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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:
Having a special rule for TDA to ignore unwieldy seems excessive, could probably just drop unwieldy from all powerfists everywhere. TDA exclusive rule would be an exception to an exception, and I don't that whole extra line on the terminator dataslate.

Potentially you could move an inverse rule onto power swords. Fists can hit normally, but models with power swords force a model in base contact to take -1 to hit.

You guys are making it over complicated.

WS/BS2+. Done.

Honestly, I don't think both would be unreasonable for veterans using an advanced exo-skeleton based armour built with an integrated power fist.

Bring back relentless and remove the -1 to hit with PF/PKs for starters. Fists are way too unreliable for killing big targets considering you have to get into melee with the thing. Probably should also go with making fists/Klaws 1+d3 damage for a bit more base damage and reliability.

Not directly terminator related but power weapons should also see a return of getting +1 attack for having another melee weapon instead of having a chainsword give a chainsword attack along with the base profile attacks being power weapon attacks. Rolling for two separate weapons on a single model is both clunky and makes units like vanguard vets, squad leaders, and other power weapon users have a bit more bite to them instead of weight of dice being the more effective strategy.

So much of it intersects with the wider problems that Marines have. Mainly that bolters lost a huge amount of their effectiveness with the AP changes, and marine armor saves got worse too. And lost attacks from charging. And much more.

Fixing these issues only on terminators isn't a proper solution. Marines overall need to be overhauled, and then we can look at terminators.

 Vankraken wrote:
Bring back relentless and remove the -1 to hit with PF/PKs for starters. Fists are way too unreliable for killing big targets considering you have to get into melee with the thing. Probably should also go with making fists/Klaws 1+d3 damage for a bit more base damage and reliability.

Making them WS/BS2+ does effectively the same thing and helps all the weapon options, not just a couple of them.

The reason GW included the -1 to hit for powerfists etc is without them it becomes the default weapon for CC as its like a power weapon but better. Much like thunderhammers are always the better option if your going to take a powerfist currently.
Also marines arn't the only army using powerfists. Guardmen in flak armour throwing powerfists the size of their chest around with no penalty is just nonsence.

This game doesn't need to be more killy, but the contrary.
To save terminators, and the entire game, should be introduced new general rules tuning down the offensive power of all units.

By now, too much weapons have AP -3 or better, and these weapons are far too common.

4 wounds each and a flat out 3++. These things are meant to be walking tanks after all.

Vankraken wrote:Bring back relentless and remove the -1 to hit with PF/PKs for starters. Fists are way too unreliable for killing big targets considering you have to get into melee with the thing. Probably should also go with making fists/Klaws 1+d3 damage for a bit more base damage and reliability.

Not directly terminator related but power weapons should also see a return of getting +1 attack for having another melee weapon instead of having a chainsword give a chainsword attack along with the base profile attacks being power weapon attacks. Rolling for two separate weapons on a single model is both clunky and makes units like vanguard vets, squad leaders, and other power weapon users have a bit more bite to them instead of weight of dice being the more effective strategy.

The normal rule is you hit with the ws value. There's an exception if you have a power fist. Then an exception if you have a power fist and TDA at the same time, and TDA accounts for so many power fists in the game that keeping unwieldy on the other pf models is sort of pointless.

I think you can merge this with your other idea, and just say power weapons give +1 attack, without needing to have a second ccw, and take unwieldy off all power fists but just don't let them grant or use any extra attacks. There are a fair few one attack models who can buy power weapons but usually don't, because it's not worth it for just one pw attack.

So you've got a guardsman with a powerfist, and it doesn't have any explicit penalty but he does have a version of "unwieldy" just because he misses out on a +1 attack for having a normal power weapon.

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:So much of it intersects with the wider problems that Marines have. Mainly that bolters lost a huge amount of their effectiveness with the AP changes, and marine armor saves got worse too. And lost attacks from charging. And much more.

Fixing these issues only on terminators isn't a proper solution. Marines overall need to be overhauled, and then we can look at terminators.

Given the loss of charge bonus, and also the general mediocrity of s4 ap0 cc units even with chainswords, I think it's fine for oldmarines to get +1 a. So that's three attack terminators and veterans, and two attack basic marines, and two attack aspect warriors too, since people bring it up. Tacticals get only a minor boost and terminators are good.

Then if it's in cover I think anything taking an armor save in shooting that's caused by a model that has fewer base attacks should get a 5++ after its normal save. When you have a cunning veteran unit it shouldn't be gunned down by just anyone, and this makes veteran and hero units that don't or can't just charge into cc have something other than just cc attacks. With two attacks marines don't have to be worried about ap as much.

Models that are shooting someone with fewer attacks than it model has should get an extra -1 ap. That way marine bolters have an ap against guardsmen, against orks they are equal, including in cc which they have never been, and terminators with storm bolters and three base attacks can massacre all kinds of enemies.

Three changes:
1. Give Terminators a form of Relentless that lets them fire heavy weapons without penalty.
2. Give vanilla Terminators a "Terminator Power Fist" weapon. It costs 0 points. Base Terminators are now 28 ppm. 5 Terminators are now 144 points minimum instead of 192.
3. To account of this drop in regular Terminators, reduce Assault Terminator costs to 22 (4 more than Vanguard Veterans). Mandatory wargear will bring their minimum to 34ppm and maximum of 43.

Also as a secondary change, reducing the base cost of Land Raiders would make Terminators a more fieldable option.

 SputnikDX wrote:
Three changes:
1. Give Terminators a form of Relentless that lets them fire heavy weapons without penalty.
2. Give vanilla Terminators a "Terminator Power Fist" weapon. It costs 0 points. Base Terminators are now 28 ppm. 5 Terminators are now 144 points minimum instead of 192.
3. To account of this drop in regular Terminators, reduce Assault Terminator costs to 22 (4 more than Vanguard Veterans). Mandatory wargear will bring their minimum to 34ppm and maximum of 43.

Also as a secondary change, reducing the base cost of Land Raiders would make Terminators a more fieldable option.

Soild ideas - I like all of them.

If you are gonna give them free powerfist you should give them free powerswords for the sargeant, free lighting claws, 2 point chainfists, 10 point thunder hammers, etc...

If we balance around the Drukhari codex, terminators are about 26 pt models, tops.

 Galas wrote:
If you are gonna give them free powerfist you should give them free powerswords for the sargeant, free lighting claws, 2 point chainfists, 10 point thunder hammers, etc...

It's almost like most of these suggestions, unlike mine, forget they have other weapons...

 SputnikDX wrote:
Three changes:
1. Give Terminators a form of Relentless that lets them fire heavy weapons without penalty.
2. Give vanilla Terminators a "Terminator Power Fist" weapon. It costs 0 points. Base Terminators are now 28 ppm. 5 Terminators are now 144 points minimum instead of 192.
3. To account of this drop in regular Terminators, reduce Assault Terminator costs to 22 (4 more than Vanguard Veterans). Mandatory wargear will bring their minimum to 34ppm and maximum of 43.

Also as a secondary change, reducing the base cost of Land Raiders would make Terminators a more fieldable option.

As mentioned already, some consideration for the cheaper power weapons should be considered. Especially, when Chaos Terminators don't default to the power fist and instead have the power axe. Another, Chaos thing to remember is Tzeentch Psykers can add Tzeentch Marked Marines an addition 1 to invulnerable saves so reducing Terminator Invulnerable Saves to 4+ could give a Chaos Unit of Terminators a 3+ Save. I am just stating this as it appears some posters are forgetting about Chaos Terminators which are a little different and could have unintended deficits or exploits. I already make use of the Terminator Sorceror to deep strike my Terminators in and increase my chances of getting the charge (Warp Time) and getting hits in (Prescience). If I could give them a +3 (if their Invulverable save was lowered) Invul, I would as that could take the entire game to deal with.

Personally, I lean toward making terminators harder to kill some how. If can keep them on the table twice as long, I don't need double the firepower, and I can have a tough to shift objective secure unit potentially on what should be an easy to hold enemy objective. I think the points are a good spot for what I think Terminators should accomplish as well as good limit to how many will be included in an army list. I like the idea of the extra wound or the Abaddon-like half damage idea. I wouldn't complain about also getting a WS/BS or Relentless buff to make up for the combi-weapon/power fist penalties.

I don't have enough experience yet to know how much is needed to dial terminators in a little better. My terminators have largely fought space marines with bolters and plasma with limited re-rolls and obviously do pretty well under those conditions. However, I have already noticed that they don't cover their point cost once AP, Mortal and/or multi-wound damage is introduced. No matter what I will keep Terminators in my lists as I like the idea of them and the models too. However, I do want them to play like the role their description which I don't think they are nearly close enough even grading on the curve of tabletop vs. fluff.

So where do Terminators stand now? Now that they are relegated to turn 2 deepstrike and CSM Terminators lost their buff over loyalist ones?

 mrhappyface wrote:
So where do Terminators stand now? Now that they are relegated to turn 2 deepstrike and CSM Terminators lost their buff over loyalist ones?

For me? They went from unusable to unusable. But now they are even unusable in friendly games - people around here play with beta rules.

 mrhappyface wrote:
So where do Terminators stand now? Now that they are relegated to turn 2 deepstrike and CSM Terminators lost their buff over loyalist ones?

What's the CSM buff that they lost?

 SputnikDX wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
So where do Terminators stand now? Now that they are relegated to turn 2 deepstrike and CSM Terminators lost their buff over loyalist ones?

What's the CSM buff that they lost?

They can no longer warp time after deepstrike, so they are back to the full 9inch charge on 2d6 gamble.

They are still about the same. You can call the deepstrike nerf a termy nerf, but everything else that deepstrikes got hit too, and some other units were better at it than termies are so it doesn't bother me much.

Deepstrike charge w/ reroll is ~70%.
Warptime w/ a deny attempt is ~75% success.

There are certainly ways to force WT through for TS and some opponents won't have psykers, but it's largely the same overall chance of success.

Ice_can wrote:

 SputnikDX wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
So where do Terminators stand now? Now that they are relegated to turn 2 deepstrike and CSM Terminators lost their buff over loyalist ones?

What's the CSM buff that they lost?

They can no longer warp time after deepstrike, so they are back to the full 9inch charge on 2d6 gamble.

Where'd ya see that? I downloaded all the faqs and didn't catch that

 Zid wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 SputnikDX wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
So where do Terminators stand now? Now that they are relegated to turn 2 deepstrike and CSM Terminators lost their buff over loyalist ones?

What's the CSM buff that they lost?

They can no longer warp time after deepstrike, so they are back to the full 9inch charge on 2d6 gamble.

Where'd ya see that? I downloaded all the faqs and didn't catch that

Here:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_rulebook_en-1.pdf

Page 5.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Deepstrike charge w/ reroll is ~70%.

No it isn't, it's 52% assuming you save a CP to reroll only one die when it's better than a full reroll.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Zid wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 SputnikDX wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
So where do Terminators stand now? Now that they are relegated to turn 2 deepstrike and CSM Terminators lost their buff over loyalist ones?

What's the CSM buff that they lost?

They can no longer warp time after deepstrike, so they are back to the full 9inch charge on 2d6 gamble.

Where'd ya see that? I downloaded all the faqs and didn't catch that

Here:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_rulebook_en-1.pdf

Page 5.

AHHHH I missed a FAQ, thank you!

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Deepstrike charge w/ reroll is ~70%.

What kind of maths are you using?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Deepstrike charge w/ reroll is ~70%.

No it isn't, it's 52% assuming you save a CP to reroll only one die when it's better than a full reroll.

Sorry bad math. I get 58% though.

4/32 fail regardless
10/32 succeed
4/32 need a 3+
6/32 need a 4+
7/32 need a 5+
6/32 need a 6+

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Deepstrike charge w/ reroll is ~70%.

No it isn't, it's 52% assuming you save a CP to reroll only one die when it's better than a full reroll.

Sorry bad math. I get 58% though.

4/32 fail regardless
10/32 succeed
4/32 need a 3+
6/32 need a 4+
7/32 need a 5+
6/32 need a 6+

Pardon my French but you wot?

There are 36 outcomes on 2d6 not 32 and you have 37 possible outcomes listed there.

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Deepstrike charge w/ reroll is ~70%.

No it isn't, it's 52% assuming you save a CP to reroll only one die when it's better than a full reroll.

Sorry bad math. I get 58% though.

4/32 fail regardless
10/32 succeed
4/32 need a 3+
6/32 need a 4+
7/32 need a 5+
6/32 need a 6+

Pardon my French but you wot?

There are 36 outcomes on 2d6 not 32 and you have 37 possible outcomes listed there.

32 is a typo. I dunno wat da fuq I did for 37 though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok there.

4/32 fail regardless
10/32 succeed
4/32 need a 3+
6/32 need a 4+
7/32 need a 5+
5/32 need a 6+

So, yea, 52...ignore me.

The highest percentage you can get is ~57%: that's with re-rolls to charge and a command re-roll at your disposal.