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.

I just had an interesting idea.

People often complain about how the 3++ of Storm Shields is "too good", making people shy away from normal Terminators and Assault Termies with claws. Therefore, I propose the following:

Make Terminator Armour provide a rerollable 2+ armour save. In return, revert the Storm Shield back to being a 4++ that only applies in CC. This would increase Tactical Terminator survivability across the board, turning both kinds of Terminators into units that are virtually immune to small-arms fire, just as they are in the fluff. The loss of permanent 3++ would rein in
TH/SS Terminators against elite CC units and allow for them to be vulnerable to heavy firepower, just like normal Terminators currently are. It'd also give people more of an incentive to take plasma weapons.

I realise that this probably is far from perfect, but I'll throw this out here anyway.

I like it the way it is.

I'd say have it so the Storm Shield provides a 3++ in close combat and had no benefit against shooting. Either that or make it so you can re-roll your invul against all attacks. A re-rollable 2+ is still too strong.

The reason people don't take normal termis is because the game is so biased towards CC.

Any armies that have decent CC can make a pretty good army.

Or give normal terminators some better weapons,

2 heavy weapons per 5 man and make their guns assualt 3 or something.

I personally think this is a neat idea. Most of the time people who are turning their guns against terminators are using AP2 guns anyway.

Although it does make Terminators impervious to small arms.

Perhaps 2+ with a 5+ reroll?

And storm shields should be 4++
Having UNITS of 3++ for 40ppm is too much.

The current rules are fine. Terminators do not need to be any harder to kill at their current points cost.

Heck, even the Leman Russ is vulnerable to small arms on its rear armor.

To be fair, the Leman Russ is a glorified Tractor STC, Terminators are the dark ages' finest hazmat suits, and the 'small arms' fire' we're talking about is rocket bullets fired out of magic guns.

My friends and I have always played where storm shields provide a 4++ that can be used against shooting attacks. Even with the new rules we keep it at 4++ because 3++ is kinda OP I think. I dunno if it makes a difference, but we also play where the Crux Terminatus save is 6++, not 5++. If you wanted to make Termies better against small arms fire, I think a Toughness boost (maybe T5) would help to do that, but keep the 2+ save (and not make it re-rollable).

To me, standard Terminators just feel too squishy still. There are certain armies that have problems with Terminators, but the ones that don't usually are able to fry them pretty easily.

I say that Storm Shields should provide a +1 to a unit's Invulnerable Save. If the unit has no Invulnerable Save than they get a 5+ Invulnerable Save.

Another method might be to make Terminator Armour only able to be penetrated by AP 1 weapons.

Chalk on another 30 points per model, and sure.

Having another reroll of 2+ is a little overpowered. Then again, if that were true, my Deathwing would be killing Daemons like a fish in a barrel.

-Ogryn

Marik Law wrote:

Another method might be to make Terminator Armour only able to be penetrated by AP 1 weapons.

I guess lascannon gunners will just have sigh when they see a terminator and think to themselves, "Man, I wish there were some ancient and holy land raiders around. We can actually kill those things."

The problem isn't small arms fire, it's the proliferation of AP2/AP1.
I agree about the shields though.

Simple fix, normal Terminators get a 4++

Drop the storm shields to 3++ in CC only but make the terminators 2 wounds and toughness 5. That way they are difficult to kill despite not being shielded at range. Raise the point cost a little bit and I think that this would be more balanced. Perhaps promote shooty terminators if it went over well enough?

Haha, oh man that would be brutal, they'd have to cost twice as much for all that.

Oh goodie, this would be so great for my Orks

Really, just change to 3+ in CC. They still get a +5 against everything, so it's not like it's make TH/SS termines unplayable

Ok so 3++ is powerful but it is rediculouse to say ss termis are over powered/ under costed. Storm shields mean one less attack, no re role on failed to wound, and striking last. Sure they are survivable but see what happens when you match them against any unit with mass power attacks (like shrike squads) and they die just fine and don't even get to hit back.

Pony_law wrote:Ok so 3++ is powerful but it is rediculouse to say ss termis are over powered/ under costed. Storm shields mean one less attack, no re role on failed to wound, and striking last. Sure they are survivable but see what happens when you match them against any unit with mass power attacks (like shrike squads) and they die just fine and don't even get to hit back.

One less attack is a very good sacrifice for a 3+ Invulnerable Save. As for your Power Weapons theory, Power Weapons don't ignore the 3+ Invulnerable Save, thus they're more than likely going to survive to smack you with those Thunder Hammers. I've seen squads of Assault Terminators take out huge mobs of Orks without losing a single model, they're insane.

Assault Termies aren't undercosted or overpowered, honestly. They're just about right.

Look at them. 40 points buys you a single wound, a 2+/3++ save, a Thunder Hammer, and a statline that's straight 4s across the board. They're NOT that impressive for the money. Against mass small arms they die almost as easily as MEQs, and they cost nearly three times as much. They have no ranged weapons and are slow, so they need a transport to get into assault; but the only transport they can take is a Land Raider, which ups the cost of the unit by 250 points.

People think Assault Termies are overpowered because what they do is very, very uncommon. Most powerful assault units are bullies, designed to mulch lots of weak units; TH/SS Termies are not. They're designed specifically to kill OTHER DEATHSTARS.

ID weapons. High saves. Few attacks. TH/SS Termies are supposed to be out there counter-charging and massacring high-cost, multi-wound models after they attack your Tac squads or support elements. 30 Ork Boyz will eat 5 TH/SS Termies for breakfast; 5 Nobz will die to them.

I think I do concur that Tactical Termies are a bit overcosted; however, giving them a re-rollable 2+ save is not the answer. Make them 35 ppm, that might do it.

Well said Berzerker. I would like to see some sort of boost for Tactical Termies instead of a points drop. As invincible as they're made out to be in the fluff, I would love to see that translate to game terms. Either some sort of re-roll for failed armor saves (4+?) or slightly increased stats to make them as enticing as Assault Termies.

I would simply a +10pts for the TH and SS.


To be honest, I think a Power Fist and a Stormbolter is better. A pair of Str 4 (AP5) shots with a range of 24"+move is god enough. Most players would be happy just giving normal Termies a SS. Screw the TH. It's the SS they want.

Kinda agree. TH/SS should be around 45-50pts. If people still complain after that then they are whining excessively. Please, no re-rollable saves or T5. *shudders*

Deadshot wrote:I would simply a +10pts for the TH and SS.


To be honest, I think a Power Fist and a Stormbolter is better. A pair of Str 4 (AP5) shots with a range of 24"+move is god enough. Most players would be happy just giving normal Termies a SS. Screw the TH. It's the SS they want.

The perfect combo imo is SS and Chainfist! But if you're playing space wolves thats a lot of extra points on wolfguard

I agree with bezerker, tac termies are a little overcosted. Although the amount BA pay for SS/TH termies isnt all that bad too. Then again they also have red thirst rule

Greyish wrote:Kinda agree. TH/SS should be around 45-50pts. If people still complain after that then they are whining excessively. Please, no re-rollable saves or T5. *shudders*

They're fine where they are. The problem isn't that TH/SS Termies are underpriced, it's that the other types are OVERpriced.

If Lightning Claw termies were 35 points, you'd see a lot more of them. If Tac Termies were 35 points, you'd see a lot more of them.

A basic 5-man squad of TH/SS Termies costs 200 points. That's 10 ID attacks, and 5 1-wound models with a 2+/3++ save. Not impressive. It's even MORE underwhelming once you realize that those 5 models absolutely need a transport, or they WILL die before accomplishing anything; which means you have to add another 250 points to the unit. Now, a Land Raider is nice, but it is basically just a moving box. The weapons on a LR are NOT worth 250 points, it's the transport capacity and armor that you're paying for; which means that, basically, you just paid 450 points to deliver those 10 ID attacks into a single close-combat with relative safety.

And after they finish that combat? Even if they win, most of them are dead; the rest will be shot down immediately. The Land Raider might survive, but it's just not that important without its cargo. TH/SS Termies are VERY expensive for what they do; for 450 points I can get 7 or 8 diversified Nobz (a more powerful CC unit) in a Deffrolla-equipped, RPJ, Armour Plated Battlewagon (just as survivable from the front AND does more damage once the Deff Rolla comes into play than the Land Raider), plus I have a few points left over.

Leave TH/SS Termies just like they are; they do their job well, and are if anything slightly overpriced once you take delivery into consideration. Cut the price on the other varients slightly, if you want to see more balance.

The problems are multi-faceted.

1. Firepower is undervalued. You cause 1 or 2 more casualties in firephase, it is not going to make a decisive difference on morale checks (whereas 1 or 2 more casualties in CC are a -2 modifier). Heavy flamers are just anti-personnel and TH/SS termies can do that quite well. Assault cannon is short ranged and very iffy in the AT role. So the only advantage to regular termies is paying the points and adding a CML.

2. PF vs TH - both are I1 attacks at S8 and TH even offers benifits. The only advantage to standard terminators is to have chainfists to really ruin armored vehicles days.

Add those two together and you now have same cost with a 67% survival rate versus a 33% survival rate. Now it is a different animal comparing SM termies and CSM termies as 30 pts with a PW that goes off before all the TH is at least an argument.

Unless you are doing a concept army, most armies can afford to dedicate no more than 33% of their force to elites so at 1850, given a choice between 8 TH/SS termies in a crusader for @ 600 points or 8 standard termies at reduced cost in a crusader for @ the same 600 pts or even 20 or 30 points less, everyone is going to pick the TH/SS termies.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
And after they finish that combat? Even if they win, most of them are dead; the rest will be shot down immediately. The Land Raider might survive, but it's just not that important without its cargo. TH/SS Termies are VERY expensive for what they do; for 450 points I can get 7 or 8 diversified Nobz (a more powerful CC unit) in a Deffrolla-equipped, RPJ, Armour Plated Battlewagon (just as survivable from the front AND does more damage once the Deff Rolla comes into play than the Land Raider), plus I have a few points left over.

I'm not questioning the merits of Nobz, but I think you're overestimating the power of the Deffrolla. It deals more damage to vehicles at point blank range than the Land Raider. The Land Raider, on the other hand, gets PotMS, meaning it can fire and still move 12", it gets an Assault Cannon (unless you're running a Godhammer, for some reason) and option for a Multi-melta and can't be shot to pieces because it has weak side armour. A Land Raider Crusader or Redeemer will deal more damage to stuff outside transports than the Deffrolla will, simply because they have the advantage of range.

Marthike wrote:The reason people don't take normal termis is because the game is so biased towards CC.

Oh but they do...

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I'm not questioning the merits of Nobz, but I think you're overestimating the power of the Deffrolla. It deals more damage to vehicles at point blank range than the Land Raider. The Land Raider, on the other hand, gets PotMS, meaning it can fire and still move 12", it gets an Assault Cannon (unless you're running a Godhammer, for some reason) and option for a Multi-melta and can't be shot to pieces because it has weak side armour. A Land Raider Crusader or Redeemer will deal more damage to stuff outside transports than the Deffrolla will, simply because they have the advantage of range.

A Deff Rolla-equipped Battlewagon deals an average of 3-4 S10 automatic hits to anything it wants within 12", while moving 12" (or 13", if you have a RPJ). A Land Raider moving 12" gets to fire a single weapon, and in no case will match that average damage; a Land Raider moving 6" gets to shoot two, and only in a few very specific cases will do as much damage as the Deff Rolla.

Now, a Land Raider always has a range advantage, but its firepower drops off nearly as sharply as the Battlewagon's after 12". Beyond that range a Crusader can't double-tap with Hurricane Bolters, a Redeemer can't \flame, and the multi-melta doesn't get the extra melta die. Land Raiders want to be up close nearly as much as Battlewagons do, but once they reach close range they have to sit still if they want to do as much damage. A Land Raider sitting still makes a decent gunship . . . but it's not 250 points worth of gunship. If you use a Land Raider primarily for its weapons, you'll find that it's drastically inefficient at shooting; your opponent can basically ignore it and focus on killing the rest of your army, or attack it in assault and hit on a 4+/automatically as opposed to the 6+ necessary to hit a Battlewagon.

The main value of a Land Raider is as a tough transport, used to unload a deathstar directly into close-combat; its combat ability is very much secondary. The same is true for the Battlewagon. The difference is that the Battlewagon is just as good a transport if not better, and is also half the price. You have to consider Nobz and a Battlewagon together, because that's almost the only way they'll get where they're going, and you have to consider Assault Termies and a Land Raider together, as well; and when you make that comparison, you have to come to the conclusion that the Land Raider is simply not as well suited to the role of assault transport as the Battlewagon is. If you're moving it forward to drop off the Termies then you aren't shooting much, and if you're shooting all your guns then you aren't using it's transport capacity, but you are ALWAYS paying for both of those things.

With a Battleagon, by contrast, you are paying ONLY for the transport; then, if you want, you can pay a few more points in order to throw on a Deff Rolla and a couple of guns to soak up Weapon Destroyed results. It never has to stop moving, it's just as deadly inside 12" as a Land Raider is (With the sole exception of a Redeemer or Crusader firing at horde infantry), and you can take two of them for the price of one Land Raider.

DAaddict wrote:Unless you are doing a concept army, most armies can afford to dedicate no more than 33% of their force to elites so at 1850, given a choice between 8 TH/SS termies in a crusader for @ 600 points or 8 standard termies at reduced cost in a crusader for @ the same 600 pts or even 20 or 30 points less, everyone is going to pick the TH/SS termies.

If Tactical Termies were 35 points apiece, I think you'd see them being taken WITHOUT a Land Raider. Rather, they could be used as an anchor for infantry; 5 Tactical Termies with a CML would come in under 200 points, making it perfectly viable for a Marine player to add some more long-ranged anti-transport fire to their army and also have two or three reasonably tough counter-assault units to support their Tactical squads.

Alternatively, my suggestion would mean that taking Lightning Claw Termies instead of TH/SS Termies in an 8-man assault squad would save you 70 points. You cannot tell me that many Marine players wouldn't take that.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

DAaddict wrote:Unless you are doing a concept army, most armies can afford to dedicate no more than 33% of their force to elites so at 1850, given a choice between 8 TH/SS termies in a crusader for @ 600 points or 8 standard termies at reduced cost in a crusader for @ the same 600 pts or even 20 or 30 points less, everyone is going to pick the TH/SS termies.

If Tactical Termies were 35 points apiece, I think you'd see them being taken WITHOUT a Land Raider. Rather, they could be used as an anchor for infantry; 5 Tactical Termies with a CML would come in under 200 points, making it perfectly viable for a Marine player to add some more long-ranged anti-transport fire to their army and also have two or three reasonably tough counter-assault units to support their Tactical squads.

Alternatively, my suggestion would mean that taking Lightning Claw Termies instead of TH/SS Termies in an 8-man assault squad would save you 70 points. You cannot tell me that many Marine players wouldn't take that.

The problem with 35 pt termies is say we take 8 of them with a CML. Even at 35 pts we are talking 300 points. What do I get for 300 pts? 16 S4 shots and 2 S8 shots or 2 S4 small blast shots.
For that same 300 points I could take 10 sternguard with two plasma cannons. It is going to do more firepower wise and admittedly less of a CC threat however with the sternguard ammo I have more options - no cover save, AP3, 30" range and two plasma cannons will hopefully kill any CC threat before it gets there. To me, the choice is going to be pure CC (TH/SS termies) or pure firepower (sternguard) regular termies just lose out. Now it is a different story for GK, they are putting out S5 shots, have a 4++ save or higher initiative not to mention they are a troop choice.