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.
Why are we having this discussion here where the original multi page thread about terminator is already on the same page with the same suggestions/arguments?
The thing with Meganobz is that they don't have to pay 250 points to get where they need to be. Trukks, while fragile, lets them get where they need to be without breaking the bank. Yes, TH/SS Terminators will slaughter them, but the Terminators aren't getting anywhere without a Land Raider, and they're more expensive than the MANz to boot.
On the flip-side, again, marines can (and generally do) have a vastly different playstyle than Orks. You don't charge across the field screaming WWAAAAGGGH! with marginal gun-fire support before getting into CC to make-it-or-break-it, quite the opposite in fact. Marines are generally there to shoot things, not beat their skills in. In essence you're still looking at terminators wrong; they're not your hammer, they're the anvil.
Use them to handle threats which actually reach your line. Depending on how you equip them their combined strength of decent ranged firepower and nasty CC potential means they can wipe out such threats with few to no losses, moving from one target to the next and making sure the rest of your army does its thing relatively unhindered. They can also take on non death-star (but still scary) threats and generally trade effectively with them, though that again boils down to how they're kitted out. Terminators can even use deep-strike to get where they need to be, and with homers they can do it without scattering.
I'm not saying the units are the exact same because they're not, but they most certainly fill a similar niche. And all this whining about how termies are just so god-awful is really grating because they truly are not. People just imagine they should be able to throw this 200-500 point unit against the entire enemy army and gak-stomp them, but then get upset when it doesn't work that way. They use terminators wrong and then blame them instead of themselves. Heck, I'm not even saying terminators are a great call in every list against every foe, lord knows MANZ are not. They do however have a role which they are good at, and they even have the tools to do it. People just want them to do another roll and become upset when they cannot.
Terminators need a buff, but +1 Wound is not the way to go. Also, comparing them to Meganobz doesn't work. Meganobz come from the Ork codex: They're naturally tough, resilient, and choppy. They bully weaker units, but crumple like wet toilet paper against genuinely strong enemies. As with all Ork things, they're better against weak enemies but worse against strong ones.
If you want them to be equal, fine. Give me a Warboss with 4 Wounds, a 3++ Invuln, and 2+ Armor even when he's on his bike. Thank you very much.
That would be drastically overpowered. T5 2W models with 2+5++ for 40 points? Heck, with the damage output available that's overpowered for 60 points. At 80 it would be reasonable. Plus, what happens when we import this to CSM? Do we give the Mark of Nurgle for T6?
Not to mention, then you'll have 5W T5 Chapter Masters. Is that what you really want?
That would be drastically overpowered. T5 2W models with 2+5++ for 40 points? Heck, with the damage output available that's overpowered for 60 points. At 80 it would be reasonable. Plus, what happens when we import this to CSM? Do we give the Mark of Nurgle for T6?
Not to mention, then you'll have 5W T5 Chapter Masters. Is that what you really want?
So as it is, terminators are drastically overpriced for what they do, what would make them more effective for what they cost points wise?
That would be drastically overpowered. T5 2W models with 2+5++ for 40 points? Heck, with the damage output available that's overpowered for 60 points. At 80 it would be reasonable. Plus, what happens when we import this to CSM? Do we give the Mark of Nurgle for T6?
Not to mention, then you'll have 5W T5 Chapter Masters. Is that what you really want?
So as it is, terminators are drastically overpriced for what they do, what would make them more effective for what they cost points wise?
Frankly, I don't feel like you can make many changes to Terminators that would fix them without a complete overhaul. They could be cheaper, but at this point, we're just treating a symptom, and the disease rages on. The fish rots from the head, as they say, so my thinking is why not cut off the head?
...
It's not a perfect metaphor.
Anyways, Terminators as they currently stand don't really have a role. They deal marginal shooting damage, and while they can be upgraded to have a little more it's certainly not their forte. They can put out plenty of S8 AP2 in Close Combat, but at only 3 attacks each on the charge, they aren't dealing massive amounts of damage. They can also take a variant to deal better damage, either with more attacks at Initiative (but with lower damage) or with a 3++ invuln and Concussive, but then they lose all ranged capacity. Their real problem is that their damage output just isn't up to snuff compared to most focused units these days, (Especially ones with the appropriate buffs,) and they are paying for durability that is almost irrelevant since their damage output is nil and their points cost is high.
With 2 Wounds and T5, or even just 2W, they would need a price hike for the durability. 10 Points just for the wound seems likely, since 5 isn't near enough for that kind of boost and GW rarely does things in 7s and 8s once you're past 30 points or so. But, no matter how durable you make them, you're still going to have marginal and pathetic damage output, and there is no real way to change that without drastically altering their stats and wargear options.
Making them have 2 Wounds will make them frustrating and annoying to play against, but not make them good.
I think the problem is that while the rules have advanced past the edition where Terminators were deadly in whatever role you assigned them, their rules weren't updated to suit the newer editions.
Honestly, give standard terminators two wounds wouldn't be insane, if they cost as much as paladins do. Of course, you have to factor in that they don't get the same sort of equipment selections that paladins do, so does it warrant a 50-60 ppm? Honestly, a higher toughness and maybe a better invulnerable save would make more sense, or maybe just one of the two.
Whoever mentioned before that people just play them wrong isn't completely incorrect. I've seen guys read the fluff behind them assuming their stats are commiserate with the power they display in the fluff, only to have them erased by shooting from a Gaunt squad. I think it's important to remember that terminators aren't supposed to be unstoppable, but a hard nut to crack or a wedge to open up a hole in enemies lines even more so.
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)
All this talk of giving terminators a better invul, better gear options, higher toughness, and usually an extra wound into the equation all at the same time are absolutely insane.
Terminators aren't supposed to roll over armies all on their own, and trying to buff them so that they can is pretty silly.
Ashiraya wrote: Slippery slope fallacies won't convince anyone that they are fine.
Nobody has ever argued that they should roll over armies alone.
Which they won't, not even with all the buffs you mentioned.
Making terminators immune to small arms fire, which seems to be the biggest "want" here is one thing and a very dangerous thing at that. What am I supposed to do as an ork player against terminators if they get an extra wound or toughness 5? The only real strategy available to me at present is drowning them in boyz, and while that certainly works I'm not exactly thrilled at having to throw 30 boyz (+ nob) at 5 models and have a combat which soaks up several turns as a result. Giving terminators toughness or wound buffs would largely invalidate this strategy, and when it's gone what do I have left? As was already mentioned, terminators of all flavors (but particularly assault) brutalize my "elite" melee units. What's supposed to be my recourse, as an ork player, to terminators which have the one reliable weakness they have against me taken away?
This isn't a slippery slope fallacy, it's a legitimate point. Terminators have strengths and weaknesses, they have a niche. Just because that niche isn't useful against every list or every codex does not make them bad.
What would be the compensation of taking away one of their weaknesses which so many armies absolutely rely on to beat them? How exactly would you counter-act this to make sure that it remains enjoyable and fair to all parties involve? It seems that the most common requests are +1 toughness, +1 wound, and a more reliable invulnerable save. And, from where I'm sitting, any two of those buffs looks like it absolutely removes my ability to fight terminators in anything resembling an efficient matter, and I know I'm not the only one.
Making terminators immune to small arms fire, which seems to be the biggest "want" here is one thing and a very dangerous thing at that.
No suggested changes will make them immune.
morganfreeman wrote: What am I supposed to do as an ork player against terminators if they get an extra wound or toughness 5? The only real strategy available to me at present is drowning them in boyz, and while that certainly works I'm not exactly thrilled at having to throw 30 boyz (+ nob) at 5 models and have a combat which soaks up several turns as a result.
30 Boyz and a PK nob currently curbstomps 5 Terminators. 30 boys is 120 attacks is 60 hits is 30 wounds is 5 failed saves. This is assuming the charge and no casualties, but it does exclude the Nob, and you still wiped them out in one round of combat. (Plus, 30 boyz with a PK nob is what, 215 points? 5 Termies is 200 points, and the Boyz still wipe them out on the charge...)
morganfreeman wrote: Giving terminators toughness or wound buffs would largely invalidate this strategy, and when it's gone what do I have left? As was already mentioned, terminators of all flavors (but particularly assault) brutalize my "elite" melee units. What's supposed to be my recourse, as an ork player, to terminators which have the one reliable weakness they have against me taken away?
Oh dear, you mean the majority of the units in your codex are cost effective, instead of almost all? That's just dreadful. You'll have to use kustom mega kannons, or maybe even drown them in boyz which will still be a points-effective tactic.
morganfreeman wrote: This isn't a slippery slope fallacy, it's a legitimate point. Terminators have strengths and weaknesses, they have a niche. Just because that niche isn't useful against every list or every codex does not make them bad.
They have a niche, that is, doing very little before dying to almost everything that's not AP3. I'll admit they have this niche. But it's not a fun niche, nor is it very exciting gamewise. Thus they can use a few fixes.
What would be the compensation of taking away one of their weaknesses which so many armies absolutely rely on to beat them? How exactly would you counter-act this to make sure that it remains enjoyable and fair to all parties involve? It seems that the most common requests are +1 toughness, +1 wound, and a more reliable invulnerable save. And, from where I'm sitting, any two of those buffs looks like it absolutely removes my ability to fight terminators in anything resembling an efficient matter, and I know I'm not the only one.
Just +1 toughness or +1 wound would do miles and would leave the tactics you currently use merely adequate instead of lethal.
What a shame.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To clarify, you are saying that tactics are the way to go. But there are no useful Terminator tactics. They are useful for tanking AP3, that is all. This is depressing for a unit whose entire premise is tanking things. They can bully weaker units, but which SM unit can't do that? It's pointless to use tactics with them since they are mediocre on the best of days. Their offense does not match their price, their defence does not match their price, their mobility does not match their price, and altogether it makes a unit that is distinctly sub-par.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/07/22 22:58:05
I should think of a new signature... In the meantime, have a
Making terminators immune to small arms fire, which seems to be the biggest "want" here is one thing and a very dangerous thing at that.
No suggested changes will make them immune.
morganfreeman wrote: What am I supposed to do as an ork player against terminators if they get an extra wound or toughness 5? The only real strategy available to me at present is drowning them in boyz, and while that certainly works I'm not exactly thrilled at having to throw 30 boyz (+ nob) at 5 models and have a combat which soaks up several turns as a result.
30 Boyz and a PK nob currently curbstomps 5 Terminators. 30 boys is 120 attacks is 60 hits is 30 wounds is 5 failed saves. This is assuming the charge and no casualties, but it does exclude the Nob, and you still wiped them out in one round of combat. (Plus, 30 boyz with a PK nob is what, 215 points? 5 Termies is 200 points, and the Boyz still wipe them out on the charge...)
morganfreeman wrote: Giving terminators toughness or wound buffs would largely invalidate this strategy, and when it's gone what do I have left? As was already mentioned, terminators of all flavors (but particularly assault) brutalize my "elite" melee units. What's supposed to be my recourse, as an ork player, to terminators which have the one reliable weakness they have against me taken away?
Oh dear, you mean the majority of the units in your codex are cost effective, instead of almost all? That's just dreadful. You'll have to use kustom mega kannons, or maybe even drown them in boyz which will still be a points-effective tactic.
morganfreeman wrote: This isn't a slippery slope fallacy, it's a legitimate point. Terminators have strengths and weaknesses, they have a niche. Just because that niche isn't useful against every list or every codex does not make them bad.
They have a niche, that is, doing very little before dying to almost everything that's not AP3. I'll admit they have this niche. But it's not a fun niche, nor is it very exciting gamewise. Thus they can use a few fixes.
What would be the compensation of taking away one of their weaknesses which so many armies absolutely rely on to beat them? How exactly would you counter-act this to make sure that it remains enjoyable and fair to all parties involve? It seems that the most common requests are +1 toughness, +1 wound, and a more reliable invulnerable save. And, from where I'm sitting, any two of those buffs looks like it absolutely removes my ability to fight terminators in anything resembling an efficient matter, and I know I'm not the only one.
Just +1 toughness or +1 wound would do miles and would leave the tactics you currently use merely adequate instead of lethal.
What a shame.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To clarify, you are saying that tactics are the way to go. But there are no useful Terminator tactics. They are useful for tanking AP3, that is all. This is depressing for a unit whose entire premise is tanking things. They can bully weaker units, but which SM unit can't do that? It's pointless to use tactics with them since they are mediocre on the best of days. Their offense does not match their price, their defence does not match their price, their mobility does not match their price, and altogether it makes a unit that is distinctly sub-par.
I'm not gonna go through with the quotes-on-quotes boxes, because I don't fond Dakka's layout very friendly to that sort of thing. So bullet points it is.
1: I can kill an Imperial Knight with naught but a waboss with a klaw on the charge if the dice gods decide they really like me that day, yet that does not mean it is anything near a reliable strategy. When I say "immune" to small arms fire I don't mean immune in the definitive sense of it can never possibly hurt them. However making terminators toughness five wounds two would make them essentially immune to small-arms in a real-world scenario. Sure, you have a chance to kill them with lasguns / bolt guns / shootas / what have you, but the volume of fire needed is so massive that it's not generally worth it to try.
2: In order to get 120 attacks out of my boyz when they charge a unit of terminators I have to be forming a very nice concave around them, have suffered 0 casualties to shooting (and not suffer any to overwatch), and roll very well on the charge dice. In order for these conditions to be met, the terminators would have had the opportunity to charge me in the previous turn and decided to just stand in one spot and not shoot at my boyz. If the terminators charge they cut out 25% of the attacks, reducing all the other numbers by 25%. Furthermore, you essentially can't get 30 boyz to all strike against 5 termies, so let's be generous and say you get 20 into combat. That further reduces the failed saves to much more manageable levels. The final twist? Challenge out the Nob and you will have a good chance of killing him if you have a termy assault squad; the people I know who run assault termies equip the sergeant with lighting claws specifically so he can crunch lots of things in challenges, and with those claws he will reliably kill the nob.
You can throw numbers at me all you like, but that doesn't mean they're the truth. Just because 30 boyz and an unchallenged nob statistically beat a group of termies to death when they do not have to consider things such as B2B contact, getting shot before they got there, and need to be in ideal conditions which would require the enemy to refuse to charge the previous turn does not make terminators bad. Lots of things are bad if you look at raw numbers in the worst scenarios for them (MANZ come to mind as a great example), but in reality they do much better.
When you consider real-world conditions and that boyz now kill themselves when they lose combat, terminators are actually cost effective against boyz. A truly shocking notion.
EDIT: This has devolved, and I'll have no further part in it. My point still stands. It is my opinion that Terminators are simply misused, and the couple of players I know who field them do so with decent effect. I am truly sorry if you disagree and take offence at my opinion, but I am entitled to it just as you are to yours.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/23 01:04:00
I'm getting really tired of people saying "you're just not using them right/TACTICS!" when it comes to crap units. By that logic, any unit in the game can be effective, even Flayed Ones and Pyrovores, so long as you "play them right."
That does not change the face that the units are utter sh!t and others units in the same army can do their job far better.
The burden should be on GW to write better rules, not the players.
EDIT: This has devolved, and I'll have no further part in it. My point still stands. It is my opinion that Terminators are simply misused, and the couple of players I know who field them do so with decent effect. I am truly sorry if you disagree and take offence at my opinion, but I am entitled to it just as you are to yours.
Ah yes, the old "only my opinion" defense. Why is it only those that are losing the argument always resort to it?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/07/23 02:09:07
GW: "We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants"
morganfreeman wrote: EDIT: This has devolved, and I'll have no further part in it. My point still stands. It is my opinion that Terminators are simply misused, and the couple of players I know who field them do so with decent effect. I am truly sorry if you disagree and take offence at my opinion, but I am entitled to it just as you are to yours.
Ah yes, the old "only my opinion" defense. Why is it only those that are losing the argument always resort to it?
morganfreeman wrote: EDIT: This has devolved, and I'll have no further part in it. My point still stands. It is my opinion that Terminators are simply misused, and the couple of players I know who field them do so with decent effect. I am truly sorry if you disagree and take offence at my opinion, but I am entitled to it just as you are to yours.
Ah yes, the old "only my opinion" defense. Why is it only those that are losing the argument always resort to it?
Well, you just lost all respect...
...Do I know you?
GW: "We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants"
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: I'm getting really tired of people saying "you're just not using them right/TACTICS!" when it comes to crap units. By that logic, any unit in the game can be effective, even Flayed Ones and Pyrovores, so long as you "play them right."
That does not change the face that the units are utter sh!t and others units in the same army can do their job far better.
The burden should be on GW to write better rules, not the players.
EDIT: This has devolved, and I'll have no further part in it. My point still stands. It is my opinion that Terminators are simply misused, and the couple of players I know who field them do so with decent effect. I am truly sorry if you disagree and take offence at my opinion, but I am entitled to it just as you are to yours.
Ah yes, the old "only my opinion" defense. Why is it only those that are losing the argument always resort to it?
This is the proposed rules section, pretty sure that means the players can discuss rules changes.
The 'only my opinion' defense is perfectly reasonable in this regard. He finds them useful in their current state and is able to play them effectively, perhaps you should try to rebuff any of the points he made rather than attacking the poster.
As for Terminators, I think that everyone on the internet always uses them correctly, all the time. Always. But for those of us who don't, or rather expect more of our 240 point 5 man elite choice, I think +1T might actually be better than a wound increase. Maybe +1 strength too? Or maybe a discount on weapons or something.
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)
Either +1 T or +1 W would work for me. Both is too much since it would require a pts hike and they are already far too expensive for what they offer (at the end of the day, its still only one model of an elite unit yours paying 60+ points for. If it was a HQ it could be justified but not an elite unit).
+1 Strength? Maybe. I would prefer instead that TDA ignores the unweidly rule.
Then there are the weapons. Storm bolters are crap. They should have two firing modes: Assault 2 and Heavy 4. That would give Tactical Termies the "withering firepower" their fluff describes.
Tac Termies should be able to take 2 special weapons per 5 guys, not just 1
Assault termies are fine, though if Termies did become +1 T or +1 W, Storm Shields should be only 4++ (and with the TH should be a free upgrade from dual-LC).
A huge buff would be to allow Termies to run and shoot after deepstriking. That would help alleviate the massive LR tax anyone who runs termies pays.
This is the whole problem in the end as someone said: Terminators need a complete reevaluation of their rules and wargear. Simply boosting one stat and/or lowering their pts cost is only a band-aid.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/23 04:14:00
GW: "We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants"
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
Buffing TDA has another benefit. Currently AA+bike is indisputably the best choice for captains and chapter masters, but with a buff to TDA, it becomes a realistic choice in certain situations, or at the very least more able to compete.
I should think of a new signature... In the meantime, have a
+1W is too much without a points bump. I could see a +1T fo that slightly added resistance to small arms, but I'm not sure if that's too much or just right under the current points costs. A strength modifier really wouldn't rectify anything.
Changes to the Stormbolter are a tad dangerous as they are found on a very large variety of platforms.
I think that going the Chaos/Space Wolves way in which each terminator is customizable (including Combi options for deadly shooting attacks) rather than having dedicated Assault and Tactical terminator units might be a good start. A slight discount either on base price or upgrades (about 5 points per model, but no more) would probably do better than trying to push the stats higher.
Jefffar wrote: +1W is too much without a points bump. I could see a +1T fo that slightly added resistance to small arms, but I'm not sure if that's too much or just right under the current points costs. A strength modifier really wouldn't rectify anything.
Changes to the Stormbolter are a tad dangerous as they are found on a very large variety of platforms.
I think that going the Chaos/Space Wolves way in which each terminator is customizable (including Combi options for deadly shooting attacks) rather than having dedicated Assault and Tactical terminator units might be a good start. A slight discount either on base price or upgrades (about 5 points per model, but no more) would probably do better than trying to push the stats higher.
I have to disagree with you on the price. Termies aand the TDA option for hqs in general (barring Librarian which seema about right) are extremely overpriced for what they have and what they do. They are only slightly better than honour guard which I feel try and fill the same roll as Termies. At most Termies should be 30pts. And that is probably being generous considering honour guard, like most Space Marine options, are overpriced as well. Honour Guard just aren't overpriced as badly.
On a side note why is this discussion not happening in the original post? Is there a way the two could be merged? No sense having the same discussion in two different posts.
Twinkle, Twinkle little star.
I ran over your Wave Serpents with my car.
Maybe you want to play chaos terminators-style instead?
Tactical termies with power weapons stock. Thus, you can have 31 pts termies and 33 pts sergeant.
I think that the point problem is the main issue with them right now. You pay for power fists that you quite likely won't use. So why not get just 1 or 2 in a 5 strong squad and save 27-36 pts?
I think it's gona be enough allready. With atsknf they're a reliable annoyance and now cost almost 20% cheaper. That's a steal.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/07/23 09:47:33
Making terminators immune to small arms fire, which seems to be the biggest "want" here is one thing and a very dangerous thing at that.
No suggested changes will make them immune.
morganfreeman wrote: What am I supposed to do as an ork player against terminators if they get an extra wound or toughness 5? The only real strategy available to me at present is drowning them in boyz, and while that certainly works I'm not exactly thrilled at having to throw 30 boyz (+ nob) at 5 models and have a combat which soaks up several turns as a result.
30 Boyz and a PK nob currently curbstomps 5 Terminators. 30 boys is 120 attacks is 60 hits is 30 wounds is 5 failed saves. This is assuming the charge and no casualties, but it does exclude the Nob, and you still wiped them out in one round of combat. (Plus, 30 boyz with a PK nob is what, 215 points? 5 Termies is 200 points, and the Boyz still wipe them out on the charge...)
morganfreeman wrote: Giving terminators toughness or wound buffs would largely invalidate this strategy, and when it's gone what do I have left? As was already mentioned, terminators of all flavors (but particularly assault) brutalize my "elite" melee units. What's supposed to be my recourse, as an ork player, to terminators which have the one reliable weakness they have against me taken away?
Oh dear, you mean the majority of the units in your codex are cost effective, instead of almost all? That's just dreadful. You'll have to use kustom mega kannons, or maybe even drown them in boyz which will still be a points-effective tactic.
morganfreeman wrote: This isn't a slippery slope fallacy, it's a legitimate point. Terminators have strengths and weaknesses, they have a niche. Just because that niche isn't useful against every list or every codex does not make them bad.
They have a niche, that is, doing very little before dying to almost everything that's not AP3. I'll admit they have this niche. But it's not a fun niche, nor is it very exciting gamewise. Thus they can use a few fixes.
What would be the compensation of taking away one of their weaknesses which so many armies absolutely rely on to beat them? How exactly would you counter-act this to make sure that it remains enjoyable and fair to all parties involve? It seems that the most common requests are +1 toughness, +1 wound, and a more reliable invulnerable save. And, from where I'm sitting, any two of those buffs looks like it absolutely removes my ability to fight terminators in anything resembling an efficient matter, and I know I'm not the only one.
Just +1 toughness or +1 wound would do miles and would leave the tactics you currently use merely adequate instead of lethal.
What a shame.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To clarify, you are saying that tactics are the way to go. But there are no useful Terminator tactics. They are useful for tanking AP3, that is all. This is depressing for a unit whose entire premise is tanking things. They can bully weaker units, but which SM unit can't do that? It's pointless to use tactics with them since they are mediocre on the best of days. Their offense does not match their price, their defence does not match their price, their mobility does not match their price, and altogether it makes a unit that is distinctly sub-par.
I'm not gonna go through with the quotes-on-quotes boxes, because I don't fond Dakka's layout very friendly to that sort of thing. So bullet points it is.
1: I can kill an Imperial Knight with naught but a waboss with a klaw on the charge if the dice gods decide they really like me that day, yet that does not mean it is anything near a reliable strategy. When I say "immune" to small arms fire I don't mean immune in the definitive sense of it can never possibly hurt them. However making terminators toughness five wounds two would make them essentially immune to small-arms in a real-world scenario. Sure, you have a chance to kill them with lasguns / bolt guns / shootas / what have you, but the volume of fire needed is so massive that it's not generally worth it to try.
2: In order to get 120 attacks out of my boyz when they charge a unit of terminators I have to be forming a very nice concave around them, have suffered 0 casualties to shooting (and not suffer any to overwatch), and roll very well on the charge dice. In order for these conditions to be met, the terminators would have had the opportunity to charge me in the previous turn and decided to just stand in one spot and not shoot at my boyz. If the terminators charge they cut out 25% of the attacks, reducing all the other numbers by 25%. Furthermore, you essentially can't get 30 boyz to all strike against 5 termies, so let's be generous and say you get 20 into combat. That further reduces the failed saves to much more manageable levels. The final twist? Challenge out the Nob and you will have a good chance of killing him if you have a termy assault squad; the people I know who run assault termies equip the sergeant with lighting claws specifically so he can crunch lots of things in challenges, and with those claws he will reliably kill the nob.
You can throw numbers at me all you like, but that doesn't mean they're the truth. Just because 30 boyz and an unchallenged nob statistically beat a group of termies to death when they do not have to consider things such as B2B contact, getting shot before they got there, and need to be in ideal conditions which would require the enemy to refuse to charge the previous turn does not make terminators bad. Lots of things are bad if you look at raw numbers in the worst scenarios for them (MANZ come to mind as a great example), but in reality they do much better.
When you consider real-world conditions and that boyz now kill themselves when they lose combat, terminators are actually cost effective against boyz. A truly shocking notion.
EDIT: This has devolved, and I'll have no further part in it. My point still stands. It is my opinion that Terminators are simply misused, and the couple of players I know who field them do so with decent effect. I am truly sorry if you disagree and take offence at my opinion, but I am entitled to it just as you are to yours.
I have been following this exchange from one side, and I am sorry about the way it is turning out. I really value the lived experience re: meganobz, model placement, etcetera. I think that the good half of the conversation has a lot of insight. It is another situation of wishing someone would just go away.
It would be silly for Terminators to chew their way through ork units without having very good shooting for 2+ turns. You'll notice they have bad shooting.
I'll to add, ashiraya, that is not surprising to see you suggest something like armor that can add wounds. This is not possible or correct. The test cases are your tau battlesuits, centurions, and nemesis dreadknights, all of which incorporate the pilot into a larger creature, for which it is possible to shoot off or mangle a limb without hurting the pilot, therefore adding a wound very literally. Terminators wear armor that merely reinforces their existing bodies. Of course, different schema prevail for character models with many wounds, but that does not relate.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:Either +1 T or +1 W would work for me. Both is too much since it would require a pts hike and they are already far too expensive for what they offer (at the end of the day, its still only one model of an elite unit yours paying 60+ points for. If it was a HQ it could be justified but not an elite unit).
+1 Strength? Maybe. I would prefer instead that TDA ignores the unweidly rule.
Then there are the weapons. Storm bolters are crap. They should have two firing modes: Assault 2 and Heavy 4. That would give Tactical Termies the "withering firepower" their fluff describes.
Tac Termies should be able to take 2 special weapons per 5 guys, not just 1
Assault termies are fine, though if Termies did become +1 T or +1 W, Storm Shields should be only 4++ (and with the TH should be a free upgrade from dual-LC).
A huge buff would be to allow Termies to run and shoot after deepstriking. That would help alleviate the massive LR tax anyone who runs termies pays.
This is the whole problem in the end as someone said: Terminators need a complete reevaluation of their rules and wargear. Simply boosting one stat and/or lowering their pts cost is only a band-aid.
There are two hugely important parts in here. You are completely right, boosting the profile or lowering points is a band-aid. If you have something that is broken, piling on additional gizmos will only make repairs more difficult.
The other is the storm bolter? addressed below a bit.
Possibly also that this is not an HQ unit. MANZ are basically personalities and they have usually been dependent on HQ to be taken. Terminators are veteran troopers. Paladins are basically personalities, terminators are veteran troopers.
There is kind of the problem that if you could ignore unwieldy, you'd never take a ccw other than a thunder hammer, and of course this thing with assault 2.
Jefffar wrote:+1W is too much without a points bump. I could see a +1T fo that slightly added resistance to small arms, but I'm not sure if that's too much or just right under the current points costs. A strength modifier really wouldn't rectify anything.
Changes to the Stormbolter are a tad dangerous as they are found on a very large variety of platforms.
I think that going the Chaos/Space Wolves way in which each terminator is customizable (including Combi options for deadly shooting attacks) rather than having dedicated Assault and Tactical terminator units might be a good start. A slight discount either on base price or upgrades (about 5 points per model, but no more) would probably do better than trying to push the stats higher.
CHANGES TO THE STORM BOLTER ARE A TAD DANGEROUS AS THEY ARE FOUND ON A LARGE VARIETY OF PLATFORMS.
So this is interesting. I think that the dangerous change already happened. The rules for the storm bolter are dictated by terminators. Obviously in second edition they had a whole cascade of rules involving jam dice and sustained fire. Then, when andy chamber was trying to figure out third edition, they had a problem. At the time, if you had given a terminator a bolter, he would move and fire one shot at 12" and nothing else. Relentless was not a rule that existed, and in that edition if a model moved and fired a rapid fire weapon it was basically a pistol shot. You can see very clearly that the reason they are assault two is specifically tied to their use by terminators.
The problem is that you're right, they are found on a large variety of platforms. For instance, a guard officer or inquisitorial henchman can take one, and they can fire it just as easily as they can fire a sawn off shotgun. This because terminators needed a workaround for third edition rules. It's bad. Storm bolters are two already large guns stuck together, they need to be harder for unarmored humans to use than exo-armored transhumans. Assault 2 is wrong for storm bolters. Twin-linked rapid fire is much better.
This is the whole problem in the end as someone said: Terminators need a complete reevaluation of their rules and wargear. Simply boosting one stat and/or lowering their pts cost is only a band-aid.
You are never going to fix terminators by adding stuff to terminators. That is it. It would be better to start further afield.
Ork boyz have a 6+ armor save. Obviously they almost never get it except in close combat. So lots of people, lots of ork players, have suggested getting rid of the armor save completely, so they are armor save -, and giving them fnp 6+. That gives them saves much more often, but results in rolling the same number of dice (where armor save + fnp would add way too much dice rolling to the time a game takes to play) This also means you might be able to use fewer models for more points per model, and actually speed up games by having to pick up and put down fewer models in the deployment, movement, run, assault, and consolidation phases.
If you can have army-wide fnp in orks, you can use army-wide fnp in space marines as an excuse to nerf power armor down to 4+, or 4+ with a +1 to rolls, and that will drastically change the kind of weapons people use, because whereas plasma would be weaker against a 5+ fnp save, heavy bolters would be vastly stronger than plasma (20% stronger) against power armor with better range, and would therefore displace plasma to a large extent. Now there are terminators that are stronger against plasma, see less plasma, and survive better against small arms.
Do you want better offense? So do literally all marines. Power armor is a weapons system that helps kill scum, not just protective plates. In exchange for being 4+, power armor lets you shoot two shots with bolt pistols and three shots with bolters. TDA does same, and storm bolters just count as twin linked bolters.
If you think this is too complicated, you have to consider that there are way bigger problems than just terminators' problems, and if all those things are changed then the problems terminators have will be completely different, and the "fixes" will be different too.
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
While it is true that changing the whole system would be ideal, it is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is 'Terminators are too weak, how should we change them to make them more viable?'
The limit that a suit must have limbs to blast off to get additional wounds is arbitrary and unnecessary. If a company commander can get 3 wounds for no particular reason other than game balance, a terminator can get two without having to sit in some 'ablative limb' category.
I should think of a new signature... In the meantime, have a
Ashiraya wrote: While it is true that changing the whole system would be ideal, it is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is 'Terminators are too weak, how should we change them to make them more viable?'
The limit that a suit must have limbs to blast off to get additional wounds is arbitrary and unnecessary. If a company commander can get 3 wounds for no particular reason other than game balance, a terminator can get two without having to sit in some 'ablative limb' category.
I agree with you as to why terminators could have 2 wounds. Heck, you could say it was to their unique training. An extra wound may not be simply due to extra limbs, bigger suit ect. I am leary to give terminators a second wound because inevitably you would have to make changes to other terminator units in other armies too. Like Grey Knight Paladins. A unit of 3 wound terminators seems pretty powerful. And I agree the best solution would probably be a reworking of space marine armies in general, but like you said it is not the topic of this thread.
Twinkle, Twinkle little star.
I ran over your Wave Serpents with my car.
Has anyone suggested the easy fix of -1 to the ap of attacking weapons ? Yeah enough weight of fire would still kill them but it would mistigate the massive amount of ap2 that's out there.
Formosa wrote: Has anyone suggested the easy fix of -1 to the ap of attacking weapons ? Yeah enough weight of fire would still kill them but it would mistigate the massive amount of ap2 that's out there.
That's basically a 2+ Invuln. How many AP1 weapons even exist? Meltaguns, and... Um... Railguns? I suppose Eldar has AP1 on to-wound rolls of 6s, so they'll still laugh at you. Besides a couple snowballing relics (The ones that increase S and AP with every kill) I can't think of any AP1 Close Combat weapons off the top of my head. This would be blatantly overpowered against everyone except hordes who already drown Terminators rather than penetrating them.
Formosa wrote: Has anyone suggested the easy fix of -1 to the ap of attacking weapons ? Yeah enough weight of fire would still kill them but it would mistigate the massive amount of ap2 that's out there.
That's basically a 2+ Invuln. How many AP1 weapons even exist? Meltaguns, and... Um... Railguns? I suppose Eldar has AP1 on to-wound rolls of 6s, so they'll still laugh at you. Besides a couple snowballing relics (The ones that increase S and AP with every kill) I can't think of any AP1 Close Combat weapons off the top of my head. This would be blatantly overpowered against everyone except hordes who already drown Terminators rather than penetrating them.
Necrons have AP1 Warscythes, with plenty of AP1 otherwise.
But considering how easily terminators die to horde fire, it's not gonna help, I mean Wave Serpents drown them in shots regardless.
If you want turn to fill a specific role in your army you could add a house rule that would allow you to do it. For example if you want to resist alpha strike without a Land Raider how about:
Tactical Void Shield Array
Unit upgrade: +75 pts
2+ Invulnerable save on the turn they arrive
Save degrades by 1 at the start of each of your turns
If the unit shoots, assaults, is assaulted, or any model is removed as a casualty the PSS collapses and no longer works for the rest of the game.
As an Ork player I'd play against something like that. But I'd also want to do some kustomization myself...
3000
4000 
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points) 
