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.

Incorrect, Tac Termies are meant to be...wait for it, TACTICAL, meaning capable of both Dakka and Punching. They fit the fluff perfectly, I have said and still say a 5pt reduction would be warranted, but I would want something similar across the board for every factions elite heavy armor models.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Incorrect, Tac Termies are meant to be...wait for it, TACTICAL, meaning capable of both Dakka and Punching. They fit the fluff perfectly, I have said and still say a 5pt reduction would be warranted, but I would want something similar across the board for every factions elite heavy armor models.

So 'tactical' means a big power glove and storm bolter.... for terminators? I can see why an orc would think that...



Also, just because you give a dog a bone, like your proposed 5 pt reduction, doesn't mean that you need to give every dog in the neighborhood one too. Each army has its own synergy and isn't so directly proportional to other army lists.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Whiskey144 wrote:


I generally like this idea, minus the part where it somewhat ignores fixing Stormbolters (there's quite a few places that you can get SBs that the only reason to take it is to soak Weapon Destroyed results. Seriously, that should not be a thing).

I really could care less about improving storm bolters. I would rather just make terminators even cheaper and be done with it.



My cost point proposal would be 27 ppm with PF and Storm bolter stock. Anything else is either a swap or upgrade depending on what it is.

I wonder if, unwieldily only reduced them to I2, if that would help them out a bit more. It certainly doesn't sound like a lot, and means they are still vulnerable to weight of attacks, but it also gives them the option of taking out most standard AP2 melee weapons before they can munch the termies back, unless it's other termies holding them that is.

 kveldulf wrote:

Also, just because you give a dog a bone, like your proposed 5 pt reduction, doesn't mean that you need to give every dog in the neighborhood one too. Each army has its own synergy and isn't so directly proportional to other army lists.

Allies, anyone?

 koooaei wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

Also, just because you give a dog a bone, like your proposed 5 pt reduction, doesn't mean that you need to give every dog in the neighborhood one too. Each army has its own synergy and isn't so directly proportional to other army lists.

Allies, anyone?

I believe our context is not about including allies; its about individual factions vs each other However, your point does have some bearing; its just an indirect thing.

I don't think even GW puts that much consideration into balancing out armies (what allies have what) - determine what collectively should be or not be as a whole.

Every single solution offered so far has been broken except the 5 pt reduction in price. Sorry guys but anything more and your going to have to redo almost every other army to fix the fact that most have similar units and do about the same thing.

yes I am an ork player and I use meganobz as my example. same cost, about the same statline, orks have 1 more wound and Termies have the 5++ to counter that. Termies have better shooting and Orks have better assaulting.

Space marines are Jacks of all trades masters of none, Tac termies are good (not great, not above and beyond) at shooting and good at assault. They fill a hole in space marine lists on how best to counter MC and such. If you want to give them better shooting or buff them in any meaningful way besides a minor reduction in points then I would want my Nobz to have a similar buff. Especially since the latest codex buffed Space marines and nerfed Orks. (here comes the "BUT YOU CAN BRING A STOMPA" comments)

Then they would be nearly unbeatable.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Every single solution offered so far has been broken except the 5 pt reduction in price. Sorry guys but anything more and your going to have to redo almost every other army to fix the fact that most have similar units and do about the same thing.

yes I am an ork player and I use meganobz as my example. same cost, about the same statline, orks have 1 more wound and Termies have the 5++ to counter that. Termies have better shooting and Orks have better assaulting.

Space marines are Jacks of all trades masters of none, Tac termies are good (not great, not above and beyond) at shooting and good at assault. They fill a hole in space marine lists on how best to counter MC and such. If you want to give them better shooting or buff them in any meaningful way besides a minor reduction in points then I would want my Nobz to have a similar buff. Especially since the latest codex buffed Space marines and nerfed Orks. (here comes the "BUT YOU CAN BRING A STOMPA" comments)

I think that you are demonstrably wrong about this. Full assault cannon terminators are no worse than what Eldar trot out every game. Furthermore, terminators do not fill any meaningful role in the current space marine codex. Especially not with centurions as an option. The marines have many, many better counters to MC than terminators. In fact, I can't think of a single enemy unit that terminators actually effectively counter.

There is actually room for a great deal of improvement for terminators without breaking the game. Now bikers or centurions? Absolutely not. But as it stands, any marine player trying to use these things is crippling their own list.

propose your suggestion then to GW, when they laugh at you for trying to break the game just remember I told you so

 Ghazkuul wrote:
propose your suggestion then to GW, when they laugh at you for trying to break the game just remember I told you so

GW hasn't changed terminators since 4th ed. This is all thought experiment. The reality is that tac terminators will remain unusable by marine players who want to be even semi-competitive.

You also completely overestimate GW. These are the people that printed C: Eldar in 6th and SW, BA and GK in 5th.

'No worse than what Eldar trot out every game'

Didn't we show, earlier, that this would, in fact, make Eldar look weak, in just about every way?

40ppm for an Assault Cannon on a t4 2+5++ that kicks ass in melee too?

Bharring wrote:
'No worse than what Eldar trot out every game'

Didn't we show, earlier, that this would, in fact, make Eldar look weak, in just about every way?

40ppm for an Assault Cannon on a t4 2+5++ that kicks ass in melee too?

They'd have to be more than 40 ppm, which is probably the biggest downfall to that plan. And that wouldn't make Eldar weak in every way. WS and WK would still stomp the crap out of that unit. As well as units like War Walkers that the terminators can't get within range of because the assault is still a miserable 24". Most 2+ save armor models are just in a bad place right now and the terminator exacerbates this by having terrible offense/pt.

The best post on here is the one that said there is no easy fix. I do not like things like arbitrary rerollable saves for terminators or mutiple wounds or higher T. None of those fit to me. Getting a bigger gun? That fits.

Really?

WK:
5x4x(2/3)(1/6)(1) = 20x(1/9), or 2+ wounds/round shooting
5x2x(1/2)(1/2)(1) = 10x(1/4), or 2+ wounds/round in melee

Not bad for fighting the optimal counter for your loadout.

Serpent:
5x4x(2/3)(1/6)(1/3) = 20*(1/27)
You're penning a jinking Serpent more often than not. So, you're making it:
-Fire SL/SC, then get hit hard by s pen effects, giving it only 1 real round of shooting
-Fire SL/SC, but risk being assaulted
-Fire just the SL, but survive

So its shooting:
SL: 4x(<1/3)(5/6)(1/6) = 20/108 dead Marines
SS: 4.5x(<1/3)(5/6)(1/6) = 22.5/108 dead Marines
SC: 3x(<1/3)[(4/6)(1/6) + (1/6)(4/6)] = 24/108 dead marines.

So its trading most of a HP per round for little over half a dead Termie a round, assuming you never make a 9" charge?

Looks like you're killing Serpents easily, even for the points.

And those are two of the nastiest things in the game. And both are quite close to your least-optimal targets.

Bharring wrote:
Really?

WK:
5x4x(2/3)(1/6)(1) = 20x(1/9), or 2+ wounds/round shooting
5x2x(1/2)(1/2)(1) = 10x(1/4), or 2+ wounds/round in melee

Not bad for fighting the optimal counter for your loadout.

Serpent:
5x4x(2/3)(1/6)(1/3) = 20*(1/27)
You're penning a jinking Serpent more often than not. So, you're making it:
-Fire SL/SC, then get hit hard by s pen effects, giving it only 1 real round of shooting
-Fire SL/SC, but risk being assaulted
-Fire just the SL, but survive

So its shooting:
SL: 4x(<1/3)(5/6)(1/6) = 20/108 dead Marines
SS: 4.5x(<1/3)(5/6)(1/6) = 22.5/108 dead Marines
SC: 3x(<1/3)[(4/6)(1/6) + (1/6)(4/6)] = 24/108 dead marines.

So its trading most of a HP per round for little over half a dead Termie a round, assuming you never make a 9" charge?

Looks like you're killing Serpents easily, even for the points.

And those are two of the nastiest things in the game. And both are quite close to your least-optimal targets.

The assault cannons would never get within range of a Serpent. The heavy wraith cannon also out ranges the terminators. Once the WK gets into melee, the terminators are all dead. 12" move with a 2D6 charge, means the terminators get one shot off being being pounded. That's assuming they just aren't shot to death by the Eldar army outside the 24" range to begin with. The assault cannon is an incredibly overrated weapon due to range and platform issues, and even massed up like this on a 2+ armor platform, the Eldar have hard counters.

OK. War Walkers.

8x(2/3)(5/6)(1/6) = 80/108 dead Termies a round.

Termies, once within 24":
4x(2/3)(1/2)(2/3) = 8/9 HP/round, plus most of those are pens on an open topped vehicle.

You'd need to be quite expensive for that to be fair.

(And how often is there no safe place to deep strike within 24" of the target?)

Bharring wrote:
OK. War Walkers.

8x(2/3)(5/6)(1/6) = 80/108 dead Termies a round.

Termies, once within 24":
4x(2/3)(1/2)(2/3) = 8/9 HP/round, plus most of those are pens on an open topped vehicle.

You'd need to be quite expensive for that to be fair.

(And how often is there no safe place to deep strike within 24" of the target?)

Deep strike is so bad that I forgot about that. But for this unit, it would actually be really nasty, because they have shooting that someone might care about. We'd have to consider taking deep strike off them I suppose so they aren't point and click.

So a WK gets what, 5 attacks?

5x(1/2)(5/6)(2/3) is 50/36. That WK kills less than 2. Not 5.

Serpents staying out of threat range? Deepstrike into range? Spend a turn or possibly two running, where the Serpent kills less than one Termie on average?

Holy hell, man, try understanding the firepower.

Bharring wrote:
So a WK gets what, 5 attacks?

5x(1/2)(5/6)(2/3) is 50/36. That WK kills less than 2. Not 5.

Serpents staying out of threat range? Deepstrike into range? Spend a turn or possibly two running, where the Serpent kills less than one Termie on average?

Holy hell, man, try understanding the firepower.

Ironic coming from an Eldar player. Try understanding the firepower indeed. Massed S6 is okay for your codex but in the hands of anyone else, it's unthinkable, evidently.

So massed s4 is crap.
Massed s4 fake-rending at shorter range for about the same price on paper platforms is unmitigatingly broken.

Massed s6 on paper platforms is broken
Massed s6 actual-rending on t4 2+/5++ for half the cost is just fine, because its "only" 24".

Doesn't add up.

Bharring wrote:
So massed s4 is crap.
Massed s4 fake-rending at shorter range for about the same price on paper platforms is unmitigatingly broken.

Massed s6 on paper platforms is broken
Massed s6 actual-rending on t4 2+/5++ for half the cost is just fine, because its "only" 24".

Doesn't add up.

Massed S4 fake rending at least has a purpose. Massed S4 is total crap.

I wouldn't call WS paper platforms. And I"m not sure where you are getting half cost.

Also, do you have any counter proposals that don't end with terminators being dust collectors? Would heavy bolters be acceptable? I find them nearly useless, but they are still better than stormbolters.

Nobody is defending the Wave Serpent here. The War Walker @70ppm seemed to be more appropriate.

If we were talking 40ppm Assault Cannons on somehow a relentless Guardsmen, it'd be different (overcosted, even). But were talking about Tac Termies. Whole codecies are worse at CC than they are. And this change would make them better at shooting than most things, too. All while being reasonably resilient.

Its like being a generalist isn't enough. You need them to be the best at everything. While not costing extra.

They cost too much/die too fast right now, yes. But they survive better than most things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
35ppm. Allow 2 HW upgrades per 5.

Bharring wrote:
Nobody is defending the Wave Serpent here. The War Walker @70ppm seemed to be more appropriate.

If we were talking 40ppm Assault Cannons on somehow a relentless Guardsmen, it'd be different (overcosted, even). But were talking about Tac Termies. Whole codecies are worse at CC than they are. And this change would make them better at shooting than most things, too. All while being reasonably resilient.

Its like being a generalist isn't enough. You need them to be the best at everything. While not costing extra.

They cost too much/die too fast right now, yes. But they survive better than most things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
35ppm. Allow 2 HW upgrades per 5.

But they don't survive better than most things. They are less resilient per point against boltguns, lasguns, plasma, melta, you name it than a generic marine. The only category where they are better is AP 3 where the marine doesn't have 5+++ cover. That's it. Against all other shooting, they are bigger victims than tac marines.

Our big disconnect here is the theoretical melee ability. Tac termies, in my experience, never live to get into melee so there fore their melee stats can be ignored in practice. They are only relevant in the theoretical world where my opponent would actually get within assault range and allow them to live at the same time. All the points being spent on those fists are points being flushed by the marine player.

Again, give me a change where terminators are no longer paper weights. There is not a single circumstance where I want these things in my list as it stands.

They also destroy in CC much better than equal points of Tac marines. Gotta pay for that.

Tac Marines are one of the most durable troops. They aren't the only comparison point.

Bharring wrote:
They also destroy in CC much better than equal points of Tac marines. Gotta pay for that.

Tac Marines are one of the most durable troops. They aren't the only comparison point.

I don't want to pay for that because they never get to use that capability. In practice, it's a very weak ability. Terminators are also not any more durable than Ork boyz or even guardsmen. Basically, the math of losing 40 pts when you roll a "1" is very, very harsh. It's almost always better to have more wounds to give.

Not at all. Even if they never get in melee with units, they still force position. Quite the threat in being alone.

And mine get into CC reasonably.

When it comes to a t4 2+/5++, 'allowing them to live' isn't so merciful as it sounds. It simply means they needed their firepower elsewhere.

Or do you believe that you should be free to get any unit you want into assault with any other unit? How would that be fair?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you don't want to pay for it, don't. But don't take a CC unit for its ranged abilities, then complain that they need to be snooty units too, *then* complain about the generalist tax.

I like my Tac Termies' melee capability.

" It simply means they needed their firepower elsewhere. "

Firepower Xenos and grav cent marines always seem to have. Terminators don't soak damage well, and so they aren't even good for that job.

Just getting into assault at all would be novel against Tau/Eldar.

"I like my Tac Termies' melee capability."

You must have cooperative opponents. In my view, you are putting your list at a serious disadvantage.


So you are trying to sell me on these guys as a CC unit? A slow, vulnerable CC unit that can't sweep. Wonderful.

My concern is they cost a little too much, and should be a bit more customizable for Marines.

Your concern is that they don't have enough dakka to be good Guardsmen..

That is our disconnect.

Bharring wrote:
My concern is they cost a little too much, and should be a bit more customizable for Marines.

Your concern is that they don't have enough dakka to be good Guardsmen..

That is our disconnect.

Well, they don't have the durability of guardsmen, either. That's not too high of a bar, I think.

So what is your customization proposal and price proposal?

I place a very low value on assault capability in general, given that most of the game is shooting. Kind of a bad position for a BA player I guess.

As above.
2HW options per 5
35 ppm

Bharring wrote:
As above.
2HW options per 5
35 ppm

I'd actually consider that, although I would go with the cyclone launchers because 4 ST 8 shots can actually start taking some HPs off vehicles at a real range. Two assault cannons is still pretty lame, imo. They'd still have serious durability issues, but it would be improved some. The squad would still have 105 pts of dead weight, but I'd at least think about it.