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.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I'm not gaking on you or anything, but next time you can say 'most likely' rather than 'definitely'.

He has no need to, his post was obviously opinion.

Lemondish wrote:
That's super hilarious considering

Start with the assumption that every post here is stating an opinion until proven otherwise, and you won't find yourself in the ridiculous position of starting arguments about demanding people change how they word their posts like some kind of bizarre, pointless tone police.

 fraser1191 wrote:
I guess it's worth asking what makes a Terminator other than a title?

The aesthetics, the customization options, and the statline.

I know the aesthetic difference between Aggressors and Terminators seem slight to some people, but to me as someone who's always liked terminators aesthetically, there's a pretty big difference. Hell, just the helmets alone... plus of course the strange partial dome feature that partially encapsulates the aggressors helmet looks odd, it'd look better honestly if it was a full dome with a slit on front or something. I'll grant it's probably pulled a little bit from the actual terminator model design, but it feels like an odd choice. Then there's the fact that every single aggressor has that weird launcher atop their head...

For customization options, aggressors only really have one choice. Their super-pistols, or flamethrowers. Terminators had not enough choice to be sure, but they could equip as a shooty squad that still had some punch, with a heavy weapon guy and a sarge with a power sword. Or they could go all-out on assault, and mix it up or go pure with claws or hammers/shields. Aggressors, in their current form, cannot replace my blood angels assault terminators-- perhaps you could make the argument they kind of sort of replace tactical terminators, I suppose, but they don't do it very well.

And for statline, the armor save does make a huge difference. Some people like to pretend armor is irrelevant this edition, but it's really not, especially since cover actually benefits terminators pretty massively against armor penetrating weapons (effectively nullifying any effect AP-1 weapons have).

Taht's pretty awesome. Especially likle the enclosed triple-barrel, potentially rotary boltgun.

Centurions are also just flat out BIGGER than Aggressors or Terminators.

When it comes to infantry, it actually kinda does. The progression of Flak Armor to Carapace Armor to Power Armor is due to increased coverage as well as increased quality. Carapace and Power Armor are bulkier, heavier armors and they provide additional protection BECAUSE of said bulk.

Ech, we already have dreadknights though.

I'm pretty sure the primaris marines are more resource intensive to bring up, and require more specialized equipment (the new power armor model) that can't necessarily be manufactured in a lot of places, and that's their downside and also why they aren't replacing all non-primaris marines. And that's enough of a downside as far as I'm concerned. I'm tired of everything being "but then chaos/xenos touched it and now it sucks". That's just dull and uninteresting. In fact it's kinda more interesting that it's NOT broken and flawed, it's just expensive and unrealistic to replace all standard marines with.