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.

+1 wound or 1+ save (gets a 2+ save vs ap2). Personally I like the 1+ save option the best because it gives ap1 weapons a bigger roll in the game. Probably with this change I would introduce more ap1 CC weapons (relic level). Possibly bump most single shot long range weapons to AP 1 also.

Martel732 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I am a fan of Termie armour giving +1 wound. All other suggestions seem to take away what makes certain armies "special" like giving the Shunt move or giving them FnP (which some units have access to already)
Storm bolters are fine considering they are not mean to be a power house weapon option, just as regular bolters are for Tac marines. If you want Termies to be more shooty, I'd go with the 2 per 5 heavy weapons option.

If Termie armour (all Termie armour) gave +1 wound, then regular Termies would easily be worth their cost and characters that buy Termie armour (usually for the price of a whole actual Ternimator) would also be worth it. You could also do this via an Errata in the same way they did Dreadnaught's +2 attacks, or even in the 8th ed BRB.
GK Paladins would actually be worth their cost now as they would have 3 wounds total.

I really think that +1 wound is the most logical change as:
A) it's easier to track than any special rule added that may add extra rolls or be forgotten
B) it accounts for the added bulk of the model
C) it instantly makes Termies more survivable without changing how the function overall.

-

So what to do MANZ get? 3 wounds? Survivability is not the real issue. Lack of utility is. No one giving a feth about stormbolters is the real problem here. Lightning claw terminators are pretty bad, too.

Exactly. Terminators are gak offensively and all this does is guarantee I ignore them for the game instead of killing them real quick for a KP.

So what did you REALLY fix? Nothing. The people upping Terminator durability don't get their primary issues.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So what did you REALLY fix? Nothing. The people upping Terminator durability don't get their primary issues.

Terminators are meant to be durable, hence the 2+ armour. GW never said they are supposed to be terribly offensive, so I don't see the "primary issue"
A unit has an issue if it doesn't do what it is supposed to do in the rule set given. Terminators play defense, Devs & Assault marines play offense. These are facts.
If you don't like their role, don't take Termies, or if you would like their role to mean more, propose changes to the core ruleset.

TL;DR: Termies are rocks so make them better rocks, stop trying to making them into scissors

-

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So what did you REALLY fix? Nothing. The people upping Terminator durability don't get their primary issues.

Terminators are meant to be durable, hence the 2+ armour. GW never said they are supposed to be terribly offensive, so I don't see the "primary issue"
A unit has an issue if it doesn't do what it is supposed to do in the rule set given. Terminators play defense, Devs & Assault marines play offense. These are facts.
If you don't like their role, don't take Termies, or if you would like their role to mean more, propose changes to the core ruleset.

TL;DR: Termies are rocks so make them better rocks, stop trying to making them into scissors

-

That's why they have the 2+/5++. They're not much more durable than 2.5 PA Marines but that's okay. The issue comes afterwards when you pay those points for a unit that doesn't do anything. To say Assault Marines play offense is kinda silly too.

All you do is make them more ignored and keep trying to make them rocks when people are ignoring their real role as shock troopers, much like Scions are supposed to be. That's why you have Deep Strike and Land Raiders as transports. However, they don't do anything after a Deep Strike except shoot poorly or sit a turn to be shot at before melee, and then you got Land Raiders being 50-60 points too expensive.

The Centurions came along and are doing the durability thing better. Their role is more a Frontline unit that's taking the beating. That's what people are trying to turn Terminators into but that wasn't their role to begin with. At least Centurions are dangerous enough offensively that you actually want to go through their defenses and kill them.

The centurions basically came along and more or less took the job the terminators seemed to be originally designed to have but lost over the editions.

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So what did you REALLY fix? Nothing. The people upping Terminator durability don't get their primary issues.

Terminators are meant to be durable, hence the 2+ armour. GW never said they are supposed to be terribly offensive, so I don't see the "primary issue"
A unit has an issue if it doesn't do what it is supposed to do in the rule set given. Terminators play defense, Devs & Assault marines play offense. These are facts.
If you don't like their role, don't take Termies, or if you would like their role to mean more, propose changes to the core ruleset.

TL;DR: Termies are rocks so make them better rocks, stop trying to making them into scissors

-

I kind.of don't care about gw's take. Defensive units are largely useless. Especially when they are slow. And any old mc ignores their armor.

Also, terminators have never been truly durable, not even in 2nd.

 n0t_u wrote:
The centurions basically came along and more or less took the job the terminators seemed to be originally designed to have but lost over the editions.

In a way. The Hammernator is the only role a Centurion cannot adequately take away. And that's not because of the Hammer, but the Shield that comes with the Hammer.

But the other point is appropriate. Why pick Terminators with Storm Bolters and the occasional Assault Cannon/Missile Launcher when you can have Grav Spam AND Missile Spam? The Fist and Hammer fall flat when compared to a unit which can have Assault Grenade equivalents, Str 9, Armourbane Attacks.

Martel732 wrote:

I kind.of don't care about gw's take. Defensive units are largely useless. Especially when they are slow. And any old mc ignores their armor.

This highlights my point though. To paraphrase Wolverine, "Terminators are good at what they do, but what they do isn't very good"
What would make Terminators good is making defensive units worth a dang by changing the core rules. I don't know how this would be done other that to make AP2 weapon less available.
And actually, GW has taken step in recent memory to do just that. Example: Power Weapons, which used to ignore all saves, but since 6th (or 5th?) ed they have been AP3, allowing Terminators to take there saves. GW also dropped the cost of Termies in most dexes (sorry BAs)

If you changed Smash to Rending instead of straight AP2, then Termies vs MCs would not be so bad, and MCs would get toned down a smidge in the process. Win WIn!
Powerfists, Lightning claws, Hammers, power axes, etc are all good CC weapons (at least in GWs mind) and Termies would be fine if they could survive to use them.

-

Terminators aren't even better vs non AP 2 though. At 35 ppm, they are only twice as durable as tac marines at 14 ppm. Bolters are better vs terminators than tac marines. WTF?

The only AP where terminators are really good is AP 3.

Martel732 wrote:
Terminators aren't even better vs non AP 2 though. At 35 ppm, they are only twice as durable as tac marines at 14 ppm. Bolters are better vs terminators than tac marines. WTF?

The only AP where terminators are really good is AP 3.

Which circles me back to why +1 would is the best idea. At ~35ppm and 2 wound Terminie would be easily as durable 3 tactical marines, yet cost less. Then give them access to more heavy weapons (like the 2 per 5 suggested, or 1 per 3) and you have a unit that can fill multiple roles much better than they can now.
I think another point against Termies is that they are "supposed" to be more CC oriented (or at least balance between both) in an edition that is shooting based. A shift in the main rules in favor of CC units would only benefit Termies.

-

If you wanted to them them more valuable as a defensive rock, you could give them ObSec. Plop them on an objective and then they can’t be ignored.

If that’s a bit much (and I think it is personally) you could give them something like "Objective Denied” where they contest even ObSec units, maybe in a larger radius then normal. But can't necessarily claim them out from under ObSec units.

Just some thoughts. I don’t think there is an easy answer to fixing them without some major tweaks to the overall meta.

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Terminators aren't even better vs non AP 2 though. At 35 ppm, they are only twice as durable as tac marines at 14 ppm. Bolters are better vs terminators than tac marines. WTF?

The only AP where terminators are really good is AP 3.

Which circles me back to why +1 would is the best idea. At ~35ppm and 2 wound Terminie would be easily as durable 3 tactical marines, yet cost less. Then give them access to more heavy weapons (like the 2 per 5 suggested, or 1 per 3) and you have a unit that can fill multiple roles much better than they can now.
I think another point against Termies is that they are "supposed" to be more CC oriented (or at least balance between both) in an edition that is shooting based. A shift in the main rules in favor of CC units would only benefit Termies.

-

I don't think this is the right approach. Steps on too many toes. I don't think there's a real fix atm.

1+ save (so AP: 2 is less deadly, since 1's still fail)
5+ FNP
2 wounds OR T: 5, not both
2 per 5 can take a heavy weapon


Adjust points as necessary.

Simple, upps their durrability to a point closer to the fluff.
T: 5 reduces spamming light weight shots to force saves, as would 2 wounds
2 heavy weapons per 5 buffs up ranged damage output.

Yep. Just spit-ballin ideas at this point. I think Terminators suffer from GW's idea that "people are still buying them, so they must be fine" and "we need to sell these other kits more"

+1 wound might not "fix" them, but it is one heck of a good Band-Aid.

I also like Nevelon's "Objective Denied" idea. They score as normal, but are able to contest ObSec units.

There's just no way to justify 35pts for a stormbolter. And that's what they are as an objective camper. It doesn't matter how tanky they are. They stand there and helplessly watch as the rest of your list is massacred. Can't move and can't shoot are cardinal sins in 7 th ed.

Considering this is the most common thread topic i ever see on dakka, there likely isnt a good fix.

How about " weapons targeting models in terminator armour have their strength reduced and ap value increased by 1. Against weapons with a base ap value numerically higher than 3, models in terminator armour may take a 5+ fnp save."

Then you have slightly added durability against uber weapons, really helps characters against str8, and 1/3 increased durability vs small arms fire. They also keep their best in class spot against ap3 weapons.

Clunky and unattractive though. Not to mention it really takes away the ability of MC's to deal with terminators...

Martel732 wrote:
There's just no way to justify 35pts for a stormbolter. And that's what they are as an objective camper. It doesn't matter how tanky they are. They stand there and helplessly watch as the rest of your list is massacred. Can't move and can't shoot are cardinal sins in 7 th ed.

The thing is, you're not paying for the privilege of a Storm Bolter, you're paying for a Powerfist with the ability to fire a few shots off beforehand.

Assault needs to mean more of a damn in 40k and their suitability needs to be boosted slightly. Storm Bolters could do with a slight buff in general, whether it be becoming Assault 3 or just getting a price drop across the board.
Terminators don't need to be turned into something they are not.

That or that idea someone had a few threads ago where Terminator Armour makes Unwieldy -1 I or 1/2 I rounding down, allowing Terminators to strike before most other AP2 weapons.

It's like me saying the way to fix Assault Marines is to give the Jetpacks and boltguns and the ability to buy Assault Cannons on every model. Would they be better? Hell yeah, but then they wouldn't be Assault Marines anymore.

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Terminators aren't even better vs non AP 2 though. At 35 ppm, they are only twice as durable as tac marines at 14 ppm. Bolters are better vs terminators than tac marines. WTF?

The only AP where terminators are really good is AP 3.

Which circles me back to why +1 would is the best idea. At ~35ppm and 2 wound Terminie would be easily as durable 3 tactical marines, yet cost less. Then give them access to more heavy weapons (like the 2 per 5 suggested, or 1 per 3) and you have a unit that can fill multiple roles much better than they can now.
I think another point against Termies is that they are "supposed" to be more CC oriented (or at least balance between both) in an edition that is shooting based. A shift in the main rules in favor of CC units would only benefit Termies.

-

And then how does one approach MANZ?
They don't need another wound because Centurions already tackle that. They're doing the role that people think Terminators were meant to do when they literally haven't done it once in the first place.

You understand what I mean?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Terminators aren't even better vs non AP 2 though. At 35 ppm, they are only twice as durable as tac marines at 14 ppm. Bolters are better vs terminators than tac marines. WTF?

The only AP where terminators are really good is AP 3.

Which circles me back to why +1 would is the best idea. At ~35ppm and 2 wound Terminie would be easily as durable 3 tactical marines, yet cost less. Then give them access to more heavy weapons (like the 2 per 5 suggested, or 1 per 3) and you have a unit that can fill multiple roles much better than they can now.
I think another point against Termies is that they are "supposed" to be more CC oriented (or at least balance between both) in an edition that is shooting based. A shift in the main rules in favor of CC units would only benefit Termies.

-

And then how does one approach MANZ?
They don't need another wound because Centurions already tackle that. They're doing the role that people think Terminators were meant to do when they literally haven't done it once in the first place.

You understand what I mean?

We can fix MANZ latter just because one unit is more broken is not a real reason to hold off fixing a different one.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There's just no way to justify 35pts for a stormbolter. And that's what they are as an objective camper. It doesn't matter how tanky they are. They stand there and helplessly watch as the rest of your list is massacred. Can't move and can't shoot are cardinal sins in 7 th ed.

The thing is, you're not paying for the privilege of a Storm Bolter, you're paying for a Powerfist with the ability to fire a few shots off beforehand.

Assault needs to mean more of a damn in 40k and their suitability needs to be boosted slightly. Storm Bolters could do with a slight buff in general, whether it be becoming Assault 3 or just getting a price drop across the board.
Terminators don't need to be turned into something they are not.

That or that idea someone had a few threads ago where Terminator Armour makes Unwieldy -1 I or 1/2 I rounding down, allowing Terminators to strike before most other AP2 weapons.

It's like me saying the way to fix Assault Marines is to give the Jetpacks and boltguns and the ability to buy Assault Cannons on every model. Would they be better? Hell yeah, but then they wouldn't be Assault Marines anymore.

Smash on MCs ruins the power fist, as does being unable to pursue in assaults. Terminators are quite literally the worst combination of wargear.

+1 wound is a very good fix. I'm not sure why people think the unit needs to zip around and shoot highly threatening shots like scatbikes. That isn't what they do.
Their intended role is a spear tip and objective TAKER. They don't hold your backfield objective, they don't chase down scattered units. They point at an objective in the enemy backfield and say "either dedicate an extreme amount of firepower to us or get off that objective, because anyone still there when we get there will be eating powerfist sandwiches."

Mobile enemies lose a lot of their advantage when they need to stay within 3" of a point. The problem is that the effort it currently takes to remove termies is pathetic. Virtually any weapon is efficient against them except for like...low shot ap3's. If they could actually survive long enough to do their job, people would start to see that they can actually be good with the loadouts and abilities they have.

And yes MC's also ruin their day. Something else that needs to be looked at. I'm not a fan of how good the MC rules suite is even on the shooty ones. They should at least have to have a melee weapon like dreads do to have ap. tides and double devoured flyrants shouldn't still be tearing people up in melee by smacking them with gunbarrels.

"I'm not sure why people think the unit needs to zip around and shoot highly threatening shots like scatbikes"

Because that's what's good in 7th.

"If they could actually survive long enough to do their job, people would start to see that they can actually be good with the loadouts and abilities they have."

I disagree. There is no redeeming a stormbolter on an expensive model.

"Mobile enemies lose a lot of their advantage when they need to stay within 3" of a point."

You never need to stay there. Tabling is an option as well for good lists.

 mew28 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Terminators aren't even better vs non AP 2 though. At 35 ppm, they are only twice as durable as tac marines at 14 ppm. Bolters are better vs terminators than tac marines. WTF?

The only AP where terminators are really good is AP 3.

Which circles me back to why +1 would is the best idea. At ~35ppm and 2 wound Terminie would be easily as durable 3 tactical marines, yet cost less. Then give them access to more heavy weapons (like the 2 per 5 suggested, or 1 per 3) and you have a unit that can fill multiple roles much better than they can now.
I think another point against Termies is that they are "supposed" to be more CC oriented (or at least balance between both) in an edition that is shooting based. A shift in the main rules in favor of CC units would only benefit Termies.

-

And then how does one approach MANZ?
They don't need another wound because Centurions already tackle that. They're doing the role that people think Terminators were meant to do when they literally haven't done it once in the first place.

You understand what I mean?

We can fix MANZ latter just because one unit is more broken is not a real reason to hold off fixing a different one.

That isn't a suggestion on how to make MANZ just as good after this fix.

Martel732 wrote:

Smash on MCs ruins the power fist, as does being unable to pursue in assaults. Terminators are quite literally the worst combination of wargear.

I am with you on sweeping advance, but Smash is its own issue. I really think that Smash should only be AP3 and can trade all attacks for a single 10 auto-hit @ AP1 armourbane.
That would mean that MCs would still be threatening to MEQs, but would need to "smash" Termies and Vehicles.
Then you give all Walkers Smash.

So with 1 small change we
A) make Termies with power fists less useless,
B) tone down MCs and
C) Make Walkers a smidge better

-

Martel732 wrote:
"I'm not sure why people think the unit needs to zip around and shoot highly threatening shots like scatbikes"

Because that's what's good in 7th.

"If they could actually survive long enough to do their job, people would start to see that they can actually be good with the loadouts and abilities they have."

I disagree. There is no redeeming a stormbolter on an expensive model.

"Mobile enemies lose a lot of their advantage when they need to stay within 3" of a point."

You never need to stay there. Tabling is an option as well for good lists.

Tabling isn't as common at the events I go to as you seem to think it is. And if the terminators were more durable, that would be even harder to table.

The storm bolter is just a sidearm for them. I agree that they suck, and should be buffed, but the meat of the termi points are for the armor and melee weapon. But as has been said, the durability isn't performing up to par to let them do their job.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Terminators are gak offensively and all this does is guarantee I ignore them for the game instead of killing them real quick for a KP.

So what did you REALLY fix? Nothing. The people upping Terminator durability don't get their primary issues.

Just because their durability isn't the primary issue does not mean that their durability isn't an issue that needs to be fixed. Yes, their offensive capabilities need to be fixed (like - for example - 3 Attacks base would be better than two attacks base), but so does their durability.

 Galef wrote:
I am a fan of Termie armour giving +1 wound. All other suggestions seem to take away what makes certain armies "special" like giving the Shunt move or giving them FnP (which some units have access to already)
Storm bolters are fine considering they are not mean to be a power house weapon option, just as regular bolters are for Tac marines. If you want Termies to be more shooty, I'd go with the 2 per 5 heavy weapons option.

If Termie armour (all Termie armour) gave +1 wound, then regular Termies would easily be worth their cost and characters that buy Termie armour (usually for the price of a whole actual Ternimator) would also be worth it. You could also do this via an Errata in the same way they did Dreadnaught's +2 attacks, or even in the 8th ed BRB.
GK Paladins would actually be worth their cost now as they would have 3 wounds total.

I really think that +1 wound is the most logical change as:
A) it's easier to track than any special rule added that may add extra rolls or be forgotten
B) it accounts for the added bulk of the model
C) it instantly makes Termies more survivable without changing how the function overall.

I still think that Toughness 5 as opposed to Wounds 2 is a better option. Not only are you stepping on the toes of Centurians when you bump them up to two Wounds, but I think that two Wounds may be a bit much. Toughness 5 is more representative of the fact that all they are when compared to your regular Marine is a Tactical Marine in Terminator Armour. So adding +1 to Toughness (i.e. Toughness 5) makes more sense, with your reasons A, B and C still applicable.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:That's why you have Deep Strike and Land Raiders as transports. However, they don't do anything after a Deep Strike except shoot poorly or sit a turn to be shot at before melee, and then you got Land Raiders being 50-60 points too expensive.

And this is why unless you're a pretty damn good player or your opponent is pretty meh at the game, taking Terminators isn't a very viable option. Deep Striking takes way too much skill to be viable most of the time, and taking a Land Raider for a Squad with a max size of 8 (assuming you're taking a Crusader) is not points efficient.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:The Centurions came along and are doing the durability thing better. Their role is more a Frontline unit that's taking the beating. That's what people are trying to turn Terminators into but that wasn't their role to begin with. At least Centurions are dangerous enough offensively that you actually want to go through their defenses and kill them.

Then I am very much confused as to what the role of Terminators is. If Centurians fit the role you've just described and we all agree that Terminators are between Tactical Marines and Centurians, what exactly is the role of Terminators?

Martel732 wrote:Terminators aren't even better vs non AP 2 though. At 35 ppm, they are only twice as durable as tac marines at 14 ppm. Bolters are better vs terminators than tac marines. WTF?

The only AP where terminators are really good is AP 3.

The only way that Terminators are good against AP2 is if they're Assault Terminators with the TH/SS combo, but the benefits of being able to handle AP1 and AP2 as a result of the SS is vastly outweighed by the fact that they don't have shooting attacks and they strike at I1 in combat (thus making it not worth it if you ask me). However, because most AP 1 and AP 2 Weapons have higher strength anyway, Toughness 5 helps. Take for example Plasma Weapons: Strength 7. Suddenly they wound Terminators on 3+ rather than 2+ which will make a difference without even having to worry about AP.

Nevelon wrote:If you wanted to them them more valuable as a defensive rock, you could give them ObSec. Plop them on an objective and then they can’t be ignored.

If that’s a bit much (and I think it is personally) you could give them something like "Objective Denied” where they contest even ObSec units, maybe in a larger radius then normal. But can't necessarily claim them out from under ObSec units.

Just some thoughts. I don’t think there is an easy answer to fixing them without some major tweaks to the overall meta.

I kinda like this idea, but I'm not entirely sure it fixes the issues.

Brennonjw wrote:1+ save (so AP: 2 is less deadly, since 1's still fail)
5+ FNP
2 wounds OR T: 5, not both
2 per 5 can take a heavy weapon


Adjust points as necessary.

Simple, upps their durrability to a point closer to the fluff.
T: 5 reduces spamming light weight shots to force saves, as would 2 wounds
2 heavy weapons per 5 buffs up ranged damage output.

The 1+ Save is unnecessary since they have the 5+ Invulnerable. Plus even though Rolls of 1 always fail on an Armour Save, I'm pretty sure that a 1+ Save doesn't exist in any other part of the game, so why introduce it for the sake of making two ('different') units in one codex more durable? The Feel No Pain (5+) is also unnecessary and doesn't fit what Terminators are. I agree with Toughness 5 and the Heavy Weapons thing.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:Considering this is the most common thread topic i ever see on dakka, there likely isnt a good fix.

How about " weapons targeting models in terminator armour have their strength reduced and ap value increased by 1. Against weapons with a base ap value numerically higher than 3, models in terminator armour may take a 5+ fnp save."

Then you have slightly added durability against uber weapons, really helps characters against str8, and 1/3 increased durability vs small arms fire. They also keep their best in class spot against ap3 weapons.

Clunky and unattractive though. Not to mention it really takes away the ability of MC's to deal with terminators...

The main thing wrong with this idea that I see is people are going to be constantly forgetting how this works. In a system where there are so many (Special) Rules already, adding in another may not be the best solution.

S7 wounds T4 and T5 the same.

 JNAProductions wrote:
S7 wounds T4 and T5 the same.

Whoops. Was looking at the wrong table haha

To answer your question Illuminini, their role based off their rules is shock trooper much like how Scions operate. You deep strike or rush the transport up the board and hit hard.

Humbolt Stormbolter, if used by a Terminator
-Twin Linked
-Strength 5 shot on a six

Cyclone has access to flakk aswell