Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Martel732 wrote:
Most units with starcannons were only BS 3, except the Wraithlord. That was the only saving grace.

That's true.

In 3rd there were starcannons anywhere. Power weapons also suggested to keep Termies on the shelve and rhino rush was way more effective

I think GW thought they were really helping terminators by making AP 2 power weapons go at init 1.

Martel732 wrote:
I think GW thought they were really helping terminators by making AP 2 power weapons go at init 1.

Probably.
But then they introduced grav and rendered that redundant.

I know. I'm just doing thought progressions here.

GENERAL IN THREAD WARNING: RULE #1 - BE POLITE - IS MANDATORY.

OK?

I think we're good; he put me on ignore.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Don't blame power creep. Terminators have been garbage always except in 4th edition where they were mediocre at best.

So come up with an argument why that doesn't involve blaming the existence of Riptides or scatterbikes.

Well in in 2nd most people could tell you that all Terminator variants suffered on the durability side via many modifications to their armor save. Martel might be right on how good the firepower was for non-Loyalist Terminators to make up for it, but I can count how many 2nd games I played on one hand, and no Terminators weren't good.

In 3rd and 4th we had a generic rule for power weapons ignoring all armor, which definitely doesn't help them, all on top of the blah firepower of the Storm Bolter. This would be the time I really started playing. In the 4th edition codex, they were allowed to take 2 Heavy Weapons in a five man squad. This definitely helped them out, and they were at least mediocre. Come 5th, they suffer from all the problems the 3rd edition ones did.

In 6th, we can say some power creep came in and leave it at that. However, to say power creep like Grav and Scatterbikes made Terminators useless is completely untrue. In fact, the truth is that they were hardly ever functional.
So no you cannot blame Grav for making your Terminators obsolete. They already were. So why not actually buff them instead of nerfing everything else?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...So no you cannot blame Grav for making your Terminators obsolete. They already were. So why not actually buff them instead of nerfing everything else?

Any time I suggest doing so I get poo-pooed for not making changes that'll make them strong enough to manfight Riptides.

I've suggested making the base Terminator 30pts with a power weapon, a 4+ Invulnerable save, and an improved rate of fire on the storm bolter, with Skitarii heavy weapon distribution (two at minimum squad, three at full squad) or two heavy weapons per five. All I get are sneers because they're still weaker than the strongest units in the game.

Still T4 2+ infantry on foot. They're dead meat. Still ignorable because stormbolters and terminator heavy weapons suck. 7th ed is about mass S6. Two assault cannons is not mass S6.

That proposal can't fight any common build in 7th ed, much less Riptides. The flaw is deeper than that proposal. It's not a bad proposal, just insufficient.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...So no you cannot blame Grav for making your Terminators obsolete. They already were. So why not actually buff them instead of nerfing everything else?

Any time I suggest doing so I get poo-pooed for not making changes that'll make them strong enough to manfight Riptides.

I've suggested making the base Terminator 30pts with a power weapon, a 4+ Invulnerable save, and an improved rate of fire on the storm bolter, with Skitarii heavy weapon distribution (two at minimum squad, three at full squad) or two heavy weapons per five. All I get are sneers because they're still weaker than the strongest units in the game.

I ordinarily propose S5 Storm Bolters, 2 Heavy Weapons per five, and 30 point Lightning Claws Terminators with a 5 point upgrade to the TH, and lastly 50 points off all Land Raiders. No need for a 4++ as that steps on the toes of the other armor variant.

That's better because s5 is so much better than s4 at shooting. Problem is that stormbolters have always been 4. More s4 shooting is useless for marines.

Yeah I choose to not care about that as you might have seen from any codex fix threads I posted here. And then I made Combi-Bolters into Rapid Fire 2 to help give them an edge over Storm Bolters in different situations.

To be honest it wouldn't break the game if gk got s5 stormbolters either.

It wasnt gamebreaking in 6th at least. And then the new codex happened...

I mean just stormbolters, though. Not heavy bolters, etc.

Martel732 wrote:
I mean just stormbolters, though. Not heavy bolters, etc.

Heavy Bolters need to be Salvo 2/4. It is a minor boost but it is pretty significant in the long run. Now the choice between Autocannon and Heavy Bolter is not a blatantly obvious choice.

Something like that. Four shots encroaches on the assault cannon. All the stats are so close and incrementing something by one changes a lot of math.

As Martel said, terminator's main problem is mass S6 firepower. I think a solution for termies would be changing the rules for vehicles damage.
Make weapons such as scatter laser or grav nigh useless against vehicles and that weapons loose their real power, being anti infantry and anti tank at the same time.
When a large part of these weapons will disappear, termies can come back on the battlefields.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
As Martel said, terminator's main problem is mass S6 firepower. I think a solution for termies would be changing the rules for vehicles damage.
Make weapons such as scatter laser or grav nigh useless against vehicles and that weapons loose their real power, being anti infantry and anti tank at the same time.
When a large part of these weapons will disappear, termies can come back on the battlefields.

So the fact that scatterbikes are overpowered means there's a problem with vehicle damage resolution, as opposed to a problem with scatterbikes?

I also fail to see how making S6 spam less effective against vehicles is going to do anything to Terminators.

It's A problem for sure, Deerm Hunter. Spitting back S4 doesn't help matters. S5 stormbolters are worth a play test. Ultimately at the end of the day, it's still a bitter pill paying 30+ pts for a T4 W1 model. Also, don't forget they are slow, too. Easy to stay away from if they deep strike.

I'd like to point out that I do try to be constructive, but there's no sense in pretending that this is anything other than a complex problem.

I think Terminators are hard to fix because their statline is essentially correct. They're just Marines in TDA, with bolters and fists.

Giving them statline bonuses that don't match fluff aesthetics might work, but it isn't very elegant.

Yoyoyo wrote:
I think Terminators are hard to fix because their statline is essentially correct. They're just Marines in TDA, with bolters and fists.

Giving them statline bonuses that don't match fluff aesthetics might work, but it isn't very elegant.

This basically has been my point all along.

Yoyoyo wrote:
I think Terminators are hard to fix because their statline is essentially correct. They're just Marines in TDA, with bolters and fists.

Giving them statline bonuses that don't match fluff aesthetics might work, but it isn't very elegant.

And Martel is right that it really is hard to interpret them in a D6 system, which is why I do the fixes I do instead just trying to make them more durable. Most people try to make them more durable, but all that does is ensure they're ignored for the whole game (because they aren't offensively scary) instead of killed for a quick Victory Point.

SemperMortis wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think a 10 point reduction would be fine. Terminators are overcosted right now.

Well take a look at a SM 14ppm versus a terminator 35ppm

Your going from a 3+ save to a 2+ Save with a 5++ built in, AND you are given a Powerfist which usually costs 25pts. You are also gaining +1 attacks in CC. The sergeant goes from 14ppm with 3+ armor bolt pistol and CCW to 35ppm with a Powersword and Stormbolter and 2+ armor. So the question then becomes what is all of that really worth? I think the Sgt should come standard wth a Powerfirst and then adjust points costs from there. IE if you want to downgrade to a Powersword you can take -5pts off. But 10pts off the Sgt just because he comes stock with a Power Sword instead of a Fist is just to much.

I know you all hate comparisons with orks but to bad

Meganobz are 5pts per model more expensive, don't have a 5++, The difference is they have 2Wounds instead of 1 and 1 more attack base. Personally I think both Terminators and meganobz are over priced. Both should be 30ppm base.

Yes but the unit only has a Landraider as a transport option, loose assault grenades and most of the unit only swings at I1. If their armor made it so they swing at like -2I then sure but they just die to mass dice so they don't get the ability to swing. And CC termies don't even get a ranged option (though armor mounted grenade launchers firing automatically at bs2 would be cool as hell) and they still only move 6. They are too limited for their point cost is what I'm getting at.

Give them +1 T but don't change the points around

That is clearly worth the 35 pts per model..


But then again.... that would mean that termi armour would have an inherent +1 T

That could either be really great... or really bad

mchammadad wrote:
Give them +1 T but don't change the points around

That is clearly worth the 35 pts per model..


But then again.... that would mean that termi armour would have an inherent +1 T

That could either be really great... or really bad

Clearly bad when you actually look at the effects of what you're doing. That equates T5 Paladins and T6 Death Guard Terminators. Then that's ignoring other equivalents like the MegaNobs and Obliterators/Multilators etc.

There's clearly TEQ'S that actually function to an extent, but they all just need minor tweaking rather than adding +1T.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
As Martel said, terminator's main problem is mass S6 firepower. I think a solution for termies would be changing the rules for vehicles damage.
Make weapons such as scatter laser or grav nigh useless against vehicles and that weapons loose their real power, being anti infantry and anti tank at the same time.
When a large part of these weapons will disappear, termies can come back on the battlefields.

So the fact that scatterbikes are overpowered means there's a problem with vehicle damage resolution, as opposed to a problem with scatterbikes?

I also fail to see how making S6 spam less effective against vehicles is going to do anything to Terminators.

What I intended was that now weapons like scatterlaser or grav are very popular 'cause they get rid of any type of infantry, even with 2+ armor and good T, and tanks as well, with the number of shots fired.

Strip these weapons of their efficiency agains vehicles, and players will have to field heavy anti tank weapons instead of these 'good for all' weapons that rely on a huge number of shots, just the sort of thing that termies suffer more

One of the problems with terminators is that they are susceptible to many different things.

As T4 1W marines, they are vulnerable to massed small arms. Toss enough bolter fire at them, those 1s will come up on the armor saves.

They pay a lot for that 2+ save. So it does not take much in the way of high quality fire to drop them. And the high cost per wound makes it unlikely for them to have the squad size needed to absorb that fire. Going with one of the options with a better invuln restricts your options and up the price even further. But makes you no tougher vs. the massed small arms, just more expensive/W.

So what are they good vs? Low volume non-AP2 fire. So a Dev squad can bounce krack missiles off them. Which would affect them just as much as a single scatbike. The problem is that scatbikes don’t come alone. And generally mid-S, low volume firepower is busy doing things like stripping HPs off of vehicles while any of the much better options take down the termies.

There is a lot of ideas on how to make them tougher. Because TDA is spread over so many armies, with so many options, it can be hard to make sweeping changes without breaking something, somewhere. I’m partial to changing them to a 1+ armor save (which still fails on a 1) which would help counter the proliferation of AP2 out there. The other thing is to change the 5++ to FNP, which would make them more resistant to small arms.

Doesn’t change the offensive issues, but that’s a different kettle of fish.

Fluff-wise, you separate Terminators from Centurions by an emphasis on their 1st Company affiliation and superior proficiency in warfare.

Land Raiders cannot be left out of this discussion, infantry type needs transport. Land Raiders need to be both recosted and redesigned to better support Terminator squads. Since Terminators can DS, this has to be regardless of operating as a transport or fire support. The "tactical" part means we want flexibility to be a key component of their use!

So, here's a potential idea to inject some synergy. 1st Coy Terminator Doctrines?

Select one of these rules for any detachment at the start of a mission.

Orbital Intervention
- Terminators scatter D6" when Deep Striking.
- Land Raiders deployed as DT on the battlefield may modify Terminator Reserve Rolls by +1.

- Fire Discipline
- Terminators add +1 attack to their ranged weapon profile.
- Land Raiders deployed as DT may conduct Overwatch in support of units of Terminators recieving charges.

- Armoured Warfare
- Terminators gain Scout when deployed inside DT.
- Land Raiders deployed as DT gain Monster Hunter + Tank Hunter when attacking a target previously attacked by Terminators in this phase.

I'm not super attached to these particular rules but you get the idea. It's trying to facilitate different tactical approaches like the old IG Stormtroopers. Interlocking synergies are supposed to offset individual weaknesses.

I think there's still room for improving firepower (Terminator Shotgun?) and quibbling over costing, but Terminators also face an aesthetic problem. A 2+ isn't special anymore, neither are their heavy weapons. So setting them apart will require lateral thinking at this point. Otherwise you're just in an arms race with Centurions.

Wow, I didn't mean to inspire a huge debate on the subject, just whether the sergeants are over-costed (by terminator standards )


If we're talking about fixing them completely I favour Toughness 5 and Storm Bolters becoming Assault 2/Heavy 4, otherwise I think points-wise they're about right (except the sergeants in shooty squads). Beyond that I'd like to see an extra heavy weapon at 5 models, with 3 total for a squad of 10.

I think this gives the best all-round balance for defence as their extra shooting helps to thin down on the massed shooting, but you'll still want to make the most of Deep Strike to get them somewhere that limits what you face, while keeping you close enough to charge afterwards.

Basically, Deep Striking terminators should still require some thought on how you place them; I play a Deathwing army (casually) and good placement can make all the difference, but it's hard work, as there's still a lot to go wrong, so these kinds of boosts ought to help quite a bit.

The only other question mark is the Land Raider; all variants are over-priced to begin with, so they need to come down (or Land Raiders need to become Super Heavies or something), but either way it should be cheaper for Terminators to take one as a dedicated transport given that they're trading their Deep Strike.