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.

If a basic bolter marine costs 10 points, then a terminator should cost about 22/25 points.

Deep strikable, +1 wound, +1 attack, +1 armor, 5+ invun, +2 bolter shots, Melee gains 4 str, D3 dmg, and -3 armor but also gets -1 to hit, looses grenades and 1" movement.

Basically as survivable as 2 marines (better againgst small arms, worse againgst multi-damage weapons). Shoots as good as 2 marines. Better in melee againgst elites, worse againgst chaff. Slightly slower but with deepstrike.

Keep making things cheaper. One day a Tactical Box will be like the GSC Neophyte one. 35€ for 50 points.

This isn't anything new. GW hasn't given termies enough love since 3rd ed, (and have given plasma too much). I find it strange that they've consistently under-represented over the years, considering they are some of the best looking models in the 40k range -one would think they'd be better promoted, from a sales point of view alone.

One would think, right?

I'd rather see them buffed into something useful.

1. Double their attacks.
2. Boost their toughness to 5, and their strength to 5.
3. Give them a special rule that they always fight first.
4. Give them a way to charge from deep strike reliably for CP

If they did that, terminators would be worth their cost.

Or maybe make plasma and shuriken weapons cost a lot more.

Martel732 wrote:
Or maybe make plasma and shuriken weapons cost a lot more.

Yeah but then tomorrow's plasma or shuriken cannon will just be a problem. And, they'll still be pretty easily drowned in volume of dice.

Martel732 wrote:
Terminators have never been viable. Even in 2nd.

It worked briefly in 6th when you can null deploy via 'deathwing strike'

I think you used to be able to fit around 7 5-man squads fully kitted out in a 1850 pt games

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Or maybe make plasma and shuriken weapons cost a lot more.

Yeah but then tomorrow's plasma or shuriken cannon will just be a problem. And, they'll still be pretty easily drowned in volume of dice.

Actually, I think terminators are pretty efficient vs AP 0 weapons. Finally.

Martel732 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Or maybe make plasma and shuriken weapons cost a lot more.

Yeah but then tomorrow's plasma or shuriken cannon will just be a problem. And, they'll still be pretty easily drowned in volume of dice.

Actually, I think terminators are pretty efficient vs AP 0 weapons. Finally.

No, AP 0 functions exactly the same way it used to barring old AP 2's and below.

Two wounds each makes a big difference.

Martel732 wrote:
Two wounds each makes a big difference.

touche.

 skchsan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Two wounds each makes a big difference.

touche.

Right...

7th Edition, a squad of Stormtroopers firing Hotshot Lasguns at 9" with FRFSRF means:
9x4 = 36 shots, 24 hits, 8 wounds, then 1 1/3 Terminators die

8th Edition, a squad of Stormtroopers firing Hotshot Lasguns at 9" with FRFSRF means:
9x4 = 36 shots, 24 hits, 8 wounds, then -2 to saves means 2 Terminators die even with 2 wounds each

Math. 40k's greatest weakness...

Slayer6 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Two wounds each makes a big difference.

touche.

Right...

7th Edition, a squad of Stormtroopers firing Hotshot Lasguns at 9" with FRFSRF means:
9x4 = 36 shots, 24 hits, 8 wounds, then 1 1/3 Terminators die

8th Edition, a squad of Stormtroopers firing Hotshot Lasguns at 9" with FRFSRF means:
9x4 = 36 shots, 24 hits, 8 wounds, then -2 to saves means 2 Terminators die even with 2 wounds each

You are not having in account that the AP system has been totally changed. Don't be dishonest with your examples. Martel said that Terminators are much more durable vs weapons with 0 ap. That true.
They are more vulnerable to weapons that before were AP3 (Did those existed?) and AP4. They are much less vulnerable to weapons that before were AP5 and AP6 or AP-

And they are less vulnerable to weapons that before where AP2 or AP1, because not everyone of those is 2 damage or more.

Given the heavy weapons available I don't think termies should be restricted on their use at all. TSGgt and 4 assault cannons in tender places would be a joy to behold - but fragile enough in their current incarnation to be used as a shock unit (which is what they're supposed to be).

Hell let them double up on heavy weapons why not. It's not like it's unprecedented.

 Galas wrote:

Slayer6 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Two wounds each makes a big difference.

touche.

Right...

7th Edition, a squad of Stormtroopers firing Hotshot Lasguns at 9" with FRFSRF means:
9x4 = 36 shots, 24 hits, 8 wounds, then 1 1/3 Terminators die

8th Edition, a squad of Stormtroopers firing Hotshot Lasguns at 9" with FRFSRF means:
9x4 = 36 shots, 24 hits, 8 wounds, then -2 to saves means 2 Terminators die even with 2 wounds each

You are not having in account that the AP system has been totally changed. Don't be dishonest with your examples. Martel said that Terminators are much more durable vs weapons with 0 ap. That true.
They are more vulnerable to weapons that before were AP3 (Did those existed?) and AP4. They are much less vulnerable to weapons that before were AP5 and AP6 or AP-

And they are less vulnerable to weapons that before where AP2 or AP1, because not everyone of those is 2 damage or more.

Like regular power weapons, for example.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
This isn't anything new. GW hasn't given termies enough love since 3rd ed, (and have given plasma too much). I find it strange that they've consistently under-represented over the years, considering they are some of the best looking models in the 40k range -one would think they'd be better promoted, from a sales point of view alone.

You would think, wouldn't you? Back in the day, when andy chambers acknowledged there was a problem with them. The solution - sell you a new plastic kit (centurions) that 'fixed' the problems without actually doing anything to help terminators themselves. When you think about it (selling you a new plastic kit), it doesn't seem as strange as it should be. If you're *jaded* as i am.

 Torga_DW wrote:
You would think, wouldn't you? Back in the day, when andy chambers acknowledged there was a problem with them. The solution - sell you a new plastic kit (centurions) that 'fixed' the problems without actually doing anything to help terminators themselves. When you think about it (selling you a new plastic kit), it doesn't seem as strange as it should be. If you're *jaded* as i am.

That's true. Also, looking at some other long-time kits, they've nerfed and then buffed them over the editions to create some sort of sales cycle (e.g. reducing the dreadnoughts attacks to 2, and then boosting it to 4 in the next edition). Not that I agree with that kind of deliberate underpowering and overpowering, but It's just odd that terminators alone haven't gotten their turn to shine again.

Short answer to the O.P. No.

The long answer is no, because the tactical depth of the rules/game play is not sufficient to support the wide variety of units in the game.

Lanrak wrote:
Short answer to the O.P. No.

The long answer is no, because the tactical depth of the rules/game play is not sufficient to support the wide variety of units in the game.

Which I (as well as other supporters here) think is not a very well thought out reply - among this 'wide variety of units' in the game, termies are the generalist, jack of all trades elite units that cost more than other specialized units.

Its not that termies cant be balanced out. Its that GW is too lazy to do so.

@skchsan.
So the super elite, only a hand full in any solar system, type unit.
Is viewed by the players as ''.. the generalist, jack of all trades..''

Which sort of proves my point on the restrictive nature, the shallow tactical focus the rules and game play inflict on 40 k.

The unit may look and sound super special and cool in the background. But because of the shallow tactical depth of the game play .It can not live up to the hype.
(Hence the bloat of special rules to put the differences back, from 3rd to 7th ed 40k.)

Billions of planets, over 100s of solar systems , with 1000s of units in the game of 40k.
And you think the range of 1 to 6 from a direct dice roll is good enough to cover all this variation?

I just had a thought for terminators
Reroll armour/invuln saves of 1
Greatly improved their resistance to small arms fire so those Ap- weapons are almost useless against them and when they get pushed back on their invuln save there's another chance of shrugging off the hit

I only run occasional CSM Terminators and they do okay - though like all things that big they draw a lot of fire.

Outside of the associated cost of Deep Strike a Terminator unit should cost the same as 10 tactical marines. They have comparable wounds, comparable weapons/firepower, and have essentially double-tough armour. They're almost exactly the same as a ten man Tac squad in a smaller package. This was reflected as early as 2nd ed. when a Terminator Squad was about the same cost - absent Deep Strike (you used to pay for this option).

Back in the day Terminators were also actually veterans and had better WS/BS/Leadership/Attacks etc. This was due to 2nd having far more modifiers than later editions, so a higher WS/BS could compensate for a bunch of it.

Lanrak wrote:
@skchsan.
So the super elite, only a hand full in any solar system, type unit.
Is viewed by the players as ''.. the generalist, jack of all trades..''

Which sort of proves my point on the restrictive nature, the shallow tactical focus the rules and game play inflict on 40 k.

The unit may look and sound super special and cool in the background. But because of the shallow tactical depth of the game play .It can not live up to the hype.
(Hence the bloat of special rules to put the differences back, from 3rd to 7th ed 40k.)

Billions of planets, over 100s of solar systems , with 1000s of units in the game of 40k.
And you think the range of 1 to 6 from a direct dice roll is good enough to cover all this variation?

Well no, that's not what I was referring to when I said it't not very well thought out.

A simple comparison of PPM vs effectiveness while maintaining either wound count or dakka count:

Simple 12" double tap bolter-weapon platform
-10 man tac squad do it for approx. 65% of the cost

Deep strike-able bolter-weapon unit primarily for holding 24"
-Grav chute reivers do it for approx. 50% of the cost

Mobile storm bolter platform
-vets with storm bolter and storm shield + rhino = roughly same cost as 5 man termies, where vets trade in 1 wound and no deepstrike for 3++ and rhino bunker

Mid range (12"~24") gunline platform
-aggressors perform base 1.5x the dakka before grenade launcher, pushing it to upwards of 3x the dakka for only 110% of 5 man termies

The only area that termies out perform is deepstrike, double tap, then charge, only because drop pods are so overpriced right now. Even then, relying on 9" charge roll isn't a tactic to be relied upon. There are others that still do better deepstrike dakka-age as well.

I won't get into assault as termies are easily overshadowed by other dedicated assault units.

But of course, this is purely theoretical damage excluding the durability aspect of individual comparisons, but barring the T5 units listed above, they are roughly equally durable against the plethora of anti-TEQ weapons currently in the game.

The issue here isn't that termies on table top are not how they're described in the lore - purely in terms of table top, they are units that handle both shooting and fighting at a mediocre levels, and yet they are outcosted over many other alternatives out there, with the only viable solo tactic being one that can't be relied upon with certainty.

The only valid way to use termies currently is a hammer-and-anvil maneuver, a combo which requires investment into the hammer portion. This is why I'm saying they cost too much as making this two pronged attack work costs nearly all of your 2000 pts.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
I only run occasional CSM Terminators and they do okay - though like all things that big they draw a lot of fire.

Outside of the associated cost of Deep Strike a Terminator unit should cost the same as 10 tactical marines. They have comparable wounds, comparable weapons/firepower, and have essentially double-tough armour. They're almost exactly the same as a ten man Tac squad in a smaller package. This was reflected as early as 2nd ed. when a Terminator Squad was about the same cost - absent Deep Strike (you used to pay for this option).

Back in the day Terminators were also actually veterans and had better WS/BS/Leadership/Attacks etc. This was due to 2nd having far more modifiers than later editions, so a higher WS/BS could compensate for a bunch of it.

Balance-wise, I think they should be costing somewhere along Reivers and Intercessors cost point. Pre-wargear costs are 18 and 20 respectively, while packaged with 0 pt weapons stock - say 22 pts including stormbolter with PF paid for separately would be the right step towards giving life back to termies.

 Galas wrote:

Slayer6 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Two wounds each makes a big difference.

touche.

Right...

7th Edition, a squad of Stormtroopers firing Hotshot Lasguns at 9" with FRFSRF means:
9x4 = 36 shots, 24 hits, 8 wounds, then 1 1/3 Terminators die

8th Edition, a squad of Stormtroopers firing Hotshot Lasguns at 9" with FRFSRF means:
9x4 = 36 shots, 24 hits, 8 wounds, then -2 to saves means 2 Terminators die even with 2 wounds each

You are not having in account that the AP system has been totally changed. Don't be dishonest with your examples. Martel said that Terminators are much more durable vs weapons with 0 ap. That true.
They are more vulnerable to weapons that before were AP3 (Did those existed?) and AP4. They are much less vulnerable to weapons that before were AP5 and AP6 or AP-

And they are less vulnerable to weapons that before where AP2 or AP1, because not everyone of those is 2 damage or more.

His entire comment specifies 2 wounds... And even if the point is about the armor against -1 and 0 weapons, its not double resilience...

My point was that prior to the AP changes, only AP 1 or 2 or D could negate the 2+ armor - so no AP no negation...

Now you have only a single extra wound, on degradeable armor... My only army has ever been Stormtroopers - so no I am not picking the most arbitrary unit I can think of for my comparison...

I think if a points cost is unable to be done, that Terminators should get an armor bonus of 1+ that only works against AP greater than 1...

So:

Heavy Bolter -1 AP = 3+ save on Terminator Armor +0 modifiers
Hotshot Lasugn/Hellgun -2AP = 3+ save on Terminator armor +1 modifier
Plasmagun -3AP = 4+ save on Terminator armor +1 modifier
Meltagun -4AP = 5+ save on Terminator armor +1 modifier

Special attacks such as Culexus Assassin Life Drain which ignore armor, are still prevented by the 5+ invulnerable save

Think of this as being similar to the Ceramite Armor rule against Melta weapons in 7th as in no 2nd D6 for being in half range...

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that no units in the game, that I'm aware of, can cancel out enemy AP values. It seems like a mechanic that's just begging to exist.

IG armageddon tanks treat ap-1 as ap0.

Pretty sure Rubric Marines have a rule like that. And then there's Lucius for AdMech.

Slayer6 wrote:

His entire comment specifies 2 wounds...

Which is why reading the entire discussion to get the proper context matters.

I think the problem can be summed up as survivability vs dps vs cost. Right now, terminators fail in all 3 (yeah +1 wound is a buff, but in the plasma saturated meta it's not much of one). Like their tactical counterparts, terminators *should* be expensive to field, but worth their points.

My first solution (to increase dps): bolt weapons in marine armies get +/- 1 to any stat when shooting (or +6" range).

My second solution (to increase survivability): terminators lose their (new) second wound, but gain the ability to reroll any failed innate saving throw. So can reroll 2+ or 5++ (storm shields don't count as they're 3++).

Then playtest to determine what sort of price adjustments are needed.