Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The latest codexes has all been seemingly stacking up invulns. First, we had the OT 3++ of the Storm Shields, in Codex: Sm. then the DE got themselves 2+ invulns, together with GK. Then the necrons get 4+ that bounces back shots.


This really ruins my experience of the game. The 4++ on the Lychguard is possible to get through; a couple of Leman Russ kills them easily.
The 2++ of the GK works only in CC, so Vindicators is as good as ever.
The 2++ of the DE works only until it fails once, so massed volleys can got through that as well.

And then we have the storm shields......


Massed 3++ and 2+ saves that keeps the squad alive until they can strike back with S8 PW.
Horrible.

Take Chaos Terminators. These mentlegen are the elite of a warband, and should be able to match other terminators.
No. For they can't have Storm Shields. A tense, exciting fight, turns into a one-sided massacre for the cheaper side.

I do not want to go lash prince+vindicator, but that seems my only choice.


Make storm shields give a +1 to invul, or a 5+ if the squad doesn't have any. It's balanced, so we do not need to change any points cost, and it changes an unbalanced obvious choice into a viable unit, as well as making the game more exciting.

Please note that i do not ask for any whining ("meh, another SS hate thread")

I honestly wouldn't mind this, I'd like it to be like Fantasy, 3++ ward saves can be attained, but they are quite rare. As a Space Marine player (well, Black Templars), I'd be fine with it, 2+ 4++ was enough for me for a long time.

I think they should only work in close combat.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I think they should only work in close combat.

This. Storm Shields were 4++ for a long time in previous editions and nobody took them. Keeping it 3++ but in CC only is a good trade-off, I think.

Wait...So I sould only be able to use my shield when the enemy is in my face? if someone is shooting at me I can't block it with my shield? I disagree with this, storm shields should work for both range and combat saves.

I don't see a to change them, as a marine player and from looking at plenty of battle reports, it is easy to see how storm shields are not the most badass things out there. For real, Termis.s are great but can go down just like everything else. Hit them with enough attacks and sooner or later they go down.

I would say a 5 points increase would make up for it though, with that full termie unit being 50 more points, it seems less of a no-brainer to take them..

No you shouldnt be able to use it when your being shot at. Sure maybe small arms, if its in your forward arc. But not explosions. If a demolisher round catches your squad, how it the shield going to protect you?

Ravendove wrote:
This. Storm Shields were 4++ for a long time in previous editions and nobody took them. Keeping it 3++ but in CC only is a good trade-off, I think.

But they were 4++ in CC only, weren't they?

You could make them 4++ everywhere, that would be reasonably balanced. Alternatively, check out the ideas in the 'Terminators and their Saves' thread that was active a little while ago. This same issue was discussed there.

You have to think of ss/th termis is the context of the codex, with out them what else do sm have that can have a chance against other elite cc units? Or in the case of gk any of there choices?

It doesnt matter whether you can hide behind the SS or not. The physical structure of the shield houses energy field projectors. So you could wear it on your back and you should still be giving you a 3+ invul save. If you dont like TH/SS terminators, shoot them with mass fire and watch them fail 2+ saves, or dehorse them and ignore them. I play tau, CSM, GK, CWE and dark eldar, and I have NEVER once complained about TH/SS terminators. I charge them on my terms, shoot their transports and smash them with weight of dice. I could care less if they are 200 points for 5 of them (although the 5 point increase was the best suggestion given.

A problem of a D6 system is there isn't too much room for slight variations. BS 3 vs BS 4 is a huge difference. So too the difference between 3++ and 4++ saves. I would agree that 4++ overall saves would make sense from a game balance perspective but then it fails to be "different"

Look at it this way:

A standard terminator: 2+ 5++
A MoT terminator 2+ 4++
A GK terminator 2+ 5++ (4++ in HTH)
A GK terminator with maul 2+ 2++

So should a terminator with SS be superior to a MoT chaos terminator? Potentially yes. That puts a terminator with SS at a 3++ save.

Now comes the problem: At a cost of 40 why would I ever take a standard terminator? The answer is never as 2+(3++) is way too superior to 2+(5++) so now I need something to offset the survival imbalance... Powerfist vs Thunderhammer: A wash as far as S and I but the TH offers some stunning advantages. Hmmm TH vs PF is advantage TH. So now we come to the one differentiator:
The standard terminator gets 2 S4 shots out to 24".

Now situationally, you may find a value to the stormbolter fire but overwhelmingly, the TH/SS termie is so far superior it wins.

My conclusion, is that the ss should be reduced to a 4++ save as that will restore some balance to the choices. As it stands you would have to make stormbolters S6 and probably rending to make me even twitch about selecting a standard termie over an assault termie with a 3++ save.

d6 systems do limit slight variation, but point costs can adjust for that.

It's not hard to see that TH/SS is too good. No one takes normal terminators, and no one takes lightning claw terminators.

I have no issue leaving them with a 3++, but they should be priced accordingly. A 3++ is really useful - clearly moreso than either 2 S4 shots, or re-rollable wounds. It should cost more.

Redbeard wrote:d6 systems do limit slight variation, but point costs can adjust for that.

It's not hard to see that TH/SS is too good. No one takes normal terminators, and no one takes lightning claw terminators.

I have no issue leaving them with a 3++, but they should be priced accordingly. A 3++ is really useful - clearly moreso than either 2 S4 shots, or re-rollable wounds. It should cost more.

But if SS/TH Termies cost more, then no-one will take them because they won't be ABLE to take them. 5 TH/SS Termies in a Land Raider cost 450 points already. It's a HUGE price for what you get.

So, counter-proposal; make the other options cost LESS, instead.

So make them cost 500 points in a Landraider. An Ork Nob squad in a Battlewagon can easily cost more than that, and they're less survivable in some ways!

It wouldn't be so terrible if it were a basic Marine with SS, or a Guardsman with SS even- then it would just be 3++ is their best save, like a Marine that can save everything. It's the combination of 2+ against almost everything, and a 3++ for those few things that can pen Termie armour that makes it unbalanced. I would be fine if it cost 5 more points- that's seemingly the standard cost for Invuln saves these days.

The problem with costing less is then you stomp over all the other options. Much like my feeling that codex point costs have been all screwed up by the change years ago of ork boyz from 9 to 6. So say you reduce the cost to 35 for standard termies. What does that do to sternguard? What does that do to GK terminators who are troop choices? What does that do to chaos terminators who are "discounted" 10 points for not having a power fist? Do you want CSM termies at 25 each?

I say reduce the save to 4++ OR increase the cost of TH/SS termies OR reduce the options so you can only substitute 1 of 3 LCs for TH/SS or something like that.

DAaddict wrote:The problem with costing less is then you stomp over all the other options. Much like my feeling that codex point costs have been all screwed up by the change years ago of ork boyz from 9 to 6. So say you reduce the cost to 35 for standard termies. What does that do to sternguard? What does that do to GK terminators who are troop choices? What does that do to chaos terminators who are "discounted" 10 points for not having a power fist? Do you want CSM termies at 25 each?

I say reduce the save to 4++ OR increase the cost of TH/SS termies OR reduce the options so you can only substitute 1 of 3 LCs for TH/SS or something like that.

Why should you change the cost of CSM Termies at all? They're a different unit, in a different codex, with a different role. If they are to be recosted, that should be done in relation to the units in the CSM Codex; comparing single units across codexes doesn't work. You compare codexes as a whole to each other, and do unit comparisons within codexes.

Same goes for GK Termies, but even MORE so. GK Termies have NFS, psychic powers, and a bunch of different options. Different unit, different role, and different points costs are not only acceptable but actually desirable.

Sternguard, IMO, need to be recosted or have their abilities changed anyway. I never see them played.

People take lightning claw termis never 5 but having an extra attack and striking at I4 is important. Get chargers by 10 shrike players and you will be happy to have some LC attacks.

GW must of relised this as the BA Codez has them at +5pts, if its bothering you that much, pay the extra 5pt for normal marines, but to be hones, a 2+ 5++ unit with 4 pwer weapon attacks with some wound rerolls is pretty epic, Termies with LC arn't all that bad considering, and as previously mentioned, just shoot the damn things, I've had 3 SS/TH termies die from gun drone fire

Ecstasy in Service wrote:Wait...So I sould only be able to use my shield when the enemy is in my face? if someone is shooting at me I can't block it with my shield? I disagree with this, storm shields should work for both range and combat saves.

A shield, that's really basically a Buckler on Terminators, really isn't the easiest thing to block incoming projectiles with, it's not possible to react quick enough and it's coverage isn't large enough, it's value is in blocking enemy blows at close range against opponents you are facing that aren't coming as bursts of automatic fire moving at faster than the speed of sound or energy weapons at near lightspeed from any and all angles. Having it work only in CC makes sense from a logical perspective and a balance perspective, or just make it a flat 4+ against all attacks. The problem previously was that it was a 4+ that only worked in CC.

I don't see a to change them, as a marine player and from looking at plenty of battle reports, it is easy to see how storm shields are not the most badass things out there. For real, Termis.s are great but can go down just like everything else. Hit them with enough attacks and sooner or later they go down.

let me ask you this. Would you still take them as they are at 45pts? For most I'm sure the answer is yes. At 50pts? Again, I'm sure the answer is still most likely yes, at least given my experiences and most players I know. Given that, they're clearly overcapable and/or undercosted. They make any other Terminator unit pointless because of their survivability, and nobody enjoys playing against a unit that gets a 3+sv against railguns in the open.

3++ in combat 4++ out of combat seems alright to me.

They're just so better than the tactical equivalent...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

DAaddict wrote:The problem with costing less is then you stomp over all the other options. Much like my feeling that codex point costs have been all screwed up by the change years ago of ork boyz from 9 to 6. So say you reduce the cost to 35 for standard termies. What does that do to sternguard? What does that do to GK terminators who are troop choices? What does that do to chaos terminators who are "discounted" 10 points for not having a power fist? Do you want CSM termies at 25 each?

I say reduce the save to 4++ OR increase the cost of TH/SS termies OR reduce the options so you can only substitute 1 of 3 LCs for TH/SS or something like that.

Why should you change the cost of CSM Termies at all? They're a different unit, in a different codex, with a different role. If they are to be recosted, that should be done in relation to the units in the CSM Codex; comparing single units across codexes doesn't work. You compare codexes as a whole to each other, and do unit comparisons within codexes.

Same goes for GK Termies, but even MORE so. GK Termies have NFS, psychic powers, and a bunch of different options. Different unit, different role, and different points costs are not only acceptable but actually desirable.

Sternguard, IMO, need to be recosted or have their abilities changed anyway. I never see them played.

BS. At its core a unit should be about equivalent across codexes. Given a 2+ save and 5++ invulnerable. You should see the cost be about the same across codexes or you will tend to see the idiocy of one codex over another. Long fangs vs havocs vs devastators comes to mind. So if I make CSM terminator 25 pts each and balance that within the codex so it is a viable option, you don't think that 40 pt per terminator vanilla/BT/DA/BA are going to cry foul or suddenly move to CSM? I don't think so.

If you were right, then I would expect to see as many dark angel players as any other marine. If their codex - viewed in a vacuum- balanced? I would say it is. Is it balanced in view of all the other codexes that are out there? I think not and that is proven by the number of dark angel armies you see out there. The renaissance of the DA came with the ruling that CML and Typhoons get ROF 2 and that their stormshields are now 3++. I still don't see any DA army with drop pods with BS2 or landraiders with idiot savant machine spirits. I don't see DA tacticals hitting the table with overpriced razorbacks.

Certainly the first job of a codex writer is to make a codex balanced within but he sure as heck better be thinking how his codex fits into the puzzle of the other codexes out there.

(Unless of course your goal is to depress every other army owner out there and to boost sales of everything else)

Balance a codex with a marine costed at 10 points. Internally you may have a varied and option-filled army. View it in light of the other codexes out there, and everyone will stop playing the other races because 10 pt marines will tip the game totally in favor of marines.

BTW, when we are talking vanilla marines, I see a LOT of sternguard. They are more cost effective than devastators and from a pure ant-personnel standpoint superior. The issue is that I don't see a lot of vanilla marines. Most of those now play SW, BA or GK.

You missed the part where I said "Compare codexes as a whole to each other".

A Codex with basic Space Marines costed at 10 points and every other price built off of that would be unbalanced, yes. That is a codex problem, not a unit problem. Individual units, however, need to be costed against each OTHER, within the same codex; after that is done, THEN the codex as a whole can be compared to other codexes, and if things are generally undercosted, that can be corrected.

A codex with 10-point Space marines might BE balanced; if, for instance, that squad got no free flamer or missile launchers, or if their support units such as Devastator equivalents and tanks were very expensive. That might be perfectly viable; you would have to balance the CODEX against other CODEXES. If one unit (Space Marines) is cheap, then other units should be expensive; or the cheap unit should have very expensive options and wargear. There are plenty of ways to do it; insisting that the same statline have exactly the same price in every codex is, in my eyes, a flawed method that leads to a great deal of boring same-old, same-old. Some codexes SHOULD pay less for the exact same unit, and others should pay less for a different unit, and some should have the option of taking a unit that no other codex can take at all. The issue is to balance the ARMIES against each other as a whole, not to balance the individual units.

BeRzErKeR wrote:You missed the part where I said "Compare codexes as a whole to each other".

A Codex with basic Space Marines costed at 10 points and every other price built off of that would be unbalanced, yes. That is a codex problem, not a unit problem. Individual units, however, need to be costed against each OTHER, within the same codex; after that is done, THEN the codex as a whole can be compared to other codexes, and if things are generally undercosted, that can be corrected.

A codex with 10-point Space marines might BE balanced; if, for instance, that squad got no free flamer or missile launchers, or if their support units such as Devastator equivalents and tanks were very expensive. That might be perfectly viable; you would have to balance the CODEX against other CODEXES. If one unit (Space Marines) is cheap, then other units should be expensive; or the cheap unit should have very expensive options and wargear. There are plenty of ways to do it; insisting that the same statline have exactly the same price in every codex is, in my eyes, a flawed method that leads to a great deal of boring same-old, same-old. Some codexes SHOULD pay less for the exact same unit, and others should pay less for a different unit, and some should have the option of taking a unit that no other codex can take at all. The issue is to balance the ARMIES against each other as a whole, not to balance the individual units.

My point is that reducing the cost of terminators is a risky thing. You can say that 35 pt terminators and 40 pt terminators with TH/SS solves that issue. (Truthfully I don't think so.) If you reduce the cost of a terminator how does it compare to other options. So 205 for 5 termies with a CML - does that compare well with 5 sternguard with 2 HW? Does it leave a squadron of typhoons or predator as a viable choice? These are issues so how do you address them? Leave the now overcosted predator (just as an example) or do you now reduce its cost? Before you know it you have a good comparative codex but an OP codex when judged against all the other codexes.

The other issue is making termies cost 40 in one codex and 35 in another... Let's say for a moment that they target the new Dark Angel codex for an update. Say they reduce the base cost to 35 for terminators. Say they leave ravenwing cost at 35 for a base but allow them A 2 to their profile and power weapon options. Say they leave the cost of SM at 15 but they reduce the cost of SW to 10 for plasma and allow you to take two special weapons. Is that enough to bring DA to a viable state? Is it going to make DA THE marine codex choice?

Internally a codex needs to be balanced or you end up with one or two instant "idiot" builds where you can field anything but say they have undercosted something so much it makes it THE choice to play. Externally the codex has to be balanced also - on that we agree. My concern is that reducing the cost of terminators seems the WRONG way to do it. If a 40 pt terminator feels about right it should NOT be reduced.

A TH/SS terminator is an "idiot" choice when it comes to weighing which terminators are better to field. Why is that? They cost the same and 3++ saves are so superior to 5++ saves as to make it silly to suggest that even giving up the 2 S4 shots at range is idiotic to consider as an equal. Raise the cost to +5 for TH/SS and perhaps you will make it right. Raise it +10 points and guaranteed you are going to suddenly make a standard terminator make more sense. So it is somehere in there.

DAaddict wrote:

My point is that reducing the cost of terminators is a risky thing. You can say that 35 pt terminators and 40 pt terminators with TH/SS solves that issue. (Truthfully I don't think so.) If you reduce the cost of a terminator how does it compare to other options. So 205 for 5 termies with a CML - does that compare well with 5 sternguard with 2 HW? Does it leave a squadron of typhoons or predator as a viable choice? These are issues so how do you address them? Leave the now overcosted predator (just as an example) or do you now reduce its cost? Before you know it you have a good comparative codex but an OP codex when judged against all the other codexes.

That's certainly a valid point. The point I'm making is that lowering the cost of one does not have particularly greater effects than raising the cost of the other.

Consider; the TH/SS Termie is, essentially, the ONLY dedicated assault unit in the vanilla Marine codex. Assault Marines aren't fighty or resilient enough, and Vanguard Veterans are far too expensive for how effective they are. Vanilla Marines are not spoiled for choice when it comes to assault units. It seems to me, then, that the prospect of making their one truly effective assault unit MORE expensive should be avoided.

I also have another assertion to make; if TH/SS Termies weren't an option, you would see far fewer Termies overall. Terminators do not put out enough shooting to make it worth their current points cost, particularly since they can only have one CML/assault cannon per 5 models. Shooty Termies die farily easily once they are in small-arms range, so you're effectively paying 230 points for two missile launchers. Devastators are cheaper than that, and they're STILL overcosted.

I would argue then, that Assault Terminators do not need an absolute nerf, they need a nerf RELATIVE to shooty Terminators; and shooty Terminators need an absolute buff. There's two ways I see to do that; reducing the cost of shooty Terminators to 35 ppm, or allowing them to take two CML/assault cannons regardless of unit size.

DAaddict wrote:
The other issue is making termies cost 40 in one codex and 35 in another... Let's say for a moment that they target the new Dark Angel codex for an update. Say they reduce the base cost to 35 for terminators. Say they leave ravenwing cost at 35 for a base but allow them A 2 to their profile and power weapon options. Say they leave the cost of SM at 15 but they reduce the cost of SW to 10 for plasma and allow you to take two special weapons. Is that enough to bring DA to a viable state? Is it going to make DA THE marine codex choice?

Internally a codex needs to be balanced or you end up with one or two instant "idiot" builds where you can field anything but say they have undercosted something so much it makes it THE choice to play. Externally the codex has to be balanced also - on that we agree. My concern is that reducing the cost of terminators seems the WRONG way to do it. If a 40 pt terminator feels about right it should NOT be reduced.

I've never played Dark Angels; my answer to this has to be that I don't know. But I reiterate; based on my experiences fighting AGAINST Terminators, I think TH/SS Termies need a relative nerf (so much better than other Termies as to be a no-brainer choice) and shooty Terminators need an absolute buff, as they are outclassed in terms of firepower by any other shooty unit in the Codex.

However, in the big picture, do Vanilla Marines need a powerful Assaulty unit for cheap? Marines, despite what the fluff and fanon claims, cannot be great at everything. 'Nilla Marines are a gunline, mid-range army with a couple of tricks and some decent support units.

Blood Angels are the Assaulty Marines

Space Wolves are Assaultish Marines with great support.

Dark Angels are the Terminator Marines.


Orks don't shoot accurately.
Dark Eldar don't survive protracted battles.
Tau can't fight CC.

That's Codex Balance. Basic Marines can doubletap with a 2 outta 3 hit ratio, and survive most charges. Terminators can do better, being able to doublefire with a 2 outta 3 hit ratio and initiate the assault, while being damn near unkillable by anything that isn't a dedicated assault squad. Yes, you can take them down with volume of fire, but they save 5/6 basic wounds, and 1/3 of any Power Weapon wounds- and before that, you still have to go through WS4 T4. Not great, but above average- same with Bolters of all stripes. When you make it so that you pay the same price for a unit that has Str8 Power Weapon hits, saves 5/6 normal wounds and 2/3 Power Weapon wounds, you start getting OP- even if they loose their shooting, they should still be more expensive- it's 5 points to give a Meganob a one-use weapon, while effectively halving his Ballistic Skill, so why not a +5 point cost for a Storm Shield?

They don't get a good assault unit for cheap. They get a good anti-deathstar unit for very, very expensive.

Assault Terminators without a transport are absolute rubbish. Yes, they take a lot of shots to die. . . but those shots are available. For 40 points a model, it's worth spending a turn of shooting from a squad of Boyz or a unit of Plague Marines or a Tactical squad to down a model or two. It isn't that hard to kill them, really, and they come in small units. Footslogging they're just meat, so they need a (itself overpriced) Land Raider. . . which means the Marine player ends up paying 450 points for 5 Termies and a large metal box. It's by no means a good deal.

Codex Marines are NOT a competitive army. They're by no means top-tier. The only thing that has kept them from being one of the worse armies in the game, down alongside Tau, is Assault Terminators. I do not believe that nerfing Assault Marines is the proper way to deal with them; I think that buffing the alternative would be much preferable.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
That's certainly a valid point. The point I'm making is that lowering the cost of one does not have particularly greater effects than raising the cost of the other.

Of course it does. If you lower the price of a reasonably priced unit in order to make it compete with another underpriced unit, you're just shifting the problem, not solving it.

Consider; the TH/SS Termie is, essentially, the ONLY dedicated assault unit in the vanilla Marine codex. Assault Marines aren't fighty or resilient enough, and Vanguard Veterans are far too expensive for how effective they are.

This entire sentence is so entirely wrong that I don't know where to go with it. Assault marines are a perfectly reasonable assault unit that does just fine against other reasonable assault units, but loses to deathstar units. Okay, no problem there. Vanguard are an elite assault unit that can hold their own against many other elite assault units and will go through non-dedicated assault units easily. They're also overpriced.

You don't argue that they're not an assault unit because they're overpriced, and, their existence disproves the idea that TH/SS termies are the only assault option in the codex. In addition, as we're (meaninglessly - it's not like these discussions will actually change anything) talking about relative point costs in the marine codex, saying that one thing has to be underpriced because another is overpriced is a foolish argument. Why not propose that both be priced appropriately and acknowledge that there are several different viable options rules-wise that would all be just fine if their prices were corrected.

Vanilla Marines are not spoiled for choice when it comes to assault units. It seems to me, then, that the prospect of making their one truly effective assault unit MORE expensive should be avoided.

I also have another assertion to make; if TH/SS Termies weren't an option, you would see far fewer Termies overall. Terminators do not put out enough shooting to make it worth their current points cost, particularly since they can only have one CML/assault cannon per 5 models. Shooty Termies die farily easily once they are in small-arms range, so you're effectively paying 230 points for two missile launchers. Devastators are cheaper than that, and they're STILL overcosted.

So now you're arguing that half of the marine infantry in the marine codex are overpriced? (you've mentioned Devastators, terminators, assault marines, and vangaurd, leaving sternguard, assault marines, and tacticals). Perhaps they're not overpriced, perhaps they're all reasonably priced, and the failure has been in the underpricing of competing options (Long Fangs) in subsequent codexes.

I would argue then, that Assault Terminators do not need an absolute nerf, they need a nerf RELATIVE to shooty Terminators; and shooty Terminators need an absolute buff. There's two ways I see to do that; reducing the cost of shooty Terminators to 35 ppm, or allowing them to take two CML/assault cannons regardless of unit size.

I disagree that shooty terminators need any adjustment at all, other than not to have to compete against underpriced TH/SS terminators. 40 points per model for a man with a 2+/5+, powerfist and stormbolter is quite reasonable.

BeRzErKeR wrote:They don't get a good assault unit for cheap. They get a good anti-deathstar unit for very, very expensive.

Given that 200 points of TH/SS terminators can handle their own against 500 points of deathstar units, like nob bikers, I'd call that cheap.

Assault Terminators without a transport are absolute rubbish.

I've seen any number of top tournament players use a squad of 10 TH/SS guys on foot, and win plenty of competitive games with them. Given that their only transport choices are land raiders, which in the current metagame are meltagun bait, I'd say they're more effective on foot than in a 250 point transport that gets taken out by 100 points of guardsman without batting an eyelid.

I suppose you know better though.

Codex Marines are NOT a competitive army.

Try telling that to Ben Mohile. Or DarthDiggler. Why should anyone here buy this line you're selling?

They're by no means top-tier. The only thing that has kept them from being one of the worse armies in the game, down alongside Tau, is Assault Terminators.

If by top-tier, you mean 'idiot-button', then you're right. Codex marines require some thought to play. There aren't a lot of overpriced options. On the other hand, good generals keep doing well using them because they're a codex with the tools to be successful. They can bring the assault to the opponent when the opponent outguns them, and they can shoot up an enemy that's going to out-assault them. They don't have a lot of units that can win a game on their own, but they have a lot of cheap answers that prevent their opponent's game-winner unit from doing what it wants to do. TH/SS fit into that, as they're the marine codexes answer to deathstars. But they'd still manage to do that if they cost a few points more.

On the other hand, if they cost a few points more, those players looking to simply ram an assault unit down their opponent's throat in a land raider might consider some of the other reasonably priced units in the codex.

Personally I dislike the gameplay mechanics of a 3++ save let alone in the hands of a cost effective unit like assault terminators. A 2+/3++ save also including a thunder hammer are too good IMO for 40pts. I also dislike how TH/SS terminators changed the way assault units work in 5th (if it wasn’t a TH/SS or could handle TH/SS you didn’t take them). DAaddict has definitely hit the nail on the head in the sense that TH/SS terminators are somewhat an idiot choice at the moment which in turn overshadows other units.

Personally I reckon the +5pts is not the best way to approach this. BA terminators at the moment cost 45pts and from what I gather, the +5pts hasn’t been much of a balancing deterrent (they’re still an auto include). Buffing other units to be as powerful is not a good idea either as outside of the inter-codex balance issues, the codex marine structure is more or less balanced anyway and making certain units stronger would upset this balance (making stronger tactical terminators wouldn’t make people stop selecting TH/SS as they’re still a better buy).

At the moment, the +1Inv save is the best solution I’ve heard so far. Cost wise, the unit would still be worth their 40pts per model price tag as well as still being an ‘ard, effective unit. To make this solution “more complete” though I’d also put a price reduction on Vanguard Veterans to increase player choice when it comes to selecting a dedicated assault unit for a codex SM force.

Sorry... I completely disagree with increasing the cost of TH/SS Termies.

Personally, I think TH/SS are a solid, fairly priced unit. You see them often in Marine lists (I use a unit of 5 at 2K), but they are never a must-take. They are vulnerable to small arms fire and getting swamped by hordes. Yes, they eat enemy deathstars, but they also get destroyed by MSU. That's a pretty fair trade off. A unit that can be used but isn't ALWAYS used is probably a relatively balanced unit.

Compare half of the Vanilla Infantry to other, more recent armies--you quickly discover that while we get cheap TH/SS Termies, we are paying out the nose for everything else. Unless you want to retroactively reduce the cost of Vanilla Devestators, then I don't see the point in jacking up the price of TH/SS.

Shooty Terminators are rarely ever taken in the Vanilla codex not because TH/SS are underpriced, but because the shooty ones are overpriced for the role they fill (durable firesupport with the ability to bully units). I argue they compete more with a regular Tactical Squad than they do with a TH/SS squad. For the same price as 5 Shooty Terminators, you can get a pimped out Tactical Squad and transport. You get about the same amount of shooting, more bodies, a transport, and the ability to hold objectives. That's not a favorable comparison for the Terminators, which is why I don't think they get taken as much. Dropping the price of the CML/Assault Cannon would be much more effective at making Shooty Terminators more viable than nerfing the TH/SS variety. You make that upgrade close to free for every five Terminators, and then you have to actually think about which kind of Terminator you want to take.

Redbeard wrote:
Of course it does. If you lower the price of a reasonably priced unit in order to make it compete with another underpriced unit, you're just shifting the problem, not solving it.

And if you raise the price of a reasonably-priced unit in order to make its overcosted alternative look better by comparison, then you're creating a problem which didn't exist before, while still not solving the original problem.

Redbeard wrote:This entire sentence is so entirely wrong that I don't know where to go with it. Assault marines are a perfectly reasonable assault unit that does just fine against other reasonable assault units, but loses to deathstar units. Okay, no problem there. Vanguard are an elite assault unit that can hold their own against many other elite assault units and will go through non-dedicated assault units easily. They're also overpriced.

You don't argue that they're not an assault unit because they're overpriced, and, their existence disproves the idea that TH/SS termies are the only assault option in the codex. In addition, as we're (meaninglessly - it's not like these discussions will actually change anything) talking about relative point costs in the marine codex, saying that one thing has to be underpriced because another is overpriced is a foolish argument. Why not propose that both be priced appropriately and acknowledge that there are several different viable options rules-wise that would all be just fine if their prices were corrected.

All right, then allow me to rephrase; in my experience, based on playing games against codex Marines with Orks (several dozen times, at least) and CSM (perhaps 8-10 times), as well as playing (very few) games as codex marines myself, neither vanguard veterans nor assault marines are anything like effective as assault units, certainly not effective enough to be worth their points cost. Assault Marines do NOT do fine against 'other reasonable assault units'; they barely win combat against plain old Ork Boyz, even when charging, and Ork Boyz are anything but a deathstar. They barely even qualify as a bully unit, because even against a basic CSM squad they'll take almost as many casualties as they inflict, and against Plague Marines, another very common troops choice that does not qualify by any means as a deathstar, they may as well not have bothered to bring any model except a PF Sergeant. Assault Marines suck as assault troops. Their one and only saving grace is mobility, and that still isn't enough to rescue them. Honestly, my assessment of the skill of my opponent drops when I see Assault Marines across the table from me.

Vanguard Veterans are even worse. They have a few more attacks, and they CAN be kitted out as a respectable assault unit, but doing so is so expensive that I've honestly never seen anyone bother. Furthermore, they're too fragile to withstand any amount of shooting at all. They're a glass hammer, and the glass comes pre-cracked.

Redbeard wrote:
So now you're arguing that half of the marine infantry in the marine codex are overpriced? (you've mentioned Devastators, terminators, assault marines, and vangaurd, leaving sternguard, assault marines, and tacticals). Perhaps they're not overpriced, perhaps they're all reasonably priced, and the failure has been in the underpricing of competing options (Long Fangs) in subsequent codexes.

Yes. That is, indeed, what I'm arguing.

'Overpriced', 'underpriced' and 'reasonably priced' are entirely relative terms. Easily half the armies in the game get better units that do the same job for less points; that makes Space Marines overpriced. Changing one army to correct the relative expense is easier and, I would say, better for game balance than changing six or seven other army books to stay in balance with it. That's what I mean when I say 'overpriced'; they are at a relative disadvantage against a majority of competing armies, because the balance of the game has changed.

Redbeard wrote:
I disagree that shooty terminators need any adjustment at all, other than not to have to compete against underpriced TH/SS terminators. 40 points per model for a man with a 2+/5+, powerfist and stormbolter is quite reasonable.

Clearly it isn't, since nobody takes them. According to the only measure that actually matters, 40 points is too much to pay for a model with a 2+/5++, power fist, and storm bolter. Hell, look at CSM Terminators; they cost 40 points with a power fist, have only very slightly less firepower with combi-bolters as opposed to storm bolters, and are never taken without close-combat weapons (such as dual LCs) except for the purpose of Termicide. So even WITHOUT the competition of TH/SS Termies, 40 points seems to be too much.

Redbeard wrote:
Given that 200 points of TH/SS terminators can handle their own against 500 points of deathstar units, like nob bikers, I'd call that cheap.

If you are walking 5 Assault Terminators, and I am running a 500-point unit of Nob Bikers, I guarantee that the two units will NEVER engage in close combat unless I've already killed 3 of those Termies with shooting. If you're not walking them, on the other hand, you're actually talking about a 450 point unit of Assault Terminators which happen to have two lascannons attached; which is to say that even at the one job they are specifically designed for, Assault Terminators barely have a points advantage over a deathstar that's capable of fighting a much wider variety of units successfully, and still has the option to leave and go kill something else faster than the Termies can follow, even in their metal box.

Redbeard wrote:
I've seen any number of top tournament players use a squad of 10 TH/SS guys on foot, and win plenty of competitive games with them. Given that their only transport choices are land raiders, which in the current metagame are meltagun bait, I'd say they're more effective on foot than in a 250 point transport that gets taken out by 100 points of guardsman without batting an eyelid.

I suppose you know better though.

I don't 'know' anything. I am speaking from my own experience. I'll be the first to admit that I have not played against many top tournament players, and I can only talk about my local area; however, I can say that I'm puzzled as to how ten terminators on foot manage to get into combat without losing at least four or five to shooting on the way in. That's a 400 point footslogging unit, comprised of 10 1-wound models with a 2+ save against small arms; it might as well be wearing a big 'shoot me' sign.

The fact that a top-tier tournament player can win with a unit does not make it a good unit. It makes him a good general. Assault Terminators are an excellent unit, properly supported and transported; if they aren't, they're not. That doesn't mean a good player can't win using them, but it does mean that doing so will be a lot harder than it would have been otherwise.

Redbeard wrote:
Try telling that to Ben Mohile. Or DarthDiggler. Why should anyone here buy this line you're selling?

No reason. What I'm saying is based purely off of what I've seen on the table; and what I've seen, whenever Assault Terminators are run on foot, is them getting shot up turn after turn after turn, and finally reaching assault range with too few models to win. You may well have seen something different; ok. What that would seem to indicate, to me, is that there's a different metagame prevailing in our different areas. There's two game stores where I tend to play, maybe once a week or a little more often, and I consistently see Assault Terminators vaporizing as soon as they're on foot. Even in Land Raiders, they're practically one-shot-and-done unit, because they tend to die as soon as they win the assault. If you have a different experience, that's interesting.

Redbeard wrote:
If by top-tier, you mean 'idiot-button', then you're right. Codex marines require some thought to play. There aren't a lot of overpriced options. On the other hand, good generals keep doing well using them because they're a codex with the tools to be successful. They can bring the assault to the opponent when the opponent outguns them, and they can shoot up an enemy that's going to out-assault them. They don't have a lot of units that can win a game on their own, but they have a lot of cheap answers that prevent their opponent's game-winner unit from doing what it wants to do. TH/SS fit into that, as they're the marine codexes answer to deathstars. But they'd still manage to do that if they cost a few points more.

On the other hand, if they cost a few points more, those players looking to simply ram an assault unit down their opponent's throat in a land raider might consider some of the other reasonably priced units in the codex.

If by 'idiot-button' you mean Blood Angels, Space Wolves, and Grey Knights. . . then no, that's not what I mean. If you include Orks, Dark Eldar, and even Chaos Space Marines in 'idiot-button' then, well, we have a different perspective on the game.

Codex Marines require much more thought than the majority of the other armies in the game, to achieve a result that is only just as good. That's practically the definition of an inferior army. They don't have any cost-effective specialists, with the sole exception of Assault Terminators; they can do anything a little, but nothing WELL.They have all the tools for the job, but their screwdriver is about a quarter-inch too big and their hammer's head is loose.

Making Assault Terminators cost more would make the army worse. They're already not great, why do that to them? Making shooty Terminators either cheaper or more flexible, on the other hand, would have the same effect of providing a viable alternative to Assault Termies, while also making the army marginally better. What's the problem with that?