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.

By the title of this thread should the terminators go up to two wounds each (and by proxy oblits, gk paladins, mutilatiors) and centurions go up to three each (or better yet give them av11 and 1hp).

Would this make them a better value for the points? Because these days have a 2+ armor means f!ck all and people can bury you in so many invul saves its downright silly. Squads of these sorts of units die so easily and unlike similar units (crisis suits, meganobz etc) their still only 1 wound. Would this make them a more useful unit?

Yes and no.

Yes because they do need some thing to help them this edition, but no because I don't think they are the problem. I feel it's how much ap2 weaponry available to armies now compared to how much there was when they where actually a threat

LordSolar wrote:
Yes and no.

Yes because they do need some thing to help them this edition, but no because I don't think they are the problem. I feel it's how much ap2 weaponry available to armies now compared to how much there was when they where actually a threat

That's my sentiments as well. Both Terminators and 3+ saves are fine, there's just too much dakka in the world.

I have always believed that Terminators should be 2 wounds or have an increased toughness but as it has already been stated they only die so quickly due to high fire rate ap2 guns that really need tonning down a bit.

Oblits, Paladins and the like should still stay at 2 so terminators are brought in line with them, as I feel they are represented correctly with 2 wounds.

 ionusx wrote:
By the title of this thread should the terminators go up to two wounds each (and by proxy oblits, gk paladins, mutilatiors) and centurions go up to three each (or better yet give them av11 and 1hp).

Would this make them a better value for the points? Because these days have a 2+ armor means f!ck all and people can bury you in so many invul saves its downright silly. Squads of these sorts of units die so easily and unlike similar units (crisis suits, meganobz etc) their still only 1 wound. Would this make them a more useful unit?

Nah, Terminators and Centurions are tough enough as is, while it does suck when they get wiped out of the table consider the following: compare the amount of firepower required to realistically kill a single squad of terminators versus something a like a squad of kabalite warriors. All the guns being used to take down your terminators/centurions are gun not being used to kill off the other parts of your army. Also other units like crisis suits or meganobz might have multiple wounds, but they lack in another field compared to terminators, crisis suits have a 3+ armor save thus dying instantly to krak missiles and such while meganobz don't even have a invulnerable save to start with , worse leadership and lacking in ranged firepower yet cost the same as terminators.

SM have the lowest damage output in 40k. Why don't we give them heightened wounds?

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
SM have the lowest damage output in 40k. Why don't we give them heightened wounds?

Really the lowest damage output in the entire game? I fail to see how a SM with it various special and heavy weapons, great armor, list of helpful special rules, great statline along with the very solid base gun are really that bad off. SM may not utterly excel in just one aspect (like tau in the shooting phase), but they are solid in all aspects instead of having glaring weakness like terrible accuracy, low armor etc. It easy to look at one aspect of another unit in an army and think that unit is super awesome, but you need to look at the whole picture instead of focusing on that one aspect of that unit. For example the comparison to Mega Nobz, they have worse accuracy, lower leadership, no built in invulnerable save, lack heavy weapon options and in general simply more limited in function and options then SM terminators yet cost exactly the same points. However, many ork players in my area see them as distraction unit with good value for power klaws, focus fire on them leaving less guns to shoot the other orks or ignore them and watch as they rip apart whatever they get close to.

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:

I fail to see how a SM with it various special and heavy weapons, great armor, list of helpful special rules, great statline along with the very solid base gun are really that bad off.

- various special weapons - Sure, they have lots of options. They just don't have the option to take a lot.
- great armour - has no impact on damage output, so I don't know why you mentioned it.
- list of special rules - I'll ignore chapter tactics because they're situational. ANTSKNF and CS have no affect on shooting. Again, I don't know why you mentioned it - even if we mention Chapter tactics, it's pretty much salamanders and imperial fists, or bust.
- great statline - damage output means that only the skills matter, and attacks in close combat.
- very solid base gun - which half or more of the armies have, since basically guard are the only one with a worse basic rifle and tau are the only one with a better basic rifle.

SM may not utterly excel in just one aspect (like tau in the shooting phase), but they are solid in all aspects instead of having glaring weakness like terrible accuracy, low armor etc.

Except low damage output in close and ranged combat, and a lack of toughness for point. (termagants bring 3.5 wounds to the table per space marine.)

It easy to look at one aspect of another unit in an army and think that unit is super awesome, but you need to look at the whole picture instead of focusing on that one aspect of that unit. For example the comparison to Mega Nobz, they have worse accuracy, lower leadership, no built in invulnerable save, lack heavy weapon options and in general simply more limited in function and options then SM terminators yet cost exactly the same points. However, many ork players in my area see them as distraction unit with good value for power klaws, focus fire on them leaving less guns to shoot the other orks or ignore them and watch as they rip apart whatever they get close to.

You're comparing these units, which put out 4 S9AP2 attacks on the charge, and are taken by almost every ork player, and can get a BETTER invuln than a terminator, with two wounds, to terminators. Nobody sane runs terminators mate.

Meganobs are solid units who dish out great damage in CC while being able to take a hit. They also have access to one of the cheapest AV14 fronts in the game, and have the same access to charge after DMB that terminators have, only it's more flexible.

SM lack damage output. It's not they don't excel in any area of damage output, they outright lack it. CSM have better access to massed special weapons than SM.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:

I fail to see how a SM with it various special and heavy weapons, great armor, list of helpful special rules, great statline along with the very solid base gun are really that bad off.

- various special weapons - Sure, they have lots of options. They just don't have the option to take a lot.
- great armour - has no impact on damage output, so I don't know why you mentioned it.
- list of special rules - I'll ignore chapter tactics because they're situational. ANTSKNF and CS have no affect on shooting. Again, I don't know why you mentioned it - even if we mention Chapter tactics, it's pretty much salamanders and imperial fists, or bust.
- great statline - damage output means that only the skills matter, and attacks in close combat.
- very solid base gun - which half or more of the armies have, since basically guard are the only one with a worse basic rifle and tau are the only one with a better basic rifle.

SM may not utterly excel in just one aspect (like tau in the shooting phase), but they are solid in all aspects instead of having glaring weakness like terrible accuracy, low armor etc.

Except low damage output in close and ranged combat, and a lack of toughness for point. (termagants bring 3.5 wounds to the table per space marine.)

It easy to look at one aspect of another unit in an army and think that unit is super awesome, but you need to look at the whole picture instead of focusing on that one aspect of that unit. For example the comparison to Mega Nobz, they have worse accuracy, lower leadership, no built in invulnerable save, lack heavy weapon options and in general simply more limited in function and options then SM terminators yet cost exactly the same points. However, many ork players in my area see them as distraction unit with good value for power klaws, focus fire on them leaving less guns to shoot the other orks or ignore them and watch as they rip apart whatever they get close to.

You're comparing these units, which put out 4 S9AP2 attacks on the charge, and are taken by almost every ork player, and can get a BETTER invuln than a terminator, with two wounds, to terminators. Nobody sane runs terminators mate.

Meganobs are solid units who dish out great damage in CC while being able to take a hit. They also have access to one of the cheapest AV14 fronts in the game, and have the same access to charge after DMB that terminators have, only it's more flexible.

SM lack damage output. It's not they don't excel in any area of damage output, they outright lack it. CSM have better access to massed special weapons than SM.

The main reason why I mentioned the armor save and ATSKNF if due to the fact if you are dead, overrun via sweeping advance or ran off the board you are incapable of shooting. As for combat squad you mentioned how marines can't bring tons of special and heavy weapons so the ability to make sure your not wasting as many shots surely is useful? As for the bolters you have to consider the platform they are on: for example a battle sister has the same skill and armor as a space marine, yet often is considered worse since her survivability is far lower due to being T3 versus T4. Survivability in a firefight is something I envy when playing DE, if I get hit at all I basically losing someone per shot and my damage output goes down per death. The damage output of the stat line is in no way the only important part of combat.

Sorry don't have my Ork codex on me ATM, outside of the KFF how else do Meganobz get a inv save? Since they have SNP they are forced to take a transport which consist of Trukk an AV 10 open transport and the battlewagon which requires a heavy slot, has AV 14 only on the narrow front while having AV 12 on the side and AV 10 on the rear. Kill the transport and you can basically ignore the squad since they are only moving 6 inches a turn and stuck with BS 2 twin-linked shootas or kombi weapons. Where if I tried the same thing of killing the Terminator's transport they still have BS 4 storm bolters, and either an assault cannon or a cyclone missile launcher.

Regarding CSM having better special weapon access, while the basic squad can bring 2 specials they lack the same special rules their loyalist brethren have which means they can be swept in combat, run off the board, This is a huge deal and despite the point difference shows why CSM squads are inferior in many ways to tactical squads. Sternguard, dreads, and loyalist Terminators are all superior to their chaos counterparts when it comes to both reliability and firepower.

While I wouldn't make this change on its own, I think as a package, this could make Terminators more appropriate to the background.

I think Termies should be 2 wounds, but no invulnerable saves. A Lascannon blast should just kill one, or a meltagun hit. On the other hand, with 2 wounds, they could soldier on through plasma and the like. I also think that, fundamentally, everything on a 40mm base should have 2 wounds, and 2 wound (non IC) models should be on 40mm bases.

Then, it would make sense to bump up Centurions to 3 wounds.

This would also make the Storm Shield a really beefy terminator, and kind of justify the loss of any shooting. Plus, it's just lazy to say that normal terminators have 'small force fields' around parts of their armor. Chaplains have a Rosarius. That's a force field. I don't like the retconning of Iron Halos to automatically be force fields, nor do I like the mechanical issuing of them to Captains, but again, that's a force field.

Two wounds would make terminators really resistant to small arms fire, which is appropriate, and make them sensibly vulnerable to massive, tank-killing weapons like lascannons and multimeltas.

I do think that AP3 and AP2 have been handed around like candy for the last few years, and I'd like to see that reined in, since it makes no sense for Marines to be viewed as the 'crack troops' of the Emperor when most armies have commonly available weapons for mowing them down. They seem like an overpriced indulgence instead. It's reminding me of the armor rules for Mordheim (where any real threat would bypass your armor, so spend the money on more bodies).

I feel like they would be better off with a better invulnerable save and/or higher toughness. The issue right now is that they're expensive, but die to relatively cheap AP2 weapons. Another issue is that they're relatively weaker than basic marines (per point cost) against volumes of low strength fire, since you can pretty reliably fish for 1s on the armor save roles (and kill a 40 pt model with a lasgun).

I feel like they should have something like 3+/4++ and T6, which would toughen them up against low-ap weapons, while also making them much hardier against small arms fire. There would be a sweet spot of weapons which could still crack open terminators, but they would be safer in most cases. Giving them 2W and T5 or T6 would also make them less vulnerable to instant death, which would make them significantly tougher in practice.

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:

The main reason why I mentioned the armor save and ATSKNF if due to the fact if you are dead, overrun via sweeping advance or ran off the board you are incapable of shooting. As for combat squad you mentioned how marines can't bring tons of special and heavy weapons so the ability to make sure your not wasting as many shots surely is useful? As for the bolters you have to consider the platform they are on: for example a battle sister has the same skill and armor as a space marine, yet often is considered worse since her survivability is far lower due to being T3 versus T4. Survivability in a firefight is something I envy when playing DE, if I get hit at all I basically losing someone per shot and my damage output goes down per death. The damage output of the stat line is in no way the only important part of combat.

"Survivability".

Survivability =/= damage output. It has no impact when most targets take a turn or less to destroy. Please stop making this argument. It's actually irrelevant.

Sorry don't have my Ork codex on me ATM, outside of the KFF how else do Meganobz get a inv save? Since they have SNP they are forced to take a transport which consist of Trukk an AV 10 open transport and the battlewagon which requires a heavy slot, has AV 14 only on the narrow front while having AV 12 on the side and AV 10 on the rear. Kill the transport and you can basically ignore the squad since they are only moving 6 inches a turn and stuck with BS 2 twin-linked shootas or kombi weapons. Where if I tried the same thing of killing the Terminator's transport they still have BS 4 storm bolters, and either an assault cannon or a cyclone missile launcher.

Don't meganobz get access to both cybork bodies and painboys? Or is that only nobz?

A BS2 TL Shoota is slightly better than a BS 3 shoota. Were you actually afraid of 10 storm bolter shots and 2 S8AP3 missiles? Because if you are, I question what you call "dangerous."

Regarding CSM having better special weapon access, while the basic squad can bring 2 specials they lack the same special rules their loyalist brethren have which means they can be swept in combat, run off the board, This is a huge deal and despite the point difference shows why CSM squads are inferior in many ways to tactical squads. Sternguard, dreads, and loyalist Terminators are all superior to their chaos counterparts when it comes to both reliability and firepower.

They aren't. They do more damage in CC, can get different bonuses, can get two special weapons. two special weapons in a rhino is more dangerous than one special weapon in a rhino.

Loyalist terminators put out less damage than chaos terminators at range. This thing of misinterpreting twin-linked bolters as being worse than stormbolters is utter bs.

Let's get a few things straight, mate.

Survivability doesn't matter in 40k; unless you're insanely tough (deathstars) or an extreme target (monsters, Land Raiders, things that are hurt on rolls of 6's), survivability is not a comment to be made. Almost any unit can get wiped in one turn in competitive play, so it is really unimportant. Especially when we're reviewing damage output.

Damage output isn't measured by Ballistic skill. It most certainly is NOT measured by ATSKNF or a 3+ armour save (neither of which really passes for a "survivable" trait in a competitive setting). Damage output is measured solely by the quality and number of dice you roll. The More S4AP5 I'm rolling, the more hurt I can potentially put out. SM can do at most 20 wounds per turn from one tactical marine squad, and that's realistically speaking impossible. 28 guardsmen can potentially do 56 wounds per turn. 28 guardsmen is also far, far, far, far, far ,far more survivable than 10 space marines because there are 2.8 times more wounds. When most dangerous shooting ignores your armour and your cover, the only stat that really matters is your invulnerable save, and your wound count.

If you really think that survivability doesn't matter, and you'd like something with more damage output, try playing Dark Eldar.

The fact of the matter is that Space Marines pay a fair number of points for their durability.

Also, I think the statement that any unit can get "wiped out in one turn in competitive play", should be seen more as a testament to good tactics on the part of the controlling player, and less an indication of a unit's relative uselessness.

Basically, there is a lot of things that will kill an entire squad of tactical marines or terminators in one turn. There are far more things that will kill an entire squad of Firewarriors, Boys, Termigaunts, etc... in one turn.

Termies at cent stats (t5 and 2w) and cents going to 3w makes sense to me.

Both units need a little more to justify their point cost.

I'm not entirely sure adding more wounds will really help, since several of the biggest offenders for Terminator eradication would still kill them instantly by doubling them out (Tyranid Warrior syndrome).

Personally, I think the issue is more their point cost than their stats (and perhaps their generally being a melee-slanted unit in a rather shooting biased edition). Terminator pricing is more or less a relic from the days when Tactical Marines cost ~20 points and your typical hoard unit was around 10 points. I'd probably start by dropping the price of Terminators somewhere around 25-30 points per model and go from there. If nothing else, they could be included without taking quite as large of a chunk out of the army.

I haven't seen much in the way of Centurions here, so I'm not as comfortable making suggestions for them. However, based on what I have read in battle reports and seen from people at our shop playing with them, they seem to perform well enough and probably don't require adjustments.

I wish they would go back to mixing and matching weapons in squads - very bad thing when they split them into assault and tactical.

Personally, I dislike terminators, so if GW makes them better, cool, I probably still won't use them except with corbulo.

Terminators are designed for up close and personal work in confined spaces. That's why the come standard with short ranged weaponry and big heavy fists. They are expected to avoid firepower and engage much weaker units in combat .

When those suits deploy on an open battlefield they are not in their optimum environment. They are at rush of anti tank guns punchng through them. They risk masses of firepower from all the enemy who can now see them coming.

They don't need any buffs. They shouldn't bed able to walk across a battlefield with impunity. They need to be deployed in thick cover areas to match their purpose.

Lower their points if they're really that bad.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:

The main reason why I mentioned the armor save and ATSKNF if due to the fact if you are dead, overrun via sweeping advance or ran off the board you are incapable of shooting. As for combat squad you mentioned how marines can't bring tons of special and heavy weapons so the ability to make sure your not wasting as many shots surely is useful? As for the bolters you have to consider the platform they are on: for example a battle sister has the same skill and armor as a space marine, yet often is considered worse since her survivability is far lower due to being T3 versus T4. Survivability in a firefight is something I envy when playing DE, if I get hit at all I basically losing someone per shot and my damage output goes down per death. The damage output of the stat line is in no way the only important part of combat.

"Survivability".

Survivability =/= damage output. It has no impact when most targets take a turn or less to destroy. Please stop making this argument. It's actually irrelevant.

Sorry don't have my Ork codex on me ATM, outside of the KFF how else do Meganobz get a inv save? Since they have SNP they are forced to take a transport which consist of Trukk an AV 10 open transport and the battlewagon which requires a heavy slot, has AV 14 only on the narrow front while having AV 12 on the side and AV 10 on the rear. Kill the transport and you can basically ignore the squad since they are only moving 6 inches a turn and stuck with BS 2 twin-linked shootas or kombi weapons. Where if I tried the same thing of killing the Terminator's transport they still have BS 4 storm bolters, and either an assault cannon or a cyclone missile launcher.

Don't meganobz get access to both cybork bodies and painboys? Or is that only nobz?

A BS2 TL Shoota is slightly better than a BS 3 shoota. Were you actually afraid of 10 storm bolter shots and 2 S8AP3 missiles? Because if you are, I question what you call "dangerous."

Regarding CSM having better special weapon access, while the basic squad can bring 2 specials they lack the same special rules their loyalist brethren have which means they can be swept in combat, run off the board, This is a huge deal and despite the point difference shows why CSM squads are inferior in many ways to tactical squads. Sternguard, dreads, and loyalist Terminators are all superior to their chaos counterparts when it comes to both reliability and firepower.

They aren't. They do more damage in CC, can get different bonuses, can get two special weapons. two special weapons in a rhino is more dangerous than one special weapon in a rhino.

Loyalist terminators put out less damage than chaos terminators at range. This thing of misinterpreting twin-linked bolters as being worse than stormbolters is utter bs.

Let's get a few things straight, mate.

Survivability doesn't matter in 40k; unless you're insanely tough (deathstars) or an extreme target (monsters, Land Raiders, things that are hurt on rolls of 6's), survivability is not a comment to be made. Almost any unit can get wiped in one turn in competitive play, so it is really unimportant. Especially when we're reviewing damage output.

Damage output isn't measured by Ballistic skill. It most certainly is NOT measured by ATSKNF or a 3+ armour save (neither of which really passes for a "survivable" trait in a competitive setting). Damage output is measured solely by the quality and number of dice you roll. The More S4AP5 I'm rolling, the more hurt I can potentially put out. SM can do at most 20 wounds per turn from one tactical marine squad, and that's realistically speaking impossible. 28 guardsmen can potentially do 56 wounds per turn. 28 guardsmen is also far, far, far, far, far ,far more survivable than 10 space marines because there are 2.8 times more wounds. When most dangerous shooting ignores your armour and your cover, the only stat that really matters is your invulnerable save, and your wound count.

The point about a unit being durable is relevant to what we are discussing wherever or not terminators should gain an extra wound. Like it or not Marine’s pay for a level of dependability, flexibility and durability that most other race’s units don’t have especially for the same point cost loyalist pay for. If you want to play an army who mostly ignore durability for damage out play an army like Dark Eldar. However, when you see how can lose half the squad to their transport blowing up, or get massacred by other race’s basic guns you will see what I mean by unit durability. Almost no unit is realistically capable of taking a well-designed army’s entire combined firepower when lead by a competent player. However, the amount of firepower a unit will require to be wiped out or rendered insignificant is different per unit.

Just checked my Ork codex and that only standard Nobz who get that option. Even then it only a 5+ invulnerable save, same as a standard terminator without a storm shield. Remember this a primary melee unit with SNP and no way to teleport onto the battle and stuck with fragile transport options. Also I not saying that 5 storm bolters and a cyclone missile launcher is a shocking amount of firepower, but it certainly better than being stuck with nothing or in the meganobz case 2 twin-linked 18” strength 4 shots at BS 2 and gives the Terminators the ability to threaten infantry and vehicles.

The standard chaos space marine squad is not inheriting better than a tactical squad in melee, they either have to give up their bolters for the bonus attack or pay 2 points a model to get a close combat weapon and pistol or a Mark of Khorne. Also said squad’s only transport option is a rhino which is not a great choice for a melee focused unit. Note their champions also have to accept challenges no matter what which often leads to the champion getting slain and the squad having less leadership and possibly getting swept which is something that can never happen to loyalist.
I don’t get it you just say that numbers are what matter, then claim that a storm bolter which throws out twice the number of shots than a twin-linked bolter is worse. Numbers alone certainly do not make a unit tough otherwise horde armies would always dominate tournaments which they clearly do not. Especially when you just said really tough units are what matters when it comes to durability. Different weapons are effective against different units and a weapon that would scythe through horde units like guardsmen is not necessarily going to be as effective versus space marines due to toughness and armor saves.

The comment about damage output only being measured by the amount of dice you are using is incorrect unless you’re talking about situations where you are forced to snap shoot. Your ability to damage and kill units at range is measured by the following factors: Ballistic Skill, Range, Strength, AP value and number of shots of the weapons carried by the unit, and the number of models in the unit. All these factors will determine how effective the unit is at dealing damage and what type of targets they can go after. For example a unit of 30 shoota boyz can throw out 60 strength 4 shots at BS2, but if your only targets vehicles with AV 11 or higher or something like a Wraithknight then the number of shots you are throwing out does not matter, you can hurt these units.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
Terminators are designed for up close and personal work in confined spaces. That's why the come standard with short ranged weaponry and big heavy fists. They are expected to avoid firepower and engage much weaker units in combat .

When those suits deploy on an open battlefield they are not in their optimum environment. They are at rush of anti tank guns punchng through them. They risk masses of firepower from all the enemy who can now see them coming.

They don't need any buffs. They shouldn't bed able to walk across a battlefield with impunity. They need to be deployed in thick cover areas to match their purpose.

Lower their points if they're really that bad.

This is the thing I agree with most in this thread.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
Terminators are designed for up close and personal work in confined spaces. That's why the come standard with short ranged weaponry and big heavy fists. They are expected to avoid firepower and engage much weaker units in combat .

When those suits deploy on an open battlefield they are not in their optimum environment. They are at rush of anti tank guns punchng through them. They risk masses of firepower from all the enemy who can now see them coming.

They don't need any buffs. They shouldn't bed able to walk across a battlefield with impunity. They need to be deployed in thick cover areas to match their purpose.

Lower their points if they're really that bad.

This is the thing I agree with most in this thread.

In practice, they're really bad even when using skirmish rules and using very confined terrain (like in kill team games). A couple of 5 man tac squads with plasma guns can easily slaughter a 5 man terminator squad, despite their efforts to use terrain, and despite being engaged to a "weaker" unit. Their stats don't make sense for their price.


On the subject of what I would change:

A big thing that would make them better would be to give them total flexibility in what equipment they can choose (something that Chaos Terminators can do already). Having a phalanx of two or three storm shield terminators backed up by a couple dudes with cyclone missile launchers or assault cannons would make the unit a lot scarier, and probably worth their price.

If terminators are so ineffective or overcosted, why do I see them in literally every game I play with or against a marine army?

Power weapons used to be much cheaper and AP2. I can no longer effectively field my leman russ battle tank because it is irrelevant in a meta where no one fields tactical squads.

All the marine players that I face seem to deep strike their terminators into the middle of my army, pitting them against my entire army, and then they complain when their terminators die. I have to spend inordinate amounts of points on plasma weapons because there aren't any armies that don't load up on 2+ saves these days.

If you play the mission, you will find that terminators are extremely effective at clearing and holding objectives, which will help you win the game. And take tactical squads, the death star is dead.

 TheSilo wrote:
If terminators are so ineffective or overcosted, why do I see them in literally every game I play with or against a marine army?

Power weapons used to be much cheaper and AP2. I can no longer effectively field my leman russ battle tank because it is irrelevant in a meta where no one fields tactical squads.

All the marine players that I face seem to deep strike their terminators into the middle of my army, pitting them against my entire army, and then they complain when their terminators die. I have to spend inordinate amounts of points on plasma weapons because there aren't any armies that don't load up on 2+ saves these days.

If you play the mission, you will find that terminators are extremely effective at clearing and holding objectives, which will help you win the game. And take tactical squads, the death star is dead.

That is irrelevant. I field twenty or so Khorne Chosen in almost every battle. That does not make them anywhere near decently priced.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
If terminators are so ineffective or overcosted, why do I see them in literally every game I play with or against a marine army?

Power weapons used to be much cheaper and AP2. I can no longer effectively field my leman russ battle tank because it is irrelevant in a meta where no one fields tactical squads.

All the marine players that I face seem to deep strike their terminators into the middle of my army, pitting them against my entire army, and then they complain when their terminators die. I have to spend inordinate amounts of points on plasma weapons because there aren't any armies that don't load up on 2+ saves these days.

If you play the mission, you will find that terminators are extremely effective at clearing and holding objectives, which will help you win the game. And take tactical squads, the death star is dead.

That is irrelevant. I field twenty or so Khorne Chosen in almost every battle. That does not make them anywhere near decently priced.

My Tau opponents take plenty of 2+ units, and then hide them behind cover. The T6, 5 wound, 2+ armored riptide ducking back into cover is a widely recognized, difficult problem on the battlefield. Played against one yesterday. And yet every marine player deploys his terminators in open ground and complains about them dying, they don't adapt their strategies at all. And every time I post about it, the marine players say "but we paid points for that 2+ save, we shouldn't need to use cover."

If GW gave terminators 2 wounds today, I guarantee you that marine players would be online tomorrow complaining about how OP S8 insta-death weapons are, and that their terminators should have eternal warrior.

Yes, Terminators do need to have stat changes.

I've been a longtime advocate of them going up to T, WS, and BS 5.

They're veterans of many centuries of warfare. They've surely picked up a few more tricks beyond how to punch people one more time.

Terminator armor could also use a buff. Maybe increase the invuln by 1. So 4+ normal invuln(increase Iron Halos to 4+)

Leave SS at 3+

Also allow multiple saves against wounds.

 TheSilo wrote:

My Tau opponents take plenty of 2+ units, and then hide them behind cover. The T6, 5 wound, 2+ armored riptide ducking back into cover is a widely recognized, difficult problem on the battlefield. Played against one yesterday. And yet every marine player deploys his terminators in open ground and complains about them dying, they don't adapt their strategies at all. And every time I post about it, the marine players say "but we paid points for that 2+ save, we shouldn't need to use cover."

If GW gave terminators 2 wounds today, I guarantee you that marine players would be online tomorrow complaining about how OP S8 insta-death weapons are, and that their terminators should have eternal warrior.

Riptides are long-range shooters, Terminators are not.

If we had to do something with Terminators, I'd say just up their invulnerable save. They used to have a 3+ save on 2D6 back in 2nd Ed and were a downright pain to deal with. However, Terminators back then also costed an arm and a leg, with the only army really able to field them properly in large numbers being Dark Angels.

I'd say this would depend on what exactly people want out of this unit. If they want a unit that is more survivable than I could see them getting a 4+ or even a 3+ invulnerable save, but only if their points were jacked a bit to reflect this added ability to survive whatever is thrown at them.

However in the end I'd have to agree with the sentiments expressed by most here in that the problem isn't the Terminators, its the state of the rules. Back in 2nd, the system allowed for Terminators to be useful, if not expensive points-wise. However in 3rd Edition and forward, due to the way AP functions now, getting better durability out of such ones Armour Save just isn't feasible anymore without either giving them an invulnerable save which in 99% of cases can't be ignored (so thus is extremely powerful) or by jacking their Toughness up to 5 to represent just how thick the armour plating is.

In the end I think they're fine as-is, but if you really wanted them to have more of an ability to survive then I'd say either a 4+ invulnerable save or bringing back modified Toughness values and making them Toughness 4 (5), however in either of these cases they should definitely have a points increase to reflect these changes, even if just by 5 points per model. Even then there's a problem with that in the form of Assault Terminators, especially if you're going the Toughness 4 (5) route, which makes an already beastly CQC unit even more beastly.

Just some food for thought.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, Terminators do need to have stat changes.

I've been a longtime advocate of them going up to T, WS, and BS 5.

They're veterans of many centuries of warfare. They've surely picked up a few more tricks beyond how to punch people one more time.

Terminator armor could also use a buff. Maybe increase the invuln by 1. So 4+ normal invuln(increase Iron Halos to 4+)

Leave SS at 3+

Also allow multiple saves against wounds.

I am sorry, but that is ridiculous if we go down that route then ever other army would need to be buffed significantly as well. Using "fluff" to justify overpowered rules does not just apply to marines after all. Terminators are already very tough, but they should not be all but invincible, nor should they be able to just waltz through your opponent's army with no effort. The most of a change I could see is perhaps a slight price cut maybe 35 points each.

Most other "races" are about right actually.

Marines are just at an unfortunate spot in the power curve. They're victims of the limitations of the D6 system and the base 10 stat system.


Marines could be balanced, and would be more in line with the fluff, if they had major stat(and point increases) to make them line up. But then GW wouldn't sell as many space marines as they do.

^ Word. 40K is an 'arcade' game- it is supposed to match the fluff somewhat (Orks are many, Eldar are fast, Marines have good armour, et cetera) but it is mostly intended for you to be able to take two reasonably similarly sized armies and go to town on each other without bothering too much.