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.

dominuschao wrote:
A lot of the suggestions here are straight busted man. The ripple effect of such changes is huge.

Re-rolling 2+ saves? Thats 1/36 failing. Now consider ICs in TDA.. they get ridiculously durable. Papa smurf. smash*ucker. Lysander. Draigo.

Ignoring ap2 or worse? Again ICs, but even a nilla unit that can walk around shrugging plasma like bolter fire is just wrong.

26 ppm? So 5 guys with 2+/5+ saves, power weapons, better stock ranged weapons, relentless heavy weapons and deep strike costs 130 pts?

The problem with terminators isn't cost or durability its damage output. Increasing durability or decreasing cost throws everything else out of whack. Consider centurions for a moment. 80 ppm with no invuln no mobility outside of psych or transports yet they are broken because of grav.

I've been playing pure terminator armies in various iterations since 3rd edition. For most of that they have been underdogs. I would love for termies to get better but IMO besides bringing C:SM in line with wolves/gk the only way to do that is to increase damage output.. i.e. bring back 2 hvy weapons for 5 and boost stormbolters slightly. Maybe different weapon access idk. Anything else starts to get broken due to the access to TDA suits in HQ and troops.

probably one of the first people here who don't want to make terminators OP as hell by giving them all the above stated upgrades....2+ rerollable...LOL not on your life my friend.

lets say I bring 15 lootas, roll a 5 or 6 for shots so I have 3 shots each, 45 shots....hitting on 5-6 = 15 hits, wounding on 2s means 13 wounds. 2+ = 2.5 dead termies, lets say I got all 3 by a miracle. now rerolling you have a 50/50 chance of losing 1 terminator to a heavy weapon units torrent of fire...yeah that wouldnt be broken at all. all that mechanic would do would make me bring about 10x the number of AP2 weapons to get around your 2+ rerolling, meaning that 2+ armor would get even more broken and you would be back in here in a week complaining about how every army has to many AP2 weapons and terminators need a 3++ and so on.

S5 T5? yup, lets make them Ork Warboss equivalents. and he starts with a 6+ armor save and still costs 60pts.

dominuschao wrote:
A lot of the suggestions here are straight busted man. The ripple effect of such changes is huge.

Re-rolling 2+ saves? Thats 1/36 failing. Now consider ICs in TDA.. they get ridiculously durable. Papa smurf. smash*ucker. Lysander. Draigo.

Ignoring ap2 or worse? Again ICs, but even a nilla unit that can walk around shrugging plasma like bolter fire is just wrong.

26 ppm? So 5 guys with 2+/5+ saves, power weapons, better stock ranged weapons, relentless heavy weapons and deep strike costs 130 pts?

The problem with terminators isn't cost or durability its damage output. Increasing durability or decreasing cost throws everything else out of whack. Consider centurions for a moment. 80 ppm with no invuln no mobility outside of psych or transports yet they are broken because of grav.

I've been playing pure terminator armies in various iterations since 3rd edition. For most of that they have been underdogs. I would love for termies to get better but IMO besides bringing C:SM in line with wolves/gk the only way to do that is to increase damage output.. i.e. bring back 2 hvy weapons for 5 and boost stormbolters slightly. Maybe different weapon access idk. Anything else starts to get broken due to the access to TDA suits in HQ and troops.

Edit- To elaborate, the weapon options suck. Combis suck by virtue of 1 use only and nothing to be supplement to (like a reusable weapon). Hvy weapon options are the worst of the bunch. CMLs used to be relevant back in 5th (I ran upwards of 23 missiles iirc) but now they are meh. Now what if TDA had access to full special/heavy options.. then things get real. Dual multimelta terminators with 3 grav for example. Expensive but flexible and lethal to everything.

This is what I've been saying as well, but everyone wants new wacky armor rules.

Well, we at least had a discussion of changes.
I am hearing much "but that sucks!", great, throw it out there then: what does not?
I already understood the odds of 1/36 with a 2+ re-roll, it just causes the rock-paper-scissors of plasma and melta having more primary targets.

How about Obliterators?
Look at those guys.
Too bloody expensive it appears but were looking pretty good in all other things by weaponry.

The +1 toughness for the armor may be a nice tweak, like when you throw someone on a bike.
This may be the least "objectionable" so we do not get the "LOL, not on your life comment...".

We are talking about better weapon load-outs however.
What would you want to give to a company commander that is even more nasty?
GK already have psi-cannons, so what can we do for an encore?

Here, next stab at making them work: I would be tempted to make 'em a "half-centurion" one lascannon and one missile launcher both can be equipped and both fired.
If we put on gravity guns, it may cause some meta freak-out.

So get some ideas out there with some pro-cons.
Easy to ridicule, what would you do to fix Terminators?

reduce by 5pts a model and stop adding ridiculous things to them like extra S T and a better save then a 2+

4+ Inv. Pros: Straightforward, helps durability. Cons: Comparison to Storm Shields, interaction with Sanctuary.

T5. Pros: Straightforward, there exist T5/3++ units in the game right now that are cheaper than Terminators so we know it's not the craziest thing on the field. Cons: T6 Nurgle Terminators, if we keep escalating T how long is it going to be before there are frequent/common T6 infantry units and Guard/Eldar can't function at S/T3 anymore?

Two heavy weapons per five. Pros: Fixes the firepower deficiency. Cons: Does nothing for Assault Terminators and they're still not tough enough for their cost.

Sternguard ammo. Pros: Cool, lets the bolter models do something. Cons: We're trying to take over Sternguard's battlefield role then, and there's no precedent for special-ammo storm bolters.

Move to a save penalty system. Pros: Fixes all the problems. Cons: Requires a lot of the game to be ground-up redesigned.

I'd like to fix Terminators without invalidating current models by introducing new weapon loadouts if possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
reduce by 5pts a model and stop adding ridiculous things to them like extra S T and a better save then a 2+

S5/T6 Wraithguard, T5/3++ Wraiths, and T5 Bikes haven't completely destroyed the game yet.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
4+ Inv. Pros: Straightforward, helps durability. Cons: Comparison to Storm Shields, interaction with Sanctuary.

T5. Pros: Straightforward, there exist T5/3++ units in the game right now that are cheaper than Terminators so we know it's not the craziest thing on the field. Cons: T6 Nurgle Terminators, if we keep escalating T how long is it going to be before there are frequent/common T6 infantry units and Guard/Eldar can't function at S/T3 anymore?

Two heavy weapons per five. Pros: Fixes the firepower deficiency. Cons: Does nothing for Assault Terminators and they're still not tough enough for their cost.

Sternguard ammo. Pros: Cool, lets the bolter models do something. Cons: We're trying to take over Sternguard's battlefield role then, and there's no precedent for special-ammo storm bolters.

Move to a save penalty system. Pros: Fixes all the problems. Cons: Requires a lot of the game to be ground-up redesigned.

I'd like to fix Terminators without invalidating current models by introducing new weapon loadouts if possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
reduce by 5pts a model and stop adding ridiculous things to them like extra S T and a better save then a 2+

S5/T6 Wraithguard, T5/3++ Wraiths, and T5 Bikes haven't completely destroyed the game yet.

2 wounds, Attack at initiative for all weapons, eternal warrior - same price as now.

Naaris wrote:
2 wounds, Attack at initiative for all weapons, eternal warrior - same price as now.

Yeah, this one I'm kind of skeptical about. Eternal Warrior on a line unit doesn't exist, it's a rare/special rule, not something to be handed out willy-nilly, and attack-at-Initiative-with-powerfists makes the Lightning Claw option completely irrelevant unless you're getting tarpitted by Guardsmen a lot.

I think if you look purely at the statlines, you have 4 discrete types of infantry in the SM codex, across a pretty even price-to-power spectrum. Bikes, Jump Packs, and Veterans muddle things a little but this is your base.

- Scouts (4+, weakest stat line)
- Marines (3+, average stat line)
- Terminators (2+, average stat line w/+1A, +1LD)
- Centurions (2+, boosted stat line w/excellent ranged weapons)

Between Marines and Centurions, you're getting 2+ and an extra attack for 26pts, access to very good melee weapons, and access to some special weapons neither Scouts or Marines can kit. For default ranged weapons, Scouts/Marines get (rapid-fire) Bolters, Termies get (assault) Storm Bolters, Cents get (rapid-fire, TL) Hurricane Bolters. Terminators are definitely not a platform for lots of S4 AP5 "garbage fire". In addition, Termies get Relentless and Teleport, while Cents get SnP, no mobility bonuses, and can't sweep. So Termies are a platform for assaulting, a platform for special weapons, or both. Assaulting and Special Weapons are what we should look at to increase the usefulness of Terminators, and costing is simply to adjust their value relative to other choices. The stat line is fine, and Storm Bolters are probably ok as well. Your standard infantry units like Tacs should be your most-cost effective S4 output, and Termies shouldn't challenge Cents at all.

So basically the solution is :

- Look at the general usefulness of Terminators in assault (which concerns the Land Raider as their only DT)
- Look at the general usefulness of Terminator special weapons (as dominuschao mentioned, look at Grav Cents)
- Look at the issues caused by the meta (prevalence of AP1/AP2 negating the value of that 2+)

This last one is the easiest to pick apart -- a lot of units and armies perform completely differently at 1000pts or less. Looking at how Terminators perform at different points levels (Kill Team, 500pts+) would probably be a good indication if their main issues are due to poor scaling in bigger games, taking too big a points chunk out of the rest of your army at all levels, or simply underperforming their job on the tabletop (damage, mobility, survivability).

 AnomanderRake wrote:
4+ Inv. Pros: Straightforward, helps durability. Cons: Comparison to Storm Shields, interaction with Sanctuary.

T5. Pros: Straightforward, there exist T5/3++ units in the game right now that are cheaper than Terminators so we know it's not the craziest thing on the field. Cons: T6 Nurgle Terminators, if we keep escalating T how long is it going to be before there are frequent/common T6 infantry units and Guard/Eldar can't function at S/T3 anymore?

Two heavy weapons per five. Pros: Fixes the firepower deficiency. Cons: Does nothing for Assault Terminators and they're still not tough enough for their cost.

Sternguard ammo. Pros: Cool, lets the bolter models do something. Cons: We're trying to take over Sternguard's battlefield role then, and there's no precedent for special-ammo storm bolters.

Move to a save penalty system. Pros: Fixes all the problems. Cons: Requires a lot of the game to be ground-up redesigned.

I'd like to fix Terminators without invalidating current models by introducing new weapon loadouts if possible.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
reduce by 5pts a model and stop adding ridiculous things to them like extra S T and a better save then a 2+

S5/T6 Wraithguard, T5/3++ Wraiths, and T5 Bikes haven't completely destroyed the game yet.

I agree, the game isnt broken yet, but when we start making Stat line changes to units because they are over priced we enter a world of bad juju, Just reduce the cost by 5 points or so and boom done.

If you dont like terminators then dont run them. its as simple as that!

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Naaris wrote:
2 wounds, Attack at initiative for all weapons, eternal warrior - same price as now.

Yeah, this one I'm kind of skeptical about. Eternal Warrior on a line unit doesn't exist, it's a rare/special rule, not something to be handed out willy-nilly, and attack-at-Initiative-with-powerfists makes the Lightning Claw option completely irrelevant unless you're getting tarpitted by Guardsmen a lot.

I'm just saying that its a good way to keep them at toughness 4, if they have something that ignores instant death.

Maybe have it as a special rule that comes with terminator armor that ignores instance death due to strength 8+ weapons. This way force weapons or weapons that have instance death rules still work.

2 wounds gives them resilience in close combat.

And attacking at initiative is makes them better melee units. I would still say claws are viable due to re-rolling failed wounds due to shred and some that have rending attached.

Naaris wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Naaris wrote:
2 wounds, Attack at initiative for all weapons, eternal warrior - same price as now.

Yeah, this one I'm kind of skeptical about. Eternal Warrior on a line unit doesn't exist, it's a rare/special rule, not something to be handed out willy-nilly, and attack-at-Initiative-with-powerfists makes the Lightning Claw option completely irrelevant unless you're getting tarpitted by Guardsmen a lot.

I'm just saying that its a good way to keep them at toughness 4, if they have something that ignores instant death.

Maybe have it as a special rule that comes with terminator armor that ignores instance death due to strength 8+ weapons. This way force weapons or weapons that have instance death rules still work.

2 wounds gives them resilience in close combat.

And attacking at initiative is makes them better melee units. I would still say claws are viable due to re-rolling failed wounds due to shred and some that have rending attached.

Nobody would ever take lightnight claws, its 1 extra attack with rerolls vs S8 AP2 at init which is insta death for most things in this game. Furthermore that would give them a better at CC then a Meganob which is designed for CC. that means tis broken

Does anyone take lightning claws now?

my opponents usually do but only because they want to whittle down my boyz before i get to swing with 120 attacks :-P

whats wrong with a 5pt reduction? in a 5 man squad thats 25 pts saved for other things. And thats all im asking for on my big stupid Morkanaut

(I LOVE MY MORKANAUT)

(but only because im an ork at heart and its a bit dakka machine that looks like an ork)

 Ghazkuul wrote:
my opponents usually do but only because they want to whittle down my boyz before i get to swing with 120 attacks :-P

whats wrong with a 5pt reduction? in a 5 man squad thats 25 pts saved for other things. And thats all im asking for on my big stupid Morkanaut

(I LOVE MY MORKANAUT)

(but only because im an ork at heart and its a bit dakka machine that looks like an ork)

There's actually nothing wrong with 5 pt reduction.

So its agreed then, every terminator will cost 5pts less from now on, we will tell GW and they will promptly ignore us, good work team. GO TEAM VENTURE!

The problem is it doesn't fix whats wrong with them. Hordes of terminators is something that just shouldn't be. As relative as the term horde is..

Consider this for a moment, take a unit of centurion devs but replace the grav with eternal warrior and 3++ and cut the cost in half. The result is no one would care because they can't threaten anything. Uber durable slogging guys still doesn't address the issue.

Lower cost does, but in the wrong way. It doesn't make them better just makes bad units more plentiful.

GK terminators are the best of the bunch for multiple reasons. Compulsory troops, warp charge batteries, ability to increase strength and instant death. Grand masters same although the only reason anyone even takes a GM is because he has access to a psycannon. Remove that upgrade and he collects dust.

Give TDA suits full access to hvy and special weapons. Now tau ain't the only kids at the party.

Naaris wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Naaris wrote:
2 wounds, Attack at initiative for all weapons, eternal warrior - same price as now.

Yeah, this one I'm kind of skeptical about. Eternal Warrior on a line unit doesn't exist, it's a rare/special rule, not something to be handed out willy-nilly, and attack-at-Initiative-with-powerfists makes the Lightning Claw option completely irrelevant unless you're getting tarpitted by Guardsmen a lot.

I'm just saying that its a good way to keep them at toughness 4, if they have something that ignores instant death.

Maybe have it as a special rule that comes with terminator armor that ignores instance death due to strength 8+ weapons. This way force weapons or weapons that have instance death rules still work.

2 wounds gives them resilience in close combat.

And attacking at initiative is makes them better melee units. I would still say claws are viable due to re-rolling failed wounds due to shred and some that have rending attached.

I'd love to be able to keep the statline the same or as close to the same as makes no difference; my personal preferred package of changes is 30ppm with a power sword instead of a power fist, option to upgrade to power fist/chainfist/LC/THSS, two special guns per five guys, and 4+ Inv. Minimal changes, fixes durability, fixes price problem, fixes inadequate firepower problem.

Two Wounds and Eternal Warrior is a longer and more complicated fix than is necessary.

As to the lightning claws if you make power fists strike at Initiative the only thing lightning claws would be better than power fists at doing is killing large numbers of T3 models. When was the last time you saw a Terminator squad in melee with a Guard blob?

 Ghazkuul wrote:
So its agreed then, every terminator will cost 5pts less from now on, we will tell GW and they will promptly ignore us, good work team. GO TEAM VENTURE!

It's interesting to look at the balance process for online games like Starcraft as a parallel. As new units are introduced and new strategies evolve, there's a more or less constant fine-tuning of unit prices and special rules. Otherwise you usually end up with several abused units and many underperforming (and hence ignored) ones.

40k would need some kind of similar balance team that understands the whole of the game, monitors play, and adjusts as necessary. Honestly it's suprising there's no unofficial body doing so, at least for tournaments. But I suppose legal issues might preclude distributing balance changes, 40k doesn't have the same player base, and you can houserule anything you want with your friends.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Mixing wargear is hardly DA-unique, CSMs and SWs can too (though better)

Also NorseSig wasn't saying to give other termies Split Fire.

Anyway, isn't Deathwings shtick Deathwing Assault and Vengeful Strike?

Didnt say it was, allowing termies to mix gear dosent solve the issue it just makes it the only viable way to play termies. Why would anyone pick just a shooty squad or why would anyone pick just a melee squad.

Aenaerl did though.

Still dosent help vanilla termies.

price reduction by 5 pts a model and make them like orks have their Meganobs, Turnem into a missile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
heres another solution to that would make space marines a lot more fun but would definitely intrude upon orky warfare, Make Rhinos capable of carrying terminators, 1 termy is bulky so counts as 2 models, then allow termies to assault after disembarking, regardless of vehicle type. However a caveat to this would be *Except on Turn 1.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
price reduction by 5 pts a model and make them like orks have their Meganobs, Turnem into a missile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
heres another solution to that would make space marines a lot more fun but would definitely intrude upon orky warfare, Make Rhinos capable of carrying terminators, 1 termy is bulky so counts as 2 models, then allow termies to assault after disembarking, regardless of vehicle type. However a caveat to this would be *Except on Turn 1.

5ppm is still overpriced unless you are talking about powerfist stormbolter terminators, and if the terminator sergeant is still a power sword storm bolter guy who can't be upgraded I better get a points drop for him too. I would still suggest 2 heavy weapons per 5. And rather than the rhino idea how about just fix the cost of the horrendously overpriced Landraiders as well, or at least mitigate their horrible point cost by letting them treat the bulky rule and it's variants as one man smaller. This would allow a full unit of terminators into the land raider.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
heres another solution to that would make space marines a lot more fun but would definitely intrude upon orky warfare, Make Rhinos capable of carrying terminators, 1 termy is bulky so counts as 2 models, then allow termies to assault after disembarking, regardless of vehicle type. However a caveat to this would be *Except on Turn 1.

So, essentially:

Relentless = this unit may charge after disembarking a tranport or making a shooting attack. In addition, this unit always counts as stationary when firing XYZ weapon types.

This would give you more flexibility to use Battle Brother or FW transports, if you're so inclined.

 NorseSig wrote:
And rather than the rhino idea how about just fix the cost of the horrendously overpriced Landraiders as well, or at least mitigate their horrible point cost by letting them treat the bulky rule and it's variants as one man smaller. This would allow a full unit of terminators into the land raider.

Also sounds worth looking at.

I'm with Ghazzie, 90% of the time a points adjustment is the answer to balance. Unless the rules prevent a unit from functioning at all, a points adjustment is the better solution.

In this particular case, it's complicated by the fact that devastator centurions and terminators fill almost the exact same role, as do assault centurions and assault terminators. I'd rather get rid of standard terminators and assault centurions since they're utterly redundant. Give assault terminators wrist-mounted storm bolters, the same options as standard termies, and a 5 point drop and call it a day. Terminators hold the deep-strike option over centurions, and now you could get assault terminators with heavy flamers and/or heavy weapons. At 175 points for a squad they're slightly cheaper and much more flexible than before. Sorry SM players, you're just going to have to deal with the fact that ap 2 still kills them.

The idea of 2++ saves, 2 wound eternal warrior, etc...is disquieting. You're talking about making the models between 2 and 6 times as tough, which is crazy. That might work in the novels but it doesn't work on the table. Gameplay should take priority over fluff 100% of the time on the tabletop. Story should take priority over gameplay 100% of the time in the fluff.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
But they at least get a gun, which is more than the Incubi get. If you remove all the terrain, more than a quarter of those Incubi will not even make it to the Terminators, then the following assault, though horrific for the Terminators will still see the Incubi Decimated. Here lets assume a 200 point Unbound game, with a squad of Terminators, and a squad of Incubi.

With no terrain to slow you down, you get 14 attacks per turn with no reprisal, 9.24 hits, 6.0984 wounds, 2.012472 kills every turn. The incubi get to move 7-12" per turn, then you move back 6", so assuming both set their squad up as near the opponent as possible, 24" away, then move, it will take the Incubi 3-4 truns to get close enough to launch an assault, because you know they can't assault after running. That is a little over 6 dead Incubi, leaving 4 in the squad, to attack the Terminators. The overwatch will likely kill/finish off the partial left from shooting. Leaving 9 really good attacks to go before the Terminators get their attacks, 5.94 hits, 2.97 wounds, 1.96 Terminators dead. Terminator Reprisal will net 5 hits, 4.167 wounds, all Incubi are now dead. Did I mention the Incubi cost 4 points more than the 7 terminators at 28 points each?

That "unimpressive" shooting is a huge benefit.

Now lets do the same thing at current price, both squads cost exactly 200points.
5 terminators get 10 shots, 6.6 hit, 4.356 wound, 1.43748 dead Incubi leaving a little over 4 dead Incubi, still lose 1 from overwatch, leaving 5 to assault.
15 attacks, 9.9 hit, 4.95 wounds, 3.267 dead Terminators.
Terminator Reprisal 4 attacks, 2 hit, 1.667 dead Incubi, following round Terminators are dead. and only 3 Incubi left.

Add in terrain, and the Terminators do a lot better, but not so much better that I believe the 40ppm is a good cost, However 28ppm is far to cheap. I stand by my assertion that 30-35ppm is a good range, or drop the cost of my Incubi, or remove that free sergeant, or remove the free Invulnerable save, or the "unimpressive" Storm Bolter.

Also note, that the Terminators/heavy Infantry are the target of choice for Incubi, their "specialization" if you will.


Yes, I realize that 30ppm will net the same result as 28ppm, however I am including, in my calculations, other synergistic effects that may occur/be planned for in both armies. How many Incubi squads actually make it to the table without a Raider? That alone increase the likelihood of them making it to those terminators intact.

If your problem is that Incubi suck if they have to charge through terrain, then make a thread about giving them assault grenades or something to accomplish a similar effect. As it happens, not only would I support such a measure, but I also think it's complete BS that Incubi have no way to overcome the charge-through-cover penalty. Back with the 5th Ed DE book you could take an Archon with that grenade doohickey to give Incubi assault nades... but then they changed that and also ruined Hesperax's "League Apart" rule to boot.

If your problem is, OTOH, that Incubi don't get guns and that this somehow makes Tac Termies "better"... then you really don't realize that stormbolters are pretty much ass. Think about the other standardized infantry weapons in the game. They're either somewhat comparable and on significantly cheaper models (Orks+Shootas, Guard+Lasguns), or are better in some way (everything else). Tac Termies suckage, IMO, isn't really a durability issue. It's that their ability to kill things is ass, and so they're left behind. To that end, I would propose the following changes to Stormbolters:

New Trait: Tearing To-Wound rolls of "1" may be re-rolled; To-Wound rolls of "6" are also Pinning. All Bolt weapons have the Tearing trait.

That one is inspired by the various 40K RPGs; Bolt weapons have a trait (also called Tearing) that allows them to roll an extra die for damage, and discard the lowest die; IE, damage is 2D10, but you can roll 3D10 and discard the lowest if the weapon is Tearing. I've 40K-ified it, with a little bit of simplicity (no extra dice required), and also something that's a little extra. The Pinning part is to represent the psychological effects of some members of a unit suddenly exploding right next to their buddies. That's some scary crap right there.

New Trait: Storm Each successful To-Hit roll counts as two hits, rather than just one.

This ups the relative firepower of each shot; it's also inspired by the FFG works, which assign a trait of the same name to Stormbolters. This would represent the fact that each time the trigger is pulled on a Stormbolter, it's actually dumping out two separate bolt shells.

Stormbolters would then have the following profile:

Range 24" Assault 3 S4 AP5 Tearing, Storm

Yeah, I threw an extra shot on there as well. I'm not in the slightest opposed to having either Assault 3 or Assault 2+Storm as an alternative, but the above profile is, IMO, the ideal. The big thing is that this change propagates across a number of use cases. Not only are Shootynators of all flavors now more deadly with their basic weapons, but Stormbolters are a viable alternative to combi weapons on characters (mostly squad leaders), and it's likely that Stormbolters would become a useful special weapon choice for various Sisters squads (remember, SoB actually get Stormbolters as a special weapon).

The possible downsides of such a change mostly come down to:

1) How does this affect the GK army, which has Stormbolters on pretty much everything?
2) Do upgraded Stormbolters make Heavy Stubbers obsolete as a pintle weapon for IG tanks?

Of course, I'd also recommend that Assault and shooty Terminator squads be merged, with the caveat that a TH/SS model may not carry any ranged weapons of any kind (IE, a CML). I'd also perhaps recommend that Centurions be merged as a single unit entry that chooses a base loadout of either punchy or shooty flavors, which then determines what options can be taken. These unified Centurions would be a HS-only, while Termies are Elites-only. This should hopefully help with Termies being viable as a shooting platform compared to Cents, perhaps by dint of making Termis good for anti-horde shooting (ref. my Stormbolter upgrade idea), with Cents better for AT (LC+ML) or anti-HI (Grav).

For the record, I'm not too bothered by Terminator prices in reference to their durability, because 2+/5++ is quite good, IMO, for a T4/1W model. AP2/AP1 weapons are usually a specific weapon option that requires a point investment, and such weapons often have limited range and utility against lighter infantry- an Imperial Plasma Gun is not that much better than a much cheaper and longer-ranged Heavy Bolter when shooting T3/5+ or even T3/4+ infantry. Of course, that does ignore the fact that nobody takes Heavy Bolters anyways, so....

Whiskey144 wrote:


If your problem is that Incubi suck if they have to charge through terrain, then make a thread about giving them assault grenades or something to accomplish a similar effect. As it happens, not only would I support such a measure, but I also think it's complete BS that Incubi have no way to overcome the charge-through-cover penalty. Back with the 5th Ed DE book you could take an Archon with that grenade doohickey to give Incubi assault nades... but then they changed that and also ruined Hesperax's "League Apart" rule to boot.

If your problem is, OTOH, that Incubi don't get guns and that this somehow makes Tac Termies "better"... then you really don't realize that stormbolters are pretty much ass. Think about the other standardized infantry weapons in the game. They're either somewhat comparable and on significantly cheaper models (Orks+Shootas, Guard+Lasguns), or are better in some way (everything else). Tac Termies suckage, IMO, isn't really a durability issue. It's that their ability to kill things is ass, and so they're left behind. To that end, I would propose the following changes to Stormbolters:

No, my problem is that people are basically saying a gun of any sort on a unit does nothing, and should cost nothing. Then say that a unit with vastly superior durability should only cost a mere 8 points more than another unit, and further suggest that they should still get more bonuses. I was pointing out that the desired drop in cost completely destroys any balance for other units using a model that I know fairly well.

I can get my Incubi to do some damage when I use them. They are well worth their points for what they do, and their targets of choice, so long as their target of choice doesn't suddenly get simultaneously cheaper and better. I have also illustrated that the Storm Bolter does worlds of good for them, even if it isn't a super powerful gun as compared to other weapons. Moreover, I have postulated that at current stats, weapons, and abilities(note I do not include options) they are only a little over priced, not a drop them by nearly 50% over priced.

Of course you could take it as all elite units are over priced, as trying to match a Tactical Marines abilities, and dropping the cost of a Terminator to try to compensate exacerbates the durability issues other elite units, and even the comparable weaknesses of other armies Troops choices, forcing points drops on a whole lot more than just the Terminators to compensate.

The Incubi cost quite a bit more than they should as compared to other models in the codex too, just like Terminators.

". I have also illustrated that the Storm Bolter does worlds of good for them"

No, it really doesn't. They might as well not have them. That's how bad they are for a 40 pt model.

I feel like we need to make TDA competitive with bikes for HQs somehow. As it is, bikes are just plainly superior, especially due to the existence of AA.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
No, my problem is that people are basically saying a gun of any sort on a unit does nothing, and should cost nothing. Then say that a unit with vastly superior durability should only cost a mere 8 points more than another unit, and further suggest that they should still get more bonuses. I was pointing out that the desired drop in cost completely destroys any balance for other units using a model that I know fairly well.

I can get my Incubi to do some damage when I use them. They are well worth their points for what they do, and their targets of choice, so long as their target of choice doesn't suddenly get simultaneously cheaper and better. I have also illustrated that the Storm Bolter does worlds of good for them, even if it isn't a super powerful gun as compared to other weapons. Moreover, I have postulated that at current stats, weapons, and abilities(note I do not include options) they are only a little over priced, not a drop them by nearly 50% over priced.

Of course you could take it as all elite units are over priced, as trying to match a Tactical Marines abilities, and dropping the cost of a Terminator to try to compensate exacerbates the durability issues other elite units, and even the comparable weaknesses of other armies Troops choices, forcing points drops on a whole lot more than just the Terminators to compensate.

The Incubi cost quite a bit more than they should as compared to other models in the codex too, just like Terminators.

I would like to point out that, personally, current Tac Terminator pricing is okay as long as they have firepower commensurate to their cost. I'm not particularly concerned with Termi durability, as IMO 2+ armor against small arms (S3/S4) or dedicated "heavy" anti-infantry (mostly intended to be S5, IMO) is quite good. The problem is that there's a good chunk of S6/7 weapons that are AP2, and they get spammed because mass S6/7 is amazeballs at everything, and so Termies get scythed down like wheat. Of course, there are some books that have AP2 on 99% of the units *cough* Eldar *cough*, but I'll just say that's an outlier for now.

I would also like to point out that Stormbolters under the current SB rules are ass. Yay, I get two S4/AP5 shots at 24". Quite frankly I'd say that the only reason Tac Termies can sort-of win against Incubi by shooting them comes down to:

1) Deciding to footslog Incubi
2) Incubi are T3, which is wounded on 3+ by S4 weapons
3) Before run moves, and assuming that Termies remain stationary, it takes 4 turns for Incubi to close the gap.

Obviously the Termie player won't keep his Termies static, and obviously the Incubi player will want to run his Incubi forward to get them into combat faster. We can't do anything about Incubi being T3, though we can throw Incubi into a Raider or Venom so that they can get into combat in a reasonable amount of time.

Now I realize the point of considering Termies vs Incubi in a vacuum and across the board from each other was to show that yes, Termies can indeed leverage their guns to a somewhat useful effect. The problem is that the scenario is entirely biased. Footslogging Incubi is at best viable at very small point levels. Most of the time it's idiotic. Similarly, Termies are not going to remain stationary. Not only that, but Termies technically want to punch things, on account of paying for a power fist that they don't actually need.

Incubi, IMO, are good because they do one thing, and do it well. Termies are bad because they don't actually know what they want to do. It's not that Shootynators are "generalist", it's that they have no focus whatsoever. They have Stormbolters which are passable- at best- against light infantry... but then they have power fists, which are better put to use punching things like MCs or cracking open heavy armor. It's not even that Tac Termies don't have a focus on "shooting generalist" or "melee generalist", it's that they have no idea what they should be turned against because the two types of targets their default weapons are "best" against are so diametrically opposed.

Tactical Marines are bad in a general sense because they're not very killy for their cost, though in a theoretical fashion they're reasonably durable. In practice Tacs are also bad because they struggle to survive in the face of mass S6/S7 shooting that simply drowns them in wounds.

Tactical Marines also have the (theoretical) advantage in that they're mostly focused around shooting. The only way to give them combat-related upgrades is to take melee options on the sergeant. In contrast, all Tac Termies come stock with a power fist (bar the sarge, who has a power sword), and they can all pay for the PF to be upgraded to a chainfist. Except as mentioned their basic firearm is geared towards killing light infantry.

Finally, stormbolters are, as I've said, ass. There's really only two guns I wouldn't really want to trade a bolter for; lasguns, which are weaker in every way and probably wouldn't even make a Tac Marine cheaper, and Ork shootas, which are basically just a sort-of-different bolter. But if I could take, say, a shuriken/splinter/gauss/pulse weapon of some variety, then hell yeah I would. I'd even trade out a stormbolter for a shardcarbine or gauss blaster (the rough equivalents, IMO)... preferably the latter, in fact, as 3 poison shots at 18" per dude has potential to drown MCs in wounds. Probably not going to kill a Riptide (though what does ), but against say, a Wraithknight/Dreadknight, not too shabby IMO.

This is why I think that some kind of upgrade to the Stormbolter would be appropriate. To quote myself a cleaned-up version of what I'd like to see Stormbolters changed to:

Whiskey144 wrote:
New Trait: Tearing To-Wound rolls of "1" may be re-rolled; To-Wound rolls of "6" are also Pinning. All Bolt weapons have the Tearing trait.

New Trait: Storm Each successful To-Hit roll counts as two hits, rather than just one.

Stormbolters would then have the following profile:

Range 24" Assault 3 S4 AP5 Tearing, Storm

I'd like to mention two things in reference to my proposed Stormbolter buff:

1) Please give me your thoughts on whether this would make Tac Termies better for their cost, as well as making Stormbolters a more attractive gun upgrade for various Imperial character models (mostly squad leaders, like SM Sergeants)
2) Assault 3 and Storm is IMO ideal, but either Assault 2 and Storm or just Assault 3 would be good places to start as well.

As an aside, all Bolt weapons, from the humble Bolt Pistol and Bolter, to the maligned Heavy Bolter would have Tearing. I'd also say HBs should get Storm simply to make them more attractive anti-horde... but then there's the whole issue of HBs being the cheapest sponson gun for most Imperial (and Chaos) tanks.

Martel732 wrote:
". I have also illustrated that the Storm Bolter does worlds of good for them"

No, it really doesn't. They might as well not have them. That's how bad they are for a 40 pt model.

On that note, what are your thoughts regarding my Stormbolter buff?

I think that kind of buff would be fine for terminators, but GK shmuckos would get it too.