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.

Terminators suck out loud. Even if they reduced them to 33 points, as they still are i wouldnt touch them with a ten foot pole. Statements to the contrary are pure trollage.

The idea that fixing them is diffucult is pure bs. They can just release a 99 cent data slate with a realistic terminator unit choice, usable by the appropriate codexes. Points reduc and 2 heavy weapons is an absolute no-brainer. Where to go from there is hard to say but I think that these posts are a good place to look.

Have a look at Praetorians and Lynchguard.
Both got a significant pt reduction from 40 pts to less than 30 pts.
Termies would need a similar treatment.

 Red Marine wrote:
Terminators suck out loud. Even if they reduced them to 33 points, as they still are i wouldnt touch them with a ten foot pole. Statements to the contrary are pure trollage.

The idea that fixing them is diffucult is pure bs. They can just release a 99 cent data slate with a realistic terminator unit choice, usable by the appropriate codexes. Points reduc and 2 heavy weapons is an absolute no-brainer. Where to go from there is hard to say but I think that these posts are a good place to look.

30ppm, power sword, 4++ base, two upgrade weapons per five. Done, Terminators are now useable.

Yeah, assuming GW 'Lycheguards' Termies they'll probably end up costing 28-32 points w/ PF and SB/Twin Claws, 33/37 with TH/SS.

And then BA/DA/GK/SW Termis will follow suit, and CSM Termies will be increased to 50pts because GW.

If GW wants to keep Terminators unattractive to field, for whatever reason, I would prefer that they go the other way -- make them expensive, but really durable with a modicum of damage.

Fluffwise, it would be cool to have a line of Terminators advance and not just be disintigrated by enemy fire before they get within storm bolter range. I mean, what would be the point of storm bolters if this actually happens on the battlefield

 Xenomancers wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

Ailaros, if there are hundreds of threads on the same subject, it probably has some validity!

There are hundreds of threads on the subject of tactical marines being bad. Yet, a roster with nothing but droppod tactical marines + Calgar got 2-d at BAO.

LOL I've seen that army list - it was a bad army list. Pretty obvious by looking at his list he got very lucky.

5 times in a row? And for 2 other guyz in top 10? I guess, tactical marines attract luck at grand tournaments, than!

I find that they work well for me in for fun games. Since I don't have to play competitively. I've also found they make good distractions to defend your assault termies

Martel732 wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
T5 or +1 wound

And allow them to have assault 4 bolters. Then they'd earn their points.

S4 shooting is still bad, though.

man when everyone insists on every gun ever made being an anti-tank gun, no wonder terminators are suddenly less useful!

seriously though, I think you've hit on the problem here. GW basicly designs their units for an imaginary meta where guard and orc are the standard fare, and space Marines are the rare exception. Terminators would be pretty effective if you where going up against a list with a guard infantry platoon and a Leman russ,

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
T5 or +1 wound

And allow them to have assault 4 bolters. Then they'd earn their points.

S4 shooting is still bad, though.

man when everyone insists on every gun ever made being an anti-tank gun, no wonder terminators are suddenly less useful!

I think there is just some frustration in that the most super-elite SM unit, in of itself part of a, in theory, super-elite army has the 2nd worst small arm in the game (after the boltgun). The issue is so many guns offer something on top of S4; Necrons auto-glance/wound on a 6, Eldar pseudo-rend and are assault weapons, Orks have high volume of fire and are dirt cheap, Lasguns are super-duper-ultra cheap and buffable via orders, Dark Eldar have poison, etc. and those are all basic troop weapons.

Terminators are, in theory, the same "tier" of units as Crisis Suits, Wraithguard and Meganobz, but are so massively inferior to all other army's penultimate elite choice that it's funny. Even their heavy weapon choices are pretty mediocre compared to their compatriot's choices.

I would much prefer an extremely durable, expensive unit more akin to Meganobz with better wargear but more expensive with some actual resistance to basic small arms via 2 wounds, increased T or FNP (or a combination thereof) with improved storm bolters (which on the whole are a mediocre weapon no one voluntarily takes, so just straight buffing that gun might help). Charge a king's ransom points wise for them and you'd have an interesting unit which might actually "feel" like a Space marine on the tabletop. Making them cheaper ultimately just turns them into Honour Guard with heavy weapons and a 5++, and redundancy is never good for a codex. (and Honour Guard are actually pretty good too; leave it GeeDubs to continually invent new units which fill the niche of old, underperforming units.)

What Id like to see would be a change in the gun rules that would ultimately help fix 2+ save units. For the most part I'd like to see rending and any weapon that is multi-shot, including rapidfire be no better than AP3. If there wasn't quite the threat to 2+ save units then their inv protection wouldnt need to be as strong either. So along those lines any model that has an armor save cannot have an inv save better than 4+

I think that inv saves of 2+ and 3+ are just as responsible for the problems of the plethera of low ap shooting.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
2nd worst small arm in the game (after the boltgun).

...What.

The Storm Bolter is solidly midrange; before you start bringing the price of the body it's attached to in consider that "Terminators are overpriced" and "Storm Bolters are bad" are different statements.

Wow, lots of Terminator hate.

Terminators are fantastic except when shot at with antitank guns.

If there are too many antitank guns, bring horde, not terminators - then the enemy will be forced to bring flamers and missile launchers/heavy bolters.

Against armies kitted to fight hordes is where Terminators shine - not banzai charging antitank guns.

 Jayden63 wrote:
What Id like to see would be a change in the gun rules that would ultimately help fix 2+ save units. For the most part I'd like to see rending and any weapon that is multi-shot, including rapidfire be no better than AP3.

Rending as AP3 seems overly harsh. Multi-shot weapons I can accept to some degree, though I'm not sure about plasmaguns (since they at least come with a downside). I certainly think we could do with far fewer AP2 pie plates.

Regardless, do bear in mind that a) there are units in the game with 2+ saves that are not terminators, and many of them do not need this sort of buff. Also, AP2 does not just affect infantry.

I wonder if part of the solution would be changing the vehicle damage rules. e.g. AP3 weapons like Missile Launchers got a whole lot worse in 7th, as they can no longer explode vehicles. If the vehicle damage system was less favourable towards AP1/2 weapons, we might see fewer of them.

 vipoid wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
What Id like to see would be a change in the gun rules that would ultimately help fix 2+ save units. For the most part I'd like to see rending and any weapon that is multi-shot, including rapidfire be no better than AP3.

Rending as AP3 seems overly harsh. Multi-shot weapons I can accept to some degree, though I'm not sure about plasmaguns (since they at least come with a downside). I certainly think we could do with far fewer AP2 pie plates.

Regardless, do bear in mind that a) there are units in the game with 2+ saves that are not terminators, and many of them do not need this sort of buff. Also, AP2 does not just affect infantry.

I wonder if part of the solution would be changing the vehicle damage rules. e.g. AP3 weapons like Missile Launchers got a whole lot worse in 7th, as they can no longer explode vehicles. If the vehicle damage system was less favourable towards AP1/2 weapons, we might see fewer of them.

What AP2 pie plates are there?

Demolishers, Vindicators, Doomsday Arks, Riptides, Plasma cannons... and...? That's like, 5. In the whole game.

Edit: sometimes the SAG

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:
2nd worst small arm in the game (after the boltgun).

...What.

The Storm Bolter is solidly midrange; before you start bringing the price of the body it's attached to in consider that "Terminators are overpriced" and "Storm Bolters are bad" are different statements.

Exactly. Storm Bolters, as they are, are just fine. But being the primary weapon for a 40pt model, however, is not fine. Perhaps the solution to make Terminators a better shooting unit (because, as it is now, they're really just a delivery system for the heavy weapon), is to do something about their primary weapon. We can't change the basic Storm Bolter itself, as that would have a significant ripple effect throughout all armies that have Storm Bolters. Perhaps there could be an "Astartes Terminator Pattern Storm Bolter" that has three shots or something else to improve it? Now you've fixed the shooting for tactical terminators, without altering the shooting of everyone else that carries a Storm Bolter.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:
2nd worst small arm in the game (after the boltgun).

...What.

The Storm Bolter is solidly midrange; before you start bringing the price of the body it's attached to in consider that "Terminators are overpriced" and "Storm Bolters are bad" are different statements.

Exactly. Storm Bolters, as they are, are just fine. But being the primary weapon for a 40pt model, however, is not fine. Perhaps the solution to make Terminators a better shooting unit (because, as it is now, they're really just a delivery system for the heavy weapon), is to do something about their primary weapon. We can't change the basic Storm Bolter itself, as that would have a significant ripple effect throughout all armies that have Storm Bolters. Perhaps there could be an "Astartes Terminator Pattern Storm Bolter" that has three shots or something else to improve it? Now you've fixed the shooting for tactical terminators, without altering the shooting of everyone else that carries a Storm Bolter.

The problem with "fixing the shooting" is they have powerfists - it's what they're paying for. Making them way better at shooting would just mean you have a generalist who can outshoot specialist shooters and outfight specialist fighters.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
What Id like to see would be a change in the gun rules that would ultimately help fix 2+ save units. For the most part I'd like to see rending and any weapon that is multi-shot, including rapidfire be no better than AP3.

Rending as AP3 seems overly harsh. Multi-shot weapons I can accept to some degree, though I'm not sure about plasmaguns (since they at least come with a downside). I certainly think we could do with far fewer AP2 pie plates.

Regardless, do bear in mind that a) there are units in the game with 2+ saves that are not terminators, and many of them do not need this sort of buff. Also, AP2 does not just affect infantry.

I wonder if part of the solution would be changing the vehicle damage rules. e.g. AP3 weapons like Missile Launchers got a whole lot worse in 7th, as they can no longer explode vehicles. If the vehicle damage system was less favourable towards AP1/2 weapons, we might see fewer of them.

What AP2 pie plates are there?

Demolishers, Vindicators, Doomsday Arks, Riptides, Plasma cannons... and...? That's like, 5. In the whole game.

Edit: sometimes the SAG

Knight Errants with their AP1 pie plates are pretty common these days

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:
2nd worst small arm in the game (after the boltgun).

...What.

The Storm Bolter is solidly midrange; before you start bringing the price of the body it's attached to in consider that "Terminators are overpriced" and "Storm Bolters are bad" are different statements.

Exactly. Storm Bolters, as they are, are just fine. But being the primary weapon for a 40pt model, however, is not fine. Perhaps the solution to make Terminators a better shooting unit (because, as it is now, they're really just a delivery system for the heavy weapon), is to do something about their primary weapon. We can't change the basic Storm Bolter itself, as that would have a significant ripple effect throughout all armies that have Storm Bolters. Perhaps there could be an "Astartes Terminator Pattern Storm Bolter" that has three shots or something else to improve it? Now you've fixed the shooting for tactical terminators, without altering the shooting of everyone else that carries a Storm Bolter.

The problem with "fixing the shooting" is they have powerfists - it's what they're paying for. Making them way better at shooting would just mean you have a generalist who can outshoot specialist shooters and outfight specialist fighters.

That's where the "drop back to a power sword base the way other thirty-point Terminators do" suggestion came from.

I think the simple T5 upgrade would be easiest, and give them something, even if everything else remained the same. The salvo ideas are interesting, but you still can't really down a unit of guardsmen in one round of shooting. (Not that that needs to be the barometer).

The issue really is the increase in total output of a lot of weapons nowadays. I can remember feeling "wow", look at the heavy 4 assault cannons. Now we have heavy 20 tank turrets, and a mob of boys lays out 60 s4 shots. That's what really does the current termies in. Throw enough lasguns at them, and they drop.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
What Id like to see would be a change in the gun rules that would ultimately help fix 2+ save units. For the most part I'd like to see rending and any weapon that is multi-shot, including rapidfire be no better than AP3.

Rending as AP3 seems overly harsh. Multi-shot weapons I can accept to some degree, though I'm not sure about plasmaguns (since they at least come with a downside). I certainly think we could do with far fewer AP2 pie plates.

Regardless, do bear in mind that a) there are units in the game with 2+ saves that are not terminators, and many of them do not need this sort of buff. Also, AP2 does not just affect infantry.

I wonder if part of the solution would be changing the vehicle damage rules. e.g. AP3 weapons like Missile Launchers got a whole lot worse in 7th, as they can no longer explode vehicles. If the vehicle damage system was less favourable towards AP1/2 weapons, we might see fewer of them.

What AP2 pie plates are there?

Demolishers, Vindicators, Doomsday Arks, Riptides, Plasma cannons... and...? That's like, 5. In the whole game.

Edit: sometimes the SAG

Knight Errants with their AP1 pie plates are pretty common these days

Okay, six. And a third, for the SAG, since a third of the time it's AP2/1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cruentus wrote:
I think the simple T5 upgrade would be easiest, and give them something, even if everything else remained the same. The salvo ideas are interesting, but you still can't really down a unit of guardsmen in one round of shooting. (Not that that needs to be the barometer).

The issue really is the increase in total output of a lot of weapons nowadays. I can remember feeling "wow", look at the heavy 4 assault cannons. Now we have heavy 20 tank turrets, and a mob of boys lays out 60 s4 shots. That's what really does the current termies in. Throw enough lasguns at them, and they drop.

I always hear this from people and am like .

It takes 180 lasgun shots to kill a 5 man terminator squad, on average.

That's not really viable.

AP 2 pie plates arent the problem though, its cheap melta/plasma guns in every army, and barring that just volume of fire.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:
2nd worst small arm in the game (after the boltgun).

...What.

The Storm Bolter is solidly midrange; before you start bringing the price of the body it's attached to in consider that "Terminators are overpriced" and "Storm Bolters are bad" are different statements.

Exactly. Storm Bolters, as they are, are just fine. But being the primary weapon for a 40pt model, however, is not fine. Perhaps the solution to make Terminators a better shooting unit (because, as it is now, they're really just a delivery system for the heavy weapon), is to do something about their primary weapon. We can't change the basic Storm Bolter itself, as that would have a significant ripple effect throughout all armies that have Storm Bolters. Perhaps there could be an "Astartes Terminator Pattern Storm Bolter" that has three shots or something else to improve it? Now you've fixed the shooting for tactical terminators, without altering the shooting of everyone else that carries a Storm Bolter.

The problem with "fixing the shooting" is they have powerfists - it's what they're paying for. Making them way better at shooting would just mean you have a generalist who can outshoot specialist shooters and outfight specialist fighters.

That's where the "drop back to a power sword base the way other thirty-point Terminators do" suggestion came from.

Which is an Honour Guard for 5 points more which can't sweep, but can deepstrike, has slightly better shooting, and gains a 5++.

it's incredibly redundant unit wise, and I also think the continual trend of making stuff cheaper = better is overdone, it's one of the reasons behind model count bloat and most Marine units just being expensive, above average cannon fodder rather than expensive, good units.

While the balance behind them is atrocious, the idea behind Eldar and Necrons of making them more powerful rather than cheaper is more attractive, and thematically sound for certain armies, Marines being one of them.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
AP 2 pie plates arent the problem though, its cheap melta/plasma guns in every army, and barring that just volume of fire.

Cheap melta and plasma isn't "cheap," trust me, I'd love to be able to take flamers and grenade launchers. But I have to take the melta and plasma to fight Terminators and Tanks.

Like, you're literally saying "The problem with terminators is that people have access to things to counter terminators."

Bring a horde of orks or something and see how well those plasma and meltaguns do.

 MajorStoffer wrote:

Which is an Honour Guard for 5 points more which can't sweep, but can deepstrike, has slightly better shooting, and gains a 5++.

it's incredibly redundant unit wise

But then, are you sure that the problem is with Terminators and not Honour Guard?

Maybe the mistake was giving the latter 2+ saves.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
What Id like to see would be a change in the gun rules that would ultimately help fix 2+ save units. For the most part I'd like to see rending and any weapon that is multi-shot, including rapidfire be no better than AP3.

Rending as AP3 seems overly harsh. Multi-shot weapons I can accept to some degree, though I'm not sure about plasmaguns (since they at least come with a downside). I certainly think we could do with far fewer AP2 pie plates.

Regardless, do bear in mind that a) there are units in the game with 2+ saves that are not terminators, and many of them do not need this sort of buff. Also, AP2 does not just affect infantry.

I wonder if part of the solution would be changing the vehicle damage rules. e.g. AP3 weapons like Missile Launchers got a whole lot worse in 7th, as they can no longer explode vehicles. If the vehicle damage system was less favourable towards AP1/2 weapons, we might see fewer of them.

What AP2 pie plates are there?

Demolishers, Vindicators, Doomsday Arks, Riptides, Plasma cannons... and...? That's like, 5. In the whole game.

Edit: sometimes the SAG

Knight Errants with their AP1 pie plates are pretty common these days

Vortex of Doom, D-Scythes (not technically pie plates, I know, but close enough), Heavy D-Scythes, the Prism Cannon, Suncannons, D-Cannons, several different kinds of plasma cannons, whatever the Exocrine's gun is called, Infernal Gateway, Conversion Beamers, Dark Scythes, Implosion Missiles, Boom Bombs, Kustom Mega-Kannons, and Helfrost Destructors.

That's 23 and I haven't even started on high rate-of-fire AP2 weapons or the Forge World books.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
AP 2 pie plates arent the problem though, its cheap melta/plasma guns in every army, and barring that just volume of fire.

Cheap melta and plasma isn't "cheap," trust me, I'd love to be able to take flamers and grenade launchers. But I have to take the melta and plasma to fight Terminators and Tanks.

Like, you're literally saying "The problem with terminators is that people have access to things to counter terminators."

Bring a horde of orks or something and see how well those plasma and meltaguns do.

Because clearly the current meta is full of horde armies, and not armies that melta/plasma is effective against (Vehicles, knights, high toughness MCS and 2+ saves)

Melta and plasma are very cheap compared to how much you can actually put in most armies. Terminators being caught in that arms escalation has been an issue since 5th.

Its not that they have counters, its that the counters are so prevalent because of the actual units that the melta/plamsa is being taken for is so prevalent

 MajorStoffer wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
LONG

Which is an Honour Guard for 5 points more which can't sweep, but can deepstrike, has slightly better shooting, and gains a 5++.

it's incredibly redundant unit wise, and I also think the continual trend of making stuff cheaper = better is overdone, it's one of the reasons behind model count bloat and most Marine units just being expensive, above average cannon fodder rather than expensive, good units.

While the balance behind them is atrocious, the idea behind Eldar and Necrons of making them more powerful rather than cheaper is more attractive, and thematically sound for certain armies, Marines being one of them.

Doesn't require a Chapter Master and comes with vastly better guns. It's not redundant because it's not an HQ bodyguard or a dedicated assault unit.

Model count bloat is a result of GW continually making bigger and bigger toys to remove whole squads at once, the price drops are a symptom, not the problem.

And the Eldar and Necrons got more powerful and cheaper, I'm putting a lot more space elf bodies on the table today than I was when I started playing.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
What Id like to see would be a change in the gun rules that would ultimately help fix 2+ save units. For the most part I'd like to see rending and any weapon that is multi-shot, including rapidfire be no better than AP3.

Rending as AP3 seems overly harsh. Multi-shot weapons I can accept to some degree, though I'm not sure about plasmaguns (since they at least come with a downside). I certainly think we could do with far fewer AP2 pie plates.

Regardless, do bear in mind that a) there are units in the game with 2+ saves that are not terminators, and many of them do not need this sort of buff. Also, AP2 does not just affect infantry.

I wonder if part of the solution would be changing the vehicle damage rules. e.g. AP3 weapons like Missile Launchers got a whole lot worse in 7th, as they can no longer explode vehicles. If the vehicle damage system was less favourable towards AP1/2 weapons, we might see fewer of them.

What AP2 pie plates are there?

Demolishers, Vindicators, Doomsday Arks, Riptides, Plasma cannons... and...? That's like, 5. In the whole game.

Edit: sometimes the SAG

Knight Errants with their AP1 pie plates are pretty common these days

Vortex of Doom, D-Scythes (not technically pie plates, I know, but close enough), Heavy D-Scythes, the Prism Cannon, Suncannons, D-Cannons, several different kinds of plasma cannons, whatever the Exocrine's gun is called, Infernal Gateway, Conversion Beamers, Dark Scythes, Implosion Missiles, Boom Bombs, Kustom Mega-Kannons, and Helfrost Destructors.

That's 23 and I haven't even started on high rate-of-fire AP2 weapons or the Forge World books.

most of those aren't pie plates. D-scythes aren't "close enough," they're a line. "Several kinds of plasma cannons" are just plasma cannons - they may be prolific, but they're still one kind of weapon. The exocrine's gun isn't a pie plate. Implosion Missiles are AP- (their "roll a wounds test" mechanic hardly counts as AP2), Helfrost Destructors are, IIRC, AP3 unless they fire focussed blasts.

Also, many of them have risks to firing them, such as the boom bomb and the plasma weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
AP 2 pie plates arent the problem though, its cheap melta/plasma guns in every army, and barring that just volume of fire.

Cheap melta and plasma isn't "cheap," trust me, I'd love to be able to take flamers and grenade launchers. But I have to take the melta and plasma to fight Terminators and Tanks.

Like, you're literally saying "The problem with terminators is that people have access to things to counter terminators."

Bring a horde of orks or something and see how well those plasma and meltaguns do.

Because clearly the current meta is full of horde armies, and not armies that melta/plasma is effective against (Vehicles, knights, high toughness MCS and 2+ saves)

Melta and plasma are very cheap compared to how much you can actually put in most armies. Terminators being caught in that arms escalation has been an issue since 5th.

Its not that they have counters, its that the counters are so prevalent because of the actual units that the melta/plamsa is being taken for is so prevalent

Perhaps the problem, then, is a meta that favors melta and plasma, rather than Terminators themselves.

Fix the problem, not the symptoms.

 vipoid wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:

Which is an Honour Guard for 5 points more which can't sweep, but can deepstrike, has slightly better shooting, and gains a 5++.

it's incredibly redundant unit wise

But then, are you sure that the problem is with Terminators and not Honour Guard?

Maybe the mistake was giving the latter 2+ saves.

Honour Guard are, in my opinion, one of only two cost effective assault units the Marines have, aside from TH/SS Termies. Making Honour Guard worse to make Terminators look more attractive isn't really a solution, as it won't make tactical terminators any better, just Space Marines in general less effective in assault.

Instead, making terminators an expensive unit with multiples wounds or high T or FNP or whatever would give Marines a unit that's durable against most kinds of small arms, attracts attention, and would make a teensy bit of thematic sense. They're supposed to be tough, above all else, not out-shooting devestators, nor out-punching their assault bretheren, but enduring immense punishment, which is something Marines could really stand to have. They've got extremely limited access to FNP, multi-wound models, no MCs, two toy-skimmers, a few durable transports for a king's ransom, but no infantry which can soak firepower without a biomancy psyker, which by rights should be something a guy in a walking tank designed to stand inside plasma reactors going, "There are some wonderfully pretty colours in here"

it'd fill a gameplay and thematic niche currently lacking in that army, and would make people actually react with more than contempt to Terminators.

I run ten of the bastards with Asterion Moloc, an EW Terminator chapter master who kills stuff dead, and most people can afford to ignore the unit, or just throw small arms fire at it and whittle it down (or tie it up with a melee unit with decent invulns) and always come out ahead in cost effeciency. My ten honour guard with a rage-granting Chaplain, now that actually gets a reaction. They've got the same survival rating against small arms, usually the same against Ap1/2 weapons due to how cover works, and one's about half the price. Sure, you can make the unit that's current good bad, but what does that solve?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
LONG

Which is an Honour Guard for 5 points more which can't sweep, but can deepstrike, has slightly better shooting, and gains a 5++.

it's incredibly redundant unit wise, and I also think the continual trend of making stuff cheaper = better is overdone, it's one of the reasons behind model count bloat and most Marine units just being expensive, above average cannon fodder rather than expensive, good units.

While the balance behind them is atrocious, the idea behind Eldar and Necrons of making them more powerful rather than cheaper is more attractive, and thematically sound for certain armies, Marines being one of them.

Doesn't require a Chapter Master and comes with vastly better guns. It's not redundant because it's not an HQ bodyguard or a dedicated assault unit.

Model count bloat is a result of GW continually making bigger and bigger toys to remove whole squads at once, the price drops are a symptom, not the problem.

And the Eldar and Necrons got more powerful and cheaper, I'm putting a lot more space elf bodies on the table today than I was when I started playing.

As I said, the execution on Eldar and 'Crons was terribad and has nearly ruined the game in my area (at least to those with really unlucky codexes, like Tyranids), but the idea of making something better my making it objectively better, rather than just cheaper makes sense for the "elite" armies and units. Putting 10 terminators on the table should be a statement and make people go, "Well, I need to kill that" rather than "oh look, mobile slightly more durable devastators that I'd probably rather shoot than assault." I'm not saying it's a bad idea mechanically, as you are right Honour Guard do only have one job and only come with a CM, so the redundancy isn't huge (I just love Honour Guard and almost always use them), but it's part of a larger trend which GW uses to "balance" marines which irks me enormously.

 MajorStoffer wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:

Which is an Honour Guard for 5 points more which can't sweep, but can deepstrike, has slightly better shooting, and gains a 5++.

it's incredibly redundant unit wise

But then, are you sure that the problem is with Terminators and not Honour Guard?

Maybe the mistake was giving the latter 2+ saves.

Honour Guard are, in my opinion, one of only two cost effective assault units the Marines have, aside from TH/SS Termies. Making Honour Guard worse to make Terminators look more attractive isn't really a solution, as it won't make tactical terminators any better, just Space Marines in general less effective in assault.

Instead, making terminators an expensive unit with multiples wounds or high T or FNP or whatever would give Marines a unit that's durable against most kinds of small arms, attracts attention, and would make a teensy bit of thematic sense. They're supposed to be tough, above all else, not out-shooting devestators, nor out-punching their assault bretheren, but enduring immense punishment, which is something Marines could really stand to have. They've got extremely limited access to FNP, multi-wound models, no MCs, two toy-skimmers, a few durable transports for a king's ransom, but no infantry which can soak firepower without a biomancy psyker, which by rights should be something a guy in a walking tank designed to stand inside plasma reactors going, "There are some wonderfully pretty colours in here"

it'd fill a gameplay and thematic niche currently lacking in that army, and would make people actually react with more than contempt to Terminators.

I run ten of the bastards with Asterion Moloc, an EW Terminator chapter master who kills stuff dead, and most people can afford to ignore the unit, or just throw small arms fire at it and whittle it down (or tie it up with a melee unit with decent invulns) and always come out ahead in cost effeciency. My ten honour guard with a rage-granting Chaplain, now that actually gets a reaction. They've got the same survival rating against small arms, usually the same against Ap1/2 weapons due to how cover works, and one's about half the price. Sure, you can make the unit that's current good bad, but what does that solve?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
LONG

Which is an Honour Guard for 5 points more which can't sweep, but can deepstrike, has slightly better shooting, and gains a 5++.

it's incredibly redundant unit wise, and I also think the continual trend of making stuff cheaper = better is overdone, it's one of the reasons behind model count bloat and most Marine units just being expensive, above average cannon fodder rather than expensive, good units.

While the balance behind them is atrocious, the idea behind Eldar and Necrons of making them more powerful rather than cheaper is more attractive, and thematically sound for certain armies, Marines being one of them.

Doesn't require a Chapter Master and comes with vastly better guns. It's not redundant because it's not an HQ bodyguard or a dedicated assault unit.

Model count bloat is a result of GW continually making bigger and bigger toys to remove whole squads at once, the price drops are a symptom, not the problem.

And the Eldar and Necrons got more powerful and cheaper, I'm putting a lot more space elf bodies on the table today than I was when I started playing.

As I said, the execution on Eldar and 'Crons was terribad and has nearly ruined the game in my area (at least to those with really unlucky codexes, like Tyranids), but the idea of making something better my making it objectively better, rather than just cheaper makes sense for the "elite" armies and units. Putting 10 terminators on the table should be a statement and make people go, "Well, I need to kill that" rather than "oh look, mobile slightly more durable devastators that I'd probably rather shoot than assault." I'm not saying it's a bad idea mechanically, as you are right Honour Guard do only have one job and only come with a CM, so the redundancy isn't huge (I just love Honour Guard and almost always use them), but it's part of a larger trend which GW uses to "balance" marines which irks me enormously.

The problem is that T5 W2 makes them centurions.

And they really are quite durable against small arms - 180 lasgun shots to kill 5, or 90 bolter shots from Marines.