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.

 Nazrak wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
iii) make them always overheat on a natural 1;

As several people have already suggested this, I want to say it is a really bad fix. It screws over expensive plasma guys such as Hellbrlasters and Devastators, while really not affecting the worst problem, the cheap, spammable suicide plasma of IG.

While I see your point about the suicide plasma thing, I'm not sure I entirely agree that "expensive plasma guys" should necessarily be able to overcharge all the time with zero consequences. Otherwise what point is there of the standard plasma profile even existing?

I think it should do 1 mortal wound, but already blow up on a natural 1. This let's the small guys die and doesn't punish the bigger guys.

 Blackie wrote:
I'm also not in favor of making termies T5. [edited out content] And elite dudes need to have a profile and/or combos that make them excellent fighters, not immortal units.

I would just like to point out SM riding bikes have T5 as do Nurgle Marines neither of these units is "immortal" in any sense of the word. If GW can say that bikes make you harder to wound why wouldn't the same apply to something called Tactical Dreadnaught Armor?

I want the Terminators to have T5, because Aggressors already do, so I find it weird that termies don't have it as well.

T5 literally solves none of their problems though, and ironically only improves them against mostly... other marines. They need an extra wound or a 4+ invul. Hell maybe even a Eternal Warrior rule.

 Quickjager wrote:
T5 literally solves none of their problems though, and ironically only improves them against mostly... other marines. They need an extra wound or a 4+ invul. Hell maybe even a Eternal Warrior rule.

I know. But they can have T5 as well. T5, 3W would probably be pretty decent durability (I expect evetual Primaris Terminators to get exactly that.) But they need better offence too.

Oh god please not another primaris retcon BS.

Ice_can wrote:
Oh god please not another primaris retcon BS.

It is inevitable.

Primaris have Aggressors (which incidentally have T5 compared to T4 for other Primaris squads).

T5 and/or 4+ invlun save seems reasonable to represent the resilience of Tactical Dreadnought Armour.

 deathwinguk wrote:
Primaris have Aggressors (which incidentally have T5 compared to T4 for other Primaris squads).

T5 and/or 4+ invlun save seems reasonable to represent the resilience of Tactical Dreadnought Armour.

I understand where the comparison between Aggressors and Terminators comes from, but in practice they are incredibly different units both in how they play and in how they seem to be designed.

Gravis armour to me seems to be a larger version of MkX designed as a rig for larger weapons systems (Aggressors) or other equipment (Inceptors). Aggrressors are no more a Terminator analogue that Inceptors are a Vanguard Veteran analogue.

I'm in the camp that fully expects an actual Primaris Terminator line eventually, though it could well be years off.

Stux wrote:

I understand where the comparison between Aggressors and Terminators comes from, but in practice they are incredibly different units both in how they play and in how they seem to be designed.

Gravis armour to me seems to be a larger version of MkX designed as a rig for larger weapons systems (Aggressors) or other equipment (Inceptors). Aggrressors are no more a Terminator analogue that Inceptors are a Vanguard Veteran analogue.

I'm in the camp that fully expects an actual Primaris Terminator line eventually, though it could well be years off.

Yep. I really want Primaris Terminators. After seeing the Custodes Terminators with such proportions that there actually could be a human-shaped person in there, I really want to see a Space Marine Terminators to be redesigned, and in the current situation this will mean Primaris Terminators.

jcd386 wrote:
I guess I'm surprised people think terminators need to be MORE resistant to AP 0-1, 1D weapons. Cover is the natural counter to AP1, and it already takes 90 Marines worth of rapid fitting bolters to wipe a termy squad. That's over 1100 points of Marines.

Terminators are 4 times as durable vs bolters as Marines are. I don't see why that's not enough.

Because they're supposed to apparently be "invincible" in fluff to the point people are making ludicrous suggestions.

Start with WS/BS2+ and start seeing how it goes. It mitigates the penalty with the Power Fist and Thunder Hammer, makes LC variants much more dangerous, and benefits any shooting variant by making them not stupidly reliant on buffs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
I want the Terminators to have T5, because Aggressors already do, so I find it weird that termies don't have it as well.

Aggressors only have a 3+ as well.

Stux wrote:

 deathwinguk wrote:
Primaris have Aggressors (which incidentally have T5 compared to T4 for other Primaris squads).

T5 and/or 4+ invlun save seems reasonable to represent the resilience of Tactical Dreadnought Armour.

I understand where the comparison between Aggressors and Terminators comes from, but in practice they are incredibly different units both in how they play and in how they seem to be designed.

Gravis armour to me seems to be a larger version of MkX designed as a rig for larger weapons systems (Aggressors) or other equipment (Inceptors). Aggrressors are no more a Terminator analogue that Inceptors are a Vanguard Veteran analogue.

I guess I was making the comparison because Primaris Gravis armour has T5 compared to MkX armour which has T4. So a precedent has been set.

As for how they play, I'd be interested to hear experiences given that they're a similar points cost to Terminators:

deathwinguk wrote:Do Aggressors perform better in WH40K 8th edition than Terminators?

I hear quite a few people recommending Aggressors for the sheer amount of dakka they can put down; they definitely outstrip Terminators in that regard.

The problem isnt small arms for the most part its plasma spam makes them way over costes for a model with so little damage and no staying power.

Agressors stationary can throw out enough boltstorm shots to br a threat but lack staying power but atleast stand a chance of making their points back before being wiped

I find it just weird from simulationist point of view, that one heavily armoured exoskeleton (Gravis) grants T5 while the another, supposedly heavier, armoured exoskeleton (Terminator) doesn't.

 Crimson wrote:
I find it just weird from simulationist point of view, that one heavily armoured exoskeleton (Gravis) grants T5 while the another, supposedly heavier, armoured exoskeleton (Terminator) doesn't.

Depends on which version of fluff you go with as some listed terminator/tactical dreadnaught armour as just being a heavy frame to support the armour, other fluff states it has a an inbuilt field to help resist damage, other parts say its because every suit contains part of the emperors armour and hence grants the invulnerable save, but that doesn't make sence in 30k.

Aggressors T5, 3+ sv, 2W, no invuln, but they put down 6+D6 S4 shots each at 18" range compared to 4 S4 for terminators. Melee they are identical.
Deathwing terms are 40pts for the SB/PF variant (sorry, don't know cost of normal terms) while Aggressors are 37pts each so pretty similar in points.

Both have pros and cons (deepstrike, invuln save, 2+ armour but reduced dakka vs better T and massive dakka, less durable and reduced mobility)

With that being said, it's hard to not justify the points.

Perhaps looking at it completely differently, what is the role of the terminator in the fluff? Apart from space hulk type scenarios, they are supposed to be teleported into the heart of the enemy to execute a specific task. Personally, I think they should be allowed to deepstrike closer to say just outside 6" instead of 9". It brings the hvy flamer into range, it makes likely to get a charge off. It makes them dangerous. If their role is to eviscerate the heart of an enemy, let them get close enough to perform that task.

 Crimson wrote:
I find it just weird from simulationist point of view, that one heavily armoured exoskeleton (Gravis) grants T5 while the another, supposedly heavier, armoured exoskeleton (Terminator) doesn't.

Because thats the point of Gravis armour, to give +1T where terminator armour gives you +1 save.

 deathwinguk wrote:

I guess I was making the comparison because Primaris Gravis armour has T5 compared to MkX armour which has T4. So a precedent has been set

As for how they play, I'd be interested to hear experiences given that they're a similar points cost to Terminators:

deathwinguk wrote:Do Aggressors perform better in WH40K 8th edition than Terminators?

I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) the game has ever been terribly consistent on what specifically toughness, wounds, and armour are supposed to individually represent when it comes to the durability of models. We have some ideas, but there are cases where they don't make fluff sense quite, especially when comparing models from different factions.

Broadly it feels like Toughness is the ability for a damaging hit to not impede the unit at all, Wounds are how much critical damage the model can sustain before it is completely incapable of combat, and armour is the ability to deflect a hit in some way so it does not damage the model at all. Is that basically what other people go by?

As such, I'm not really sure why Gravis get T5. Other than in the meta sense that they want them to be durable in the game in a different way to Terminators. The body inside is the same as any other Primaris, the armour is all that matters. If it was just better armour, surely that would be better represented by the armour save rather than toughness? The only thing I can thing is that as the armour is simply larger, there's more chance that a hit can penetrate but just go somewhere where it doesn't harm the user or harm critical systems. Compare firing a gun at a tractor vs a motorbike. It's not that the tractor is necessarilly better at resisting gunfire, it's that bullets that get through are less likely to hit anything important.

As such, if we take that Terminator armour is basically just very thick armour plating over a person, while Gravis is a mechanical rig for carrying other systems, then perhaps Terminators having a lower T but better Armour makes sense?

As for whether Aggressors are good... I think they are better overall but not by much and in different roles. They're good at protecting a gunline from hordes, or if you are Raven Guard at dropping right next to hordes. They have a niche they are ok at, which you struggle to say for Terminators.

Aggressors are better strictly because they need less of a points investment. They're probably one of the singular beat targets for the Raven Guard Strategem.

Yeah never mind. If they aren't Raven Guard, they're about the same level.

shortymcnostrill wrote:
This makes me wonder. Would terminators still perform badly if plasma was nerfed in a way so that it wouldn't be the no-brainer choice? I feel plasma usually comes up as a big factor when discussing the worth of terminators, often to the exclusion of any other factors.

When it comes to ap0 small arms they basically already have a 3+ sv on 2d6 now, as you have to fail two 2+ saves to lose a guy.

That's not how math works.

There are a lot of constructive thoughts here. I've combined some that I think work well together below. Sorry but since I'm more familiar with CSM I'm basing this on them, besides they seem like a rounded version on the however many variants loyalists have.

Statline:
-unchanged

Abilities:
-No invulnerable save (it's hardly necessary now, the next thing will help more)
-Bastion of Pain [treat this unit as having the benefit of cover even when not utilizing terrain features] (+1 save vs plasma, lascannon, avenger gatling cannon, autocannons, missiles. no change vs melta, worse vs -5 weapons. These guys are supposed to crawl forward indiscriminately to bring for death right? And invuln is more of a forcefield or speed gimmick anyways. Also there are more ways to interact with cover saves ranging from common stratagems to sub-faction traits and a few specific weapons. Finally this is more comparable with 8th than a blnaket +1sv)
-Undaunted [this unit may shoot heavy weapons without penalty from moving] (why be penalized for teleporting or moving extra slow??? That's what they do!)\

Weapons:
-Combi-Bolter: unchanged
-Combi-Flamer: 9pts, all flamers should be 2pts less imo.
-Combi-Plasma: S6/S7 (wounding on 3 and AP-3 is plenty for anti-MEQ, shouldn't be THAT good as a heavy vehicle buster). on an unmodified hit foll of 1 the firing model takes 1 mortal wound, this roll may then be re-rolled or modified. (this way termies and bikers can take plasma without throwing away more points for no benefit compared to 1W models) no cost change, it's still elite and affordable.
-Combi-Melta: unchanged
-Heavy Flamer: Heavy 2d3
-Reaper/Autocannon: improve AP or Str by 1, maybe increase points slightly (I feel like these aren't good enough vs either marines or medium vehicles for being heavy, at 3/5 the cost of a missile launcher but failing to do the high damage, fair ap, and fair str of the missile something needs to give, it's also got less range so yeah)
-Melee weapons: unchanged

Non chaos thoughts: Hammer and stormshield varient should not get automatic cover, instead getting [you may re-roll 1 dice during a charge roll for this unit].

Final thoughts: Still quite expensive, shooting is less op when using plasma against med/heavy vehicles and other termies but also the unit is much less vulnerable to anti-elite weapons while still having some ability to be interacted with. Bad news for necrons and aeldar since the -1 nature of their common weapons is removed against this particular expensive unit, no change for AP0 weapons. I think both factions can remove cover somehow though, is that right? As a T'au player it'll hurt my missile pods and CIBs but that can be worked around with some strategy. Thoughts?

Stux wrote:

As such, I'm not really sure why Gravis get T5. Other than in the meta sense that they want them to be durable in the game in a different way to Terminators. The body inside is the same as any other Primaris, the armour is all that matters. If it was just better armour, surely that would be better represented by the armour save rather than toughness? The only thing I can thing is that as the armour is simply larger, there's more chance that a hit can penetrate but just go somewhere where it doesn't harm the user or harm critical systems. Compare firing a gun at a tractor vs a motorbike. It's not that the tractor is necessarilly better at resisting gunfire, it's that bullets that get through are less likely to hit anything important.

As such, if we take that Terminator armour is basically just very thick armour plating over a person, while Gravis is a mechanical rig for carrying other systems, then perhaps Terminators having a lower T but better Armour makes sense?

Good analysis, thank you. This was exactly the sort of thing I was thinking as well. It is just that the Gravis really doesn't seem to have that much extra exoskeleton. Your rationalisation makes perfect sense for Centurions, but not so much fro Gravis. If the amount of extra structure the Gravis armour has is enough to grant +1 toughness, then logically Terminator should as well, as they seem to have at least as much such extra structure.

 bullyboy wrote:
Aggressors T5, 3+ sv, 2W, no invuln, but they put down 6+D6 S4 shots each at 18" range compared to 4 S4 for terminators. Melee they are identical.
Deathwing terms are 40pts for the SB/PF variant (sorry, don't know cost of normal terms) while Aggressors are 37pts each so pretty similar in points.

Both have pros and cons (deepstrike, invuln save, 2+ armour but reduced dakka vs better T and massive dakka, less durable and reduced mobility)

With that being said, it's hard to not justify the points.

Perhaps looking at it completely differently, what is the role of the terminator in the fluff? Apart from space hulk type scenarios, they are supposed to be teleported into the heart of the enemy to execute a specific task. Personally, I think they should be allowed to deepstrike closer to say just outside 6" instead of 9". It brings the hvy flamer into range, it makes likely to get a charge off. It makes them dangerous. If their role is to eviscerate the heart of an enemy, let them get close enough to perform that task.

I can quiet easily show that both are over costed, aggressors despite their name are only any good standing still in cover with an 18inch range. So only work for raven guard with a deployment strategum.
Not exactlly what I want from a 37point model also agressirs come in a squad of 3 terminators are 40 points and 5 man so 192 pts minimum with no threatening damage potential, add an assualt cannon and their 212 pts now if they were BS2+ WS2+ and 3 attacks base they would be worthy of that points cost.

Assuming GW fix the broken mess that is plasma.

didn't the fluff for Terminator armour start out as being derived from suits used to inspect the inside of operational plasma reactors?

perhaps give them a rule halving damage (rounding down) from Plasma weapons?

 Crimson wrote:

Stux wrote:

As such, I'm not really sure why Gravis get T5. Other than in the meta sense that they want them to be durable in the game in a different way to Terminators. The body inside is the same as any other Primaris, the armour is all that matters. If it was just better armour, surely that would be better represented by the armour save rather than toughness? The only thing I can thing is that as the armour is simply larger, there's more chance that a hit can penetrate but just go somewhere where it doesn't harm the user or harm critical systems. Compare firing a gun at a tractor vs a motorbike. It's not that the tractor is necessarilly better at resisting gunfire, it's that bullets that get through are less likely to hit anything important.

As such, if we take that Terminator armour is basically just very thick armour plating over a person, while Gravis is a mechanical rig for carrying other systems, then perhaps Terminators having a lower T but better Armour makes sense?

Good analysis, thank you. This was exactly the sort of thing I was thinking as well. It is just that the Gravis really doesn't seem to have that much extra exoskeleton. Your rationalisation makes perfect sense for Centurions, but not so much fro Gravis. If the amount of extra structure the Gravis armour has is enough to grant +1 toughness, then logically Terminator should as well, as they seem to have at least as much such extra structure.

Well Centurions have the T5 AND a 2+.

And the Gravis is definitely bulky. Have you seen the models?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

And the Gravis is definitely bulky. Have you seen the models?

Yes. I'd say Terminators are more bulky compared to the normal Marines than the Gravis is compared to normal Primaris Marines.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

And the Gravis is definitely bulky. Have you seen the models?

Yes. I'd say Terminators are more bulky compared to the normal Marines than the Gravis is compared to normal Primaris Marines.

I think what that bulk actually is is relevant though. Armour plating vs mechanisms and such.

I ocassionally use assault cents in a landraider - they do some work.

 Blackie wrote:


I'm also not in favor of making termies T5. Like the 3W proposal. If you improve their profile you must do the same to all the other heavy elites in the game. They already jumped from 1W to 2W while other elites that were multiwounds in the previous editions didn't received any improvement on their stats in terms of durability, like ork nobz or grotesques. The +1 on the WS/BS makes more sense.

Nobs actually isn't true; they get to take saves against a much larger number of weapons now that used to simply ignore their armour entirely. It's the same reason Ork Boyz and Guardsmen are much better now, just less so in the case of the Nobz.

Terminators, meanwhile, lost out as a bunch of weapons that didn't affect their save at all previously now suddenly became more effective, while the Invulnerable save became somewhat redundant as -3 AP gives them a 5+ save anyway and so where given a second wound to compensate.