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'm currently in the process of hammering down my army list, hell I'm lying, it's an ever on going process! But anyway...I have a 5-man Terminator Squad from the AOBR boxed set so they are just standard with no upgrades and I was wondering if they were still worth it to take in a SM army list?

How would you make use of them? Where would they shine the most?

Depends on your meta, here with all the AP 2 not worth it but in a place not set up for groups of 2+ then worth it.

They shine on the shelf really well.

Yeah, I absolutely love terminators, always have, but they simply aren't worth the points in any army anymore. EVERYBODY is packing a ton of AP 2 these days. If they didn't cost so many points they might be worth it, but without a SS they get chewed up and spit out in a turn and you just sit there wondering why you wasted 250 points on them when you could've had 2 vindicators instead.

I will occasionally include a 5 man squad with an assault cannon and a chainfist. They act as a sort of troubleshooter unit in a TAC list. Not the best use of points, but they look cool, and if you are careful with them can cause some damage. There are a lot of things out there that can just erase them, so you do need to wary. But not -every- thing out there is ap2/rending/ignore armor. Particularly in less competitive metas.

If you're GKs or DAs...sure!

So it seems like the quick answer is "No, too much AP 2. 200 pts is too much"

Kinda sucks as I would have liked to use them. I'm also assuming there is more use for Assault Terminators or Shooy ones?

 ductvader wrote:
If you're GKs or DAs...sure!

Are you insinuating that Deathwing is anything but a tie with Synapseless Tyranids for the worst build in the game?

Noxnoctis22 wrote:
So it seems like the quick answer is "No, too much AP 2. 200 pts is too much"

Kinda sucks as I would have liked to use them. I'm also assuming there is more use for Assault Terminators or Shooy ones?

Then use them! Not everything has to be the best, most efficient use of points.

I always figure if you like the models or the fluff take them anyway.

 Aben Zin wrote:

Noxnoctis22 wrote:
So it seems like the quick answer is "No, too much AP 2. 200 pts is too much"

Kinda sucks as I would have liked to use them. I'm also assuming there is more use for Assault Terminators or Shooy ones?

Then use them! Not everything has to be the best, most efficient use of points.

I always figure if you like the models or the fluff take them anyway.

That's what I needed to hear. feth the meta and all the AP 2 non-sense.

My idea was to have 2 locator beacons on the board and DP the Terminators. So I can pick where they would support the rest of my troops. I'll play as both a Shooty and Assault squad (by proxy). See which works better.

I like taking termies, yeah the meta has alot of ap2 but throw in TH/SS and a tanky HQ with them and laugh as back field fold to your beatstick haha

(yep let the comments ensue about how im wrong, truly dont care cause they work nicely for me)

Not really - and they haven't since 3rd edition to be quite honest. The one exception to this is 5th Edition Deathwing.

Where I go they do pretty well.

 Solosam47 wrote:
I like taking termies, yeah the meta has alot of ap2 but throw in TH/SS and a tanky HQ with them and laugh as back field fold to your beatstick haha

(yep let the comments ensue about how im wrong, truly dont care cause they work nicely for me)

I can scrub down TH/SS with weight of fire. You just gave me a target for my boltguns Also, having no ranged capability at all in this edition kinda stinks.

Long story short, it depends on the local players. I still do perfectly well with TH/SS termies, they tend to inflict much more damage than they take as long as I toss them in a Land Raider to get them up front quick.

Like this, in general. Of course if you used them as DA allies instead of SM termies (or whatever), then there would be slightly different uses for them.

Terminators fall into the "comparatively bad" slot. There's nothing they can do that another unit can't do better. Their damage output can be matched and outperformed at range, visa-vi Grav Centurions or a Command Squad. Grav cents share their 2+, and +1T, and in cover or with a supporting Librarian benefit from invuls.

You've got to factor how many points you're throwing into them and how many hoops they have to jump through to achieve their goal. For Terminators, this often means a 500pt investment for 5+LR. Hoops are:

Weather 1-2 turns shooting
Weather Overwatch
Make Charge Roll
Weather enemy attacks
Roll to hit
Roll to wound
Enemy saves (if any)

Centurions, meanwhile, engage from 24''. If deployed 12'' forward, and move 6'', that's a 42'' engagement range T1. Hoops are then:

Weather turn of shooting
Roll to hit
Roll to wound
Enemy saves (if any)

Even if you follow Ailaros's advice, terminators are still a dumpster fire. Yeah, trying to get a favorable matchup helps, but there's just too much cheap AP 2 available to too many lists. 200 pts for five T4 guys is just way too much now.

They work pretty well supporting dreadknights in my GK shunt list. I actually use mine as the opposite of Ailaros' article, mine are kitted out to take on the big stuff (warding staves and hammers) while the dreadknights take on the small stuff since they can perform a sweeping advance. Teleport homers make them a little more reliable.
Of course, I love the GK terminator models enough to always justify them.

The people saying that terminators are meta dependent are wrong. They are weaker vs almost every weapon in the game when compared to tac marines.
The only exception is ap3 weapons, so baledrakes and a few other things.

I wouldn't play shooty terminators anymore, if you do want to use them then go for the assault variety. 3++ save is still amazing in the right places, and they can go toe to toe with almost all of the monstrous creatures out there, something which the standard terminator will not be able to do. However if you do take assault terminators, you will have to plan how to get them into cc, which adds a whole new issue.

They are weaker? How exactly do you justify that statement?

 greyknight12 wrote:
They work pretty well supporting dreadknights in my GK shunt list. I actually use mine as the opposite of Ailaros' article, mine are kitted out to take on the big stuff (warding staves and hammers) while the dreadknights take on the small stuff since they can perform a sweeping advance. Teleport homers make them a little more reliable.
Of course, I love the GK terminator models enough to always justify them.

You, me, and jeffersonian.

I have not once made a Daemonhunter or GK list without 11 Terminators in it.

 troa wrote:
They are weaker? How exactly do you justify that statement?

With basic maths skills.

Number of bolter hits needed on average to kill a terminator: 12. (Toughness 4 means that half will wound, resulting in 6 wounds. Terminators fail 1 save in 6 on average).
Number of bolter hits needed on average to kill a tac marine: 6.

From this we can see that terminators are twice as durable as a tac marine. However a tac marine only costs nearly 1/3rd the cost of a terminator. (deathwing terminators cost more than 1/3rd!!)
If you are spending 200 points on terminators, then you get 14-15 tac marines.
It would take 60 bolter shots to remove the terminators, but 84-90 to kill the tactical squad.

Therefore, point for point, terminators are weaker.

The maths also holds up against high ap weapons too. Even with no cover, terminators are worse at taking plasma fire than normal marines.

As I said before, the only time that terminators are stronger than normal marines, is when ap3 is involved.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
As I said before, the only time that terminators are stronger than normal marines, is when ap3 is involved.

And until you start considering assault, weapon options, wargear, threat ranges, and generally most other factors of the game.

 troa wrote:
They are weaker? How exactly do you justify that statement?

Pretty easily. Terminators, against weapons that don't penetrate 2+ armor, pass their armor saves 83% of the time, or a 16% failure rate. Power armor, against weapons that don't penetrate, pass their saves 66% of the time, or have a failure rate of 33%. That is exactly double the failure rate of terminator armor. So for any given volley of say, boltguns, the terminators, being the same toughness as power armor models, will take exactly half as many net wounds.

However, terminators cost FAR MORE than double a power armor model. In C:SM, marines cost 14 pts/model, as opposed to 40 for terminators. This means that terminators would have be 2.85 times as durable. Which they are not.

As for AP2, it's also bad.

Each AP 4 wound removes (0.16666*40)= 6.67 pts of terminators or (0.33333*14)= 4.67 pts of regular marines, but each AP 2 wound removes (0.66666*40) = 26.7 pts of terminators and only 14 pts of marines. With cover, the marine gets even better, only losing 9.3 pts worth of models.

 ductvader wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
As I said before, the only time that terminators are stronger than normal marines, is when ap3 is involved.

And until you start considering assault, weapon options, wargear, threat ranges, and generally most other factors of the game.

Not really to be honest.
Assault - Ok sure, I admit terminators can hit hard in assault. Now tell me how you are going to get there. (No sweeping advances also).
Weapon options - Terminators pay 200 points before they get 1 heavy weapon. Tacticals have to pay 70.
Threat range - bolters are the same. Terminators have relentless, so can move and fire their one heavy weapon.
Most other factors like what?

You are looking for the term "less survivable per point". You are taking that aspect and turning it into a blanket statement. And assuming no wargear for points costs. Per model, they are of course more survivable.

That being said...I'd go with tacs over normal terminators generally still(unless I'm doing Grey Knights).

 troa wrote:
You are looking for the term "less survivable per point". You are taking that aspect and turning it into a blanket statement. And assuming no wargear for points costs. Per model, they are of course more survivable.

That being said...I'd go with tacs over normal terminators generally still(unless I'm doing Grey Knights).

But they have a cost per model. Cost is what matters when building a list.

 troa wrote:
You are looking for the term "less survivable per point". You are taking that aspect and turning it into a blanket statement. And assuming no wargear for points costs. Per model, they are of course more survivable.

That being said...I'd go with tacs over normal terminators generally still(unless I'm doing Grey Knights).

Exactly, as I've been saying, I am talking about GKs...who wreck face, not silly marines.

 ductvader wrote:

 troa wrote:
You are looking for the term "less survivable per point". You are taking that aspect and turning it into a blanket statement. And assuming no wargear for points costs. Per model, they are of course more survivable.

That being said...I'd go with tacs over normal terminators generally still(unless I'm doing Grey Knights).

Exactly, as I've been saying, I am talking about GKs...who wreck face, not silly marines.

I don't think the 2+ armor models are the strongest part of that codex. STR 8+ still doubles them out and AP 2 spam is cheap and common.