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.

I'd amend Bharring's suggestion to at least consider Stormbolters as Assault 3 (while mathematically a 50% increase in base firepower... it's more S4/AP5 shooting in an army that can bring S4/AP5 in spades already).

I'd also like to include additional heavy weapon options; more specifically:

Multimeltas, Plasma Cannons (though DA might have a trademark on PC Termies), Lascannons, Grav-cannons (but no grav-amp), and a Flakk option for CMLs.

This increases general versatility, due to a variety of weapon options. Also would increase versatility with CML+Flakk option.

OTOH, I think Grav-cannons should be a general heavy option, with the "GravCent" specific option including a grav-amp to differentiate it.

I'd be happy with 4 krak missiles from a ~200 pt unit.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd be happy with 4 krak missiles from a ~200 pt unit.

Do you know you have:

- Land Speeders? Put a Typhoon Missile on and squadron them, 75ppm. 6x Krak missiles for 225pts.
- Devastator squads? Buy 2 with full MLs. 4x Krak Missiles for 200pts.
- A Dreadnought for 115pts? Buy 2 for 230pts, you get 2x Krak ML and 4x TL autocannons. Pretty close.
- A triple-Lascannon Pred for 140pts? Only 3x shots but they're at S9AP2.

225pts for 5 Tac Termies (35ppm), w/2x Cyclone ML, still doesn't have firepower commensurate to these choices. But Termies are an assault unit, not the SM mirror of the Broadside. That unit exists for SM too, in a sense:

- Centurion Devastator squad, 280pts. 3x Krak Missiles and 3x TL-Lascannons. Also, T5 and 2W each. Happy now?

Look, reducing the price of the Cyclone ML, and giving Termies a 2nd Heavy Weapon option, is an ok idea. 4x Krak from a 200+pt unit is completely in line with the Codex. But that has nothing to do with their primary job, which is assaulting. Trying to base Terminator pricing on being an S8 Krak platform, is not the way to resolve anything at all! They need to be better in assault, which concerns primarily all the steps it takes to get there. Being average at S8 shooting and still struggling with assault isn't a fix.

Read behind the lines, to the way the weapon should be used. Forget the range. S8AP3 is there to help you can soften up 3+ infantry (hint, Incubi) before assaulting, or take a HP off a vehicle before you charge it. Or to finish off an escaping fast vehicle, which fleeing in terror of your S8 AP2 melee attacks. Having an extra CML doesn't actually help you with the problems of getting the charge off, and that's still the issue.

Given your preference for all things shooty over assault, what you want is to move DevCents to the Elites spot. That way you can spam shooty units so you can keep up with Eldar and Tau in your broken FLGS meta. Terminators are a frontline assaulter unit with some shooting, son. And you said it yourself, you place very little value on assault. Move on. These aren't the droids you're looking for.

How About-

Terminators with a Power Weapon and Storm Bolter are 31ppm for the first 5 and may take up to 4 Heavy Weapons

Each model after the first 5 costs 29ppm and can't take any Heavy Weapon upgrades

May upgrade power weapon to a power fist for 5 points or a chainfist for 10 points

Storm Bolters are Assault 3 and may be used at full BS in overwatch if you choose to fire snap shots in the shooting phase. This is declared before firing in the shooting phase.

TDA no longer gives an invul save and instead gives FNP 5+

TDA treats Storm Bolters like pistols except they count as both oridanary weapons and specialits weapons

A model in TDA with a Storm Bolter may choose to give up the extra attack on favor for a full BS during overwatch instead of the snapshot option of storm bolters, or they can use the snapshot during shooting phase rule. This is declared before the charge or assault phase if already in combat.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd be happy with 4 krak missiles from a ~200 pt unit.

Do you know you have:

- Land Speeders? Put a Typhoon Missile on and squadron them, 75ppm. 6x Krak missiles for 225pts.

Land Speeders are an AV 10/10/10, 2HP skimmer. As such, this makes them exceptionally fragile to everything. Admittedly a pair of is 150 points and gives 4 Krak shots per turn. For 20 points more you can give both of them multi-meltas to increase their potential number of S8 shots per turn.

Yoyoyo wrote:
- Devastator squads? Buy 2 with full MLs. 4x Krak Missiles for 200pts.

Devastators have better things to do than carry MLs. Like carry Lascannons. Additionally, SM Heavy Support is already choked with units that range from "pretty good" (PA Devs, some Pred configs, Stormravens) to "amazeballs" (DevCents, Thunderfire cannons). There's a few "it's cheap" and/or "situational" options, like Whirlwinds, Vindicators, and the Hunter/Stalker, but it's not unreasonable to say that compared to other HS options, there's far better "buys" than ML Devs.

Yoyoyo wrote:
- A Dreadnought for 115pts? Buy 2 for 230pts, you get 2x Krak ML and 4x TL autocannons. Pretty close.

Dreads have their own problems. There's also the fact that Rifleman-style is probably an overall better platform, due to the meta favoring mass S6/7 weapons. 120pts gets you 4 S7 twin-linked shots at 48" and with BS4. This being said, Dreads do seem like a passable unit in the Elites choices that overshadows Terminators, if only because it can be equipped to suit the meta (IE, spam S6/7 guns).

Yoyoyo wrote:
- A triple-Lascannon Pred for 140pts? Only 3x shots but they're at S9AP2.

Traditional SM trilas-Preds have the problem in that they cannot move around if they want to fire at full effect. The BA variation does have the advantage of being able to buy "Fast" status, allowing it to move 6" and fire at full effect. This is actually very critical, as a trilas-Pred that has to sit still can be maneuvered against such that you never need to shoot at it, since it will have nothing it can actually shoot at to useful effect. Again though, I'll admit that trilas Preds have the workings of being a capable weapon platform. If only they could by PotMS and take a Conversion Beamer as the main gun, then they might be a bit more badass (both would have an appropriate point cost, of course).

Yoyoyo wrote:
225pts for 5 Tac Termies (35ppm), w/2x Cyclone ML, still doesn't have firepower commensurate to these choices. But Termies are an assault unit, not the SM mirror of the Broadside. That unit exists for SM too, in a sense:

- Centurion Devastator squad, 280pts. 3x Krak Missiles and 3x TL-Lascannons. Also, T5 and 2W each. Happy now?

DevCents are more expensive though. They also lack DS, or an invulnerable save. They do gain T5 and 2W instead of a 5++, which is nice, and in the current meta it's mechanically better since it allows them greater ability to simply brute force their way through a storm of S6/S7 fire. However, I take issue with the idea that Terminators are an "assault unit".

If they were a legitimate assault unit then their most useful upgrades would not be GUNS. Hammernators or Clawnators are assault units- they have one job, and that's to punch things to death. The upgrades they have available are commensurate to this purpose. Tac Termies however, not only come with a gun, but also have mostly gun-related upgrades.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Look, reducing the price of the Cyclone ML, and giving Termies a 2nd Heavy Weapon option, is an ok idea. 4x Krak from a 200+pt unit is completely in line with the Codex. But that has nothing to do with their primary job, which is assaulting. Trying to base Terminator pricing on being an S8 Krak platform, is not the way to resolve anything at all! They need to be better in assault, which concerns primarily all the steps it takes to get there. Being average at S8 shooting and still struggling with assault isn't a fix.

Except that Tac Termies don't want to assault stuff. I mean sure, almost every Tac Terminator gets a power fist. That's really cute, that is. The truth of the matter is that Terminators carry guns. They are a shooting unit that's sort-of-not-terrible-at-assaulting. They are not an assault unit.

Here, let's look at the nature of the upgrades available (not going to list points or number of upgrades, since that's not relevant) to Tac Termies, Assault Termies, Honor Guard, and Vanguard Veterans:

Terminator Upgrades
1. More mans
2. Chainfists
3-5. GUNS; these being the HF, AC, and CML. Of particular interest is that a CML is in addition to the Stormbolter

Assault Terminators
1. More mans
2. swap LCs to TH/SS

Honor Guard
1. More mans
2. Relic Blades for all the things
3. Banner stuffs
4. Chapter Champ CCW instead of gun (he's already got two CCWs... I guess GeeDubs derped?); Chapter Champ TH option

Vanguard Vets
1. More mans
2. Any dude can take from the Melee Weapons list
3. Overpriced pistols
4. Meltabombs
5. SS
6. Jump packs errywhere
7. Squad leader Relic Blade option

So we can see that actual assault units pretty much don't get gun upgrades. Certainly not guns that can be thought of as "useful" (like CMLs, or very situationally ACs/HFs). Terminators are a shooting unit. They carry guns by default, and more importantly the majority of their upgrades are guns.

How many times do I have to point out that the optimal target for a power fist and the optimal target for a Stormbolter (or even most of the guns Terminators get) is just so wildly incompatible as to be ridiculous to try to make them an assault unit. If you really want Terminators that punch things, then the Assault Terminators would like a word with you, I'm sure.

If you're still hung up on how they're an "assault unit that has guns", then why not just suggest that the two Terminator entries (one shooty, one choppy) simply be rolled together?

Yoyoyo wrote:
Read behind the lines, too -- S8AP3 is how you can soften up T4 3+ infantry before assaulting, or take a HP off a vehicle before you charge it. But an extra ML doesn't actually help you with the problems if getting the charge off!

Given your preference for all things shooty over assault, what you want is to move DevCents to the Elites spot. That way you can spam shooty units so you can keep up with Eldar and Tau in your broken FLGS meta. Terminators are a frontline assaulter unit with some shooting, son. And you said it yourself, you place very little value on assault. Move on. These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Assault Centurions offer better shooting than a stock Terminator. They might cost 50% more, but they get 50% more shots at 12-24", and 200% more shots at 0-12", all of which are twin-linked. Plus they can carry twin-linked flamers or twin-linked meltaguns, and they get S9 AP2 melee weapons that strike at initiative, and they get the option (in fact come stock, with a free swap to a Hurricane Bolter) to ignore the initiative penalty for charging through cover.

It sounds like the unit you want is something punchy that can shoot passably well. I guess those Assault Centurions couldn't possibly be an answer to that- and in the Elites section to boot!

 NorseSig wrote:
How About-

Terminators with a Power Weapon and Storm Bolter are 31ppm for the first 5 and may take up to 4 Heavy Weapons

Each model after the first 5 costs 29ppm and can't take any Heavy Weapon upgrades

May upgrade power weapon to a power fist for 5 points or a chainfist for 10 points

Storm Bolters are Assault 3 and may be used at full BS in overwatch if you choose to fire snap shots in the shooting phase. This is declared before firing in the shooting phase.

TDA no longer gives an invul save and instead gives FNP 5+

TDA treats Storm Bolters like pistols except they count as both oridanary weapons and specialits weapons

A model in TDA with a Storm Bolter may choose to give up the extra attack on favor for a full BS during overwatch instead of the snapshot option of storm bolters, or they can use the snapshot during shooting phase rule. This is declared before the charge or assault phase if already in combat.

I am so glad I refreshed the page, because this... this sounds pretty cool. Now, I'm not sure of the wisdom of "start at 5 guys, take 4 heavies, then add 5 spare dudes to catch bullets for the heavies" approach, since in practice that's what it'll look like. I rather like the "2 heavies/5 mans" approach, as you then have to take a full ten-man squad to get 4 heavies on the field through that option.

I also like the Stormbolter bits- Assault 3 as a bare minimum makes a shootynator just as killy as an Assault Centurion with a Hurricane Bolter when at a distance; you're basically trading twin-linked shots, +1S/T/W, and AP2 melee at initiative for DS, overwatch, either FNP or a 5++ invuln (depending on general preference; I think both options have their merits), and being generally cheaper.

Overall, I like.

EDIT: fixed a little bit of formatting, because sometimes I derp quote boxes.

Whiskey, you have a point that they're not a pure assault unit. But they're not a pure shooting unit either, like DevCents.

We are pretty much on the same page, the mandatory Powerfist is what hampers their flexibility.

I am so glad I refreshed the page, because this... this sounds pretty cool. Now, I'm not sure of the wisdom of "start at 5 guys, take 4 heavies, then add 5 spare dudes to catch bullets for the heavies" approach, since in practice that's what it'll look like. I rather like the "2 heavies/5 mans" approach, as you then have to take a full ten-man squad to get 4 heavies on the field through that option.

I also like the Stormbolter bits- Assault 3 as a bare minimum makes a shootynator just as killy as an Assault Centurion with a Hurricane Bolter when at a distance; you're basically trading twin-linked shots, +1S/T/W, and AP2 melee at initiative for DS, overwatch, either FNP or a 5++ invuln (depending on general preference; I think both options have their merits), and being generally cheaper.

Overall, I like.

The start with 5 guys with all upgrade options available from the start is an idea I have been playing with to make space marines expensive but more powerful at lower points, but ultimately a bit cheaper at higher points levels (and combat squads for versatility). The idea being to make Space marines a bit stronger in smaller point games without making them broken. I agree that 2 heavies per 5 are probably better otherwise because it promotes max squad size. At least that is the idea behind it. It is something that needs testing to be sure. As far as my suggestions go, I think they are a starting point for decent playtesting and adjust from there.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Whiskey, you have a point that they're not a pure assault unit. But they're not a pure shooting unit either, like DevCents.

We are pretty much on the same page, the mandatory Powerfist is what hampers their flexibility.

I understand I'm biased towards shooting, but I don't understand how units that are inferior to tac marines in terms of durability/pt are supposed to be assault specialists.

After some thinking I am wondering if the switch from Invul to FNP is a good one, since they will lose a save against some things they get one against now. Maybe the thing to do would be a 4+ FNP with an ability like the necrons decursion formation/dataslate/whatever it is (ie get the fnp but at -1). Maybe boost the price by 2 points (to terminators) if doing that. Or give them 5+ invul and 5+ FNP for a 5 points increase (to terminators). The thing is I think 30ish ppm is about right for terminators and I don't want them to be unbalanced/over powered, or overly complicated (which is a near impossibility). The biggest problem is the entire game is a bit out of whack and needs some good, honest playtesting a tweaking to create a better and more ideal balance. You will never get perfect balance, but maybe with a LOT of work you could get a game taht comes a lot closer to it. Really this game needs a unit design system to give a rough guide of where to benchmark things. If you had a system like that and made it as solid as possible you could go nuts with allowing conversions and homebrew that would be balanced as well and maybe even tournament viable if submitted to a to like a month before for review.

Whiskey144 wrote:

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
Exactly, their role is to be in close quarters and punching things. The storm bolters are a way to soften up the target a little. They worked better when assault made a bigger difference versus rapidfire weapons.

I'd merely like to point out that the kind of things powerfists are good at punching to death are on the opposite end of the target spectrum that Stormbolters are good at killing. As in, powerfists want to be punching T6+, while Stormbolters want to be shooting T3 or at most T4 things. Very different target types.

True, the holdover from 2nd where such flexibiilty was able to be used causes issues when compared to other units that are more focused.

How about we reward Terminators for their veteran skills and give them some flexibility? After all, power-armoured veterans get flexibilty through ammo choices.

Their light firepower is more focused on dealing with hordes of lightly armoured infantry (Some might want more firepower, but the targets are of these type I think we can agree?). Their fists are more useful versus big well armoured things. So let's make them a unit that is specifically good at dealing with bubblewrap.

Give Terminators the ability to charge a unit that they did not shoot at. Then they can mow down bubblewrap to clear a corridor and then charge the tank or monster behind.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Whiskey, you have a point that they're not a pure assault unit. But they're not a pure shooting unit either, like DevCents.

We are pretty much on the same page, the mandatory Powerfist is what hampers their flexibility.

I'd contend that they're comparable, insofar as the fact that almost all Tac Termie upgrades are guns. It just seems like GW is trying to make Tac Termies a shooting platform, but ends up compromising them on account of the legacy design that Terminators 'must' have a power fist for whatever reason.

I mean technically, fluff-wise, it does make sense. A power/chain fist would be a much better tool for hand-breaching doors (or walls) in a boarding engagement. It's just that that kind of utility never actually shows up in tabletop 40K. You see it a little in Space Hulk, where a model with a chainfist will auto-destroy a door, which is a pretty handy tool. But in regular 40K? Good luck finding a door to punch.

 NorseSig wrote:
The start with 5 guys with all upgrade options available from the start is an idea I have been playing with to make space marines expensive but more powerful at lower points, but ultimately a bit cheaper at higher points levels (and combat squads for versatility). The idea being to make Space marines a bit stronger in smaller point games without making them broken. I agree that 2 heavies per 5 are probably better otherwise because it promotes max squad size. At least that is the idea behind it. It is something that needs testing to be sure. As far as my suggestions go, I think they are a starting point for decent playtesting and adjust from there.

Hmm, hadn't thought of that. I'd tend toward favoring 2 heavy/5, but the reasoning of a max-firepower squad for smaller-scale games, and then adding spare bodies at larger levels, is sound.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
True, the holdover from 2nd where such flexibiilty was able to be used causes issues when compared to other units that are more focused.

How about we reward Terminators for their veteran skills and give them some flexibility? After all, power-armoured veterans get flexibilty through ammo choices.

Their light firepower is more focused on dealing with hordes of lightly armoured infantry (Some might want more firepower, but the targets are of these type I think we can agree?). Their fists are more useful versus big well armoured things. So let's make them a unit that is specifically good at dealing with bubblewrap.

Give Terminators the ability to charge a unit that they did not shoot at. Then they can mow down bubblewrap to clear a corridor and then charge the tank or monster behind.

I see potential in this, though I also feel like it's impossible to actually tell how well this would work unless it's actually playtested.

 NorseSig wrote:


TDA no longer gives an invul save and instead gives FNP 5+

Yea, the FNP option has been brought up before. I wouldn't mind settling for the trade, but at FNP 4+, and reducing point cost. It may not tackle the over abundance of AP2 sauce - that screws termnators, but at least it helps in that regard without completely making terminators better than tanks. Essentially, against non AP2 or better, this option would make it approx an 8% chance to kill a terminator with 1 wound caused.

So... lets run some mathhammer:

The difference of FNP and not having FNP for terminators:

Die face @ 16.67%

10 wounds from bolters, having a 2+ save with 'feel no pain 4+': 91.67% saved or .8 out of 10 failed

10 wounds from bolters, having a 2+ save with NO 'feel no pain': 83.35% saved or 1.6 out 10 failed


Hardly game breaking in my opinion.

Whiskey144 wrote:
I'd contend that they're comparable, insofar as the fact that almost all Tac Termie upgrades are guns. It just seems like GW is trying to make Tac Termies a shooting platform, but ends up compromising them on account of the legacy design that Terminators 'must' have a power fist for whatever reason.

Look beyond the guns mate, GW did not intend them as a shooting platform. Look at the statline, rules and squad sizes of DevCents vs Tac Termies. Tac Termies have a very clear edge in number of attacks, hit with AP2, and can deploy via DS. I don't believe DevCents even have a melee weapon! Centurion Assaulters are around, true, but I'm sure you can recognize that a SnP unit with 7 attacks has a very narrow band of units they can be effective against. If Assault Cents don't strike at Initiative, Tac Termies can actually beat them in assault. Assault Cents are much more effective employing their shooting attack against CC troops (TL Melta/Flamer, TL Hurricane bolter) as their CC profile isn't good. It really only makes sense versus something like a Fortification or a Superheavy that they can catch.

Realistically though, Tac Termies would just kite Assault Cents with rending Assault Cannons and SB shots beyond the 12" range band Melta and Hurricane Bolters are effective in. And they would assault DevCents, probably wiping them without losing a man. The "Tactical" part basically means they are a hybrid troop, and can take advantage of any asymmetry.

We mentioned the upgrades, so let's look at them then.

- They can upgrade to a chainfist (assault).
- They can take a Flamer (assault).
- They can take an assault cannon (24" range, inconclusive).
- They can take a ML (48" range, typically fire support).

We should note, though, that Krak is redundant in the SM Codex and DevCents outshoot even 35ppm Terminators with better weapons, TL bonuses, higher toughness and more wounds as it stands already. You are right, they are not pure assault troops. But they aren't comparable to DevCents, even ignoring the fluff completely. Tac Termies are a hybrid, highly capable assault troops that bring atypical flexibility to the table through quality shooting. But they're always going to be great assault troops in CC, it's just the nature of the unit.

Anyways, here's the general conclusions of the thread :

- Drop the price of LC Assault Terminators significantly
- TH/SS are fine, but underperforming/overcosted Land Raiders are hurting them
- Tactical Terminators should have 2x Heavy Weapons slots per 5 models
- Tactical Terminators should be able to exchange their mandatory Power Fist for a Power Weapon, for a discount of 10pts
- Storm Bolters merit future attention

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
Give Terminators the ability to charge a unit that they did not shoot at. Then they can mow down bubblewrap to clear a corridor and then charge the tank or monster behind.

Split Fire as a Special Rule for Tac Termies would essentially accomplish this. It makes sense (as tactics imply flexibility and discretion).

Yoyoyo wrote:


Anyways, here's the general conclusions of the thread :

- Drop the price of LC Assault Terminators significantly
- TH/SS are fine, but underperforming/overcosted Land Raiders are hurting them
- Tactical Terminators should have 2x Heavy Weapons slots per 5 models
- Tactical Terminators should be able to exchange their mandatory Power Fist for a Power Weapon, for a discount of 10pts
- Storm Bolters merit future attention

Really? That is the consensus? I don't really see it that way..

If anything I just see your points as mere proclamation like others have said prior - its the side that thinks 'options' and 'heavy bolter like storm bolters' will fix terminators.
This... 'party' of thought has an agenda that isn't really objective - imo.

Look, I don't entirely disagree with all of your points, but it is sort of condiment related in the sandwhich we're trying to make. There is an issue with the buns, and therefore, adding relish and spicy mustard will really just mask things but not fix the lack of bread consistency. If anything, it's going to make things worse because how people will start eating them than how they should be eaten (think of eating a soggy sandwich - kinda messy). So first, we need to figure out just how long to toast it with the right amount of butter after. then we consider what to add. ...................... I can't believe I compared this problem with a sandwich.... hah

Really? That is the consensus? I don't really see it that way..

If anything I just see your points as mere proclamation like others have said prior - its the side that thinks 'options' and 'heavy bolter like storm bolters' will fix terminators.
This... 'party' of thought has an agenda that isn't really objective - imo.

Look, I don't entirely disagree with all of your points, but it is sort of condiment related in the sandwhich we're trying to make. There is an issue with the buns, and therefore, adding relish and spicy mustard will really just mask things but not fix the lack of bread consistency. If anything, it's going to make things worse because how people will start eating them than how they should be eaten. So first, we need to figure out just how long to toast it with the right amount of butter after. then we consider what to add. ...................... I can't believe I compared this problem with a sandwich.... hah

The only "Proclamation" I will make is that there is an obvious problem with Terminators, and the people who like and enjoy them want to see them fixed. Unfortunately it is a complex problem to fix without an easy solution. Hence the lack of agreement. The issue is compounded more by people who are stuck in absolutes and are unwilling to have an actual discussion. In addition to that there are those who wish Terminators to remain as an army handicap for an easy points farm for them.

I, myself, have put forth SUGGESTIONS that have changed over time as the discussion has moved along. I have done this with the INTENTIONS of either I myself or someone else play testing the rules and adjusting from there. We can discuss and argue about the way to fix Terminators all we want, but at some point we need to decide on a starting point to actually test the rules. Otherwise it is all meaningless.

I don't know about anyone else, but my intentions for fixing terminators is a simple one. To try and do my part to make this game more balanced and better overall.

 NorseSig wrote:

Really? That is the consensus? I don't really see it that way..

If anything I just see your points as mere proclamation like others have said prior - its the side that thinks 'options' and 'heavy bolter like storm bolters' will fix terminators.
This... 'party' of thought has an agenda that isn't really objective - imo.

Look, I don't entirely disagree with all of your points, but it is sort of condiment related in the sandwhich we're trying to make. There is an issue with the buns, and therefore, adding relish and spicy mustard will really just mask things but not fix the lack of bread consistency. If anything, it's going to make things worse because how people will start eating them than how they should be eaten. So first, we need to figure out just how long to toast it with the right amount of butter after. then we consider what to add. ...................... I can't believe I compared this problem with a sandwich.... hah

The only "Proclamation" I will make is that there is an obvious problem with Terminators, and the people who like and enjoy them want to see them fixed. Unfortunately it is a complex problem to fix without an easy solution. Hence the lack of agreement. The issue is compounded more by people who are stuck in absolutes and are unwilling to have an actual discussion. In addition to that there are those who wish Terminators to remain as an army handicap for an easy points farm for them.
I, myself, have put forth SUGGESTIONS that have changed over time as the discussion has moved along. I have done this with the INTENTIONS of either I myself or someone else play testing the rules and adjusting from there. We can discuss and argue about the way to fix Terminators all we want, but at some point we need to decide on a starting point to actually test the rules. Otherwise it is all meaningless.

I don't know about anyone else, but my intentions for fixing terminators is a simple one. To try and do my part to make this game more balanced and better overall.

The starting point we need to look at is the matter of their survivability. Their problems since the redux from 2nd to 3rd was only fixed by adding a light invulnerable save after complaints related to a lack of survivability (in a white dwarf). This to me, highlights an issue we should observe first. It indicates that GW acknowledged there was an issue, but if one looks at their fix, I think it will reveal a halfhearted attempt:

1 Obviously they didn't really care about really play testing the system and/or SM codex very well - because of something as basic as terminators falling so short...
2 Therefore, It's no real surprise, that they would take the same lack of thought into fixing terminators - when they added an invulnerable save that works 33% of the time - for select weapons. This still leaves a gap of point cost efficiency and a role deficit that I imagine 2nd didn't have as much of a problem with. This also made terminators as dependable as rock, paper, scissors... very expensive gamble at 40 ppm

3rd edition on up has been more volatile in die rolls since it streamlined everything to a standard d6 roll mostly. I liked this approach, but I feel that some of the things, like terminators, didn't carry the same role anymore. Terminators suffered much inherently because the armour scale in 2nd was more granular, thus could be distinguished without feeling ridiculous. Furthermore, with the simple d6 scale that came around in third, it marginalized the best armour in 2nd because not only did it make general saves very categorical (and thus less distinguished), it also made their associated tacitcal use (for squads composed of TDA) confusing as to their role since ppm were too high. The devs just simply dropped the ball on expensive heavily armored units during 3rd edition development. They were focused way too much to get the broad picture out, that units like terminators were left in the dust and fixed with a hodge podge caution - so not to throw off their loose notion of balance.

I'm not advocating for some level of 2nd edition granularity to define terminator survivability, but I do want them distinguished more from tactical marines - to justify why they are even wearing such a bulky thing, and thus, carve out their purpose in army choices.

Adding more termie squad options is not going to help their real issue. It's only going to make it more abstract as to their use, and fail to capture their niche - if their armour save survivability isn't addressed first.

Unfortunately I don't think terminators will change much due to the advent of centurions. I doubt GW will want to overshadow their new kits.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Look beyond the guns mate, GW did not intend them as a shooting platform. Look at the statline, rules and squad sizes of DevCents vs Tac Termies. Tac Termies have a very clear edge in number of attacks, hit with AP2, and can deploy via DS.

DS'ing in will cluster you up nicely for a pieplate to the face, and prevents you from launching an assault the turn you come on.

Yoyoyo wrote:
I don't believe DevCents even have a melee weapon! Centurion Assaulters are around, true, but I'm sure you can recognize that a SnP unit with 7 attacks has a very narrow band of units they can be effective against. If Assault Cents don't strike at Initiative, Tac Termies can actually beat them in assault. Assault Cents are much more effective employing their shooting attack against CC troops (TL Melta/Flamer, TL Hurricane bolter) as their CC profile isn't good. It really only makes sense versus something like a Fortification or a Superheavy that they can catch.

No, DevCents do not have combat weapons. It's not much of any issue, since GravCents will murder the piss out of Tac Termies before the latter can make it into combat. Also, let's consider a 5-man Terminator unit with an AC, and a 3-man AssCent squad that takes the free swap of Ironclad launcher->Hurricane bolter twice (so it still has an Ironclad launcher), and grab the Omniscope on the sarge and two meltaguns. Both of these units are identical in point cost, by the way.

5 Tac Termies w/ 4 SBs+1 AC will produce 8 S4 AP5 shots+4 S6 AP4 Rending shots from 0-24". The AssCents will produce 6 S4 AP5 shots at 12-24" that are also Twin-Linked; so yes, Terminators can out-dakka AssCents when at a distance. You seem to be claiming (and agreeing) that GW made Tac Termies an "assault platform". So the range advantage of the Terminators is rendered moot- the Terminators will want to get close in an assault things, just like the AssCents- according to you, at least. Incidentally, the AssCents get 12 S4 AP5 shots at 0-12", and 2 S8 AP1 Melta shots, plus they'll probably be close enough to fire a twin-linked S4 AP5 template as well. Oh, and those Hurricane Bolter and Melta shots, they're twin-linked too.

But we won't run this as if both parties are trying to shoot each other to death. Straight combat, how do they compare. Well....

AssCents end up with 7 S9 AP2 attacks base, at Initiative 4 (siege drills are not Unwieldy, retaining an Ironclad launcher keeps the Initiative advantage even if charging through cover). On the charge, they get 10 S9/AP2 attacks. At I4.

Tac Termies produce 8 S8 AP2 Unwieldy attacks, and 2 S4 AP3 attacks at I4. On the charge, this will increase to 12 S8 AP2 Unwieldy attacks, and 3 S4 AP3 I4 attacks. In terms of raw output, yeah, the Terminators seem to have AssCents beat.

Initiative 4 is the great equalizer in this fight. The AssCents will generally strike first- and if they keep at least one Ironclad launcher in the squad, then they always strike first. Depending on the AssCent squad's size, you may want to have two Ironclad launchers, so that it's harder to snipe them out of the unit.

In any case, we'll ignore charges for a moment. AssCents strike first, at I4 and with 7 S9 AP2 attacks. Both are WS4, so both hit on 4s. This is 3.5 hits, which then becomes ~2.92 wounds, which is then saved against the Termies 5++, for ~1.93 Terminators dead. We'll assume this kills the sergeant and one other Terminator, so as to allow the maximum possible number of Terminators to strike back with their Unwieldy powerfists. Though the Termie sarge will produce 1.5 hits, then 0.5 wounds, which then becomes ~0.084 unsaved wounds, with the sarge's power sword. Very unimpressive.

Moving on, the 3 remaining Terminators, all armed with powerfists, produce 6 attacks in return, hit 3 times, and wound on 2s, for ~2.5 wounds. Both squads take ~33-40% casualties. I'll again be generous and assume that one of the Cents is killed by the remaining Terminators. In fact, we'll say that the remaining Termies killed the AssCent sarge. So, 4 swings from the remaining Cents, 2 hits, ~1.67 wounds, for ~1.1 unsaved wounds after saves (Termies have that 5++). So now there's two Terminators left, who swing back with 4 attacks themselves, hit twice, and produce ~1.67 wounds which are unsaved, as AssCents have no invuln.

Second round of combat, no AssCents are killed, though presumably both take a wound. Going into the 3rd round, another Terminator is killed, and the last Termie strikes back and will likely kill one of the two AssCents that are left. Round four, it's a little hairy. The remaining AssCent is pretty much down to a single wound, and it really hinges on whether or not the Terminator manages to save the wound with his 5++.

Ultimately though, AssCents vs Tac Termies in combat, without factoring charge bonuses, is pretty much mutual annihilation. One squad will be reduced to one member, with the other being wiped out. One Terminator or AssCent however, does not a combat-effective unit make. When factoring charge bonuses, I found that with a minimum-sized squad, whichever unit gets the charge wins.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Realistically though, Tac Termies would just kite Assault Cents with rending Assault Cannons and SB shots beyond the 12" range band Melta and Hurricane Bolters are effective in.

Rending on ACs is not reliable enough to kill Centurions, while Stormbolters aren't going to be pushing many wounds through a Cent's T5/2+, to say nothing of Cents having two wounds.

Yoyoyo wrote:
And they would assault DevCents, probably wiping them without losing a man.

GravCents will murder the Terminators before the Termies can ever get a charge off, LC/ML DevCents will be too far in the back to assault without trying to DS in... at which point you have to stand around and get shot in the face for a turn before you can try and punch things. LC/ML Cents- and Hurricane/HB Cents, for that matter- can probably "just kite" the Tac Termies by using their superior range.

That maneuver cuts both ways, after all.

Yoyoyo wrote:
The "Tactical" part basically means they are a hybrid troop, and can take advantage of any asymmetry.

The only problem is that the things that Terminators are good at (killing light infantry in shooting, and punching tanks/MCs), a unit of Centurions is better at. In shooting, the Centurions have better anti-horde options, and arguably have better AT options since they can get meltaguns (rending ACs are not AT guns). AssCents also get +1S over PF Termies, and they strike in Initiative order instead of being held down by Unwieldy.

Yoyoyo wrote:
We mentioned the upgrades, so let's look at them then.

- They can upgrade to a chainfist (assault).
- They can take a Flamer (assault).
- They can take an assault cannon (24" range, inconclusive).
- They can take a ML (48" range, typically fire support).

I'd say that a 24" weapon range automatically makes it a 'fire support' or 'primary' weapon, and not an assault-oriented weapon, since 24" is the common infantry weapon range. I'd also contend that Terminators need a wider variety of heavy weapon options- preferably armaments that aren't really available to DevCents (though I'd love for Termies to be able to tote a Grav-Cannon). Then you consider what weapons you want, and then how you want to deliver them; as an example, if you MLs on a 'tough' infantry model, then you can pick the more-accurate DevCents, who can also bring LCs to the party, or the higher-RoF Terminators who can DS in if needed.

If you give Terminators access to MMs, then you have a DS MM option that's able to better leverage cover, can also punch the same things you'll be shooting with MMs to death, doesn't require a drop pod, is theoretically tougher than Sternguard (IE, more likely to survive return fire), and more able to leverage cover than a MM dread in a pod.

Yoyoyo wrote:
We should note, though, that Krak is redundant in the SM Codex

I wouldn't say it's redundant, merely highly available. Considering that Eldar and Tau can spam S6/7, then perhaps Marines should be able to spam S8 to a lesser degree? /inner cynic

Yoyoyo wrote:
and DevCents outshoot even 35ppm Terminators with better weapons, TL bonuses, higher toughness and more wounds as it stands already. [..] But they aren't comparable to DevCents, even ignoring the fluff completely.

For the record, you brought up DevCents in the first place. I merely pointed out the tradeoffs that the mentioned LC/ML DevCents make in comparison to a slightly cheaper dual CML min-sized Terminator squad. As it happens, the meta currently favors the DevCents, primarily because T5 and 2 wounds makes them moderately more durable against mass S6/7.

Yoyoyo wrote:
You are right, they are not pure assault troops. [..] Tac Termies are a hybrid, highly capable assault troops that bring atypical flexibility to the table through quality shooting. But they're always going to be great assault troops in CC, it's just the nature of the unit.

Except that Terminators are not "highly capable assault troops"] in the slightest, except against a very specific subset of targets, the most dangerous of which will either mince the Terminators in combat (DK, IK) or will never be caught by the Terminators (Riptide, WK, IK if it has better things to kill).

Yoyoyo wrote:
Anyways, here's the general conclusions of the thread :

- Drop the price of LC Assault Terminators significantly
- TH/SS are fine, but underperforming/overcosted Land Raiders are hurting them
- Tactical Terminators should have 2x Heavy Weapons slots per 5 models
- Tactical Terminators should be able to exchange their mandatory Power Fist for a Power Weapon, for a discount of 10pts
- Storm Bolters merit future attention

I'd somewhat disagree, instead stating it as:

-Terminators should be slightly cheaper base, perhaps by giving them a power weapon stock with the option to upgrade to a power/chain fist
-Stormbolters should be improved; Assault 3 is a good starting point (IMO at least)
-Clawnator and Shootynator should be comparable in cost; this is easiest to manage with a "power weapon stock" option
-Hammernators are only bad because delivery systems are lackluster
-Shootynators should get double heavies per five mans
-Minor adjustments to durability are probably needed
-Increased heavy weapon selection would be an improvement

I like analogies, and sandwiches. It's all good man.

This thread just has a lot of talk going in many different directions, I wanted to sum up to get some forward direction out of it. As NorseSig said, if at some point if you want to drive forth a solution, someone who didn't get their way is going to feel hurt. That's the big problem with design by committee, it's hard for some people to have humility and they will simply dig in their heels rather than prop someone else's idea.

Try and jump on the good ideas, rather than getting stuck on the thorny ones, it will help us move a resolution forward.

I didn't see a lot of people going for FNP, so I'll tell you my own reasoning why. It's a very significant buff against anything but S8 or ID weapons. You're negating 1/2 of all S7 Plasma hitting your Termies, and that's after BS, to wound, and invul save rolls, and the Plasma gun accidentally blows up in my face. Isn't Plasma supposedly my dedicated anti-TEQ weapon?

Also, a pure FNP fix won't help Termies against S8+ AP2 blasts, which means you still can't DS against a lot of armies. By reducing the points, you can get bigger squads, combat squad them, and get a lot more target saturation when you drop. So I think a points reduction is more advantageous to you in some ways.

FNP has big consequences for melee -- you might not walk all over Meganobz at S8, but in other currently balanced combat, you will walk all over S7 and below. Remember, FNP is a saved wound, so it won't count towards combat resolution. A unit like the TH/SS (which is already quite good) might become overpowering. Not to mention HQs which are already balanced around T5 and multiple wounds. Plus, do Cents logically get a FNP too?

You would need to run some scenarios and comparisons with Tac Termies, and answer all these questions. I'm not saying it couldn't work, but the bolter example is way too abstract.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So basically, Whiskey -- you learned that DevCents want to be shooting, not punching?

And that "Assault" Cents are pretty much equal to "Tactical" Terminators in pure assault, unless they strike at a higher initiative? Good! Point made.

But yes, if you made Terminators a 30ppm platform for Grav Spam, they'd be quite comparable to Dev Cents. Until you said that, I didn't quite follow your logic.

I think getting sucked into a point-by-point internet deconstruction of a post, usually indicates it's time to leave the argument. So, bye. Cheers!

Yoyoyo wrote:
I like analogies, and sandwiches. It's all good man.

This thread just has a lot of talk going in many different directions, I wanted to sum up to get some forward direction out of it. As NorseSig said, if at some point if you want to drive forth a solution, someone who didn't get their way is going to feel hurt. That's the big problem with design by committee, it's hard for some people to have humility and they will simply dig in their heels rather than prop someone else's idea.

Try and jump on the good ideas, rather than getting stuck on the thorny ones, it will help us move a resolution forward.

I didn't see a lot of people going for FNP, so I'll tell you my own reasoning why. It's a very significant buff against anything but S8 or ID weapons. You're negating 1/2 of all S7 Plasma hitting your Termies, and that's after BS, to wound, and invul save rolls, and the Plasma gun accidentally blows up in my face. Isn't Plasma supposedly my dedicated anti-TEQ weapon?

Also, a pure FNP fix won't help Termies against S8+ AP2 blasts, which means you still can't DS against a lot of armies. By reducing the points, you can get bigger squads, combat squad fhem, and get a lot more target saturation when you drop. So I think a points reduction is more advantageous to you in some ways.

FNP has big consequences for melee -- you might not walk all over Meganobz at S8, but in other currently balanced combat, you will walk all over S7 and below. Remember, FNP is a saved wound, so it won't count towards combat resolution. A unit like the TH/SS (which is already quite good) might become overpowering. Not to mention HQs which are already balanced around T5 and multiple wounds. Plus, do Cents logically get a FNP too?

You would need to run some scenarios and comparisons with Tac Termies, and answer all these questions. The bolter example is way too abstract.

I am a little leary of FNP myself for some of the reasons you stated. It probably won't be overpowering for MOST things and variations of Terminators with the exception of MAYBE TH+SS Termies. Personally, I think it should at least be tested first before being completely discounted. I say this because I AM an Iron Hands player and get a 6+ FNP. Overall, based on my results at that, it probably wouldn't be game breaking. You can forget you have the 6+FNP most of the time and it won't make a difference. A 5+FNP might be a little more reliable but I don't think It would be crazy good. Certainly not as good as the reanimation protocols Necrons get (and I am fine with that). I am not a 100% sure but isn't there a unit in Necrons (assault based I believe) that gets 2+/2++ and 4+ Protocols (with the decursion formation. never can remember the name of it)? The wraith I want to say. I seem to remember them being insanely good. TH+SS termies wouldn't have that level of resilience, and would still need a reliable way to get around in a timely fasion (though deepstrike becomes a better option with these).

Cents I think are fine as they are. Their second wound and much better offense make up for any negatives they have.

And I don't completely agree that they will walk all over str7 and below. Will they be able to stand against it better? Yes. But part of the issue with termies is their ability to survive low str shooting. I know my biker cap/CM on a bike with gorgons chain apothecary TH+LC and 4 grav guns in command squad doesn't always steamroll in combat. He is very very good at it but there are ways to stop him dead in his tracks. One of them is to lock him into a giant mob if you can. It takes a while to fight out of that.

Yoyoyo wrote:
I like analogies, and sandwiches. It's all good man.

This thread just has a lot of talk going in many different directions, I wanted to sum up to get some forward direction out of it. As NorseSig said, if at some point if you want to drive forth a solution, someone who didn't get their way is going to feel hurt. That's the big problem with design by committee, it's hard for some people to have humility and they will simply dig in their heels rather than prop someone else's idea.

Try and jump on the good ideas, rather than getting stuck on the thorny ones, it will help us move a resolution forward.

I didn't see a lot of people going for FNP, so I'll tell you my own reasoning why. It's a very significant buff against anything but S8 or ID weapons. You're negating 1/2 of all S7 Plasma hitting your Termies, and that's after BS, to wound, and invul save rolls, and the Plasma gun accidentally blows up in my face. Isn't Plasma supposedly my dedicated anti-TEQ weapon?

Also, a pure FNP fix won't help Termies against S8+ AP2 blasts, which means you still can't DS against a lot of armies. By reducing the points, you can get bigger squads, combat squad fhem, and get a lot more target saturation when you drop. So I think a points reduction is more advantageous to you in some ways.

FNP has big consequences for melee -- you might not walk all over Meganobz at S8, but in other currently balanced combat, you will walk all over S7 and below. Remember, FNP is a saved wound, so it won't count towards combat resolution. A unit like the TH/SS (which is already quite good) might become overpowering. Not to mention HQs which are already balanced around T5 and multiple wounds. Plus, do Cents logically get a FNP too?

You would need to run some scenarios and comparisons with Tac Termies, and answer all these questions. The bolter example is way too abstract.

"You're negating 1/2 of all S7 Plasma hitting your Termies, and that's after BS, to wound, and invul save rolls"


Yes, the idea behind the FNP is that it would affect AP2 related s7 just a tad better than what is current. There is also the added benefit that it wont entirely neuter instant death in the process. AP2 is over abundant as is - which is a main reason why SM players avoid using them and why this thread starts out with 'the AP2 issue'.


"Also, a pure FNP fix won't help Termies against S8+ AP2 blasts, which means you still can't DS against a lot of armies. By reducing the points, you can get bigger squads, combat squad fhem, and get a lot more target saturation when you drop. So I think a points reduction is more advantageous to you in some ways."

Well, I don't want terminators to walk around with impunity. Some weapons or things are going to exist where terminators just don't have a chance. We have to accept this I think somewhere in approaching there issue. There's gotta be some delineation as to what weapons should turn terminators into pink mist. I would be okay at that line of S8 AP2. Also, remember, a guardsman with a plasma will still be mitigating 33% of the terminators normal save - if he hits and that's still something.
I agree, a significant point reduction would be a great option - if it goes into the realm of 25-28 ppm.


"FNP has big consequences for melee -- you might not walk all over Meganobz at S8, but in other currently balanced combat, you will walk all over S7 and below. Remember, FNP is a saved wound, so it won't count towards combat resolution. A unit like the TH/SS (which is already quite good) might become overpowering. Not to mention HQs which are already balanced around T5 and multiple wounds. Plus, do Cents logically get a FNP too?"

I think terminators should operate with way more security in close quarters - since that is what they are intended for in lore, so I really don't see a problem here.
TH/SS will become particularly more survivable in close combat yes, but they still suffer from going last, and they are limited in tactical use in general. For how expensive they are (even if with a point reduction) they should be impressive on their consistent damage soak.
HQ units fielded with this combo are going to have to pay the usual subjective premium. Could always increase so that it isn't the only viable cost effecient option.
Centurion should not get anything more than what they already have. In my opinion, they should be retconned anyway. I only tolerate their existence... They are up there with the Logan sleigh, and wolf mounts - imo.


Regarding your idea on direction, here's the list of fixes that sound reasonable to work with:

The offers:

FNP 4+ or 5+
Armour Save reroll (BRB exception)
+1 AP reduction vs Terminator armour.
Stat line increase - variable ideas
Point cost reduction to 25-30 ppm with more more versatility regarding options.


Various Trade-offs:

Remove invulnerable save
Add further movement penalty
Reduce initiative
Add point values


Willing to revise this list, if I agree with the rationale. I may have forgotten some of the ideas I liked in the thread too - fyi.

Reflection is good but at some time we have to run scenarios for the Tac guys, to test and compare all the possible solutions on the table. It's important not to tailor loadouts until we see how the basic troops perform. Given the complexity of the other options I say go with a points reduction and FNP.

It's probably easiest to do this in Excel if anyone can whip up a CC calculator.

At 200pts, here's a selection of infantry to draw a reliable baseline:

- 1x Nob w/30 Boyz
- 5x Meganobz
- 7x Praetorian
- 8x Lychguard
- 5x Wraith with Whip Coils
- 14x Tac Marines
- 5x Tac Terminators
- 5x TH/SS Terminators
- 34x Guardsmen, Platoon Commander, Commissar
- 10x Incubi
- 1x Wraithknight
- 15x Genestealer
- 4x Lictor

Running tests with 33pt Terminators (6x), 40pt Terminators (5x), and 40pt Terminators w/FNP (5+, 6+) would give you a good idea of how they all stack up in CC.

Anybody want to take this on?

Yoyoyo wrote:
Reflection is good but at some time we have to run scenarios for the Tac guys, to test and compare all the possible solutions on the table. It's important not to tailor loadouts until we see how the basic troops perform. Given the complexity of the other options I say go with a points reduction and FNP.

It's probably easiest to do this in Excel if anyone can whip up a CC calculator.

At 200pts, here's a selection of infantry to draw a reliable baseline:

- 1x Nob w/30 Boyz
- 5x Meganobz
- 7x Praetorian
- 8x Lychguard
- 5x Wraith with Whip Coils
- 14x Tac Marines
- 5x Tac Terminators
- 5x TH/SS Terminators
- 34x Guardsmen, Platoon Commander, Commissar
- 10x Incubi
- 1x Wraithknight
- 15x Genestealer
- 4x Lictor

Running tests with 33pt Terminators (6x), 40pt Terminators (5x), and 40pt Terminators w/FNP (5+, 6+) would give you a good idea of how they all stack up in CC.

Anybody want to take this on?

Playtesting is fine to an extent. I just don't think taking various entries from other lists to 'playtest vs' is as directly proportional as you might think. Each army is considered with an internal balance just as much as general game balance perspective. I think the safer bet is to take that related army's standard infantryman as the point cost baseline and establish a metric for our alterations.

What you propose right now, offers way too much subjectivity since it is neglecting army synergy. It won't reveal too much other than opinion I fear.

What we should be looking at, is how much a terminator should cost relative to a tactical marine first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EDIT: I take back what I said (to a degree). In order to establish a relative baseline for the tactical marine, we first have to base on something less than a marine... the only thing that comes to mind would be an imp guard human - I think this makes for the ideal standard/increment for point cost reference.

Anyone disagree?

If not that this is what I have in mind:

Consider and quantify the point value difference between the imp guard and the space marine. Then take those values and increment them in relation to what a terminator SHOULD cost over a space marine.

I'll make an attempt on this a bit later...

Playtesting is fine to an extent. I just don't think taking various entries from other lists to 'playtest vs' is as directly proportional as you might think. Each army is considered with an internal balance just as much as general game balance perspective. I think the safer bet is to take that related army's standard infantryman as the point cost baseline and establish a metric for our alterations.

What you propose right now, offers way too much subjectivity since it is neglecting army synergy. It won't reveal too much other than opinion I fear.

What we should be looking at, is how much a terminator should cost relative to a tactical marine first.

In relation to a tactical marine I would say tactical terminators should run 30ppm before upgrades or there abouts. No more than 33. I wasn't suggesting only a FNP change either. I was talking about having them have FNP in place of the invul save though TH+SS would get an invul from the SS. 30ppm is still pricey, but I think it is a fair price (once other changes are made to tune the unit), with some fluctuation depending on what you give them.

My other Ideas (the recent ones) are in the thread, and I have been just too lazy to keep repeating them over and over.

In no way should Terminators get any slower. Their mobility is one of their HUGE drawbacks that will go a long way to help keep them from ever being broke cheese like other units. Which is why we want to boost their damage output and versatility as well, but not boost it too much.

I think based on str alone 8+ is a decent benchmark for instant killing terminators. Which str 8 and above will deny them FNP if I remember correctly. I seem to remember double str over toughness is instant death if they fail a save. But it is late so my mind might not be working correctly atm. And it isn't like anything below str 8 won't kill Terminators with FNP. Massed fire will still kill them as it should, but it won't do it as quickly.

But I agree testing one rule at a time is the way to go starting with the points, though I suspect we can extrapolate some data from similar terminator units already in the game that are around the 33ppm mark. Namely the Grey Knights and Space Wolves. Yes they are slightly more assault geared than the vanilla terminators, but if we look at them we can get some data from that there. Grey Knight termies have storm bolters and force weapons. From what I have experienced and seen the grey knights are in need of help this edition as far as most everything goes minus dreadknights (those are crazy good. Not op good but crazy good). The GK are pretty decent in the assault but their shooting is very weak.

Space Wolves Grey Guard (I think that is what they are called. I am horrible with names) have great utility at 33ppm baseline. What makes them good is you can turn them into a powerhouse assault unit with fairly decent fire support. 2+/3++ guys in the front with good other melee options is what sells them. They Heavy weapons on SW Termies is just icing on the cake., But again They are more assault orientated with their USRs and options than vanilla Terminators. They Grey Guard can still be a little too fragile though.

I have not had a chance to look at Blood Angels or Dark Angels Termies as of yet, and I can't get a proper judge on the Blood Angels version seeing as I refuse to play the local BA player (He cheats, and is an all around poor sport. I only play him if I have to. Like for instance if I am in a league).

I am not saying these examples end the discussion, but they do give some support for the 30ppm starting point for testing. As they are now the SW and GK Termies are a little overpriced (not a lot just a few points, and depending on the rules that people come up with might become spot on.) I will say that GK Termies are about the best troop option for GK IMO, but that is more of due to the weakness of the other troops than anything.

Sorry if this is long and rambly. I get like that when I am tired, but I wanted to get my thoughts out while I remembered them.

 NorseSig wrote:


Sorry if this is long and rambly. I get like that when I am tired, but I wanted to get my thoughts out while I remembered them.

No problem. good thoughts. I think it digressed well.


Regarding that idea I had for the baseline - for terminators, [take the following as a rough approximation]:

......................................[Long thought train removed for your brevity]...............................................

So now lets look at Tactical Space Marines to terminators with the above comparison in mind:
[Unfortunately the guardsman comparison idea had little bearing from SM to terminator.... thought maybe it would be more useful... oh well]

The pt difference rundown Tac marine -> Terminator:
+1 pts for attacks,
+1 pts for Assault weapon and general range improvement
+2 pts for armour save increase (+16.67% base cost of marine - because one die facing improvement = 16.67% = Approx how many points are incrementally saved from a wound [average])
+2 pts stat points for invulnerable save (+33% / 2 Base cost rounding down - because x2 die facings = 33%, approx, how many points are saved from a wound - divided by 2 because only one save permitted, so reducing for redundancy ).
+5 points for powerfist (+1 per point of Strength in combat + APs but divided by 2 since it essentially reduces all Initiative).

Total: 11 pts

So a terminator with storm bolter & powerfist should start off at no less than 26 ppm ( +15 tac marine +11 difference to current terminator stats)

So..... I will argue that this is really closer to the figure we should be paying for current terminators.

------------------------- Plugging FNP into the above reasoning-----------------------------------------

If we took this figure and modified for some of our desired alterations, like FNP 4+, I would argue it should do the following:

Since FNP is more consistent than the invulnerable save, I think the division I used for it would be cancelled and a further 16.67% fee added on (because its going from a 5+ to a 4+),
and our base cost is still 15, so : 15*16.67% = 2.5. I'll round down, so +2 pts. Now we add the original invuln pt value, without the division and rounding up. So, +5. Now we add 2+5 in total = 7 pts

Therefore, a terminator with FNP 4+, storm bolter and powerfist should cost 31 points.

[the above values may change around FYI]

"Second round of combat, no AssCents are killed, though presumably both take a wound. Going into the 3rd round, another Terminator is killed, and the last Termie strikes back and will likely kill one of the two AssCents that are left. Round four, it's a little hairy. The remaining AssCent is pretty much down to a single wound, and it really hinges on whether or not the Terminator manages to save the wound with his 5++."

They are 2 wounds each yes? So 1 of them is dead if both take a wound, as the closest model takes all the wounds until the next (I can't remember at the moment, but it could be initiative step) round. But anyway the multi wound shenanigans only work if you move the wounded model back next movement phase, or the wound is done on a different round in melee.

kveldulf
You forgot special rules in your figures. I don't know them all, but there is for sure Deep strike.

At this time it does appear to be a point for point change in the same organization slot, not across slots. Using Eldar, Dire Avengers vs Guardians.

Dire Avengers gain +1Ld, +1Sv, Counter Attack, and better Shuricat, making them cost 13ppm.

Storm Guardians vs Howling Banshees

Banshees Gain +1Ld, +1Sv, Acrobatic, Banshee Mask, and a Power Sword. They lose Plasma Grenades. Making them 14ppm, as compared to the 15ppm they run. Not a huge difference, but they are not that much better, and Grenades are better than the mask.

Wyches vs Incubi

Incubi gain +1Ws, +1Ld, +3Sv, and an AP2 +1S weapon. I did not add an extra attack because the wyches get 2 CC weapons.
They lose 1I, Combat Drugs, and Dodge.
Making them cost 14ppm(counting the +1S), a far cry from the 20ppm they are now.

 megatrons2nd wrote:


kveldulf
You forgot special rules in your figures. I don't know them all, but there is for sure Deep strike.

At this time it does appear to be a point for point change in the same organization slot, not across slots. Using Eldar, Dire Avengers vs Guardians.

Dire Avengers gain +1Ld, +1Sv, Counter Attack, and better Shuricat, making them cost 13ppm.

Storm Guardians vs Howling Banshees

Banshees Gain +1Ld, +1Sv, Acrobatic, Banshee Mask, and a Power Sword. They lose Plasma Grenades. Making them 14ppm, as compared to the 15ppm they run. Not a huge difference, but they are not that much better, and Grenades are better than the mask.

Wyches vs Incubi

Incubi gain +1Ws, +1Ld, +3Sv, and an AP2 +1S weapon. I did not add an extra attack because the wyches get 2 CC weapons.
They lose 1I, Combat Drugs, and Dodge.
Making them cost 14ppm(counting the +1S), a far cry from the 20ppm they are now.

I intentionally left out maneuvering/toggle special rules to factor in, as I see them as something distributed to units to sculpt and distinguish army composition as a whole - unit synergy within the army

On top of that, it's too hard to factor in things like deployment special rules as absolute point values. If anything, these are the particular mechanics that play testing should be focusing on.

I snipped a lot of my train of thought in that post, which included mention of not quantifying special rules. Heh I guess I should of left it in, but I felt it was better to save everyone a few brain cells and just get to the meat and potatoes.

 kveldulf wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:


kveldulf
You forgot special rules in your figures. I don't know them all, but there is for sure Deep strike.

At this time it does appear to be a point for point change in the same organization slot, not across slots. Using Eldar, Dire Avengers vs Guardians.

Dire Avengers gain +1Ld, +1Sv, Counter Attack, and better Shuricat, making them cost 13ppm.

Storm Guardians vs Howling Banshees

Banshees Gain +1Ld, +1Sv, Acrobatic, Banshee Mask, and a Power Sword. They lose Plasma Grenades. Making them 14ppm, as compared to the 15ppm they run. Not a huge difference, but they are not that much better, and Grenades are better than the mask.

Wyches vs Incubi

Incubi gain +1Ws, +1Ld, +3Sv, and an AP2 +1S weapon. I did not add an extra attack because the wyches get 2 CC weapons.
They lose 1I, Combat Drugs, and Dodge.
Making them cost 14ppm(counting the +1S), a far cry from the 20ppm they are now.

I intentionally left out maneuvering/toggle special rules to factor in, as I see them as something distributed to units to sculpt and distinguish army composition as a whole - unit synergy within the army

On top of that, it's too hard to factor in things like deployment special rules as absolute point values. If anything, these are the particular mechanics that play testing should be focusing on.

I snipped a lot of my train of thought in that post, which included mention of not quantifying special rules. Heh I guess I should of left it in, but I felt it was better to save everyone a few brain cells and just get to the meat and potatoes.

Good to know. I always just assigned a flat +1 point to all special rules, except Invulnerable saves, and FnP. Both of which are added to my personal Equation in the Defense portion as a modifier or an additional save sequence, respectively.

 kveldulf wrote:
Playtesting is fine to an extent. I just don't think taking various entries from other lists to 'playtest vs' is as directly proportional as you might think. Each army is considered with an internal balance just as much as general game balance perspective. I think the safer bet is to take that related army's standard infantryman as the point cost baseline and establish a metric for our alterations.

Playtesting is just that -- testing. It's not to set points, it's to double-check if the values you arrive by your metric give the results you want. Look at it as a way of proving the results of your changes and costing. And in some ways it's easier to say "that works" than by remaining completely abstract. For example, if 200pts is a baseline, we can test 5x Termies at 40ppm, 6x Termies at 33ppm, 5x Termies at 28ppm, and 8x Termies at 25ppm. I can't tell you if 35ppm is the fairest true baseline. I can only say, "here are the results of testing, consider them as you will". Keep in mind it doesn't preclude considering internal synergy to weigh the results afterwards.

The only reason to discourage gaming the values, is if you don't want to check the "practice" against your "theory"!

 megatrons2nd wrote:
They are 2 wounds each yes? So 1 of them is dead if both take a wound, as the closest model takes all the wounds until the next (I can't remember at the moment, but it could be initiative step) round. But anyway the multi wound shenanigans only work if you move the wounded model back next movement phase, or the wound is done on a different round in melee.

The main point was that Dev Cents have melee comparable to Broadsides (4A at WS4, 7A at WS2, neither get melee weapons), and Tac Termies are pretty good in CC. So they not truly comparable. Neither are the special weapons. Dev Cents have much better quality of fire, and every model is required to take them. Once again, that's similar to a Broadside (Railgun/HYMP, SMS/Plasma Rifle).

Assault Cents are a very strange unit (SnP on an assaulter?). I think they have more of a seige role than anything else. But they compare far more equally to Tac Termies than their Dev Cents do, both in shooting and CC.

Yoyoyo wrote:
So basically, Whiskey -- you learned that DevCents want to be shooting, not punching?

No, we established that DevCents shoot things to death, when you brought up LC/ML DevCents.

Yoyoyo wrote:
And that "Assault" Cents are pretty much equal to "Tactical" Terminators in pure assault, unless they strike at a higher initiative? Good! Point made.

No, actually. AssCents pretty much gak all over Tac Termies in combat with things that Tac Termies would be good at punching. The only reason for AssCents to strike simultaneously with Tac Termies is if you give all of them Hurricane Bolters instead of Ironclad Assault Launchers, and the target unit is in cover. AssCents have S9 AP2 melee that strikes at Initiative 4. Always. For equal cost investment (assuming only manpower, as the gun upgrades are wasted in combat), AssCents will murder almost anything more efficiently than Tac Termies will. Even equipped with Chainfists, the twin Siege Drills of an AssCent overcome the lack of base attacks on an AssCent's profile, and are S9/AP2 Armorbane, as opposed to the Sx2/AP2 Armorbane of a Chainfist.

The only way for a squad of Shootynators to kill AssCents in assault is for the former to get the charge off.

Yoyoyo wrote:
But yes, if you made Terminators a 30ppm platform for Grav Spam, they'd be quite comparable to Dev Cents. Until you said that, I didn't quite follow your logic.

I'd like Grav Cannons as a general heavy weapon option for every SM squad, yes. However, I find it more important that access to the existing heavy weapon list be extended to Terminators, as I did point out that even just going for a double heavy per 5 guys and giving access to MMs means you have a way to deliver DS melta- and 24" range melta, to boot, on a 2+ armor dude. It's not stellar, but it gives a short-range, mobile AT, infantry platform to the SM book, to complement the emplaced infantry AT options of LC/ML DevCents or a 4x ML/4x LC Dev squad.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
They are 2 wounds each yes? So 1 of them is dead if both take a wound, as the closest model takes all the wounds until the next (I can't remember at the moment, but it could be initiative step) round. But anyway the multi wound shenanigans only work if you move the wounded model back next movement phase, or the wound is done on a different round in melee.

The point I was making is that AssCents vs Tac Terminators- before factoring charge bonuses, results in what is effectively MAD. Whichever one gets the charge will probably win in combat.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
kveldulf
You forgot special rules in your figures. I don't know them all, but there is for sure Deep strike.

At this time it does appear to be a point for point change in the same organization slot, not across slots. Using Eldar, Dire Avengers vs Guardians.

Dire Avengers gain +1Ld, +1Sv, Counter Attack, and better Shuricat, making them cost 13ppm.

Storm Guardians vs Howling Banshees

Banshees Gain +1Ld, +1Sv, Acrobatic, Banshee Mask, and a Power Sword. They lose Plasma Grenades. Making them 14ppm, as compared to the 15ppm they run. Not a huge difference, but they are not that much better, and Grenades are better than the mask.

Wyches vs Incubi

Incubi gain +1Ws, +1Ld, +3Sv, and an AP2 +1S weapon. I did not add an extra attack because the wyches get 2 CC weapons.
They lose 1I, Combat Drugs, and Dodge.
Making them cost 14ppm(counting the +1S), a far cry from the 20ppm they are now.

Wyches aren't really comparable to Incubi, due to the fact that they occupy two entirely different roles. I'm leaning that way on the Banshee/Storm Guardian comparison as well- it'd be more accurate to compare Storm Guardians and Striking Scorpions, as both are more geared towards killing "mob/light" infantry. Incubi and Banshees want to be pointed at things with good armor saves.

Yoyoyo wrote:
The main point was that Dev Cents have melee comparable to Broadsides (4A at WS4, 7A at WS2, neither get melee weapons), and Tac Termies are pretty good in CC. So they not truly comparable. Neither are the special weapons. Dev Cents have much better quality of fire, and every model is required to take them. Once again, that's similar to a Broadside (Railgun/HYMP, SMS/Plasma Rifle).

I never even compared DevCents to Tac Termies in combat, though. In fact, I didn't even mention DevCents in combat at all, except to say that Terminators won't ever get into combat with DevCents, since they'll either have to DS in and stand around to be shot in the face, or they'll be vaporized by GravCents.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Assault Cents are a very strange unit (SnP on an assaulter?). I think they have more of a seige role than anything else. But they compare far more equally to Tac Termies than their Dev Cents do, both in shooting and CC.

Terminators as a combat unit do the same thing as Assault Centurions. It's just that AssCents do that job infinitely better- Siege Drills have no initiative penalty, and always strike at S9. Chainfists being armorbane is irrelevant, as Siege Drills are also armorbane, and power/chain fists and siege drills are all AP2. AssCents are even better at anti-horde shooting, thanks to carrying twin-linked flamers by default, and being able to season a few Hurricane Bolters into the squad.

Okay, Storm Guardians Vs Striking Scorpions

Scorpions Gain +1Ld, +2Sv, a better Chainsword(+1S and AP6) Mandiblasters, Infiltrate, Move through Cover, and Stealth. Making them 15ppm each, rather than 17ppm each as they are now. With MtC and Infiltrate added, 17ppm. Still not lining up for troops to elite slots unless you add in movement/deployment abilities.