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.

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.

Yep, now how does that rate Vs a 20 point model without them, plus a reduced T, S, Sv, and not as many special rules? Oh yeah, both are also Elite Heavy infantry for their respective armies. Not to mention they outrange many other armies special weapons, and ignore the Sv of most of the non marine armies that they can come against. What did I forget? Um...The model I am comparing it to also has a special rule that does literally nothing except add to the models cost, Night Vision on a model with no gun does.....nothing. So of the 2 special rules they get exactly 50% of them do something. Don't forget you get a free sergeant also. Those points have to come from somewhere. What else? Terminators have the ability to hurt heavy vehicles, Incubi can't hurt anything over AV 10. What more do you want?

I will concede that they cost to much, but not that those Storm Bolters are worthless, and not that they need to cost 28ppm. At best 30ppm, but I still feel they should be 35ppm do to the capabilities of the model/unit. If you want to give up the Storm Bolters, fine I'm sure they are worth 5 points, but probably closer to 10 since a Burst Cannon is 10 points, with less range, more shots, more Strength, but worse BS. Yet another Elite Heavy Infantry Model that is comparable to a terminator that will suffer if they get cheaper. Right now even with those "worthless" Storm Bolters, Terminators will average the same number of wounds on an XV-8 as they will on the Terminators, when armed with 2 plasma rifles each at the 24" range. And then the Terminators will trounce them in melee. That is a minimum of 54points per model for that.

Try not comparing Terminators to Troops Choices, and remember that being an elites choice automatically makes them cost more.

But, but Jump shoot Jump, counter Deepstrike, they still need to have the space to move, combat squad, now I have 2 targets instead of one. You have answers, use them, don't demand more buffs, and cheaper. Don't tell me something is pointless to have, when it is useful, and I can see the use for it. If you can't see a use for a 24" A2 S4 AP5 weapon, then sorry, but depending on the opponent it can be a deterrent, meant to keep short range units at bay, an attack weapon to foil melee units, a defensive weapon to soften up a target before melee is engaged. This plus actually using the terrain, movement and tactics will make those models worth their points, don't expect godly units, use your abilities, tackle the challenges, you have the tools. Don't target units they weren't meant to go after, I won't use my Incubi against a horde, well..only as a last resort ie no other targets.

How about Fire Dragons? Same schtick as Incubi, Only Ranged, 9 of those are roughly equivalent, in points. At best with running, they get to threaten 18" of range, you will have 6 of them dead in 3 turns from shooting before they can even shoot you once. an lose an average of 1.5 Terminators in response, before you finish them off. And they, supposedly, have a better gun. The Terminators will stomp Fire Dragons in Melee as well.


I totally agree, that storm bolter doesn't need to exist, it is completely worthless. Would you like more? I will dig them up tomorrow if you like.

" remember that being an elites choice automatically makes them cost more. "

Why should that be true?

" If you can't see a use for a 24" A2 S4 AP5 weapon, then sorry, but depending on the opponent it can be a deterrent"

No one is deterred by storm bolters.

Whiskey144 wrote:

Stormbolters would then have the following profile:

Range 24" Assault 3 S4 AP5 Tearing, Storm

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.

Whiskey, the problem is by layering on more and more special rules you end up making the game less simple, straightforward and streamlined. It solves the firepower issue but it's not necessarily good design. If even stock weapons need to have some kind of special rule to keep them competitive, something is going wrong. S6/S7 spam probably, I think you're on the money there.

The easiest way to address poor firepower is to simply the drop the effective points cost for the underperforming weapon, and let that unit wrap the savings into an upgrade. If you drop 25 pts across 5 Terminators, that pays for 2x Heavy Bolters with 5 left over. Let's compare:

5x Storm Bolter = 10x S4 AP5 shots at 24"

Versus:

3x Storm Bolter = 6x S4 AP5 shots at 24"
2x Heavy Bolter = 6x S5 AP4 shots at 36"

Obviously the second unit has much better firepower. Sling the HB under one arm so you don't touch melee attacks, and you're good to go. We increase firepower without dumping extra rules on players, or new weapons. Everyone already knows what a heavy bolter does right? If this still isn't enough, how about dropping 8ppm? You just added two free assault cannons with Rending, and that's an established rule to all 40k players. So basically you can tune this under the current ruleset.

I think you made a very cogent analysis BTW. I just think extra rules, especially very specific ones, are an overcomplicated solution. It's less flashy but it's better to keep things simple.

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.

The whole purpose for terminators is to reliably soak enemy fire, particularly small arms and to complete an objective that normal infantry, space marine dude or not, would find difficult to complete (generally).

Making them the equivalent of devastators - in the realm of firepower - won't fix their role issue.

Back in the day, I remember when terminators felt like a tank @ 3d6 3+ armour save and then calculate modifiers (If I remember right - was very young). Since then, things have felt pretty marginalized for terminators. Granted, the rules during this time were built more for a wargame rpg than a straight up wargame (faster dice resolution) but dang, they look a lot more useful. Whoever decided to make the new terminator rule template in 3rd, didn't really understand how much terminator use revolved around their armour save (thus its role). They didn't translate this very well, no, not even close.

3rd left gradations in wargear rules for brevity, and in the process, left the tactical idea of terminator armour in 2nd - translating/representing it very poorly for 3rd.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

whats wrong with a 5pt reduction?

for all termies and alike? So, we're gona get like 25-27 ppm termies popping around?

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Yep, now how does that rate Vs a 20 point model without them, plus a reduced T, S, Sv, and not as many special rules? Oh yeah, both are also Elite Heavy infantry for their respective armies. Not to mention they outrange many other armies special weapons, and ignore the Sv of most of the non marine armies that they can come against. What did I forget? Um...The model I am comparing it to also has a special rule that does literally nothing except add to the models cost, Night Vision on a model with no gun does.....nothing. So of the 2 special rules they get exactly 50% of them do something. Don't forget you get a free sergeant also. Those points have to come from somewhere. What else? Terminators have the ability to hurt heavy vehicles, Incubi can't hurt anything over AV 10. What more do you want?

Terminators and Incubi really aren't very comparable. Incubi are (supposedly, I admit) designed to kill TEQ/2+ save infantry. Except they have no assault grenades, and they're only T3. They do have kickin' initiative value, and their AP2 melee weapons get to strike in initiative order (if you don't charge through cover), so it's not a complete wash.

I would also like to point out that making Tac Termies better at shooting things makes them even less comparable to Incubi. Also, I'd imagine that Dark Eldar actually pay very little for the Night Vision rule, given that it's army wide, and part of their "flavor"... since GeeDubs thinks that counts for something, I imagine.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
I will concede that they cost to much, but not that those Storm Bolters are worthless, and not that they need to cost 28ppm. At best 30ppm, but I still feel they should be 35ppm do to the capabilities of the model/unit. If you want to give up the Storm Bolters, fine I'm sure they are worth 5 points, but probably closer to 10 since a Burst Cannon is 10 points, with less range, more shots, more Strength, but worse BS. Yet another Elite Heavy Infantry Model that is comparable to a terminator that will suffer if they get cheaper. Right now even with those "worthless" Storm Bolters, Terminators will average the same number of wounds on an XV-8 as they will on the Terminators, when armed with 2 plasma rifles each at the 24" range. And then the Terminators will trounce them in melee. That is a minimum of 54points per model for that.

The Stormbolters are worthless because they are S4/AP5 shooting in an army whose basic weapons consist of nothing but S4/AP5 shooting. And let me reiterate that my personal opinion is that Stormbolters- as well as some of the other Termi gun options- should be improved, rather than Termis getting cheaper. This is mostly because then Stormbolters become worthwhile armaments for Space Marine/Sisters characters, as well as the vast majority of Imperial vehicles that desire a spare gun, if only to absorb Weapon Destroyed results.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Try not comparing Terminators to Troops Choices, and remember that being an elites choice automatically makes them cost more.

1) Terminators get compared to Troops choices that are within their own book because Tac Termies bring very little to the table that Tac Marines do not, at a substantially higher price point and similarly heavy restrictions.
2) Being a non-Troops choice should not make anything "automatically cost more". This is stupid. If something automatically costs more for very little increase in capability (IE, current Tac Termies), then that something will only rarely be used.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
But, but Jump shoot Jump, counter Deepstrike, they still need to have the space to move, combat squad, now I have 2 targets instead of one. You have answers, use them, don't demand more buffs, and cheaper. Don't tell me something is pointless to have, when it is useful, and I can see the use for it. If you can't see a use for a 24" A2 S4 AP5 weapon, then sorry, but depending on the opponent it can be a deterrent, meant to keep short range units at bay, an attack weapon to foil melee units, a defensive weapon to soften up a target before melee is engaged. This plus actually using the terrain, movement and tactics will make those models worth their points, don't expect godly units, use your abilities, tackle the challenges, you have the tools. Don't target units they weren't meant to go after, I won't use my Incubi against a horde, well..only as a last resort ie no other targets.

Stormbolters are, as mentioned, bad because they are a lackluster weapon that lacks firepower and is merely more of the same shooting that the basic SM Troops choices bring in spades already. I'm fine with Stormbolters being "Like a Bolter, but more shots", as long as the increase in effective shot count is actually useful. Assault 2 vs Rapid Fire is of little utility. In practice, for Tac Marines, this would mostly mean that you can double tap at full range, instead of single shot at full range/double tap at half range. This is theoretically a statistically enormous increase in firepower... until you realize that Stormbolters are only available in volume from Tac Termies (GK excepted).

Also, the first sentence of this paragraph is disjointed and impossible to understand. At first it seems like you're providing a counter-argument to yourself as to why Termies are bad compared to Crisis suits or other JSJ-capable models, but then you go off saying Termies can counter-Deep Strike (yay, free pieplate shot on my dudes) or Combat Squad (which is sort of good). Here's an example of why Termies are overly expensive for their current level of firepower:

Terminator Squad, 10x Termies, 2x AC, 2 Chainfists- 450 points; w/o Chainfists cost is 440 points

Such a squad is mostly useful for anti-horde duty, as two ACs are not going to Rend often enough to reliably threaten anything heavier than AV12/13, which sort of wastes the power fists/chainfists in the squad. Let's compare against equal cost in Tactical Marines (a Troops unit), Sternguard Veterans (an Elites unit), and Devastator Centurions (a very shooty high-end HI unit). I won't consider a dedicated transport for the Termies, as that simply makes the comparison worse and there doesn't exist a dedicated transport option that can hold ten Termies. But if you want a Land Raider so that your Termies can ride in style, then tack on around 250-300 extra points to the above.

Tactical Marines: you can have either:

2x 10-man Tac Squads with Flamers, HBs, a Stormbolter and meltabombs on each sarge and Vet Sarge upgrades, both of which are mounted in Rhinos with a HK missile, for 440 points
2x 10-man Tac Squads with Flamers, Plasma Cannons, a Stormbolter-equipped Vet Sarge, in Rhinos with HK missiles, for 440 points
2x 6-man Tac Squads with either a PG/Grav-gun, a Vet Sarge with 2 Combi-Weapons (yes this is legal), both mounted in Razorbacks with twin-linked ACs, a Stormbolter and HK missile, for 438 points; you can add meltabombs on the Sarges for 448 points if you so choose, or trim points by swapping into Meltaguns instead of Grav/Plasma

Addendum: you can juggle around the HK missiles and special/heavy options to get meltaguns and combi-weapons if you so choose. Probably also possible to juggle points to squeeze plas/grav specials into the 10-man squads.

Sternguard Veterans:

2x 5-man squads with 5 combi-weapons (your choice, as all combi options cost the same), for 440 points
2x 5-man squads with 2x combi-weapons, a HF (or 3 Combis, again your choice as HFs cost the same as combis, interestingly enough), in a Razorback with twin-linked AC and Stormbolter, for 460 points
1x 10-man squad, with 5 combis+2 HFs (or 7 combis, if you choose), meltabombs for the sarge, in a decked out Rhino (SB, HK, EA, Dozer Blade), for 370 points

Note: funny how you can get a much more mobile, twin-linked pair of ACs along with the awesome versatility of even a 5-man Sternguard squad with either 3x Combis, 2x Combis+1x HF, or 1x Combi+2x HF, for just twenty points more. Technically requires two Elites slots... but vanilla Marines have a somewhat lackluster (if generally flavorful) Elites selection anyways.

Devastator Centurions:

6x DevCents w/ Sarge Omniscope, 380 points
5x DevCents w/ Sarge Omniscope, with Grav-Cannons, 420 points
4x DevCents w/ Sarge Omniscope, LCs+MLs, 380 points

Notes: 6 bare DevCents put out nearly as many S4/AP5 shots at 24" as ten Tac Termies with Stormbolters, while against light infantry Heavy Bolters are a passable alternative to ACs, particularly when twin-linked. At 12" you get nearly twice as many S4/AP5 shots as a 10x Tac Termies with Stormbolters. Did I mention that DevCent S4/AP5 shots are also twin-linked? If you drop a Cent you can give them all Grav Cannons quite affordably, and Grav-Cannons make an excellent alternative (an arguably better one, in fact)

So we see that for their cost, you can get far more useful firepower by choosing something that is not a Tac Termie. For the exact same cost, you can get twenty Tacs in Rhinos (IE, more mans, more mobility), that can either carry meltabombs, flamers, and HBs, or flamers and plasma cannons. Or you can get 12 Tacs in two 6-man squads mounted in AC Razorbacks. So if you want some ACs, you can get them on a much more mobile platform and twin-linked. In the case of these Tac Marine squads, you can even juggle points around (mostly in the HK missiles, Vet Sarge upgrade, and Sarge weapons) to get meltaguns, plasma guns, or grav guns into the squad.

Alternately, looking at Sternguard, you could get two 5-man 'suicide melta' units by spending a little more on Drop Pods. I personally think that this is a waste of Sternguard versatility, but hey, it used to be all the rage. You can cut down on the number of combi-weapons- and maybe mix in some heavy flamers- and stick them into AC Razorbacks for 20 points over the Tac Termie squad. Not a bad deal for what you get- in comparison to Tac Termies, at least.

And then we look at DevCents and they completely blow Tac Termies out of the water. DevCents with their base equipment, in a full-strength squad with an Omniscope for the Sarge (as if you'll use that in an all Hurricane/Heavy Bolter unit) outshoot Termies. Plain and simple, they're far better at killing cheap horde infantry, and they cost less. The difference is enough that you could probably squeeze a Scout squad in to be a backfield objective holder. If you want Grav-Cannons (ah yes, GravCents. We have dismissed that claim), then you can drop a member of the squad to give all of them grav-cannons. This then makes them incredibly lethal against 2+/3+ save models (like Tac Termies...), while still retaining good anti-light-infantry capability from Hurricane Bolters and sheer weight of fire.

If you, for some reason, want to hunt tanks with your DevCents, you can give them all Lascannons and Missile Launchers... though this does come at the cost of having to run a 4-man squad, rather than a larger 5/6-man unit.

About the only thing Terminators have over their competition when building a list, is that Termies can DS, take HFs... and that's all I got. The power fist/chainfist options are not actually that great; when you have weapon options like ACs or CMLs, which have reasonable-to-significant range, then you really don't want to be in combat, since it prevents you from firing the expensive guns that you payed for. Not only that, but massed power fists are more suited to beating on very small units of very tough targets- like MCs or heavy armor. Almost all Terminator guns are more suited to killing light infantry than firing on MCs or anything with an armor value.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
How about Fire Dragons? Same schtick as Incubi, Only Ranged, 9 of those are roughly equivalent, in points. At best with running, they get to threaten 18" of range, you will have 6 of them dead in 3 turns from shooting before they can even shoot you once. an lose an average of 1.5 Terminators in response, before you finish them off. And they, supposedly, have a better gun. The Terminators will stomp Fire Dragons in Melee as well.

Fire Dragons are a terrible example, as their purpose is not really to engage 2+ save infantry, but rather to kill monstrous creatures or anything with an armor value, on account of carrying massed melta weapons. Melta weapons are AP1, though, so Fire Dragons can theoretically be quite effective at killing Termies of all stripes. The problem lies in the fact that Fire Dragons have about a hundred different things that are far better to point them at than Terminators.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
I totally agree, that storm bolter doesn't need to exist, it is completely worthless. Would you like more? I will dig them up tomorrow if you like.

The point is not that the Stormbolter is irrelevant because it's a gun. The point is that the Stormbolter is irrelevant because it does not offer any increased capability for its cost on the platforms it is most common on (IE, Terminators), and an equal cost of other units will either offer increased flexibility, increased firepower, or more resilient firepower. Or more likely, some combination of those three attributes.

Martel732 wrote:
I think that kind of buff would be fine for terminators, but GK shmuckos would get it too.

That's really the primary obstacle in making Stormbolters better, is that whatever we do with them will affect GKs quite heavily. Of course, we could simply say that GKs have a special pattern of Stormbolter that sacrifices some attribute in order to become more easily controlled in automatic fire on a wrist mount, so....

Of course, it's also worth mentioning that most of the Marine armies have a gun relic of some type that is either a Stormbolter or pseudo-Stormbolter, so these would also have to be revised in light of the vast increase in capability that basic Stormbolters would receive.

Aside: thoughts on making Heavy Bolters Salvo 2/3 with Tearing and Storm? As well as giving all Bolt weapons (BP, Bolter, Hurricane Bolter, whatever the Nephilim Jetfighter's bolt weapon is) the Tearing trait?

 TheSilo wrote:
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.

Accurately portraying a wargame is dependent on the lore. The assumption that you are having more fun with lore inaccuracies is a prerogative. I know you are attempting to be figurative, but you are particularly failing when using absolutes.

Game-play in a wargame is composed of elements in a strategic and tactical sense, whereby the whole of its parts is inherently loose in representation, but represents something nonetheless. As such, gameplay mechanics cannot be 100% of the concern during the game since there is a representation of lore. So, this makes that 100% figure less than 100, and something that you could argue to be more relative, and thus you might just argue, is a matter of popularity and market demands; expectations of the masses.

However, the masses did not create 40k nor the matter of mere popularity deciding its attraction. The gameplay is not solely about the majority's perspective but one that is gauged with intrinsic reasons as to the real attraction for the game. One of those key, immutable attractions is the lore, and it cannot be ignored as an important factor in deciding gameplay mechanics to represent them - in a wargame. I mean it could be ignored... but it would go into the realm of the contrived since it is roundabout ignoring fundamentals for its existence.

You may try to argue otherwise but I imagine it would still be convoluted - how I see it.

40k is indeed more mechanical than it is something depicting the lore with justice. The reason for this isn't that the mechanics of the game were invented first, it was, in my estimation mostly to cater to the strategically simple minded and newcomer; its more marketable this way.

kveldulf wrote:

lore inaccuracies

It all depends on which 'lore' you prefer. You will get different results looking at stuff from different perspectives. One book portrayes marines and termies in particular as one-man armies who murderise thousands without a scratch and another depicts them as oversized retards who fall in every trap your cunning general places for them and die en masse.

Fluff is...inconsistent to tell the least. We've got eldar fluff with one person haulting a hive fleet. Should he get such rules?

 koooaei wrote:

kveldulf wrote:

lore inaccuracies

It all depends on which 'lore' you prefer. You will get different results looking at stuff from different perspectives. One book portrayes marines and termies in particular as one-man armies who murderise thousands without a scratch and another depicts them as oversized retards who fall in every trap your cunning general places for them and die en masse.

Fluff is...inconsistent to tell the least. We've got eldar fluff with one person haulting a hive fleet. Should he get such rules?

It sounds like you're taking extreme exceptions in lore and using that as a generality?

There may be multiple times where captain x or aspect warrior y stopped apocalype of doom from happening, but in good sense, one should see the exceptionality of it before getting to the relative.

Warhammer may be more of a 'sandbox', but its novel fundamentals, its premise, can only be stretched so far...

I think if we buffed storm bolter to salvo 2/3 it would help terminators get a bit more firepower without boosting grey knights to a crazy level. This change would make storm bolters worth their 5 points. Maybe make terminators with storm bolters and power weapons (sword, axe, maul) 30ppm and allow them up to 4 ranged upgrade options and you can buy termintaors after the first 5 for 28ppm. In smaller games the 5 terminators would be standard and in bigger games people would take 10 for more ablative wounds. Allow upgrades to powerfist and chainfist as well.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Whiskey, the problem is by layering on more and more special rules you end up making the game less simple, straightforward and streamlined. It solves the firepower issue but it's not necessarily good design. If even stock weapons need to have some kind of special rule to keep them competitive, something is going wrong. S6/S7 spam probably, I think you're on the money there.

You do have a point- more special rules does increase complexity, sometimes needlessly (Stealth and Shrouded, for example, should IMO be "Stealth L1/L2" or "Stealth (+x)" where x is the modifier). However, the main issue I see is that Stormbolters need to be better. It's not even just because they're the primary weapon of almost every Terminator model in the game (combi-bolters for Chaos Termies need a little work too IMO), it's also that Stormbolters are supposed to be a viable gun upgrade for various character models- especially squad leaders, in the case of Marine forces.

Stormbolters are also the only pintle weapon option for the majority of Imperial armies- IG get heavy stubbers that are almost universally preferred when pintle guns are taken in the first place (the value of pintle-mount guns on vehicles is an entirely different subject unfortunately). Not only that, but (somewhat bizarrely) SoB get to take Stormbolters as a special weapon. For it to be a viable choice when weighed against a flamer or meltagun (or combi-weapon, in the case of squad leaders across Marines/Sisters armies), it needs to have more oomph.

The problem is that the only ways to do that are to buff the strength/AP (both of which are nonsensical, as Stormbolters are basically a pair of boltguns that are strapped together in a more cohesive/encompassing way than a combi-bolter), increase RoF, add some special rules, or some combination of the above. Not only that, but the vast majority of basic infantry weapons seem to be getting some kind of special effect. The Storm trait I proposed I fully admit could be quite over the top- but I honestly feel like the Tearing trait I put forth for inclusion in all Bolt weapons would be a very modest addition- it's basically the Preferred Enemy rule, attached to only Bolt weapons, and only on the To-Wound roll. It's not the "triple hits on To-Hit of 6" that Tesla gets, and it's definitely not on the level of Bladestorm with it's pseudo-Rending effects.

The other issue is that the existing weapon traits can't really be tacked on to Stormbolters without making Stormbolters either mechanically or logically ridiculous- or both. Shred doesn't make sense and would be inordinately powerful, while Rending would not only be nonsensical but would have immense numbers of player in arms- particularly Eldar (though I'd enjoy Eldar players flipping out over Rending Stormbolters, TBQH). Changing the weapon type to, as I've seen mentioned, "Salvo 2/4" instead of "Assault 2" is completely slowed, as PAGKs then get completely screwed over and Stormbolters become worthless on non-relentless models.

It's not like a Hotshot Volley Gun, where it's AP3 and even has the benefit of slightly longer range than the primary weapon it's fielded alongside (the Hotshot Lasgun). Adding Pinning doesn't really have a lot of logic to it when so many weapons that should theoretically have pinning (Heavy Stubbers/Bolters, Burst Cannons, and Splinter Cannons, for example). I'd certainly take Pinning because it's something, but it just isn't enough.

Yoyoyo wrote:
The easiest way to address poor firepower is to simply the drop the effective points cost for the underperforming weapon, and let that unit wrap the savings into an upgrade. If you drop 25 pts across 5 Terminators, that pays for 2x Heavy Bolters with 5 left over. Let's compare:

5x Storm Bolter = 10x S4 AP5 shots at 24"

Versus:

3x Storm Bolter = 6x S4 AP5 shots at 24"
2x Heavy Bolter = 6x S5 AP4 shots at 36"

Obviously the second unit has much better firepower. Sling the HB under one arm so you don't touch melee attacks, and you're good to go. We increase firepower without dumping extra rules on players, or new weapons. Everyone already knows what a heavy bolter does right? If this still isn't enough, how about dropping 8ppm? You just added two free assault cannons with Rending, and that's an established rule to all 40k players. So basically you can tune this under the current ruleset.

I think you made a very cogent analysis BTW. I just think extra rules, especially very specific ones, are an overcomplicated solution. It's less flashy but it's better to keep things simple.

Stormbolters lacking in firepower, as I've mentioned, isn't limited to Terminators; it's an across-the-board issue for any and every model that can carry a Stormbolter. This being said, I'd also love to see either 2x heavy/special for 5 men in Terminator squads, or increased heavy weapon selection. I also do not think Heavy Bolters would be a good Terminator weapon, as they really just come off as being a cheaper AC option, especially considering the only advantage a HB has over the AC, profile-wise, is that it has 12" more range. The only other failings an AC can be ascribed is cost and platform availability. Having access to, say, Plasma Cannons, Multi-Meltas, or maybe even a Grav-Cannon (minus Grav-Amp, as that should be a Centurion-specific gizmo) would be very desirable, IMO. Though I'm not too sure about the Plasma Cannon, as PC Termies seem a little like a DA/DW shtick.

Random thought: why are Cyclone and Typhoon MLs two different weapon entries, when they have the exact same profile? Literally, the only difference between these two weapons is the name.

For the record, I don't necessarily disagree that just making them cheaper and maybe giving increased special weapon availability is a bad idea... I just don't think it's the best option when Stormbolters are underperforming across all possible conditions that Stormbolters can be used for. To me that seems less symptomatic of an overcosted platform (though Termies are too expensive for what they currently offer), but more symptomatic that a gun is just flat-out terrible.

kveldulf wrote:
The whole purpose for terminators

Is this background wise (which IMO should inform some of the TT game design), or is this the "they do this thing better than most of that armies options so this thing should be their role" purpose?

Because if it's the former then the primary purpose of Terminator-equipped Marines was to be an incredibly durable infantry unit when fighting in extreme close quarters and boarding actions. There's a reason why the titular Space Hulk game has only Terminator models, after all- and it's primarily due to the better resilience of a TDA-equipped Marine in the extremely close confines of a Space Hulk than a dude in PA.

kveldulf wrote:
is to reliably soak enemy fire, particularly small arms and to complete an objective that normal infantry, space marine dude or not, would find difficult to complete (generally).

....I suppose that this is halfway accurate to the fluff. It's just that this feels... off, somehow. Like you're really close to the mark but for whatever reason you just barely miss it. Part of this, I feel, is that Terminators are already durable- at least in a vacuum- against average small arms. For the record, anything with "Rending", "Bladestorm", "S6+", or "AP2" is most definitely not average. Against AP2 Termies die easily, and I consider this to be reasonable and acceptable- Terminators do need a counter, and AP2 weapons are an acceptable one. The catch is that a great many S6/S7 weapons that the meta is obsessed with are also AP2 or even AP1, so it doubly screws over Termies.

kveldulf wrote:
Making them the equivalent of devastators - in the realm of firepower - won't fix their role issue.

I would agree with this, insofar as Terminators are schizophrenic in purpose since most of their guns are geared towards anti-horde infantry, while their widespread power/chain fists are anti-MC/-heavy armor. Two very different kinds of targets, that require Terminators to attempt to fight both kinds simultaneously to be even remotely considered "cost effective"... and that's being very optimistic in itself.

kveldulf wrote:
Back in the day, I remember when terminators felt like a tank @ 3d6 3+ armour save and then calculate modifiers (If I remember right - was very young). Since then, things have felt pretty marginalized for terminators. Granted, the rules during this time were built more for a wargame rpg than a straight up wargame (faster dice resolution) but dang, they look a lot more useful. Whoever decided to make the new terminator rule template in 3rd, didn't really understand how much terminator use revolved around their armour save (thus its role). They didn't translate this very well, no, not even close.

3rd left gradations in wargear rules for brevity, and in the process, left the tactical idea of terminator armour in 2nd - translating/representing it very poorly for 3rd.

Part of the problem is that the goalposts used to define "durable" have, in the changes between editions (especially going into 6th and then 7th), changed a great deal. I think it was Martel that once said that for something to be durable in the 7th-edition meta it had to be T5+ minimum. Of course, introducing 2+ armor MCs should probably have been stopped from ever happening, as that more than anything else IMO has devalued 2+ armor infantry like Termies. It also doesn't help that the primary transport options for Termies are extremely expensive and outside two FW flyers none of them can carry a full-strength Terminator squad, but that's neither here nor there.

 NorseSig wrote:
I think if we buffed storm bolter to salvo 2/3 it would help terminators get a bit more firepower without boosting grey knights to a crazy level. This change would make storm bolters worth their 5 points. Maybe make terminators with storm bolters and power weapons (sword, axe, maul) 30ppm and allow them up to 4 ranged upgrade options and you can buy termintaors after the first 5 for 28ppm. In smaller games the 5 terminators would be standard and in bigger games people would take 10 for more ablative wounds. Allow upgrades to powerfist and chainfist as well.

Saw this, and immediately saw a dumb idea (I apologize for the insult, but it's still true). Stormbolters being made "Salvo" anything is bad because PAGKs are screwed over even harder than they already are, and there is literally no reason to ever give any non-Relentless/SnP model a Stormbolter ever. I've seen so many suggestions to make Stormbolters Salvo that it makes me wonder if people remember the part of the Salvo rules that makes them cut their range in half when the firing model moves.

A Salvo 2/whatever Stormbolter is literally worse than a common Bolter if you have to move around and you're not Relentless/SnP, because you get the same RoF at 0-12", and infinity less RoF at 12-24". And no, that's not being melodramatic. If you were to actually graph that out (yay graphhammer!) then you'd see a linear progression for the Bolter, and an asymptotic progression for a moving, non-Relentless Stormbolter. It doesn't matter that you get 50% more shots at 0-12" and 200% more shots at 12-24" if you sit still. I mentioned Hotshot Volley Guns. Those work because they actually have a longer range than the weapon they accompany (HSVG is 24", Hotshot Lasgun is 18").

DE Splinter Cannons are a good example of Salvo weapons done right, as not only does it get twice as much RoF on the move, but it also has substantially greater range. When graphed a Splinter Cannon vs Rifle is still asymptotic vs linear, but the Cannon gets 200% more shots at 0-12", and 300% more shots at 12-18". Only in the (somewhat narrow) band of 18-24" does the Rifle outpace the Cannon, as this is the point at which Salvo halves Splinter Cannon range. This is also why Salvo Heavy Bolters could actually work.

Salvo special weapons (and a Salvo Stormbolter would effectively be an extra special weapon for a Marine squad, in much the same way a Combi-weapon is) only work when the special weapon has some kind of additional advantage beyond "it shoots more if you sit still". Now more than ever 40K is a game of maneuver, and weapons that force you to sit still for maximum effect but simultaneously lack range are a serious liability, IMO. HSVGs work because they get a very narrow range band where they fire more, and they have a slightly higher Strength value than Hotshot Lasguns. Splinter Cannons work because they have a substantial base range advantage and a substantial RoF advantage. Grav weapons are AP2 and inflict wounds on the same roll as the target model's armor save. Psycannons are only awesome if you sit still or you have Relentless, making them a good example of why a Salvo 2/whatever Stormbolter would be instantly useless for any non-Terminator model.

imo if a model carries a Storm bolter and wears TDA they would have the following.

Twin linked up to 12 inches
2/4 Salvo up to 12 inches

That way tacs can accomplish their mission without having to reballlancing everything to suit them along the way

Currently, many things can be fixed with formations adding extra buffs but restricting you at the same time forcing you to take otherwise meh units or too many of them but making it worthwile. The above suggestion by Bishop feels like a nice formation rule. BTW, what about models carrying combi-bolters - aka CSM termies.

 koooaei wrote:
Currently, many things can be fixed with formations adding extra buffs but restricting you at the same time forcing you to take otherwise meh units or too many of them but making it worthwile. The above suggestion by Bishop feels like a nice formation rule. BTW, what about models carrying combi-bolters - aka CSM termies.

Fixing a problem like this with a formation sounds pretty cheesy. On multiple levels, and multiple types of cheese.

 kveldulf wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Currently, many things can be fixed with formations adding extra buffs but restricting you at the same time forcing you to take otherwise meh units or too many of them but making it worthwile. The above suggestion by Bishop feels like a nice formation rule. BTW, what about models carrying combi-bolters - aka CSM termies.

Fixing a problem like this with a formation sounds pretty cheesy. On multiple levels, and multiple types of cheese.

Helbrutes are meh. Formations make them effective. What's so bad about it?

 koooaei wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Currently, many things can be fixed with formations adding extra buffs but restricting you at the same time forcing you to take otherwise meh units or too many of them but making it worthwile. The above suggestion by Bishop feels like a nice formation rule. BTW, what about models carrying combi-bolters - aka CSM termies.

Fixing a problem like this with a formation sounds pretty cheesy. On multiple levels, and multiple types of cheese.

Helbrutes are meh. Formations make them effective. What's so bad about it?

Giving more options to terminators - without it being chapter specific - is too universal a change. Why not just put in the SM codex or faq?

Making them ( or any unit) only viable in a formation is gimmicky.

Also, I don't think giving them more utility options is the fix - that's just one group advocating that. The issues that I see that needs addressing is their save resolution or AP weakness. If these were 'fixed' in a formation, that's too extreme of a bonus to be fixed like that. It would be the gouda of cheese formations if it do so. I don't think formations are intended to overshadow army list entries that much.

 koooaei wrote:
Currently, many things can be fixed with formations adding extra buffs but restricting you at the same time forcing you to take otherwise meh units or too many of them but making it worthwile. The above suggestion by Bishop feels like a nice formation rule. BTW, what about models carrying combi-bolters - aka CSM termies.

formations just feels like bloating a unit with excessive rules to force it to work than actually fixing the unit so it works.

Im not that vested in how CM works but how about this while equipped with a Combi bolter and wearing TDA the Combi part of the weapon can be fired again with the gets hot rule added, the gets hot rule cant be modified by any means. In this case Chaos termies would have acess to greater firepower but it would come at the increased risk of self damage.

An idea for lightning claws to make them more attractive, in the movment phase any TDA equipped with LC may roll D3 for additional movment, while rolling for charge range roll an additional D3 dice for each LC equipped, and measure from the closest TDA+ LC to the enemy, if the charge succeeds. would give TDA + LC a greater sense of mobility and more reliably make an assault. You still cant break unit cohesion.

"The whole purpose for terminators is to reliably soak enemy fire"

This is impossible now. This job is lost to them forever.

I understand that simply being an elite unit shouldn't automatically make it cost more. The thing is...it does. There is no way a Howling Banshee should cost what it does, it is barely more effective than Storm Guardians, yet nearly costs twice as much. Of course, in GW's mind a power sword costs 15 points more in a Storm Guardian Squad too. I choose Banshees/Storm Guardians, as they are much easier to number crunch, with all Special rules lining up well.

Face it GW has no idea what it is doing. I also now see where are disagreement stems from. You want them balanced to your troops choice, and I am looking to balance it against other Elite Choices. Thus the difference in opinion on ppm change. Based on using Tactical Squads, yes 28ppm is fine, but now we have to go adjust every other book to balance their Elite Choices to their Troop Choices. Some of them will adjust the other way too, just because things like the Riptide are under priced for it's capabilities as compared to the Troops Choice.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
I understand that simply being an elite unit shouldn't automatically make it cost more. The thing is...it does. There is no way a Howling Banshee should cost what it does, it is barely more effective than Storm Guardians, yet nearly costs twice as much. Of course, in GW's mind a power sword costs 15 points more in a Storm Guardian Squad too. I choose Banshees/Storm Guardians, as they are much easier to number crunch, with all Special rules lining up well.

Face it GW has no idea what it is doing. I also now see where are disagreement stems from. You want them balanced to your troops choice, and I am looking to balance it against other Elite Choices. Thus the difference in opinion on ppm change. Based on using Tactical Squads, yes 28ppm is fine, but now we have to go adjust every other book to balance their Elite Choices to their Troop Choices. Some of them will adjust the other way too, just because things like the Riptide are under priced for it's capabilities as compared to the Troops Choice.

Sternguard don't suffer this elite penalty you speak of. Neither do Riptides. That's just two examples. I don't want terminators balanced to troops.I want them balanced to elites that don't suck. It sounds like Incubi suck. That's not a good balancing point. Sounds like they need buffed to.

35 ppm
Allow second heavy

In the current meta, will still get destroyed, because everyone stacks ap2. But would be a lot more fair, and allow more options.

Too much, and we're just chasing power/complexity creep.

Aren't Sternguard just a Tactical Squad moved to another slot though? The Riptide is another case, as the formula I run doesn't do well with Monstrous Creatures, or Vehicles.

Banshees, Scorpions, Incubi, Mandrakes, Stealth Suits, and Wracks do suffer the Elite Penalty. I'm sure I can find more if I had more books. It also doesn't mean my formula is right, but it works on most Troops choices, the offending units tend to be specialized units in a troops slot, like the Termigants, or was it Hormagaunts, anyway the one with no ranged weapons ended up being like 2 points to expensive in the previous Tyranid Codex. I haven't seen the new Codex so haven't checked for newer numbers. I've also recently adjusted my formula for adding in AP on melee weapons.

It use to be that Special rules were a "outnumbered" bonus, like ATSKNF was a bonus to Marines Because they cost 15 points at the time, and most non marine armies would outnumber them and overwhelm their ability to damage them, so they made it harder for them to completely flee the battle, thus giving them the ability to do more damage when lesser units would have fled the table completely. Yes I've been doing the "balance the game" thing a while. Each edition takes me back to square one, but time helps make the formula work better each time. Some one on the boards here has one for vehicles, haven't had the time to fully go over it though, the feed back from others seems to be good.

Maybe as pointed out, the use of terminator armor is so wide-spread that what little balance they have is easily broken with how they fit in the meta.
Sternguard and Centurions compete with them.
HQ use them as an option so can easily break things.
GK's people still hate for being over powered.
So maybe the title is a fallacy?
No easy way to fix.

Okay, keeping in mind fluff AND good game-play:
How about some silly rule like "Combat platform." OR "Braced power armor." where if the model wearing Terminator armor has not moved that turn, gets a X2 on base assault non-template weapon and melee weapons attack.

So, the Storm bolter becomes 4 strength 4 shots if he has not moved. Any weapon not an assault profile does not get the bonus (flamers, Heavy weapons).
One extra hit with the power fist/lightening claw/thunder hammer if he has not moved in movement phase or assaulted a unit.

OR tweak this a bit to reduce all kinds of Lawyer wording "Integrated weapons platform" and say that only the weapons "out of the box" for that selection get the X2 due to being designed with those standard weapons in mind (Storm bolter, power fist/power weapon // lightening claw pair, thunder hammer,storm shield).

I am thinking around the line of extended hitting power in a protracted defensive fight, Sternguard are lightly armored in comparison but hit hard, Centurions heavier weapons no Inv., Termies we are looking for more durability and consistent damage output.

They need to have a niche or stay dusty on the shelf.

The title is a total fallacy. This is not an easy fix.

 kveldulf wrote:
The whole purpose for terminators is to reliably soak enemy fire, particularly small arms and to complete an objective that normal infantry, space marine dude or not, would find difficult to complete (generally).

At the end of the day Terminators are still an infantry unit. That's why they have access to DS and transports, rather than footslogging across the board like MCs and Walkers. The latter can soak fire more effectively having AV or High Toughness, 3 to 6 wounds or HP, and good armor or invul saves. And obviously that is correct. But in truth don't Dreadnoughts really suffer from a lot of the same durability problems as Terminators under sustained S6/S7 fire?

Massed S3-S5 fire that can't really hurt T8 or AV12 is a problem for Terminators, but that's EXACTLY why you are supposed to have an AV12+ transport to ferry them to the fight and help soften a blob up (artillery can help for DS). So now you're into the question of their deployment options again.

Martel732 wrote:
Sternguard don't suffer this elite penalty you speak of. Neither do Riptides. That's just two examples. I don't want terminators balanced to troops.I want them balanced to elites that don't suck. It sounds like Incubi suck. That's not a good balancing point. Sounds like they need buffed to.

Martel, the problem is there's already LOTS of underpowered units in the game. The nerf bat should have come out long ago against these "choices that don't suck". When you're stacking 60-80% of your list into 1-2 "competitive" unit types there is a problem. WS/WK, Riptide/HYMP, Flyrants, Knights, Daemon Prince/Fateweaver, various deathstars, etc.

We perhaps should mention that all these units are very good versus Terminators (S5/S6/S7 spam, AP2, psykers, or MC-level melee). There's not an easy fix because short of making Terminators completely broken, you can't get around the meta!

But terminators aren't good against small arms either. Or Ork boyz. What exactly are they good against then? The answer is nothing. They might be the worst unit in the marine codex.

Terminators either need to be fixed defensively, so they become better bullet sponges without increasing damage output, or defence stays the same and output is increased.

Salvo 2/4 storm bolters (maybe with shred?)

or

+4 FNP.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Terminators either need to be fixed defensively, so they become better bullet sponges without increasing damage output, or defence stays the same and output is increased.

Salvo 2/4 storm bolters (maybe with shred?)

or

+4 FNP.

4+ FNP instead of an Invulnerable save would be a good plan maybe with a small price drop. Makes them tough, and gets rid of that stupid 5++ that was added because of the durability complaints in the first place. The Anti Tank weapon should nuke a Terminator, and the small arms fire will receive 2 saves against it, as well as those not anti tank weapons that have AP 2, like the Starcannon and such.

Alternatively you could go with standard FnP and leave the 5++. No price drop on this though.

Martel732 wrote:
But terminators aren't good against small arms either. Or Ork boyz. What exactly are they good against then? The answer is nothing. They might be the worst unit in the marine codex.

They're very points-efficient if you can get them into melee with something bigger than they are that can't paste them at Initiative; the problem, of course, is that's a pretty rare situation. If, by some miracle, your Terminators live long enough to get into melee they can down tanks, Riptides, and Wraithknights fairly well.

How badly would 5x Lightning Claw Terminators lose against a 30-strong Boyz unit, including a Boss Nob w/Big Choppa and Bosspole?

It's 200pts to 200pts, assume no charges or special rules.