The easiest way to fix AP and terminators

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.

**Brennonjw**

anyway, back to the original topic. Giving them eternal warrior + 1 additional wound would all but fix them I think.

**Bharring**

5 termies
5x3x(1/2)(3/4)(1) = 45/8 dead Orks. About 6 dead Boys
24 remain
24x3x(1/2)(1/3)(1/6) = 72/36 dead Termies. 2.
(Unsure about Big Choppa, minor difference unless its AP2)

Orks test at -4. Probably stay, good chance Mob Rule hurts them. (EV on losing some guys?)

So, hitting GEQ with massed AP3 isn't really working great, but nearly gets the job done.

Termies could use a little help. But if it were 28ppm, it'd be laughable.

**dominuschao**

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.

Are you speaking from a game-play standpoint or fluff?
Maybe I play a less narrative version of the game then some but making terminators durable is something an opponent just doesn't care about. They aren't mobile they aren't killy and they don't have objective secured outside of GK/DA. They literally don't have anything worth caring about so they can't be effective bullet sponges because there isn't a good reason to direct firepower at them. In fact added durability is a deterrent. Its like shooting at an invisible unit. I do see a conflict with devastators if their heavy weapons were increased but then again every single 'fix' ends up causing some form of competition for inclusion. Otoh devs aren't great either barring certain chapter tactics like sentinels of terra.

**Bharring**

+1W sounds reasonable. EW does not.

Fail that 2+, and that missile *will* destroy you. Fail that 3++/5++, and an Orbatal Bombardment should kill you. But Guardsmen are gonna have a bad day with their s3.

**Martel732**

AnomanderRake wrote:
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.

Counting on miracles is a good way to lose with a list that already has a small model count.

**koooaei**

Bharring wrote:
5 termies
5x3x(1/2)(3/4)(1) = 45/8 dead Orks. About 6 dead Boys
24 remain
24x3x(1/2)(1/3)(1/6) = 72/36 dead Termies. 2.
(Unsure about Big Choppa, minor difference unless its AP2)

Orks test at -4. Probably stay, good chance Mob Rule hurts them. (EV on losing some guys?)

So, hitting GEQ with massed AP3 isn't really working great, but nearly gets the job done.

Termies could use a little help. But if it were 28ppm, it'd be laughable.

To be fair, it's generally around 5-15 boyz + nob striking - not all the squad.

Also, power fist wounds 5/6 times - not 3/4 but striking last.

If you mathhammer it: Termies charge a bunch of boyz - boyz are generally spread out for fear of blasts and to cover wider area. Let's assume, termies don't use a bottle-neck trick which is super-effective against hordes. Let's also assume that the character can't issue challenge to a nob which he absolutely should. Let's say ork's cunning enough to put nob out of challenge radius.

Termies shoot and inflict ~ 3 wounds with just bolters and some more with special weapons.

~10 - 15 boyz shoot overwatch resulting in ~ 0.17 wounds
termies charge, boyz strike:

Sarge strikes before boyz if not chargin through terrain for 0.75 wounds with a power sword

`10-15 boyz can strike ~ 1 dead termie

termies and a nob strike strike - 3 power fist termies kill 3 boyz, nob kills 0.83 termie.

Resulting in 3+ dead boyz from shooting than ~4 dead boyz in mellee and ~2 dead termies.

Than boyz most likely fail ld7 - 2 and take a few mob rule hits resulting in 1-2 extra dead boyz.

Still not worth it for termies. And not that it's unexpected - termies don't work really well against tarpit cheap mellee-oriented hordes. Now if you pull off a charge on something like ork bikers, nobz, flash gitz or walkers - termies would win like no big deal. But hey, that's how orkses are supposed to work in the first place! We're an army of bullies.

**Bharring**

PF Termies get 2 attacks. That was claws, as requested.

**Yoyoyo**

koooaei wrote:
To be fair, it's generally around 5-15 boyz + nob striking - not all the squad.

Also, power fist wounds 5/6 times - not 3/4

I was asking about Assault Termies w/Lightning Claws, not Tac Termies w/Power Fists.

Be interesting to see though, you'd double out a Power Klaw Nob but otherwise suffer from not striking at initiative.

Edit: Ninja'd

koooaei wrote:
To be fair, it's generally around 5-15 boyz + nob striking - not all the squad.

So I guess it's basically a wash? Though Sweeping Advance could potentially hurt other GEQ units.

**Bharring**

Seems like that's an engagement Claw Termies should win. But don't.

**koooaei**

Oh, sorry - missed that. I'd also expect FNP against claw termies.

Claw sarge has one tremendous advantage - he neutralises nob - and that's half of the whole ork's squad killiness. No ork in his right mind would throw a nob at a claw sarge even if the odds are even. Nobs are too important. While he might risk it vs a power sword one if situation calls for it.

But as an ork player, i'd definitely NOT accept a challenge with a nob until it's the only thing left to do.

**Bharring**

I was wondering about that, but it looks like accepting with a PK gives you a very good chance to win the engagement.

**koooaei**

Bharring wrote:
I was wondering about that, but it looks like accepting with a PK gives you a very good chance to win the engagement.

Sarge has ~20-30% chance to kill a nob outright. For an ork player it's not just a chance to loose a nob. It's a chance to loose the whole squad. Nobz are important for s8-9 ap 2 attacks and for mob rule with BP. We're ld7 which means that we have ~45% to fail ld. And than we got only Mob rule that relies either in being in mellee, squad number or having a character. Neither of these will be sufficient enough for what remains of the mob after the engagement with termies if you somehow happen to not flee in the process.

Tl: Dr - Nobz are too important to risk challenges even vs regular sarges not telling about LC ones with 5++

**Bharring**

But then, you're preserving your nob, but risking the entire squad?

I suppose the margin should be sufficient to eventually wear them down with Boys, but isn't it too much of a risk? Wouldn't there be a 20%+ risk of getting broken (not swept - Termies) before winning?

**Yoyoyo**

I think that's kind of a rabbit hole balance wise. Since LCs are the baseline for Assault Termies, and Boyz are very much a baseline unit, keeping things simple (Choppa Nob) allows you to see if things are overcosted.

It's pretty simple to control effectiveness by the adjusting the ppm of the LC Terminators against Boyz, then increase the price of the TH/SS upgrade subsequently. Given all units can fight at once, Bharring's formula, and no losses from Mob Rule:

8 LC Termies kill 9 Boyz while losing 2;
6 LC kills 7 Boyz while losing 1;
5 LC kill 6 Boyz while losing 1;
4 LC kill 4 Boyz while losing 0;
4 LC kill 4 Boyz, eliminating the Boyz squad.

Mob rule and issues of base contact in assault complicate things a little, in which case this scenario is even more lopsided. But at 200pts, at 25ppm, LC Termies would simply destroy Boyz (though GEQ blobs can work as a tarpit). Against MEQs, they would do even better, leveraging that LC AP3. We should do another scenario.

Their survivability in CC isn't bad in this case, it's simply costing and delivering them into combat.

Edit: Spaced out a bit, but Terminators should really have the chance to sweeping advance, it synergizes well with their good saves and fits the lore as a terror weapon against regular troops.

**wildboar**

My tuppence in the ring:

Tac Termies:

30ppm, up to four models my take a Terminator Cyclone Missile Launcher for 10pts each.
Termintator Cyclone Missile Launcher: Str 6 AP4 Heavy 2. May be fired in addition to Storm Bolter. Thus not losing the iconic weapon.

Other options the same.

TH/SS

35ppm

Defensive Protocols:

Upon arriving via DS all models with this rule may re-roll armour saves until the start of their next turn.

Helps mitigate the fish in a barrel syndrome after DS'ing. Maybe a bit too much?? Dunno.

**NorseSig**

Whiskey144 wrote:
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.

Oh, that's ok if you think it's dumb. I just take into account the poster and his obvious motivation for an overpowered cheap upgrade that originally was a terminator only item back when TDA didn't give relentless. You clearly expect something that is a 5 point upgrade to have a lot more dakka. Maybe you think stormbolters should be assault 5. Again, storm bolters were originally meant to be on terminators so it would make sense, and fitting in the fluff to make them better on that platform. See, I can be an arrogant, condescending jerk too.

**endlesswaltz123**

megatrons2nd wrote:
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.

Hmmm, I never thought of that really, I was thinking give them 4+ FNP on top of the invulnerable save, but that would give them 2 saves against a lascannnon (which is unreasonable) but also 2 against plasma (which I don't really think is, as they are one of the main problems for termies).

4+ FNP would give them a decent chance of surviving plasma in general, but also not giving them 2 against a lascannon.

Maybe.... 4+ FNP on top of the 2+, with the option to once per game turn, re-rollable FNP if they are all base to base (like the deathwing Knights), which would also make them slightly more secure when deep striking unless the enemy want to shell out a LOT of heavy anti-tank firepower.

**Yoyoyo**

More scenarios with LC Terminators.

8 LC Termies (200pts, 25ppm) would kill 6 of 7 Triarch Praetorians (196pts, 28ppm) or 6 of 8 Lychguard (200pts, 25ppm) in one turn, with 2 Necron models bouncing back each on a 5+ RP to kill 2 or 3 LC Termies respectively. 5 Wraiths with Whip Coils (215pts, 43ppm) can't get through the 2+ armor, but with Rending and Swiftstrike they can at least take out 2 LC's first before losing 2 themselves in the first round.

Let's look at the faster initiative factions!

10x Incubi (200pts, 20ppm) would take out about 7 LC Termies in the first round, I5 AP2 making all the difference. The lone remaining LC would kill one unlucky Incubi, DE maintaining total mastery in CC in this case. Without an Invul or FNP save, or boosted initiative, LC Termies stand no chance. It's even worse with Power from Pain! An Invul/FNP save here would make a big difference, but against anything with lower initiative, at 25ppm LC Terminators are doing well.

15 Tyranid Genestealers (215pts, 14ppm) do very well with I6 Rending, kiling 5 LC Termies out of 8 in the first turn. The surviving 3x LC Terminators kill 4x Genestealers in return, the LC damage is actually very good but the initiative is a killer. 3x Lictors (150pts, 50ppm) win as well, but 6x LC Termies (150pts) can just barely down a single Lictor out of a pack of three if they stack every wound on one.

25ppm actually seems pretty reasonable for a LC Terminator, 40ppm is just terrible. They do need help to get around their I4 against elite infantry from the faster factions, either through negating initiative or FNP/Invul saves to help against AP2 and Rending. However, neither Genestealers, Lictors or Incubi are nearly as resilient against small arms as Terminators, which can be taken as a form of balance.

**NorseSig**

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
megatrons2nd wrote:
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.

Hmmm, I never thought of that really, I was thinking give them 4+ FNP on top of the invulnerable save, but that would give them 2 saves against a lascannnon (which is unreasonable) but also 2 against plasma (which I don't really think is, as they are one of the main problems for termies).

4+ FNP would give them a decent chance of surviving plasma in general, but also not giving them 2 against a lascannon.

Maybe.... 4+ FNP on top of the 2+, with the option to once per game turn, re-rollable FNP if they are all base to base (like the deathwing Knights), which would also make them slightly more secure when deep striking unless the enemy want to shell out a LOT of heavy anti-tank firepower.

How would this be affected by something like the Iron Hands chapter tactics or something like an apothecary?

**SRSFACE**

@NorseSig: I'm with you, man. Complaining Salvo would hurt non-terminator units with Storm Bolters is essentially saying "this single unit in the entire game wouldn't be as good and they are already kind of bad!"

But it'd be fine. Literally no one I've ever met uses a storm bolter on a unit that isn't forced into it. That says to me it's a bad weapon. Hell, if they made it Salvo, it's still be a possible upgrade to that GK squad because at least they'd have the option of sitting on top of an objective and gaining a small rate of fire while doing so. Tactically there's potential.

Vehicles ignore salvo restrictions anyway so it'd be a minor upgrade to the entire Space Marine vehicle line. I think it makes a lot of sense, and definitely is an idea worth house-ruling to see if it's viable or not.

@Yoyoyo: Do Incubi have grenades? I don't think they do. Charging into terrain is an issue for them unless they've got some rule to ignore it I'm not aware of. If they don't, how would that incubi squad fair if it charged a squad of LC guys in cover? Alternatively, how does a thunderhammer squad hold up?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NorseSig wrote:

How would this be affected by something like the Iron Hands chapter tactics or something like an apothecary?

Simply put, it wouldn't. The higher value takes precedence.

**Yoyoyo**

SRSFACE wrote:

@Yoyoyo: Do Incubi have grenades? I don't think they do. Charging into terrain is an issue for them unless they've got some rule to ignore it I'm not aware of. If they don't, how would that incubi squad fair if it charged a squad of LC guys in cover? Alternatively, how does a thunderhammer squad hold up?

Incubi would get ripped to shreds at initiative, think one-shotted. T3 with no save and LC rerolls wounds. It'd be ugly!

Haven't looked at a TH/SS squad yet, but they are going after bigger game I think. MCs, Walkers, tanks. Looking at how they perform versus a Lictor Brood would be very interesting, since with Flesh Hooks there's no tactical way for LC Termies to outfight them. At T4, the TH/SS guys also stand a good chance of ID'ing the Lictors, so this is what you want to start transitioning into in assault.

**NorseSig**

SRSFACE wrote:
@NorseSig: I'm with you, man. Complaining Salvo would hurt non-terminator units with Storm Bolters is essentially saying "this single unit in the entire game wouldn't be as good and they are already kind of bad!"

But it'd be fine. Literally no one I've ever met uses a storm bolter on a unit that isn't forced into it. That says to me it's a bad weapon. Hell, if they made it Salvo, it's still be a possible upgrade to that GK squad because at least they'd have the option of sitting on top of an objective and gaining a small rate of fire while doing so. Tactically there's potential.

Vehicles ignore salvo restrictions anyway so it'd be a minor upgrade to the entire Space Marine vehicle line. I think it makes a lot of sense, and definitely is an idea worth house-ruling to see if it's viable or not.

@Yoyoyo: Do Incubi have grenades? I don't think they do. Charging into terrain is an issue for them unless they've got some rule to ignore it I'm not aware of. If they don't, how would that incubi squad fair if it charged a squad of LC guys in cover? Alternatively, how does a thunderhammer squad hold up?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NorseSig wrote:

How would this be affected by something like the Iron Hands chapter tactics or something like an apothecary?
Simply put, it wouldn't. The higher value takes precedence.

I just thought I would ask because some might say shouldn't Iron Hands Terminators get a better FNP. I don't despite playing Iron Hands, but then again I'd like to replace the 6+FNP part of their rules with the 30k rules ie reduce the strength of shooting by 1. Then again the Iron Hands at a certain points level can take their Primarch and get the the 6+FNP as well.

**Yoyoyo**

Ok, looked at it. 5x TH/SS Terminators (225pts, 25ppm) versus 4x Lictors (200pts, 50ppm).

Lictors kill 2 in the first round, 1 from Rending and 1 from a failed armor save. The remaining TH/SS double out 2x Lictors with ID, leaving 1 remaining. Pretty good. In this case you want to swarm them with Genestealers, they will do much, much better.

It's pretty even with 2 Lictors versus 3 Termies, but TH/SS should take it. In this case, everything look pretty fairly costed. That points to TH/SS as a 20pt upgrade, from a 25pt LC base. Though it's not like we compared LC against anything else (WK, Riptides, Knights, S5+ MCs, etc).

**Whiskey144**

NorseSig wrote:
Oh, that's ok if you think it's dumb. I just take into account the poster and his obvious motivation for an overpowered cheap upgrade that originally was a terminator only item back when TDA didn't give relentless. You clearly expect something that is a 5 point upgrade to have a lot more dakka. Maybe you think stormbolters should be assault 5. Again, storm bolters were originally meant to be on terminators so it would make sense, and fitting in the fluff to make them better on that platform. See, I can be an arrogant, condescending jerk too.

Firstly, please learn how to snip quotes. Because when your reply is a small paragraph and the quote is enormous, it makes it tedious to actually find where your thoughts are.

Secondly, Terminators with Stormbolters have worse firepower than almost any other way to get S4/AP5 shooting in a Space Marine army. You can get much better results by taking 20 Tacs, mounted in a pair of Rhinos, and then spending out for some special/heavy weapons. Taking ACs doesn't do anything to change this- 10 Termies with 2 ACs costs 440 points. If you just want ACs, then you can get two 5-man Tac squads, give them a plas or grav gun, a combi-weapon for the sarge, and throw them into a barebones Razorback with an AC.

Boom, you now have two twin-linked ACs, 4 ObSec units, 2 Plas/Grav guns, 2 Combi-weapons, and the ability to put your ObSec dudes almost anywhere on the board. Price of admission for this combination is 370 points- a whopping 70 points less than a 10-man Tac Termie squad with ACs. That's enough for a 5-man Scout Squad with sniper rifles and camo cloaks to hold a backfield objective.

Stormbolters in general need to be better because they're the primary weapon of Terminators and can be taken on almost every Imperial vehicle as a pintle-mount, and pretty much every non-unique character in an loyalist Marine or a SoB force can take one. Not only that, but SoB can take Stormbolters as a special weapon! Should Stormbolters only be better on Termies, so that they're almost entirely useless in comparison to a flamer or meltagun for a Sisters squad? Because I think that's stupid and is almost borderline "this unit in my army should be better with this gun than everyone else, just because".

The fact is that you're ignoring that the fluff has changed, and so has the game and its mechanics. Stormbolters need to be better.

Now, with that out of the way, is my proposed profile a bit much? Maybe, I don't know. But I think that at a bare minimum it would be appropriate for Stormbolters to be Assault 3, thus gaining one extra shot. It's not much, but maybe it would become a cheaper alternative than a combi-weapon, instead of the never-take that it currently is.

SRSFACE wrote:
@NorseSig: I'm with you, man. Complaining Salvo would hurt non-terminator units with Storm Bolters is essentially saying "this single unit in the entire game wouldn't be as good and they are already kind of bad!"

But it'd be fine. Literally no one I've ever met uses a storm bolter on a unit that isn't forced into it. That says to me it's a bad weapon. Hell, if they made it Salvo, it's still be a possible upgrade to that GK squad because at least they'd have the option of sitting on top of an objective and gaining a small rate of fire while doing so. Tactically there's potential.

Vehicles ignore salvo restrictions anyway so it'd be a minor upgrade to the entire Space Marine vehicle line. I think it makes a lot of sense, and definitely is an idea worth house-ruling to see if it's viable or not.

Making Stormbolters Salvo will not change the fact that there's only two ways Stormbolters are hitting the field:

1) a unit/model comes with one stock
2) as a spare gun to soak Weapon Destroyed results, so that a much more useful gun (like an Exorcist Launcher, or a Demolisher Cannon) is more likely to remain in the fight.

Complaining that Salvo Stormbolters would never be taken by non-Relentless infantry models that could help it, is valid. PAGKs are already kind of bad, Salvo SBs would make this problem even worse. Stormbolters are already never taken by any SM/SoB characters that have the option to, changing them from Assault 2 to Salvo whatever isn't going to change that.

The problem with Salvo for Stormbolters isn't that it cuts down the RoF if you move. It's the range loss. A Salvo 2/whatever Stormbolter is almost totally inferior to a regular Bolter, on account of never being able to eclipse a Bolter when moving around, and especially not anywhere beyond 12".

A good example of what that would look like is if you consider the DA book, and the dakka banner that they get which changes Bolters from Rapid Fire to Salvo 2/4. There are only two use cases for this banner:

1) You form a gunline. A tightly packed gunline that will get many pie plates to the face and then cease to exist.
2) You get a bunch of bikers together, and unleash 4 S4/AP5 shots that are also twin-linked. Because Bikes are Relentless and don't care about Salvo penalties.

Obviously one of these is actually a good idea, though I leave it as an exercise for the reader to discern which one that is.

In any case, Salvo Stormbolters will get used to make a gunline... which is bad game design. OR, they will only be fielded when a player has either no choice in the matter (IE, comes stock and can't be replaced), or the platform is Relentless.

In other words, best case? Salvo Stormbolters continue the status quo, with the minor caveat that those models which carry Stormbolters are slightly better under certain conditions. Worst case? Terminators and vehicles are the only times Stormbolters ever appear on the field.

Which is bad, IMO, especially considering that Stormbolters are a special weapon choice for Sisters players, and an option for almost every Marine/Sisters character in the entire game.

ADDENDUM: Forgot to go back through some other comments between here and my previous reply.

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.

So that's an excuse to allow Terminators to be blatantly and horrifically overcosted? Howling Banshees and Storm Guardians having cost issues is a separate problem. If it matters that much to you, then make a thread about it. I'm even going to take your word for it that Banshees cost too much for what they offer, since I don't really know. Since I don't really know, then I'd even throw my two cents in in favor of changes to make Banshees fairly costed.

megatrons2nd wrote:
Face it GW has no idea what it is doing.

By that logic, we should all give up and go home, since GW will almost certainly never see this thread and then make changes based on our feedback.

megatrons2nd wrote:
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.

No, that's not the point of that comparison. My point is that Terminators do not offer any useful increase in capability compared to their competition. When you can fill your minimum required Troops choice to bring the same degree of firepower that Terminators can, in a more mobile form with more bodies, for the same price, then there's almost no reason to ever take Terminators. Why should I waste an Elites slot (not that Marines get many good Elites, but still) on something I can get in my Troops slots (of which I have twice as many), for the same point cost?

Now factor in the problem that 20 Tacs have just as many Bolter shots at 24", and twice as many at 12", compared to Terminators. And they get access to plas/grav/melta weapons. And cheap-as-chips transports to put them wherever you want.

Another factor in Termies vs Tac Marines is that the two units basically do the same job in the SM army. Riptides and FWs do very different things.

megatrons2nd wrote:
Aren't Sternguard just a Tactical Squad moved to another slot though?

No; Sternguard have Veteran statlines (+1A, +1Ld compared to regular Marines), and come with Special Issue Ammunition, allowing them to choose several different profiles for their bolters; these profiles include a 2+ poison, ignores cover, AP3, and +6"/AP4 options. Sternguard also have the option to bring double special or double heavy, can take HFs (unlike Tac squads), and give every single Marine in the squad a combi-weapon.

You could, for example, take two 5-man units, all with combi-weapons, for less than the price of 10 Termies with two ACs. You can shave off ten points by using a single squad and then optionally Combat Squad them, and you've got around 100 points to play with. More than enough to give the squad a Razorback with a twin-linked AC, if you're obsessed with ACs anyway. You can mix in HFs, plas/grav/melta, and different transport/squad arrangement options to taste- when ten Sternguard all with combi-weapons costs almost 100 points less than ten Termies, then you've got room to play around with their equipment and transport options.

megatrons2nd wrote:
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.

If other models suffer an "Elites penalty" where they are overcosted just because of the slot they are available in, then make a thread to discuss what could/should be done about it. Don't complain that other armies have "Overcosted Elites Syndrome" and try and use it as an excuse for why Terminators should not be cheaper or better. A far better approach is to say "hey, these units also have similar issues (IE, are overcosted/underperforming), what should we do to fix them?" instead of whining about it and trying to say that if some units have this problem then all of them should.

Because I can tell you that Sternguard certainly don't seem to suffer from "overcosted Elites Syndrome". I don't think Dreads do either, but Dreads have other problems.

**NorseSig**

Making Stormbolters Salvo will not change the fact that there's only two ways Stormbolters are hitting the field:

1) a unit/model comes with one stock
2) as a spare gun to soak Weapon Destroyed results, so that a much more useful gun (like an Exorcist Launcher, or a Demolisher Cannon) is more likely to remain in the fight.

Complaining that Salvo Stormbolters would never be taken by non-Relentless infantry models that could help it, is valid. PAGKs are already kind of bad, Salvo SBs would make this problem even worse. Stormbolters are already never taken by any SM/SoB characters that have the option to, changing them from Assault 2 to Salvo whatever isn't going to change that.

The problem with Salvo for Stormbolters isn't that it cuts down the RoF if you move. It's the range loss. A Salvo 2/whatever Stormbolter is almost totally inferior to a regular Bolter, on account of never being able to eclipse a Bolter when moving around, and especially not anywhere beyond 12".

A good example of what that would look like is if you consider the DA book, and the dakka banner that they get which changes Bolters from Rapid Fire to Salvo 2/4. There are only two use cases for this banner:

1) You form a gunline. A tightly packed gunline that will get many pie plates to the face and then cease to exist.
2) You get a bunch of bikers together, and unleash 4 S4/AP5 shots that are also twin-linked. Because Bikes are Relentless and don't care about Salvo penalties.

Obviously one of these is actually a good idea, though I leave it as an exercise for the reader to discern which one that is.

In any case, Salvo Stormbolters will get used to make a gunline... which is bad game design. OR, they will only be fielded when a player has either no choice in the matter (IE, comes stock and can't be replaced), or the platform is Relentless.

In other words, best case? Salvo Stormbolters continue the status quo, with the minor caveat that those models which carry Stormbolters are slightly better under certain conditions. Worst case? Terminators and vehicles are the only times Stormbolters ever appear on the field.

Which is bad, IMO, especially considering that Stormbolters are a special weapon choice for Sisters players, and an option for almost every Marine/Sisters character in the entire game.

My intention for salvo stormbolters is that they keep their range.

Another alternative might be is storm bolters act like a assault 2 24" pistol and grant an extra attack even if the weapon has Specialist but excluding two-handed for obvious reasons or they could forgo the extra attack to shoot at full BS with the storm bolter during overwatch.

**Whiskey144**

As in, the Salvo range penalty would be ignored by Stormbolters?

I mean, if that's the case then for one it's not really a Salvo weapon (as it ignores one of the core mechanics of Salvo weaponry), and for two that halfway makes sense. I apologize for some of my aggression on the matter, it's just that I really do believe that Salvo mechanics as-is and applied to Stormbolters would not actually change the status quo, and would probably make it worse in fact.

I don't really like the "Stormbolter=big pistol" option, as Stormbolters are actually quite substantial weapons even if they are one-handed by Termies, though the "full BS in overwatch" is an interesting idea.

The only issue I see with it is that you'll probably still be tarpitted, or wiped out anyways, depending on what unit in particular is carrying an overwatch-buffed Stormbolter.

That said, I do still stand by the fact that Stormbolters with Assault 3 would be a usable improvement over the current- particularly in reference to Sisters, since for whatever strange reason the SoB squads get Stormbolters as a special weapon (side note: Sisters squads need better special/heavy selections).

**endlesswaltz123**

NorseSig wrote:
endlesswaltz123 wrote:
megatrons2nd wrote:
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.

Hmmm, I never thought of that really, I was thinking give them 4+ FNP on top of the invulnerable save, but that would give them 2 saves against a lascannnon (which is unreasonable) but also 2 against plasma (which I don't really think is, as they are one of the main problems for termies).

4+ FNP would give them a decent chance of surviving plasma in general, but also not giving them 2 against a lascannon.

Maybe.... 4+ FNP on top of the 2+, with the option to once per game turn, re-rollable FNP if they are all base to base (like the deathwing Knights), which would also make them slightly more secure when deep striking unless the enemy want to shell out a LOT of heavy anti-tank firepower.

How would this be affected by something like the Iron Hands chapter tactics or something like an apothecary?

Iron hands would get no benefit (they shouldn't have many suits anyway, fluffy), well either they don't get any benefit, or they get a 6+ inv save also but are restricted to either 1 term or 1 assault squad (again, fluffy), and apoth's would make it so one failed FNP per turn could be re-rolled rather than boosting it also.

**NorseSig**

Whiskey144 wrote:
As in, the Salvo range penalty would be ignored by Stormbolters?

I mean, if that's the case then for one it's not really a Salvo weapon (as it ignores one of the core mechanics of Salvo weaponry), and for two that halfway makes sense. I apologize for some of my aggression on the matter, it's just that I really do believe that Salvo mechanics as-is and applied to Stormbolters would not actually change the status quo, and would probably make it worse in fact.

I don't really like the "Stormbolter=big pistol" option, as Stormbolters are actually quite substantial weapons even if they are one-handed by Termies, though the "full BS in overwatch" is an interesting idea.

The only issue I see with it is that you'll probably still be tarpitted, or wiped out anyways, depending on what unit in particular is carrying an overwatch-buffed Stormbolter.

That said, I do still stand by the fact that Stormbolters with Assault 3 would be a usable improvement over the current- particularly in reference to Sisters, since for whatever strange reason the SoB squads get Stormbolters as a special weapon (side note: Sisters squads need better special/heavy selections).

Yeah it isn't really salvo, but that was the best term I could come up with without a huge wall of text. Which the explaination would take anyway so fail there. I over reacted myself. Maybe make them assault 3 with a full bs during overwatch? I am worried that it has potential for being too powerful there for the 5 points it costs. Maybe the full BS overwatch ability fires at salvo 2/3.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iron hands would get no benefit (they shouldn't have many suits anyway, fluffy), well either they don't get any benefit, or they get a 6+ inv save also but are restricted to either 1 term or 1 assault squad (again, fluffy), and apoth's would make it so one failed FNP per turn could be re-rolled rather than boosting it also.

That is what I thought, but I thought I better ask for the sake of clarification.

**Yoyoyo**

Something to note y'all. Putting more wounds in the squad by adding wounds, FNP, or other saves won't increase damage output. Putting more wounds in the squad by adding more characters, will. Less models means you'll spend more time stuck in Tarpits, since you can't cut them away as quickly. You get less shooting. And you'll also be more vulnerable to getting doubled out to ID.

Doubling wounds is a solution but it's necessarily as strong as a pure points reduction. This way, you're also increasing effective damage. You also get the chance to run smaller squads and economize points, which can help list building.

For example, would you rather have:

10x Terminators for 200pts;
5x 2-wound Termies for 200pts; or
5x Terminators for 100?

It's definitely something to consider. Please not points values are not to scale

**NorseSig**

Yoyoyo wrote:
Something to note y'all. Putting more wounds in the squad by adding wounds, FNP, or other saves won't increase damage output. Putting more wounds in the squad by adding more characters, will. Less models means you'll spend more time stuck in Tarpits, since you can't cut them away as quickly. You get less shooting. And you'll also be more vulnerable to getting doubled out to ID.

Doubling wounds is a solution but it's necessarily as strong as a pure points reduction. This way, you're also increasing effective damage. You also get the chance to run smaller squads and economize points, which can help list building.

For example, would you rather have:

10x Terminators for 200pts;
5x 2-wound Termies for 200pts; or
5x Terminators for 100?

It's definitely something to consider. Please not points values are not to scale

Personally, I would take 5 Terminators for 100pts. A 4+ or 5+ FNP instead of a 5++ Invul at that price point with a bump to the ability of Stormbolters and maybe 4 heavy weapon upgrades total for the squad (the upgrades would boost price point) would go a long way to fix terminators and the TDA HQ option.