Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am with Xenomancers, the Termies problem is the lack of staying power, the same problem IMO power armours have.

A 13 points Tac SM or a 23 Termy, suffer for the new AP system that reduces their relative survivability in respect to other infantries or low AP weapons spam.

I think that introducing a FnP-ish rule would better represents the Astartes Building thing, making their actual point cost worthwhile.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
I am with Xenomancers, the Termies problem is the lack of staying power, the same problem IMO power armours have.

A 13 points Tac SM or a 23 Termy, suffer for the new AP system that reduces their relative survivability in respect to other infantries or low AP weapons spam.

I think that introducing a FnP-ish rule would better represents the Astartes Building thing, making their actual point cost worthwhile.

I agree, Regular and traitor Astartes should be I feel as durable as death guard. The death guard are the only marine faction I find that has the staying power that represents an Astarte, which then leads to the question, just how would you make death guard even more durable without being broken (which some would argue they are already).

And just to clarify, I do feel they all need a 5+ FNP, 6+ Wouldn’t make such a difference.

Astartes might start with a 4+ FnP, lowered to 5+ vs. Weapon with S 2+ higher than target T.

 Blackie wrote:
They are hard to kill. They used to be 1W for decades.

Other SM units with 1,2 or 3W aren't tougher than them. And SM durability isn't an issue at all.

EVERYTHING was 1W for decades, that doesn't mean anything anymore, this is 8th.

It is hard for me to take you seriously when you say "SM durability isn't an issue at all" when nearly every SM infantry unit is not durable enough for their points. Granted, their damage output is a bigger issue, but their durability could use with some improvement too.

 Blackie wrote:
No, they are very similar as they suffer from the same issue: they're not killy enough for their points.

They are two completely different units that have different battlefield roles. BOTH aren't killy enough for their points AND BOTH aren't durable enough for their points.

 Blackie wrote:


A TWC with shield and melee weapon is 57+ points, depending on the weapon. 50 with a crappy chainsword. A terminator with PF and shield is just 34

You want to know a secret? Not everyone plays Space Marines +1. Vanilla Marines can't even take Storm Shields and Power Fists.

w1zard wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
They are hard to kill. They used to be 1W for decades.

Other SM units with 1,2 or 3W aren't tougher than them. And SM durability isn't an issue at all.

EVERYTHING was 1W for decades, that doesn't mean anything anymore, this is 8th.

It is hard for me to take you seriously when you say "SM durability isn't an issue at all" when nearly every SM infantry unit is not durable enough for their points. Granted, their damage output is a bigger issue, but their durability could use with some improvement too.

 Blackie wrote:
No, they are very similar as they suffer from the same issue: they're not killy enough for their points.

They are two completely different units that have different battlefield roles. BOTH aren't killy enough for their points AND BOTH aren't durable enough for their points.

That's your opinion. Maybe it's your meta, or the lists you play. SM are quite durable, it's hard to table them unless they face some specific opponents. Which is the issue all armies have. Orks are considered top tiers but against some specific lists even competitive builds can be tabled within turn 3.

And yeah, many things were 1W in the past but some units that now are 3W used to be 2W. So if termies become 3W like them, they should get their +1W as well and become 4+W. I don't think there's a single unit, other than characters, that was 1W and now it's 3W.

Don't make the mistake to compare SM to overpowered/undercosted units like guardsmen because they're utterly broken and they should be 7ppm like boyz. Marines are maybe a bit overpriced but not that much, they really can't be less than 12 points and some of their stuff is undercosted like nasty 2ppm storm shield and stormbolters. I think it's very silly to wish unkillable SM, they should be an army just like the other ones and at the moment the only real difference between them and other factions is that their sinergies and shenanigans (traits, stratagems, auras, psychic powers) are bland.

Compare termies to other units that have the same role, they're not less resilient. Some kind of termies can all have their 3++ which put them among the most resilient heavy infantries in the game for their points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


A TWC with shield and melee weapon is 57+ points, depending on the weapon. 50 with a crappy chainsword. A terminator with PF and shield is just 34

You want to know a secret? Not everyone plays Space Marines +1. Vanilla Marines can't even take Storm Shields and Power Fists.

Please wake up. SW are among the worst SM chapters in this edition. Ok BT are worse, but if SW are marines +1 ultramarines are marines +10.

We may have termies with fist and shield but we lack tons of other juicy combos that regulars marines have. The nasty stormraven, scouts as troops, heavy bolters or lascannons in troops squads, devastators with more than 6 bodies....

7 PPM Guardsmen?

The same as a Ranger? Are you crazy?

 JNAProductions wrote:
7 PPM Guardsmen?

The same as a Ranger? Are you crazy?

Yeah, its hard to take this guy seriously... marines are actually less durable per point than pretty much every other faction's infantry.

I will agree that marines' damage output is a bigger issue than their survivability... but marines need buffs to survivability too.

Things like guardsmen, skitarii ranger, and kabailites are the new baseline. They aren't overpowered, if your faction can't compete with them then its YOUR infantry that are underpowered. I actually disagreed with ork boyz going to 7ppm I thought they should have stayed at 6.

 JNAProductions wrote:
7 PPM Guardsmen?

The same as a Ranger? Are you crazy?

Yes, kabalites are 6ppm (IMHO 1ppm undercosted), boyz are 7ppm.... guardsmen are on the same level of those units (if not even better) and can't really be cheaper than them. When I face AM I always feel like I'm playing with an army that has +300-400 points than me, half the AM is undercosted. 4-5ppm were ok when blasts and templates caused way more wounds than the D3-D6 system, most anti infantry weapons where AP5 and troops didn't generate CPs. 3ppm is the cost of a gretchin, aka T2 no save, no clan bonus, and single S3 shot.

Oh ranger at 7ppm are broken as well. They could be ok if they were elites, like they should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:


Things like guardsmen, skitarii ranger, and kabailites are the new baseline. They aren't overpowered, if your faction can't compete with them then its YOUR infantry that are underpowered. I actually disagreed with ork boyz going to 7ppm I thought they should have stayed at 6.

I like armies with different profiles though and it seems appropriate to have SM troops that aren't cheap. An army may have worse troops but some other tools that make them compete. I'm against the concept of making everything invincible or too resilient, I'd rather nerf the firepower in the game, including the SM one. But just banning the soups will fix most of the issues, as the overpowered lists, those ones who can melt hundreds of points in a single turn with no effort, are all soups. SM will gain a lot in a meta with no soups.

We're not discussing SM troops here though. Termies with 2W are perfect, they've never been to tough to kill. There are some units like nobz or wulfen that used to be 2W even in previous editions and they didn't get a third wound in 8th. It would be totally unfair if termies jump from 1W to 3W and those units stay at 2W. So be happy if termies become 2W because not all the elites get their +1W in this edition.

Nobs also couldn't Deep Strike last edition and lost almost nothing from the new AP system. You can't look at just one variable out of context.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Nobs also couldn't Deep Strike last edition and lost almost nothing from the new AP system. You can't look at just one variable out of context.

Deep striking now costs 2 CPs for orks, it's not a free special rule, and pretty much every army has a stratagem to deep strike/outflank something.

I also haven't seen a single list that relies on deep striking nobz yet

Why does other armies having Deep Strike matter? You said Terminators shouldn't get a third wound because Nobs haven't gotten one; by that logic the Nobs shouldn't have the ability to Deep Strike. It's a silly argument. You can't compare one stat in isolation to the past without also considering how the context affecting that stat has changed.

Yes, kabalites are 6ppm (IMHO 1ppm undercosted), boyz are 7ppm.... guardsmen are on the same level of those units (if not even better) and can't really be cheaper than them. When I face AM I always feel like I'm playing with an army that has +300-400 points than me, half the AM is undercosted. 4-5ppm were ok when blasts and templates caused way more wounds than the D3-D6 system, most anti infantry weapons where AP5 and troops didn't generate CPs. 3ppm is the cost of a gretchin, aka T2 no save, no clan bonus, and single S3 shot.

Oh ranger at 7ppm are broken as well. They could be ok if they were elites, like they should be.

Seriously this schtick again?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why does other armies having Deep Strike matter? You said Terminators shouldn't get a third wound because Nobs haven't gotten one; by that logic the Nobs shouldn't have the ability to Deep Strike. It's a silly argument. You can't compare one stat in isolation to the past without also considering how the context affecting that stat has changed.

Sigh.

Nobz don't have deep strike. That's the point. Sure the player can teleport them, but like any other unit in the codex, it's a 2 CPs stratagem, not a special rule in their profile, for an army that is extremely CP thirsty those 2 CPs are a significant investment. You say "Why does other armies having deep strike matter" but I can reply: "And why deep striking nobz when they are more efficient on a trukk? Or when there are other units that would benefit more from tellyporta?" Since those 2 CPs matter the tipycal teleported stuff is something like 10 meganobz or 3 deff dreads, or even a bonebreaka with a something inside, aka units that cost twice or even more the max unit of nobz. That 2 CPs are a decent investment for teleporting 300+ points units, or alternatively a mob of boyz since sometimes doubling the boyz that arrive 9'' from the enemy may be a legit tactics, but definitely not 10 (or less) nobz.

The argument is about the unit's durability. Something that jumps to 1W to 3W looks absolutely wrong compared to something that was 2W and stayed 2W, that's my argument. Especially if that unit has free deep strike, 2+ and access to 2ppm 3++.

Nobz may be better than terminators for two reasons only:

1) They have sinergies with the rest of the army. Nobz will never be played as the only close combat unit that rushes towards the enemy, it will always be joined by other units and characters adding redundancy and making the unit work. Termies in many SM lists don't have a role since there are tons of other shooting units to choose but very little assault oriented ones, if not none. Even meganobz are terrible on their own if the rest of the army sits back in a corner far away from the enemy lines.

2) They have a role even without investing points in weapons. That's the main difference, nobz are always played as a pure anti infantry unit with 0 points upgrades and sometimes a few big choppas. A nob with a pk is 27ppm for a 4+ 2W model with no shooting and no invuln. Kitted this way is less efficient than a termy with a fist or hammer. Not to mention that ranged weapons are something like a 17ppm skorcha or a 12ppm kombi rokkit (mind that BS5+). A nob with a shooting weapon and a melee one becomes a 40ish ppm model. Nobz see sometimes the table because killing infantries now may matter, termies will never go after hordes of cheap dudes no matter what buffs they get. Even wulfen with claws are terrible against hordes. Having different roles makes it hard to compare nobz and termies in terms of effectiveness, the only honest comparison can be made on terms of durability. That durability should be discussed considering the real mechanics of the game as multiwound SM and orks units will NOT attract the same kind of firepower: orks will always have lots of low T bodies so the enemy anti infantries will target them while the anti tank usually go against multiwounds units like nobz/meganobz or vehicles; however SM termies with 3++ usually are targeted by low S weapons to nullify their invulns and they will likely have appropriate targets for the anti tank even sparing the termies. In the end both units seems appropriate in terms of durability for their cost.

That's why the only real change I'd advocate to termies is to give them a defined role and acquire some buffs in order to accomplish that task. In other words I think a flat +1S should be the only buff that imperium termies need. Nobz are terrible if they mix up shooting and melee wargear, or kitted only with shooting options, or with anti tank melee weapons, they just have a role as a melee anti infantries unit. In the same way termies could find a role as a melee anti tank/heavy infantries, which is something that SM completely lacks. Or be terrible or mediocre with other options. And all the changes they need should go into that direction.

Terminators don't have 2 PPM Storm Shields, they have a 18 PPM TH/SS combo. Breaking out the price of the Storm Shield is meaningless when it's only available as a package. 41 PPM for a TH/SS doesn't cut it.

+1 strength and no other change to terminators is the second most useless stat buff I can imagine for Terminators, only surpassed by a leadership buff. They still have no way to reliably get into melee in the first place.

 Blackie wrote:
Yes, kabalites are 6ppm (IMHO 1ppm undercosted), boyz are 7ppm.... guardsmen are on the same level of those units (if not even better) and can't really be cheaper than them. When I face AM I always feel like I'm playing with an army that has +300-400 points than me, half the AM is undercosted.

Have you considered that DE, orks, and AM are not undercosted, but instead that marines are overcosted?

I know it is a paradigm shift, but GW have had multiple chances to make guardsmen, rangers, and kabalites more expensive and they have not. They even doubled down and made guard veterans 5ppm, effectively saying that guardsmen aren't getting nerfed from 4ppm anytime soon. It's time to face the reality that things like 4ppm guardsmen, and 7ppm rangers are not oversights. They are EXACTLY where GW wants them, whether or not you agree with that. Just because marines are the posterboy faction doesn't make them the de facto measuring stick for what constitutes a "balanced faction".

 Blackie wrote:
We're not discussing SM troops here though. Termies with 2W are perfect, they've never been to tough to kill. There are some units like nobz or wulfen that used to be 2W even in previous editions and they didn't get a third wound in 8th. It would be totally unfair if termies jump from 1W to 3W and those units stay at 2W. So be happy if termies become 2W because not all the elites get their +1W in this edition.

Meganobz do have 3W... IIRC.

 Brother Castor wrote:
Does anything else have a 1+ basic save?

Nope, but now that 40k uses the old WHFB armor save system (with +/- modifiers) you might as well. 2+ being the max save is a holdover from the past editions.

That said, now that you can get pretty cheap Stormbolter + Power Sword terminators for 29 points (e.g. Space Wolves) and after the massive storm bolter buff (which really helps against weapons like plasma guns, as you get to fire at full efficiency at >12", they don't), they would be perfect with a third wound. It would also help differentiate them more from the 2 wound Primaris. Alternatively, 1+ saves would be a nice alternative as well, so they have to rely less on their crappy 5++.

Still, even as is, regular as-cheap-as-possible storm bolter Terminators are a pretty nice choice now rather than the below-average handicap choice they were until a week ago.

What Grey Knight Terminators desperately need is another price cut, 41 points is just too much in this edition. Make them 34 points and they become actually viable.

w1zard wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Yes, kabalites are 6ppm (IMHO 1ppm undercosted), boyz are 7ppm.... guardsmen are on the same level of those units (if not even better) and can't really be cheaper than them. When I face AM I always feel like I'm playing with an army that has +300-400 points than me, half the AM is undercosted.

Have you considered that DE, orks, and AM are not undercosted, but instead that marines are overcosted?

I know it is a paradigm shift, but GW have had multiple chances to make guardsmen, rangers, and kabalites more expensive and they have not. They even doubled down and made guard veterans 5ppm, effectively saying that guardsmen aren't getting nerfed from 4ppm anytime soon. It's time to face the reality that things like 4ppm guardsmen, and 7ppm rangers are not oversights. They are EXACTLY where GW wants them, whether or not you agree with that. Just because marines are the posterboy faction doesn't make them the de facto measuring stick for what constitutes a "balanced faction".

 Blackie wrote:
We're not discussing SM troops here though. Termies with 2W are perfect, they've never been to tough to kill. There are some units like nobz or wulfen that used to be 2W even in previous editions and they didn't get a third wound in 8th. It would be totally unfair if termies jump from 1W to 3W and those units stay at 2W. So be happy if termies become 2W because not all the elites get their +1W in this edition.

Meganobz do have 3W... IIRC.

This is sadly undeniable at this point.

"There are some units like nobz or wulfen that used to be 2W even in previous editions and they didn't get a third wound in 8th. It would be totally unfair if termies jump from 1W to 3W and those units stay at 2W. So be happy if termies become 2W because not all the elites get their +1W in this edition."

How about no? Wulfen can die in a fire for starters. I'd squat them given a chance. Furthermore, previous editions don't matter anymore. Only interactions in this edition.

Why do you have to give three wounds to anything but imperial terminators?

Martel732 wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Yes, kabalites are 6ppm (IMHO 1ppm undercosted), boyz are 7ppm.... guardsmen are on the same level of those units (if not even better) and can't really be cheaper than them. When I face AM I always feel like I'm playing with an army that has +300-400 points than me, half the AM is undercosted.

Have you considered that DE, orks, and AM are not undercosted, but instead that marines are overcosted?

I know it is a paradigm shift, but GW have had multiple chances to make guardsmen, rangers, and kabalites more expensive and they have not. They even doubled down and made guard veterans 5ppm, effectively saying that guardsmen aren't getting nerfed from 4ppm anytime soon. It's time to face the reality that things like 4ppm guardsmen, and 7ppm rangers are not oversights. They are EXACTLY where GW wants them, whether or not you agree with that. Just because marines are the posterboy faction doesn't make them the de facto measuring stick for what constitutes a "balanced faction".

 Blackie wrote:
We're not discussing SM troops here though. Termies with 2W are perfect, they've never been to tough to kill. There are some units like nobz or wulfen that used to be 2W even in previous editions and they didn't get a third wound in 8th. It would be totally unfair if termies jump from 1W to 3W and those units stay at 2W. So be happy if termies become 2W because not all the elites get their +1W in this edition.

Meganobz do have 3W... IIRC.

This is sadly undeniable at this point.

"There are some units like nobz or wulfen that used to be 2W even in previous editions and they didn't get a third wound in 8th. It would be totally unfair if termies jump from 1W to 3W and those units stay at 2W. So be happy if termies become 2W because not all the elites get their +1W in this edition."

How about no? Wulfen can die in a fire for starters. I'd squat them given a chance. Furthermore, previous editions don't matter anymore. Only interactions in this edition.

Previous editions matter because you need to look at what exactly worked and what could've been improved upon. We know that Chaos Terminators and Space Wolves Terminators worked of course during 7th, but if we don't understand why, how can we understand for 8th?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also raging about Wulfen is stupid. They already exist. Get over it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Why do you have to give three wounds to anything but imperial terminators?

It's about consistency. If you want to say Terminators should have W3 because of their armor, that armor is also worn by other Terminator variants.

Then you need to look at other wound interactions. Meganobz have of course always had another wound, so that would continue. However I don't think Meganobz with W4 is reasonable, is it?

I disagree about previous editions matter, so all such appeals are invalid to me.

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree about previous editions matter, so all such appeals are invalid to me.

History is the best teacher. If you choose to ignore which Terminator variants worked in the previous edition and not really study it, it means you don't have the fundamental understanding to suggest how to fix them for this edition as well.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree about previous editions matter, so all such appeals are invalid to me.

History is the best teacher. If you choose to ignore which Terminator variants worked in the previous edition and not really study it, it means you don't have the fundamental understanding to suggest how to fix them for this edition as well.

Meganobz didn't have the option to deep strike and assault reliably in previous editions either.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree about previous editions matter, so all such appeals are invalid to me.

History is the best teacher. If you choose to ignore which Terminator variants worked in the previous edition and not really study it, it means you don't have the fundamental understanding to suggest how to fix them for this edition as well.

Meganobz didn't have the option to deep strike and assault reliably in previous editions either.

Saying they have Strategems honestly means nothing to me, and yes they could get into melee reliably because they had open topped transports.

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree about previous editions matter, so all such appeals are invalid to me.

Agreed. This is 8th edition... What worked and didn't work in previous editions is irrelevant because the ruleset is completely different now. Holding onto archaic statlines is one of the reasons why marines are so underpowered this edition.

And I absolutely think terminator armor should give +2W, including to characters that wear it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Why do you have to give three wounds to anything but imperial terminators?

It's about consistency. If you want to say Terminators should have W3 because of their armor, that armor is also worn by other Terminator variants.

Then you need to look at other wound interactions. Meganobz have of course always had another wound, so that would continue. However I don't think Meganobz with W4 is reasonable, is it?

Incorrect. Megaknobz were 1W in second edition, as were terminators. Sorry to be a pedant, but well, you are to everyone in this forum so you know, how do you like them apples?

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Why do you have to give three wounds to anything but imperial terminators?

It's about consistency. If you want to say Terminators should have W3 because of their armor, that armor is also worn by other Terminator variants.

Then you need to look at other wound interactions. Meganobz have of course always had another wound, so that would continue. However I don't think Meganobz with W4 is reasonable, is it?

Incorrect. Megaknobz were 1W in second edition, as were terminators. Sorry to be a pedant, but well, you are to everyone in this forum so you know, how do you like them apples?

It isn't like you proved me wrong, so honestly I don't care. That would've meant regular Nobz had W1 too. So once Nobz got W2, their variants got it as well, yes?

So there ya go.

History may be a great teacher, but we sure are terrible students.

Variants should be compared to far more than just Termies. Meganobz should be compared to Nobz and other in-codex non-Termie options, too.

Elite versions of Necron Warriors get +1 sv and a much better gun. Elite versions of Craftworld Guardians get +1sv and a much better gun. Elite versions of Marines get +1A +1Ld. Clearly, not every upgrade has the same impact on stats gamewide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"It isn't like you proved me wrong, so honestly I don't care. That would've meant regular Nobz had W1 too. So once Nobz got W2, their variants got it as well, yes? "

Are you really arguing that " Meganobz have of course always had another wound" is true because there was a time they *didn't* have another wound?

In the vein of comparing other faction Termies equivalents, I think it's important to note that Eldar WraithGuard have 3 wounds.
And in the last few editions they, like Terminators, had 1W. The difference that made them unique compared to Termies was being T6/3+. They are still T6/3+ but Termies, for some reason, only get 2Ws for....reasons?

If Termies got 3Ws I would not for a second be screaming for WG to get 4. So why should Mega Nobs? T5 maybe, but not 4Ws.

And to address the "everything was 1W in prior editions" argument, prior editions also didn't have a Damage Characteristic, nor Armour save modifiers. You either got to roll your armour save or not. But now weapons that previously gave your full Armour save, like Missile launchers and Heavy bolters, reduce your chances.
And weapons that previously didn't cause Instant Death can still mean that even with an extra wound added

-

You can’t apply logic of wounds to things, why does some get more wounds the more promotions they get. It has always been an abstract representation of durability. In this edition imperial terminators with 3 wounds is perfectly plausible without having to explain why others don’t have it. They just don’t. I’ve actually built some primaris sized terminators and have just added one wound and one attack to them as that is the primaris standard. They are pretty good.

Ruling something out because a self imposed rule would give it to other units as well is just silly. If anything the number of pages in this thread shows the games has left terminators behind, sooner gw ditch old marines in full the better.