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 run a squad of 10 tac terminators with one ass cannon and one CML in a 1500 point battle. With Cassius the unit costs 575 pts and either draws a lot of fire allowing my 6+ tac squads and others to get on with the objectives of the game or gets over the board and causes havoc. I would like more buffs for them but they work for me.

Those terminators won't last long enough against Riptides or grav guns.

Jefffar wrote:
Well if you want to compare a 40 point infantry model with a 200 or so point Monstrous Creature, of course you are losing out.

Terminators are 200 points minimum for 5 wounds T4 2+/5++. Still worse than the Riptide.

Martel732 wrote:
Those terminators won't last long enough against Riptides or grav guns.

Well for a start my opponent has to have a riptide or grav guns! I let him worry about my list rather than be fretting about his deathstar! I usually have 5 or 6 options in my list that are going to be game winners for me.

On a tactical terminator with a power weapon we have two examples that cost less than 35 points (Chaos and Space Wolves). They seem to be the right basic price. The extra 5 to 10 for the mandatory Powerfists seems to be the killer. So going to Power weapons and a points cost in the 30 to 35 points range seems to be a reasonable starting point.

I don't see Space Wolves taking them much anymore.

And Chaos has used them only for Deep Striking Combi-Melta/Plasma.

So it's not like they use them for much besides suicide drops, not exactly good basic price when we don't even wanna use those power weapons.

madd_leeroy wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Those terminators won't last long enough against Riptides or grav guns.

Well for a start my opponent has to have a riptide or grav guns! I let him worry about my list rather than be fretting about his deathstar! I usually have 5 or 6 options in my list that are going to be game winners for me.

Grav bikers aren't death stars. They're just fast troops that massacre terminators. What do you think is going to happen to your troops after your terminators are turned into tin cans by the grav guns? Yup, they're next. I can table a list like you describe with BA. I can't imagine what the good lists will do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

On a tactical terminator with a power weapon we have two examples that cost less than 35 points (Chaos and Space Wolves). They seem to be the right basic price. The extra 5 to 10 for the mandatory Powerfists seems to be the killer. So going to Power weapons and a points cost in the 30 to 35 points range seems to be a reasonable starting point.

I don't see Space Wolves taking them much anymore.

And Chaos has used them only for Deep Striking Combi-Melta/Plasma.

So it's not like they use them for much besides suicide drops, not exactly good basic price when we don't even wanna use those power weapons.

Suicide drops with any meq list is a losing proposition anymore. They can't get cause enough damage to justify it for their cost.

Suicide drops with any meq list is a losing proposition anymore. They can't get cause enough damage to justify it for their cost.

Yeah I stopped using my own terminators once they couldn't even scratch the paint on Wave Serpents.

Just had an idea to make deep striking terminators a little bit better and more resilient to being nuked by an interceptor as soon as they arrive.

How about when deep striking choose two locations where they are deep striking themselves and where their decoy is deep striking. Before interceptor shots are taken but after they are declared, the owner of the termies has to roll to see which of the locations contains the real and which is the decoy, they are then assigned 1-3 on a dice roll, and 4-6, then the opponents interceptor unit has to fire at the target the roll says (if they can see both), so they could end up firing at the decoy. Gives them a 50% of not being fired upon when they deep strike and would waste the interceptors shot in their turn, it would cause the opponent to consider whether their interceptor shot is worth it when facing deep striking termies.

it could probably do with some work rule wise as it's a bit messy but maybe you get the idea....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or just make them immune to interceptor.

Another thing that could help (not enough on its own, but still something) is to let Tactical Terminators take Drop Pods. Combined with some sort of shooting buff (more and stronger weapons) or a hefty cost decrease, that'd mean they'd be able to come down turn 1, shoot some stuff and then be close enough to feasibly be able to use their Power Fists without dropping their shooting potential. This, of course, is dependant on what manner of shooting buffs you give them.

Or we can go the crazy route: Give every Terminator an Assault Cannon standard, with options to upgrade to CML/SB for 5 PPM. At least that way they'd actually pack some ranged punch.

Points cost is not necessarily indicative of performance. Alpha strike ability is a recognized asset. Terminators do not posses this, not even in the slightest. Were a unit of terminators to DS next to a similarly priced unit they'd fail to destroy it, and likely be butchered by said units response. Whatever purpose they once had they can no longer fulfill. Part of this argument is just trying to figure out what they NEED, what they truly need to be useful again. People have agreed they need a points drop, but to what end? I used to use them to handle MCs and deathstars in earlier editions. With their (once) great staying power and PFs they could grind down anything. Now-a-days they'd never catch anything, and if they did they'd just die. Just making them cheaper is a start. But they need more offensive capability. The extra heavy weapon is good. How about master crafted though? They are the elites of the Elites, so making all of their weapons mastercrafted would help and be fluffy. Now your adding 2 or 3 extra hits at ranged and HH without wacky special rules, just good old fashioned Master Crafted. Also their resillence was once their greatest asset. Now its so-so and certainly not worth 40 points. what about making their invulnerable save re-rollable? Just the 5++. So a termie with a SS would get his 3++ , and if that failed he'd get a 5++ re-roll. So...

All weapons Master Crafted?

5++ re-rollable?

With a points drop and additional heavy weapons?

Rather then re-rollable, just make it a natural 4++ (Thus glorious 3++ for Tzeentch Chaos! )

On the deep strike Deathwing count all ranged weapons as twin-linked. It doesn't help.

Basically terminator guns are pretty pathetic. Strength 6 AP4? A two shot missile launcher?

Making storm bolters salvo 3/2 weapons (which would always be 3 shot on relentless terminators) would be a start. They'd still only be bolter shots, but at least there'd be more of them.

In 2nd edition the assault cannon was basically a multi-shot missile launcher. Making it 24" S8 AP4 Heavy 4 rending would be a decent improvement.

The cyclone in 2nd had a salvo function where you could fire off all of its 12 missiles in one glorious salvo that gave you a 6" diameter krak missile blast and krak missiles back then were good.

Whilst we don't need the book keeping that individual missile shots have, perhaps making it more like a thunder fire cannon (regarded as a decent piece of kit) with the barrage function and perhaps an anti-air option.

Chaos do need something too. They suck only marginally less hard than loyalists.

As before, making changes to the rules of TDA or Stormbolters requires ensuring that other armies that use them (GK stormbolters) don't get upset as well. Thus we want to keep changes as small as possible.

I'm currently in the camp that says that points-reduction will make Terminators seen at least a bit more often than they currently are seen (not at all). However a small change restricted to Terminator Storm Bolters (Special Issue Ammunition maybe) would also help make them usable)

I'd say about a 4-7 point redaction in most TDA-armored units would do it. TDA at 32-35ppm (TH/SS still potentially costing a bit more), Wolf Guard/CSM being a few more than than Honor Guard (28 or so I'd guess). The 2+ save is exactly twice as good as a 3+, so any extra points above 2xtactical needs to be worthwhile.

This might be a stupid idea but what if.....

You made them AV10 vehicles?

Still not too hard to take out with expensive weapons, but immune to ap2 bull honkey

Honestly I don't see a future for terminators in a meta that includes stronghold assault and escalation.

In alternative metas a cost drop, double special weapons, and maybe something else would make them a bit more optimal.

One idea I like is to not have them mishap if they teleport in on top of an enemy unit, and instead blind the enemy unit and/or are treated as charging in close combat.

 changerofways wrote:
This might be a stupid idea but what if.....

You made them AV10 vehicles?

Still not too hard to take out with expensive weapons, but immune to ap2 bull honkey

I haven't seen an AP 2 weapon that couldn't penetrate AV 10, but now they have no saving through vs Bolters or Pulse Rifles or Guass Weapons.

A small cost reduction in line with the proliferation of AP-2 available wouldn't be out of line, but I don't believe they'd need much if anything apart from a meta-game shift where quantity of fire is much better than quality. (the reverse is the case currently)

Some units have to be less powerful in order for there to be more efficient units and maintain some semblance of balance. 2+ armor is just one of the victims of that policy; with the release of efficient and plentiful counter-measures found in the most recent codexes.

in time things will swing back the other way again, it always does.

"Some units have to be less powerful in order for there to be more efficient units and maintain some semblance of balance. "

That is the very definition of *imbalance*. If unit A is less powerful than unit B *it should cost fewer points*. It's not just 2+ armor. It's also paying for a near useless powerfist. It's also stormbolters getting worse with respect to bolters in 6th.

I don't want to wait to play a fair game. I can go play plenty of other fair games right now without waiting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 changerofways wrote:
This might be a stupid idea but what if.....

You made them AV10 vehicles?

Still not too hard to take out with expensive weapons, but immune to ap2 bull honkey

It's not just AP 2. It's also weight of fire. Terminators have so many problems in the current state of the game, any necessary changes would break with "tradition". They are likely on permanent mothball.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thariinye wrote:
As before, making changes to the rules of TDA or Stormbolters requires ensuring that other armies that use them (GK stormbolters) don't get upset as well. Thus we want to keep changes as small as possible.

I'm currently in the camp that says that points-reduction will make Terminators seen at least a bit more often than they currently are seen (not at all). However a small change restricted to Terminator Storm Bolters (Special Issue Ammunition maybe) would also help make them usable)

I'd say about a 4-7 point redaction in most TDA-armored units would do it. TDA at 32-35ppm (TH/SS still potentially costing a bit more), Wolf Guard/CSM being a few more than than Honor Guard (28 or so I'd guess). The 2+ save is exactly twice as good as a 3+, so any extra points above 2xtactical needs to be worthwhile.

The 2+ save is twice as good, but the terminator only has one wound, whereas an equivalent amount of tac marines have more than one wound. This makes the terminator less than twice as durable, and only 1.333X more durable against AP 2. And exactly the same durability if the marines are in shrubbery.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
After further consideration, you can't make terminators live up to the fluff without addressing the durability issue. So I can't agree with the people who want to take that off the table. GW should have never make centurions and fixed terminators instead.

I'm thinking the route to improvement might be a Deep Strike via Teleportation special rule. The new Stronghold Assault book suggests allowing Teleporting units to arrive inside of Fortifications (although no rules for this were printed). How about a "Teleportation Assault" rule that allows precision Deep Strike via Teleportation? No scatter, can arrive inside Forts, etc. Remove the transport tax, lets you place them where you want be it out of LoS or right next to a juicy target you want pressured.

That worth the 5pt overage we want reduced?

SJ

No. Because starting in reserves sucks. The unit is not contributing from turn 1.

I don't know about you, but putting stuff out of LOS has a tendency to also put stuff 2 or 3 turns away from the target on foot.

There's also no guarantee of having a useful out of LOS spot available. So we are back to the old "teleport down, stand there for a turn like idiots and then get obliterated on the opponent's next turn." I can not tell you how many terminators I have slagged in 5th and 6th edition this way. The dead turn on any non-shooting deep striker is murder.

Part of it is that Xeno lists don't have that many targets to worry about in marine lists that bring lots of troops. Because tactical marines aren't threatening my grandmother and they can be eliminated casually after all the stuff that might actually do some damage is dead. Yeah, there's grav bikers now. That's one of the primary improvements of the new marine book, but they are even more elite than the 16 pt marines from 5th edition. A turn of bad saves absolutely destroys a bike list.

Give them a different version of Stern Guard special Ammo would do a lot to help them I would think.

That would help, but the Sternguard would still be better since they would get twice as many model with the special ammo. And about the same durability against non-AP 3. Twice as much firepower, same durability, same points. You have a very good idea, but it really highlights the limitations of non-MC, non-multiple W elite models.

Starting in a vehicle is a 2-3 turn delay, just like starting in reserves. However, reserves is free while vehicles are not. As to accurate Deep Striking, I do fairly well with my Mordrak Bomb, arriving on turn 1 without scatter exactly where I want his unit to arrive, followed by a turn 2 arrival of more TDA (if the Libby survives, which he always does so far). So yeah, I can see the benefit of a Teleportation special rule that could give TDA a tax free transport to where they need to be unmolested by anti-TEQ fire.

SJ

I can assault turn 1 from a vehicle if need be. Reserves is turn 3 assault at the SOONEST. I've won or lost games by turn 3. This is a non-fix. Trying to evade fire in this game is almost completely dependent on terrain. Waiting till turn 3 to get shot off the board just makes it so your opponent has less choices of what to vaporize on his turn.

Martel732 wrote:
"Some units have to be less powerful in order for there to be more efficient units and maintain some semblance of balance. "

That is the very definition of *imbalance*. If unit A is less powerful than unit B *it should cost fewer points*. It's not just 2+ armor. It's also paying for a near useless powerfist. It's also stormbolters getting worse with respect to bolters in 6th.

I don't want to wait to play a fair game. I can go play plenty of other fair games right now without waiting.

Could not disagree more. If every unit was as efficient points-wise as the 'best' units in each codex, not only would most of the strategy inherent in list-building be removed (since everything in a given 'dex would be redundantly equal with anything else in it) but the relative power level of each codex would be drastically higher as well.

With that each new book would either be functionally the same as the prior ones (and mostly pointless as a result) or an obvious leap in power in every aspect over everything published previously. ( power creep, essentially) Neither of these scenarios are good for overall game balance. (let alone sales)

In order to have balance at all: there needs to be a small amount of obviously good units, there needs to be a small amount of obviously bad units, and there needs to be a larger pool of potentially and situationally good units to choose from; and these need to change from time to time as new editions, rules, and codexes get published.

I like terminators as much as the next guy, but there isn't a good way to make them 'the new hotness' without some sort of metagame-shifting rules update. For this edition it's all about the fliers, the monstrous creatures, and the shooters. Maybe in 7th they'll have their day in the sun again?

In order to have balance at all: there needs to be a small amount of obviously good units, there needs to be a small amount of obviously bad units, and there needs to be a larger pool of potentially and situationally good units to choose from; and these need to change from time to time as new editions, rules, and codexes get published.

So basically, there should be units that cost a very expensive amount of money just to suck.

Could not disagree more. If every unit was as efficient points-wise as the 'best' units in each codex, not only would most of the strategy inherent in list-building be removed (since everything in a given 'dex would be redundantly equal with anything else in it) but the relative power level of each codex would be drastically higher as well.

Not even referring to his argument at all. What he's saying if Unit X and Unit Y have the same things, they would cost the same. If Unit Y had Special Rule X, they would cost more, not even remotely close to "Everything should be equal at all times despite being very different units,"

"In order to have balance at all: there needs to be a small amount of obviously good units, there needs to be a small amount of obviously bad units, and there needs to be a larger pool of potentially and situationally good units to choose from; and these need to change from time to time as new editions, rules, and codexes get published. "

That is blatantly false. Each unit's cost should be directly proportional to its efficacy on the tabletop. End of discussion. There do not need to be any bad units at all, because I've played many games with far fewer bad units than 40K.

Give them 2 wounds and eternal warrior with a points increase. Done.

Pancakey wrote:
Give them 2 wounds and eternal warrior with a points increase. Done.

Nah, their offense would still suck.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

So basically, there should be units that cost a very expensive amount of money just to suck.

For the overall health of the game? yes, absolutely.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Not even referring to his argument at all. What he's saying if Unit X and Unit Y have the same things, they would cost the same. If Unit Y had Special Rule X, they would cost more, not even remotely close to "Everything should be equal at all times despite being very different units,"

I'm saying that unit X and unit Y (and unit Z, and unit etc...) Cannot all cost the same, even if they have the same rules and the same comparative utility. In order to make any given army selection relevant, there has to be better and worse choices that could be made in it's place.

Martel732 wrote:That is blatantly false. Each unit's cost should be directly proportional to its efficacy on the tabletop. End of discussion. There do not need to be any bad units at all, because I've played many games with far fewer bad units than 40K.

Congratulations. Your observations (while interesting) are statistically insignificant. I can tell you that balancing the game based on your chosen metric is bad for the game, as it would render pointless the publication of different codexes and very quickly result in stagnation of gameplay due to the removal of most list building and tactical considerations.