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.

Hello all,

I know to some, that new terminator threads probably make the eyes glaze over, but bare with me, as this isn't a digression, toilet fodder thread (hopefully). In another older thread I started 'The easiest way to fix AP and terminators' the conversation turned to the matter of playtesting solutions. So, I would like to get the ball rolling and get everyone's feedback and possible tests on the following change for terminators [ This is not restricted for people without SM armies as later explained]:

SM Codex
Replace: Terminator 5+ invulnerable save with Feel No Pain (4+)
Replace: Terminator point value from 40 ppm to 31 ppm. Terminator squad and Terminator assault squad should cost: 155 points per
Other stats, options and special rules remain unchanged for now.

If you are playing a non space marine army and happen to be facing a SM player, you could offer him the above option.

[Play-testers] - Please record/reply to this forum with scenario, point value and notes in your testing. I would recommend 500-1000 point games. Please refrain from 'trying to find something wrong with them' and record objective thoughts and unbiased observations (as much as you can muster up for yourself). We don't need people being hammers looking for nails or roguish types sabotaging progress to further their xenos agenda.

[Non Play-testers] - Feel free to bring up constructive thoughts or questions in this thread.


After enough testing is done, I wouldn't mind testing terminator weapon options, and possibly, with reservation on my part, look at storm bolter changes (I'm fine with the way they are, but am at least willing to look at it - after the other testing).


Oh and to those who left feedback in my other thread - thank you!

Just some quick numbers crunching against various enemies

If I bring 155 points (1 unit) of Assault Terminators (claws only), against 480 points of boyz (sluggaz)

80 Boyz on the charge: Assumption all boyz shoot first and are in range to do so

Normally shooting would result in 2 wounds, now 1.

In assault, the 4 termies get their 4 dead boyz in of course,

But then assuming the max 54 are in (216 attacks) 4.5 wounds as opposed to 9.



Note that Terminators have 2 weaknesses right now by rote: massed dice, and heavy, powerful weapons. The change exacerbates the "Swarms" issue by pushing it into a weird critical mass zone, like Lychguard are in with Orikan right now - but it's completely ruined Terminators against anything S8+ AP2+, which is the only other real place they have issues.

(For reference: Lychguard with Orikan are T5 3++ infantry that reroll 1's to save, and have 4+ reanimation protocols.)

 chrisrawr wrote:
Just some quick numbers crunching against various enemies

If I bring 155 points (1 unit) of Assault Terminators (claws only), against 480 points of boyz (sluggaz)

80 Boyz on the charge: Assumption all boyz shoot first and are in range to do so

Normally shooting would result in 2 wounds, now 1.

In assault, the 4 termies get their 4 dead boyz in of course,

But then assuming the max 54 are in (216 attacks) 4.5 wounds as opposed to 9.



Note that Terminators have 2 weaknesses right now by rote: massed dice, and heavy, powerful weapons. The change exacerbates the "Swarms" issue by pushing it into a weird critical mass zone, like Lychguard are in with Orikan right now - but it's completely ruined Terminators against anything S8+ AP2+, which is the only other real place they have issues.

(For reference: Lychguard with Orikan are T5 3++ infantry that reroll 1's to save, and have 4+ reanimation protocols.)

Hmmm, I don't know what this comparison is really trying to prove other than you brought 3x the amount of points and naturally terminators are going to get slaughtered? And then the tactical question as well: Why did you push your LC terminators into a swarm of fodder?

Ok. 191pts of Tac Termies (6x men, Chainfist upgrade) versus 5x Meganobz (200pts). It's mutual destruction in CC, everyone dies. Tac Termies have an extra model, Meganobz have an extra attack. FNP is not in effect against PK.

However, you now put out 12x 24" BS4 shots to the Meganobz 10x 18" TL BS2 shots. You also get 6 models, which makes your Tac Termies more resilient against both S7- (12x effective wounds with FNP) and S8 weapons (more models). In terms of shooting, it takes 24x S4 hits against a Termie to kill. Same for Meganobz, they are just 2W rather than 4+ FNP.

So basically they are pretty much even in infantry CC. SM get 9pts extra to play with, better shooting, better survivability, and an armourbane weapon. If you plan to the improve the Storm Bolter, it will get worse. Going with the Power Sword has it's pros and cons -- for ease of comparison I just went with the Chainfist.

180pts of TH/SS Terminators (5x models, 36ppm w/upgrade) would defeat the Meganobz, losing about 4x TH/SS Termies in the exchange. At 216 points (6x models), they would lose 3.

MoN is going to be a problem. Only st10 will get rid of that 4+fnp.

I would actually start the test at 5+FNP and 28-29ppm.

And I would say capping FNP at 2+ would be a good idea because otherwise people will abuse the change to get automatic success on rerolls for it.

But, I am not running the tests on this thread, so pleas proceed as you wish. I would rather we get some test data than none. And at some point some actual game tests. Even better if they are on video so we can examine them. Any help with these things is and will be very much appreciated.

Umm, I'm not a playtester or anything, but I feel I should speak my mind. Lychguard are 30 ppm for 3++ and a 5+ RP (Which can be easily buffed in a variety of ways). Stormshield/Thunderhammer Termies have a 2+ as well as the 3++ and you have base a 4+ FNP. And then you propose we make them cheaper. That does not seem fair in my book.

Lychguard are S5 AP3 in CC and Init 2. The termies are higher Init, but unwieldy, but can chew through 2+ armor and instagib T4. On top of that, against small arms fire, they would be harder to kill than Lychguard. Especially Chaos Termies with MoN. Also, Termies have more reliable transportation methods than Lychguard.

I understand Terminators need a little something, but lets be reasonable now.

It is worth noting that Hammernators actually have to pay an extra 5 points for a TH/SS. In the relevant Terminator thread, it was also generally agreed that Hammernators at 40/45 ppm was actually a very good deal.

I also agree with NorseSig- start with FNP (5+); not only is it a better starting point, but it's also more likely (IMO) to get people to agree to playtest the rules with you- if they're the opponent, at least.

 kveldulf wrote:

 chrisrawr wrote:
Just some quick numbers crunching against various enemies

If I bring 155 points (1 unit) of Assault Terminators (claws only), against 480 points of boyz (sluggaz)

80 Boyz on the charge: Assumption all boyz shoot first and are in range to do so

Normally shooting would result in 2 wounds, now 1.

In assault, the 4 termies get their 4 dead boyz in of course,

But then assuming the max 54 are in (216 attacks) 4.5 wounds as opposed to 9.



Note that Terminators have 2 weaknesses right now by rote: massed dice, and heavy, powerful weapons. The change exacerbates the "Swarms" issue by pushing it into a weird critical mass zone, like Lychguard are in with Orikan right now - but it's completely ruined Terminators against anything S8+ AP2+, which is the only other real place they have issues.

(For reference: Lychguard with Orikan are T5 3++ infantry that reroll 1's to save, and have 4+ reanimation protocols.)

Hmmm, I don't know what this comparison is really trying to prove other than you brought 3x the amount of points and naturally terminators are going to get slaughtered? And then the tactical question as well: Why did you push your LC terminators into a swarm of fodder?

It was pointing out that your change doesn't really affect one issue, and exacerbates another.

The number of attacks needed to kill a unit of terminators doubles, and the removal of 5+ invuln does not affect their survivability outside of a few close combat situations (in which most of the time they will have 3++ anyways).

Combined with the points drop, what i'm saying is that the proposed change is almost preposterous on its own merits. Look at the average scenario: A model that can soak up ~12 wounds. That's 72 lasgun shots per terminator (24 models minimum with FRFSRF - 130 points). It's a full unit of Fire Warriors rapidfiring with an ethereal (161 points). It's 18 termagants with devourers (144 points). Etc. etc. etc.

But they sacrifice nothing for it. Vulnerability to S8+ AP2+ weapons - Oh my!

"Combined with the points drop, what i'm saying is that the proposed change is almost preposterous on its own merits. Look at the average scenario: A model that can soak up ~12 wounds. That's 72 lasgun shots per terminator (24 models minimum with FRFSRF - 130 points). It's a full unit of Fire Warriors rapidfiring with an ethereal (161 points). It's 18 termagants with devourers (144 points). Etc. etc. etc.
"

Isn't this the whole point of these things in theory?

The point is, that as an elite choice, that is meant to be a heavy trooper that can absorb punishment, that the equal amount of points of basic troops from other codex's SHOULD NOT be able to take them out so easily.

Want to kill terminators? Bring your big boys, leave your troops to taking objectives and combatting other troops. If you want troops to be able to take out termies easily though, fine, that's your choice. The only problem then is, we get threads like this and the associated thread in the first place, as termies are rubbish and hardly anyone takes them.

Also, anyone comparing and whining about these rules when comparing them to units in their own armies codices, remember that most marines don't have army wide FNP, Pseudo rending, flyings MC's etc etc etc.

Martel732 wrote:
"Combined with the points drop, what i'm saying is that the proposed change is almost preposterous on its own merits. Look at the average scenario: A model that can soak up ~12 wounds. That's 72 lasgun shots per terminator (24 models minimum with FRFSRF - 130 points). It's a full unit of Fire Warriors rapidfiring with an ethereal (161 points). It's 18 termagants with devourers (144 points). Etc. etc. etc.
"

Isn't this the whole point of these things in theory?

I am pretty sure 6 times their cost per single Terminator killed is not the point. That much Fire Power should put down more than a single model. 2-3 times a single models points per kill is what I would consider fair. So 70-90 points should be able to reliably kill a single terminator every other turn. Still is about 11 Kabalite Warriors, 10 Fire Warriors, 10 Guardians.....

Martel732 wrote:
"Combined with the points drop, what i'm saying is that the proposed change is almost preposterous on its own merits. Look at the average scenario: A model that can soak up ~12 wounds. That's 72 lasgun shots per terminator (24 models minimum with FRFSRF - 130 points). It's a full unit of Fire Warriors rapidfiring with an ethereal (161 points). It's 18 termagants with devourers (144 points). Etc. etc. etc.
"

Isn't this the whole point of these things in theory?

Terminators are an Elites choice that used to have the ability (in 2nd and 3rd) to be extremely survivable and versatile.

Since then, rules have shifted dramatically towards the shooting and psychic phases, with an abundance of AP2 weaponry.

Terminators have never really had difficulty handling hordes when used as anti-horde suppressors. Their recent fall from grace is due more and more to the high availability of AP1 and 2 weaponry.

Terminators would be much better served by a special rule that lowers the AP of weapons against them by 1.

They shouldn't be 4+ feel no pain and get a points reduction:

31 points power weapon base instead of power fist

can buy power fists or lighting claw back for their current price + 1

chain fist costs power fist + Current upgrade price

they are now a much more points friendly cost as they lose some points, as a five men squad with power fists no longer includes the price of a power fist on a sergeant. You also wouldn't take a power fist on a special weapons dude so you save some more points. You can also decide just to give them all power weapons instead.

The Way To Improve Terminators:
Power Weapons By Default, With Power Fists & Chain Fists As An Option



Special Issue Ammo



Combi-Weapon Options


Re-Rollable Saves

 chrisrawr wrote:

It was pointing out that your change doesn't really affect one issue, and exacerbates another.

The number of attacks needed to kill a unit of terminators doubles, and the removal of 5+ invuln does not affect their survivability outside of a few close combat situations (in which most of the time they will have 3++ anyways).

Combined with the points drop, what i'm saying is that the proposed change is almost preposterous on its own merits. Look at the average scenario: A model that can soak up ~12 wounds. That's 72 lasgun shots per terminator (24 models minimum with FRFSRF - 130 points). It's a full unit of Fire Warriors rapidfiring with an ethereal (161 points). It's 18 termagants with devourers (144 points). Etc. etc. etc.

But they sacrifice nothing for it. Vulnerability to S8+ AP2+ weapons - Oh my!

Consider though how it would compare to the riptide. T6, armor 2, FNP 5+, the possibility of a 3++, and 5 wounds. The added benefit of the riptide is that if 4 terminators die you're at 1/5 attacking power, with a riptide 4 wounds means you're good as new.

Either soften the riptide or toughen the terminator.

Interesting responses. Exactly what I expected but wasn't hoping for. A few helpful responses, and a whole bunch "THE SKY IS FALLING! CHANGE IS EVIL! HOW DARE YOU ACTUALLY TRY AND FIX SOMETHING!". I am sorry if this comes off as rude and condescending, but I am getting sick and tired of this. Any time anyone wants to try ANYTHING to maybe start to try and make the game better and more balanced a bunch of people come in and dump all over it. Offer nothing constructive. Don't back up their statements, And refuse to even consider looking at things objectively.

A 5+ FNP would give a save against most everything they already get a save at plus a few things they couldn't before, and completely lose a save to many things they were already weak to. The only advantage to FNP 5+ is it makes terminators a bit better vs ap2 and not by a whole lot. And it certainly isn't as boss as reanimation protocols.

What we are asking is to test out power weapon and storm bolter terminators who have a FNP5+ IN PLACE OF AN INVULNERABLE SAVE priced at 28-29 ppm. It is hardly a game breaking OMG THIS IS OP suggestion. Anyone who says it is is just flat out over reacting. And it is not like it is set in stone. IT IS A STARTING POINT. When all is said in done we hope to have a unit in the 30-33ppm range with a bit better shooting and tactical flexibility. To you know, make them useful but not OP.

If you want to help and be constructive please do. If you have objections that is fine, but back your comments up with math and examples and not sky is falling esq statements. If you want to help test these things then your help is greatly appreciated.

Again we or at least I don't mind criticism so long as it is CONSTRUCTIVE. I really should say I or me instead of we because I don't presume to speak on the behalf of others.

I apologize if anyone is offended by what I said, but when you say this bad, horrible, no good and can't even bother to state why or back up what you say with evidence you are just being a close minded donkey cave.

For those thinking FnP 5+ is the number we should start with, first you do realize the difference between 4 to 5 FnP from a 2+ armor save is a matter of 4ish% survivability on non AP2 weapons? [Terminator armor has a 16.67% chance armour failure; with my FnP, that's a 50% chance that 16.67% failure saves thus reducing that 16.67% to an 8ish% to fail an armor save VS a 33% chance of mitigating that 16.67% terminator armor save faulure, which is a ~5.5% decrease on the armor save. So I was a 1ish% off ].

That is hardly game breaking, and it's not as though they are not paying for it either (see the latter part of the other thread I posted for itemizing cost). The added save from 5 to 4 regarding AP2 S7 or lower, compliments the lack of save terminators now get at S8 AP2 +. There is now a little more commitment/ incentive required to use heavy weapons on terminators than just plasma spam as well.

Oh and just to add to that point, if I reduced FnP it would make terminators cheaper, down to ~26ppm, which throws off certain troop choices at that price point. Hitting the 25 ppm with PF may make sense in the point metrics at 5+ FnP, but it creates imbalance in roles for other units.

The argumen't to make terminators default with power weapons, does nothing in addressing their point premium paid in there - that is a gap GW put there pretty arbitrarily.

Having a point reduction taking a power weapon should drop them around 5 points - on the scale that makes sense to me (that I based from a point metric - instead of pure opinion).

I don't mind hearing other peoples general ideas on terminator fixes, just please try to keep it between the lines in relation to the context of the thread. Special option ideas and what not, should really go into a new or currently related thread. Again, the 'easiest way to fix AP and terminators' is one thread you could go to.

Why FnP? Terminators are not special in their ability to withstand wounds. Make them cheaper, power weapon/fist costs are bloated as is. Even a 5 pt drop makes them attractive, a 10 pt drop pushes them towards competitive.

 Traceoftoxin wrote:
Why FnP? Terminators are not special in their ability to withstand wounds. Make them cheaper, power weapon/fist costs are bloated as is. Even a 5 pt drop makes them attractive, a 10 pt drop pushes them towards competitive.

FNP is a touch better than an invul save, and makes TDA a bit more desirable to HQs without making TDA broken good. Termies are a little too squishy. The idea is to up their survivability a touch without making them broken. Also we want to at some point increase their shooting and overall damage a little bit without jacking up their costs again. A slight boost in tactical flexibility would be a plus too. 30-33ppm is where terminators should be I feel, but right now with what they got they aren't worth that. And powerfists and chainfists are completely unecassary on them imo.

 NorseSig wrote:

 Traceoftoxin wrote:
Why FnP? Terminators are not special in their ability to withstand wounds. Make them cheaper, power weapon/fist costs are bloated as is. Even a 5 pt drop makes them attractive, a 10 pt drop pushes them towards competitive.

FNP is a touch better than an invul save, and makes TDA a bit more desirable to HQs without making TDA broken good. Termies are a little too squishy. The idea is to up their survivability a touch without making them broken. Also we want to at some point increase their shooting and overall damage a little bit without jacking up their costs again. A slight boost in tactical flexibility would be a plus too. 30-33ppm is where terminators should be I feel, but right now with what they got they aren't worth that. And powerfists and chainfists are completely unecassary on them imo.

I think what Traceoftoxin means is that, if we're going on fluff, terminators aren't any more able to shrug off actual wounds than a marine. FNP is used in cases where the model is indeed wounded but has some sort of healing/tolerance to injury, such as a medic, drugs, or just plain natural tolerance such as adrenaline that keeps them going. Not something termies are famous for. If we're going to be fluffy, terminator armor should have some factor making the armor better, such as saying they reroll armor, success on a 4+. Not majorly different, just more fitting with the concept of FNP versus armor.

 Traceoftoxin wrote:
Why FnP? Terminators are not special in their ability to withstand wounds. Make them cheaper, power weapon/fist costs are bloated as is. Even a 5 pt drop makes them attractive, a 10 pt drop pushes them towards competitive.

Actually, I could see the mechanical bulk, field generator/dampener, medical systems being enough cause to be considered for FnP... Unless you took your helmet off like, like most SMs tend to do.

In regards to redcuing cost and leaving it at that: okay lets make them cheaper, but if thats the only change, they will still be ROFLcopter novel in terms of a serious tactical choice. 10 point is simply not enough - it would help them much, but wouldn't fix their inherent problems...

Lets consider cost first, due to what I've worked out from comparing imp guard->space marine->terminator, point cost for current terminators should hover around 26ppm. The problem with this figure is obvious in relation to other SM units, which is why i suspect GW devs bumped them up artificially. The invuln wasn't even factored in to their cost in 3rd originally, that was a chapter approved thing and I don't recall it even changing price. So yea, we're really dealing with a very artificial price, and arguably, a very artificial purpose in terms of use (compared to 2nd ed).

FnP reinforces the terminator role by enabling armor save granularity - which is what defined them in 2ND edition.

This gives a clear insight to players as to what terminators are meant to handle - hot zones composed of small arms fire. Now, giving them an invulnerable save goes a different way - it completely ignores save granularity (FnP wasnt around in 3rd) and giving them a very conditional defense when they already had a 2+ save (diminishing the invulns potency). This was redundant, exceptional and not complimentary to tactical use.

 kingbobbito wrote:

 chrisrawr wrote:

It was pointing out that your change doesn't really affect one issue, and exacerbates another.

The number of attacks needed to kill a unit of terminators doubles, and the removal of 5+ invuln does not affect their survivability outside of a few close combat situations (in which most of the time they will have 3++ anyways).

Combined with the points drop, what i'm saying is that the proposed change is almost preposterous on its own merits. Look at the average scenario: A model that can soak up ~12 wounds. That's 72 lasgun shots per terminator (24 models minimum with FRFSRF - 130 points). It's a full unit of Fire Warriors rapidfiring with an ethereal (161 points). It's 18 termagants with devourers (144 points). Etc. etc. etc.

But they sacrifice nothing for it. Vulnerability to S8+ AP2+ weapons - Oh my!

Consider though how it would compare to the riptide. T6, armor 2, FNP 5+, the possibility of a 3++, and 5 wounds. The added benefit of the riptide is that if 4 terminators die you're at 1/5 attacking power, with a riptide 4 wounds means you're good as new.

Either soften the riptide or toughen the terminator.

Riptide should be a vehicle or a superheavy anyways, no arguments there.

Comments on below comment in bold

Interesting responses. Exactly what I expected but wasn't hoping for. A few helpful responses, and a whole bunch "THE SKY IS FALLING! CHANGE IS EVIL! HOW DARE YOU ACTUALLY TRY AND FIX SOMETHING!". I am sorry if this comes off as rude and condescending, but I am getting sick and tired of this. Any time anyone wants to try ANYTHING to maybe start to try and make the game better and more balanced a bunch of people come in and dump all over it. Offer nothing constructive. Don't back up their statements, And refuse to even consider looking at things objectively.

You're not offensive but you come off as smallminded and defensive - did an argument on terminators hurt you personally, in a way that you will never recover from? If not, there is no reason to put on the drama sirens. I don't see any sky-is-falling in this thread, just a lot of differing ideas on what direction is needed.

A 5+ FNP would give a save against most everything they already get a save at plus a few things they couldn't before, and completely lose a save to many things they were already weak to. The only advantage to FNP 5+ is it makes terminators a bit better vs ap2 and not by a whole lot. And it certainly isn't as boss as reanimation protocols.

a 5+ FNP does not effect terminator response vs AP2, and is indeed losing them survivability against that which their 5++ granted them.

What we are asking is to test out power weapon and storm bolter terminators who have a FNP5+ IN PLACE OF AN INVULNERABLE SAVE priced at 28-29 ppm. It is hardly a game breaking OMG THIS IS OP suggestion. Anyone who says it is is just flat out over reacting. And it is not like it is set in stone. IT IS A STARTING POINT. When all is said in done we hope to have a unit in the 30-33ppm range with a bit better shooting and tactical flexibility. To you know, make them useful but not OP.

I don't see how having a FNP save and a price reduction will make them better tactically or give them better shooting. Giving them better weapons and mobility options is the direction you should be looking for that.

If you want to help and be constructive please do. If you have objections that is fine, but back your comments up with math and examples and not sky is falling esq statements. If you want to help test these things then your help is greatly appreciated.
Still not seeing any sky is falling.
Again we or at least I don't mind criticism so long as it is CONSTRUCTIVE. I really should say I or me instead of we because I don't presume to speak on the behalf of others.

I apologize if anyone is offended by what I said, but when you say this bad, horrible, no good and can't even bother to state why or back up what you say with evidence you are just being a close minded donkey cave.
Toy Soldiers: Your Opinion is Serious Emotional Business and I will judge you as a person for it over the internet.

If "the objective is to have a 30-33ppm space marine with a 2+ save and good shooting / tactical flexibility" then you should look at the options that actually benefit that direction.

-> Mobility
-> Shooting

In the context of the terminator and the current range of chapters to choose from, 30 points for a TEQ with Power Weapon (no fist) and Stormbolter is pretty damn good.
Some directions you can go from here:
->Giving it Mobility Options via Re-deepstriking using Teleport Homers
->Increase the number of heavy weapons and the heavy weapon limit on them
->Allow the unit to purchase a Narc, orbital strikes, etc
->Give the unit the option to purchase special ammo or combi weapons
->Give the unit the option to fortify its deepstrike position with 1-use items like barriers, void shield generators, blinding flares, a large blast resolved before they are placed, etc.

Redesign Assault Terminators around assault, separating them entirely from Tactical Terminators, and giving them their own points cost (probably around where they are currently)
-> assault from Deepstrike?
-> Fleet
-> Hammer of Wrath
-> Sweeping Advances
-> More Attacks
-> Higher WS
-> Purchase a Narc as above
-> assault after running?




What shouldn't be done? A flat price decrease and FNP standard.

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, emperor protect me. Sorry OP! I totally meant to post in the "fixing terminators" thread! Sorry!

leerm02 wrote:

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, emperor protect me. Sorry OP! I totally meant to post in the "fixing terminators" thread! Sorry!

Mostly because their core issues don't really stem from survivability, but from actually being able to do what you need them to. The laziest fix possible is to let them stay around on the table for longer - this isnt fun for any of the players involved, and it's not good game design.

 chrisrawr wrote:


Mostly because their core issues don't really stem from survivability, but from actually being able to do what you need them to. The laziest fix possible is to let them stay around on the table for longer - this isnt fun for any of the players involved, and it's not good game design.

That's sort of narrow minded. You've stated nothing than mere opinion and slighting people in the process. Just because you make something more survivable doesn't mean it's less fun.

This is a wargame not a board game; pieces are meant to represent certain qualities like survivability in varying degrees. Defining units with more/less survivability is only one of those necessary scales for a wargame.

Focusing on just offensive capabilities and/or options as a fix, is myopic.

If you've looked at boardgame and game design over the last 15 years, there's a lot of really cool information backing my claims.

Look at game design antipatterns - "the tank" in any kind of pvp element has no place. Units whose strength comes from "just stick around" are not good, as they are more frustrating for your opponent than they are fun for you. By a long shot.

The reason I am not focusing on terminator survivability (especially at base 30 points) is because, for that cost, their survivability is exquisite. T4 and 2+/5++, and in some cases 6+ FNP just from being part of a chapter.

The reason I say improving their survivability is terminally lazy is because it does not require any thought on either side to adapt to the change - the opponent continues to throw shots at them until they go down.

Heck, just look at Paladins! We can directly see what doubling their survivability (which is what 4+ FNP would do) does. It makes them ridiculously expensive, for one, and for two - imagine paladins without any extra special rules or weapons, which is basically the result you're looking at with the currently proposed terminator changes. Cheap Paladins with vanilla weapon choices.

Start from the root of the problem - it ISNT that terminators aren't tanky enough. It's that they don't do enough when they get onto the field to make their points worth it.

Cutting their points is a good start - 30 points in an elites slot is perfect for them (lychguard are 25 points and T5, and for +5 they get 3++ but lose ap2 - terminators get a run of special rules and ranged weaponry to make up for the points difference as their survivability is practically the same after reanimation protocols).

The next direction you need to go is not survivability, but effectiveness. Survivability can be part of effectiveness, but should be an ends to a means, not a broad stroke to cover up cracks.

If you've looked at boardgame and game design over the last 15 years, there's a lot of really cool information backing my claims.

Look at game design antipatterns - "the tank" in any kind of pvp element has no place. Units whose strength comes from "just stick around" are not good, as they are more frustrating for your opponent than they are fun for you. By a long shot.

When did I, or anyone else here say the only purpose of Terminators is to take wounds? Their purpose is to be a more heavily armed and armored tactical unit.

The reason I am not focusing on terminator survivability (especially at base 30 points) is because, for that cost, their survivability is exquisite. T4 and 2+/5++, and in some cases 6+ FNP just from being part of a chapter.

In no way is it exquisite at that cost. I play Iron Hands. I can tell you from experience that the 6+ FNP is pretty much rarely useful as in it isn't reliable to make a difference. It is essentially Fluff. And bad fluff at that. I have played Grey Knights at their 33ppm and I can tell you that their survivability isn't that great.

The reason I say improving their survivability is terminally lazy is because it does not require any thought on either side to adapt to the change - the opponent continues to throw shots at them until they go down.

What part of this is just a starting point do you not understand. The idea is to test the rule change at the 30ppm price point to make sure what you are doing is working. In other words: eliminating the variables so to speak. Rather than make all the changes at once and have a giant mess. You test one or two changes at a time to make sure they are working as intended and not unbalancing things. After testing 30ppm FNP5+, if all goes well, we will probably be testing a slight boost to storm bolters and (possibly) allowing 4 heavy weapons total (2 per 5). This will probably be done at a 33ppm price point I am guessing.

Heck, just look at Paladins! We can directly see what doubling their survivability (which is what 4+ FNP would do) does. It makes them ridiculously expensive, for one, and for two - imagine paladins without any extra special rules or weapons, which is basically the result you're looking at with the currently proposed terminator changes. Cheap Paladins with vanilla weapon choices.

Paladins ARE better than terminators, but really aren't worth their points either. 2 wounds actually gives BETTER survivability than a 4+FNP. Yes they should be more expensive than Terminators, but they suffer from the exact same problems as Terminators. The only reason grey knight terminators are better than vanilla terminators is because of their psyker rules and force weapons, and even those rules are hampered by the new psychic phase.

Start from the root of the problem - it ISNT that terminators aren't tanky enough. It's that they don't do enough when they get onto the field to make their points worth it.

The ydon't do enough because they are too expensive, don't do enough damage, and die to small arms fire too easily. The FNP rule is a bit better against a wider variety of small arms fire. Another thing to keep in mind is we also want to make TDA a better choice for HQs. Right now the only HQ that really benefits from TDA is the Librarian, and that is because of the invul save (and ability to take a SS in vanilla codex). A 5+FNP would make TDA a viable choice for all HQs that can take it again.

Cutting their points is a good start - 30 points in an elites slot is perfect for them (lychguard are 25 points and T5, and for +5 they get 3++ but lose ap2 - terminators get a run of special rules and ranged weaponry to make up for the points difference as their survivability is practically the same after reanimation protocols).

And no the survivability is not the same. Reanimation protocols is hands down better than FNP. Especially in the Decurion detatchment. Lychguard are better as well, and not just because of their point cost.

The next direction you need to go is not survivability, but effectiveness. Survivability can be part of effectiveness, but should be an ends to a means, not a broad stroke to cover up cracks.

No one, other than you, says survivability is an ends to a means. TDA survivability however, does need a slight tweek.

You claim damage output is the only problem yet you offer no solutions on how to fix it. In fact you don't offer any solutions on how to fix anything. You post purely to dismantle others ideas and thoughts without any real constructive criticism. If my saying this offends you, then I apologize.

You choose to tear down ideas without actually offering anything, so I will choose to not respond to your posts here unless you are actually contributing something. Again if this offends you I apologize.

what?

-> Mobility
-> Shooting

In the context of the terminator and the current range of chapters to choose from, 30 points for a TEQ with Power Weapon (no fist) and Stormbolter is pretty damn good.
Some directions you can go from here:
->Giving it Mobility Options via Re-deepstriking using Teleport Homers
->Increase the number of heavy weapons and the heavy weapon limit on them
->Allow the unit to purchase a Narc, orbital strikes, etc
->Give the unit the option to purchase special ammo or combi weapons
->Give the unit the option to fortify its deepstrike position with 1-use items like barriers, void shield generators, blinding flares, a large blast resolved before they are placed, etc.

Redesign Assault Terminators around assault, separating them entirely from Tactical Terminators, and giving them their own points cost (probably around where they are currently)
-> assault from Deepstrike?
-> Fleet
-> Hammer of Wrath
-> Sweeping Advances
-> More Attacks
-> Higher WS
-> Purchase a Narc as above
-> assault after running?

 chrisrawr wrote:
If you've looked at boardgame and game design over the last 15 years, there's a lot of really cool information backing my claims.

Look at game design antipatterns - "the tank" in any kind of pvp element has no place. Units whose strength comes from "just stick around" are not good, as they are more frustrating for your opponent than they are fun for you. By a long shot.

The reason I am not focusing on terminator survivability (especially at base 30 points) is because, for that cost, their survivability is exquisite. T4 and 2+/5++, and in some cases 6+ FNP just from being part of a chapter.

The reason I say improving their survivability is terminally lazy is because it does not require any thought on either side to adapt to the change - the opponent continues to throw shots at them until they go down.

Heck, just look at Paladins! We can directly see what doubling their survivability (which is what 4+ FNP would do) does. It makes them ridiculously expensive, for one, and for two - imagine paladins without any extra special rules or weapons, which is basically the result you're looking at with the currently proposed terminator changes. Cheap Paladins with vanilla weapon choices.

Start from the root of the problem - it ISNT that terminators aren't tanky enough. It's that they don't do enough when they get onto the field to make their points worth it.

Cutting their points is a good start - 30 points in an elites slot is perfect for them (lychguard are 25 points and T5, and for +5 they get 3++ but lose ap2 - terminators get a run of special rules and ranged weaponry to make up for the points difference as their survivability is practically the same after reanimation protocols).

The next direction you need to go is not survivability, but effectiveness. Survivability can be part of effectiveness, but should be an ends to a means, not a broad stroke to cover up cracks.

It sort of sounds like you are digging your heels on the issues than consider a survivability change in terminators.

I'm not sure why you would bother bringing up 'pvp' as a term applicable to wargame, since it's already a given. If anything, I sense a pc gamer wanting to take some elements of the streamlining paradigm into pen a paper wargaming. To some extent you can reference some qualities synomously, but not absolutely.

Board games the past 15 years have emulated very well (or inspired) the mechanical aspects of a pc game railroad - different bells and whistles, but board games have the visual, more human ambience.

IMO, developers or advocates of board games tend to ignore the inherent difference of wargames(and rpgs) and thus want to carry what they see as fun/works into the pen and paper world. In my estimation, this lack of recognition has much to do with game imbalances abroad; bringing too much relativity into a game that ought to stand by its fundamentals for its niche.

Also, you don't even sound like a semi-serious SM player. Saying that terminators have exquisite survivability is a bit.... bewildering. Nevermind the glaring issues with overly common cheap special weapons bringing terminators to save 33% , theres also the matter of a decent quantity of shots nixing their effectiveness as well - not anything but a survivability issue. Why should we just gloss it over with only circumstantial or cost perks? I like consistency in baselines stats myself - if possible.

Something like FnP is better at distinguishing the survivability scale, than global redundancy utilities like invuln on 'tactical' infantry.

What if FnP is a more fitting approach for terminators than invuln saves?