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.

 Haravikk wrote:
Wow, I didn't mean to inspire a huge debate on the subject

They're one of the units that's often discussed and harder to fix. GW has been trying. Aside from decreasing the cost from 175 to 200pts, there is all sorts of bonuses scattered around in different formations. Plus, all the new stuff with Deathwatch. None of it has really stuck, the BA formation is probably the best of the bunch.

I think they're just not flexible enough without better transports.

Terminators are VERY frequently discussed. They're an iconic unit that has never, ever worked as they do in the fluff on in any practical way.

It’s similar to the “once you paint through your pile of shame, you die” thing. If at any point there isn’t a “how to fix terminators” thread in proposed rules, the internet implodes.

Fact.

Haha. True.

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 wor k, but it isn't very elegant.

Yeah but their marine stat line is bad because almost all t4 infantry is bad, and s4 shooting is only usable against t3 and t4 infantry. You have to give game wide buffs to t3 and t4 infantry just as a structural issue to make them relevant compared to models that are t6 or fast relentless.

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

...

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.

Yeah all veteran units have this problem. Basic bolter Chosen vs bolter csm, bolter Celestians vs sisters, basic Trueborn vs Kabalites, any of them in a shootout competition the elite one has no advantage if it's just one of each model. Terminators are in this category too, where the profile itself doesn't do much more than the troops version does.

People say bs5 fixes that, but it doesn't. It doesn't fix the expensive vet with equipment still dies like a meq problem, it doesn't help if the other guy shoots first, and it also is not that huge of a buff.

The game rules should change to give the basic +1 A +1 Ld elite version of a unit way more useful.

pelicaniforce wrote:
Yeah all veteran units have this problem. Basic bolter Chosen vs bolter csm, bolter Celestians vs sisters, basic Trueborn vs Kabalites, any of them in a shootout competition the elite one has no advantage if it's just one of each model. Terminators are in this category too, where the profile itself doesn't do much more than the troops version does.

That's a very good point.

The problem lies not with their durability or offence for the points. But with their ability to utilise them properly.

I've had great success with meganobz cause of trukks. Moderate amount of extra protection and good mobility is what makes them work. Won a local tourney not long ago running trukk bully boyz - 3 squads of 5 meganobz.

I've also had success with blood angel assault terminators. Charge after deepstrike and droppods with homing beacons that alow to deepstrike without scatter made them work wonderfully. Sure, they lack attacks to be truly op but they're decent and survivable enough for the points. Haven't tried shooty ones though. Simply cause ba shooty termies didn't drop in cost. They'd probably be ok with an asscan if they were 35 ppm.

I haven't managed to make csm msu terminators work all that great - even though they seem better than sm termies on paper. Neither cad nor termie annihilation force were good cause of deepstrike without scatter mitigation. In 2 out of 3 games they truly felt like a handicap cause of all the mishaps. Chaos termies did work for me wheb i ran 10 khornates in a warband. This pseudo-scout move, fearless and furious charge were great. 1-st turn charge with a talisman jugger lord made them good.

So, the pattern is that termies start working when you get to utilise their statline in action. And i agree with Yoyoyo that. Overbuffing termies with extra wounds, t5 or extra killiness is not the best solution cause it doesn't make that much sense. Their statline is fine as is, they just need to be able to utilise it more often. SM termies should be allowed to perform a disoriented charge or shoot twice without requiring any formations. That'd be a huge step towards making them playable and most importantly towards making them feel right.

 koooaei wrote:
So, the pattern is that termies start working when you get to utilise their statline in action. And i agree with Yoyoyo that. Overbuffing termies with extra wounds, t5 or extra killiness is not the best solution cause it doesn't make that much sense. Their statline is fine as is, they just need to be able to utilise it more often. SM termies should be allowed to perform a disoriented charge or shoot twice without requiring any formations. That'd be a huge step towards making them playable and most importantly towards making them feel right.

I think that charging on Deep Strike is something to be approached with caution, as it could be highly exploitable.

You question enhanced toughness, but what about if it was only on arrival? It doesn't really make sense that you can shoot with full effect at something that just teleported onto the field; perhaps a penalty to-Hit or such rather than an actual Toughness bonus? So blasts and templates would still be effective to a degree, but massed fire would be disordered and less effective against something that just appeared behind you.

That said, I do still think that two Wounds makes some sense (possibly for all marine veterans); for terminators they'd still be able to be one-shotted by actual anti-tank weapons, but massed fire wouldn't cut them down quite so quickly, so they don't lose firepower as fast as a comparable (but still cheaper) squad of regular marines would. After all, when it comes to spam firepower terminators only have an extra 1 in 6 chance of surviving per shot.

"I think that charging on Deep Strike is something to be approached with caution, as it could be highly exploitable. "

Don't worry, it's not. It's still assault.

I know the ship might have sailed, but was looking back at the first post again.

One thing to do to compensate the fact that every marine in the squad is priced at 35ppm, but the sarge lacks the powerfist is to master craft his sword. This is the set up in the capheracti TDA squad. This keeps the price per model constant, and gives a slight boost to the squad without a major rework. And keeps all the models the same as in the box, which is how GW tends to do things.

 Haravikk wrote:

You question enhanced toughness, but what about if it was only on arrival? It doesn't really make sense that you can shoot with full effect at something that just teleported onto the field; perhaps a penalty to-Hit or such rather than an actual Toughness bonus? So blasts and templates would still be effective to a degree, but massed fire would be disordered and less effective against something that just appeared behind you.

How are deepstriking termies somehow harder to hit than deepstriking centurions, daemons, deepstriking crysis suits or jumppackers.

 koooaei wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:

You question enhanced toughness, but what about if it was only on arrival? It doesn't really make sense that you can shoot with full effect at something that just teleported onto the field; perhaps a penalty to-Hit or such rather than an actual Toughness bonus? So blasts and templates would still be effective to a degree, but massed fire would be disordered and less effective against something that just appeared behind you.

How are deepstriking termies somehow harder to hit than deepstriking centurions, daemons, deepstriking crysis suits or jumppackers.

I'm just talking in the context of Terminators, it could absolutely be extended to others; terminators already have a 2+ save so the combo would be more powerful all round for them anyway. Also, did you mean something else besides centurions? Pretty sure they can't Deep Strike, as that really is the terminator's thing.

It it? Because terminators are bloody awful at it. They are experts on deep striking in, doing nothing, and then getting owned.

 koooaei wrote:

I haven't managed to make csm msu terminators work all that great - even though they seem better than sm termies on paper. Neither cad nor termie annihilation force were good cause of deepstrike without scatter mitigation. In 2 out of 3 games they truly felt like a handicap cause of all the mishaps. Chaos termies did work for me wheb i ran 10 khornates in a warband. This pseudo-scout move, fearless and furious charge were great. 1-st turn charge with a talisman jugger lord made them good.t.

Is that because chaos msu terminators specifically are bad at deep strike compared to most deepstrikers? Compared to like storm troopers or CAD crisis suits, it seems like that kind of deep strike is small reward, large risk.

One fix I can think of is a change to how ap works. Admittedly it doesn't fix them in any way for offensive or against massed fire.

It's in a similar vain to armour modifiers and the current system. Ap has to be less than the save to negate a save. If equal successful saves must be rerolled. If a save is 2 degress better than the wepons ap, saves can be rerolled.

Was just a quick idea, not too much thought put in as I'm rather tired but I didn't want to lose the concept. Might develop further later.

I've done some thought experiments and discussions with play group about D10 terminators. Our thought was that terminators remain 2+, which bumps them from 83% from to 90% vs small arms. Power armor becomes 4+. The game would then have many AP 3 weapons, and AP 2 only halves the save on 2+ armor, succeeding on a 7+. This eliminates the need for the 5++. AP 1 allows no save, as it shouldn't. AP 1 would be rare indeed in D10 40K. Without this kind of mass realignment, the mathematical problems of the terminator are very difficult.

Note that this creates mathematical space for Riptides, Broadsides, etc to come in with 3+ armor, inbetween marines and terminators. This is the slot lacking with the D6 system. AP 3 weapons would reduce a 3+ save to 7+, eliminating the need for invulns on those units.

 HANZERtank wrote:
One fix I can think of is a change to how ap works. Admittedly it doesn't fix them in any way for offensive or against massed fire.

It's in a similar vain to armour modifiers and the current system. Ap has to be less than the save to negate a save. If equal successful saves must be rerolled. If a save is 2 degress better than the wepons ap, saves can be rerolled.

Was just a quick idea, not too much thought put in as I'm rather tired but I didn't want to lose the concept. Might develop further later.

It is a really interesting idea and it is nice to see things like this. It has the problem that ap5 vs 5+ causes you to roll twice for a nearly irrelevant 1/9 chance of saving, when normally you would just not roll at all to get very similar result, and there are match ups where you would have to do this for like six units every turn. The under - equal - over - way over spectrum is the good principle in this though.





There are all these problems with deep strike, all these problems with t3 and t4 infantry, problems with veteran units. People don't take unassisted deep strikers, foot guardians, shoota boys, chosen, DA vets, or Celestians. Terminators are at the intersection of all these problems. People are going to want to use these things and fix these problems. When that happens, Terminators also get better. After that they probably still could get buffed but it's good to fix infantry, vet units, and DS first.

It seems like anything without scatter mitigation, and secondarily without reserves bonuses, is useful only in a few situations and always a liability. in fact this is true for normal reserves, outflankers, and fliers.

Reserves could come on right after the opponent's movement phase and be subject only to snap shots unless the shooters have intercept, then act normally on their turn. That fixes the problem of complete alpha-strike shooting from like suicide pods but means assaulters aren't subject to an entire turn of normal shooting.

Just get the rend mechanic from AoS and slap it in.

And give termi s 3 wounds like AoS.

Essentially turn 40k into AoS and it will be fine.

 pizzaguardian wrote:
Just get the rend mechanic from AoS and slap it in.

And give termi s 3 wounds like AoS.

Essentially turn 40k into AoS and it will be fine.

Even fixing cost and higher wounds.
Still the sticky they need a land raider, no assult deep strike normally and at times unreliable arival.

Fix the termy and the the land raider at same time... Then things start to slot together nicely. I see the two units tied as the few capable of deploying a terminator bar heavier fliers.

 pizzaguardian wrote:
...Essentially turn 40k into AoS and it will be fine.

No. Obviously. Going from a game where Terminators are mediocre to one where Terminators are the only thing worth using the the optimal solution to the problem.

 HANZERtank wrote:
One fix I can think of is a change to how ap works. Admittedly it doesn't fix them in any way for offensive or against massed fire.

It's in a similar vain to armour modifiers and the current system. Ap has to be less than the save to negate a save. If equal successful saves must be rerolled. If a save is 2 degress better than the wepons ap, saves can be rerolled.

Was just a quick idea, not too much thought put in as I'm rather tired but I didn't want to lose the concept. Might develop further later.

I was working on a house rule to try a little while ago, in which AP changes to work as follows:

• If weapon AP is lower than target armour, target may not take an armour saving throw.
  
• If weapon AP is equal to target armour, target suffers -2 to armour saving throw.
  
• If weapon AP is one point worse than target armour (e.g- AP4 vs. 3+), target suffers -1 to armour saving throw.

This results in a save table like so:
Sv: | 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6 --------------------------- AP1 | 3+ - - - - - AP2 | 2+ 4+ - - - - AP3 | 2+ 3+ 5+ - - - AP4 | 2+ 2+ 4+ 6 - - AP5 | 2+ 2+ 3+ 5+ - - AP6 | 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 6 - AP- | 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6

While this is interesting for a view reasons, particularly if looking at switching vehicles to use Toughness and armour, as well as representing stuff like Primarch or Custodes armour, it doesn't really solve the problem with Terminators which isn't that their save isn't good, but that they can still be spammed to death.


This is why I'm thinking -1 to-Hit them when they arrive via Deep Strike might be a good compromise; it's a type of defensive boost, but only on arrival. Combined with a cheaper Land Raider this should give them two good deployment options. I still think that 2 wounds per model may be justified if keeping them at their current cost though, as it's not a huge boost (serious anti-tank, power fists etc. can still one shot them), but helps with the spam problem.

But why are Terminators hard to hit when they Deep Strike?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
But why are Terminators hard to hit when they Deep Strike?

Element of surprise, presumably. A person who just popped up out of thin air in front of you is going to be harder to hit than someone you've had a bit of time to see coming, track, and line up a shot on.

It falls in with the problem of why Deep Striking units feel like they arrive and just sit around with their thumbs up their behinds for a turn. There isn't a great answer, because letting units pop up in the enemy's face and immediately get stuck in melee with no chance of doing anything to stop them feels phenomenally unfair.

my solution for terminators is to have all weapons against them suffer -1 to strength and/or terminator may not be wounded on anything better than a 3+ or 4+. That is how we make them playable, a special rule^^^. For offensive, give them s5 bolters. These can be played around with, but this is the only way i see, that doesnt enroach on other units functions.

 Skalathrax8 wrote:
...my solution for terminators is to have all weapons against them suffer -1 to strength...

...Would this stack with Iron Hands Legion rules? Pseudo-T6 Terminators!

If weapon AP is equal to target armour, target suffers -2 to armour saving throw.
If weapon AP is one point worse than target armour (e.g- AP4 vs. 3+), target suffers -1 to armour saving throw.

I pretty much talk about this rule every chance I get. It works so (moderately) well for shooting.


Terminators would be hard to hit because they travel through the warp and appear on the battlefield from nowhere in a flash of light. Since warp spiders do the same thing, then they should also get that rule. Warp Talons also appear by a process like teleportation, I guess they could also have a rule that makes them hard to hit on the turn they deep strike.

I'm just following the line of reasoning that starts with terminators getting an automatic blind rule. Of course warp spiders don't need buffs, and warp talons do have blind when they deep strike.

Maybe you should only be able to snap fire at deep striking units. Until they've made there first turn.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
But why are Terminators hard to hit when they Deep Strike?

Thematically I picture all terminators arriving from Deep Strike in three-point superhero landing pose as with Thor travelling via Bifröst. They can stand up, move normally and shoot, but not immediately charge; however the fact that they appear from a blinding light or a warp distortion out of nowhere should still justify why they'd be tricky to hit compared to something that's already on the battlefield.

pelicaniforce wrote:
Terminators would be hard to hit because they travel through the warp and appear on the battlefield from nowhere in a flash of light. Since warp spiders do the same thing, then they should also get that rule. Warp Talons also appear by a process like teleportation, I guess they could also have a rule that makes them hard to hit on the turn they deep strike.

I'm just following the line of reasoning that starts with terminators getting an automatic blind rule. Of course warp spiders don't need buffs, and warp talons do have blind when they deep strike.

Sure, it doesn't need to be terminator specific; it should probably apply to all units that can Deep Strike (including Jump Infantry descending from the air etc.). Terminators still have better armour than most (all?) of these other units, so it stacks with that.

 loki old fart wrote:
Maybe you should only be able to snap fire at deep striking units. Until they've made there first turn.

Snap Shots might be a bit too severe on its own, unless it were based on some kind of test (e.g- Initiative test or Snap Shots only) but then it wouldn't be as reliable as a simple -1 to-Hit. A -1 is after all a 1/6th reduction in hits so while it's not huge it's still significant.

I think ultimately terminators can't be fixed with a single tweak, it's going to take several; they're not the only Deep Strike unit that can get curb-stomped on arrival, so the -1 to-Hit makes sense for Deep Strike in general, but doesn't fix terminators outright, which is why I still favour two Wounds each; actually I think all marine veterans should be two-Wounds, but while this might fit the current price for terminators it would require others to be changed.

You're right. From a gameplay perspective it's very difficult that these veteran models have a large points increase on basic marines but die just as easily and give up points. From a background perspective, it should make sense that high quality troops get selected for elite squads because they are harder to put down and they will finish out a mission. It should come right with the stat line that they are hard to kill, no special rules necessary, just automatic as soon as you see veteran you get better survival.

I've always thought that terminators deepstriking should force a blinding test within 6 (12)? inches. Fluffwise just call it the warp-lightning that accompanies the teleport is really friggin bright.

Balance wise it gives them heavy utility because it can increase the survivability of a players entire army for a turn. That breathing room can be a shift in the flow of a battle. Think of a riptide wing getting blinded by deepstriking terminators, allowing the rest of the army to push forward with much less resistance.

I don't think it overbuffs them, because they're still expensive and lack firepower.