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.

Yes, but given the fact they are the size of a dreadnaut, 2W 4T is hardly a statline fitting the model to begin with.

But that's a whole other matter.




As for the guy saying that the GK terminators are "tax" and that CSM and SW termies are still bad, you have got to be kidding me.
Any cheaper or stronger and they become no-brainer choice.

A marine is 14 points, budget terminators are 33.
That's 19 points for power weapons, upgrade from PA to TDA, bolters to storm bolters and +1 to A and Ld.
They are more than twice as hard to kill (half damage from small arms, massive reduction from AP3 and thanks to invuls they can tank AP2 better too), attack twice as much, pack power weapons so they can punch through power armor in CC (or get S6 attacks with mauls, or take axes for killing other 2+ units), can shoot and charge and are harder to brake.

Honestly, had both be troops, I'd take budgetminators any time.


And for GK, you got 20 points strike, VS 33 point termi.
+1 A, +1 Ld and PA to TDA for 13 points? not as much of a steal as the wolf guard to wolf guard termies, or the chaos chosen to chaos termies, (15 and 13 points respectively, and they buy the PW and stormbolter/combibolter too) but still a damn good deal.

The problem is that you guys look at what terminators do on their own, compared to the biggest, baddast things out there, and expect them to be supposed to hold out forever against everything and anything. but that's just comparing apples to phones.
But compared to the SANE side of 40k? the budget terminators are pretty damn solid. they got gecent defenses, they hit well in CC and they shoot better than most assault units. and that's what they are, even the "tactical" terminators-assault units.

They may not be the fastest, but they need not be. they endure. for their price they can take a decent beating. they have little need to use cover and can afford to just march up field and they can deepstrike into positions should the situation call for it.
Perfect? far from it. but they got their uses and nieches.
And in a world where the insanity picks do not exist, they are great.
Problem is half the people try to bring up their favorite units into the same level as the insanity picks (while calling the nerf the same insanity picks to begin with!)

Terminators need just to be withot forced power fists. after that the only "fix" they need, is that the few truly absurd things out there (decution, WS, ion accelerators, HYMP, gravcents, etc.) to be toned down, and by that alone the terminators will take back their spot as a line unit that is a serious pick.

And not all the absurd buffs I see here that will turn them instantly into no-brainer picks that would make everyone to ally gray knights for their cheap troop terminators.

The things being brought up in this thread illustrate exactly what's wrong with this game and player perceptions.

Terminators *need* T5 FNP and accurate Deep Strike to be playable? Rules that allow them to reroll failed 2+ armor saves? S5 T5 W2?

WAT?

These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them. They're supposed to be hardy infantry that pack a punch. They do that. They could perhaps use a small price discount or the return of some 2E wargear like integral teleport homers for other units to follow up on or something, but a lot of these suggestions are insane, and simply duplicate an already existing unit, Centurions.

That said, Centurions I think were a mistake in the first place, upstaging Terminators at exactly what Terminators are supposed to be, and reinforcing terrible notions of what heavy infantry should be.

"These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them."

I agree, but there needs to be some reason to take them. Which there currently isn't.

Martel732 wrote:
"These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them."

I agree, but there needs to be some reason to take them. Which there currently isn't.

Yes there is - they're badass models. They look better than Centurions, and beefier and tougher than a Space Marine, which they are, per model.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them."

I agree, but there needs to be some reason to take them. Which there currently isn't.

Yes there is - they're badass models. They look better than Centurions, and beefier and tougher than a Space Marine, which they are, per model.

Actually, only against AP 3 weapons. Against all other weapons, space marines are tougher on a per point basis. They are almost unplayably bad.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them."

I agree, but there needs to be some reason to take them. Which there currently isn't.

Yes there is - they're badass models. They look better than Centurions, and beefier and tougher than a Space Marine, which they are, per model.

Actually, only against AP 3 weapons. Against all other weapons, space marines are tougher on a per point basis. They are almost unplayably bad.

Per point, sure, but terminators are tougher per model, like I said.

And I still stand by my statement that a reason to field them is that they look cool!

Looking cool is not a sufficient reason for me to ever field them. I think they are embarrassing, actually. I would probably get mocked mercilessly and then tabled.

Martel732 wrote:
Looking cool is not a sufficient reason for me to ever field them. I think they are embarrassing, actually. I would probably get mocked mercilessly and then tabled.

You have an interesting play group there, friend. Last game I played 3 Baneblades, and 3 Hydras against another unbound list - Black Templar Terminator Squads each with a Chaplain and each in an LRC. It was hilarious fun, and I lost because of objectives (among other things), but neither of us mocked eachother and neither of us got tabled.

He literally brought nothing but terminators, LRs, and chaplains.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Looking cool is not a sufficient reason for me to ever field them. I think they are embarrassing, actually. I would probably get mocked mercilessly and then tabled.

You have an interesting play group there, friend. Last game I played 3 Baneblades, and 3 Hydras against another unbound list - Black Templar Terminator Squads each with a Chaplain and each in an LRC. It was hilarious fun, and I lost because of objectives (among other things), but neither of us mocked eachother and neither of us got tabled.

He literally brought nothing but terminators, LRs, and chaplains.

Many are rather serious about number crunching. For a while there, how many turns it took to table 5th ed BA with 6th ed codices was a metric they were measuring. The record I remember was top of the 3rd turn.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Looking cool is not a sufficient reason for me to ever field them. I think they are embarrassing, actually. I would probably get mocked mercilessly and then tabled.

You have an interesting play group there, friend. Last game I played 3 Baneblades, and 3 Hydras against another unbound list - Black Templar Terminator Squads each with a Chaplain and each in an LRC. It was hilarious fun, and I lost because of objectives (among other things), but neither of us mocked eachother and neither of us got tabled.

He literally brought nothing but terminators, LRs, and chaplains.

Many are rather serious about number crunching. For a while there, how many turns it took to table 5th ed BA with 6th ed codices was a metric they were measuring. The record I remember was top of the 3rd turn.

You need friends who play 40k less competitively. It really doesn't function well in that environment (as you seem to be learning).

It's actually magnificent for those with power codices and power lists. For too many gamers, no contest is their kind of contest.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Looking cool is not a sufficient reason for me to ever field them. I think they are embarrassing, actually. I would probably get mocked mercilessly and then tabled.

You have an interesting play group there, friend. Last game I played 3 Baneblades, and 3 Hydras against another unbound list - Black Templar Terminator Squads each with a Chaplain and each in an LRC. It was hilarious fun, and I lost because of objectives (among other things), but neither of us mocked eachother and neither of us got tabled.

He literally brought nothing but terminators, LRs, and chaplains.

You must understand that 'looking cool" isn't good enough for some people. How a unit performs on the table is why they take or don't take them.

Plus, I think terminators look kinda dumb.

Martel732 wrote:
It's actually magnificent for those with power codices and power lists. For too many gamers, no contest is their kind of contest.

Although based on what you've said it seems terrible for everyone else.

 NorseSig wrote:
I think a lot of the problems with terminators could be fixed by treating them like Wolfguard terminators. except start their cost at 30 points for power weapon and storm bolter. This would reflect them not having the extra abilits the wolfguard termies have. Storm bolters should probably have either rending or salvo 2/3 or salvo 2/4. TDA giving toughness +1 would help as well. as Is they aren't worth their points and neither is the hq upgrade which should be 25 points across the board imo. Of course this idea would get rid of the 2 profiles. If this were to be done there would need to be a boost to storm bolters to make them an attractive option.

What extra abilities? If you are talking about counter attack and acute senses then you are really just referencing our chapter tactics...which normal space marines have their own versions of. Also don't try to and just pluck the wolves version of termis, the stats and points need a change, not war gear. Let's not try to make this homogenized 40k now.

 BoomWolf wrote:

As for the guy saying that the GK terminators are "tax" and that CSM and SW termies are still bad, you have got to be kidding me.
Any cheaper or stronger and they become no-brainer choice.

GKT aren't bad, but they're not even close to no-brainers. Maybe if you eliminated all the Wave Serpents and Wraithknights and Broadsides and whatever else happens to be OP from the game, then they'd fall into the 'pretty good' category, but as they are they're still just mediocre. For ~200pts for a 5-man unit, you don't get a whole lot of firepower, once they take a couple casualties they lose their punch in assault, and they're too slow to reposition to grab maelstrom objective and the like. As it stands, they mostly just let Dreadknights and Draigo do all the heavy lifting, even if they help out a little bit.

 Vaktathi wrote:

These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them.

They are dreadnoughts. Litteraly (TDA)

They are slow and with weak shooting, as well as with no sweeping advance - they must be invincible to be any good.

elotar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them.

They are dreadnoughts. Litteraly (TDA)

They are slow and with weak shooting, as well as with no sweeping advance - they must be invincible to be any good.

Except nowhere, anywahere, are they described as having the power or resiliency of an actual Dreadnought. They're heavy power armored infantry, not gigantic walkers or monstrous creatures.

If you need a unit to be invincible for it to be good, well, the problem isn't with the unit.

Likewise, if you make them invincible, how much more invincible do you then need to make TH/SS terminators to compensate?

 Vaktathi wrote:
The things being brought up in this thread illustrate exactly what's wrong with this game and player perceptions.

Terminators *need* T5 FNP and accurate Deep Strike to be playable? Rules that allow them to reroll failed 2+ armor saves? S5 T5 W2?

WAT?

These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them. They're supposed to be hardy infantry that pack a punch. They do that. They could perhaps use a small price discount or the return of some 2E wargear like integral teleport homers for other units to follow up on or something, but a lot of these suggestions are insane, and simply duplicate an already existing unit, Centurions.

That said, Centurions I think were a mistake in the first place, upstaging Terminators at exactly what Terminators are supposed to be, and reinforcing terrible notions of what heavy infantry should be.

Well, technically speaking, they should be close to as tough as a dreadnaught, it IS called Tactical Dreadnaught Armour for a reason.

However, some of the suggestions seem to be piling on a bit much. IMO, 2 wounds and ignore the powerfist's unwieldy is just enough to make them worth their points and keep with their intended use intact. I'd prefer a 4++ on basic termie armour as well, but I think that might be too much at 40 points. Maybe an extra shot with the SB, make it assault 3? Assault termies with a TH keep the unwieldy (its not as integrated into the armour and its a freakin' sledge hammer), thus the trade off for getting a vastly superior invulnerable save with 2 wounds.

Another thing to consider is some of the suggested changes would require rewrites of existing 7th edition codexes or the core rules, and also dilutes some of the flavor for those chapters that are not locked in to the stock termie armour. Updating the armour itself to +1 Wound on the profile and introduce a "Terminator Powerfist" that replaces existing powerfist rules for all terminator units and doesn't include Unwieldy is an easy White Dwarf update away and can be a blanket update for all armies that include terminator armour.

 Vaktathi wrote:

If you need a unit to be invincible for it to be good, well, the problem isn't with the unit.

Invincible was obviously exagerration. With T5 fnp they still be kind of on par with necron wraths (plain, not 4+ RP Decurion), which are faster.
In fluff TDA is much more durable.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The things being brought up in this thread illustrate exactly what's wrong with this game and player perceptions.

Terminators *need* T5 FNP and accurate Deep Strike to be playable? Rules that allow them to reroll failed 2+ armor saves? S5 T5 W2?

WAT?

These guys aren't Dreadnoughts, they're not supposed to be invincible, AP2 weapons *should* kill them. They're supposed to be hardy infantry that pack a punch. They do that. They could perhaps use a small price discount or the return of some 2E wargear like integral teleport homers for other units to follow up on or something, but a lot of these suggestions are insane, and simply duplicate an already existing unit, Centurions.

That said, Centurions I think were a mistake in the first place, upstaging Terminators at exactly what Terminators are supposed to be, and reinforcing terrible notions of what heavy infantry should be.

Well, technically speaking, they should be close to as tough as a dreadnaught, it IS called Tactical Dreadnaught Armour for a reason.

However, some of the suggestions seem to be piling on a bit much. IMO, 2 wounds and ignore the powerfist's unwieldy is just enough to make them worth their points and keep with their intended use intact. I'd prefer a 4++ on basic termie armour as well, but I think that might be too much at 40 points. Maybe an extra shot with the SB, make it assault 3? Assault termies with a TH keep the unwieldy (its not as integrated into the armour and its a freakin' sledge hammer), thus the trade off for getting a vastly superior invulnerable save with 2 wounds.

Another thing to consider is some of the suggested changes would require rewrites of existing 7th edition codexes or the core rules, and also dilutes some of the flavor for those chapters that are not locked in to the stock termie armour. Updating the armour itself to +1 Wound on the profile and introduce a "Terminator Powerfist" that replaces existing powerfist rules for all terminator units and doesn't include Unwieldy is an easy White Dwarf update away and can be a blanket update for all armies that include terminator armour.

Methinks people would find W2 4++sv I4 powerfist Terminators worth a fair bit more than 40pts. 60ppm perhaps, but certainly not 40.

Lets look at the closest equivalent, GK Paladins. They're 65ppm with a 5++ when they've got a hammer, and they're still I1. Granted they have some different things (WS5, BoP, but no Chapter Tactics) but largely, they're what we're talking about here.

elotar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

If you need a unit to be invincible for it to be good, well, the problem isn't with the unit.

Invincible was obviously exagerration. With T5 fnp they still be kind of on par with necron wraths (plain, not 4+ RP Decurion), which are faster.
In fluff TDA is much more durable.

And Necron Wraiths are widely seen as being overpowered, far too durable and fast for their points cost. We shouldn't be balancing around that. If anything it's the Wraiths that should be getting toned down.

If you want units to be good going forward, the wraith must be taken into account, as the bar is continually being raised bit by bit.

Martel732 wrote:
If you want units to be good going forward, the wraith must be taken into account, as the bar is continually being raised bit by bit.

I would think it should be treated as an outlier and a failure of playtesting, not as a balance point. Doing the latter only means you now need to start shifting *everything*, and acts to push otherwise balanced units into uselessness.

Id like tpo echo whats already been said, Terminators dont have muc purpose anymore. They need that again. They were once the defacto deathstar for SMs. Now theyve been outdone by Cents and....wellfor CC i dont know whats really out there for SMs. Terminatorssuffer from that great and all pervading SM problem of being a genarlist. That being said, id suggest tiny improvements in all factors.Staying power, firepower and CC.

Firepower- An additional heavy is a given, but i like the sugestions of Salvo 2/3. Id also think that CSM should get it too.

CC- I like the suggestions of using PFs at initiative, or getting an additional attack from using combi and stormbolters as exra mellee weapons. For TH/SS termies id say let them get an extra atack from the shield, and give LC termies rend.

Survivability- The extra toughness seems good, but would also make TDA characters more resilient to instant death. I think the that should be what you get from bikes. A reduction of weapon strength for the purposes of wounding, but not ID seems more in line with TDA

Id also go with a 5 point reduction if the cost of termies and thier heavy weapons.

Teleporting- Id say that teleporting termies would only be hit with Snap Shots when the arrive via DS. Thereby making the classic terminator DS method more attracive.

They are what they are, slow moving mini tanks. I love them in a zone mortalis setting, like them in a city scape with lots of buildings and hate them out in the open field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are what they are, slow moving mini tanks. I love them in a zone mortalis setting, like them in a city scape with lots of buildings and hate them out in the open field.

I don't think the problem is that Terminators are unplayably weak, so much as that the things which are effective against them, which are supposed to be rare and in short supply, are easily taken by almost every army, all the time.

That doesn't call for terminators to be beefed up beyond all recognition. It calls for the whole damn game to be rebalanced, which is unfortunately unlikely to happen.

In the background, Terminator armor is proof against almost all threats. The suits are perceived as almost invulnerable against all but the most exceptional arms. Then you have a game with easy, inexpensive access to both weapons which should have very good AP, and weapons which have a low AP because they want people to take them. There's no particular reason that hellguns need low AP. There's no particular reason why Rubric Marines should have low AP bolter rounds. Things like plasma weapons should be very effective vs. armor, but their supposed rarity and scarcity isn't reflected in their cost at all.

I do think Terminators would work better with 2 wounds, but that's for two reasons. First, I think that the 40mm base size should be indicative of 2+ wound models. Second, I think it would help represent the terminator resistance to small arms better (in that it's going to be almost futile to bring them down with lasguns or knives). It would do that without making them unrealistically resistant to anti-tank weaponry.

Terminators suffer from the same problem as Power-armored marines in the game. They are supposed to be clad in some of the best armor in the galaxy, but it's almost trivially easy to get weapons which penetrate it. They just suffer more because they pay so much more for their 'invulnerable' armor which gets ignored too often. If GW would go over the rules carefully and remove low AP from things which don't actually seem to have it in the fluff, and rework points costs so that incredibly rare, amazingly powerful weapons weren't handed out to every chap who can carry one, Terminators would be just fine. I seem to remember them being quite good for several editions (basically, after Chapter Approved gave them the invulnerable save) until every Tom, Dick, and Harry got AP 2 weapons.

" It calls for the whole damn game to be rebalanced, which is unfortunately unlikely to happen. "

So we are back to buffing terminators.

I would drop AP# on hellguns in a heartbeat in exchange for something like an S3 AP5 or AP- Assault 3 18" weapon and a 2-3ppm price cut. The AP3 is absolutely useless on Stormtroopers with S3 guns and a shortened range, it simply unnecessarily increases their cost.

Again however, with the whole 2 Wounds thing, I can't think of anything that gets both a 2+sv and W2 for less than 55pts, and that's without Powerfists. The adjustment you'd have to do to TH/SS Termi's with 2+/3++Sv's and W2 would have to probably make them no less than 70ppm.

And, also again, massed AP2 fire isn't anything new. terribad IG armies of 4th edition were routinely putting down 40 or more Plasma & Melta guns in 1500pt games. There's nothing new about that, and that was when Plasma Guns were 10ppm not 15ppm.

You can't price wargear by supposed fluff rarity. If we're going to do that then, we have to apply this to Terminators as well (can't pick and choose here), and then we're talking to each Terminator there's thirty thousand Regiments of Leman Russ tanks.

"Again however, with the whole 2 Wounds thing, I can't think of anything that gets both a 2+sv and W2 for less than 55pts, and that's without Powerfists. The adjustment you'd have to do to TH/SS Termi's with 2+/3++Sv's and W2 would have to probably make them no less than 70ppm. "

These are not buffs I'm thinking of. Shooting terminators need more offense.

Aren't they roughly in-line with their general principle though? They're supposedly to be heavily armored to defend or spearhead and not necessarily be like devastators. To this end they have their 2+, invuln save, storm bolters, and fists with options for missiles and canons should you wish for more of a firebase.

What type of offense do you have in mind?