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.

------------------------- Plugging FNP into the above reasoning-----------------------------------------

If we took this figure and modified for some of our desired alterations, like FNP 4+, I would argue it should do the following:

Since FNP is more consistent than the invulnerable save, I think the division I used for it would be cancelled and a further 16.67% fee added on (because its going from a 5+ to a 4+),
and our base cost is still 15, so : 15*16.67% = 2.5. I'll round down, so +2 pts. Now we add the original invuln pt value, without the division and rounding up. So, +5. Now we add 2+5 in total = 7 pts

Therefore, a terminator with FNP 4+, storm bolter and powerfist should cost 31 points.

[the above values may change around FYI]

Personally, I would start the calculations at a 5+ FNP since right now Terminators have 5+ Invul.

I think your point system is a great Idea myself. Honestly, I think there should be a point system for building units in all the armies anyway. It would make tuning and balancing armies a lot easier. You still wouldn't achieve perfect balance, but I am fine with that. Balanced armies, codices and units would really change the game. It would create a lot more build diversity.

I love the work this guy has done here for vehicle construction http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/634211.page . Lythrandire Biehrellian has really done a good job with it IMO. If we could do the same thing with other units and maybe the weapons to find a closer approximation to their true points value we could pontentially fix not just Terminators, but everything to an acceptable level. But that is a topic for another thread.

I think testing Terminators with a 5+ FNP @ the ppm your system would suggest for something like that is a good start. Then maybe try out my storm bolter idea (shameless plug) to see how that affects things. Finally, maybe test the TDA changes to storm bolters. We, as a community, could test these ideas; as well as the ideas others have suggested and keep what works the best.

I believe it is time we start to actually try and test the ideas in games instead of just talk about the changes endlessly in various threads. We can talk and discount all we like, but ultimately we don't know for sure if an idea is good or not unless we give it a go and test it. That is as long as the idea is a reasonable one. If it seems blatantly OP it probably is.

I should say that we should mathematically test changes before we actually playtest them as well if that is possible. But, actual playtesting is needed. If I had a second army or an easy way to get a game I could do a lot of it myself. Unfortunately I am in a situation where actual playtesting for me is very difficult. It is amazing how EASY it is to get a game with a FLGS and how HARD it is without one.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Playtesting is fine to an extent. I just don't think taking various entries from other lists to 'playtest vs' is as directly proportional as you might think. Each army is considered with an internal balance just as much as general game balance perspective. I think the safer bet is to take that related army's standard infantryman as the point cost baseline and establish a metric for our alterations.

Playtesting is just that -- testing. It's not to set points, it's to double-check if the values you arrive by your metric give the results you want. Look at it as a way of proving the results of your changes and costing. And in some ways it's easier to say "that works" than by remaining completely abstract. For example, if 200pts is a baseline, we can test 5x Termies at 40ppm, 6x Termies at 33ppm, 5x Termies at 28ppm, and 8x Termies at 25ppm. I can't tell you if 35ppm is the fairest true baseline. I can only say, "here are the results of testing, consider them as you will". Keep in mind it doesn't preclude considering internal synergy to weigh the results afterwards.

The only reason to discourage gaming the values, is if you don't want to check the "practice" against your "theory"!

I want to make this very clear, I'm not against play testing. I'm against gross comparisons for what WE might think are equally diametrical and then digressing into opinion.
You cannot establish a baseline with playtesting alone. There first needs to exist some consistent theoreticals first.

Let's consider your list:

At 200pts, here's a selection of infantry to draw a reliable baseline:

- 1x Nob w/30 Boyz
- 5x Meganobz
- 7x Praetorian
- 8x Lychguard
- 5x Wraith with Whip Coils
- 14x Tac Marines
- 5x Tac Terminators
- 5x TH/SS Terminators
- 34x Guardsmen, Platoon Commander, Commissar
- 10x Incubi
- 1x Wraithknight
- 15x Genestealer
- 4x Lictor

All this is doing is looking at current point values that equal 200 pts? We're suppose to get a reliable baseline from this?? There are so many factors in which these units excel at - in certain situations. The amount of situational testing needed for this type of playtesting would be extensive, if done in earnest and consistently. However, I think any discernible outcomes will be gakked up with personal opinion or skewed by situational fortune if there are not some theoretical baselines first.

What we need to further ask ourselves before testing, or composing scenarios is, how are the terminators meant to be played?

We really really need to refrain from our inner Orc: 'Dees ca'n beaht dem guys bhut not d'om guys? t'at's OP - cuz methinks!
Even if you have other people who think your 'opinion' is more correct, you've proven nothing but gaining numbers in a might makes right fashion (popularity version).

One last thing we need to remember about Warhammer : re-balancing a point value that you suspect being off isn't dependent on the value of the 'variety pool' - its an inexorable thing - inferred in that statement. It's simply bad science to assume one exception (terminators) and not recognize the assumption that the rest of the point scale is consistent. Your eating your own tail doing that. That goes back to understanding what to compromise on unless we intend on revamping all point values (which i don't have the time for). Some units may just get owned by terminators more so but, Terminators may just get their asses handed back to them in new ways. We need to keep this in mind particularly before formulating fixes.

What we need to further ask ourselves before testing, or composing scenarios is, how are the terminators meant to be played?

We really really need to refrain from our inner Orc: 'Dees ca'n beaht dem guys bhut not d'om guys? t'at's OP - cuz methinks!
Even if you have other people who think your 'opinion' is more correct, you've proven nothing but gaining numbers in a might makes right fashion (popularity version).

One last thing we need to remember about Warhammer : re-balancing a point value that you suspect being off isn't dependent on the value of the 'variety pool' - its an inexorable thing - inferred in that statement. It's simply bad science to assume one exception (terminators) and not recognize the assumption that the rest of the point scale is consistent. Your eating your own tail doing that. That goes back to understanding what to compromise on unless we intend on revamping all point values (which i don't have the time for). Some units may just get owned by terminators more so but, Terminators may just get their asses handed back to them in new ways. We need to keep this in mind particularly before formulating fixes.

I think the intention of Tactical Terminators is to be a more durable, more versatile, tactical unit with more firepower. It seems to me they are meant to be a unit that is supposed to shoot for a turn or two then mop up in an assault. I feel the powerfist is a weapon that was given to them in poor judgement. The judgement being that a 5+ invul save would protect them and thus worth the price hike of the unit. it clearly is not. While they have power weapons standard terminators really aren't geared towards assault.

I agree there are issues with the points system overall with things out of whack. I don't think it will get solved right away, but I think there are enough correctly priced units that we can over time adjust them.

Terminators should have things they are good at killing, and there are things that should be good at killing them. I think the biggest issues with Terminators besides their cost is the lack of firepower or rather the lack of volume of fire and versatility.

I am hoping eventually we can get an accurate point scale, and maybe we can get there eventually. Until then, however, I think working with the units that are the most out of whack is a good place to start.

I understand you don't have time to do the rebalancing yourself. No one does. But it can be done if we, as a community, work together. If we get those with the most experience, the time, and insight to band together and tackle these problems we can do it. I'd say don't work on the problem as a giant group, but break it up into pieces and keep up the communication. It won't be easy because it will mean having to put egos and preconceptions aside, and be willing to compromise; as well as try other people's ideas. This is a tough thing to do for a group of people who are VERY passionate about their armies and units. And we will have to except we won't be able to match fluff exactly (especially since so much of it is written in such an exaggerated fashion).

None of the issues are made easy by GW not doing their job gameplay wise and retcon wise. I am wishing more and more that they would drop the "40K" and call it Sci-fi. Then they could advance the story and game without having to retcon whenever they release something new. The same idea should apply to Fantasy too imo. GW really needs to go back to having an interaction with it's customers and playtesting the games, but I know that will never happen.

Anyway, sorry for the rant.

 NorseSig wrote:


I think the intention of Tactical Terminators is to be a more durable, more versatile, tactical unit with more firepower. It seems to me they are meant to be a unit that is supposed to shoot for a turn or two then mop up in an assault. I feel the powerfist is a weapon that was given to them in poor judgement. The judgement being that a 5+ invul save would protect them and thus worth the price hike of the unit. it clearly is not. While they have power weapons standard terminators really aren't geared towards assault.

I agree there are issues with the points system overall with things out of whack. I don't think it will get solved right away, but I think there are enough correctly priced units that we can over time adjust them.

Terminators should have things they are good at killing, and there are things that should be good at killing them. I think the biggest issues with Terminators besides their cost is the lack of firepower or rather the lack of volume of fire and versatility.

I am hoping eventually we can get an accurate point scale, and maybe we can get there eventually. Until then, however, I think working with the units that are the most out of whack is a good place to start.

I understand you don't have time to do the rebalancing yourself. No one does. But it can be done if we, as a community, work together. If we get those with the most experience, the time, and insight to band together and tackle these problems we can do it. I'd say don't work on the problem as a giant group, but break it up into pieces and keep up the communication. It won't be easy because it will mean having to put egos and preconceptions aside, and be willing to compromise; as well as try other people's ideas. This is a tough thing to do for a group of people who are VERY passionate about their armies and units. And we will have to except we won't be able to match fluff exactly (especially since so much of it is written in such an exaggerated fashion).

None of the issues are made easy by GW not doing their job gameplay wise and retcon wise. I am wishing more and more that they would drop the "40K" and call it Sci-fi. Then they could advance the story and game without having to retcon whenever they release something new. The same idea should apply to Fantasy too imo. GW really needs to go back to having an interaction with it's customers and playtesting the games, but I know that will never happen.

Anyway, sorry for the rant.

Well I started another thread dedicated to playtesting just a bit ago - the FNP idea for terminators. After enough testing with that, we can look into weapon options.

I agree mostly with your outlook on tactical terminators. Regarding your notion on firepower, we should probably keep in mind how it should look than simply more. For 5 guys in a squad, should they really produce more shots than a squad of 10 tactical marines? Should they really overshadow heavy bolters so much? Should we really give them enough options to replace a devastator role?

Perhaps targeting systems may be a neat way of tackling this (since terminators are suppose to have better sensors etc) - I'm thinking rerolls to hit on their ranged weapons, in conjunction with wearing terminator armour, would be a fun synergy and help alleviate their ranged ability enough, without going too overboard. Essentially, it would make wearing terminator armour for marines BS5 (from BS4) but not affecting the global veteran statline. It would also be consistent with the idea of Terminators: quality over quantity.

I think I'll restrict my thoughts on Stormbolters to the thread that was made specifically for that, and simply comment on the weapon options of Terminators.

More-or-less, I think that at a minimum, they should have more options than "CML, AC, HF". I'm somewhat wary of allowing the Plasma Cannon on vanilla Termies, simply because "all the plasma" seems more of a DA thing. OTOH, I feel like DA Termies are in a slightly better place as far as options go, purely because they do have that PC... though mostly because it means more options than "CML/AC/HF". The basic ML would be redundant due to the Terminator-specific CML, but the MM and PC both have potential.

LCs arguably step on LC/ML DevCents, and wouldn't really sync well with the purpose of Terminators- since they're Relentless and DS, they do have the option of just marching up the board while shooting things. LCs don't work so well for that; CMLs can work purely because they get to double-tap relative to regular MLs. For the HB, it ends up being somewhat redundant- the AC will generally outclass it in almost every respect. Of course, if HB were made a 5 point upgrade instead of 10, then it could become sort of a budget dakka option.

I'd also say that most of the much more reasoned (and streamlined) proposals about Stormbolters that I'm seeing (and preferring at this point) tend to just provide a RoF boost.

It's also worth noting that 5 Terminators out-dakka'ing 10 Tacs is, IMO, somewhat reasonable. As it stands, Terminators simply can't out-dakka their cost in Tacs; the Tacs have generally better weapon options (the only standout Termie gun, IMO, is the CML), far more varied (and thus versatile) weapon options, and still retain a good amount of basic bolter fire.

Well I started another thread dedicated to playtesting just a bit ago - the FNP idea for terminators. After enough testing with that, we can look into weapon options.

I agree mostly with your outlook on tactical terminators. Regarding your notion on firepower, we should probably keep in mind how it should look than simply more. For 5 guys in a squad, should they really produce more shots than a squad of 10 tactical marines? Should they really overshadow heavy bolters so much? Should we really give them enough options to replace a devastator role?

Perhaps targeting systems may be a neat way of tackling this (since terminators are suppose to have better sensors etc) - I'm thinking rerolls to hit on their ranged weapons, in conjunction with wearing terminator armour, would be a fun synergy and help alleviate their ranged ability enough, without going too overboard. Essentially, it would make wearing terminator armour for marines BS5 (from BS4) but not affecting the global veteran statline. It would also be consistent with the idea of Terminators: quality over quantity.

I don't think assault 3 would hurt heavy bolters much seeing as heavy bolters have a higher str and a better ap. And i could live with two or 3 heavy upgrades total if storm bolters offered that along with my previous suggestions on TDA and storm bolter interactions. I could live with it because it would provide tactical flexibility with some possible downsides if you choose wrong for the turn. But again it is something that needs to be tested eventually, and these are just ideas aka brainstorming.

I do agree that it would blur the line a bit for heavy bolters, but then again I think heavy bolters is one of those weapons that has kind of lost it's place to other things anyway (I would love to give them pinning and give pinning back to sniper rifles as well). But that is a discussion for another thread too.

Devastators are hampered by them not really being a good choice. I think they would be better off with split fire and being in the troops section. But, again that is a topic for another thread.

I will check out your thread for testing if I can find it. It is nice having a productive or at least seemingly so discussion. I hope we can get somewhere with it so we don't have to keep having these threads about terminators every week or so rehashing old ground and getting nowhere.

 NorseSig wrote:

Well I started another thread dedicated to playtesting just a bit ago - the FNP idea for terminators. After enough testing with that, we can look into weapon options.

I agree mostly with your outlook on tactical terminators. Regarding your notion on firepower, we should probably keep in mind how it should look than simply more. For 5 guys in a squad, should they really produce more shots than a squad of 10 tactical marines? Should they really overshadow heavy bolters so much? Should we really give them enough options to replace a devastator role?

Perhaps targeting systems may be a neat way of tackling this (since terminators are suppose to have better sensors etc) - I'm thinking rerolls to hit on their ranged weapons, in conjunction with wearing terminator armour, would be a fun synergy and help alleviate their ranged ability enough, without going too overboard. Essentially, it would make wearing terminator armour for marines BS5 (from BS4) but not affecting the global veteran statline. It would also be consistent with the idea of Terminators: quality over quantity.

I don't think assault 3 would hurt heavy bolters much seeing as heavy bolters have a higher str and a better ap. And i could live with two or 3 heavy upgrades total if storm bolters offered that along with my previous suggestions on TDA and storm bolter interactions. I could live with it because it would provide tactical flexibility with some possible downsides if you choose wrong for the turn. But again it is something that needs to be tested eventually, and these are just ideas aka brainstorming.

I do agree that it would blur the line a bit for heavy bolters, but then again I think heavy bolters is one of those weapons that has kind of lost it's place to other things anyway (I would love to give them pinning and give pinning back to sniper rifles as well). But that is a discussion for another thread too.

Devastators are hampered by them not really being a good choice. I think they would be better off with split fire and being in the troops section. But, again that is a topic for another thread.

I will check out your thread for testing if I can find it. It is nice having a productive or at least seemingly so discussion. I hope we can get somewhere with it so we don't have to keep having these threads about terminators every week or so rehashing old ground and getting nowhere.

Indeed. I wasn't really expecting this thread to turn into anything more than rendezvous rant to be honest. I hope enough people jump in on the playtesting. Here's the link (its a newer post):

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/638978.page

Also, I like your profile emblem - I'm IH player too but their 30k though.

I'll link some dudes in my dakka gallery later in the week. Bought them already painted (about a month ago), but I'm redoing the bevel/rim color from black to baneblade brown. Working on some 30k DG right now as well.

Oh and about the storm bolter heavy bolter relationship: i was sort of referencing anyone advocating a strength increase on storm bolters (thus being S5 and = to HB more so).

Whiskey144 636783 7650344 wrote:
I never even compared DevCents to Tac Termies in combat, though. In fact, I didn't even mention DevCents in combat at all, except to say that Terminators won't ever get into combat with DevCents.

You sort of did. You said Tac Termies (as a unit) were comparable to DevCents based on the fact their upgrades mostly all guns. Well, now you're saying they're obviously not. Put as charitably as possible, that was extremely poor phrasing.

Next, feel free to compare a pure assault unit like TH/SS Termies against Assault Cents. Both against each other, and against a I5 Wraithknight. You can leave the SnP issues out of it, but they are definitely there. Setting up a charge is important and Termies are better at it (as they can move more than 6" a turn).

Anyways, it's all rhetorical, I looked at it already. It's not too complicated man. Tac Termies are a hybrid unit. They can kit special weapons and are competent assaulters, as you said they defeat Assault Cents off the charge. You are just making it painful to even talk to you, because you're apparently more invested in arguing semantics and playing at "destruction-in-detail" of someone else's post rather than making a simple clarification of your own.

Also, I like your profile emblem - I'm IH player too but their 30k though.

I'll link some dudes in my dakka gallery later in the week. Bought them already painted (about a month ago), but I'm redoing the bevel/rim color from black to baneblade brown. Working on some 30k DG right now as well.

This is a bit off topic, and I hope it doesn't derail the thread; but, I LOVE 30K IH. If I had the cash I would start an army of them.

I need to strip my models and repaint them at some point once I get hold of some decent paints. I want to do a more accurate job with the colors and clan company symbols. I need to get a better transition of colors than I do right now. And I want to do a more 30K style paint scheme on them.
I fear I may have to rely on a painting service to get them based and painted up to my standard since I just do not have the painting skills to get them to that level (sight, inexperience, and steady hand issues). I'll probably keep trying on my own, but if time and quality become a factor I'll just save some money and get Frontline Gaming do it.

I agree with give termies 2 wounds. It makes sense to me.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Whiskey144 636783 7650344 wrote:
I never even compared DevCents to Tac Termies in combat, though. In fact, I didn't even mention DevCents in combat at all, except to say that Terminators won't ever get into combat with DevCents.

You sort of did. You said Tac Termies (as a unit) were comparable to DevCents based on the fact their upgrades mostly all guns. Well, now you're saying they're obviously not. Put as charitably as possible, that was extremely poor phrasing.

Next, feel free to compare a pure assault unit like TH/SS Termies against Assault Cents. Both against each other, and against a I5 Wraithknight. You can leave the SnP issues out of it, but they are definitely there. Setting up a charge is important and Termies are better at it (as they can move more than 6" a turn).

Anyways, it's all rhetorical, I looked at it already. It's not too complicated man. Tac Termies are a hybrid unit. They can kit special weapons and are competent assaulters, as you said they defeat Assault Cents off the charge. You are just making it painful to even talk to you, because you're apparently more invested in arguing semantics and playing at "destruction-in-detail" of someone else's post rather than making a simple clarification of your own.

It's still REALLY hard to like a 45 pt model with no ranged capability at all and 6" movement. I don't think TH/SS terminators are that good, and they are the best of the bunch.

Yoyoyo wrote:
You sort of did. You said Tac Termies (as a unit) were comparable to DevCents based on the fact their upgrades mostly all guns. Well, now you're saying they're obviously not. Put as charitably as possible, that was extremely poor phrasing.

Okay, I'm going back through my posts in this thread to look at any and/or all places I may have compared Shootynators and DevCents. The first time I mentioned DevCents was in comparing the amount of firepower that could be put on the field by primarily infantry units in various CAD slots for a similar price to the current Shootynators, using a 10-man/2 AC squad.

The second time was to point out that that if Shootynators were reduced to 35 ppm, and changed to double heavy/5 guys, with a 5-man squad using two CMLs, a min-sized squad of LC/ML DevCents is much more expensive, but while lacking an invulnerable save and DS, they are somewhat better suited to the current meta on account of T5/2W.

In that particular case I then went on to say that the Assault Terminator entry, a pure assault unit, only has options for combat weapons.

Furthermore, I was specifically referring to the fact that when I compared Terminators and Centurions in combat against each other, I was using the Assault Centurions for that comparison. While I did comment that I'd lump Shootynators and DevCents together on account of having primarily gun-based upgrades, there's also a very real sense in that they're also comparable on account of both being the equivalent of super-heavy infantry models that are used to bring heavy weapons to the field. The problem is that looking at the two units in that way, DevCents end up being blatantly superior.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Next, feel free to compare a pure assault unit like TH/SS Termies against Assault Cents. Both against each other, and against a I5 Wraithknight. You can leave the SnP issues out of it, but they are definitely there. Setting up a charge is important and Termies are better at it (as they can move more than 6" a turn).

Comparison of Hammernators and AssCents, and then a WK vs AssCents? Your wish is my command, oh great master of Yo-yos.

HAMMERTIME:

5 Hammernators is 225 points, 3 AssCents are 190 points. AssCents take no upgrades, as for the purposes of combat no upgrades are relevant. Hammernators have 10 S8/AP2 attacks, at I1; AssCents have 7 S9/AP2 at I4. AssCents strike first, hitting 3.5 attacks and inflicting ~2.92 wounds. Hammernators have a Stormshield, and so get a 3++, which then results in around 0.97 unsaved wounds. Call it one; so that's 1 Hammernator down, and four left. They strike back with 8 attacks, get 4 hits, and inflict 3.332 wounds. So they kill one AssCent in return- we'll assume the sergeant for now, and then consider what happens if one of the grunts dies first instead.

Round 2, one AssCent will strike first, while the other is reduced to I1 due to Concussive (THs get the Concussive trait, which is very rarely used on account of only a few models being multi-wound and T5+). The one who goes first will get 2 attacks, 1 hit, ~0.833 wounds. This is then saved by the Terminators to be ~0.27 wounds inflicted. The other AssCent will then inflict the same amount of attacks/unsaved wounds; we'll be somewhat generous and say that the Hammernators manage to take another casualty. The three remaining Hammernators then strike back with 6 attacks, 3 hits, ~2.5 wounds, most likely killing both AssCents.

However, it is extremely important to remember that the only difference in this scenario, as compared to regular PF/SB Termies, is that Hammernators have SSs, and so get a 3++. This is literally the only reason that they're able to actually win combat. Even if AssCents get the charge, the 3++ will easily ensure that the Hammernators win anyways- statistically speaking there'll be about 0.4 additional unsaved wounds, which actually meshes in well with the ~0.54 wounds from the remaining AssCents after the first round of combat. Again, the only reason Hammernators beat AssCents, is because they have a 3++.

WRAITHKNIGHT

Unfortunately, I can't find any information on how to calculate the results of limited rerolls (IE, the effects of rules like Master-crafted), so this will be done without the inclusion of the Ghostglaive/Scattershield added to the WK. In any case, a plain WK is 240 points, 4 AssCents (no upgrades, as none are relevant to assault) are 250 points. For the record, 4 AssCents is equal in cost to the Ghostglaive/Scattershield WK.

So, WK is I5, strikes at S10/WS4/4A, against 4 AssCents, who'll get 9 S9/AP2 attacks, also at WS4, but at I4. WK goes first, hits twice, and inflicts ~1.67 wounds... that, thanks to MC status, are also AP2. Since these attacks are S10 vs Cent T5, it instagibs two Cents. We'll be nice and let the Cent sarge live this time; Cent sarge and remaining Marine will get 5 attacks, 2.5 hits, and ~1.67 wounds. Next round of combat, AssCents are wiped, WK is down by two wounds.

WK LIKES HAMMERTIME TOO

How do 5 Hammernators do against a WK? Well, as before, the WK will get 4 attacks, hit twice, get ~1.67 wounds, which then face a 3++, for ~0.56 unsaved wounds. Best case, 4 Hammernators remain. They then strike back, with 8 S8/AP2/Concussive attacks, 4 hits, and 2 unsaved wounds. Second round, total wounds inflicted by WK will again be ~0.56; so between the first and second rounds of combat, one Terminator is guaranteed to die. OTOH, the WK is now reduced to I1 (due to Concussive THs), and so is striking simultaneously with the Hammernators. Who then put two more wounds on the WK.

Round 3, probably a second Hammernator dead, but he still gets to strike due to both parties being at the same Initiative step. WK is killed, and around three Hammernators are likely to still be standing. Against Strength 10 MCs, the AssCents T5/2W profile works against them, as they end up instagibbed. It's also worth noting that the real equalizer here is the killer invuln that Hammernators get- there's a reason that there exists a blog by the name "3++ is the new black", after all.

I'd also like to mention that against lower-Strength MCs, AssCents will likely do a lot better- S9/AP2 without Unwieldy is a huge advantage in punching big gribbly things. Even more so than a 3++, almost, as striking first means that there's potential to never actually need to roll saves, since you might very well wipe out the enemy unit before they ever get the chance to strike. This is, incidentally, why AssCents rip into PF/SB Termies so badly- they can leave the Terminators with no recourse but a 5++, and even if the Termies were changed to swap an invuln for FNP, it would be even worse, as S9 ID's T4.

Moreover, Martel brings up a good point: Hammernators are slow if they don't have a fancy ride (like an overpriced LR or an unreliable Stormraven). Hammernators were probably the best assault unit in 5th edition, to the point that they were the stick by which all other punchy things were measured at the time. Which is saying something quite impressive about Hammernators, considering that 5th was very shooting oriented.

Hammernators, of all Terminator models, have probably aged the best- Chaos and GK Termies are the other contenders- Chaos Termies can do a three man melta-cide DS unit for relatively cheap (~112 points for 3 dudes with combi-meltas), and GK Termies are both cheaper and arguably better equipped- most GK Termie combat weapons strike at Initiative value, and on top of that GK Termies get a buttload of different grenades- most importantly, frag and psyk-out. SW Termies are probably something that's aged sort of well on account of similarities with Chaos Termies- they start of fairly cheap and can take combi-meltas in very small (3-model) squads.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Anyways, it's all rhetorical, I looked at it already. It's not too complicated man. Tac Termies are a hybrid unit. They can kit special weapons and are competent assaulters, as you said they defeat Assault Cents off the charge. You are just making it painful to even talk to you, because you're apparently more invested in arguing semantics and playing at "destruction-in-detail" of someone else's post rather than making a simple clarification of your own.

It's important to note that Tac Termies vs AssCents in an assault, the deciding factor is really who charges who- or rather, who can get the bonus for charging, as if either one is forced into a Disordered Charge of some kind, then the end result is effective mutual destruction. Not only that, but AssCents get guns that tend to be relevant at assault range.

In contrast, Terminator weapons will see them sticking around 24"- which is out of range of all but the most deadly/wildly optimistic assault units/ranges. This is really the killer for Tac Termies as being competent in assault- they only actually do well at punching tanks, the odd walker, or as a last resort a MC. Against most MCs, so long as the target is S9 or less, AssCents tend to be better- S9 is a big deal as it means you get to wound T7 on 2s and T8 on 3s- some of the nastier MCs in the game are that (WKs are T8, for example). It's also important to note that the gun upgrades for Terminators are expensive- you're really going to want them shooting as much as possible so that you can leverage as much efficiency as you possibly can for the overall cost of platform+weapon upgrades.

As it stands, if I want mass S8+ fire, then I'm probably going to take AC+ML, or even Rifleman Dreads, as well as Typhoon speeders, Typhoon Stormtalons (who also get twin-linked ACs!), and some combination of LC Devs, LC/ML DevCents, or trilas Preds. Terminators don't really offer any compelling advantage for their guns. Not only that, but as I've mentioned before, the guns Terminators get, and their basic melee weapons, are designed for engaging two opposing ends of the target spectrum. Which makes Terminators schizo, as they either shoot at- to little effect- something they can punch to death... or they are forced to tarpit themselves if they're in a position to assault things. And certainly, I can say that if I have the opportunity to present my opponent with something that Terminators are good at shooting, and he obliges me by getting into assault range, then I am damn well going to charge my blob of meatbag light infantry into his Terminators, where they will probably be locked into combat for the rest of the game.

Whiskey144 wrote:
Unfortunately, I can't find any information on how to calculate the results of limited rerolls (IE, the effects of rules like Master-crafted)

You can use a probability calculator. For your future use.

http://ncalculators.com/statistics/probability-calculator.htm

If Terminators become 2W models... What happens to Paladins? There is no way that they can become 3W models!

It seems to me that Grey Knights as an army restrict what changes could happen:

The storm bolter cannot become salvo because of PAGK.

Terminators cannot gain a W because of Paladins.

Terminators cannot gain a 4++ because of Sanctic +1 invulnerable save shenanigans.

SGTPozy wrote:
If Terminators become 2W models... What happens to Paladins? There is no way that they can become 3W models!

It seems to me that Grey Knights as an army restrict what changes could happen:

The storm bolter cannot become salvo because of PAGK.

Terminators cannot gain a W because of Paladins.

Terminators cannot gain a 4++ because of Sanctic +1 invulnerable save shenanigans.

I kind of don't care about paladins. Paladins came much, much later to the party. We need to take care of the originals first and worry about GK silliness later.

Sanctuary doesn't stack with itself. Make storm bolters Assault 3. Just leave Paladins at two Wounds.

GK don't really restrict changes.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Sanctuary doesn't stack with itself. Make storm bolters Assault 3. Just leave Paladins at two Wounds.

GK don't really restrict changes.

I don't want more S4 shooting though. The terminators will stay on the shelf.

Martel732 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Sanctuary doesn't stack with itself. Make storm bolters Assault 3. Just leave Paladins at two Wounds.

GK don't really restrict changes.

I don't want more S4 shooting though. The terminators will stay on the shelf.

Simply pointing out that you can make changes that would impact GK.

Yet again, 4+ Inv base, 30ppm with power weapons instead of power fists, and two upgrade weapons per five models. Fixes Terminators handily without silliness.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Sanctuary doesn't stack with itself. Make storm bolters Assault 3. Just leave Paladins at two Wounds.

GK don't really restrict changes.

I don't want more S4 shooting though. The terminators will stay on the shelf.

Simply pointing out that you can make changes that would impact GK.

Yet again, 4+ Inv base, 30ppm with power weapons instead of power fists, and two upgrade weapons per five models. Fixes Terminators handily without silliness.

I could live with that. 3/5 worthless shooting is a lot better than 4/5 worthless shooting.

At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x Heavy Weapon slots, you can DS a 5-Man squad w/ 2x Heavy Flamers and 6x S4 shots for 170pts. Maybe some use in pushing isolated ObSec troops off an objective. Heavy Flamer is going to do well versus GEQ and Power Sword/Maul Termies will find acceptable CC targets too. You risk getting stuck in bigger Tarpits, but it's much better than 1x Flamer/Fist Termies. The above profile seems to reflect really well on the fluff IMO -- teleporting shock troops crunching into hordes or weaker troops to seize critical objectives.

At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x AC (190pts) you could get 10x S6 AP4 CC attacks with the maul and 8x Rending S6 AP4 with the AC. With a standardized profile in both melee and CC, I suppose you'd go after light armour or tougher units with a poor armour save. Still risky points wise, but maybe there is some tactical value in knocking out key targets like artillery or AA, like a Manticore (170pts) or 2x Hydras in a battery (140pts).

At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x CML (200pts), you have a pretty usual and pricey gunline unit that either can't take advantage of standoff or power weapons. The S8 Krak has a more unified offensive profile with S8 Power Fists, unfortunately it starts getting very expensive. However, it's firepower is more or less average at 200pts. So maybe there's a niche role due to the DS and 2+ save.

At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and Storm Bolters, you can DS 2x 5-man Combat Squads in for 300pts. The idea is going after backfield targets with melee, and hoping to survive through target saturation. The usual issues with DS remain (reserves coordination, scatter, mishaps, survivability). But probably more survivable than with 200pt Power Fist Termies.

Just some options to reflect on the points values, and what you'd actually use. Split Fire of course would help, and it 's very fluffy "Tactical".

Yoyoyo wrote:
At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x Heavy Weapon slots, you can DS a 5-Man squad w/ 2x Heavy Flamers and 6x S4 shots for 170pts. Maybe some use in pushing isolated ObSec troops off an objective. Heavy Flamer is going to do well versus GEQ and Power Sword/Maul Termies will find acceptable CC targets. You risk getting stuck in bigger Tarpits, but it's much better than 1x Flamer/Fist Termies. The above profile seems to reflect really well on the fluff IMO -- teleporting shock troops crunching through hordes to seize critical objectives.

At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x AC (190pts) you could get 10x S6 AP4 CC attacks with the maul and 8x Rending S6 AP4 with the AC. With a standardized profile in both melee and CC, I suppose you'd go after light armour or touger units with a poor armour save. Still risky points wise, but maybe there is some tactical value in knocking out key targets like artillery or AA, like a Manticore (170pts) or 2x Hydras in a battery (140pts).

At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x CML (200pts), you have a pretty usual and pricey gunline unit that either can't take advantage of standoff or power weapons. The S8 Krak has a more unified offensive profile with S8 Power Fists, unfortunately it starts getting very expensive. However, it's firepower is more or less average at 200pts. So maybe there's a niche role due to the DS and 2+ save.

At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and Storm Bolters, you can DS 2x 5-man Combat Squads in for 300pts. The idea is going after backfield targets with melee, and hoping to survive through target saturation. The usual issues with DS remain (reserves coordination, scatter, mishaps, survivability). But probably more survivable than with 200pt Power Fist Termies.

Just some options to reflect on the points values, and what you'd actually use.

Any of these are more useful than their current incarnation.

SGTPozy wrote:
If Terminators become 2W models... What happens to Paladins? There is no way that they can become 3W models!

It seems to me that Grey Knights as an army restrict what changes could happen:

The storm bolter cannot become salvo because of PAGK.

Terminators cannot gain a W because of Paladins.

Terminators cannot gain a 4++ because of Sanctic +1 invulnerable save shenanigans.

Terminators becoming a 2W model will:

a) not help them very much
b) have a far more serious impact with regards to multi-wound character models taking TDA.

As an example, consider the "Smashfether" build of the SM Chapter Master. Now add Terminator armor so that he gets a bonus wound.

Yoyoyo wrote:
At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x Heavy Weapon slots, you can DS a 5-Man squad w/ 2x Heavy Flamers and 6x S4 shots for 170pts. Maybe some use in pushing isolated ObSec troops off an objective. Heavy Flamer is going to do well versus GEQ and Power Sword/Maul Termies will find acceptable CC targets too. You risk getting stuck in bigger Tarpits, but it's much better than 1x Flamer/Fist Termies. The above profile seems to reflect really well on the fluff IMO -- teleporting shock troops crunching into hordes or weaker troops to seize critical objectives.

At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x AC (190pts) you could get 10x S6 AP4 CC attacks with the maul and 8x Rending S6 AP4 with the AC. With a standardized profile in both melee and CC, I suppose you'd go after light armour or tougher units with a poor armour save. Still risky points wise, but maybe there is some tactical value in knocking out key targets like artillery or AA, like a Manticore (170pts) or 2x Hydras in a battery (140pts).

At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and 2x CML (200pts), you have a pretty usual and pricey gunline unit that either can't take advantage of standoff or power weapons. The S8 Krak has a more unified offensive profile with S8 Power Fists, unfortunately it starts getting very expensive. However, it's firepower is more or less average at 200pts. So maybe there's a niche role due to the DS and 2+ save.

At 30ppm w/Power Weapons and Storm Bolters, you can DS 2x 5-man Combat Squads in for 300pts. The idea is going after backfield targets with melee, and hoping to survive through target saturation. The usual issues with DS remain (reserves coordination, scatter, mishaps, survivability). But probably more survivable than with 200pt Power Fist Termies.

Just some options to reflect on the points values, and what you'd actually use. Split Fire of course would help, and it 's very fluffy "Tactical".

All of these options would generally be better than the current. Ironically, this makes them very similar to the Chaos Termies... bar Chaos Termies having combi-weapons for everyone, of course and no CML, of course. It's also the case that this solves the issues Terminators have traditionally had with target selection- most of their guns are better suited to engaging infantry of some kind, while their powerfists want to punch things like MCs or vehicles.

Smashfether is good because he's on a bike, can't take Termie armor.

Yeah I wouldn't care about smashy if he was 5 wounds and couldn't GET PLACES after the initial deep strike. Also being off his bike means he's back down to t4, so small arms cheer, and no fnp from fists and lascannons and such.

As for termie fixing, I'm hoping for something that doesn't involve me going through all me termie models chopping off 90% of their power fists. (And ordering standard power weapons.)

SGTPozy wrote:
If Terminators become 2W models... What happens to Paladins? There is no way that they can become 3W models!

It seems to me that Grey Knights as an army restrict what changes could happen:

The storm bolter cannot become salvo because of PAGK.

Terminators cannot gain a W because of Paladins.

Terminators cannot gain a 4++ because of Sanctic +1 invulnerable save shenanigans.

TDA gets salvo for Stormbolters non TDA can uppgrade special issue ammo instead.

I'd be cool with special ammo with a ROF bump.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Smashfether is good because he's on a bike, can't take Termie armor.

Ah, I hadn't actually checked that to be sure.

niv-mizzet wrote:
As for termie fixing, I'm hoping for something that doesn't involve me going through all me termie models chopping off 90% of their power fists. (And ordering standard power weapons.)

You have a fair point. Given that Shootynators are generally considered to need improvements to their shooting, maybe we could discount their PF on account of it not being used except in extremis.

 Bishop F Gantry wrote:
TDA gets salvo for Stormbolters non TDA can uppgrade special issue ammo instead.

TDA models don't care about Salvo anything, since they are Relentless. Literally, Salvo is only actually relevant if you're not Relentless/SnP. If you have a unit with either of those traits, then Salvo might as well be Heavy for all the difference it would actually have.

Now, I won't go into all the problems with Salvo and the generally few examples of Salvo weapons that are actually good, but I will say this:

Stormbolters, even with Special Issue Ammo, would still need a RoF bump. The biggest thing, however, is that Stormbolters should not be like regular bolters, in that you get to pick which one whenever you shoot- there should be a trade-off involved with gaining higher RoF. IMO, I would phrase SB+Special Ammo rules thusly:

Any model with a Stormbolter may choose to take a Special Issue Ammo profile at no cost; it substitutes its own weapon type (IE, Assault) instead of the listed "Rapid Fire" type. Only one Special Ammo type may be issued with the Stormbolter. Further, if a unit includes multiple models armed with Stormbolters, all such models MUST choose the same Special Ammo type.

This prevents people from potentially squeezing the same number of Special Issue Ammo shots out of fewer guys with identical versatility to the current Sternguard+Special Ammo combination. It does, however, provide increased versatility to the Stormbolter-armed model.

In fact, this could be a good way to fix Stormbolters in general, is that you get the current S4/AP5 24" range, though bumped up to something like Assault 3, and then get to choose a Special Issue Ammo profile. This would be particularly interesting if we expanded on Special Issue Ammo variants, and also included some pintle-mount oriented and Sisters-specific profiles.

Maybe even include a GK-specific profile that's intended to kill daemons/psykers, though naturally a tradeoff would be necessary.

Now I'm afraid I might come off as very...newb...but: in regards to "fixing" terminators for competitive play: why not just give them 2 wounds? It's a pretty easy fix, makes them roughly x2 as likely to survive massed small arms, instant death weapons can still kill them but anti-tank has a slightly harder time...

Or am I just totally off here?

AFAIK- I wasn't present for the entire thread, only about half- 2W Termies was discussed but eventually decided against- Termies and Cents occupy a position of being what I like to call "super-heavy infantry"- they're heavier than traditional "heavy" infantry (IE, MEQ), but they're still actually an infantry model, rather than being MCs or walkers.

I think the general idea was that 2 wounds would make them too much like Centurions, which are also a 2+ save model that already has 2 wounds. It also ignores the other issue Terminators have:

They can't kill things very well. When I can literally get just as much firepower from 2 10-man Tac squads, in Rhinos, with special/heavy weapons, for the same cost as a 10-man Termie squad with 2 ACs, well, why would I take the Termies? Firepower is equal- or superior, depending on target composition- durability is comparable or perhaps better (20 T4/3+ wounds, 6 AV11/11/10 HPs, vs 10 T4/2+/5++ wounds), and I get to use my mandatory two Troops choices to get this into my list, and I get transports.

Oh, and the Tac squads get ObSec, even if ObSec isn't very useful most of the time.

Granted, vanilla Marines don't have very many good Elites choices- it mostly comes down to Sternguard and maybe Rifleman Dreads (IMO). So it's not like the Elites slot is filled with a bunch of amazing units and Terminators get left behind by other, better Elites units. Termies are getting left behind in favor of the mandatory two Troops choices.

EDIT: and this is considering that Tacs are themselves not that good, either. Which makes Terminators look even worse.

niv-mizzet wrote:
As for termie fixing, I'm hoping for something that doesn't involve me going through all me termie models chopping off 90% of their power fists. (And ordering standard power weapons.)

Whiskey144 wrote:
You have a fair point. Given that Shootynators are generally considered to need improvements to their shooting, maybe we could discount their PF on account of it not being used except in extremis.

One option is to split the Terminator branch in 3. You'd have:

- Tactical Terminator Squad (30ppm, Power Weapons, 2x Special Weapons)
- Assault Terminator Squad (40ppm, melee weapons only)
- Terminator Squad (35~ppm, Power Fists, 1x Special Weapon)

So basically you simply end up getting a discount on the Power Fists by buying them in bulk. It doesn't really "fix" the stock Terminators, it's just addressing the fact that 4x Power Fists are expensive, don't add any survivability, and require a lot of support to get them to the right target. So while 1x PF is maybe worth 25pts on your character, 4x PF are not worth 100pts on your troops.

Additionally, the stock Terminators are carrying the most Storm Bolters of these three groups, so they would benefit the most from any potential improvements.