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.

What is it with people running full 10x + attached character squads, loyalist or heretic, of Terminators?

For the 5th game (all different opponents) in a row now I've faced these huge point sink units that generally just don't put out enough damage.
1 UM player used them well & held a key objective/area of the board.
The other 4 (DA, Iron Hand, & CSM x2)? All went offensive, DS them, often into sub-optimal areas thanks to being screened (its not easy to place 11 40mm bases) or just poor target selection, largely failed to cause enough damage wether shooting or melee, & then I simply ran away from them.

I don't see the draw of investing that many pts into such huge & generally lackluster units.

Now if any of my opponents were doing so because either A) Theme!, B) "Termies are my favorite units/models"?
Then I'd get it. I'm all for playing models for those reasons. I do it all the time.
But I know that's not the case....
So why?

Anyone else noticing people doing this?

No.

Don't think I've seen a single Terminator on the opposite side of the table all of 10th Edition (Custode Termies sometimes, I guess, but even those rarely).

Edit: Maybe some Wrath of the Lion DWKs. But even the last of those like 6+ months ago.

A big brick of 10 paladins is how you play GK nowadays. But in general, I can imagine people really like and want to use terminators. I had friends who tried to play full terminator DW armies as late as the DA codex release.

Deathwing Knights are one of the toughest nuts to crack, with 4 wounds and damage reduction, and then some extra stuff depending on detachment. So, they're good.

Scarab Occult Terminators will likely vaporize whatever they target since, with an almost-requisite attached character, will be able to cast two spells before they even start shooting. So, they're pretty good, too.

Honestly, like many things in the game, it's not the unit that's bad, it's how you use them.

ccs wrote:
What is it with people running full 10x + attached character squads, loyalist or heretic, of Terminators?

For the 5th game (all different opponents) in a row now I've faced these huge point sink units that generally just don't put out enough damage.
1 UM player used them well & held a key objective/area of the board.
The other 4 (DA, Iron Hand, & CSM x2)? All went offensive, DS them, often into sub-optimal areas thanks to being screened (its not easy to place 11 40mm bases) or just poor target selection, largely failed to cause enough damage wether shooting or melee, & then I simply ran away from them.

I don't see the draw of investing that many pts into such huge & generally lackluster units.

Now if any of my opponents were doing so because either A) Theme!, B) "Termies are my favorite units/models"?
Then I'd get it. I'm all for playing models for those reasons. I do it all the time.
But I know that's not the case....
So why?

Anyone else noticing people doing this?

The part you are not seeing is that durability has a value. Terminators are great for holding objectives, closing choke points and denying parts of the board. They can also deep strike into your opponent's deployment zone, clearing out all the usual objective holders and score extra VP secondaries/agendas while there. A brick of terminators with a decent character and a defensive stratagem usually is sufficient to take and hold the middle objective for a turn or two unless the opponent is well equipped to kill them.
Judging from the experiences you share of your game group, it's fairly safe to assume that these players just lack the skills to properly utilize terminators.

Nah, terminators. Especialy the regular ones are bad. a str 4 ap0 basic weapon and low number of A is not good. The good terminators in 10th, always were a combination of too cheap for what they do, or rules stacking uppon rules stacking. DG terminators were extremly oppresive at a point. 1ks terminators aren't just dude with a bolter and power weapon. Paladins, the same. And sometimes, if someone plays the 1st company or DW, it is what you have so you play with it. But even in a "wing" heavy force after the obligatory sm stuff, I don't think there would be space for something like 5 regular DW terminators. Even assault ones are pushing it, because if you take them this means you need a 4th storm shield terminator units. At that point we are beyond 2000pts and entering the fables "narrative play" zone. I would not dare weighting most units/play styles in those type of games.

I am aiming to run 10x chaos termies with a lord, in a Warpstrike Champions detachment with the Eye of the Warp on the lord.

My plan is to deepstrike in, get bonuses to charge rolls, then disappear again to do it all over again. I am now rejiggering the list to change it to Ashkar's Binding Runes, to allow them to Deepstrike in on turn 1, because I think an entire turn of additional damage is better than a re-rollable 9" charge every turn.

Why 10 of them? Because I'm making a Highlander list and can only have 1 unit. If I were making this list for another type of game, I would have 2 units of 5, for the flexibility in holding objectives. There's the useful buff of reducing the CP of a stratagem on the entire unit by 1 from the lord, which significantly improves things which affect the whole squad, but the lord doesn't give any unit-wide buffs (like an Ork Warboss does) which promotes having the huge unit. Time will tell if they just end up being a blast-magnet!

I used Assault Termies on my last game. They seem worth the points, as long as you mix LC & TH models for a decent number of attacks. However, they still die to a mob of 20 Boyz lead by a Warboss, so you need to be careful with them.

Regular terminators however? Garbage, not worth the points.

Not sure I've really seen what the OP is talking about. If I had to offer an explanation it would be that Terminators are cool. Combine that with them being in the launch box for 10th edition making them easy to get a hold of and you end up with more of them being played. Some Terminators have been pretty good during this edition. Death Wing Knights were an absolute menace for a long time and there have been successful WE lists using 20-30 Terminators before their Codex changed their rules interactions.

Terminators are kind of a good indicator of many of the problems of 10th edition, I think. They're supposed to be durable elites but in practice they are neither hard to kill nor particularly good at anything. As the edition has gone on, T5 and W3 has become a less and less useful defensive profile. There are too many S6+ weapons with multiple attacks and D3 for Terminators to survive without the sort of extreme defensive ability stacking DWKs had.

Then there's the problem Terminators have always had, regardless of edition. Having mediocre shooting and slightly above average melee on an expensive and slow unit is just never going to be good. Deathwatch Terminators are actually good, but they can take 3 heavy weapons in a squad of 5 guys, so they have impactful firepower. Assault Terminators at least specialise in one area, so can be balanced around that and they have occasionally been pretty decent. Regular Terminators are almost always underwhelming.

Indomitus Terminators used to be brutal in 2 first editions of the game. Then, something happened to the rules and they've been underwhelming save for the Assault variety. Dunno how to fix them for the modern editions. They certainly would deserve to be useful though, as its an iconic looking unit

Assuming you mean -regular- Terminators, rule of cool is absolutely the answer. They're not good at all.

I dunno how they are in 10th, but I just think the models are cool.

in 3rd-5th being able to fire two shots instead of one, while still moving, and having 2+ armor save made them a more consistent output of firepower compared to an equal points of tactical squads, with more durability.

I always remember the old ones having the ability to move and fire as if they were stationary, and being incredibly durable because saves weren't modified, and AP2 was comparatively rare, so they got 2+ all the time until they didn't!

Halving AP against them or something similar would bring back their old fashioned feel, I think.

After 3rd, rapid fire got better every edition while assault stayed the same. So early on in that era, their stormbolters represented a chunk of mobile firepower that was otherwise hard to get. Later, they were only marginally better then a basic bolter. Now they can at least drop a ton of shots downrange, which can be good if you can apply a leader or strat to leverage that volume of fire.

Their 2+ (and later 5++) was not bad in 3rd. But it did not take long for AP2 to be handed out like candy, and we ended up paying a lot for armor that was ignored half the time. For being billed as a durable anchor unit, they never were. Big guns with the AP would just knife though them, and small arms were still shooting T4 1W marines, so just dumped fire into them (which they had the volume for) and watched the ones come up. The only thing they were “tough” against was low volume non-AP2 shots. So krack missiles?

The 8th+ edition with armor mods and better T/W made them feel sturdy again. Probably the best they have been since they were making armor saves on 2d6.

Deathwatch terminators get 3 missles launchers for each group of 5 is my answer, but I don't think that's what the OP is talking about.

Bring back the 3+ save on 2D6

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Bring back the 3+ save on 2D6

3+ with 1d12 is better for gameplay.

BanjoJohn wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Bring back the 3+ save on 2D6

3+ with 1d12 is better for gameplay.

It also behaves completely differently statistically.

Not saying the idea doesn’t haver merit, but at this point anything but a d6 (and occasionally a d3) is taboo in 40k.

Terminator durability is absolutely fine. They just don't actually accomplish anything.

BanjoJohn wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Bring back the 3+ save on 2D6

3+ with 1d12 is better for gameplay.

Yeah. 3+ on 2d6 would be a hassle to roll if you take a lot of wounds with an AP in the -1 to -8 range. AP0 and AP-9 or better (which, you know, doesn't exist) can be fast rolled, but any other value cannot.

BanjoJohn wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Bring back the 3+ save on 2D6

3+ with 1d12 is better for gameplay.

For speed rolling yes - but it completely changes the save profile.

No mod? 2d6 97%, D12 83%
-1? 2d6 92%, D12 75%
-2? 2d6 83%, D12 67%
-3? 2d6 72%, D12 58%
-4? 2d6 58%, D12 50%
-5? 2d6 42%, D12 42%
-6? 2d6 28%, D12 33%

 LunarSol wrote:
Deathwatch terminators get 3 missles launchers for each group of 5 is my answer, but I don't think that's what the OP is talking about.

Well, 3 cyclones per unit, not just per 5 models.

3 small units each with 3 cyclones & 2 CC termies would've certainly worked better than what I've faced in 4/5 of my recent games.
Might have even been able to DS into my backfield.

Even a full squad with 3 cyclones would've been better. Srill too expensive, but least they'd be a credible threat while grossly out of position/hoofing it towards the action.

It would also require my Imperial opponents to remember that Death Watch/Imperial Agents/Legends are options....

The_Real_Chris wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Bring back the 3+ save on 2D6

3+ with 1d12 is better for gameplay.

For speed rolling yes - but it completely changes the save profile.

No mod? 2d6 97%, D12 83%
-1? 2d6 92%, D12 75%
-2? 2d6 83%, D12 67%
-3? 2d6 72%, D12 58%
-4? 2d6 58%, D12 50%
-5? 2d6 42%, D12 42%
-6? 2d6 28%, D12 33%

How much more expensive would you make Terminators, then?
They save against Lascannons better than a model with a 3+ Invuln.

BanjoJohn wrote:I dunno how they are in 10th, but I just think the models are cool.

in 3rd-5th being able to fire two shots instead of one, while still moving, and having 2+ armor save made them a more consistent output of firepower compared to an equal points of tactical squads, with more durability.

some bloke wrote:I always remember the old ones having the ability to move and fire as if they were stationary, and being incredibly durable because saves weren't modified, and AP2 was comparatively rare, so they got 2+ all the time until they didn't!

Halving AP against them or something similar would bring back their old fashioned feel, I think.

Are we remembering the same Terminators?

I am remembering a unit where you paid 40 points per model to get twice the durability against small arms (2+ vs 3+) over tacticals, for well over double the price. They were far more vulnerable to mass attacks than tacticals were.

What you really got for that price was the power fist, which was cool and all, but not really all that useful on the model.

In 3rd terminators were good for mobile firepower, but fell behind on durability per point vs. normal marines.

Now they have the durabilty, but not the firepower.

Same unit, different lives.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Bring back the 3+ save on 2D6

3+ with 1d12 is better for gameplay.

For speed rolling yes - but it completely changes the save profile.

No mod? 2d6 97%, D12 83%
-1? 2d6 92%, D12 75%
-2? 2d6 83%, D12 67%
-3? 2d6 72%, D12 58%
-4? 2d6 58%, D12 50%
-5? 2d6 42%, D12 42%
-6? 2d6 28%, D12 33%

Yes, you are right, but one of the things you are forgetting is that the points cost of both distributions would be different.

Points cost for a terminator rolling 3+ on 1d12 would be less points than a terminator rolling 3+ on 2d6.

You don't need the exact same statistical distribution, you just need a mechanic that works well, and give it appropriate points cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:I dunno how they are in 10th, but I just think the models are cool.

in 3rd-5th being able to fire two shots instead of one, while still moving, and having 2+ armor save made them a more consistent output of firepower compared to an equal points of tactical squads, with more durability.

some bloke wrote:I always remember the old ones having the ability to move and fire as if they were stationary, and being incredibly durable because saves weren't modified, and AP2 was comparatively rare, so they got 2+ all the time until they didn't!

Halving AP against them or something similar would bring back their old fashioned feel, I think.

Are we remembering the same Terminators?

I am remembering a unit where you paid 40 points per model to get twice the durability against small arms (2+ vs 3+) over tacticals, for well over double the price. They were far more vulnerable to mass attacks than tacticals were.

What you really got for that price was the power fist, which was cool and all, but not really all that useful on the model.

2+ save vs 3+ save
40 points vs 15 points
move and fire a missile launcher, dont move to shoot a missile launcher
move and fire 2 shots per storm bolter, dont move and fire once at 24" or move and fire twice at 12"
5+ invulnerable save, no invulnerable save (but maybe cover save)
2 attacks base with or without power fist/sword, 1 attacks base without any weapons
deep strike teleportation deployment, no deep strike (unless you do drop pod deployment for the entire army)

Terminators could do more, and costed more, and you kinda had to use them for shooting and combat to make the most, tacticals you could just leave in a spot and shoot with them to get the most of them.

the main reason they used 2D6 rather than 1d12 in 2nd edition was GW don't sell D12s

Plus the game was a lot smaller scale back then, armies were typically half the size you'd see in 3rd edition, so having neat unique effects like terminators saving on 2D6 or Shokk Attack Misfire charts or an expansive psychic phase wasn't nearly as disruptive as it would be with armies twice the size regularly able to field 20+ terminators.

Terminators have been bad since 3rd. A lot of people forget that they only got their Crux Terminatus invulnerable save in a chapter approved article, before that Plasmaguns would melt them easily, and even after that they haven't really been fantastic for the points. But they're cool models, and people love Space Hulk.

Personally I love Terminators, I fielded a bunch of them even before Death Guard got two distinct flavours of them, but that's because I've always liked small, tough, elite infantry armies and Terminators are the epitome of that.

I’m not sure how many polyhedral dice made the shift from RT to 2nd. Did any? I know they were all over the place in Rouge Trader, especially armor penetration checks.

It is indeed amazing how terminators, one of the coolest marine units, have remained bad for eight consecutive editions of the game! I am not exactly holding my breath for GW fixing them in the 11th. And as as nice as the new models are, I wish GW would have actually primarised their weaponry and given them something more effective than a regular storm bolters.

Still, I am painting a unit right now. I promised myself I finish more or the Leviathan box models before getting the Armageddon box.

D4s, D6s, D20s and D10s for weapon damage mostly.

A couple of weapons used D12s but there werent many (Multimeltas, Rough Rider Hunting Lances and Boneswords are the only ones that come to mind) and even then I don't think GW sold them, you were just kind of expected to have them from somewhere else