off these hits with impunity....you're going to have to come after them with something a little bigger, as you should. Just also add that terminators never benefit from cover.
make terminators great again!
btw, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I just started painting my Deathwing this morning.....nope, not at all.
edit: this should also be for shooting attacks only.
BlackLobster wrote: Previously you either got a good 2+ save or a 5++ save. Terminators could shrug off a lot of incoming fire. 8th has weakened them by having armour save modifers which ensure that you are not going to get decent saves for the points.
Previously Terminators were trash because 1W, a 6" move and no offensive capability for 40 points was a terrible deal. Doubly so when you're only T4 in a T5 multi-wound 12" move meta. You'd have to go back to when hammernators were first introduced to have even the slightest semblance that termies were "good". Even then they would still keel over to massed small arms and that weakness only got worse as almost everything else got cheaper and they stayed the same. On top of that, plasma and/or melta have been staples for ignoring 2+ armour and/or dealing with tanks and MC's and on top of that, we had grav guns/cannons just flat out deleting anything they looked at with better than a 5+ save.
No, termies have been trash for a long time and you can look through the various forum archives for proof as there's a "How do we fix terminators" thread every couple of months, to the point where you can almost set your watch to it.
One thing that used to maker terminators useful was that there were able to move and fire heavy weapons without a penalty. At least at that point you could put a couple of nasty weapons on them and possibly do some damage via shooting.
Terminators have problems. Someone suggested they get a +1 modifier to the AP of incoming attacks, i.e. AP -2 becomes AP -1. I thought that might be a good way to make them a little more competitive.
Strg Alt wrote: Terminators only lived up to their fluff in 2nd due to their 3+ save on 2D6.
This mightn't be a bad thing to bring back: give all Terminators re-rolls for all failed saves. Would make them laugh off all small arms fire and make them a bit more resilient to massed rockets/lascannons/etc.
Not sure what to do about the loyalist terminator problem of getting into close combat; us Chaos have warptime and icon of wrath to help Terminators get into combat but I don't know what loyalists could be given without just ripping off Chaos toys.
Strg Alt wrote: Terminators only lived up to their fluff in 2nd due to their 3+ save on 2D6.
This mightn't be a bad thing to bring back: give all Terminators re-rolls for all failed saves. Would make them laugh off all small arms fire and make them a bit more resilient to massed rockets/lascannons/etc.
I guess there is a misunderstanding here. 2D6 doesn´t mean a reroll. You roll 2D6 and add the result of each dice together (e.g. 3+4=7). So on an average roll of 7 our Terminator can shrug off even a hit with a -4 armour save modifier. Yep, they were VERY hard to kill in 2nd. You had to shoot them with lascannons or equivalent weapons (-6 armour save modifiers).
I also think that GW screwed up plasma weapons from 3rd onwards. Not all plasma weapons had a really high armour save modifier in 2nd and were thus indomitable power armour killers:
Imperial version: Plasma Pistol (low power): ST4 & 0 asm
Plasma Pistol (max power): ST6 & -1 asm & 1 sustained fire dice (needs to recharge after use)
BlackLobster wrote: Previously you either got a good 2+ save or a 5++ save. Terminators could shrug off a lot of incoming fire. 8th has weakened them by having armour save modifers which ensure that you are not going to get decent saves for the points.
How did that weaken them? They're more durable compared to how they used to be barring VERY specific weapons (like the Autocannon and Gauss Blasters). You're only under the impression they're less durable because you didn't do the math.
I think the best fix for regular terminators would be to make it so they reduce all damage taken by 1 to a minimum of 1.
This way, they are fairly hard to kill with 1 and 2 damage weapons, but still die to 3+ damage weapons.
I like this better than giving them 3 wounds, since that would increase their durability against 1 damage weapons by 50%, which I'm not sure it's needed.
The only potential issue I see with this is I don't think this ability should translate to paladins and custodes, since they already have 3 wounds which is better than 2w reducing damage by 1, and I think any imbalance they have can be solved by points adjustments, but it would seem odd if they didn't have the same rule. But I guess they could just have a different special rule or something.
Strg Alt wrote: Terminators only lived up to their fluff in 2nd due to their 3+ save on 2D6. When GW "streamlined" the game in 3rd, Terminators became an overcosted and fragile unit. They either die to massed lasgun fire or to the nowadays overabundance of plasma fire.
Not even then. Too many -6 save weapons and -2 weapons that fired many times.
This makes me wonder. Would terminators still perform badly if plasma was nerfed in a way so that it wouldn't be the no-brainer choice? I feel plasma usually comes up as a big factor when discussing the worth of terminators, often to the exclusion of any other factors.
When it comes to ap0 small arms they basically already have a 3+ sv on 2d6 now, as you have to fail two 2+ saves to lose a guy.
Strg Alt wrote: Terminators only lived up to their fluff in 2nd due to their 3+ save on 2D6. When GW "streamlined" the game in 3rd, Terminators became an overcosted and fragile unit. They either die to massed lasgun fire or to the nowadays overabundance of plasma fire.
Not even then. Too many -6 save weapons and -2 weapons that fired many times.
Which isn't really the case today.
Anyway the math...it would be damned strong and they'd need to lose their invulns and get a hefty point increase, I think. And then you'd have to worry about people spamming termie characters with 5+ wounds.
shortymcnostrill wrote: This makes me wonder. Would terminators still perform badly if plasma was nerfed in a way so that it wouldn't be the no-brainer choice? I feel plasma usually comes up as a big factor when discussing the worth of terminators, often to the exclusion of any other factors.
When it comes to ap0 small arms they basically already have a 3+ sv on 2d6 now, as you have to fail two 2+ saves to lose a guy.
rather then nerf plasma I'd buff flamerts to the point where they are worth taking for dealing with hordes.
Marmatag wrote: Except terminators were garbage in 7th, too. If you want to see how to make them gods among men look at Custodes.
Terminators were alot better in 7th. I mean sure the still sucked but they could make a unit route pretty much for sure in combat even if they could not sweep. Also they could eat shots better with a 2+ save vs pretty much everything shy of anti tank guns.
Strg Alt wrote: Terminators only lived up to their fluff in 2nd due to their 3+ save on 2D6.
This mightn't be a bad thing to bring back: give all Terminators re-rolls for all failed saves. Would make them laugh off all small arms fire and make them a bit more resilient to massed rockets/lascannons/etc.
Not sure what to do about the loyalist terminator problem of getting into close combat; us Chaos have warptime and icon of wrath to help Terminators get into combat but I don't know what loyalists could be given without just ripping off Chaos toys.
Warp time was a LSM power first in 7th called veil of time. Caning see why LSM can't have it again seeing as CSM ripped off LSM.
The solutions were always give them 2 wounds, give them more SB shots, stop them from striking last. Well all those things happened. They should probably stop futzing around with wound and invulns and do something else because it's probably a bigger problem than just termies anyhow. There are lots of slow t4 elite infantry that aren't useful.
and they'd need to lose their invulns and get a hefty point increase,
Yeah they should probably lose their invulns because they don't have force fields or anything it was just a chapter approved rules patch in 2001, because of how bad they were with just a flat 2+ armor.
As said terminators have been bad for a long time, they have gotten better with the ability to charge outta deep strike so that they can actually use the thing they are best at, punching people. But if you dont make the charge you are stuck with shooting. This is of course the biggest problem with Terminators. At the end of the day....you are still shooting bolters. So your paying 200+ points for basiclly a deep striking squad of marines. The only benefit terminators have is that they force your enemy to deal with them because they are annoying in melee. The only way terminators will be useful is if we get some sort of ability to deep strike up to 6 inches away from the enemy via a stratagem. Until then, terminators offer nothing to the table.
So far the only terminators i have seen be viable are TH/SS squads that happen to make a charge. As of right now, THE terminator army, deathwing, are so worthless and under powered. I have a DWRW army that has been shelved since the start of 8th because they just dont perform well at all anymore.
They will deepstrike, they will shoot just as well (if not better) than space marines and they will be armed with plasmaguns. And the best part is that when it comes to points, they pretty much only pay for those things I mentioned. Lean, mean killing machines. And it doesn't even matter if they will die after they do their damage.
Meanwhile, the terminators pay a lot of points for stuff that they won't be even necessarily using in one single match. Not to mention, terminators really need to be able to do the deep striking charge (hard) while scions only need to be able to do deep striking rabid fire (easy).
Marmatag wrote: Except terminators were garbage in 7th, too. If you want to see how to make them gods among men look at Custodes.
Terminators were alot better in 7th. I mean sure the still sucked but they could make a unit route pretty much for sure in combat even if they could not sweep. Also they could eat shots better with a 2+ save vs pretty much everything shy of anti tank guns.
Strg Alt wrote: Terminators only lived up to their fluff in 2nd due to their 3+ save on 2D6.
This mightn't be a bad thing to bring back: give all Terminators re-rolls for all failed saves. Would make them laugh off all small arms fire and make them a bit more resilient to massed rockets/lascannons/etc.
Not sure what to do about the loyalist terminator problem of getting into close combat; us Chaos have warptime and icon of wrath to help Terminators get into combat but I don't know what loyalists could be given without just ripping off Chaos toys.
Warp time was a LSM power first in 7th called veil of time. Caning see why LSM can't have it again seeing as CSM ripped off LSM.
Veil of time in last edition was allowing a unit to reroll failed saves of any kind. It was much better than this edition version allowing "reroll charge" for the Space Marines as they need more durability, and SM actually have better shooty compare to choppy. However, combined with other buffs it has to be noticed that the 7th edition Veil of time become too strong in 7th. It was right to be complained "broken" back in that time.
Why be complicated? Terminators are not a broken unit, in that they function reasonably well in their intended role. They hit hard with a small volume of attacks, and they have a high volume of small arms firepower. Their stat line doesn't create any strange rules interactions. They do useful things and can contribute meaningfully to victory.
If they're not producing good results on the tabletop it's not their rules. To fix them just drop their point cost. How about 30 points? 25? So long as they cost more than most other Marines they'll still feel like their fit their role of the elite of the elite.
The thing is, though. Terminators don't need to be more durable against most things in the game.
Math wise, it takes one of the following to kill a 5 man Terminator squad out of cover:
180 BS3 Bolter shots (90 rapid firing bolters)
14 BS3 Las cannon shots (14 Las cannons)
34 Heavy Bolter or Assault Cannon shots (12 Heavy Boltets or 6 assault cannons)
17 auto cannon shots (9 auto cannons)
All of these numbers seem fine to me. It's also worth noting that if the terminators are in cover, you have to double the number of auto cannons, heavy bolters, or assault cannons to kill them.
But then if you look at:
14 BS3 overcharged plasma gun shots (7 rapid firing guns). Or 18 oc shots (9 guns) if they are in cover.
21 grav shots (11 guns rapid firing, or 6 heavy grav).
Clearly, these guns are significantly more effective per gun than anything else is.
The issue when fixing terminators is, you can't really just increase them to 3 wounds, because although it does increase the number of children plasma guns needed, it also increases the number of 1 damage weapons needed to kill them by 50%. 180 bolters becomes 270. 6 assault cannons becomes 12. So although they are harder to kill, plasma is still by far the best gun to use, along with heavy weapons, and everything else is practically useless.
Letting you reroll saves similarly makes it almost impossible to die to most not plasma guns (1080 Bolter shots!), and only increasing the OC plasma shots needed to 21.
So, the best solution I see is to reduce damage for terminators by 1, to a minimum of 1. This leaves anything that does 1d, or more than 2d just as good at killing terminators, while doubling the number of plasma shots needed.
While I was at it, I would also change plasma over charge to blow up on the initial roll of a natural one, before any rerolls or modifiers are applied, but only cause 1 mortal wound. This way you would need 14 rapid firing OC plasma guns (28 shots) and expect to lose about 4 of them for it.
I just said this in proposed rules and i'll say it again here. Terminators get:
1) Hard to kill. May reroll their 2+ or 5++.
2) Special issue ammo. Their stormbolters now work like sternguard bolters.
More 'fixes' are possible, but with those 2: i'd consider fielding them. Hell i'd even consider dropping them back to 1w with that. But you know what they say: you can wish into one hand and crap into the other and see which one fills up first.
If you wanna make terminators good you can do it with a stratagem.
2CP terminators teleport: use this stratagem before the game and place up to two units of terminators into deep strike. These terminators can not arrive until after turn one, and may deep strike 6" away from an enemy unit.
2CP/3CP deathwing assault
Place up to 2/3 deathwing terminators or deathwing knights and up to 1/2 deathwing characters into Terminator deep strike. These units my not deep strike until after turn one, and can deep strike up to 6 inches away from enemy units.
1CP/3CP fury of the deathwing upon arriving from deep strike select 1/3 units of deathwing terminators, during the shooting phase they arrive theyay reroll failed hit rolls.
Boom this addresses the biggest issue which is that as soon as you come in If you don't make that charge your a sitting duck this now makes terminators more thematic, useful as shock troopers, which is what they should be, and comes at a cost large amounts of CP. The deathwing of curse get some extra flair to this since they have deathwing characters. Also this does not add more to the issue of aloha strike by limiting it to after turn one.
The first problem with Terminators is that GW insists on writing mass volume of S6-8 AP-2 or -3 dealing 2 or more damage at significant range into every book. As long as things like plasma-spam, Dark Reapers, Guard artillery, Riptide burst cannons, and the like exist multi-wound heavy infantry that's paying for a 2+ armour save isn't going to be playable.
The second problem with Terminators is that their damage output is negligible. 2A per model hitting on a 4+ does very little; give them 3A hitting on a 3+ and they might get work done. As for storm bolters they're a wildly inefficient tool unless you're trying to clear chaff on the turn you land; 40pts/model when you're packing four S4/AP0/D1 shots isn't scaring anything short of Guardsmen, and all the heavy weapons hit on 4+ the turn you land (or are a heavy flamer that can't hit the turn you land), are too expensive, and require 200pts of squad tax to use. Stick in modified versions of the assault cannon/Cyclone launcher that are Assault, cheaper, and a bit weaker, and up them to two guns per five models, and suddenly Terminator guns have a chance of doing something.
Making them get into melee more easily doesn't help anyone except the Guard (because Guardsmen screens suddenly become mandatory in all Imperial armies if you don't want important things to get jumped by Terminators). Making them 3W or reduce incoming damage doesn't help that much because doubling the amount of overcharged plasma shots needed to kill your squad still makes a unit of Hellblasters clear them off the table in a single volley
Marmatag wrote: Except terminators were garbage in 7th, too. If you want to see how to make them gods among men look at Custodes.
Terminators were alot better in 7th. I mean sure the still sucked but they could make a unit route pretty much for sure in combat even if they could not sweep. Also they could eat shots better with a 2+ save vs pretty much everything shy of anti tank guns.
Strg Alt wrote: Terminators only lived up to their fluff in 2nd due to their 3+ save on 2D6.
This mightn't be a bad thing to bring back: give all Terminators re-rolls for all failed saves. Would make them laugh off all small arms fire and make them a bit more resilient to massed rockets/lascannons/etc.
Not sure what to do about the loyalist terminator problem of getting into close combat; us Chaos have warptime and icon of wrath to help Terminators get into combat but I don't know what loyalists could be given without just ripping off Chaos toys.
Warp time was a LSM power first in 7th called veil of time. Caning see why LSM can't have it again seeing as CSM ripped off LSM.
And Warp Time was a 4th edition CSM power that Loyalists took in 7th.
I wouldn't remove at once all that makes Termies vulnerable. We don't want them to become invincible.
I would start with making them ignore AP-1 (and only that, so AP-1 becomes AP 0 but AP-2 stays -2, like Lizard Shields), and shave 3 or 4 points of cost.
High AP D2 weapons are meanth to kill elite models, so there is nothing wrong with that. Sure plasma shouldn't be overcharged this freely, but that is an issue with plasma, not with termies.
A possible fix to plasma, would be to add 1d6 str 4 hits to the unit when overheating. This way you start making it more risky to use for less elite models, and your unit could die midway, before having completed the salvo.(Attacks are always resolved one by one). This reduces the reliability of overcharged plasma drops.
No they're already priced appropriately IMHO, they're 2x a tac marine which is fine. Nerf the plasma spam and other shooting nonsense. Give them +1A or more killiness in general.
Termies are way better than both nobz and meganobz though. Anywayz, if you want effective termies, look at scarabs. 1000 son termies. They have a 1+ save vs d1 weapons, ap2 combibolters and a sorc in a squad. The payoff is 1 speed and powerswords instead of fists. But it's worth it.
Also, you ARE playing 8th edition. Everything is less djrable than before, so the best idea competitively speaking, is to play around it. Like taking the best offence or defence in njmbers or great wound per point ratio on tough models.
koooaei wrote: Anywayz, if you want effective termies, look at scarabs. 1000 son termies. They have a 1+ save vs d1 weapons, ap2 combibolters and a sorc in a squad. The payoff is 1 speed and powerswords instead of fists. But it's worth it
Except that... Scarabs are trash. People only use them because they look good and they're one (out of two) "True" Thousand Sons units and without them, we're not really playing TS any more. You'll never see a list doing well in a major tournament with Scarabs on it, in their current state.
I've started replacing them by Obliterators in my lists and never looked back.
Who cares about tournaments. 40k is rediculous for that kind of stuff. It's like hosting a worldwide rock-paper-scizzors tournament that noone would watch.
koooaei wrote: Termies are way better than both nobz and meganobz though. Anywayz, if you want effective termies, look at scarabs. 1000 son termies. They have a 1+ save vs d1 weapons, ap2 combibolters and a sorc in a squad. The payoff is 1 speed and powerswords instead of fists. But it's worth it.
Also, you ARE playing 8th edition. Everything is less djrable than before, so the best idea competitively speaking, is to play around it. Like taking the best offence or defence in njmbers or great wound per point ratio on tough models.
I wouldn't compare anything to Orks, everything Orks have is worse than the equivalent in other armies.
Also Scarabs are not effective, they're an anti-infantry unit in an army of far more efficient anti-infantry units. They're just not intimidating at all.
Terminators have always been a favourite of mine since WH40K 1st edition and Space Hulk. They're comparable in points cost per model to an Aggressor Squad and at least still have better Ld and Sv, but not T. As always I'm not sure how I feel about the Primaris Space Marines. Do Aggressors perform better in WH40K 8th edition than Terminators?
jcd386 wrote: The thing is, though. Terminators don't need to be more durable against most things in the game.
Math wise, it takes one of the following to kill a 5 man Terminator squad out of cover:
180 BS3 Bolter shots (90 rapid firing bolters)
14 BS3 Las cannon shots (14 Las cannons)
34 Heavy Bolter or Assault Cannon shots (12 Heavy Boltets or 6 assault cannons)
17 auto cannon shots (9 auto cannons)
All of these numbers seem fine to me. It's also worth noting that if the terminators are in cover, you have to double the number of auto cannons, heavy bolters, or assault cannons to kill them.
But then if you look at:
14 BS3 overcharged plasma gun shots (7 rapid firing guns). Or 18 oc shots (9 guns) if they are in cover.
21 grav shots (11 guns rapid firing, or 6 heavy grav).
Clearly, these guns are significantly more effective per gun than anything else is.
The issue when fixing terminators is, you can't really just increase them to 3 wounds, because although it does increase the number of children plasma guns needed, it also increases the number of 1 damage weapons needed to kill them by 50%. 180 bolters becomes 270. 6 assault cannons becomes 12. So although they are harder to kill, plasma is still by far the best gun to use, along with heavy weapons, and everything else is practically useless.
Letting you reroll saves similarly makes it almost impossible to die to most not plasma guns (1080 Bolter shots!), and only increasing the OC plasma shots needed to 21.
So, the best solution I see is to reduce damage for terminators by 1, to a minimum of 1. This leaves anything that does 1d, or more than 2d just as good at killing terminators, while doubling the number of plasma shots needed.
While I was at it, I would also change plasma over charge to blow up on the initial roll of a natural one, before any rerolls or modifiers are applied, but only cause 1 mortal wound. This way you would need 14 rapid firing OC plasma guns (28 shots) and expect to lose about 4 of them for it.
Once again math shows the problem is plasma spam being OP and under costed.
It's supposed to be rare and unstable. In 8th edition its everywhere and I've seen it overheat maybe twice since 8th started.
Once the plasma profile is fixed terminators should stop being auto looses.
They really do need to loose the -1to hit making them bs4 heavy weapons and ws4
SERIOUSLY GW making them actually swing 2 power fist attacks at ws3 was so op was it?
They realy need to go to 3A aswell but thats more of an everything in the marine list being out of balance due to new primaris retcon all the fluff BS.
1. Sort out plasma guns, somehow. At the moment they're a complete no-brainer to take and are just daft. Possible ways of doing this: i) big points bump; ii) make them Heavy 1 on overcharge; iii) make them always overheat on a natural 1; or iv) reduce S of both profiles by 1.
2. Give Termies another attack. (I'm of the view that giving ALL non-Primaris Marines +1A would be a good thing.)
3. Let them ignore the movement penalty for heavy weapons.
4. I like the idea of something to make them more resilient to small arms fire. Maybe let them re-roll saves against anything with AP0? You should have to bring out the big guns against TDA.
2 wounds
+1 invulnerable save
Ability to place in 1 stormshield, expanded wargear
Specific stratagems to benefit them
+1 toughness
+2 extra attacks
Terminators become gods that are generally super badass. I like to think a couple of these things would really help terminators, without making them stupid unkillable like custodes.
golden termis are how sm termis should feel!
however a middle way between the utter crap they are in now and cuz termis could be: 3 wounds, +1 toughness and a 2CP strategem that enables them to ingore AP modifyers for the remainder of the turn.
lolman1c wrote: I kind of want to play 2nd edition. From what I hear it sounds fun.
That´s a wise decision, good sir. Use your google fu right away and get hold of the best 40K book ever written:
THE BATTLE BIBLE
It includes the rules for 2nd and the following army lists:
- Big four SM - CSM -Daemon World
-Chaos Cult
-Tyranids
-GSC -Eldar
-Necrons
-Squats
-Imperial Guard
-SoB -Imperial Agents
Yes, all those goodies for zero bucks. No wonder why GW hates 2nd and the good Battle Bible. Print it, bind it and have fun.
And don´t believe what Martel is saying. Not everybody and his dog ran around with a lascannon. And -2 asm? Well, your Terminator has to roll a five on 2d6 (remember add the results of the two dice together) for his 3+ save. That´s so easy that I roll these armour saves with my left hand.
Nazrak wrote: iii) make them always overheat on a natural 1;
As several people have already suggested this, I want to say it is a really bad fix. It screws over expensive plasma guys such as Hellbrlasters and Devastators, while really not affecting the worst problem, the cheap, spammable suicide plasma of IG.
The issue when fixing terminators is, you can't really just increase them to 3 wounds, because although it does increase the number of children plasma guns needed, it also increases the number of 1 damage weapons needed to kill them by 50%. 180 bolters becomes 270. 6 assault cannons becomes 12. So although they are harder to kill, plasma is still by far the best gun to use, along with heavy weapons, and everything else is practically useless.
This sounds correct to me. The terminators should be nigh invulnerable against normal anti-infantry weapons, and should require anti-tank weapons to deal with.
How about adding +1T? This represents the models having thicker armor (therefore harder to wound). And I still think that they should have relentless advance (no penalty to shooting after moving).
I realize that the increase in toughness won't do anything vs plasma but it should help with overall survivability. And the no shooting penalty will make them more effective on the offensive side.
They have (and have almost always had) the same problem as tactical marines - an expensive generalist unit that can't quite put out the damage needed and/or aren't as durable as they are costed for.
They're great at dealing with small arms AP 0 firepower already. It takes (on average ofc) quite a few bolter/lasgun shots to take them down as already illustrated in this thread. They fall apart against the weapons meant to deal with them, which seems like its the way it should be, but in reality there are simply too many out there and little way in 8th edition to deal with it.
The best solution for me would be to make their invulnerable save a keyword like "Invulnerable 2" - reduce the AP of incoming attacks by 2, to a minimum of 0, or something similar. Plasma guns should be effective against them vs a bolter, it's just that right now they're just a little too spammable and too effective to make terminators worthwhile.
I'd say fix that and see how it goes. They will still struggle with damage output, but that may be OK. They don't need to be custodes to be good, they simply should be durable on the table.
I guess I'm surprised people think terminators need to be MORE resistant to AP 0-1, 1D weapons. Cover is the natural counter to AP1, and it already takes 90 Marines worth of rapid fitting bolters to wipe a termy squad. That's over 1100 points of Marines.
Terminators are 4 times as durable vs bolters as Marines are. I don't see why that's not enough.
Nazrak wrote: iii) make them always overheat on a natural 1;
As several people have already suggested this, I want to say it is a really bad fix. It screws over expensive plasma guys such as Hellbrlasters and Devastators, while really not affecting the worst problem, the cheap, spammable suicide plasma of IG.
While I see your point about the suicide plasma thing, I'm not sure I entirely agree that "expensive plasma guys" should necessarily be able to overcharge all the time with zero consequences. Otherwise what point is there of the standard plasma profile even existing?
Leo_the_Rat wrote: How about adding +1T? This represents the models having thicker armor (therefore harder to wound). And I still think that they should have relentless advance (no penalty to shooting after moving).
I realize that the increase in toughness won't do anything vs plasma but it should help with overall survivability. And the no shooting penalty will make them more effective on the offensive side.
Well it would make OC plasma wound on 3s instead of 2s. I'm still in favor of making plasma S6, S7 OC, and S8 on cannons, which would at the same time benefit termies.
While I see your point about the suicide plasma thing, I'm not sure I entirely agree that "expensive plasma guys" should necessarily be able to overcharge all the time with zero consequences. Otherwise what point is there of the standard plasma profile even existing?
It is still not completely free of risk. Even if with the rerolls, you might lose some guys to overheat, especially while rapid firing. And you need to invest into a character to babysit them to get those reduced overheat chances.
And the fact remains that marines are struggling, while the IG is dominating. A 'fix' that severely affects the former while hardly affecting the latter is a terrible fix.
I'd simply disallow any re-roll on plasma weapons. Generally speaking I'd cut pretty much all the re-rolls in the shooting phase. I'd also like some sort of explosion dealing D6 mortal wounds to the friendly unit if you roll a 1
I'm also not in favor of making termies T5. Like the 3W proposal. If you improve their profile you must do the same to all the other heavy elites in the game. They already jumped from 1W to 2W while other elites that were multiwounds in the previous editions didn't received any improvement on their stats in terms of durability, like ork nobz or grotesques. The +1 on the WS/BS makes more sense.
Some armies need to have their firepower toned down, even significantly. And elite dudes need to have a profile and/or combos that make them excellent fighters, not immortal units.
Nazrak wrote: iii) make them always overheat on a natural 1;
As several people have already suggested this, I want to say it is a really bad fix. It screws over expensive plasma guys such as Hellbrlasters and Devastators, while really not affecting the worst problem, the cheap, spammable suicide plasma of IG.
While I see your point about the suicide plasma thing, I'm not sure I entirely agree that "expensive plasma guys" should necessarily be able to overcharge all the time with zero consequences. Otherwise what point is there of the standard plasma profile even existing?
I think it should do 1 mortal wound, but already blow up on a natural 1. This let's the small guys die and doesn't punish the bigger guys.
Blackie wrote: I'm also not in favor of making termies T5. [edited out content] And elite dudes need to have a profile and/or combos that make them excellent fighters, not immortal units.
I would just like to point out SM riding bikes have T5 as do Nurgle Marines neither of these units is "immortal" in any sense of the word. If GW can say that bikes make you harder to wound why wouldn't the same apply to something called Tactical Dreadnaught Armor?
T5 literally solves none of their problems though, and ironically only improves them against mostly... other marines. They need an extra wound or a 4+ invul. Hell maybe even a Eternal Warrior rule.
Quickjager wrote: T5 literally solves none of their problems though, and ironically only improves them against mostly... other marines. They need an extra wound or a 4+ invul. Hell maybe even a Eternal Warrior rule.
I know. But they can have T5 as well. T5, 3W would probably be pretty decent durability (I expect evetual Primaris Terminators to get exactly that.) But they need better offence too.
deathwinguk wrote: Primaris have Aggressors (which incidentally have T5 compared to T4 for other Primaris squads).
T5 and/or 4+ invlun save seems reasonable to represent the resilience of Tactical Dreadnought Armour.
I understand where the comparison between Aggressors and Terminators comes from, but in practice they are incredibly different units both in how they play and in how they seem to be designed.
Gravis armour to me seems to be a larger version of MkX designed as a rig for larger weapons systems (Aggressors) or other equipment (Inceptors). Aggrressors are no more a Terminator analogue that Inceptors are a Vanguard Veteran analogue.
I'm in the camp that fully expects an actual Primaris Terminator line eventually, though it could well be years off.
I understand where the comparison between Aggressors and Terminators comes from, but in practice they are incredibly different units both in how they play and in how they seem to be designed.
Gravis armour to me seems to be a larger version of MkX designed as a rig for larger weapons systems (Aggressors) or other equipment (Inceptors). Aggrressors are no more a Terminator analogue that Inceptors are a Vanguard Veteran analogue.
I'm in the camp that fully expects an actual Primaris Terminator line eventually, though it could well be years off.
Yep. I really want Primaris Terminators. After seeing the Custodes Terminators with such proportions that there actually could be a human-shaped person in there, I really want to see a Space Marine Terminators to be redesigned, and in the current situation this will mean Primaris Terminators.
jcd386 wrote: I guess I'm surprised people think terminators need to be MORE resistant to AP 0-1, 1D weapons. Cover is the natural counter to AP1, and it already takes 90 Marines worth of rapid fitting bolters to wipe a termy squad. That's over 1100 points of Marines.
Terminators are 4 times as durable vs bolters as Marines are. I don't see why that's not enough.
Because they're supposed to apparently be "invincible" in fluff to the point people are making ludicrous suggestions.
Start with WS/BS2+ and start seeing how it goes. It mitigates the penalty with the Power Fist and Thunder Hammer, makes LC variants much more dangerous, and benefits any shooting variant by making them not stupidly reliant on buffs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: I want the Terminators to have T5, because Aggressors already do, so I find it weird that termies don't have it as well.
deathwinguk wrote: Primaris have Aggressors (which incidentally have T5 compared to T4 for other Primaris squads).
T5 and/or 4+ invlun save seems reasonable to represent the resilience of Tactical Dreadnought Armour.
I understand where the comparison between Aggressors and Terminators comes from, but in practice they are incredibly different units both in how they play and in how they seem to be designed.
Gravis armour to me seems to be a larger version of MkX designed as a rig for larger weapons systems (Aggressors) or other equipment (Inceptors). Aggrressors are no more a Terminator analogue that Inceptors are a Vanguard Veteran analogue.
I guess I was making the comparison because Primaris Gravis armour has T5 compared to MkX armour which has T4. So a precedent has been set.
As for how they play, I'd be interested to hear experiences given that they're a similar points cost to Terminators:
deathwinguk wrote:Do Aggressors perform better in WH40K 8th edition than Terminators?
I hear quite a few people recommending Aggressors for the sheer amount of dakka they can put down; they definitely outstrip Terminators in that regard.
The problem isnt small arms for the most part its plasma spam makes them way over costes for a model with so little damage and no staying power.
Agressors stationary can throw out enough boltstorm shots to br a threat but lack staying power but atleast stand a chance of making their points back before being wiped
I find it just weird from simulationist point of view, that one heavily armoured exoskeleton (Gravis) grants T5 while the another, supposedly heavier, armoured exoskeleton (Terminator) doesn't.
Crimson wrote: I find it just weird from simulationist point of view, that one heavily armoured exoskeleton (Gravis) grants T5 while the another, supposedly heavier, armoured exoskeleton (Terminator) doesn't.
Depends on which version of fluff you go with as some listed terminator/tactical dreadnaught armour as just being a heavy frame to support the armour, other fluff states it has a an inbuilt field to help resist damage, other parts say its because every suit contains part of the emperors armour and hence grants the invulnerable save, but that doesn't make sence in 30k.
Aggressors T5, 3+ sv, 2W, no invuln, but they put down 6+D6 S4 shots each at 18" range compared to 4 S4 for terminators. Melee they are identical.
Deathwing terms are 40pts for the SB/PF variant (sorry, don't know cost of normal terms) while Aggressors are 37pts each so pretty similar in points.
Both have pros and cons (deepstrike, invuln save, 2+ armour but reduced dakka vs better T and massive dakka, less durable and reduced mobility)
With that being said, it's hard to not justify the points.
Perhaps looking at it completely differently, what is the role of the terminator in the fluff? Apart from space hulk type scenarios, they are supposed to be teleported into the heart of the enemy to execute a specific task. Personally, I think they should be allowed to deepstrike closer to say just outside 6" instead of 9". It brings the hvy flamer into range, it makes likely to get a charge off. It makes them dangerous. If their role is to eviscerate the heart of an enemy, let them get close enough to perform that task.
Crimson wrote: I find it just weird from simulationist point of view, that one heavily armoured exoskeleton (Gravis) grants T5 while the another, supposedly heavier, armoured exoskeleton (Terminator) doesn't.
Because thats the point of Gravis armour, to give +1T where terminator armour gives you +1 save.
I guess I was making the comparison because Primaris Gravis armour has T5 compared to MkX armour which has T4. So a precedent has been set
As for how they play, I'd be interested to hear experiences given that they're a similar points cost to Terminators:
deathwinguk wrote:Do Aggressors perform better in WH40K 8th edition than Terminators?
I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) the game has ever been terribly consistent on what specifically toughness, wounds, and armour are supposed to individually represent when it comes to the durability of models. We have some ideas, but there are cases where they don't make fluff sense quite, especially when comparing models from different factions.
Broadly it feels like Toughness is the ability for a damaging hit to not impede the unit at all, Wounds are how much critical damage the model can sustain before it is completely incapable of combat, and armour is the ability to deflect a hit in some way so it does not damage the model at all. Is that basically what other people go by?
As such, I'm not really sure why Gravis get T5. Other than in the meta sense that they want them to be durable in the game in a different way to Terminators. The body inside is the same as any other Primaris, the armour is all that matters. If it was just better armour, surely that would be better represented by the armour save rather than toughness? The only thing I can thing is that as the armour is simply larger, there's more chance that a hit can penetrate but just go somewhere where it doesn't harm the user or harm critical systems. Compare firing a gun at a tractor vs a motorbike. It's not that the tractor is necessarilly better at resisting gunfire, it's that bullets that get through are less likely to hit anything important.
As such, if we take that Terminator armour is basically just very thick armour plating over a person, while Gravis is a mechanical rig for carrying other systems, then perhaps Terminators having a lower T but better Armour makes sense?
As for whether Aggressors are good... I think they are better overall but not by much and in different roles. They're good at protecting a gunline from hordes, or if you are Raven Guard at dropping right next to hordes. They have a niche they are ok at, which you struggle to say for Terminators.
Aggressors are better strictly because they need less of a points investment. They're probably one of the singular beat targets for the Raven Guard Strategem.
Yeah never mind. If they aren't Raven Guard, they're about the same level.
shortymcnostrill wrote: This makes me wonder. Would terminators still perform badly if plasma was nerfed in a way so that it wouldn't be the no-brainer choice? I feel plasma usually comes up as a big factor when discussing the worth of terminators, often to the exclusion of any other factors.
When it comes to ap0 small arms they basically already have a 3+ sv on 2d6 now, as you have to fail two 2+ saves to lose a guy.
There are a lot of constructive thoughts here. I've combined some that I think work well together below. Sorry but since I'm more familiar with CSM I'm basing this on them, besides they seem like a rounded version on the however many variants loyalists have.
Statline:
-unchanged
Abilities:
-No invulnerable save (it's hardly necessary now, the next thing will help more)
-Bastion of Pain [treat this unit as having the benefit of cover even when not utilizing terrain features] (+1 save vs plasma, lascannon, avenger gatling cannon, autocannons, missiles. no change vs melta, worse vs -5 weapons. These guys are supposed to crawl forward indiscriminately to bring for death right? And invuln is more of a forcefield or speed gimmick anyways. Also there are more ways to interact with cover saves ranging from common stratagems to sub-faction traits and a few specific weapons. Finally this is more comparable with 8th than a blnaket +1sv)
-Undaunted [this unit may shoot heavy weapons without penalty from moving] (why be penalized for teleporting or moving extra slow??? That's what they do!)\
Weapons:
-Combi-Bolter: unchanged
-Combi-Flamer: 9pts, all flamers should be 2pts less imo.
-Combi-Plasma: S6/S7 (wounding on 3 and AP-3 is plenty for anti-MEQ, shouldn't be THAT good as a heavy vehicle buster). on an unmodified hit foll of 1 the firing model takes 1 mortal wound, this roll may then be re-rolled or modified. (this way termies and bikers can take plasma without throwing away more points for no benefit compared to 1W models) no cost change, it's still elite and affordable.
-Combi-Melta: unchanged
-Heavy Flamer: Heavy 2d3
-Reaper/Autocannon: improve AP or Str by 1, maybe increase points slightly (I feel like these aren't good enough vs either marines or medium vehicles for being heavy, at 3/5 the cost of a missile launcher but failing to do the high damage, fair ap, and fair str of the missile something needs to give, it's also got less range so yeah)
-Melee weapons: unchanged
Non chaos thoughts: Hammer and stormshield varient should not get automatic cover, instead getting [you may re-roll 1 dice during a charge roll for this unit].
Final thoughts: Still quite expensive, shooting is less op when using plasma against med/heavy vehicles and other termies but also the unit is much less vulnerable to anti-elite weapons while still having some ability to be interacted with. Bad news for necrons and aeldar since the -1 nature of their common weapons is removed against this particular expensive unit, no change for AP0 weapons. I think both factions can remove cover somehow though, is that right? As a T'au player it'll hurt my missile pods and CIBs but that can be worked around with some strategy. Thoughts?
As such, I'm not really sure why Gravis get T5. Other than in the meta sense that they want them to be durable in the game in a different way to Terminators. The body inside is the same as any other Primaris, the armour is all that matters. If it was just better armour, surely that would be better represented by the armour save rather than toughness? The only thing I can thing is that as the armour is simply larger, there's more chance that a hit can penetrate but just go somewhere where it doesn't harm the user or harm critical systems. Compare firing a gun at a tractor vs a motorbike. It's not that the tractor is necessarilly better at resisting gunfire, it's that bullets that get through are less likely to hit anything important.
As such, if we take that Terminator armour is basically just very thick armour plating over a person, while Gravis is a mechanical rig for carrying other systems, then perhaps Terminators having a lower T but better Armour makes sense?
Good analysis, thank you. This was exactly the sort of thing I was thinking as well. It is just that the Gravis really doesn't seem to have that much extra exoskeleton. Your rationalisation makes perfect sense for Centurions, but not so much fro Gravis. If the amount of extra structure the Gravis armour has is enough to grant +1 toughness, then logically Terminator should as well, as they seem to have at least as much such extra structure.
bullyboy wrote: Aggressors T5, 3+ sv, 2W, no invuln, but they put down 6+D6 S4 shots each at 18" range compared to 4 S4 for terminators. Melee they are identical.
Deathwing terms are 40pts for the SB/PF variant (sorry, don't know cost of normal terms) while Aggressors are 37pts each so pretty similar in points.
Both have pros and cons (deepstrike, invuln save, 2+ armour but reduced dakka vs better T and massive dakka, less durable and reduced mobility)
With that being said, it's hard to not justify the points.
Perhaps looking at it completely differently, what is the role of the terminator in the fluff? Apart from space hulk type scenarios, they are supposed to be teleported into the heart of the enemy to execute a specific task. Personally, I think they should be allowed to deepstrike closer to say just outside 6" instead of 9". It brings the hvy flamer into range, it makes likely to get a charge off. It makes them dangerous. If their role is to eviscerate the heart of an enemy, let them get close enough to perform that task.
I can quiet easily show that both are over costed, aggressors despite their name are only any good standing still in cover with an 18inch range. So only work for raven guard with a deployment strategum.
Not exactlly what I want from a 37point model also agressirs come in a squad of 3 terminators are 40 points and 5 man so 192 pts minimum with no threatening damage potential, add an assualt cannon and their 212 pts now if they were BS2+ WS2+ and 3 attacks base they would be worthy of that points cost.
As such, I'm not really sure why Gravis get T5. Other than in the meta sense that they want them to be durable in the game in a different way to Terminators. The body inside is the same as any other Primaris, the armour is all that matters. If it was just better armour, surely that would be better represented by the armour save rather than toughness? The only thing I can thing is that as the armour is simply larger, there's more chance that a hit can penetrate but just go somewhere where it doesn't harm the user or harm critical systems. Compare firing a gun at a tractor vs a motorbike. It's not that the tractor is necessarilly better at resisting gunfire, it's that bullets that get through are less likely to hit anything important.
As such, if we take that Terminator armour is basically just very thick armour plating over a person, while Gravis is a mechanical rig for carrying other systems, then perhaps Terminators having a lower T but better Armour makes sense?
Good analysis, thank you. This was exactly the sort of thing I was thinking as well. It is just that the Gravis really doesn't seem to have that much extra exoskeleton. Your rationalisation makes perfect sense for Centurions, but not so much fro Gravis. If the amount of extra structure the Gravis armour has is enough to grant +1 toughness, then logically Terminator should as well, as they seem to have at least as much such extra structure.
Well Centurions have the T5 AND a 2+.
And the Gravis is definitely bulky. Have you seen the models?
I'm also not in favor of making termies T5. Like the 3W proposal. If you improve their profile you must do the same to all the other heavy elites in the game. They already jumped from 1W to 2W while other elites that were multiwounds in the previous editions didn't received any improvement on their stats in terms of durability, like ork nobz or grotesques. The +1 on the WS/BS makes more sense.
Nobs actually isn't true; they get to take saves against a much larger number of weapons now that used to simply ignore their armour entirely. It's the same reason Ork Boyz and Guardsmen are much better now, just less so in the case of the Nobz.
Terminators, meanwhile, lost out as a bunch of weapons that didn't affect their save at all previously now suddenly became more effective, while the Invulnerable save became somewhat redundant as -3 AP gives them a 5+ save anyway and so where given a second wound to compensate.
Terminators feel fine to me versus small arms fire. The problem is everyone and their mother can spam enough high strength weapons with minus 2 to 3 AP that makes them and their armor irrelevant. So I would like to see maybe a boost to their natural invuln save, or some sort of re-rolling save mechanic.
Just two cents from a casual scrub who likes terminators
What about no weapon can more than ap-2 against them, then they have a 4+ at worst, sure weight of fire will still bring them down but they would then have the toughest armour in the game, as they should.
Formosa wrote: What about no weapon can more than ap-2 against them, then they have a 4+ at worst, sure weight of fire will still bring them down but they would then have the toughest armour in the game, as they should.
Your desired result is more easily achieved by just giving them 4+ invulnerable.
Niiai wrote: I think that palladins are very good. 2 wound models are not good at the moment. 3 wound terminators on the other hand, well they are good.
Paladins are in the grey knight codex. You pay a tax for psykers and deep strike on everything, so combine them with some other codex.
...how many people do I have to get over from the Grey Knight tactics thread to show Paladins are ALSO over costed pieces of gak. You literally pay 10 points for a single wound increase. Which is insane.
Niiai wrote: I think that palladins are very good. 2 wound models are not good at the moment. 3 wound terminators on the other hand, well they are good.
Paladins are in the grey knight codex. You pay a tax for psykers and deep strike on everything, so combine them with some other codex.
...how many people do I have to get over from the Grey Knight tactics thread to show Paladins are ALSO over costed pieces of gak. You literally pay 10 points for a single wound increase. Which is insane.
I mean there IS an extra attack and the WS2+, but the fact they fail hard to Custodes is amazing.
I've played a couple more games using Khorne Terminators today (1st game against nu-necrons and 2nd against Girlyman-Primaris soup) and it occurs to me that durability isn't the problem: in both games my terminators survived till the end (in fact I haven't lost my terminators for a few games now).
The problem comes with delivery and damage output: if you fail that charge after deep strike, whatever you were charging will blow you away next turn and, even if you get in, loyalist terminators will likely not do enough damage. Warptime + Prescience + WE legion trait + Icon of Wrath makes terminators a powerful unit that can easily cripple two big units the turn they come down. Of course to get them to this level is a 500+pts point sink and loyalists don't have the ability to do this.
Make the WE termie combo a little bit cheaper and a bit more accessible and termicide will be a real tasty tactic.
Niiai wrote: I think that palladins are very good. 2 wound models are not good at the moment. 3 wound terminators on the other hand, well they are good.
Paladins are in the grey knight codex. You pay a tax for psykers and deep strike on everything, so combine them with some other codex.
...how many people do I have to get over from the Grey Knight tactics thread to show Paladins are ALSO over costed pieces of gak. You literally pay 10 points for a single wound increase. Which is insane.
I mean there IS an extra attack and the WS2+, but the fact they fail hard to Custodes is amazing.
...They don't get WS2+, only their sgt. does. and if you want just attacks, going for an ordinary terminator squad is more cost efficient per point. Paladins only saving grace is that it takes 2 plasma shots to kill them.
Niiai wrote: I think that palladins are very good. 2 wound models are not good at the moment. 3 wound terminators on the other hand, well they are good.
Paladins are in the grey knight codex. You pay a tax for psykers and deep strike on everything, so combine them with some other codex.
...how many people do I have to get over from the Grey Knight tactics thread to show Paladins are ALSO over costed pieces of gak. You literally pay 10 points for a single wound increase. Which is insane.
I mean there IS an extra attack and the WS2+, but the fact they fail hard to Custodes is amazing.
...They don't get WS2+, only their sgt. does. and if you want just attacks, going for an ordinary terminator squad is more cost efficient per point. Paladins only saving grace is that it takes 2 plasma shots to kill them.
Huh. Thought they all did.
Also I don't think you're correct on regular Terminators having more attacks for the points.
Ahh yea, put falchions on terminators but not the Pallies. And yet my points still stands, Paladins are not good. The fact someone says Paladins are "good" is like saying Meganobz are good.
Paladins are what normal terminators should be, but overcosted. Custodes in turn are what Paladins want to BE.
Quickjager wrote: Ahh yea, put falchions on terminators but not the Pallies. And yet my points still stands, Paladins are not good. The fact someone says Paladins are "good" is like saying Meganobz are good.
Paladins are what normal terminators should be, but overcosted. Custodes in turn are what Paladins want to BE.
Uh then put Falchions on the Paladins too then?
I'm not saying Paladins are fantastic but they're definitely better than the Loyalist Terminators and the Grey Knight Terminators.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lolman1c wrote: I feel terrible for Deathwing players. Don't they pay more for their termies and not get much more?
Nope. You pay extra for being able to mix gear too...but that's always a terrible idea.
lolman1c wrote: I feel terrible for Deathwing players. Don't they pay more for their termies and not get much more?
Nope. You pay extra for being able to mix gear too...but that's always a terrible idea.
We also get one of the most redundant abilities in the game too! Inner Circle. It means you auto pass morale test. Sounds pretty sweet right? Except this is for a unit with LD9 that you often take in 5 man squads. So you need to have lost 4 models for it to be POSSIBLE to fail a morale test. They also have Grim Resolve, the chapter wide Dark Angels ability which means they only lose a maximum of 1 model to morale anyway. Oh and they're Space Marines, so re-roll all morale tests.
Seriously, what is the point in Inner Circle? The only other units that get it are single models and so never take morale tests anyway!
lolman1c wrote: I feel terrible for Deathwing players. Don't they pay more for their termies and not get much more?
Nope. You pay extra for being able to mix gear too...but that's always a terrible idea.
We also get one of the most redundant abilities in the game too! Inner Circle. It means you auto pass morale test. Sounds pretty sweet right? Except this is for a unit with LD9 that you often take in 5 man squads. So you need to have lost 4 models for it to be POSSIBLE to fail a morale test. They also have Grim Resolve, the chapter wide Dark Angels ability which means they only lose a maximum of 1 model to morale anyway. Oh and they're Space Marines, so re-roll all morale tests.
Seriously, what is the point in Inner Circle? The only other units that get it are single models and so never take morale tests anyway!
I suppose it would help if you were playing against NL leadership shenanigans.
Stux wrote: Hah, yeah I guess so. What are they able to stack to though? -3 LD or something like that?
If so, thats effective LD6 we're down to. Because of Grim Resolve we're only losing one model max anyway, and ATSKNF gives us a reroll.
So say we love 3 terminators. That means on a roll of 4+ we lose one model. With the reroll we only fail 25% of the time.
Without Inner Circle there's a 25% chance to lose 1 model to morale if we're stacked down by -3 LD. Wow, thanks Inner Circle!
The dark angels codex is full of leadership redundancies if I remember correctly we have 7/8 rules, wargear and warlord traits to negate leadership, 1 possibly 2 is all we needed.
Either way I have been playing pure deathwing for a while now In 8th and as always it’s an uphill struggle, I can’t remember a time when pure deathwing wasn’t 40k in hard mode, I’ll be damned if I don’t force it to work though!
Having read through the thread, there are some common themes emerging for the chief weaknesses of Terminators:
1. Specifically weak to plasma-spam, and other D2 weapons to a lesser degree. This seems to be the only real hole in their durability. They should be weak to plasma, but not as weak as they are currently. The suggested rule to reduce damage by 1, to a minimum of 1, seems like a good way to make this less of an issue. Plasma on the whole needs to be addressed as a wider issue it would appear.
2. Slow. Allowing them to deepstrike closer would make a lot of sense, especially for the Deathwing, who are well known for this. They should be at least close enough to use a heavy flamer on nearby units from teleporting. Maybe 7" away for normal Terminators, and perhaps 5" for the Deathwing?
3. Insufficient damage output. Even if the issues above turn out not to be an issue, they don't kill stuff well enough. Their main role seems to be as a fire magnet, rather than as elite butchers. Honestly, giving the squad BS and WS 2+ would help a lot, and allowing them to ignore the penalties for moving and shooting heavy weapons. No penalties for power fists/thunder hammers too.
I think all three of these changes would improve them a bit, and give them a niche as linebreakers teleporting in to assault key opponents. They really should be slow but relentless... rather than just slow.
Quickjager wrote: Ahh yea, put falchions on terminators but not the Pallies. And yet my points still stands, Paladins are not good. The fact someone says Paladins are "good" is like saying Meganobz are good.
Paladins are what normal terminators should be, but overcosted. Custodes in turn are what Paladins want to BE.
Uh then put Falchions on the Paladins too then?
I'm not saying Paladins are fantastic but they're definitely better than the Loyalist Terminators and the Grey Knight Terminators.
Yea but thats not saying much still, it's basically saying Boyz are better than Shootas. Ignoring there is a fundamental flaw in how a models defense is priced.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haighus wrote: Having read through the thread, there are some common themes emerging for the chief weaknesses of Terminators:
1. Specifically weak to plasma-spam, and other D2 weapons to a lesser degree. This seems to be the only real hole in their durability. They should be weak to plasma, but not as weak as they are currently. The suggested rule to reduce damage by 1, to a minimum of 1, seems like a good way to make this less of an issue. Plasma on the whole needs to be addressed as a wider issue it would appear.
2. Slow. Allowing them to deepstrike closer would make a lot of sense, especially for the Deathwing, who are well known for this. They should be at least close enough to use a heavy flamer on nearby units from teleporting. Maybe 7" away for normal Terminators, and perhaps 5" for the Deathwing?
3. Insufficient damage output. Even if the issues above turn out not to be an issue, they don't kill stuff well enough. Their main role seems to be as a fire magnet, rather than as elite butchers. Honestly, giving the squad BS and WS 2+ would help a lot, and allowing them to ignore the penalties for moving and shooting heavy weapons. No penalties for power fists/thunder hammers too.
I think all three of these changes would improve them a bit, and give them a niche as linebreakers teleporting in to assault key opponents. They really should be slow but relentless... rather than just slow.
Here is a question for you.
Why should terminators be weak to plasma? Why should the best weapon in the game be an answer to everything?
When I think of anti elite infantry weapon, I think plasma. The problem is that plasma works agaisnt light or even heavy vehicles, and it even can kill pseudo expensive hordes! Like... Plasma Scions are actually not bad at shooting boyz, in point investment ratio.
I'm also not in favor of making termies T5. Like the 3W proposal. If you improve their profile you must do the same to all the other heavy elites in the game. They already jumped from 1W to 2W while other elites that were multiwounds in the previous editions didn't received any improvement on their stats in terms of durability, like ork nobz or grotesques. The +1 on the WS/BS makes more sense.
Nobs actually isn't true; they get to take saves against a much larger number of weapons now that used to simply ignore their armour entirely. It's the same reason Ork Boyz and Guardsmen are much better now, just less so in the case of the Nobz.
Terminators, meanwhile, lost out as a bunch of weapons that didn't affect their save at all previously now suddenly became more effective, while the Invulnerable save became somewhat redundant as -3 AP gives them a 5+ save anyway and so where given a second wound to compensate.
But nobz have the same profile profile they had in 7th, they just got +1S instead of Furious Charge. Terminators got +1W. While nobz became more resilient against firepower since they usually keep a save they're also way less effective in combat than before as pks became lackluster and pks were and should be one of the best tools orks have. Termies at least can have thunder hammers and storm shields. Imagine ork nobz with 3+ invuln and a weapon that deals a flat 3 damage.
I'm seriously expecting lots of buffs when the codex drops
Stux wrote: Hah, yeah I guess so. What are they able to stack to though? -3 LD or something like that?
If so, thats effective LD6 we're down to. Because of Grim Resolve we're only losing one model max anyway, and ATSKNF gives us a reroll.
So say we lose 3 terminators. That means on a roll of 4+ we lose one model. With the reroll we only fail 25% of the time.
Without Inner Circle there's a 25% chance to lose 1 model to morale if we're stacked down by -3 LD. Wow, thanks Inner Circle!
They are able to stack a lot:
-3Ld maximum from their legion trait
-1Ld for every Raptor unit that is in CC with you
-1Ld if you've been shot at with a Butcher Cannon
When the Warlord is in 6" you roll 2d6 and pick the highest for morale
And I'm sure there's a few more leadership shenanigan stuff they can do.
There was a thread not long ago showing how you only had to kill maybe 1 or 2 models in a unit whilst you had the blanket of Raptor's and support guns down to utterly devastate MSU.
Stux wrote: Hah, yeah I guess so. What are they able to stack to though? -3 LD or something like that?
If so, thats effective LD6 we're down to. Because of Grim Resolve we're only losing one model max anyway, and ATSKNF gives us a reroll.
So say we lose 3 terminators. That means on a roll of 4+ we lose one model. With the reroll we only fail 25% of the time.
Without Inner Circle there's a 25% chance to lose 1 model to morale if we're stacked down by -3 LD. Wow, thanks Inner Circle!
They are able to stack a lot:
-3Ld maximum from their legion trait
-1Ld for every Raptor unit that is in CC with you
-1Ld if you've been shot at with a Butcher Cannon
When the Warlord is in 6" you roll 2d6 and pick the highest for morale
And I'm sure there's a few more leadership shenanigan stuff they can do.
There was a thread not long ago showing how you only had to kill maybe 1 or 2 models in a unit whilst you had the blanket of Raptor's and support guns down to utterly devastate MSU.
Wow, that's pretty nasty!
Still, an ability that is only useful against a specific build of a specific sub-faction of one army, and only if they throw all of their shenanigans at one unit, and then only saves one model from dying is not exactly exciting!
I think the main question is; should terminators reflect the fluff? Honestly almost nothing else in the game does.
Here's my issue: Terminators in older editions were tough, not amazing, but tough - but they also weren't as expensive as they are now. They've never properly simulated the fluff - just as normal Space Marines don't. One thing they've lost is that they use to be proper Veteran space marines, meaning they had better WS/BS and leadership. A squad of five Terminators cost only a little more than a normal tactical squad. Now, they cost nearly double.
I think terminators now are fine design-wise but simply need to cost about 25-30% less than they do. None of this is helped by plasma or the heavy presence of -3/-4 AP weapons of course. I like my CSM terminator squad, but it is something like 280 points and it's tough to take it knowing it's a poor return on investment. I still do, because they're cool...but a price drop would be nice.
mrhappyface wrote: I've played a couple more games using Khorne Terminators today (1st game against nu-necrons and 2nd against Girlyman-Primaris soup) and it occurs to me that durability isn't the problem: in both games my terminators survived till the end (in fact I haven't lost my terminators for a few games now).
The problem comes with delivery and damage output: if you fail that charge after deep strike, whatever you were charging will blow you away next turn and, even if you get in, loyalist terminators will likely not do enough damage. Warptime + Prescience + WE legion trait + Icon of Wrath makes terminators a powerful unit that can easily cripple two big units the turn they come down. Of course to get them to this level is a 500+pts point sink and loyalists don't have the ability to do this.
Make the WE termie combo a little bit cheaper and a bit more accessible and termicide will be a real tasty tactic.
This right here is the real issue, terminators have very crappy fire power.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Deathwing are in an even worse boat because lore wise we are meant to have some of the best terminators, all we get a knights which can perform ok, but you have the same problem of, how the hell do i get into combat, and we get the plasma cannon which is really meh.
Galef wrote: I will say, Termies are both better and worse than prior editions.
Better due to having multiple wounds (which would have instantly fixed them in prior editions)
Worse because of the AP and Damage mechanics. Having that extra wound means little when you rarely get your 2+ save and a single failed save can kill them outright
A potential fix would be for them to have a 1+ save naturally. A roll of 1 would still fail, but it would allow them to effectively reduce AP modifiers by 1 (AP -2 becomes AP -1, etc).
Another fix could be to bump their invulnerable by 1 to a 4+
Another fix (and personally my favorite) is to leave them as is by drop them by around 10-15ppm
-
Yeah I like your personal favorite. Just have them cost 25-30 points. It is the best solution I think.
I'm also not in favor of making termies T5. Like the 3W proposal. If you improve their profile you must do the same to all the other heavy elites in the game. They already jumped from 1W to 2W while other elites that were multiwounds in the previous editions didn't received any improvement on their stats in terms of durability, like ork nobz or grotesques. The +1 on the WS/BS makes more sense.
Nobs actually isn't true; they get to take saves against a much larger number of weapons now that used to simply ignore their armour entirely. It's the same reason Ork Boyz and Guardsmen are much better now, just less so in the case of the Nobz.
Terminators, meanwhile, lost out as a bunch of weapons that didn't affect their save at all previously now suddenly became more effective, while the Invulnerable save became somewhat redundant as -3 AP gives them a 5+ save anyway and so where given a second wound to compensate.
But nobz have the same profile profile they had in 7th, they just got +1S instead of Furious Charge. Terminators got +1W. While nobz became more resilient against firepower since they usually keep a save they're also way less effective in combat than before as pks became lackluster and pks were and should be one of the best tools orks have. Termies at least can have thunder hammers and storm shields. Imagine ork nobz with 3+ invuln and a weapon that deals a flat 3 damage.
I'm seriously expecting lots of buffs when the codex drops
Mega Nobs should be very similar to terminators - they always have been.
2 wounds
+1 invulnerable save
Ability to place in 1 stormshield, expanded wargear
Specific stratagems to benefit them
+1 toughness
+2 extra attacks
Terminators become gods that are generally super badass. I like to think a couple of these things would really help terminators, without making them stupid unkillable like custodes.
Bingo. Terminators should be slightly weaker custodes, with chaos ones having bonuses for their gods, and SM ones getting chapter tactics.
As it is, custodes poops all over every terminator by a long shot.
Honestly I think we should hold off on talking about buffing Terminators until a Plasma nerf comes in, as that and its kind are the main offenders to making Terminators near useless. Plasma should and more than likely will be nerfed, so trying to talk about changes to Terminators before then is moot, as any changes to Terminators could increase their durability to insane levels depending on how much and in what ways Plasma is nerfed. Let's just wait to see what changes to Plasma GW makes and then go from there, as Plasma is what this discussion is heavily dependant on.
On a side note, I am also strongly against any change that also increases their resistance to small arms fire, as they are already incredibly resilient to them. Any more would make them far too powerful against them.
8th ed only weaked an already sub par unit. Unfortunately Termies haven't been up to fluff forever. I use GK termies which I love but unless you get them into CC with a decently big target they underperform. At least Storm bolters are now rapid fire 2 and put out a decent amount of dakka under 12". With the points cost for PAGKs it is a bit lopsided as to which to take. I hope GW take a look at Termies and make some improvements but with the push on primaris my expectations are low.
BlackLobster wrote: Previously you either got a good 2+ save or a 5++ save. Terminators could shrug off a lot of incoming fire. 8th has weakened them by having armour save modifers which ensure that you are not going to get decent saves for the points.
How did that weaken them? They're more durable compared to how they used to be barring VERY specific weapons (like the Autocannon and Gauss Blasters). You're only under the impression they're less durable because you didn't do the math.
How do you figure that? Previously you had a 2+ save against nearly everything, barring big anti-tank weapons. Now a weapon only has to be -1AP to reduce your save to a 3+ for example. Big guns are still going to reduce you to your invulnerable saves but small arms are a lot more effective against you now,
Most small arms have no armour modifier though, and now have to do twice the wounds to kill a Terminator. So aside from the medium weapons with sv modifiers and/or multiple damage, Terminators are more durable.
I'd also just make them cheaper. If a stock chaos termie (combi bolter and axe) became 31 points again I'd start a Black Legion terminator army the very same day
BlackLobster wrote: Previously you either got a good 2+ save or a 5++ save. Terminators could shrug off a lot of incoming fire. 8th has weakened them by having armour save modifers which ensure that you are not going to get decent saves for the points.
How did that weaken them? They're more durable compared to how they used to be barring VERY specific weapons (like the Autocannon and Gauss Blasters). You're only under the impression they're less durable because you didn't do the math.
How do you figure that? Previously you had a 2+ save against nearly everything, barring big anti-tank weapons. Now a weapon only has to be -1AP to reduce your save to a 3+ for example. Big guns are still going to reduce you to your invulnerable saves but small arms are a lot more effective against you now,
BlackLobster wrote: Previously you either got a good 2+ save or a 5++ save. Terminators could shrug off a lot of incoming fire. 8th has weakened them by having armour save modifers which ensure that you are not going to get decent saves for the points.
How did that weaken them? They're more durable compared to how they used to be barring VERY specific weapons (like the Autocannon and Gauss Blasters). You're only under the impression they're less durable because you didn't do the math.
How do you figure that? Previously you had a 2+ save against nearly everything, barring big anti-tank weapons. Now a weapon only has to be -1AP to reduce your save to a 3+ for example. Big guns are still going to reduce you to your invulnerable saves but small arms are a lot more effective against you now,
Twice the wounds helps ya know.
Not if all the weapons hitting you are damage 2 you know
BlackLobster wrote: Previously you either got a good 2+ save or a 5++ save. Terminators could shrug off a lot of incoming fire. 8th has weakened them by having armour save modifers which ensure that you are not going to get decent saves for the points.
How did that weaken them? They're more durable compared to how they used to be barring VERY specific weapons (like the Autocannon and Gauss Blasters). You're only under the impression they're less durable because you didn't do the math.
How do you figure that? Previously you had a 2+ save against nearly everything, barring big anti-tank weapons. Now a weapon only has to be -1AP to reduce your save to a 3+ for example. Big guns are still going to reduce you to your invulnerable saves but small arms are a lot more effective against you now,
Twice the wounds helps ya know.
Not if all the weapons hitting you are damage 2 you know
Which is really how many of those weapons modifying only around 1 or 2? It isn't a lot. Then anything going beyond is basically the same.
They are up in durability, regardless of how you feel about the armor modifying system.
The Terminator problem is GW not understanding that what Terminaors get to be more expensive than say a normal marine is all universally weaker in this edition. 5+ invul? Only matters against -4 or higher AP weapons. 2 wounds? There is so much 2D or d3D in the game right now 2 wounds is meaningless. 2+ save? Same issue of weight of fire as earlier editions (you will roll a 1 sooner or later) but also you don't get the 2+ save against anything but small arms due to the modifiers. Realistically terminators should be about 23 points before upgrades, and I think even at that price they still probably need either one more wound or -1 to the D suffered to a minimum of 1 rule. Even with the above changes I don't think they would become a top tier unit as 8th edition doesn't really reward defense due to modifiers and mortal wounds.
Terminators could use a 1+ Armor save; that way AP 0 weapons can’t hurt them through weight of fire. I’d rather they had 1+ Armor than a 5++ save, honestly, and I think it’d fit them better.
Also, it should be possible to upgrade all terminators in a squad to some sort of heavy weapon. They’re walking talks, they should have the appropriate firepower of one.
Power fists need the -1 to hit removed - same with hammers. They were playing it safe when they made that rule. Also a 4++ standard would go a long way.
-1 to Hit power fists and 2+ armor saves have been and pretty much will be how it is forever (ok not really forever i recall armor saves was 2d6 for them or something) for terminators.
at best the only thing that can be done is lower the costs.
4++ is the cataphractii thing so lets not do that.
otherwise they would need to drop to 3++ which gets in the way of storm shields. otherwise cats need something better with a 4++
Xenomancers wrote: Power fists need the -1 to hit removed - same with hammers. They were playing it safe when they made that rule. Also a 4++ standard would go a long way.
This, plus T5 and i think you've got a good unit.
My own personal thought was re roll any failed saves against ap1+ also, not including the invun- keeps play nice and fast.
This gives you a very tough unit that doesn't hit massively hard- which fits the original fluff right? a unit of lumbering giants shrugging off fire to take an objective... not hammer tanks and titans into oblivion in one round of combat/shooting, just slow and relentless marines.
Ideally- my adjustments would be +1S, +1T, the ability to move and fire heavy weapons without penalty, also do away with the penalty for using melee weapons and, leave the saves alone. This would be how I would interpret the armor enhancing a normal space marine.
Xenomancers wrote: Power fists need the -1 to hit removed - same with hammers. They were playing it safe when they made that rule. Also a 4++ standard would go a long way.
This, plus T5 and i think you've got a good unit.
My own personal thought was re roll any failed saves against ap1+ also, not including the invun- keeps play nice and fast.
This gives you a very tough unit that doesn't hit massively hard- which fits the original fluff right? a unit of lumbering giants shrugging off fire to take an objective... not hammer tanks and titans into oblivion in one round of combat/shooting, just slow and relentless marines.
I think the first thing I read about terminators was 5 of them was enough to destroy an entire planet. Granted that is ridiculous, the idea here is that they are supposed to be powerful and hard to kill. They are currently nether.
Xenomancers wrote: I think the first thing I read about terminators was 5 of them was enough to destroy an entire planet. Granted that is ridiculous, the idea here is that they are supposed to be powerful and hard to kill. They are currently nether.
And then there's the Grey Knights fluff I read where five terminators get dragged down and slain by a fairly conventional army.
That is, a fairly conventional army for medieval europe in the 1200s complete with bows and pike blocks.
The fluff is all over the place, man, and is rarely consistent, especially about Marines.
Xenomancers wrote: I think the first thing I read about terminators was 5 of them was enough to destroy an entire planet. Granted that is ridiculous, the idea here is that they are supposed to be powerful and hard to kill. They are currently nether.
And then there's the Grey Knights fluff I read where five terminators get dragged down and slain by a fairly conventional army.
That is, a fairly conventional army for medieval europe in the 1200s complete with bows and pike blocks.
The fluff is all over the place, man, and is rarely consistent, especially about Marines.
Oh I agree. A midevil army beating 5 terminators is just as ridiculous as 5 terms destroying a planet though. It's somewhere in the middle.
Xenomancers wrote: I think the first thing I read about terminators was 5 of them was enough to destroy an entire planet. Granted that is ridiculous, the idea here is that they are supposed to be powerful and hard to kill. They are currently nether.
And then there's the Grey Knights fluff I read where five terminators get dragged down and slain by a fairly conventional army.
That is, a fairly conventional army for medieval europe in the 1200s complete with bows and pike blocks.
The fluff is all over the place, man, and is rarely consistent, especially about Marines.
Hyup. if you are talking about terminator duribility then terminators armor vs rending claws is about as usless as wrapping your in a napkin to a chain sword. a ton of terminators die in space hulks.
which makes no sense consider how rare terminator armor and especially the crux terminautous has to be.
it would be 1000% more constructive to consider what space marines need in game context rather than fluff.
Desubot wrote: it would be 1000% more constructive to consider what space marines need in game context rather than fluff.
This I agree with, and will step back out of the thread - unfortunately, I don't really know how to fix Terminators. Most of the suggestions I've seen here I think would work, though I'd apply them one at a time (e.g. apply +1 T, see how they work. Apply the "no -1 to melee weapons", see how they work, etc etc.). This is actually possible with the way GW does incremental updates now, and I think would lead to better balance than the roller coaster of "Terminators are UP! Give them everything... OH GOD OH GOD TOO MUCH TAKE IT AWAY.... ah crap they're bad again...."
Xenomancers wrote: Power fists need the -1 to hit removed - same with hammers. They were playing it safe when they made that rule. Also a 4++ standard would go a long way.
This, plus T5 and i think you've got a good unit.
This is why I'm glad most of you aren't in the rules team.
Make them BS/WS2+, and adjust cost to fit.
I would ideally make Sternguard BS2+ and Vanguard WS2+ as well and adjust cost, so everything scales accordingly. Whatever though. I'm not on the rules team so...
no neg modifier to wielding cc weapons in cc or moving and shooting heavy weapons. Re-roll failed armour saves.
Re-roll failes armour saves keeps it simple, no faffing around, also works well to better represent saves vs small arms
Plasma just needs nerfing (cannot re-roll 1 on overcharge, or overheat result stands even if re-rolled and you score a subsequent hit) as well as points increase
Extra attack? Hmm maybe. +1 T seems both ok and not. Helps make them tougher, and with the wounding chart, not as drastic as it would have been last edition. On the other hand Death Guard Blightlord Terms would need to go up to T6. Then there are the Custodes....
Inquisitor Kallus wrote: no neg modifier to wielding cc weapons in cc or moving and shooting heavy weapons. Re-roll failed armour saves.
Re-roll failes armour saves keeps it simple, no faffing around, also works well to better represent saves vs small arms
Plasma just needs nerfing (cannot re-roll 1 on overcharge, or overheat result stands even if re-rolled and you score a subsequent hit) as well as points increase
Extra attack? Hmm maybe. +1 T seems both ok and not. Helps make them tougher, and with the wounding chart, not as drastic as it would have been last edition. On the other hand Death Guard Blightlord Terms would need to go up to T6. Then there are the Custodes....
Re-rolling failed armour saves is insane, though, against most weapons. That's like, more than 50% durability buff against anything that doesn't bump them up past their invuln anyways. That's bonkers.
Necron_Mason wrote: Honestly I think we should hold off on talking about buffing Terminators until a Plasma nerf comes in, as that and its kind are the main offenders to making Terminators near useless. Plasma should and more than likely will be nerfed, so trying to talk about changes to Terminators before then is moot, as any changes to Terminators could increase their durability to insane levels depending on how much and in what ways Plasma is nerfed. Let's just wait to see what changes to Plasma GW makes and then go from there, as Plasma is what this discussion is heavily dependant on.
On a side note, I am also strongly against any change that also increases their resistance to small arms fire, as they are already incredibly resilient to them. Any more would make them far too powerful against them.
Plasma is the new grav - back in 7th edition grav weapons ate 2+ armor alive. It would be dumb to nerf plasma as a semi buff for terminators... plasma is one of the best weapons Imperium has to deal with many enemy units. Grav was not nerfed until 8th edition - I doubt GW will nerf plasma this edition.
-2 ap storm bolters, ability to take 2 heavy weapons per 5 w/ no negatives to hit when moved (plasma cannons, grav and ACs) no -1 to hit with powerfists/storm hammers, +2 attacks for 2x LCs.
A strat to allow them to teleport strike mid game (1cp deploy one unit of termies anywhere on the table not w/in 9" of enemy)
Replace the 5++ with a 5+ FNP (Ceramic armor or something fluffy). If that's not good enough then start reducing their points.
Only for true termies. The traitors are good enough as is, actually should cost 25 points more, S/T should be reduced to 2 to reflect the weakness contained by their contaminated souls...
Haighus wrote: Most small arms have no armour modifier though, and now have to do twice the wounds to kill a Terminator. So aside from the medium weapons with sv modifiers and/or multiple damage, Terminators are more durable.
I think where that didn't really help Terminators is that now almost every army can throw plasma (or equivalent) and re-rolls fairly easily with how modular the Detachments are now. Hell, a 500ish point Battalion of Scions can throw 17 overcharged plasma shots at 12" re-rolling 1's to hit and extra shots on 6's. In contrast that's two Terminator Squads. I can see how people would have a problem with that.
Primark G wrote: Plasma is the new grav - back in 7th edition grav weapons ate 2+ armor alive. It would be dumb to nerf plasma as a semi buff for terminators... plasma is one of the best weapons Imperium has to deal with many enemy units. Grav was not nerfed until 8th edition - I doubt GW will nerf plasma this edition.
8th edition plasma is worse than 7th edition grav.
Grav wasn't damaging vehicals on a 3+ it also wasn't 2+ to wound against everything bar deathguard and custodes.
Plasma is offensively OP as it eats infantry and tanks for breakfest, it's so undercosted I've never seen anyone take another special weapon in a semi competative list. Between plasma, melta, grav or flamer. It's always plasma or nothing.
Tau plasma is BS4 rapid fire1 24inch S6 -3AP 1D and 11 points and cheapest platform is 42 points
Scions plasma BS3 rapid fire1 24inch S7 -3AP 1D and 13 points in a 9 point model or BS3 rapid fire 1 24 inch s8 -3AP 2D.
The normal profile is cheap the overcharged profile is offensively OP.
Xenomancers wrote: Power fists need the -1 to hit removed - same with hammers. They were playing it safe when they made that rule. Also a 4++ standard would go a long way.
This, plus T5 and i think you've got a good unit.
This is why I'm glad most of you aren't in the rules team.
Make them BS/WS2+, and adjust cost to fit.
I would ideally make Sternguard BS2+ and Vanguard WS2+ as well and adjust cost, so everything scales accordingly. Whatever though. I'm not on the rules team so...
Why is bs2+ and ws 2+ such a better idea than remove -1 to hit penalties? The end result is nearly the same. Plus - my main issue with terms is their survivability. I can buff them to reroll all hits and wounds already with an aura (the problem is you can't buff things that are dead). I for one would start play terminators straight away if they got a 4++ save natural just because at that point they are close enough to being survivable that I would risk playing them.
Stormonu wrote: Terminators could use a 1+ Armor save; that way AP 0 weapons can’t hurt them through weight of fire. I’d rather they had 1+ Armor than a 5++ save, honestly, and I think it’d fit them better.
Also, it should be possible to upgrade all terminators in a squad to some sort of heavy weapon. They’re walking talks, they should have the appropriate firepower of one.
Alright, so my Nurgle Army is just fethed, then?
I run Plaguebearers (no AP), Plague Drones (no AP), and Nurglings (no AP). I then typically have a Poxbringer, a Spoilpox Scrivener, and Epidemius. That's 3 models (out of 75) that have an AP value.
Stormonu wrote: Terminators could use a 1+ Armor save; that way AP 0 weapons can’t hurt them through weight of fire. I’d rather they had 1+ Armor than a 5++ save, honestly, and I think it’d fit them better.
Also, it should be possible to upgrade all terminators in a squad to some sort of heavy weapon. They’re walking talks, they should have the appropriate firepower of one.
Alright, so my Nurgle Army is just fethed, then?
I run Plaguebearers (no AP), Plague Drones (no AP), and Nurglings (no AP). I then typically have a Poxbringer, a Spoilpox Scrivener, and Epidemius. That's 3 models (out of 75) that have an AP value.
I mean it is no worse then last edition if a guy played a land raider or in your list case any vehical.
1) I wouldn't've fielded a list like this last addition. It's gotten better in 8th, which is nice, but I'd still be taking that which is effective.
2) They had Touch of Rust (everything but the Nurglings) which auto-glanced on 6s.
Edit: Also, "7th edition would've done something similar!" is NOT a good argument. I prefer 7th to 8th, but I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that 7th was not an objectively good system.
Haighus wrote: Most small arms have no armour modifier though, and now have to do twice the wounds to kill a Terminator. So aside from the medium weapons with sv modifiers and/or multiple damage, Terminators are more durable.
I think where that didn't really help Terminators is that now almost every army can throw plasma (or equivalent) and re-rolls fairly easily with how modular the Detachments are now. Hell, a 500ish point Battalion of Scions can throw 17 overcharged plasma shots at 12" re-rolling 1's to hit and extra shots on 6's. In contrast that's two Terminator Squads. I can see how people would have a problem with that.
Exactly, so anything that raises the durability of Terminators across the board (like re rolling saves) makes Terminators far to tough against everything else, but leaves plasma still the best option. So everyone still takes plasma. The problem is plasma, and this needs to be fixed. Any increases to Terminator durability need to focus on plasma and similar weapons, like the ability to reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1, which doubles Terminator durability against overcharged plasma.
Terminators don't need a universal durability boost, but a targeted one.
Their firepower is limited however. I think this is a better target for buffs. I think AP -2 just isn't Terminators though. They are better having a large weight of fire that is relentless, so just make them able to use Rapid fire weapons as Assault weapons if they advance, Pistols if they are within 1" of an enemy, allow them to shoot if they fall back, and +1 to Overwatch hit rolls. Make them BsWs 2+, and remove the negative hit modifiers for moving and shooting heavy weapons, and for power fists and thunderhammers.
This would make a unit that is consistently putting out fire, and is basically impossible to suppress.
Xenomancers wrote: Power fists need the -1 to hit removed - same with hammers. They were playing it safe when they made that rule. Also a 4++ standard would go a long way.
This, plus T5 and i think you've got a good unit.
This is why I'm glad most of you aren't in the rules team.
Make them BS/WS2+, and adjust cost to fit.
I would ideally make Sternguard BS2+ and Vanguard WS2+ as well and adjust cost, so everything scales accordingly. Whatever though. I'm not on the rules team so...
Why is bs2+ and ws 2+ such a better idea than remove -1 to hit penalties? The end result is nearly the same. Plus - my main issue with terms is their survivability. I can buff them to reroll all hits and wounds already with an aura (the problem is you can't buff things that are dead). I for one would start play terminators straight away if they got a 4++ save natural just because at that point they are close enough to being survivable that I would risk playing them.
My suggestion helps all Terminator types. It isn't just the Tactical Terminator that's suffering. My addition helps with the strictly shooting variants and increases damage output from anything not using an unwieldy melee weapon, like Power Weapon Chaos variants or the LC Loyalist Scum variants.
Xenomancers wrote: Power fists need the -1 to hit removed - same with hammers. They were playing it safe when they made that rule. Also a 4++ standard would go a long way.
This, plus T5 and i think you've got a good unit.
This is why I'm glad most of you aren't in the rules team.
Make them BS/WS2+, and adjust cost to fit. I would ideally make Sternguard BS2+ and Vanguard WS2+ as well and adjust cost, so everything scales accordingly. Whatever though. I'm not on the rules team so...
Why is bs2+ and ws 2+ such a better idea than remove -1 to hit penalties? The end result is nearly the same. Plus - my main issue with terms is their survivability. I can buff them to reroll all hits and wounds already with an aura (the problem is you can't buff things that are dead). I for one would start play terminators straight away if they got a 4++ save natural just because at that point they are close enough to being survivable that I would risk playing them.
My suggestion helps all Terminator types. It isn't just the Tactical Terminator that's suffering. My addition helps with the strictly shooting variants and increases damage output from anything not using an unwieldy melee weapon, like Power Weapon Chaos variants or the LC Loyalist Scum variants.
Honestly i wouldnt mind "Veterans" all gaining the bsws 2+ it differentiates them from normal and primarus marines (whom have their sthick of 2 attacks base)
it steps on commander level units but eh they get more attacks base anyway. at which point i dont mind unwhieldy on a 3+ being a thing still.
(they should be right between commanders and normal guys which would be a 2.5+ to hit but its hard to do that on a d6)
Xenomancers wrote: Power fists need the -1 to hit removed - same with hammers. They were playing it safe when they made that rule. Also a 4++ standard would go a long way.
This, plus T5 and i think you've got a good unit.
This is why I'm glad most of you aren't in the rules team.
Make them BS/WS2+, and adjust cost to fit.
I would ideally make Sternguard BS2+ and Vanguard WS2+ as well and adjust cost, so everything scales accordingly. Whatever though. I'm not on the rules team so...
Why is bs2+ and ws 2+ such a better idea than remove -1 to hit penalties? The end result is nearly the same. Plus - my main issue with terms is their survivability. I can buff them to reroll all hits and wounds already with an aura (the problem is you can't buff things that are dead). I for one would start play terminators straight away if they got a 4++ save natural just because at that point they are close enough to being survivable that I would risk playing them.
My suggestion helps all Terminator types. It isn't just the Tactical Terminator that's suffering. My addition helps with the strictly shooting variants and increases damage output from anything not using an unwieldy melee weapon, like Power Weapon Chaos variants or the LC Loyalist Scum variants.
Honestly i wouldnt mind "Veterans" all gaining the bsws 2+ it differentiates them from normal and primarus marines (whom have their sthick of 2 attacks base)
it steps on commander level units but eh they get more attacks base anyway. at which point i dont mind unwhieldy on a 3+ being a thing still.
(they should be right between commanders and normal guys which would be a 2.5+ to hit but its hard to do that on a d6)
That's about the way I see it. Making Vanguard WS2+ basically helps alleviate the issue with their number of attacks not being spectacular, and making Sternguard BS2+ makes them more attractive than say Command Squads and Devastator squads. That would need a price adjustment of course but not a big one.
Then Terminators are so skilled they get the honor to use the Terminator suits. Seems to make sense, right?
That's about the way I see it. Making Vanguard WS2+ basically helps alleviate the issue with their number of attacks not being spectacular, and making Sternguard BS2+ makes them more attractive than say Command Squads and Devastator squads. That would need a price adjustment of course but not a big one.
Then Terminators are so skilled they get the honor to use the Terminator suits. Seems to make sense, right?
Could of sworn Terminators sternguard and vanguards are all the same guys. they all have the crux terminatus. i dont recall how any of that fluff works on command squads though this is mostly irrelevant.
Primark G wrote:
Plasma is the new grav - back in 7th edition grav weapons ate 2+ armor alive. It would be dumb to nerf plasma as a semi buff for terminators... plasma is one of the best weapons Imperium has to deal with many enemy units. Grav was not nerfed until 8th edition - I doubt GW will nerf plasma this edition.
I didn't play much of 7th due to how broken it was, so I can't say much on Grav weapons and such. However it has been stated by GW and shown by their actions that they are taking 8th edition far more seriously balancing-wise, so to say that GW won't make a needed change in 8th because of how the dragged their feet on a similar issue in 7th is not entirely justified.
Ice_can wrote:
8th edition plasma is worse than 7th edition grav.
Grav wasn't damaging vehicals on a 3+ it also wasn't 2+ to wound against everything bar deathguard and custodes.
Plasma is offensively OP as it eats infantry and tanks for breakfest, it's so undercosted I've never seen anyone take another special weapon in a semi competative list. Between plasma, melta, grav or flamer. It's always plasma or nothing.
Tau plasma is BS4 rapid fire1 24inch S6 -3AP 1D and 11 points and cheapest platform is 42 points
Scions plasma BS3 rapid fire1 24inch S7 -3AP 1D and 13 points in a 9 point model or BS3 rapid fire 1 24 inch s8 -3AP 2D.
The normal profile is cheap the overcharged profile is offensively OP.
I agree, and that is the two major problems with Plasma right now. The simple fact that Plasma is incredibly OP and that it does mostly everything so well with a laughably small amount of risk that it makes the rest of the special weapons completely irrelevant. Each of the special weapons should fit a niche role, and right now Plasma outperforms every special weapon in every niche role.
Stormonu wrote: Terminators could use a 1+ Armor save; that way AP 0 weapons can’t hurt them through weight of fire. I’d rather they had 1+ Armor than a 5++ save, honestly, and I think it’d fit them better.
Also, it should be possible to upgrade all terminators in a squad to some sort of heavy weapon. They’re walking talks, they should have the appropriate firepower of one.
Alright, so my Nurgle Army is just fethed, then?
I run Plaguebearers (no AP), Plague Drones (no AP), and Nurglings (no AP). I then typically have a Poxbringer, a Spoilpox Scrivener, and Epidemius. That's 3 models (out of 75) that have an AP value.
Honest question, do none of those have Krak grenade equivalents? That may mean killing the terminators slow, but that's why their being brought in the first place.
Some 'Nid builds would have problems as well - a Termagant swarm would be worthless as well without some heavier support.
Stormonu wrote: Terminators could use a 1+ Armor save; that way AP 0 weapons can’t hurt them through weight of fire. I’d rather they had 1+ Armor than a 5++ save, honestly, and I think it’d fit them better.
Also, it should be possible to upgrade all terminators in a squad to some sort of heavy weapon. They’re walking talks, they should have the appropriate firepower of one.
Alright, so my Nurgle Army is just fethed, then?
I run Plaguebearers (no AP), Plague Drones (no AP), and Nurglings (no AP). I then typically have a Poxbringer, a Spoilpox Scrivener, and Epidemius. That's 3 models (out of 75) that have an AP value.
Honest question, do none of those have Krak grenade equivalents? That may mean killing the terminators slow, but that's why their being brought in the first place.
Some 'Nid builds would have problems as well - a Termagant swarm would be worthless as well without some heavier support.
Just to clarify, the issue here is that a Scissors skewed/gimmick list is hard-countered by a Rock skewed/gimmick list?
JNAProductions wrote: So a mixture of troops (Plaguebearers and Nurglings), fast attack (Plague Drones), along with supporting HQs is a skew list now?
Yes bringing no heavy weapons and spamming cheap low ap and damage wounds is skew.
So what do I bring as Nurgle Daemons? GUO have AP, but they suck. BEasts of Nurgle have no AP. There are no dedicated Nurgle Heavy Support options. The only good option with AP are Daemon Princes.
JNAProductions wrote: So a mixture of troops (Plaguebearers and Nurglings), fast attack (Plague Drones), along with supporting HQs is a skew list now?
Yes bringing no heavy weapons and spamming cheap low ap and damage wounds is skew.
So what do I bring as Nurgle Daemons? GUO have AP, but they suck. BEasts of Nurgle have no AP. There are no dedicated Nurgle Heavy Support options. The only good option with AP are Daemon Princes.
You bring some CSM your like a deathwatch player saying they have not cheap units to screen.
JNAProductions wrote: So a mixture of troops (Plaguebearers and Nurglings), fast attack (Plague Drones), along with supporting HQs is a skew list now?
Yes bringing no heavy weapons and spamming cheap low ap and damage wounds is skew.
So what do I bring as Nurgle Daemons? GUO have AP, but they suck. BEasts of Nurgle have no AP. There are no dedicated Nurgle Heavy Support options. The only good option with AP are Daemon Princes.
What about the Plagueburst Crawler?
Nevermind, I see that the army is supposed to be Daemon only - though I guess a Soulgrinder could be brought in? (Not terribly familiar with Daemons...)
JNAProductions wrote: So a mixture of troops (Plaguebearers and Nurglings), fast attack (Plague Drones), along with supporting HQs is a skew list now?
Yes bringing no heavy weapons and spamming cheap low ap and damage wounds is skew.
So what do I bring as Nurgle Daemons? GUO have AP, but they suck. BEasts of Nurgle have no AP. There are no dedicated Nurgle Heavy Support options. The only good option with AP are Daemon Princes.
What about the Plagueburst Crawler?
Nurgle Daemons. That's Deathguard.
And I should not have to look outside my faction to have a chance of killing Terminators. I'm fine if they're tough. I'm fine with my list having good and bad match-ups. But there should not be a model that literally only 3 models in my army can even potentially damage.
Would you tell a Salamanders player that they HAVE to look outside their faction to play against certain models? What about armies like Tau or Crons, who CANNOT ally? Do they just play a new faction?
For reference, Epidemius has 4 S5 AP-3 rerolling wounds attacks. Poxbringer has the same statline with 3 attacks. Spoilpox Scrivener has 3 attacks at S5 AP-1 rerolling wound rolls of 1. If all three charge a squad of Terminators with 1+ armor saves, they deal...
1.48 from Epidemius, 1.11 from Poxbringer, and .32 from the Scrivener. Total of 2.91 damage. Enough to kill a Terminator and a half.
In return, the Terminators deal about .59 points of damage per model on the backswing.
Edit: Yeah, a Soulgrinder is available to all Daemonic factions. But it's honestly not especially good either, and I want to keep the Nurgle theme.
Also, why would anyone want a model that's literally unkillable by anything without an AP value? I don't mind a 1+ save, just so long as they obey the "1s always fail" rule.
How exactly would you handle a Fellblade with that army? Or a pile of Land Raider Crusaders? Or an army of fliers?
You’re taking an army with no heavy or anti-tank weaponry. That’s not a ‘faction identity’, like Custodes not having chaff infantry to screen. That’s just a poor army.
kombatwombat wrote: How exactly would you handle a Fellblade with that army? Or a pile of Land Raider Crusaders? Or an army of fliers?
You’re taking an army with no heavy or anti-tank weaponry. That’s not a ‘faction identity’, like Custodes not having chaff infantry to screen. That’s just a poor army.
Charge it, charge it, and charge it. I've handled Land Raiders with just these guys pretty well. S5 with +1 to wound rolls, rerolling all failed wounds, doing 1 extra damage on 5+ and double damage on 6s makes short work of most things.
Not actually sure what a Fellblade is-it's a Space Marine Superheavy, yeah?
Land Raiders aren't scary. I'll have some difficulty killing them, but I'll outscore them enormously, and they won't kill much.
And an army of fliers both has a counter in my Drones (which can charge them just fine) and I can just wipe the ground forces, in which case, they auto-lose.
Edit: I won't say this a tournament level army, because of course it's not. But it's perfectly fine for friendly, if competitive, play. And there should not be models that I can only touch with three models in my entire army.
On the contrary, it was probably the single thing about the 8th Ed ruleset that caused the most outrage: that a lasgun can blow a hole in a Land Raider. Having units that can’t be harmed by certain weaponry was a thematic strength of previous editions; you couldn’t just spam plasma to deal with everything - an AV14 tank scorned your plasma’s S7.
The problem with 7th Ed ‘unkillable’ stuff was that there was literally no way to harm them with anything. It wasn’t a case of packing a meltagun when you’re dealing with a horde, but rather that no matter what weapon you used no damage got through. Destroyer weapons were the exception - they could go through the ‘unkillable’ stuff, but only on a roll of a 6, and they were very rare weapons.
If you’ve brought only anti-light infantry weapons in your entire army then it’s only right that you should have no capacity to deal with a unit designed to wade through oceans of anti-infantry fire.
And yep a Fellblade is indeed a Marine Superheavy - a T9 W26 Sv2+ one that can still shoot (and even Overwatch!) while in combat. Even with Str 5 and +1 to Wound (which I believe can only affect one unit per turn?) it’ll still take you over six hundred attacks to bring one of those things down.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to call an army that has no dedicated anti-tank, anti-monster, anti-elite or anti-flyer weaponry, and relies solely on anti-infantry attacks with a limited gimmick to make those attacks a bit more useful against suboptimal targets, a very skewed list.
kombatwombat wrote: How exactly would you handle a Fellblade with that army? Or a pile of Land Raider Crusaders? Or an army of fliers?
You’re taking an army with no heavy or anti-tank weaponry. That’s not a ‘faction identity’, like Custodes not having chaff infantry to screen. That’s just a poor army.
Charge it, charge it, and charge it. I've handled Land Raiders with just these guys pretty well. S5 with +1 to wound rolls, rerolling all failed wounds, doing 1 extra damage on 5+ and double damage on 6s makes short work of most things.
Not actually sure what a Fellblade is-it's a Space Marine Superheavy, yeah?
Land Raiders aren't scary. I'll have some difficulty killing them, but I'll outscore them enormously, and they won't kill much.
And an army of fliers both has a counter in my Drones (which can charge them just fine) and I can just wipe the ground forces, in which case, they auto-lose.
Edit: I won't say this a tournament level army, because of course it's not. But it's perfectly fine for friendly, if competitive, play. And there should not be models that I can only touch with three models in my entire army.
Isn't that something people disliked about 7th?
According to the rulebook a 1 on a saving throw always fails, so a 1+ armour would have no effect on Nurgle Daemons at all. Obliterators right now can gain a 0+ armour safe next to a tree, yet they still can be hurt by anyone, they're just much more durable against heavy weapons. Also, with all our high damage profiles vehicles, and terminators are no problem, you can have up to damage 6 on a plague bearer after all...
Land Raiders aren't scary. I'll have some difficulty killing them, but I'll outscore them enormously, and they won't kill much.
The crusader is very killy against hordes though and not even that expensive, it's 310 points IIRC. Certainly a bit overcosted and not a super competitive option but against several factions it may even gets its points back. Its main drawback is most SM lists don't have anything valuable to transport. With my SW I can bring 15-16 blood claws plus 0-1 lukas or wolf priest, or 5-7 wulfen plus 5 GH or wolf guards and 0-1 characters. Huge points sink but not useless.
The other types of land raiders are way more lackluster though.
All of this is irrelevant anyway, because the last thing terminators need is a better armor save. They are already very resilient against anything that does 1 damage, and being in cover makes them very resistant to all AP 1 as well. Doing anything to improve their armor save makes them practically unkillable against 1 damage weapons, so we should stop considering that.
The only things that are decent at killing them are heavy anti tank guns or thunder hammer type weapons, which seems correct to me, and OC plasma, which is about twice as good as almost anything else (melta, las, etc) since it typically gets more than one shot.
I can't think of another gun that decimates terminators in a "huh that seems way too good" way as much as plasma does. Grav is close, but wounds on 3s and won't kill the terminator outright 1/3rd of the time with D3 damage. Grav isn't nearly as good as plasma at killing high T things though, so I'm okay if it's decent at killing terminators since that seems like it's job, and it's still not even close to being as good as plasma is.
So, the only options worth considering from a durability standpoint are nerfing plasma or increasing the durability of terminators against only plasma. In my opinion, you could do this by making termies always reduce damage by 1 to a min of 1, but it might be easier to just give plasma an overhaul.
From an offensive standpoint, I think terminators should be able to ignore the negative modifiers from melee weapons, and perhaps be able to move and fire heavy weapons with no negative modifier, and maybe even advance and still fire rapid fire and heavy at a -1 as well.
I think reducing the damage of all weapons by 1 (to a minimum of 1) is a really good start. Not overly powerful, but it helps against the proliferation of high volume 2 damage shots, while not really affecting the big stuff like Thunder Hammers and Lascannons that are meant to kill these things.
Offensively, I think allowing them to choose to treat Heavy and Rapid Fire weapons as Assault, and ignoring the -1 penalty on Thunder Hammers/Power Fists/Chainfists, would give them another nice but not crazily powerful boost.
It’s a simple enough add; in a Chapter Approved give these extra rule to all units with the Terminator keyword. If that doesn’t solve the issue then after a while look into something else.
The only issue might be Lightning Claws - maybe a second extra attack for having a pair?
I'm not sure I see any issue with lightning claws as they are now, actually. 16 attacks from 5 actually durable guys seems okay to me. Math wise, they should wipe a 5 man Maine squad with no outside rerolls.
Honestly not sure why Terminators are not WS/BS 2+ considering they are lore wise the veterans of a chapter. They should be basically sternguard but in better armor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote: I'm not sure I see any issue with lightning claws as they are now, actually. 16 attacks from 5 actually durable guys seems okay to me. Math wise, they should wipe a 5 man Maine squad with no outside rerolls.
Lightning claws are not really that bad, They are decent, the problem with them is their delivery system. Terminators are slow as snot, and you have around a 40% chance of making a 9" charge to get into combat with them. And when you do, your still only swinging at S4, which is great for killing hordes, but lets be honest, there are a lot better and cheaper ways to clear hordes that are more useful. For example, a Dakka pred can do it from range.
Backspacehacker wrote: Honestly not sure why Terminators are not WS/BS 2+ considering they are lore wise the veterans of a chapter. They should be basically sternguard but in better armor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote: I'm not sure I see any issue with lightning claws as they are now, actually. 16 attacks from 5 actually durable guys seems okay to me. Math wise, they should wipe a 5 man Maine squad with no outside rerolls.
Lightning claws are not really that bad, They are decent, the problem with them is their delivery system. Terminators are slow as snot, and you have around a 40% chance of making a 9" charge to get into combat with them. And when you do, your still only swinging at S4, which is great for killing hordes, but lets be honest, there are a lot better and cheaper ways to clear hordes that are more useful. For example, a Dakka pred can do it from range.
Yeah I agree, but every unit doesn't have to be good at everything, the options they have should just be fairly priced for what they do. And, for assault termies, you really want a way to reroll that charge, I think, a SM lib being the most obvious way to make it happen.
That being said, 21 attacks would probably be fine too. It would kill 7 Marines, which seems okay too.
In fact, most Marine units could have 5 more attacks added and feel just fine.
Marines in general took a sizable hit in melee when 8th took away the blanket +1 attack for charging, and don't have any assault units outside the BA or SW that are really any good at out putting more than 2 or 3 attacks per model. Marines have always relied on mainly shooting, but it doesn't help things much that their assault power went down 33-50% for most units.
You could give everything in the book the "fights twice" rule Berzerkers have and Berzerkers would still be better melee units for their points than anything in the book. It's obscene.
Land Raiders aren't scary. I'll have some difficulty killing them, but I'll outscore them enormously, and they won't kill much.
The crusader is very killy against hordes though and not even that expensive, it's 310 points IIRC. Certainly a bit overcosted and not a super competitive option but against several factions it may even gets its points back. Its main drawback is most SM lists don't have anything valuable to transport. With my SW I can bring 15-16 blood claws plus 0-1 lukas or wolf priest, or 5-7 wulfen plus 5 GH or wolf guards and 0-1 characters. Huge points sink but not useless.
The other types of land raiders are way more lackluster though.
The Crusader isn't killy against hordes BECAUSE of its cost.
Look at the price of Centurions and Aggressors and I want you to make that statement again and mean it. Because it's actually false.
JNAProductions wrote: So a mixture of troops (Plaguebearers and Nurglings), fast attack (Plague Drones), along with supporting HQs is a skew list now?
Yes bringing no heavy weapons and spamming cheap low ap and damage wounds is skew.
So what do I bring as Nurgle Daemons? GUO have AP, but they suck. BEasts of Nurgle have no AP. There are no dedicated Nurgle Heavy Support options. The only good option with AP are Daemon Princes.
What about the Plagueburst Crawler?
Nurgle Daemons. That's Deathguard.
And I should not have to look outside my faction to have a chance of killing Terminators. I'm fine if they're tough. I'm fine with my list having good and bad match-ups. But there should not be a model that literally only 3 models in my army can even potentially damage.
Would you tell a Salamanders player that they HAVE to look outside their faction to play against certain models? What about armies like Tau or Crons, who CANNOT ally? Do they just play a new faction?
For reference, Epidemius has 4 S5 AP-3 rerolling wounds attacks. Poxbringer has the same statline with 3 attacks. Spoilpox Scrivener has 3 attacks at S5 AP-1 rerolling wound rolls of 1. If all three charge a squad of Terminators with 1+ armor saves, they deal...
1.48 from Epidemius, 1.11 from Poxbringer, and .32 from the Scrivener. Total of 2.91 damage. Enough to kill a Terminator and a half.
In return, the Terminators deal about .59 points of damage per model on the backswing.
Edit: Yeah, a Soulgrinder is available to all Daemonic factions. But it's honestly not especially good either, and I want to keep the Nurgle theme.
Also, why would anyone want a model that's literally unkillable by anything without an AP value? I don't mind a 1+ save, just so long as they obey the "1s always fail" rule.
Taking CSM is not outside your faction. Also Salamanders are not a skew list so no they should be able to deal with most things. However if I played all 300 of my gaunts I would not expect to be able to just shot anything off the table with them by just sheer weight of dice witch you seem to expect to work for some reason with your daemons list due to a limited amount of models because your playing a small sub faction of chaos as a whole.
Desubot wrote: Could of sworn Terminators sternguard and vanguards are all the same guys. they all have the crux terminatus.
They are all veterans, and may wear the symbol on their power armour, but only when the actual Crux Terminatus is embedded in Terminator Armour does it offer the 5+ invuln save. Compared to Vanguard and Sternguard Veterans, Terminators also have improved W and Sv...
xeen wrote: The Terminator problem is GW not understanding that what Terminaors get to be more expensive than say a normal marine is all universally weaker in this edition. 5+ invul? Only matters against -4 or higher AP weapons. 2 wounds? There is so much 2D or d3D in the game right now 2 wounds is meaningless. 2+ save? Same issue of weight of fire as earlier editions (you will roll a 1 sooner or later) but also you don't get the 2+ save against anything but small arms due to the modifiers. Realistically terminators should be about 23 points before upgrades, and I think even at that price they still probably need either one more wound or -1 to the D suffered to a minimum of 1 rule. Even with the above changes I don't think they would become a top tier unit as 8th edition doesn't really reward defense due to modifiers and mortal wounds.
23 + 13 for the fist + 2 for the cbolter is 38 pts. So, going from 40 to 38 will make termies good?
Land Raiders aren't scary. I'll have some difficulty killing them, but I'll outscore them enormously, and they won't kill much.
The crusader is very killy against hordes though and not even that expensive, it's 310 points IIRC. Certainly a bit overcosted and not a super competitive option but against several factions it may even gets its points back. Its main drawback is most SM lists don't have anything valuable to transport. With my SW I can bring 15-16 blood claws plus 0-1 lukas or wolf priest, or 5-7 wulfen plus 5 GH or wolf guards and 0-1 characters. Huge points sink but not useless.
The other types of land raiders are way more lackluster though.
The Crusader isn't killy against hordes BECAUSE of its cost.
Look at the price of Centurions and Aggressors and I want you to make that statement again and mean it. Because it's actually false.
Centurions and Aggressors will die waaaaaay faster. I know it's expected that Land Raiders will die, but Cents and Aggressors are downright flimsy for their cost.
Also, have you looked at the price of Cents? It's crazypants.
Land Raiders aren't scary. I'll have some difficulty killing them, but I'll outscore them enormously, and they won't kill much.
The crusader is very killy against hordes though and not even that expensive, it's 310 points IIRC. Certainly a bit overcosted and not a super competitive option but against several factions it may even gets its points back. Its main drawback is most SM lists don't have anything valuable to transport. With my SW I can bring 15-16 blood claws plus 0-1 lukas or wolf priest, or 5-7 wulfen plus 5 GH or wolf guards and 0-1 characters. Huge points sink but not useless.
The other types of land raiders are way more lackluster though.
The Crusader isn't killy against hordes BECAUSE of its cost.
Look at the price of Centurions and Aggressors and I want you to make that statement again and mean it. Because it's actually false.
Centurions and Aggressors will die waaaaaay faster. I know it's expected that Land Raiders will die, but Cents and Aggressors are downright flimsy for their cost.
Also, have you looked at the price of Cents? It's crazypants.
It's the MEQ. Until that's actually fixed, Terminators won't be worth it. They look incredibly cool. But, they just aren't worth it. Custodes being the one true exception with 3 wounds (even on their weakest models) and a 2+ save across the board.
Land Raiders aren't scary. I'll have some difficulty killing them, but I'll outscore them enormously, and they won't kill much.
The crusader is very killy against hordes though and not even that expensive, it's 310 points IIRC. Certainly a bit overcosted and not a super competitive option but against several factions it may even gets its points back. Its main drawback is most SM lists don't have anything valuable to transport. With my SW I can bring 15-16 blood claws plus 0-1 lukas or wolf priest, or 5-7 wulfen plus 5 GH or wolf guards and 0-1 characters. Huge points sink but not useless.
The other types of land raiders are way more lackluster though.
The Crusader isn't killy against hordes BECAUSE of its cost.
Look at the price of Centurions and Aggressors and I want you to make that statement again and mean it. Because it's actually false.
Centurions and Aggressors will die waaaaaay faster. I know it's expected that Land Raiders will die, but Cents and Aggressors are downright flimsy for their cost.
Also, have you looked at the price of Cents? It's crazypants.
Well its punishment for 7th
I can only imagine. A base Centurion and base Dreadnought are about the same cost.
Land Raiders aren't scary. I'll have some difficulty killing them, but I'll outscore them enormously, and they won't kill much.
The crusader is very killy against hordes though and not even that expensive, it's 310 points IIRC. Certainly a bit overcosted and not a super competitive option but against several factions it may even gets its points back. Its main drawback is most SM lists don't have anything valuable to transport. With my SW I can bring 15-16 blood claws plus 0-1 lukas or wolf priest, or 5-7 wulfen plus 5 GH or wolf guards and 0-1 characters. Huge points sink but not useless.
The other types of land raiders are way more lackluster though.
The Crusader isn't killy against hordes BECAUSE of its cost.
Look at the price of Centurions and Aggressors and I want you to make that statement again and mean it. Because it's actually false.
Centurions and Aggressors will die waaaaaay faster. I know it's expected that Land Raiders will die, but Cents and Aggressors are downright flimsy for their cost.
Also, have you looked at the price of Cents? It's crazypants.
I was talking about Assault Centurions actually. They're expensive but not horrible.
Also saying that those units will due faster is totally false in many ways. Aggressors are totally a Glass cannon, but they're still 36 points each.
Are 10 Aggressors less durable than a single Land Raider? Beats me, but that's definitely more shots.
Land Raiders aren't scary. I'll have some difficulty killing them, but I'll outscore them enormously, and they won't kill much.
The crusader is very killy against hordes though and not even that expensive, it's 310 points IIRC. Certainly a bit overcosted and not a super competitive option but against several factions it may even gets its points back. Its main drawback is most SM lists don't have anything valuable to transport. With my SW I can bring 15-16 blood claws plus 0-1 lukas or wolf priest, or 5-7 wulfen plus 5 GH or wolf guards and 0-1 characters. Huge points sink but not useless.
The other types of land raiders are way more lackluster though.
The Crusader isn't killy against hordes BECAUSE of its cost.
Look at the price of Centurions and Aggressors and I want you to make that statement again and mean it. Because it's actually false.
Centurions and Aggressors will die waaaaaay faster. I know it's expected that Land Raiders will die, but Cents and Aggressors are downright flimsy for their cost.
Also, have you looked at the price of Cents? It's crazypants.
Well its punishment for 7th
I can only imagine. A base Centurion and base Dreadnought are about the same cost.
I think they added instead of subtracted from the index to codex. They actually became more expensive in the coedex
Land Raiders aren't scary. I'll have some difficulty killing them, but I'll outscore them enormously, and they won't kill much.
The crusader is very killy against hordes though and not even that expensive, it's 310 points IIRC. Certainly a bit overcosted and not a super competitive option but against several factions it may even gets its points back. Its main drawback is most SM lists don't have anything valuable to transport. With my SW I can bring 15-16 blood claws plus 0-1 lukas or wolf priest, or 5-7 wulfen plus 5 GH or wolf guards and 0-1 characters. Huge points sink but not useless.
The other types of land raiders are way more lackluster though.
The Crusader isn't killy against hordes BECAUSE of its cost.
Look at the price of Centurions and Aggressors and I want you to make that statement again and mean it. Because it's actually false.
Centurions and Aggressors will die waaaaaay faster. I know it's expected that Land Raiders will die, but Cents and Aggressors are downright flimsy for their cost.
Also, have you looked at the price of Cents? It's crazypants.
I was talking about Assault Centurions actually. They're expensive but not horrible.
Also saying that those units will due faster is totally false in many ways. Aggressors are totally a Glass cannon, but they're still 36 points each.
Are 10 Aggressors less durable than a single Land Raider? Beats me, but that's definitely more shots.
SM have tons of reliable options. Having units that do a better job doesn't mean that the crusader is garbage. It reminds me of the comparison between wave serpents and razorbacks when SM players were arguing that the razorback is not that good because the serpent is better
Land Raiders aren't scary. I'll have some difficulty killing them, but I'll outscore them enormously, and they won't kill much.
The crusader is very killy against hordes though and not even that expensive, it's 310 points IIRC. Certainly a bit overcosted and not a super competitive option but against several factions it may even gets its points back. Its main drawback is most SM lists don't have anything valuable to transport. With my SW I can bring 15-16 blood claws plus 0-1 lukas or wolf priest, or 5-7 wulfen plus 5 GH or wolf guards and 0-1 characters. Huge points sink but not useless.
The other types of land raiders are way more lackluster though.
The Crusader isn't killy against hordes BECAUSE of its cost.
Look at the price of Centurions and Aggressors and I want you to make that statement again and mean it. Because it's actually false.
Centurions and Aggressors will die waaaaaay faster. I know it's expected that Land Raiders will die, but Cents and Aggressors are downright flimsy for their cost.
Also, have you looked at the price of Cents? It's crazypants.
I was talking about Assault Centurions actually. They're expensive but not horrible.
Also saying that those units will due faster is totally false in many ways. Aggressors are totally a Glass cannon, but they're still 36 points each.
Are 10 Aggressors less durable than a single Land Raider? Beats me, but that's definitely more shots.
SM have tons of reliable options. Having units that do a better job doesn't mean that the crusader is garbage. It reminds me of the comparison between wave serpents and razorbacks when SM players were arguing that the razorback is not that good because the serpent is better
Any Razorback without the Assault Cannon IS mediocre though.
And are you seriously arguing that 12 S6 AP-1 and then 12-24 S4 shots is worth 300+ points?
It IS pretty ignorable for that price unless you try and make use of everything it does, which means transportation, and then you end up being in range for everyone to kill the Land Raider as they really aren't tough, and then your cargo is stranded and going to die or not make it over. Granted you had to be in that range anyway to actually use the hurricane Bolters so...
Compare that to 10 Aggressors. Each individual one is an average of 9 shots. That's literally 90 shots on average, with it being 70 at the worst.
The Land Raider chassis is nigh-impervious to small arms, that's its value if you can leverage it. For example the 90 Aggressor shots do (.666 x .333 x .333 x 90) 6.64 wounds to Aggressors, but only manage (.666 x .17 x .17 x 90) 1.7 on a Land Raider.
The LRC averages (.666 x .333 x .333 x 24 +(.666 x .666 x .5 x 12)) 4.43 against the Aggressors, not including the extra Multimelta and Storm Bolter you might be able to stick on there to equal the cost of 10 Aggressors (Codex not on me) It's more mobile, blocks LOS and can carry a bunch of dudes too. So if you're in the sort of MEQ vs. GEQ scenario where the sheer number of Lasguns are keeping you down, the LRC looks pretty useful not only for killing, but for protecting models in and behind it.
I think what I've noticed is that i don't actually see a whole lot of small arms no ap fire now on 8th edition. Haven't seen a guardsman focused army since the conscripts nerf (mainly tanks and heavy weapons) or even marines (who at min take primaris with -1ap). Now that I really think about it, I think I'm the only marines player at my club that plays with normal tactical squads. The game and the players have focused of efficiency so much there aren't many standard lists anymore on battle reports or clubs. So my Terminators have always come across at least -1 ap and I tend to attract 2s with my rolling. Tbh, Orks are the only army with standard 0ap I see a lot and that's likely because they don't have much of it. Hell, my terminators did get charged by 30boyz and survived with only 1 death so I kinda see what people are getting at.
I kinda feel this just doesn't seem right.... how strong super thick vechiles with 3+ saves are effected in the same way as normal tact marines. Almost like there needs to be some defence against low AP weapons on tough vechiles so you don't just eventually die to spam fire.
The unwieldy rule needs to go in my opinion as it is a throwback to anti SM. A SM can fire a lascannon across the battlefield and pinpoint the only weak point on a closing Wraithknight but somehow a terminator cannot punch an enemy right up in his face? Ridiculous.
Imo a high prevalence of -1AP does a little to close the gap durability-wise, but Aggressors are going to suffer heavily in that environment.
My own experience: My Tyranid Warriors army can spit 216 S5 AP-1 shots, but it struggles against multiple heavy vehicles, while something like Aggressors would be swept away.
Important to note that Slayer will get a boost with Aggressors for playing Raptors(successor), while the LR would get no such bonus. So that helps. Aggressors just look too fragile for me to consider, esp in metas with lots of Plasma. Not that I'll be taking Land Raiders often or anything, but that T8 2+ can put up some impressive defensive numbers.
Insectum7 wrote: The Land Raider chassis is nigh-impervious to small arms, that's its value if you can leverage it. For example the 90 Aggressor shots do (.666 x .333 x .333 x 90) 6.64 wounds to Aggressors, but only manage (.666 x .17 x .17 x 90) 1.7 on a Land Raider.
The LRC averages (.666 x .333 x .333 x 24 +(.666 x .666 x .5 x 12)) 4.43 against the Aggressors, not including the extra Multimelta and Storm Bolter you might be able to stick on there to equal the cost of 10 Aggressors (Codex not on me) It's more mobile, blocks LOS and can carry a bunch of dudes too. So if you're in the sort of MEQ vs. GEQ scenario where the sheer number of Lasguns are keeping you down, the LRC looks pretty useful not only for killing, but for protecting models in and behind it.
It really isn't much much mobile because Aggressors can actually advance and still shoot with no penalty (so they basically have an additional 3.5" of movement if you want it).
Then if they don't move they can fire twice. Obviously against a Land Raider they don't do well, but did you look at the cost of Aggressors firing at other Aggressors compared to the Land Raider?
I already said they're a glass cannon, but it's still 20 wounds. Also, the Land Raider isn't big enough to block anything important (and doesn't have initial speed to anyway) and is helpless if anyone decides to close in.
The 10 aggressors can't transport a blob of blood claws plus characters or wulfen plus characters though. Both units need a transport, maybe not wulfen because one unit can outflank but if you want more than a unit you should give them a transport.
A LR crusader or the stormwolf (even better IMHO) always did good for me when I also brought the ass can razorbacks. And I don't even have the guilliman re-rolls.
The debate is a bit out of topic though since LR are not good to carry terminators. In fact terminators don't need a transport as they can deepstrike. To be hones their deepstriking thing is quite silly IMHO, and too many units can deepstrike for free which is irritating. I'd cut their deep strike ability forcing them to buy a transport or to pay some sort of stratagem to deepstrike but I'd also give them +1A, +1WS, +1BS. Maybe I'd also remove the -1 to hit.
Blackie wrote: The 10 aggressors can't transport a blob of blood claws plus characters or wulfen plus characters though. Both units need a transport, maybe not wulfen because one unit can outflank but if you want more than a unit you should give them a transport.
A LR crusader or the stormwolf (even better IMHO) always did good for me when I also brought the ass can razorbacks. And I don't even have the guilliman re-rolls.
The debate is a bit out of topic though since LR are not good to carry terminators. In fact terminators don't need a transport as they can deepstrike. To be hones their deepstriking thing is quite silly IMHO, and too many units can deepstrike for free which is irritating. I'd cut their deep strike ability forcing them to buy a transport or to pay some sort of stratagem to deepstrike but I'd also give them +1A, +1WS, +1BS. Maybe I'd also remove the -1 to hit.
Uh that's because the Aggressors wouldn't NEED to do that. If you need those things transported, use one of the flying transports.
With the Aggressors you'd have more shots than melee attacks from the Blood Claws, too. I really don't see the point of this post. You even pointed out the Flyer was better.
Also saying that those units will due faster is totally false in many ways.
And I don't see how you're coming to that conclusion. Aggressors do die pretty quick in comparison.
An LRC can block LOS to Aggressors, just as an example Boom, Tactics! Synergy! Take that naysayers.
They die more quickly to small arms but that's it. Also something about using cover which you make mention of.
Also that would mean Aggressors wouldn't be shooting unless you're just moving the Land Raider to block them every turn. If you wanted to block LoS, wouldn't a Pod make more sense or a Rhino? That's a MUCH cheaper investment.
Primark G wrote: The unwieldy rule needs to go in my opinion as it is a throwback to anti SM. A SM can fire a lascannon across the battlefield and pinpoint the only weak point on a closing Wraithknight but somehow a terminator cannot punch an enemy right up in his face? Ridiculous.
It would be a nice buff for terminators, but boost the power fist for other units a bit too much. Why bother with a power weapon when you can have double strength, D3 damage and the AP of a power sword for not many more points?
I think a fist would be harder to hit with too. Swords, axes and mauls all have a reach advantage and are lighter. I suppose you could justify a fist/chainfist losing the -1 hit penalty against monsters and vehicles but I think it's over complicating things at that point
Just make it a bonus for Terminators to represent the strength advantage of the suit (it is also easier to hit with heavier weapons when armoured, because you can press into close range with less fear of being wounded).
Either rename the weapons to Terminator power fist/thunder hammer, or add a special rule to models with the Terminator keyword stating they ignore the negative hit penalty when using power fists and thunder hammers in combat. The latter is the easier solution with the FAQ system.
Being better doesn't mean that everything else is garbage But I've learned something about SM players: if they aren't the overpowered top tiers that melt everything in 3 turns their army is pure garbage
IMHO aggressors are overrated. I mean without buffs and stratagems they're not that good, and my army doesn't have a codex yet. RG aggressors are excellent of course, but in a close combat oriented I'd go with something else. Also other chapters (with a codex) aggressors don't look that appealing to me. They're good of course, like tons of other SM stuff, but not a must have.
Personally I think the best choice to fix Terminators, from all of the replies so far, is to reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1 & Penalizing the AP of weapons that hit them. Reduce the AP of weapons that hit Terminators by -1, to a minimum of 0, would not be game-breaking. Lasguns should be able to wound Terminators; there is always the chance of a shot finding an eye or joint.
Additionally, if you read any Terminator fluff it clearly states the armor was built to be a more stable platform for heavier weaponry and should ignore the -1 modifier to shoot heavy weapons.
Those three right there would justify the high point cost of Terminators while making them on par with how tough they should be, fluff-wise.
Primark G wrote: The unwieldy rule needs to go in my opinion as it is a throwback to anti SM. A SM can fire a lascannon across the battlefield and pinpoint the only weak point on a closing Wraithknight but somehow a terminator cannot punch an enemy right up in his face? Ridiculous.
It would be a nice buff for terminators, but boost the power fist for other units a bit too much. Why bother with a power weapon when you can have double strength, D3 damage and the AP of a power sword for not many more points?
I think a fist would be harder to hit with too. Swords, axes and mauls all have a reach advantage and are lighter. I suppose you could justify a fist/chainfist losing the -1 hit penalty against monsters and vehicles but I think it's over complicating things at that point
Terminators are practically the only units using power fists. It's also time for us to start caring about that crap. Who cares if another bad unit gets buffed in the process? Is there a good unit that uses powerfists that would become OP? Not that I can think of.
Being better doesn't mean that everything else is garbage But I've learned something about SM players: if they aren't the overpowered top tiers that melt everything in 3 turns their army is pure garbage
IMHO aggressors are overrated. I mean without buffs and stratagems they're not that good, and my army doesn't have a codex yet. RG aggressors are excellent of course, but in a close combat oriented I'd go with something else. Also other chapters (with a codex) aggressors don't look that appealing to me. They're good of course, like tons of other SM stuff, but not a must have.
Look at it this way:
1. Both your Stormraven equivalent and the Land Raider have the same job: transport and gunboat
2. One is ludicrously expensive to do that job
3. The other has benefits on top of all that (Fly is pretty good ya know)
4. Stormravens are taken (though Fire Raptors are proving even more popular) and Land Raiders aren't at tournaments. While Space Wolves haven't done so yet, we can blame this on the codex not coming out yet.
5. The Land Raider is like this in every codex.
6. It's basically universally panned outside a few people who want to be different for the sake of being different.
Therefore we can conclude the Land Raider is pretty bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Serious question guys - is there a unit that is actually good that uses power fists?
Not sure if Death Company still uses hidden power fists, and it worked okayish to blech for Vanguard. So honestly probably not.
I would rathet see them given WS2+ BS2+ as it means that LC and chainfists, stormbolter, assault cannon, cyclone etc all get the buff without, needing specific terminator versions and centurions already have the ignore penalties and they aren't realy that great.
I think the main drawback to letting Terminators ignore the PF/TH penalty is it makes Lightning Claws less of an appealing choice, and renders the Sgt having a power sword instead totally pointless. If you bump their WS, you avoid this problem.
I'm not sure Termies need to be buffed in their offense capability rather than in their defense.
For sure a second heavy weapon in 5 men and no penalty in fire while moving could be a sufficient buff in line with their fluff.
For the cost they have, Termy need more improvements in their resilience.
The 5++ save on a 2+armour model is almost a waste, so that 5++ should be changed in a 5+++ save, granted fluff wise by the Crux Terminator.
Xenomancers wrote: Serious question guys - is there a unit that is actually good that uses power fists?
Berzerkers on the Champion because you get 6 attacks (or 8 if you're World Eaters) with it.
Makes sense to put it there. Is it really reasonable for a bezerker champion to have more attacks than a chapter master? Or 3-4 times more attacks than a terminator?
Xenomancers wrote: Serious question guys - is there a unit that is actually good that uses power fists?
Berzerkers on the Champion because you get 6 attacks (or 8 if you're World Eaters) with it.
Makes sense to put it there. Is it really reasonable for a bezerker champion to have more attacks than a chapter master? Or 3-4 times more attacks than a terminator?
It's mostly due to the fact that they attack twice in each combat. I ran them on my zerks champ against DG the other day for the first time. I gotta say, it was pretty good, punching everything to death is pretty solid. Also, chainfist on a WE termy Lord was pretty good too. I just wish the unwieldy rule was non existent for terminators.
Side note, I wish chaos Lord's where S5 T5 standard....
I didn't read the whole thread because it's big, but what about if terminators had the same rule as genestealer cult aberrants where they reduce all damage by 1 to a minimum of 1? So overcharged plasma now just does 1 wound to them?
Xenomancers wrote: Serious question guys - is there a unit that is actually good that uses power fists?
Berzerkers on the Champion because you get 6 attacks (or 8 if you're World Eaters) with it.
Makes sense to put it there. Is it really reasonable for a bezerker champion to have more attacks than a chapter master? Or 3-4 times more attacks than a terminator?
More attacks than a termie yes, those dudes should be slower thanks to the 2+ armor.
IMHO termies should be more heavy hitter, a better WS, +1A, the ability of negating the -1 to hit when using power fists or hammers are all nice ideas. I also think that they should need more synergies with buffing stratagems or characters that should improve their stats.
rather then nerf plasma I'd buff flamerts to the point where they are worth taking for dealing with hordes.
Yes, this is the problem.
Flamers are barely better at killing hordes and meltaguns are barely better at killing big stuff. Plasma therefore is the best choice because it's at least decent at everything.
I'd love to see a universal flamer buff to help pin back hords a bit. Extend their range to 10" to stop 8.1" charges, and to let them punish units from deepstrike. That would make their price a lot more viable...
grouchoben wrote: I'd love to see a universal flamer buff to help pin back hords a bit. Extend their range to 10" to stop 8.1" charges, and to let them punish units from deepstrike. That would make their price a lot more viable...
it's kinda stupid that the range for vehicle mounted flamers is the same as all the others. my deimos infernus w infernus cannon should at least b 12".
grouchoben wrote: I'd love to see a universal flamer buff to help pin back hords a bit. Extend their range to 10" to stop 8.1" charges, and to let them punish units from deepstrike. That would make their price a lot more viable...
But then you punish CQC units even more by making their already only 50/50 chance of getting the charge off after deepstrike, even more deadly.
jcd386 wrote: Well they would just have to choose between dropping in at 9.1 and getting flamered or 10.1 and not getting flamered. Choices seem good to me.
It's ironic that you think that that is balanced and fair in a thread talking about how bad Terminators have it.
You might have to explain the irony to me. Right now it seems like flamer units have it worse off than deep striking assault units.
Any of the good assault units tend to have access to reroll to charge, so it's usually a lot more than a 50/50 chance, and over 8.1 inches flamer units are helpless despite overwatch being one of the things they are supposed to do well. It's also weird that flamers can't be used when you drop strike in. Right now they are just pretty terrible at everything.
If you have any additional ideas to buff flamers id love to hear them.
The way I see it, they can either stay the same and be useless for or against deepstrike, go to 10" and be a choice, or stay at 8" but still get to be used in overwatch regardless, which would buff them as a defence vs charges but still useless to deepstriking units. But clearly I haven't thought of everything.
jcd386 wrote: You might have to explain the irony to me. Right now it seems like flamer units have it worse off than deep striking assault units.
Any of the good assault units tend to have access to reroll to charge, so it's usually a lot more than a 50/50 chance, and over 8.1 inches flamer units are helpless despite overwatch being one of the things they are supposed to do well. It's also weird that flamers can't be used when you drop strike in. Right now they are just pretty terrible at everything.
If you have any additional ideas to buff flamers id love to hear them.
The way I see it, they can either stay the same and be useless for or against deepstrike, go to 10" and be a choice, or stay at 8" but still get to be used in overwatch regardless, which would buff them as a defence vs charges but still useless to deepstriking units. But clearly I haven't thought of everything.
It's ironic because Terminators are deep striking CC unit that are utterly terrible right now and you want to make it so that deep striking CC units have to choose whether to take Xd6 auto hits on the charge or have an even worse chance of getting into CC. And re-rolling charges doesn't make it much better than a 50/50 chance to get a charge off after deep strike, the re-roll makes almost a 50/50 chance to get it off.
Flamers are in an odd place, they do two jobs: they're good at killing hordes and they're good at killing CC units, in an edition where hordes are OP and CC units are still second rate. I think flamers should be made stronger so that when they do hit they do a lot of damage to hordes but I think they should be kept at 8" ranges to give assaulting units a chance.
Yeah that makes sense, but it would take an average of 7 regular flamers to kill 1 terminator. I guess I don't think it is too overpowered for a unit if 7 flamers to make a unit think twice about assaulting it.
Id also want to make all of the terminator changes I suggested (they take -1 damage to a min of 1, plasma cause 1 mortal wound on a natural 1 despite rerolls, have them ignore the penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons, and give them WS2+) to make them better, but in a perfect world I'd want both flamers and terminators to be worth taking.
Why would terminators be worried about a flamer hitting them as they DS'd? Contrarily, if they were thinking about DS'ing against a group of static aggressors then, yeah, they probably shouldn't do that! I don't see why that would even register on the decision making process for termis to DS or not. Personally, I think the game needs a few options to deal with DS - it's so cheap and ubiquitous now, with nearly every later codex getting DS up the wazoo. Flamers are overcosted and naff currently. Why not give them a specific role that would mildly-counter DS spam AND hordes?
fraser1191 wrote: What if Flamers had a fixed value of hits instead?
Great another weapon that over kills charictors and small units but doesn't help against 20+ strong units.
GW fundamentally broke template weapons transferring them to 8th. They are OP as snot against charictors or small units, but woefully inadequate agaisnt blob squads. It should have been d3 or d3-1 per X models in the unit not fixed d3 or d6.
fraser1191 wrote: What if Flamers had a fixed value of hits instead?
Great another weapon that over kills charictors and small units but doesn't help against 20+ strong units.
GW fundamentally broke template weapons transferring them to 8th. They are OP as snot against charictors or small units, but woefully inadequate agaisnt blob squads. It should have been d3 or d3-1 per X models in the unit not fixed d3 or d6.
D6 per 10 models? For flamers and heavy flamers, more exotic flamers could vary.
I also agree they should vary the ranges from 8", there is no reason to pidgeonhole them to the old flamer template length, they could get creative. Vehicle-mounted flamers should definitely get more range, this is true of existing vehicle-mounted flamers vs contemporary man-portable devices.
fraser1191 wrote: What if Flamers had a fixed value of hits instead?
Flamers should have a fixed value representing the max number of hits, but the weapon could not do more hits than models in the target unit.
So, when firing to a character, you have 1 authomatic hit. When firing to a blob of 20 guards, a template 6 weapon gets 6 authomatic hits.
I like that idea though maybe it should be max 1 hit per two/three models so it doesn't overly punish msu unit's that realy should have more chance of dodging over the massed wall of flesh of blob squads.
It would also be nice to see this rolled out to all the old blast template weapons aswell.
I would be okay with something like 2 + 1d6 auto hits, with the 1d6 hits being capped to the max number of models in the unit. That's a max of 8 hits, an average of 5.5, and a minimum of 3.
This would end up about the same (a little worse) vs vehicles and characters, but better against infantry. I would also increase the range to 10" due the deep strike issue.
fraser1191 wrote: What if Flamers had a fixed value of hits instead?
Flamers should have a fixed value representing the max number of hits, but the weapon could not do more hits than models in the target unit.
So, when firing to a character, you have 1 authomatic hit. When firing to a blob of 20 guards, a template 6 weapon gets 6 authomatic hits.
I like that idea though maybe it should be max 1 hit per two/three models so it doesn't overly punish msu unit's that realy should have more chance of dodging over the massed wall of flesh of blob squads.
It would also be nice to see this rolled out to all the old blast template weapons aswell.
What does it matter that it affects msu "more"? A model is a model. If anything msu is less affected because they can have fewer models than hits.
koooaei wrote: To be fair, CML doesn't cost like 2 missile launchers and isn't supposed to be like two.
The CML costs exactly twice the points a Missile Launcher does. For the last three editions the CML has been two Missile Launchers squeezed into one weapon. Now it has worse frag missiles and 36" instead of 48" range for no reason.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Switching them to 1 wound 3+/6++ but taking saves on 2D6 does give them a massive boost verses small arms...
Terminators are already very good vs Small arms. Read the thread.
Their problem comes from the ubiquity of Damage 2 weapons.
Yea, but his math makes it so plasma takes a lot more effort.
2.7 shots from plasma currently. Under his system it would be 6.9.
So it causes one problem while solving another? Though I might just be biased towards my idea of making just take 1 less damage to a min of 1 since it doesn't give them more durability vs 1d.
koooaei wrote: To be fair, CML doesn't cost like 2 missile launchers and isn't supposed to be like two.
The CML costs exactly twice the points a Missile Launcher does. For the last three editions the CML has been two Missile Launchers squeezed into one weapon. Now it has worse frag missiles and 36" instead of 48" range for no reason.
I might confuse it with the launcher scarabs have.
koooaei wrote: To be fair, CML doesn't cost like 2 missile launchers and isn't supposed to be like two.
The CML costs exactly twice the points a Missile Launcher does. For the last three editions the CML has been two Missile Launchers squeezed into one weapon. Now it has worse frag missiles and 36" instead of 48" range for no reason.
I might confuse it with the launcher scarabs have.
At least Scarabs aren't completely terrible just like with Blightlords. They still need adjustment with stats (as I firmly believe all Terminators besides the Grey Knight Troops need to be BS/WS2+) but at least they don't terribly hamper you if you use them.
koooaei wrote: Scarabs are relatively decent. Of course they fold to plasma but at least tsons have easy access to reliable -1 to hit and +1 inv magic.
Believe me, Scarabs are not decent at all, and Glamour of Tzeentch (the -1 to hit power) is far from reliable. I think it's probably the power I've failed to cast the most, and I only use it on Ahriman (+1 to cast). For an unfathomable reason, it has WC7 while Miasma of Pestilence, which is the same power but with MORE range, has WC6....
My Scarabs basically die the turn after they drop, every single game. I've tried proxying them as Obliterators and guess what ? They survive longer, cost less and deal (a lot) more damage.
koooaei wrote: Scarabs are relatively decent. Of course they fold to plasma but at least tsons have easy access to reliable -1 to hit and +1 inv magic.
Believe me, Scarabs are not decent at all, and Glamour of Tzeentch (the -1 to hit power) is far from reliable. I think it's probably the power I've failed to cast the most, and I only use it on Ahriman (+1 to cast). For an unfathomable reason, it has WC7 while Miasma of Pestilence, which is the same power but with MORE range, has WC6....
My Scarabs basically die the turn after they drop, every single game. I've tried proxying them as Obliterators and guess what ? They survive longer, cost less and deal (a lot) more damage.
The lack of consistentcy between codexes infuriates me and my only advice is to not think about it
koooaei wrote: Scarabs are relatively decent. Of course they fold to plasma but at least tsons have easy access to reliable -1 to hit and +1 inv magic.
Believe me, Scarabs are not decent at all, and Glamour of Tzeentch (the -1 to hit power) is far from reliable. I think it's probably the power I've failed to cast the most, and I only use it on Ahriman (+1 to cast). For an unfathomable reason, it has WC7 while Miasma of Pestilence, which is the same power but with MORE range, has WC6....
My Scarabs basically die the turn after they drop, every single game. I've tried proxying them as Obliterators and guess what ? They survive longer, cost less and deal (a lot) more damage.
I don't need trust - i've played with scarabs. They fit tsons. Especially in mid-sized games of around 1000-1500 pts. Not in super-competitive metas of course. But ap2 bolters with votlw is nice. Not as scary as slaanesh plasma termies but cheaper.
koooaei wrote: Scarabs are relatively decent. Of course they fold to plasma but at least tsons have easy access to reliable -1 to hit and +1 inv magic.
Believe me, Scarabs are not decent at all, and Glamour of Tzeentch (the -1 to hit power) is far from reliable. I think it's probably the power I've failed to cast the most, and I only use it on Ahriman (+1 to cast). For an unfathomable reason, it has WC7 while Miasma of Pestilence, which is the same power but with MORE range, has WC6....
My Scarabs basically die the turn after they drop, every single game. I've tried proxying them as Obliterators and guess what ? They survive longer, cost less and deal (a lot) more damage.
Uh, well, of course they live longer. You're not dropping them right next to the enemy. If you're using Ahriman then there is no difference in difficulty when compared to Miasma. So you must fail Miasma just as often, right?
Plasma has always been there to kill termies. In 5 it was mostly replaced by melta because of parking lots and in 7-th it wasn't as useful to someone with access to grav. If something, termies are around as durable vs plasma as they used to be, however plasma is much more common. As for HB, 2-wound termies with 3+ save are absolutely identical to 1-wound termies with 2+ save. Previous ap3 weapons that are mostly ap-2 now are probably the only weapon range that has become better vs termies. But there are not many weapons with ap-2.
Termies HAVE become better vs anti-infantry weapons without ap. 2 times more durable, in fact. So, that's what people really asked for, didn't they?
koooaei wrote: Plasma has always been there to kill termies. In 5 it was mostly replaced by melta because of parking lots and in 7-th it wasn't as useful to someone with access to grav. If something, termies are around as durable vs plasma as they used to be, however plasma is much more common. As for HB, 2-wound termies with 3+ save are absolutely identical to 1-wound termies with 2+ save. Previous ap3 weapons that are mostly ap-2 now are probably the only weapon range that has become better vs termies. But there are not many weapons with ap-2.
Termies HAVE become better vs anti-infantry weapons without ap. 2 times more durable, in fact. So, that's what people really asked for, didn't they?
I don't mind Plasma being good against terminators. But right now I think it's just too good against everything.
Plasma wounds them on 2s now, so it is better than before. It's also useful against tanks when you compare it to melta, and useful against regular infantry when you compare it to flamers. And there are so many sources of rerolls of 1 that it becomes the clear winner when it comes to what special weapon to take, since it isn't bad at anything.
With the exception of Plasma and similar weapons that can do high rate of fire AP 3, terminators are fairly durable.
Plasma wounds them on 2s now, so it is better than before.
It used to wound them on 2+ too. s7 vs t4 was 2+.
Oh yeah, good catch. I think my other points still stand though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarthDiggler wrote: Terminators should have a 1+ save (a 1 still fails) and be able to fire twice each turn. This means ap 1 weapons are still saved on a 2+.
Plasma needs to be ap2 for the good of the game. All the reroll aura's make overcharging relatively painless.
This makes them too durable vs heavy bolters and so on IMO.
A few other problems that directly impact terminators (as well as a lot of space Marine melee units).
1. Lack of an extra attack from charging makes their melee damage output stink. It's kind of a big deal when you get two melee attacks instead of 3. Assault marines are even worse with their 1 base and 1 chainsword or if you have a regular marine with a power sword getting 1 swing.
2. Power fists (and klaws) suck vs vehicles. Doing the math it on average will take 15 power fist swings to take down a T7, 4+ armor vehicle and that is without any sort of invuln or FNP type save. Against T7 3+ armor it's roughly 18+ swings. Think about 7th and seeing 9 power fist terminators punching rhino. That rhino would of been dead multiple times over and yet in this edition it would barely die (below average rolls it would still be standing). PK nobz use to single handedly (it does have a zogging PK on it) rip tanks a new one due to how they hit rear armor and most vehicles are AV10 in the back (it's almost like the game was designed for vehicles to get murdered in melee).
3. -1 to hit in melee with power fist is an insane penalty when you combine the other factors above. Use to be a PK/fist would splat infantry and rip vehicles a new one but now it only sorta splats infantry (if it can hit and space marines can't even wound on a 2+ vs T5 or T6). Against non Walker vehicles terminators are hitting less often, less likely to get through their defenses, and doing a smaller % of the vehicles total health per successful attack than before.
4. Close combat in general favors units with volume of attacks and for an army like space marines taking weapons other than chainswords means you don't get the +1 attack from the chainswords (unless you swap out a pistol so you get for example your base attacks worth of power weapon and then 1 chainswords attack). Compare Vanguard vets with power weapons in 7th and now in 8th. Vets would have 2 attacks base, 1 from charging, 1 from two "melee" weapons which could include the pistol. 4 attacks on the charge (not assuming any HoW from jump packs) with a maul, sword, or axe. In 8th it's two attacks with a power weapon and maybe 1 attack with a chainsword if you don't take a pistol. For terminators it's less of an issue because they usually have fists, 2x claws, or TH/SS but as said earlier the lack of a bonus attack means a fairly large drop in damage output.
I know the arguement about hitting on 3's (unless PF) vs most things now will be made but 1 less attack when charging is still a net loss and it's especially bad when your already hitting most vehicles on a 3+ before this (and also hitting a lot of fodder units on 3+ as well). Swinging first can be very powerful but it loses its power when you lack the raw damage output to mulch a unit quickly. Swinging first doesn't matter when trying to kill a non Walker vehicle so it's a net lose all around.
koooaei wrote: Plasma has always been there to kill termies. In 5 it was mostly replaced by melta because of parking lots and in 7-th it wasn't as useful to someone with access to grav. If something, termies are around as durable vs plasma as they used to be, however plasma is much more common. As for HB, 2-wound termies with 3+ save are absolutely identical to 1-wound termies with 2+ save. Previous ap3 weapons that are mostly ap-2 now are probably the only weapon range that has become better vs termies. But there are not many weapons with ap-2.
Termies HAVE become better vs anti-infantry weapons without ap. 2 times more durable, in fact. So, that's what people really asked for, didn't they?
Thank you for understanding this. There are very few niche weapons like Autocannons and Gauss Blasters that they became less durable to, but they did overall gain durability.
Yeah, big choppas and autocannons have become around 60% better at killing termies. However, autocannons are pretty bad at most other things, so are not really that common and bigchoppas...well, if your termies are getting hit by orks in mellee, you're allready in enough trouble even before you factor in the BC.
koooaei wrote: Yeah, big choppas and autocannons have become around 60% better at killing termies. However, autocannons are pretty bad at most other things, so are not really that common and bigchoppas...well, if your termies are getting hit by orks in mellee, you're allready in enough trouble even before you factor in the BC.
Autocannons are more niche than before, compared to how they used to be basically a TAC weapon.
koooaei wrote: Yeah, big choppas and autocannons have become around 60% better at killing termies. However, autocannons are pretty bad at most other things, so are not really that common and bigchoppas...well, if your termies are getting hit by orks in mellee, you're allready in enough trouble even before you factor in the BC.
Autocannons are more niche than before, compared to how they used to be basically a TAC weapon.
I disagree. Autocannons are almost more tac now than before, imo.
koooaei wrote: Yeah, big choppas and autocannons have become around 60% better at killing termies. However, autocannons are pretty bad at most other things, so are not really that common and bigchoppas...well, if your termies are getting hit by orks in mellee, you're allready in enough trouble even before you factor in the BC.
Autocannons are more niche than before, compared to how they used to be basically a TAC weapon.
I disagree. Autocannons are almost more tac now than before, imo.
S7 is much better than people think. You don't need to wound marines on 2's. There aren't enough of them. T4 is not relevant to my battle plans, as most T4 units SUCK BALLS. Wouding marines on 3's at 48" and oneshotting primars and terminators is fine with me.
S7 chews up marines tanks, demon princes, tau vehicles, drukhari vehicles, eldar vehicles that aren't wave serpent, most greater demons, etc. It sucks vs the IG. I don't know what to do about that. I just don't.
The more invulnerable saves there are, the better and better autocannons get. Flyrants? Here's 20 autocannons: where is 4++ now? I've faced 22 autocannons vs IG this edition. It was not a good time.
Martel732 wrote: The more invulnerable saves there are, the better and better autocannons get. Flyrants? Here's 20 autocannons: where is 4++ now? I've faced 22 autocannons vs IG this edition. It was not a good time.
Bingo. It's part of why I love the Predator AC. Only -1, but then 3 damage on 2D3 shots...WHAP WHAP WHAP! That's hugely more stable than a lascannon.
Autocannons are alongside Heavy Bolters the bane of my Adeptus Custodes.
I shrug Plasma, Meltas or Lasscannons, but autocannons... ouch, they hurt. And don't get me started in Predator Autocannons nearby a Roboute Guilliman.
Autocannons are fantastic - 1 Ap the the sweet spot - lots of things have 3+ saves and 4++. Just enough AP to bring them to invo - then every failed save is 2 wounds. It's one reason I like playing with intercessors - to bad autocannons wreck them.
koooaei wrote: Plasma has always been there to kill termies. In 5 it was mostly replaced by melta because of parking lots and in 7-th it wasn't as useful to someone with access to grav. If something, termies are around as durable vs plasma as they used to be, however plasma is much more common. As for HB, 2-wound termies with 3+ save are absolutely identical to 1-wound termies with 2+ save. Previous ap3 weapons that are mostly ap-2 now are probably the only weapon range that has become better vs termies. But there are not many weapons with ap-2.
Termies HAVE become better vs anti-infantry weapons without ap. 2 times more durable, in fact. So, that's what people really asked for, didn't they?
Thank you for understanding this. There are very few niche weapons like Autocannons and Gauss Blasters that they became less durable to, but they did overall gain durability.
Overall they lost durability because GW flooded the game with plasma.
It matters not if they are durable against other weapons when amount of anti-terminator guns went up the roof you don't NEED to bother shooting with other weapons.
It would be irrelevant if they had 100% immunity to non-plasma. Nobody needs to shoot anything but plasma at them which simply wipes them out.
koooaei wrote: Plasma has always been there to kill termies. In 5 it was mostly replaced by melta because of parking lots and in 7-th it wasn't as useful to someone with access to grav. If something, termies are around as durable vs plasma as they used to be, however plasma is much more common. As for HB, 2-wound termies with 3+ save are absolutely identical to 1-wound termies with 2+ save. Previous ap3 weapons that are mostly ap-2 now are probably the only weapon range that has become better vs termies. But there are not many weapons with ap-2.
Termies HAVE become better vs anti-infantry weapons without ap. 2 times more durable, in fact. So, that's what people really asked for, didn't they?
Thank you for understanding this. There are very few niche weapons like Autocannons and Gauss Blasters that they became less durable to, but they did overall gain durability.
Overall they lost durability because GW flooded the game with plasma.
It matters not if they are durable against other weapons when amount of anti-terminator guns went up the roof you don't NEED to bother shooting with other weapons.
It would be irrelevant if they had 100% immunity to non-plasma. Nobody needs to shoot anything but plasma at them which simply wipes them out.
This is entirely relevant because people are proposing fixes to Terminators that improve their durability against non-plasma more than plasma. Pointing out they only need a durability buff vs plasma, and not other weapons in general, is therefore useful.
Of course, plasma needs a nerf/points cost increase, but a bit of a boost by Terminators against plasma would be good too.
Terminators also need a damage boost to make them dangerous, otherwise they'll just be tough but ignorable.
Overall they lost durability because GW flooded the game with plasma.
Actually, they've gained durability because grav is no longer as relevant. Termies vs plasma are bad. Termies vs grav were abysmal. And grav was everywhere.
So, in this regard, they have gained durability somewhat. Plazma IS the problem like grav used to be.
I sitll think the core problem is that they buffed Plas to S8 D2, giving the IoM the Tau/CWE Plasma profile as an option, then *buffed* that to S7.
If, instead, they kept the Safe Plas tech at the same stats, even while giving it to the IOM, without buffing the overcharge, we'd see a lot less Plas. And Melta Guns would actually have more to differentiate them.
Granted, other things may have needed to change too, in other armies, to balance it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (and that version of the PG would still be effective.)
Bharring wrote: I sitll think the core problem is that they buffed Plas to S8 D2, giving the IoM the Tau/CWE Plasma profile as an option, then *buffed* that to S7.
If, instead, they kept the Safe Plas tech at the same stats, even while giving it to the IOM, without buffing the overcharge, we'd see a lot less Plas. And Melta Guns would actually have more to differentiate them.
Granted, other things may have needed to change too, in other armies, to balance it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (and that version of the PG would still be effective.)
Tau would like some of the S7 plasama love, still living in the S6 1d no overcharge plasma world.
Bharring wrote: I sitll think the core problem is that they buffed Plas to S8 D2, giving the IoM the Tau/CWE Plasma profile as an option, then *buffed* that to S7.
If, instead, they kept the Safe Plas tech at the same stats, even while giving it to the IOM, without buffing the overcharge, we'd see a lot less Plas. And Melta Guns would actually have more to differentiate them.
Granted, other things may have needed to change too, in other armies, to balance it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (and that version of the PG would still be effective.)
Meltaguns would still be crap. Quit trying to stick IoM with all the crap weapons. Melta could differentiate itself by doubling strength inside melta range, so it might actually wound a T8 target from time to time. Hellblasters already suck at S7/S8 as anti-tank option because of range problems.
Hellblasters as a concept don't make sence, that's not a reason to keep plasma over powered and under costed.
They also have an assualt rapid fire and heavy versions, but with the same profile they don't tailer to a target type and end up being meh at everything.
Assualt S6 1D no over heating
Rapid fire
Normal s6 1D no over heat
OverCharge S7 2D over heat
Heavy
Normal S7 1D no over heat
Over charge S8 D2 damage overheat
Plasma Cannons
Normal S7 1D no over heat
Overcharge S8 d3 damage overheat
Martel732 wrote: I don't know. Plasma for marines seems about right. Flamers, grav and melta all seem overcosted.
Thats mainly because marines are overpaying for the chump carrying said plasma weapon, put them on almost any other platform and they shine, melta grav and flamers are overcosted. But untill plasma is brought into line its still going to be plasma special weapon spam galore.
in a napkin to 
Boom, Tactics! Synergy! Take that naysayers.
