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 see a lot of comparing to Mega Nobz here, and I don't like it. Each of my MNobz costs me 50 points for a 2+ save on a T4 model. No invul is allowed for these guys unless we bring a KFF, meaning we only get Invuls from ranged combat.

We have 2 wounds...but ID to S8, which is tossed around like candy and pens our armor. We have a more expensive model, with little to no options, and ID's very, very easily.

Your Termy problems pale in comparison to Mnobs. Be grateful for what you have.

I won't comment on which unit is worse, but it annoys me when people think one unit is fine because there are others that are worse.

Melevolence wrote:
I see a lot of comparing to Mega Nobz here, and I don't like it. Each of my MNobz costs me 50 points for a 2+ save on a T4 model. No invul is allowed for these guys unless we bring a KFF, meaning we only get Invuls from ranged combat.

We have 2 wounds...but ID to S8, which is tossed around like candy and pens our armor. We have a more expensive model, with little to no options, and ID's very, very easily.

Your Termy problems pale in comparison to Mnobs. Be grateful for what you have.

Meganobz suck too, and something should be done about.

Does that make the TDA problem non-existent?

What specifically is it that people feel terminators should be able to do that they currently aren't?

That is: is it that they are being killed too much by volume of fire or by high-AP antitank weapons?

In close combat, I've found them devastating with some armies and fragile as hell with others - the results of AP values in close combat plus the option of challenges makes a real difference against most opponents but doesn't really help against (a) the horde of 30 boyz or (b) monstrous creatures. However, storm shields really, really mess with the latter - the terminator assault squad with thunder hammers is one of the scariest things in the entire marine codex.


Everyone keeps talking about mega armoured Nobz. A couple of other examples to consider:

Centurions. This is a terminator with T5 and 2 wounds. Essentially they're immune to bolter fire and chainswords. How often do you see them for anything other than go-go-gadget grav cannons?

Chaos Terminators. Cheaper, Twin-linked bolters and power weapons as standard, with the option of Marks to make them T5. I see these things used every so often, but still not that regularly.

Deathwing Terminators: I've seen pure deathwing used a bit recently and it's scary as hell - an entire army deep-striking in turn 1 and firing with twin-linked weapons is a terrifying thing to be on the receiving end of.

They should make this much more simple. Any unit (not characters) that is on a medium base is 2 wounds. If MegaNobz aren't on medium bases, adjust them up so they are. Adjust point, toughness, saves and wargear as needed. I think removing the invulnerable and going T5 with 2 wounds is the way to go for these models like terminators.

give me back termies with a 3+ on 2d6

One of my best friends plays chaos terminators with a cqc loadout in a landraider. Since he advances his army in a coherent battle line it is harder to get at his terminators IF I can kill the landraider relatively soon. They usually beat the living tar out of something, most often my vengeance weapon batteries. Terminators are tough to kill unless you spam high ap weapons, which require you to lose sheer number of dice against horde armies. The trick with terminators is to get them into range of their combat type. Terminators CANNOT footslog due to slow and purposeful making them easy targets when very far away. Drive them in close, and drop them off to do their job >

Terminators do not have SnP.

Nah, they should be able to ignore unwieldy on their power fists. Then they would have a niche in wounding on a 2+ with no save in close combat, instead of being a meganob clone for marines.

You are right. Sorry, my friend has been playing terminators wrong and I need to slap her in the face. If termies can take run moves then they can footslog, although it isn't the optimum way to get them into pain range.

 sing your life wrote:
Nah, they should be able to ignore unwieldy on their power fists. Then they would have a niche in wounding on a 2+ with no save in close combat, instead of being a meganob clone for marines.

It would be more accurate to say that meganobs are a clone of termies for Orks, since termies have been around for (slightly) longer.

I think ignoring unwieldy would be a better fix than +1 wound. Most AP2 weapons (the ones that termie players are complaining so much about) are S 8 or higher, meaning they ID termies anyway. So an extra wound will make a tough unit tougher against things they already shrug off, and won't help against the things they're weak against one bit. At least with ignoring unwieldy, they'll pack a meaner punch if used strategically. Another option would be to give termies Relentless, so they can move and fire heavy weapons without snap firing.

 fallinq wrote:
Another option would be to give termies Relentless, so they can move and fire heavy weapons without snap firing.

You should take another look at the TDA entry...

 Ashiraya wrote:

 fallinq wrote:
Another option would be to give termies Relentless, so they can move and fire heavy weapons without snap firing.

You should take another look at the TDA entry...

In my defense, I don't play SM or CSM. My friend has apparently been using his Chaos Termies wrong. I still stand by the rest of what I said though.

Ok, from what I can gather, the problem with Terminators is the vulnerability to AP2 weapons. While this was fine in the past, the abundance of AP2 in the current meta means Terminators now suck pretty bad.

We *could* give them +1 wound, but then there's the problem that:
A) They heavily outclass similar types of infantry in other codexes.
B) They're still vulnerable to most AP2 weaponry, which is typically S8 or better, making this particular upgrade rather worthless. They get better vs small arms, but not vs S8 AP2 or better - aka, the issue at hand.

Another option is FNP. This gives marginally better protection against high S AP2 weapons (unless 7th changed that), but then it makes them tougher against small arms too. The biggest problem here is that it would invalidate several existing options Termies have to gain FnP anyway; namely Apothecaries.

I think the best fix would be to increase INV saves to a natural 4+. This gives them better survival vs the high S low AP weapons they struggle with, while still allowing them additional buffs through FnP. This would also balance them against high volume of fire weapons - while they should be more durable, they shouldn't be able to walk through an army of Orks or Guardsmen. Not outside of Ashiraya's fluff anyway.

While the above fix doesn't help TH/SS termies out, I have to ask, do they really need buffing? Some more mobility would be nice, but do they need it compared to Tac Termies (which we all know need fixing).

Isn't tanking massive amounts of small arms fire the actual point of TDA?

 Ashiraya wrote:
Isn't tanking massive amounts of small arms fire the actual point of TDA?

Depends on what you think they should do.

Most people seem to think they should be nigh invulnerable gods of the battlefield. Wading through massive amounts of small arms fire whilst also not crumpling to anti-tank guns which would leave little more than a smoking crater against most targets.. These same people also want them to beat the living snot out of anything they touch in close combat, and also tend to think they should have better shooting on the way there.

Others like myself (and potentially you, if I catch your drift correctly) think they should simply be a combination between bully and tank units. There to squash moderate to low threats single-handedly whilst leaving the Riptide and Carnifex hunting to the rest of the army.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Isn't tanking massive amounts of small arms fire the actual point of TDA?

Yes, and I believe they're still rather efficient at it. At least, my grasp of what the community thinks the issue with them is is S8 Ap2+

If they were being killed by small arms too easily, I'd say +1T.

Of course, I'd then say give Death guard Terminators T6 and FnP. And make them exist. That's the biggest problem with Terminators, the fact that Cut Terminators still aren't a thing.

The thing is that Terminators are not efficient at tanking small arms fire. They are nearly thrice the price of a Tactical but only twice as good at tanking small arms. This makes small arms an actual weakness of theirs.

 Ashiraya wrote:
The thing is that Terminators are not efficient at tanking small arms fire. They are nearly thrice the price of a Tactical but only twice as good at tanking small arms. This makes small arms an actual weakness of theirs.

Terminators also put out vastly more damage than a tac squad will, can deepstrike, and are more versatile in general.

I'm not saying that 5 terminators will stand upto 40 guardsmen for an entire game, but barring bad / great luck it does take a massive amount of fire to put them down.

Hell, I'm not even saying Terminators are in a good spot - they're definitely not. My point from the get-go has been that "fixing" terminators whilst leaving their counter-parts swinging in the breeze is a bad idea.

 Ashiraya wrote:
The thing is that Terminators are not efficient at tanking small arms fire. They are nearly thrice the price of a Tactical but only twice as good at tanking small arms. This makes small arms an actual weakness of theirs.

True. They're good at it in theory, but the numbers don't add up. T increase to 5 or a price drop would both work to fix that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
The thing is that Terminators are not efficient at tanking small arms fire. They are nearly thrice the price of a Tactical but only twice as good at tanking small arms. This makes small arms an actual weakness of theirs.

Terminators also put out vastly more damage than a tac squad will, can deepstrike, and are more versatile in general.

I'm not saying that 5 terminators will stand upto 40 guardsmen for an entire game, but barring bad / great luck it does take a massive amount of fire to put them down.

Hell, I'm not even saying Terminators are in a good spot - they're definitely not. My point from the get-go has been that "fixing" terminators whilst leaving their counter-parts swinging in the breeze is a bad idea.

Well the idea would be to apply as similar a change to other TEQs as needed. If Terminators dropped in points, MANZ, would drop too. I can't think of any other unit with a 2+ save that isn't a HQ.

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
The thing is that Terminators are not efficient at tanking small arms fire. They are nearly thrice the price of a Tactical but only twice as good at tanking small arms. This makes small arms an actual weakness of theirs.

Terminators also put out vastly more damage than a tac squad will, can deepstrike, and are more versatile in general.

I'm not saying that 5 terminators will stand upto 40 guardsmen for an entire game, but barring bad / great luck it does take a massive amount of fire to put them down.

Hell, I'm not even saying Terminators are in a good spot - they're definitely not. My point from the get-go has been that "fixing" terminators whilst leaving their counter-parts swinging in the breeze is a bad idea.

I do not really see who you are arguing to, have I been saying that they should have a 2++ re-rollable in this thread somewhere?

Terminators are better than tactical marines at melee, but they have significant difficulties getting there to begin with. Footslogging makes it really easy to shoot them down before they get anywhere, deep striking means they are sitting ducks an entire turn (Something they are highly unlikely to survive) and the only other option is a land raider, something that costs more than the squad itself.

I guess you could argue that deepstriking them means they draw fire, but as said above, they don't do that cost-effectively either. Tacticals in a pod do it just as well and cheaper.

At range, they are simply outclassed by the tactical marines.

If we built a Terminator from the ground up off a Tactical marine, what would that cost?

You'd have to buy +1 Attack and 1 Ld, A power fist, Storm bolter, nick a refractor field from the IG and of course the terminator armour itself. Plonk that on a Tac marine body and it would run...

Roughly 37 points, sans the Terminator armour. Taking certain liberties of course.

Out of interest, what price range per model do people think the standard Terminator should be? Not talking assault, just normal SB/PF Terminators.

Edit: I can't spell today.

Unfortunately it is not always that easy.

A model is often more (Or less) than the sum of its parts.

For example, say that there is an upgrade granting Feel no Pain, at the price of 10 points.

Do you think it should cost this much on both a Carnifex and a Guardsman?

GW has failed horribly here; power weapons often cost equally much on Guardsman Sergeants and Chapter Masters.

In this case, the Power Fist's value is overrated; it is deadly, but in practice the Terminators do not get to use it that often.

And so on.

 morganfreeman wrote:
No. Terminators are supposed to be tough as nails, but that's supposed to be their armor. They are, beneath it, just normal space marines ('normal' space marines.. ha.) Meganobz, the often evoked comparison, are 2w with no invulnerable save. They cost the same amount as termies but don't get a lot of the perks. Lower leadership, no invul, way less options gear wise (none in comparison, actually), no deepstrike, ect ect.

Termies would need to get a price hike if they were to go to two wounds. Or, alternatively, TEQ in other armies would themselves mandate a big buff. You mind facing down some Meganobz armed with SS/TH equivilent gear and a 5+ invul?

By that logic, why do Crisis Suits, Commanders, Broadsides, Riptides, etc get more than 1 wound? All of them are Fire Warriors on the inside of the suit.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Unfortunately it is not always that easy.

A model is often more (Or less) than the sum of its parts.

For example, say that there is an upgrade granting Feel no Pain, at the price of 10 points.

Do you think it should cost this much on both a Carnifex and a Guardsman?

GW has failed horribly here; power weapons often cost equally much on Guardsman Sergeants and Chapter Masters.

In this case, the Power Fist's value is overrated; it is deadly, but in practice the Terminators do not get to use it that often.

And so on.

Indeed. Hence why I ballparked the PF at 10 points rather than 15 - in fact, it's probably closer to 5. That would leave your basic Terminator at 32 points before armour, which really I'm questioning whether it's worth anything over PA. It's a 2+/5++, bulky, no SA, pseudo relentless frame with DS. Bulky and no SA being the problems here.

I think 32-35 points for a Terminator before upgrades is fair, though I'd want to reshuffle upgrades anyway. TH/SS are probably a little good for what they would cost now.

Terminators are victims of the meta. Though buffs may seem illogical, you either need to give them a proper rub or shift the game itself to make them truly useful.

I'd prefer the latter technically but ITT the former is the only real option.

Well it really depends on what you see their main problem as. I figured most people saw the problem as a meta of high S low Ap weaponry. T5 wouldn't fix that as it still wounds on a 2+. a 4++ does for obvious reasons.

On the other hand, the 4++ means nothing if weight of fire is the problem, whereas T5 makes a fairly big difference in that field.

A price drop works both ways, but then altering price is always a little difficult when it comes to house rules for stated reasons.

How would you fix them?

The Termies have more than one problem. Both AP2 and weight of fire is highly effective against them. I'd argue one of these should be adjusted. If I am to choose, I'd say a toughness boost. AP2 being too common is a problem but it's not something we can fix here without risking breaking them in the other direction. A boost to toughness would make them much better at taking small arms, something that they are supposed to do well.

They shouldn't be immune to anything either though.

Instead of making them super tough, why not just price them accordingly. It avoids any serious balance repercussions, is easier to house rule among friends, and matches their durability/points ratio better with stock marines.

Give tactical termies special ammo too and you're set.

 Blacksails wrote:
They shouldn't be immune to anything either though.

Both you and morgan freeman said this, but I still do not understand why you are saying it. Is there an invisible poster in this thread saying Terminators should be immune to something?

Instead of making them super tough, why not just price them accordingly. It avoids any serious balance repercussions, is easier to house rule among friends, and matches their durability/points ratio better with stock marines.

Give tactical termies special ammo too and you're set.

Would probably work too.