Terminators get a 2+ save and a 5++ save. The invulnerable save would only come in handy against weapons that are AP 4- and higher. That almost never happens. I think it's a joke of a rule.

Gives them a save against Melta / Aeldari D-weapons etc. It’s a holdover from previous editions, and not wonderful with how AP now works. Terminators sadly needed an overhaul but didn’t get one.

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Terminators get a 2+ save and a 5++ save. The invulnerable save would only come in handy against weapons that are AP 4- and higher. That almost never happens. I think it's a joke of a rule.

So you would be fine with no inv save and no point cost change?

tneva82 wrote:

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Terminators get a 2+ save and a 5++ save. The invulnerable save would only come in handy against weapons that are AP 4- and higher. That almost never happens. I think it's a joke of a rule.

So you would be fine with no inv save and no point cost change?

I would. It's a pointless rule.

It is just a leftover of previous editions, and more of a "had always been that way (copy&paste)" than something the designers thought about while writing the rules for them

It is not the only one and you just have to accept that 40k will always have "legacy" rules from the past that make no sense in the current edition and will never be changed unless the unit is the new focus in a Codex written for the new rules

They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

With the prevelance of multi-damage middling -AP e.g. Helblasters, termies are a sub-optimal choice. The only redeeming feature they have is deepstrike and if you don't kill your target on arrival you may as well forgoe rolling dice and just take them off the table.

My 2p.

Gitdakka wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Terminators get a 2+ save and a 5++ save. The invulnerable save would only come in handy against weapons that are AP 4- and higher. That almost never happens. I think it's a joke of a rule.

So you would be fine with no inv save and no point cost change?

I would. It's a pointless rule.

Well you go right ahead & ignore it if you like.

The rest of us will keep using it whenever it manages to matter.

It is funny when you think about it.
Initially in 3rd edition they only had the 2+ save and people complained that they were not durable enough. In that edition melee power weapons ignored every kind of armor straight and ranged weapons had an AP value which stated what kind of save they ignore.

For example an autocannon had S 7 AP 4 and would ignore every kind of save of 4+, while at the same time 3+ and 2+ were not affected or worsened at all.

The 5++ was a way to give Terminators more survivability.

A few editions later and now we have a thread saying the 5++ is not needed at all.

Not (dis)agreeing to any side, I just find it funny.

I honestly think at this point keep the 5++ for legacy sake, I quite enjoy it on my termies but also let it reduce all incoming damage by 1 to a minimum of one.

Of course also give this to all terminators and chaosify it up, I dunno, call it "Desecrated Fortitude".

tneva82 wrote:

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Terminators get a 2+ save and a 5++ save. The invulnerable save would only come in handy against weapons that are AP 4- and higher. That almost never happens. I think it's a joke of a rule.

So you would be fine with no inv save and no point cost change?

Maybe then GW would let all termintors have storm shields. And that would be nice.

A few editions later and now we have a thread saying the 5++ is not needed at all.

I don't know much about older editions, but unless termintors were very cheap back then, a ++5 save on a 2W model is very bad. You are just not saving enough models with it. now a ++2 or ++3, or even ++4 on a multi wound model is something different. Then it act as a bullet sponge and have a good chance of tanking a single shot hvy weapon. ++5 inv often ends like this, I get to roll 11-12 of it save 3-4, and the unit of terminator goes down to 1-2 model and dies from small weapon fire next.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:


It is not the only one and you just have to accept that 40k will always have "legacy" rules from the past that make no sense in the current edition and will never be changed unless the unit is the new focus in a Codex written for the new rules

It is hard to ignore when almost all characters in your army, and half the troops, and a third of all infantry are running around in termintor armour.

Karol wrote:
I don't know much about older editions, but unless termintors were very cheap back then, a ++5 save on a 2W model is very bad. You are just not saving enough models with it. now a ++2 or ++3, or even ++4 on a multi wound model is something different. Then it act as a bullet sponge and have a good chance of tanking a single shot hvy weapon. ++5 inv often ends like this, I get to roll 11-12 of it save 3-4, and the unit of terminator goes down to 1-2 model and dies from small weapon fire next.

Terminators were never very good, rules wise. They were more expensive and only had 1 wound.

Some rules gave them several small renaissances(?) throughout the years, but never enough for top competitive play. Rules including:
- Storm Shields giving 3++ against all kind of attacks (not just a 4++ in melee, IIRC)
- Rework of Assault cannons having 4 rending shots (auto wound and ignore armor on hit rolls of 6)
- Very durable attached characters being able to soak up damage for the Terminators
- Wound shenanigans with Terminator like units (Nobs? Meganobs? Can't remember and Grey Knight Paladins, who were the first Terminators with 2 wounds). Basically you gave every model in your unit a different weapon loadout. This way your opponent had to damage every single model at least once before you had to remove the first Terminator from the unit.

well if they were never writen properly then maybe now it is the time to do it, instead of focusing on primaris. Specially for those marine armies that can't take them. A lot of people say how aggressors, centurions or the new scout dread are a great replacment for shoting or melee centric termintors. Which is awesome, for armies that can take those 3 units and have the special rules to support them.

Aren't very good, so they have to be bad, Doesn't cut it when more then half the models in your army are in termintor armour.

I have a complete GK Terminator army at home, I know how you feel

It is a shame that such an iconic and I would wager popular unit never had rules that matched their fluff properly.

Terminator survivability should be increased across the board for all factions, in my opinion.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I have a complete GK Terminator army at home, I know how you feel

It is a shame that such an iconic and I would wager popular unit never had rules that matched their fluff properly.

Terminator survivability should be increased across the board for all factions, in my opinion.

You know me. I love me some GK. Unfortunately, terminators are centric to the codex, so here we are. Do you happen to have pics of your army?

As others have stated, it’s a legacy option. But it does come up periodically, so I’m glad it’s there.

Terminators are probably in their best place in decades.

Stormbolters are decent for the first time since 3rd. Their heavy options are OK (the loss of relentless can be mitigated in a few chapters) With the new Angels of Death rules the extra attack helps them get a little more from their powerfists.

Historically, they were never able to take fire. Which is ironic, as the fluff builds them up as an anvil unit. With one wound a T4, you could either drown them in small arms and wait for the 1s on the the armor saves, or toss some AP2 fire at them and cut through that expensive armor. Even after the 5++ was added, it didn’t stop enough plasma to make them viable. The only thing TDA was really good at stopping was low volume, bad AP firepower.

In 8th they got the extra wound. This helps soak up small arms. The change to the armor system means that their armor is less all or nothing. Better in some ways, worse in others. The 5++ is a nice way of putting a cap on how bad it can get.

The main issue is that what little buffs to survivability they got this edition was greatly overshadowed by how killy everything got in comparison. AP and D2 is being handed out like Candy, so the 2+ save is never really made a 2+ in most situations, while the extra wound is effectively ignored since overcharged plasma and autocannons are all over the place.

If they wanted more survivability, they needed a toughness boost (so plasma wounds them on 3's) and/or for them to reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1 like aberrants. At least then they're tanking enough to hold objectives.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

Go old school, I like it. As long as my Khornate Chaos Lord can get re-rolls on it.

Weak this edition? Absolutely.

Weak in second? Nope. Used to HATE terminators in 2nd. And I think 3rd too, though some of that time period blends together for me now.

Used to smash whole armies trying to take out termies to protect myself from legions of cyclone missile launch and assault canon spam.

Just gonna share my opinion on this post.

 Nevelon wrote:
Terminators are probably in their best place in decades.

False. The only answer to terminators were weight of fire. Now they drop like flies if you just looked at them funny.

 Nevelon wrote:
Stormbolters are decent for the first time since 3rd.

False. Bolter discipline is a stop gap and nothing more.

 Nevelon wrote:
Their heavy options are OK (the loss of relentless can be mitigated in a few chapters)

False. PC fell out when they horribly messed up the small blast translation to 8th. CML is grossly over costed. HF will never see any use due to range and M value. AC is the only decent heavy option but it nearly doubles their cost.

 Nevelon wrote:
With the new Angels of Death rules the extra attack helps them get a little more from their powerfists.

Useless unless you pump them with CT's and CP's because they'll never get in melee otherwise.

 Nevelon wrote:
Historically, they were never able to take fire. Which is ironic, as the fluff builds them up as an anvil unit.

They did redirect meltas & lascannons (when they were affordable) from your other high priorities, especially when DS was high risk, high reward option.

 Nevelon wrote:
In 8th they got the extra wound. This helps soak up small arms.

Offset by plethora of multi-D, mid AP weapons.

 Nevelon wrote:
The change to the armor system means that their armor is less all or nothing.

More like nothing at all.

 Nevelon wrote:
Better in some ways, worse in others. The 5++ is a nice way of putting a cap on how bad it can get.

More like a consolation prize for being so over costed.

The first step in making termies less bad is correct their built-in gear cost. WS2+ needs their PF cost increased to near TH level and WS3+ PF needs points reduced to 5~6 points.

 skchsan wrote:
Just gonna share my opinion on this post.

 Nevelon wrote:
Terminators are probably in their best place in decades.

False. The only answer to terminators were weight of fire. Now they drop like flies if you just looked at them funny.

 Nevelon wrote:
Stormbolters are decent for the first time since 3rd.

False. Bolter discipline is a stop gap and nothing more.

 Nevelon wrote:
Their heavy options are OK (the loss of relentless can be mitigated in a few chapters)

False. PC fell out when they horribly messed up the small blast translation to 8th. CML is grossly over costed. HF will never see any use due to range and M value. AC is the only decent heavy option but it nearly doubles their cost.

 Nevelon wrote:
With the new Angels of Death rules the extra attack helps them get a little more from their powerfists.

Useless unless you pump them with CT's and CP's because they'll never get in melee otherwise.

 Nevelon wrote:
Historically, they were never able to take fire. Which is ironic, as the fluff builds them up as an anvil unit.

They did redirect meltas & lascannons (when they were affordable) from your other high priorities, especially when DS was high risk, high reward option.

 Nevelon wrote:
In 8th they got the extra wound. This helps soak up small arms.

Offset by plethora of multi-D, mid AP weapons.

 Nevelon wrote:
The change to the armor system means that their armor is less all or nothing.

More like nothing at all.

 Nevelon wrote:
Better in some ways, worse in others. The 5++ is a nice way of putting a cap on how bad it can get.

More like a consolation prize for being so over costed.

The first step in making termies less bad is correct their built-in gear cost. WS2+ needs their PF cost increased to near TH level and WS3+ PF needs points reduced to 5~6 points.

Sorry, but the only people that say "Terminators aren't as durable anymore" are the same people incapable of doing math to prove it.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

Go old school, I like it. As long as my Khornate Chaos Lord can get re-rolls on it.

I like it in theory, but needing to roll every armor save individually just doesn't work in a system where a single 200 point unit can be reasonably expected to put 54 individual wounding shots on target against them. Under the current rules they really need to be T5 or T6 and W3 and even then they might be overcosted.

The Newman wrote:
I like it in theory, but needing to roll every armor save individually just doesn't work in a system where a single 200 point unit can be reasonably expected to put 54 individual wounding shots on target against them. Under the current rules they really need to be T5 or T6 and W3 and even then they might be overcosted.

It's not really feasible at the current scale of AP, Lascannons were -6 AP when this rule was in effect, making the save a 9+ on 2d6. At the current levels of AP a rule like this would make Terminators very tough, especially with CP re-rolls, cover, chapter tactics, it would get out of hand real quick.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

With the prevelance of multi-damage middling -AP e.g. Helblasters, termies are a sub-optimal choice. The only redeeming feature they have is deepstrike and if you don't kill your target on arrival you may as well forgoe rolling dice and just take them off the table.

My 2p.

No no no no!

I swing with 10 Berserkers into your Terminators. They all have a Chainsword and Chainaxe, with an Exalted Champ nearby. That is...

62 Chainaxe attacks
~41 hits
~36 wounds at AP-1

20 Chainsword attacks
~13 hits
~11 wounds at AP0

Roll 36 saves, on two dice, one at a time, looking for 4+.
Then roll 11 at 3+.

The length of time would just be ridiculous.

How about salamander cataphracti terminators?
The cheapest squad is 170 pts for storm bolters and lightning claws, ap 0 and ap -1 keeps their save at 2+ and any ap above -2 is a waste due to the 4++.
Not bad to drop in on turn two so they get the -1 ap on their bolters.
Not amazing but decent chaff clearing and board control, especially if you can drop them in cover.

I'd rather see all Terminators' datasheets get stuck together and give them all a 4++. Different marks of power armour don't come with different rules, the only reason different marks of Terminator armour do is so GW can say "this datasheet has only parts we sell you in one box!".

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'd rather see all Terminators' datasheets get stuck together and give them all a 4++. Different marks of power armour don't come with different rules, the only reason different marks of Terminator armour do is so GW can say "this datasheet has only parts we sell you in one box!".

Exactly what I've been wanting. Could you imagine that a Chapter that was nearly killed off would have two of each armor, but never field them together because GW said so?

It's stupid, purely stupid.

I think it's hilarious people are tossing around making Terminators T6 with 3W each. Ok, then what do we do for Custodes terminators at more than double the points cost? Make them T7 with 5W each? Then I guess make commanders 9W each, and now tanks have to get a pump up, so make those 17W.....

See how silly this gets? We need to keep in mind that Terminators, no matter how much we may love them, are a outdated and inferior unit to the NuBoys. You make ripples every time you change a low level unit, because everything about that needs to change to compensate. That means Aggressors have to get a change. Dreadnaughts need a change. Every single Custodes Infantry model now needs a change.

Because we decided to make a 29pt unit T6 with 3W.

Terminators do need an overhaul. And it needs to be more than ‘crikey they’re a bit tough to kill’.

See, Terminators should be bloody terrifying to your opponent, as they were in 2nd Ed when I cut my teeth.

Superior weapons, decent attacks with Powerfists, and tough to kill thanks to 3+ on 2D6.

Remember, in 3rd it took an errata to grant them their 5++. It wasn’t an immediate thing.

Now, how to do that? I’m not familiar enough with the game to offer sensible suggestions. But it has to be more than just making them a bit tougher. And as Jnap ably demonstrated, the 2D6 save just isn’t going to work in the modern game.

Left field brain drivel? What if Terminator armour, as well as the 2+/5++ offered all wound rolls a -1 modifier? It turns most small arms into a 5+/6+ wounding bracket, and even helps reduce wounds taken from heavier weapons?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

With the prevelance of multi-damage middling -AP e.g. Helblasters, termies are a sub-optimal choice. The only redeeming feature they have is deepstrike and if you don't kill your target on arrival you may as well forgoe rolling dice and just take them off the table.

My 2p.

No no no no!

I swing with 10 Berserkers into your Terminators. They all have a Chainsword and Chainaxe, with an Exalted Champ nearby. That is...

62 Chainaxe attacks
~41 hits
~36 wounds at AP-1

20 Chainsword attacks
~13 hits
~11 wounds at AP0

Roll 36 saves, on two dice, one at a time, looking for 4+.
Then roll 11 at 3+.

The length of time would just be ridiculous.

I was commenting on survivability.

You seem to be commenting on convenience.

How many dice do you think a green tide Ork army gets through in a game?

We are talking about a unit that bridges a gap. It's better than a space marine, but not as good as the next unit. It's cost also reflects that. Unless we are clamoring to remake the entire baseline for old-boys, I don't see how much it can change without stepping on toes.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

With the prevelance of multi-damage middling -AP e.g. Helblasters, termies are a sub-optimal choice. The only redeeming feature they have is deepstrike and if you don't kill your target on arrival you may as well forgoe rolling dice and just take them off the table.

My 2p.

No no no no!

I swing with 10 Berserkers into your Terminators. They all have a Chainsword and Chainaxe, with an Exalted Champ nearby. That is...

62 Chainaxe attacks
~41 hits
~36 wounds at AP-1

20 Chainsword attacks
~13 hits
~11 wounds at AP0

Roll 36 saves, on two dice, one at a time, looking for 4+.
Then roll 11 at 3+.

The length of time would just be ridiculous.

I was commenting on survivability.

You seem to be commenting on convenience.

How many dice do you think a green tide Ork army gets through in a game?

How many individual Ork models need to use multiple dice for their save?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
We are talking about a unit that bridges a gap. It's better than a space marine, but not as good as the next unit. It's cost also reflects that. Unless we are clamoring to remake the entire baseline for old-boys, I don't see how much it can change without stepping on toes.

Do you agree with their current point cost? Because that could be the magical solution we're looking for - a lower point cost.

My earliest memory of terminators is from space hulk where they were tough with a lot of anti infantry dakka, are they so far from that now?

We could do something funky with the Terminator armor itself, instead of the T and W stat of the model. These two stats always felt more like they belong to the "person", rather than being granted by the wargear.

Something like...
- Ignore armor save modifier caused by weapon AP => always save on 2+
- Re-roll every failed armor / invunerable save
- ...

You get the idea. Would increase the survivability of every model in TDA without inflating the stats.

kingheff wrote:
My earliest memory of terminators is from space hulk where they were tough with a lot of anti infantry dakka, are they so far from that now?

A termintor costs twice as much as a intercessor, or close to it, and almost as much as two GK strikes. Not sure about chaos. This means that other units have double the fire power, double the wounds or the same wounds, and a bunch of extra rules, termintors armed with just stormbolters do not have, like sniper bolt weapon, benefiting less from squad support rules, as they have fewer models for more points etc.

CSM Terminators are 5 points more than Loyalist ones.

For reasons.

 JNAProductions wrote:
CSM Terminators are 5 points more than Loyalist ones.

For reasons.

Spike tax.

kingheff wrote:How about salamander cataphracti terminators?
The cheapest squad is 170 pts for storm bolters and lightning claws, ap 0 and ap -1 keeps their save at 2+ and any ap above -2 is a waste due to the 4++.
Not bad to drop in on turn two so they get the -1 ap on their bolters.
Not amazing but decent chaff clearing and board control, especially if you can drop them in cover.

I'm digging all of my flavours of Termies again. Add in a termie Librarian and bingo.

I think they really just need to go back to 2d6 3+ otherwise they are in a better spot now.

The differences in the armour variants actually matter. I like them and when I take which type depends on the theme of my lists.

a_typical_hero wrote:
We could do something funky with the Terminator armor itself, instead of the T and W stat of the model. These two stats always felt more like they belong to the "person", rather than being granted by the wargear.

Something like...
- Ignore armor save modifier caused by weapon AP => always save on 2+
- Re-roll every failed armor / invunerable save
- ...

You get the idea. Would increase the survivability of every model in TDA without inflating the stats.

I like the second idea. The first is a 2++ invulnerable save, which is a NO NO.

Eh... the second gives them a 97% chance of passing their 2+, and they never get worse than a 4/9 chance of failing.

Give them a storm shield and that’s never worse than an 89% save rate.

 _SeeD_ wrote:
I like the second idea. The first is a 2++ invulnerable save, which is a NO NO.

Yes, it feels a bit off, as it would go against a core rule and obviously Storm Shields had to change for them to still make sense. Something like -hit in melee or I don't know.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Eh... the second gives them a 97% chance of passing their 2+, and they never get worse than a 4/9 chance of failing.

Give them a storm shield and that’s never worse than an 89% save rate.

You definitely would have to commit anti-tank weaponry (or mortal wounds) to get rid of them. In the background they are described at least once as being able to be trampled on by a Titan (the ground breaks sooner than the TDA), so going a little bit overboard with resilience might not be the wrong way. (Not saying it is the only right one, either. Just sharing my thoughts with you guys). Some wargear options might of course need to be looked at in light of the proposals.

What FezzikDaBullgryn is pointing out is that any change for the better will be reflected in the points and other units will have their toes stepped on. I think what needs to happen is an overall drop in price for Crux Terminatus models to reflect the fact that their invulnerable save is rarely used. Just say what it is. They just copy/pasted the rule from 7th edition to 8th. If not, then some serious adjusting needs to be done. I think it would just be easier to drop the price.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'd rather see all Terminators' datasheets get stuck together and give them all a 4++. Different marks of power armour don't come with different rules, the only reason different marks of Terminator armour do is so GW can say "this datasheet has only parts we sell you in one box!".

Exactly what I've been wanting. Could you imagine that a Chapter that was nearly killed off would have two of each armor, but never field them together because GW said so?

It's stupid, purely stupid.

Exactly. I have some of each mark of tda and mix them in units because I play chaos and we don't have separate rules for each mark. I do the same with different marks of power armour because they all have the same stats. The same should be fine for loyalists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
We are talking about a unit that bridges a gap. It's better than a space marine, but not as good as the next unit. It's cost also reflects that. Unless we are clamoring to remake the entire baseline for old-boys, I don't see how much it can change without stepping on toes.

A points drop would work fine. I don't really care if it smashes primaris toes. They've gotten plenty lately.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think it's hilarious people are tossing around making Terminators T6 with 3W each. Ok, then what do we do for Custodes terminators at more than double the points cost? Make them T7 with 5W each? Then I guess make commanders 9W each, and now tanks have to get a pump up, so make those 17W.....

See how silly this gets? We need to keep in mind that Terminators, no matter how much we may love them, are a outdated and inferior unit to the NuBoys. You make ripples every time you change a low level unit, because everything about that needs to change to compensate. That means Aggressors have to get a change. Dreadnaughts need a change. Every single Custodes Infantry model now needs a change.

Because we decided to make a 29pt unit T6 with 3W.

That sounds about right actually. Custodes only get like four attacks each for a unit that costs over 64 ppm, those attacks are only a little better than a power fist, and their shot output is pathetic. They darn well should be better than T5 W4 for that many points.

Custodes Spears and Axes should be Assault 2.

That's just my humble belief though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Custodes Spears and Axes should be Assault 2.

That's just my humble belief though.

That would address their lack of mobility, at least for the Custodes Guardians. The Forgeworld spears are Assault X if that makes you any happier.

kingheff wrote:
My earliest memory of terminators is from space hulk where they were tough with a lot of anti infantry dakka, are they so far from that now?

They really weren't that tough in Space Hulk. Genestealers basically tore them apart once they closed the distance. The thing about Terminators in Space Hulk was they could shoot A LOT until their weapons jammed. On Overwatch they basically rolled 'kills' against a Genestealer every time the 'Stealer moved an inch within LOS.

Terminators should be tough, but more than that they should be killing enemies as if they were mowing the lawn. With the various bonuses available to them, they can do pretty well in that regard. You just have to spend CP to do it (wich is annoying).

Besides 2nd ed and I guess a brief time when people used th/sh terminators in like 5th they’ve basically always been bad. It’s best to forget they exist as they’ve been functionally replaced by primaris and it’s only a matter of time until they’re a legacy only option!

 Kommisar wrote:
Besides 2nd ed and I guess a brief time when people used th/sh terminators in like 5th they’ve basically always been bad. It’s best to forget they exist as they’ve been functionally replaced by primaris and it’s only a matter of time until they’re a legacy only option!

Actually they seem like a pretty impressive unit right now. Able to deal tons of melee damage and bringing an invuln save that no Primaris unit comes close to.

Make Crux Terminator give a 5+++.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think it's hilarious people are tossing around making Terminators T6 with 3W each. Ok, then what do we do for Custodes terminators at more than double the points cost? Make them T7 with 5W each? Then I guess make commanders 9W each, and now tanks have to get a pump up, so make those 17W.....

See how silly this gets? We need to keep in mind that Terminators, no matter how much we may love them, are a outdated and inferior unit to the NuBoys. You make ripples every time you change a low level unit, because everything about that needs to change to compensate. That means Aggressors have to get a change. Dreadnaughts need a change. Every single Custodes Infantry model now needs a change.

Because we decided to make a 29pt unit T6 with 3W.

We've reach the kind of point where the solution is to nerf things. Hard in some cases. But because GW updates one at a time rather than all at once that doesn't work because the people with updates would be understandably annoyed their army is getting nerfed and nobody else has. Then you have things like model bloat and you see the mess GW made themselves.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think it's hilarious people are tossing around making Terminators T6 with 3W each. Ok, then what do we do for Custodes terminators at more than double the points cost? Make them T7 with 5W each? Then I guess make commanders 9W each, and now tanks have to get a pump up, so make those 17W.....

See how silly this gets? We need to keep in mind that Terminators, no matter how much we may love them, are a outdated and inferior unit to the NuBoys. You make ripples every time you change a low level unit, because everything about that needs to change to compensate. That means Aggressors have to get a change. Dreadnaughts need a change. Every single Custodes Infantry model now needs a change.

Because we decided to make a 29pt unit T6 with 3W.

This is why making Primaris separate units instead of calling them resculpts was a really stupid idea. Right now just for Imperium Infantry we need to have distinct statlines for Conscripts->Guardsmen->Guard Veterans->Stormtroopers->Skitarii->Battle Sisters->Celestians->Scouts->Sicarans->Space Marines->Marine Veterans->Primaris Marines->Terminators->Ogryn->Gravis Marines->Custodians->Custodian Terminators, and for character versions of a lot of these, and if you fiddle with any of them you have a knock-on effect up or down the whole line.

Not to mention all the stupid rebranded Primaris guns.

Gulliman and Cawl's changes make them look more like marketing execs than strategists

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Make Crux Terminator give a 5+++.

This is really the only viable option without a revamp.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

With the prevelance of multi-damage middling -AP e.g. Helblasters, termies are a sub-optimal choice. The only redeeming feature they have is deepstrike and if you don't kill your target on arrival you may as well forgoe rolling dice and just take them off the table.

My 2p.

No no no no!

I swing with 10 Berserkers into your Terminators. They all have a Chainsword and Chainaxe, with an Exalted Champ nearby. That is...

62 Chainaxe attacks
~41 hits
~36 wounds at AP-1

20 Chainsword attacks
~13 hits
~11 wounds at AP0

Roll 36 saves, on two dice, one at a time, looking for 4+.
Then roll 11 at 3+.

The length of time would just be ridiculous.

I was commenting on survivability.

You seem to be commenting on convenience.

How many dice do you think a green tide Ork army gets through in a game?

How many individual Ork models need to use multiple dice for their save?

I wouldn't know as I don't play them - pray enlighten me.

One thing I do know is that they throw a hell of a lot of dice.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

With the prevelance of multi-damage middling -AP e.g. Helblasters, termies are a sub-optimal choice. The only redeeming feature they have is deepstrike and if you don't kill your target on arrival you may as well forgoe rolling dice and just take them off the table.

My 2p.

No no no no!

I swing with 10 Berserkers into your Terminators. They all have a Chainsword and Chainaxe, with an Exalted Champ nearby. That is...

62 Chainaxe attacks
~41 hits
~36 wounds at AP-1

20 Chainsword attacks
~13 hits
~11 wounds at AP0

Roll 36 saves, on two dice, one at a time, looking for 4+.
Then roll 11 at 3+.

The length of time would just be ridiculous.

I was commenting on survivability.

You seem to be commenting on convenience.

How many dice do you think a green tide Ork army gets through in a game?

How many individual Ork models need to use multiple dice for their save?

I wouldn't know as I don't play them - pray enlighten me.

One thing I do know is that they throw a hell of a lot of dice.

The main difference is it's one individual die per Ork. You can't fast roll a 2D6 save. At all.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think it's hilarious people are tossing around making Terminators T6 with 3W each. Ok, then what do we do for Custodes terminators at more than double the points cost? Make them T7 with 5W each? Then I guess make commanders 9W each, and now tanks have to get a pump up, so make those 17W.....

See how silly this gets? We need to keep in mind that Terminators, no matter how much we may love them, are a outdated and inferior unit to the NuBoys. You make ripples every time you change a low level unit, because everything about that needs to change to compensate. That means Aggressors have to get a change. Dreadnaughts need a change. Every single Custodes Infantry model now needs a change.

Because we decided to make a 29pt unit T6 with 3W.

The entire evolution of 8th ed has been hilarious.

So I think a point drop might work, if they weren't already a powerful unit for the cost. Also, DW would start creaming their pants are the possibilities, unless you made DW Terminators different.

What are some other infantry/elite units that float around the 30ppm cost? How much do the Dakkabots cost per?

I honestly think their solution is the cost of their gear. Keep the models the same, but shift the cost of their weapons.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I think a point drop might work, if they weren't already a powerful unit for the cost. Also, DW would start creaming their pants are the possibilities, unless you made DW Terminators different.

What are some other infantry/elite units that float around the 30ppm cost? How much do the Dakkabots cost per?

I honestly think their solution is the cost of their gear. Keep the models the same, but shift the cost of their weapons.

Agreed. Stormbolters should be 1 pt "upgrade" (with price of 1 boltgun baked into cost of terminators) and PF needs to cost more than power weapons but not 9 pts (6~7 pts). That would bring them down to 30~31 points, which would bring them up to "niche" tier from "unusable" tier. Or, give termies the option to take other power weapons other than PFs (sword, axe, maul) to keep their cost down.

 skchsan wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I think a point drop might work, if they weren't already a powerful unit for the cost. Also, DW would start creaming their pants are the possibilities, unless you made DW Terminators different.

What are some other infantry/elite units that float around the 30ppm cost? How much do the Dakkabots cost per?

I honestly think their solution is the cost of their gear. Keep the models the same, but shift the cost of their weapons.

Agreed. Stormbolters should be 1 pt "upgrade" (with price of 1 boltgun baked into cost of terminators) and PF needs to cost more than power weapons but not 9 pts (6~7 pts). That would bring them down to 30~31 points, which would bring them up to "niche" tier from "unusable" tier. Or, give termies the option to take other power weapons other than PFs (sword, axe, maul) to keep their cost down.

or low that ridiculous 22 points cost for assault cannon and allow 2x 5 termies

Ok realistically:

Aggressor: T5, W3, A3, 3+, with an 18" Assault 9 bolter and PF, Storm of Fire, 37 points.
Terminator: T4, W2, A2, 2+/5++, with a 24" Assault 4 bolter and PF, Deep Strike, 32 points.

That's really not that far off on base stats, what puts it out of whack is that:
1) The basic rules favor attack output over everything else for a non-horde model.
2) The basic rules make W3 a lot more than 50% better than W2.
3) There are a couple of strats and super-doctrines that completely cancel the limitations on Storm of Fire.
4) There are no strats/doctrines/traits that boost Termies that don't work better on Aggressors.
5) Teminators are still stuck with the 5-10 man squad size, they'd compete better if they started at 91 points instead of 175.

1 can't be fixed without a complete overhaul of the rules, but it could be mitigated. The Invictor's Pistol Grip rule would go a long way toward giving Termies a niche. 2 and 5 can be fixed with a simple revision in CA, they did it for Cents and Aggressors so there's no reason they couldn't do the same for Termies. 3 and 4 ... it's possible the Templar rules will have something special for Terminators, but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't think the Termies are unfixable, it's a question of whether GW cares to address them.

I have the impression GW is phasing out the non-Primaris line.

Old-school models like Tacs, Termies and Land Raiders are going to directed to a few unique chapters like Templars.

I'm confident my Salamanders will continue to have non primaris units for a while...same with BT.

I just want some pyroclasts for 40k. Firedrakes are easy since they're in Cataphractii w TH/SS.

The Newman wrote:
Ok realistically:

Aggressor: T5, W3, A3, 3+, with an 18" Assault 9 bolter and PF, Storm of Fire, 37 points.
Terminator: T4, W2, A2, 2+/5++, with a 24" Assault 4 bolter and PF, Deep Strike, 32 points.

That's really not that far off on base stats, what puts it out of whack is that:
1) The basic rules favor attack output over everything else for a non-horde model.
2) The basic rules make W3 a lot more than 50% better than W2.
3) There are a couple of strats and super-doctrines that completely cancel the limitations on Storm of Fire.
4) There are no strats/doctrines/traits that boost Termies that don't work better on Aggressors.
5) Teminators are still stuck with the 5-10 man squad size, they'd compete better if they started at 91 points instead of 175.

1 can't be fixed without a complete overhaul of the rules, but it could be mitigated. The Invictor's Pistol Grip rule would go a long way toward giving Termies a niche. 2 and 5 can be fixed with a simple revision in CA, they did it for Cents and Aggressors so there's no reason they couldn't do the same for Termies. 3 and 4 ... it's possible the Templar rules will have something special for Terminators, but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't think the Termies are unfixable, it's a question of whether GW cares to address them.

I've been saying extra attack and WS/BS2+.

I always thought it was a little ridiculous the s/T system in 40k. A Guardman has a Strength rating of 3, a SM has a S/t of 4, and a Custodes 5. That is all great. A primarch should be around S/t6 if Gman is anything to go by. A Titan is 14. But Angron lifted one that was trying to step on him, so that must make him 15 at least. Which, because Vulkan was stronger (wrong?) he must be at least a 16? Which means a Vulkan can 1punchman a Guardsman approximately twice as hard as a lascannon to the face.

But Terminators fall in there somewhere with S5. Don't even get me started on Bullgryns.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I always thought it was a little ridiculous the s/T system in 40k. A Guardman has a Strength rating of 3, a SM has a S/t of 4, and a Custodes 5. That is all great. A primarch should be around S/t6 if Gman is anything to go by. A Titan is 14. But Angron lifted one that was trying to step on him, so that must make him 15 at least. Which, because Vulkan was stronger (wrong?) he must be at least a 16? Which means a Vulkan can 1punchman a Guardsman approximately twice as hard as a lascannon to the face.

But Terminators fall in there somewhere with S5. Don't even get me started on Bullgryns.

Strength=/=Weight.

The Newman wrote:
Ok realistically:

Aggressor: T5, W3, A3, 3+, with an 18" Assault 9 bolter and PF, Storm of Fire, 37 points.
Terminator: T4, W2, A2, 2+/5++, with a 24" Assault 4 bolter and PF, Deep Strike, 32 points.

That's really not that far off on base stats, what puts it out of whack is that:
1) The basic rules favor attack output over everything else for a non-horde model.
2) The basic rules make W3 a lot more than 50% better than W2.
3) There are a couple of strats and super-doctrines that completely cancel the limitations on Storm of Fire.
4) There are no strats/doctrines/traits that boost Termies that don't work better on Aggressors.
5) Teminators are still stuck with the 5-10 man squad size, they'd compete better if they started at 91 points instead of 175.

1 can't be fixed without a complete overhaul of the rules, but it could be mitigated. The Invictor's Pistol Grip rule would go a long way toward giving Termies a niche. 2 and 5 can be fixed with a simple revision in CA, they did it for Cents and Aggressors so there's no reason they couldn't do the same for Termies. 3 and 4 ... it's possible the Templar rules will have something special for Terminators, but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't think the Termies are unfixable, it's a question of whether GW cares to address them.

As much as I feel quoting myself is bad form, I also did this comparison very much wrong and I can't let that stand. (Also, I've responded to other comparisons that I thought were off-base in exactly this manner. Consistency is a thing.)

The valid comparison is the minimum 5-man Terminator squad to 3-man Aggressor squad:

10 wounds vs 9 wounds. The difference on D1 and D2/Dd3 weapons is really only one failed save either way. Aggressors lose vs anything else, but again it's only by a couple of failed saves. Toughness and save differences also mostly cancel out for the narrow band of weapons where they matter.

16 attacks on a charge vs 13, but 4 of those 16 are Power Sword instead of Power Fist, so basically a wash.

20 shots at a 29" threat vs 28 shots at a 23" + 1d6" threat, before you do the sensible thing and pick a faction that lets the Aggressors move and double-tap.

175 points vs 111 points. That isn't remotely close to being properly balanced. Even if you concede that Deep Strike is as valuable as Fire Storm five Terminators should still be cheaper than three Aggressors, and that's before you get into the rules that let Aggressors have access to both pseudo-Deep Strike and ways to shut off the limitations on Fire Storm.

The thing is, that would put an equiped Terminator to 22 points and 11+ of that is gear. That's also clearly not right, so one has to conclude that regardless of whether the Terminators are over-priced, the Aggressors are currently under-priced.

Another way to look at it is to start with another T4 W2 A2 model: Autobolter Intercessors. 18 points. A 5++ is a Combat Shield, currently 1 point, 19 total. Reivers pay 1 for Deep Strike, 20 total. A Power Fist makes 29. A 2+ and Stable Platform can't be free, that's 31 at a minimum. Assuming Intercessors and Power Fists are properly pointed (which I'm not asserting they are, I'm just taking it as a given for the Terminator/Aggressor discussion) them Termies are just about right and Aggressors should actually be over 50 points per model, which in turn can't be right because that's the range of an Assault Centurion with a Hurricane Bolter (which is also 5 points more than it should be).

The only thing I can say for sure is that Marine point costs are jacked up left right and center.

Why can't termintors just have different point costs for different codex? A DA player doesn't have access to the aggres or buffing doctrins or new stratagems. why should his termintor cost be glued to termintor cost in a different codex, when they have or don't have access to different stuff.

Am not even sure if DA can take centurions to be honest.

I am and they can't. Also, their Termies have some entirely unique wargear layouts.

Personally I think any model with the TERMINATOR keyword should either be bumped to a 1+ save (with 1's still failing) and make the Crux Terminatus ability count D2 as D1
OR
Keep those models save at 2+, but add +1 to armour saving throw to the Crux rule. (So Termies would still be 2+/5++, but get +1 to their armour saves)
OR
Just make Termies count Ap-1 as Ap-0

There's just so, so many way to make Termies as durable as they should be, but GW is stuck on making them boring 2+/5++ only

-

The thing is, Termies without the PF are 25 points. Give them a Chainsword option and make Deep Strike a 1 ppm upgrade so their 24 ppm base (maybe knock another point or two off of that...) and they're basically just Veteran Intercessors with a better save that cost points instead of CPs. That might actually see play. As stands they're stuck with a less than ideal wargear layout and squad size.

Seeing how GW is doing things though they're a lot more likely to do something like taking the Grenade Harness options from the Cataphracii/Tartaros sergeants and make it a 1 ppm upgrade for the whole squad. That would actually work pretty well with the rest of their kit and do enough for their shot output to start looking worth the points. Dropping to a three-man minimum squad size would get them the rest of the way from there I think.

The Newman wrote:
Ok
4) There are no strats/doctrines/traits that boost Termies that don't work better on Aggressors.

Terminators do have a stratagem only them can use giving them +1 to hit in any phase.

 godardc wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Ok
4) There are no strats/doctrines/traits that boost Termies that don't work better on Aggressors.

Terminators do have a stratagem only them can use giving them +1 to hit in any phase.

I stand corrected, althought that's not remotely as big a swing as shutting off the stationary requirement on Fire Storm.

Terminators need to be 18PPM before wargear, so 140 for a base squad, then bumped up to T6. Leave them at 2 wounds.

Djangomatic82 wrote:
Terminators need to be 18PPM before wargear, so 140 for a base squad, then bumped up to T6. Leave them at 2 wounds.

There's no way an unarmed Terminator should be one more ppm than a basic Intercessor and T6.

The Newman wrote:

Djangomatic82 wrote:
Terminators need to be 18PPM before wargear, so 140 for a base squad, then bumped up to T6. Leave them at 2 wounds.

There's no way an unarmed Terminator should be one more ppm than a basic Intercessor and T6.

If an Intercessor squads war gear cost were also 50 points with absolutely no cheaper load out available, then yes, I agree that Terminators should not be of similar points costs per model. But really, people need to stop looking at the base cost without war gear as though it has any significance at all.
As it is, Terminators NEED to be 18PPM before their exorbitant war gear costs

WS2+, BS2+, ignore penalty for heavy weapons including CC weapons.

Throw on ignore the first AP point as well for kicks.

 godardc wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Ok
4) There are no strats/doctrines/traits that boost Termies that don't work better on Aggressors.

Terminators do have a stratagem only them can use giving them +1 to hit in any phase.

Just generic termintors or all termintors?

You could give Terminators a 1+ save, and basically, a roll of 1 still always fails.

So that way, vs AP-1, they still get a 2+. AP-2, they get a 3+
That, and Terminators could easily get a rule to ignore hit penalties for heavy melee weapons.

There. They're nasty now.

Custodes terminators are in a rough spot though. Same issues as a Space Marine, but more than twice as expensive (79 points? cmon)
Not sure how to fix them minus making them 70 points.

WS/BS2+, 1+ Armour (1s still fail) and Swap the 5++ (because with a 1+ armour you really do not NEED and invul at all) for D2 counts as D1

Done. Terminators fixed

-

Djangomatic82 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Djangomatic82 wrote:
Terminators need to be 18PPM before wargear, so 140 for a base squad, then bumped up to T6. Leave them at 2 wounds.

There's no way an unarmed Terminator should be one more ppm than a basic Intercessor and T6.

If an Intercessor squads war gear cost were also 50 points with absolutely no cheaper load out available, then yes, I agree that Terminators should not be of similar points costs per model. But really, people need to stop looking at the base cost without war gear as though it has any significance at all.
As it is, Terminators NEED to be 18PPM before their exorbitant war gear costs

I really want to argue that point, but an Aggressor is carrying a Power Fist and either a Hurricane Bolter (more or less) or a Twin Linked Flamer, either of which adds up to 19 points and puts the base T5 W3 A3 model with Fire Storm and ignoring Advance-and-Fire penalties to a measly 17 or 18 ppm.

I don't know if the Aggressor is too cheap or the Termie is to expensive or both, but there is no way at all that they should be within 2 points of each other.

At 17pts this would mean he costs half of what a GK termintor with stormbolter costs. Nice.

Karol wrote:
At 17pts this would mean he costs half of what a GK termintor with stormbolter costs. Nice.

Let's be fair, GK need a top-to-bottom overhaul. Everything in that codex is severely over-costed, how anything else compares to them is a bad metric.

Still even if agressors cost 34pts they would still cost less then a GK termintor.

Karol wrote:
Still even if agressors cost 34pts they would still cost less then a GK termintor.

Aggressors are 37 ppm, loyalist Terminators are 34. Or did you mean without gear?

Terminators are fine. They are a middle ground between a space marine and a Primaris. They already have some pretty crazy options and viable builds.

The Newman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Still even if agressors cost 34pts they would still cost less then a GK termintor.

Aggressors are 37 ppm, loyalist Terminators are 34. Or did you mean without gear?

Without gear. Still 37 for 3W is a really low cost. Paladins are 3W, and cost a lot more. At least aggressors aren't troops, so there is at leas that.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Terminators are fine. They are a middle ground between a space marine and a Primaris. They already have some pretty crazy options and viable builds.

Lolwut? Terminators aren't even close to viable compared to Aggressors and Assault Centurions.

Anything involving a save on 2d6 is dead in the water. imagine the process when I charge your terminators with 30 ork boyz, base 2 attacks 1 for choppa 1 for being over 20 1 is the nob so we roll 29x4 attacks = 116 attacks , 77.3 hit str 4 t 4, 38.7 wounds, call it 39. now let us pull up a chair and wait while you roll 39 individual saves (before the nob strikes)

honestly I just think terminators could be fixed with a rewrite of the crux terminator warger "units subtract 1 from to wound rolls against this unit to a minimum of 6".

keeps the 6's always wound, though to be fair almost everything other than gretchin are over str 2. in the case aboce vs the orks they go from taking 39 wounds to 26 wounds. after saves they go from 6.5 wounds getting through saves to 4.3.

makes them more durable but not ridiculous.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Terminators are fine. They are a middle ground between a space marine and a Primaris. They already have some pretty crazy options and viable builds.

The problem is that GW decided to glue the point costs for all termintors. So GK pay for theirs as if they had extra rules on top the normal GK ones, but they do not get the normal marines options and options GK had when the codex was writen down are no longer legal to do in matched play. Plus GK have no access to primaris, so there is no middle ground.
so either GW has to rewrite termintor rules for everyone, which has more chance to happen, or they have to rewrite and recost GK termis, which after 2 CA and like 5 FAQ has close to zero chance to happen.

The old "how do we make terminators better thread"? Sigh.... Not facetiously, can we start a letter writing campaign? I was looking through my old posts and saw multiple " fix terminator" threads that I posted in over the years.

I wish the feedback group email was easier to find, "contact us" is their customer service group.

The correct email is 40kfaq@gwplc.com. Much harder to find.

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Terminators get a 2+ save and a 5++ save. The invulnerable save would only come in handy against weapons that are AP 4- and higher. That almost never happens. I think it's a joke of a rule.

The entire Sisters of Battle army has a 3+ army save and a 6++ save. Just as useless. But the rule giving a 6++ save (so, useless) has another part. WHICH IS EVEN MORE USELESS.
Picture this. You are playing Sisters of Battle.
- Your opponent doesn't play psykers? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, but his psykers are too far away from your sisters? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, but he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 6 or more? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 5, but he rolls less, or more than 5? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 5, he rolls EXACTLY 5, but you don't then roll EXACTLY 6? The rule is useless.

The rule can only work if the enemy uses a psyker to cast a WC 5 power while within 24" (iirc) of your sisters, and then there is a 1 in 216 chance of it working. ONE IN TWO HUNDRED SIXTEEN CHANCE. What happens when you had the absolutely incredible luck of rolling this? The (WC5, so not really that powerful) power don't work. That's all. Congrats on your 1 in 216 chance thing.

Isn't there any cast value of 4 ?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Terminators get a 2+ save and a 5++ save. The invulnerable save would only come in handy against weapons that are AP 4- and higher. That almost never happens. I think it's a joke of a rule.

The entire Sisters of Battle army has a 3+ army save and a 6++ save. Just as useless. But the rule giving a 6++ save (so, useless) has another part. WHICH IS EVEN MORE USELESS.
Picture this. You are playing Sisters of Battle.
- Your opponent doesn't play psykers? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, but his psykers are too far away from your sisters? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, but he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 6 or more? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 5, but he rolls less, or more than 5? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 5, he rolls EXACTLY 5, but you don't then roll EXACTLY 6? The rule is useless.

The rule can only work if the enemy uses a psyker to cast a WC 5 power while within 24" (iirc) of your sisters, and then there is a 1 in 216 chance of it working. ONE IN TWO HUNDRED SIXTEEN CHANCE. What happens when you had the absolutely incredible luck of rolling this? The (WC5, so not really that powerful) power don't work. That's all. Congrats on your 1 in 216 chance thing.

It is two saves that you roll on a what a 9pts model? It is one thing to get an extra roll to save a 9pts model. It is another to get your almost 40 pts model try to save on a single +5 dice, when stuff that shot this edition aren't single shot weapons. Everything else is a bonus.

that is also why a smoke screen protecting orcs is great, when it is also only a +5 inv.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Terminators get a 2+ save and a 5++ save. The invulnerable save would only come in handy against weapons that are AP 4- and higher. That almost never happens. I think it's a joke of a rule.

The entire Sisters of Battle army has a 3+ army save and a 6++ save. Just as useless. But the rule giving a 6++ save (so, useless) has another part. WHICH IS EVEN MORE USELESS.
Picture this. You are playing Sisters of Battle.
- Your opponent doesn't play psykers? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, but his psykers are too far away from your sisters? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, but he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 6 or more? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 5, but he rolls less, or more than 5? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 5, he rolls EXACTLY 5, but you don't then roll EXACTLY 6? The rule is useless.

The rule can only work if the enemy uses a psyker to cast a WC 5 power while within 24" (iirc) of your sisters, and then there is a 1 in 216 chance of it working. ONE IN TWO HUNDRED SIXTEEN CHANCE. What happens when you had the absolutely incredible luck of rolling this? The (WC5, so not really that powerful) power don't work. That's all. Congrats on your 1 in 216 chance thing.

To be honest both of those rules (the deny the witch and the 6++) have a ton of built sinergy in the codex to upgrade and make something really usefull of both of them.
Also, all the rules that benefit the deny the witch part of the rules are choosed after you know your opponent so you can basically list tailor a super anty-psiker army from your normal army without a problem. ( +3 to deny, deny with 2d6 instead of 1d6 at 6" from your warlord, an your warlord becomes untargeteable for psychic powers and has a -1 to cast aura of 18" and a -2 to cast aura of 12")

I've always felt like terminators should be 1+ armor.

 godardc wrote:
Isn't there any cast value of 4 ?

Don't know any.

Karol wrote:
It is two saves that you roll on a what a 9pts model?

No, you can only ever roll one save, and the HUGE majority of the time you roll the armor save not the invulnerable one.

Karol wrote:
It is one thing to get an extra roll to save a 9pts model. It is another to get your almost 40 pts model try to save on a single +5 dice, when stuff that shot this edition aren't single shot weapons.

It's the same really. It's an invulnerable that is only useful on AP-4 weapons. That's the original complaint, that it works only on AP-4 weapons. For terminators, it's not that bad, because they are kinda maybe sometime a correct target for ap-4 weapons. For Sisters it is extremely useless!

Karol wrote:
that is also why a smoke screen protecting orcs is great, when it is also only a +5 inv.

Orks don't have a 3+ save Karol.

 Galas wrote:
To be honest both of those rules (the deny the witch and the 6++) have a ton of built sinergy in the codex to upgrade and make something really usefull of both of them.

They didn't in the index, and I don't know if they will in the new codex. And the rules without synergy are useless, might as well only exist with the synergy. Except for the 6++ on tanks specifically. Where it's about equivalent as the 5++ on terminators…

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Terminators get a 2+ save and a 5++ save. The invulnerable save would only come in handy against weapons that are AP 4- and higher. That almost never happens. I think it's a joke of a rule.

Considering all the AP bonuses handed uot to various Marines I'd disagree with that. All my Plaama, Las and Grav Cannons in Devastator Doctrine are now AP -4, for example. Hellblasters can be -5.

 godardc wrote:
Isn't there any cast value of 4 ?

Some of the new Inquisition stuff has a Warp Charge of 4, I think.

It's the same really. It's an invulnerable that is only useful on AP-4 weapons. That's the original complaint, that it works only on AP-4 weapons. For terminators, it's not that bad, because they are kinda maybe sometime a correct target for ap-4 weapons. For Sisters it is extremely useless!

yes. it is one roll per one model. When some stuff costs a lot less, then a +5 or +6 save is better, because you are going to be saving more models, just on the base of having more models. If I get to roll 4-5 d2 invs, the unit is dead. even if I save one . I haven't read or played against sisters, so maybe I am wrong, but I know orcs like their +5 inv.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'd rather see all Terminators' datasheets get stuck together and give them all a 4++. Different marks of power armour don't come with different rules, the only reason different marks of Terminator armour do is so GW can say "this datasheet has only parts we sell you in one box!".

Sure, as soon as every aspect warrior, ork, tau suit, and tyranid organism has the exact same rules. This is the quality of argument you're making - why exarchs or tau commanders should have different rules than basic grunt you used to make them? Because they have parts from one box?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This is why making Primaris separate units instead of calling them resculpts was a really stupid idea. Right now just for Imperium Infantry we need to have distinct statlines for Conscripts->Guardsmen->Guard Veterans->Stormtroopers->Skitarii->Battle Sisters->Celestians->Scouts->Sicarans->Space Marines->Marine Veterans->Primaris Marines->Terminators->Ogryn->Gravis Marines->Custodians->Custodian Terminators, and for character versions of a lot of these, and if you fiddle with any of them you have a knock-on effect up or down the whole line.

You're aware that there are bigger differences between SM and primaris than between first nine positions on your list? If anything, primaris need more rule differences, not less, no matter what people salty about their existence say. For the good of game balance, too - more expensive units had always better rules, maybe we should make Leman Russ equal to Chimera in stats while we're at it?

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Exactly. I have some of each mark of tda and mix them in units because I play chaos and we don't have separate rules for each mark. I do the same with different marks of power armour because they all have the same stats. The same should be fine for loyalists.

I like how you don't even know the rules of army you play - if you actually did, you'd knew DG cataphracti have more durability, TS have tartaros (albeit with rubric tax), and CSM have indomitus rules - exactly like loyalists. So, all of the above is completely wrong. In fact, CSM have different rules for different armor marks baked into cult troops HH style, so doubly wrong. If it "should be fine for loyalists", then let's make Berserkers A1 and Plagues T4, after all, why they should get different rules?

 Irbis wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'd rather see all Terminators' datasheets get stuck together and give them all a 4++. Different marks of power armour don't come with different rules, the only reason different marks of Terminator armour do is so GW can say "this datasheet has only parts we sell you in one box!".

Sure, as soon as every aspect warrior, ork, tau suit, and tyranid organism has the exact same rules. This is the quality of argument you're making - why exarchs or tau commanders should have different rules than basic grunt you used to make them? Because they have parts from one box?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This is why making Primaris separate units instead of calling them resculpts was a really stupid idea. Right now just for Imperium Infantry we need to have distinct statlines for Conscripts->Guardsmen->Guard Veterans->Stormtroopers->Skitarii->Battle Sisters->Celestians->Scouts->Sicarans->Space Marines->Marine Veterans->Primaris Marines->Terminators->Ogryn->Gravis Marines->Custodians->Custodian Terminators, and for character versions of a lot of these, and if you fiddle with any of them you have a knock-on effect up or down the whole line.

You're aware that there are bigger differences between SM and primaris than between first nine positions on your list? If anything, primaris need more rule differences, not less, no matter what people salty about their existence say. For the good of game balance, too - more expensive units had always better rules, maybe we should make Leman Russ equal to Chimera in stats while we're at it?

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Exactly. I have some of each mark of tda and mix them in units because I play chaos and we don't have separate rules for each mark. I do the same with different marks of power armour because they all have the same stats. The same should be fine for loyalists.

I like how you don't even know the rules of army you play - if you actually did, you'd knew DG cataphracti have more durability, TS have tartaros (albeit with rubric tax), and CSM have indomitus rules - exactly like loyalists. So, all of the above is completely wrong. In fact, CSM have different rules for different armor marks baked into cult troops HH style, so doubly wrong. If it "should be fine for loyalists", then let's make Berserkers A1 and Plagues T4, after all, why they should get different rules?

I play csm, not dg or ts. Those are different codexes. The fact that they have different rules has more to do with the fact they're cult troops than their armour.

Cult troops have different rules based on the gods their dedicated to not what armour they wear.

The fact that loyalists have rules for the older marks but heretics have indomatus makes no sense. If anyone would have greater access to older marks it would be the legions.

Wow we actually have someone defending the separation of the different Mks of Terminator armor as separate entries.

Now I might've seen everything.

I suggest reroll 1 on saves, and ignore negative modifiers to hit to represent the superior targetting gear and special training they have to use their terminator close combat equipment.

I know it's utterly ridiculous (even moreso considering how spoiled for choice Marines are in this department) but I'd probably put my Termies on the table a lot more if they were troops instead of elite. It's hard enough to work them into a 1000 point list when I buck the trend and play a Vanguard instead of a battalion, and giving up those 4 cps is painful.

Maybe power fist is too high at 9 points.

Compare to a power sword. Same AP, x2 S but -1 to hit, 1D3 dmg instead of 1.

Imo it is not worth 5 point difference, maybe 3 would be fair.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

Not at all, in 2nd edition the AP modification curve was way more aggressive than it is now. If they get their 2nd edition save they'd be way more protected than they were in 2nd edition with the current curve so it makes no sense.

LoftyS wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

Not at all, in 2nd edition the AP modification curve was way more aggressive than it is now. If they get their 2nd edition save they'd be way more protected than they were in 2nd edition with the current curve so it makes no sense.

That's a valid point, LasCannons used to be AP 6 if I recall correctly. Terminators were one of the only things that got a save against them at all, and a 9+ on 2d6 is about the same as a 5++.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Maybe power fist is too high at 9 points.

Compare to a power sword. Same AP, x2 S but -1 to hit, 1D3 dmg instead of 1.

Imo it is not worth 5 point difference, maybe 3 would be fair.

I was going to say that's silly, but what's silly is having a flat point cost for gear. Whether a Power Fist is worth 9 points is entirely contingent on what's carrying it. On a Jump Pack captain, Vanguard Veteran, or any of the bike units? Absolutely. On an Autobolter Intercessor? I certainly think so. On a Tac or Devastator squad? Not a chance.

The issue on Terminators isn't that 9 points is too much for a PF (I don't think it is) but that the squad has no cheaper option. ...and even that wouldn't be a problem of the base layout was good or there was an upgrade worth taking. Aggressors and Centurions prove that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
...you know what? That's the fix right there. Give every Terminator in the entire system a Tor Garadon style shoulder-mounter Storm Bolter as a 2-ppm upgrade. Loyalist, Chaos, GK, Allarus, doesn't matter. Solves a bunch of problems.

Loyalist Termies now compete with Aggressors unless you're specifically building for Fire Storm, which they should since they're almost the same ppm. Chaos Termies still need a price cut but they look a whole lot better with 4 more shots. Custodes in general could really use a non-FW model with a decent shot count. I don't know from experience but I've heard GK need all the help they can get. Deathwatch can have it, but they're obliged to keep pay twice the points anyone else does. GW would have to have the upgrade sprues arriving at stores the same day they made the announcement, but I'd go buy 15 gun upgrades and an Assault Terminator squad on the spot once I found out about it.

Does anyone know what new point costs were given to SM termies in the CA 2019? I heard GK termies went down to about 35 per model (before or after weapons?)

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Does anyone know what new point costs were given to SM termies in the CA 2019? I heard GK termies went down to about 35 per model (before or after weapons?)

I imagine we'd all like an answer to that question.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

With the prevelance of multi-damage middling -AP e.g. Helblasters, termies are a sub-optimal choice. The only redeeming feature they have is deepstrike and if you don't kill your target on arrival you may as well forgoe rolling dice and just take them off the table.

My 2p.

They weren't valid even with 2d6, because Eldar small arms were -2 and weapons went to -6. And they cost an enormous amount and had one wound. GW will never go back to saves on 2d6 though.

Anyone who has ever played battletech has the solution to fast rolling multiple 2d6 rolls.... different colored pairs of dice

Martel732 wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

With the prevelance of multi-damage middling -AP e.g. Helblasters, termies are a sub-optimal choice. The only redeeming feature they have is deepstrike and if you don't kill your target on arrival you may as well forgoe rolling dice and just take them off the table.

My 2p.

They weren't valid even with 2d6, because Eldar small arms were -2 and weapons went to -6. And they cost an enormous amount and had one wound. GW will never go back to saves on 2d6 though.

They were perfectly valid in 2nd, you just used them wrong. Terminators had a base 1+ to hit making them monsters on Overwatch, they couldn't be targeted if there was a closer unit to the firer, and you had tools like Blind Grenades to further control LOS for defense.

But no, we shouldn't bring back the 2D6 save for them in 8th. Terminators are easy to kill because everything is easy to kill. . . because not enough terrain is on the table and the terrain that is there isn't meaningful enough.

Karol wrote:
When some stuff costs a lot less, then a +5 or +6 save is better, because you are going to be saving more models, just on the base of having more models.

What? The number of models change nothing. You need to make one save for each wound inflicted by the enemy, regardless of the number of models.

Karol wrote:
If I get to roll 4-5 d2 invs, the unit is dead. even if I save one .

What unit has only 3 models and 6hp in total? Can you take units of 3 nobs?
And what weapon shot at that unit to inflict 4 d2 high ap shots?
Just to see if your scenario make sense.

Karol wrote:
I haven't read or played against sisters, so maybe I am wrong, but I know orcs like their +5 inv.

This is an incredibly inappropriate comparison because orks don't have a 3+ save so their 5++ happens all the time.
The invulnerable save is only useful when it works. An invulnerable save that only triggers on AP4 is only useful when taking a save against a wound from a weapon with ap4. Noone wants to shoot an AP4 weapon at a cheap unit. That's why the 6++ is much more useful on, say, an immolator or an exorcist than on a basic Sister of Battle. If that AP4, likely multi-wound and high strength weapon is shooting at my sisters, it's not getting it's point back.

Typical example : shooting a melta at a SoB? The 6++ doesn't matter much because it's just one sister dead at most from that melta shot and that's not a big deal. Shooting a melta at a character in terminator armor? The 5++ matter a lot because saving the character from losing 5/6 wounds (and therefore, likely dying) from a single melta shot IS a big deal. Just because I have more sisters of battle than I have terminator characters doesn't change the number of save I am making, because the enemy has the exact same number of meltas anyway. And if they use their melta good, then the invulnerable change a LOT on the final result, if they use their melta in extremely suboptimal way... then the invulnerable save doesn't change a lot.

I don't know, this seems quite obvious. Even GW acknowledge that the invul. on big expensive models with lots of wound was too much, and with the new SoB codex the invul. cannot be improved for vehicles anymore!

 Red Marine wrote:
The old "how do we make terminators better thread"? Sigh.... Not facetiously, can we start a letter writing campaign? I was looking through my old posts and saw multiple " fix terminator" threads that I posted in over the years.

Terminators are a decade-old non-Primaris kit that's been replaced in the Primaris range (Aggressors). They're never going to be made better.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

With the prevelance of multi-damage middling -AP e.g. Helblasters, termies are a sub-optimal choice. The only redeeming feature they have is deepstrike and if you don't kill your target on arrival you may as well forgoe rolling dice and just take them off the table.

My 2p.

They weren't valid even with 2d6, because Eldar small arms were -2 and weapons went to -6. And they cost an enormous amount and had one wound. GW will never go back to saves on 2d6 though.

They were perfectly valid in 2nd, you just used them wrong. Terminators had a base 1+ to hit making them monsters on Overwatch, they couldn't be targeted if there was a closer unit to the firer, and you had tools like Blind Grenades to further control LOS for defense.

But no, we shouldn't bring back the 2D6 save for them in 8th. Terminators are easy to kill because everything is easy to kill. . . because not enough terrain is on the table and the terrain that is there isn't meaningful enough.

I didn't use them. They weren't valid. They were easily massacred by the power lists in 2nd ed. It was easy to clear out marine units between the big guns and the terminators. Blind grenades weren't sufficient and everyone hated the mechanics as well.

^Won two 2nd ed tournies with Terminators in my list so I'm just not going to agree with you.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Won two 2nd ed tournies with Terminators in my list so I'm just not going to agree with you.

Nobody cares about your casual locals. It isn't good anecdotal evidence, especially for an edition KNOWN for overly broken crap.

Eldar could sling dozens of -3 shots. Power armor meant nothing and terminators wilted easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Won two 2nd ed tournies with Terminators in my list so I'm just not going to agree with you.

I saw a 1st company list tabled multiple times by turn 2. Your point?

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Won two 2nd ed tournies with Terminators in my list so I'm just not going to agree with you.

I saw a 1st company list tabled multiple times by turn 2. Your point?

Bad players are/were bad, and running only Terminators was a dumb idea. That doesn't make them a bad unit. Try running only Aggressors in 8th and see how far you get.

The Assault Cannon was one of the best weapons in the game in 2nd. Terminators and Dreadnoughts were some of the only units to get them, and deployed right they were game-winning.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Won two 2nd ed tournies with Terminators in my list so I'm just not going to agree with you.

Nobody cares about your casual locals. It isn't good anecdotal evidence, especially for an edition KNOWN for overly broken crap.

Since you didn't even play 2nd, I'd consider your opinion even less relevant.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Won two 2nd ed tournies with Terminators in my list so I'm just not going to agree with you.

I saw a 1st company list tabled multiple times by turn 2. Your point?

Bad players are/were bad, and running only Terminators was a dumb idea. That doesn't make them a bad unit. Try running only Aggressors in 8th and see how far you get.

The Assault Cannon was one of the best weapons in the game in 2nd. Terminators and Dreadnoughts were some of the only units to get them, and deployed right they were game-winning.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Won two 2nd ed tournies with Terminators in my list so I'm just not going to agree with you.

Nobody cares about your casual locals. It isn't good anecdotal evidence, especially for an edition KNOWN for overly broken crap.

Since you didn't even play 2nd, I'd consider your opinion even less relevant.

I've played a couple of games of it. It isn't hard to figure out. On top.of that you don't have to be a trained chef to know if the cat poop you're eating tastes bad.

Watch this: "Nobody cares about your 'couple games' against locals"

It's so easy to be Slayer-Fan.

If you post something of substance I'll give you something more. Otherwise I'll leave it at that, and converse about 2nd with people who have more than such a 'casual' acquaintance with it.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Watch this: "Nobody cares about your 'couple games' against locals"

It's so easy to be Slayer-Fan.

If you post something of substance I'll give you something more. Otherwise I'll leave it at that, and converse about 2nd with people who have more than such a 'casual' acquaintance with it.

Your argument was it was easy to ignore my assessment because I never played 2nd. I'm saying that I have as it's pretty easy to procure those rules, and the game was hilariously imbalanced and that people saying "3D6 sAvE fOr TeRmInAtOrS wAs SuPeR gOoD" are letting the rose tinted glasses cloud their judgment, including you. Martel went out of his way to show they were bad and why, and then you retort "I wOn A tOuRnAmEnT aT mY lOcAlS" as your retort.

So am *I* really the one not posting anything of substance?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So am *I* really the one not posting anything of substance?

Correct. Because broad statements and ad-hominem are less substance than the specifics I gave in response to Martel. Namely: Models had to shoot closest unit, LOS control was a big part of play and Overwatch was a powerful tool with Terminators.

Your contribution has been:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nobody cares about your casual locals. It isn't good anecdotal evidence, especially for an edition KNOWN for overly broken crap.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I've played a couple of games of it. It isn't hard to figure out. On top.of that you don't have to be a trained chef to know if the cat poop you're eating tastes bad.

So basically "I played a couple games and your anecdotes are invalid because casual." The statement "[edition] known for broken crap" is to vague to help you in either direction (because I could also use broken stuff to my advantage with Terminators). And we have "Rose tinted glasses" in your last post. So nothing substantive other than an apparent plain misunderstanding of what substance is. Have a good day!

The jam cannon was not worth the points on the terrible unit it was attached to. It's totally rose colored glasses. Loyalist terminators have always been crap. Stormbolters could jam, too. Garbage. If your marines were living more than 2 or 3 turns, your opponents were crap in 2nd.

Chaos terminators had some solid weapons. But not loyalists.

As an additional note, your assault cannon would never gun down the 100+ fast moving hormagaunts before your whole list was in melee with nids. Without blight grenades, loyalist marines just lost to nids.

Is the Camo Cloak style ability not an option?
Crux Terminatus adds +2 to this model’s armour save.

Hit it with a -2ap weapon and it laughs it off, hit it with a -3 or -4 and it feels like it got hit by an Anti-Tank weapon

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Is the Camo Cloak style ability not an option?
Crux Terminatus adds +2 to this model’s armour save.

Hit it with a -2ap weapon and it laughs it off, hit it with a -3 or -4 and it feels like it got hit by an Anti-Tank weapon

or have it remove a flat -2AP & anything s3 the armour is actually impervious?

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Is the Camo Cloak style ability not an option?
Crux Terminatus adds +2 to this model’s armour save.

Hit it with a -2ap weapon and it laughs it off, hit it with a -3 or -4 and it feels like it got hit by an Anti-Tank weapon

or have it remove a flat -2AP & anything s3 the armour is actually impervious?

No objections from me.

Hello, I am new here. But I agree 100% with Crux Terminatus being a pointless rule. The main issue is (as an Ordo Malleus gamer in particular), Warhammer 40,000 eighth edition has broken the game.

It just makes melta even worse than it already is.

The crux terminatus should ignore 1 AP rather than giving a 5++ invul. This would effectively do the same for melta weapon (5+ save) but increase tanking versus all other weapons.

Considering I just played a game where a PF/SB Deathwing Terminator tanked a doomsday arks 5 shots because of his 5++ I'm gonna say it has some value.

But it's a relic if ap2 spam from third edition when not having that 5++ was a killer

Martel732 wrote:
The jam cannon was not worth the points on the terrible unit it was attached to. It's totally rose colored glasses. Loyalist terminators have always been crap. Stormbolters could jam, too. Garbage. If your marines were living more than 2 or 3 turns, your opponents were crap in 2nd.

Chaos terminators had some solid weapons. But not loyalists.

As an additional note, your assault cannon would never gun down the 100+ fast moving hormagaunts before your whole list was in melee with nids. Without blight grenades, loyalist marines just lost to nids.

I'd say Martel-glasses are in full effect.

The Assault Cannon was what you pointed at the big Nids, since it was S 8 D10 damage. For dealing with 100 Hormagaunts you lay on the blast markers and block movement with plasma missiles and grenades, which could further expand and knock out droves of them. As Marines youre going first againt Nids with a Strategy rating of 5 or 6 vs. 1, so make them pay for any bunched up deployment, target Synapse with heavier guns (Like the Assault Cannon), and set good positions to take advantage or rapid-fire. Have Jump units ready to run interference against the front line, and get ready with Flamers and Grenades.

I dont recall details about Blight grenades, but iirc Chaos Terminators didn't have Targeters like loyalists, and the Reaper Autocannon wasn't nearly as good as the Assault Cannon.

I literally write this as I paint up Terminators for use in 2nd edition against a Nid player.

Good luck. You'll need it vs non-scrubs.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I dont recall details about Blight grenades, but iirc Chaos Terminators didn't have Targeters like loyalists, and the Reaper Autocannon wasn't nearly as good as the Assault Cannon.

One of the things that always annoyed me playing into Chaos in 2nd ed was how much better the Reaper cannon was than my ACs, especially since it was cheaper. The AC had the potential to be better but it also had the potential to jam itself for the whole game the first time it fired, and iirc the Reaper could reroll jam dice.

It could. It was better than assault cannon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It could. It was better than assault cannon.

The Newman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I dont recall details about Blight grenades, but iirc Chaos Terminators didn't have Targeters like loyalists, and the Reaper Autocannon wasn't nearly as good as the Assault Cannon.

One of the things that always annoyed me playing into Chaos in 2nd ed was how much better the Reaper cannon was than my ACs, especially since it was cheaper. The AC had the potential to be better but it also had the potential to jam itself for the whole game the first time it fired, and iirc the Reaper could reroll jam dice.

Assault Cannon
3 Sust. Fire Dice, S8 - D10Damage, -3 Save mod. 32" range

Reaper Autocannon
2 Sust. Fire dice (reroll 1) S8 D6 Damage, -3 Save mod. 40" range

I much prefer the Assault Cannon for the Extra Sust. Dice and especially the D10 Damage. Each shot of the Assault Cannon hit Armor with the pen-value of a Krak Missile making both a great Anti infantry and Anti-Armor/Monster weapon. While the Terminators couldn't re-roll a Sust. fire die, the Dreadnought could, and both units had Targeters which Chaos Terminators did not. (nor did they have the built in Teleport Homers, either) Imo the loyalist setup is the superior one. It jammed sometimes, sure, but that's why you brought defensive measures like Blind Grenades and built redundancies into your positioning.

(Edit): The Assault Cannon also got +1 to hit at short range, while the Reaper did not.

Martel732 wrote:
Good luck. You'll need it vs non-scrubs.

I'll be fine, But congratulations on hitting Slayer-level posting.