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.

Points don't balance, and terminators don't need to be changed.

If you think they should, feel free to add a new thread to the hundreds on the subject over in the proposed rules forum.

 smurfwedge wrote:
I would love to field Terminators but they just aren't great....especially for the points.
I know you can take another detachment but I don't think you should have to if you want Terminators.

I mean Grey Knight Terminators are 33 points as are Space Wolf Termies but the main codex ones are still overpriced!

Do you think GW will ever fix Space Marine Terminators?

Well I think a Terminator able to carry heavy bolters would be a really cool change. I mean they can already take assault Cannons and their Devastator brethren can take big old cannons. a cheak heavy bolter upgrade on terminators would be kinda neat.

Is there any possibility that people's expectations are at least partially to blame?

There seems to be this expectation that Terminators should be able to wade through infinite amounts of enemy fire, taking no casualties whatsoever. And, worse still, that they're somehow reasonably costed for this.

I think a small price drop is reasonable (to bring them in line with GK and SW ones), but a lot of the buff suggestions seem like massive overkill that will just create a ton of issues down the line.

 Ailaros wrote:
Points don't balance, and terminators don't need to be changed.

If you think they should, feel free to add a new thread to the hundreds on the subject over in the proposed rules forum.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Since they just dropped the Necron Termiator-equivalent down to half its previous points, I suspect we'll see something similar in the next Space Marine book.

Ailaros, if there are hundreds of threads on the same subject, it probably has some validity!

I agree with Miko, we'll likely see a points drop in the next SM book (that has been a trend anyway - transports used to be so much more expensive than they are now, for example).

 vipoid wrote:
Is there any possibility that people's expectations are at least partially to blame?

There seems to be this expectation that Terminators should be able to wade through infinite amounts of enemy fire, taking no casualties whatsoever. And, worse still, that they're somehow reasonably costed for this.

Partly. Some people do seem to think that a 2+ armor save means that a unit will never die against AP 3+ weapons, and want to ragequit the game every time they fail a "guaranteed" save. But the problem isn't just stupid people who don't understand math, terminators simply aren't a competitive choice. They cost too many points for what you get and their primary defense is severely devalued in a metagame full of AP 2 weapons and shooting-focused armies with 9999999999999 dice to throw at a unit. So either they need an increase in power to match their point cost, or a decrease in point cost to match their power. The second option would be just fine with a lot of the people who want terminators fixed.

 vipoid wrote:


I think a small price drop is reasonable (to bring them in line with GK and SW ones), but a lot of the buff suggestions seem like massive overkill that will just create a ton of issues down the line.

SM TDA are more expensive because they have powerfists included. GW probably wont get rid of that because then people would complain that there are not enough power swords in the TDA boxes. Try SW TDA out, the point cost reduction isn't magic that makes them better and more viable. Now, when you use champions of fenris and they all gain +1WS and PE in challenges, then they start to get awesome. Especially with the cool formations like void claws and Arjacs shield brothers. Though both formations are rather expensive, however, a TDA with 3 WS5 attacks base that are S6 ap3 rending with shred is pretty awesome point for point.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
If they did get correct it in the not too distant future, I believe it would start with DA.

Deathwing terminators are currently the most overpriced terminators in the game, and definitely one of the underperforming parts of an underperforming codex.

If they did change DA, then other terminators would follow suit in later codices.

Personally I would like to see all basic terminators go down to 35 points. For DA that is a 9 point drop, but at the moment they are basically paying for chapter tactics, which all other SM chapters do not do.

35 points each, TH/SS still costs 5 points, 2 heavy weapons per squad, and all heavy weapons are reduced by 5 points each.

5 terminators with 2 CML for 215 points wouldn't be too much to ask for.

Yes

As for the question of whether GW will fix terminators, I doubt it. Remember, GW doesn't play the same game we play. Their main rule authors are "casual at all costs" players who love to include silly mission rules, "fluffy" armies that deliberately take lots of bad units and upgrades, etc. Classic example: at the beginning of 7th there was a WD article about the awesome new psychic phase and how psykers needed a buff because everyone was using melee chaplains as their HQ and ignoring the poor librarians. Meanwhile in the real world everyone understood that chaplains suck, librarians are awesome, and the only non-librarian HQ worth taking is a bike captain (and only because of the FOC swap).

Once you assume you're playing in a "battleforce" metagame where armies are all a random mix of units terminators don't look so bad. Nobody has enough shooting to overwhelm their armor saves, especially if units like IG veterans/crisis suits/etc are using a random mix of weapons instead of all melta/plasma. And nobody has melee death stars that laugh at a mere terminator squad. So ~200 points gives you a unit that can reasonably expect to survive long enough to get into melee range, and to kill anything it successfully charges. In fact, right now one of GW's rule authors is probably complaining about how their TFG opponent brought two squads of terminators and massacred everything. Expect the next C:SM update to put a 0-1 limit on terminators and give them a major point increase.

 RiTides wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Points don't balance, and terminators don't need to be changed.

If you think they should, feel free to add a new thread to the hundreds on the subject over in the proposed rules forum.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Since they just dropped the Necron Termiator-equivalent down to half its previous points, I suspect we'll see something similar in the next Space Marine book.

Ailaros, if there are hundreds of threads on the same subject, it probably has some validity!

I agree with Miko, we'll likely see a points drop in the next SM book (that has been a trend anyway - transports used to be so much more expensive than they are now, for example).

This is the dude that tried telling me Heavy Bolters were useful back in the day. He's hardcore casual, and maybe even beyond that.

 GreyHamster wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:

Breazeal wrote:
There's no profit on GW end for making them good.

Nonetheless, every new Space Marines player still buys a box [gibberish snipped]

Impressive contradiction there.

Not really. The kits already sell. They have no incentive to buff them, as making them good just means they come out of the display case, rather than driving sales of a product that isn't moving.

I'm puzzled by this continued thought that selling more is somehow a disincentive to them...

Just making the Terminators armoursave a 1+ would make them more playable.

Meaning they would get their save against AP2 weaponry, but a roll of 1 always fails.

 Portugal Jones wrote:
I'm puzzled by this continued thought that selling more is somehow a disincentive to them...

Because it doesn't necessarily mean selling more. If people are already buying terminators because they're an iconic marine unit then improving the rules doesn't guarantee a lot of additional sales. They're an expensive unit (point-wise) and most armies aren't going to take many of them even if they're balanced. So that one box of terminators a C:SM player bought because they look cool might be all they're ever going to buy no matter what rules they have, and the only thing improving the rules will do is get that box of terminators off the display shelf and into an army. On the other hand, if GW improves the rules for a unit that nobody buys right now that probably will generate additional sales. And when you're obsessively focused on sales numbers at the expense of quality that's the obvious choice to make.

Hh termies are generally quite good fir the cost, they lack know no fear but come with stubborn (rarely) and implacable advance making them scoring (or ob sec when playing 40k), the 4++ really helps them survive.

But as a dark angels player I think even 30pts is too much for a tac terminator, comparing it to other units for a similar cost its just a joke, 27/8 seems fairer to me (then 5 for the fist that you will never want)

I'm really wondering if the problem is so much with normal Terminators, as opposed to Hammernators simply being just that much better due to the increase in resiliency for the relatively small trade off in flexibility.

Honestly, I don't see anything spectacularly wring with basic Terminators in and of themselves. More often of late, the issue is that GW has created alternative heavy CC units that are simply so much better that everyone assumes is the new "balanced" instead of acknowledging they're overdone. Stuff like TWC's, Necron Wraiths, 2+/3++ Hammernators, etc. Stuff like this has become more and more common and the stupid increase in resiliency is simply insane, and as a result there's relatively little thought or ability needed to use these, just don't put them in the most obvious and heaviest firelane and aside from that they pretty much function on auto-pilot, and a more flexible use unit like Terminators get left behind as a result.

They're already fine.

Please see the hundreds of other threads on the same subject.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
They're already fine.

Please see the hundreds of other threads on the same subject.

How often do you seriously see terminators being played? Especially in this edition with necromancer Wraiths and such that just won't go down. They need a buff and for people to stop being denialistic at how bad they are in comparison to everything else at their point range.

While I think Terminators could use a bit of a boost, but I don't think that even if they were more appropriately cost that they would be used anyway, and this is due to a meta problem. Because think about what you're mostly likely to face: Space Marines. And then beyond that, it's usually cheap transports, mounters creatures, Knights, other elite infantry, and death stars, so it very much encourages taking krak missiles, plasma, melta, and equivalent. You rarely see a need for anti-infantry special weapons, and when you do see anti-infantry it's something that can put a lot of hits out (Like shoota boyz) or can pull additional duty else where (like barrage weapons sniping characters or weapons with rending).

They're also a few other problems, like how over priced their transport, the Land Raiders, are (Meganobz are a similar unit to terminators, but they're well liked in the new ork codex, and part of that is being able to take trukks or a cheap battlewagon), or that how they're a flexible unit in a meta that's mostly shooty, or just how poorly deep striking works.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
They're already fine.

Please see the hundreds of other threads on the same subject.

If they were fine, there wouldnt be hundreds of other threads on the subject

Things being 'fine' doesnt generate discussion

The problem isnt Terminators themselves though, its costly terminators in a cheap ap 2/1 meta. Melta, melta everywhere

 Piroko wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
They're already fine.

Please see the hundreds of other threads on the same subject.

How often do you seriously see terminators being played? Especially in this edition with necromancer Wraiths and such that just won't go down. They need a buff and for people to stop being denialistic at how bad they are in comparison to everything else at their point range.

Again, is the issue with Terminators, or does the issue lie with the massive failure in game design, proofreading, and testing that allowed Wraiths to come out as stupidly overpowered?

I still don't see what Terminators are supposed to do.

Even if you replace the powerfists with powerweapons and reduce their cost accordingly, Tactical Marines are still better at being Terminators than the Terminators themselves are, and Tactical Marines are quite mediocre as-is.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Piroko wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
They're already fine.

Please see the hundreds of other threads on the same subject.

How often do you seriously see terminators being played? Especially in this edition with necromancer Wraiths and such that just won't go down. They need a buff and for people to stop being denialistic at how bad they are in comparison to everything else at their point range.

Again, is the issue with Terminators, or does the issue lie with the massive failure in game design, proofreading, and testing that allowed Wraiths to come out as stupidly overpowered?

Well the issue is clearly both, seeing as Terminators aren't worth playing, even without Wraiths in the equation.

Would they be better, if they could take more heavy weapons or had access to some sort of special weapon along side the heavy weapon?

Makumba wrote:
Would they be better, if they could take more heavy weapons or had access to some sort of special weapon along side the heavy weapon?

Both. Stormbolters aren't worth the hassle compared to being able to buy Combi-Weapons, and having only one heavy weapon kills their damage output ALL while not being able to make use of their Relentless.

Terminators suffer from doing two jobs. They are shooty shooty, with the option to take heavy weapons and choppy choppy, because SM ones come with Powerfists. GW then charges you extra for the option for doing both of these choices, much like the CSM defiler.

Which is why CSM ones are so much better. They start off cheap, and then you customise them into what you want them to do. Minimum squad size 3 does help.

They need to be T5 and treat all plasma weapons as being ap3 against them.

The problem with this tho is how you reconcile this with wolf and gk termies, which are good already for the most part.

Terminator
Walker (squadron)
WS:4 BS:4 s:4/8 i:4 FA 10 SA 10 RA 10 hp: 1 (equal to wounds if on a Multi wound model)

Crux terminatus: models in tactical...yada yada etc 5+ invuln save.

Pseudo-vehicle: On a glance or penetrate of AP higher than 2, in which the invuln save has failed, the TDA model ignores the hull point loss on a 3+.

Haywire only glances on a 4+ and pens on a 6.

Do not roll on the vehicle damage chart at any time for a TDA model. If the model is stripped of its last hull point, it is removed from the table instead of becoming terrain.

TDA models count as infantry for transports, but are bulky.

can't sweep advance etc etc.

Independent characters in TDA may join squads of other TDA.

Whatcha think? they can still be taken down by s4, and are still pretty tough against s5+, and are still easily fried by anti-vehicle.

I'm sure there are issues, but it's more of a funny idea.


Oh and they can be krak grenaded and melta bombed!

niv-mizzet wrote:
Terminator
Walker (squadron)
WS:4 BS:4 s:4/8 i:4 FA 10 SA 10 RA 10 hp: 1 (equal to wounds if on a Multi wound model)

Crux terminatus: models in tactical...yada yada etc 5+ invuln save.

Pseudo-vehicle: On a glance or penetrate of AP higher than 2, in which the invuln save has failed, the TDA model ignores the hull point loss on a 3+.

Haywire only glances on a 4+ and pens on a 6.

Do not roll on the vehicle damage chart at any time for a TDA model. If the model is stripped of its last hull point, it is removed from the table instead of becoming terrain.

TDA models count as infantry for transports, but are bulky.

can't sweep advance etc etc.

Independent characters in TDA may join squads of other TDA.

Whatcha think? they can still be taken down by s4, and are still pretty tough against s5+, and are still easily fried by anti-vehicle.

I'm sure there are issues, but it's more of a funny idea.


Oh and they can be krak grenaded and melta bombed!

Careful, with that type of thinking, you might get a call from GW HR offering you a position in rules design

Seriously, as has been said, termies aren't the problem, it's the GAME that's the problem. "Fix" termies so that they're worth taking, and you break a dozen other things in the game that are working as intended. At one time, the rules were a quaint, modest one family home. GW is the crazy contractor who convinced us to add 7 new floors, a sunroom, a few balconies, an in ground pool, a wine cellar, an indoor bowling alley, a 4-car garage, and a rotating cupola with telescope. That leaky foundation wall and termite damage? Nah, nothing to worry about...

I kind of wish termis got the centurion treatment. You have terminator devestator teams and assault terminators. You could upgrade the devestator teams to have multiple heavy weapons and the assault teams stay as is. All cheaper and or buffed stats of course.

T5 or +1 wound

And allow them to have assault 4 bolters. Then they'd earn their points.

 RiTides wrote:

Ailaros, if there are hundreds of threads on the same subject, it probably has some validity!

There are hundreds of threads on the subject of tactical marines being bad. Yet, a roster with nothing but droppod tactical marines + Calgar got 2-d at BAO.