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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except durability isn't their gimmick. Just because in fluff it is more durable than Power Armor doesn't mean it is the most durable armor ever. I have no clue why people keep thinking this.

When the inv save was introduced in 3rd edition it was accompanied by a short story involving a terminator accidentally getting trod on by a titan and surviving because of the legendary protection of his armour. Terminator armour being the ultimate in personal protection has been established for decades.

Except it never has been.

No need to write fancy rules around the extra wound, if that's the method you go for. Extra wounds for durable armoring is pretty well established at this point.

Except durability isn't their gimmick. Just because in fluff it is more durable than Power Armor doesn't mean it is the most durable armor ever. I have no clue why people keep thinking this.

You really are into denying this without any sort of facts.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Except durability isn't their gimmick. Just because in fluff it is more durable than Power Armor doesn't mean it is the most durable armor ever. I have no clue why people keep thinking this.

You really are into denying this without any sort of facts.

Well there was them being scooped up en masse by 3rd ed starcannons, and them being scooped up en masse by modern ion accelerators.

Martel732 wrote:

Well there was them being scooped up en masse by 3rd ed starcannons, and them being scooped up en masse by modern ion accelerators.

Part of the entire point of this thread is that the rules for terminator armour don't match the durability it's supposed to have in the background. Pointing out that they have never been super tough in the game is not a counterargument to claims that they're meant to be super tough in the fluff.

Despite their 5++, I find Tataros Termie Armour to be quite viable, due to the Sweeping Advance bonus as it will allow you to win most combats without Being Tarpitted


Im not sure if they can take Storm Shields but if they can that will make them AMAZING

[

Except durability isn't their gimmick.

This is important to think about. Terminators are elite marines that because of their supposed skills, are sent on dangerous missions. Since they get sent on dangerous, specialized missions, they get specialized armor. Their gimmick in background is being elite, and secondary to that is being durable. In gameplay they have never been very durable.

Unusual Suspect wrote:No need to write fancy rules around the extra wound, if that's the method you go for. Extra wounds for durable armoring is pretty well established at this point.

It's true, it's very unnecessary to have an alternate version to +1 wound when +1 wound is possible.

However, I need a more specific attribution for equipment boosts. Wounds appear to come from a different quality of armor than durability. It's very clear that durable armor improves the saving throw. The 5++ save for terminators even comes from the durability of armor - the crux terminatus has conflicting provenance, although the two do not exclude each other. Wounds from war gear would be a different effect.

The wounds conferred by tau and marine battle suits seem to have more to do with the functional attributes of the models. If you shoot off the lower 75% of these units arms, it will impair their ability to fight, by impairing the weapon system, (the standard for wounding or removing a model is causing a casualty, not always a death), however since this does not affect the pilot's circulation he does not suffer the same loss of function in other limbs or the same cognitive deficits as if his own arm had been shot off. Conversely, causing concussion or blood loss in the pilot doesn't cause the suit to lose strength in its limbs.

I won't say this is right, it just gives me a more substantial model than hand waving it.

Marmatag wrote:I still maintain that the solution is +1 Wound, +1 Toughness, with a reduced regular save to 3+. The math supports that this is a significant improvement in survivability, but not to the point where it's obscene. It also requires no rerolling.

You wouldn't even need to call it a "wound," you could call it "Ablative Shielding," and the rule reads: "Tactical dreadnought armor generates a field around the user. When an unsaved wound is suffered, the shielding is permanently destroyed and the wound is prevented." (or something like that. i'm not a technical writer.)

This way you couldn't restore wounds to terminators, in case that would be too strong. Also This would not apply to Cataphractii terminator armor, since those guys are solid as hell with their access to 3++ and their ability to reroll 1s. Also, they confer slow & purposeful, so there are benefits to bring them over regular terminators situationally.

If the whole squad is hit by a battle cannon, then none of the models have to be removed unless they are previously wounded. This is a pretty nice thing. What do you maintain this against? Between this post and one you made previous, there are people saying that a lesser durability boost that is accompanied by 2x grab cannons and assault3 TL shred storm bolters is better than a boost at your level. How is your level of boost with or without offensive boosts better than a lesser boost, when presumably there are different points expenditures and balance consequences?

Rosebuddy wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Well there was them being scooped up en masse by 3rd ed starcannons, and them being scooped up en masse by modern ion accelerators.

Part of the entire point of this thread is that the rules for terminator armour don't match the durability it's supposed to have in the background. Pointing out that they have never been super tough in the game is not a counterargument to claims that they're meant to be super tough in the fluff.

Due to its arbitrary nature, the fluff is largely irrelevant to the issue of terminators being viable on the table top, however.

If anything, the tableteop is entirely arbitrary, while the lore has at least a slight amount of consistency.

Cataphractii CAPTAINS get rerolls of 1s. Not regular termies.

 Melissia wrote:
If anything, the tableteop is entirely arbitrary, while the lore has at least a slight amount of consistency.

I don't read the novels, but I've heard enough 2nd hand to know that capabilities vary wildly from one author to another.

At any rate, terminators are in a mathematical hole they are unlikely to ever get out of. Especially now with centurions in the mix.

pelicaniforce wrote:

If the whole squad is hit by a battle cannon, then none of the models have to be removed unless they are previously wounded. This is a pretty nice thing. What do you maintain this against? Between this post and one you made previous, there are people saying that a lesser durability boost that is accompanied by 2x grab cannons and assault3 TL shred storm bolters is better than a boost at your level. How is your level of boost with or without offensive boosts better than a lesser boost, when presumably there are different points expenditures and balance consequences?

I was speaking specifically regarding durability, operating under the tacit unilateral agreement that (a) terminators are overcosted and (b) not survivable enough. If those points are contested then we'd have to argue that, before my suggestion would hold any weight.

In regards to the rest, I would say allowing 1 terminator in 5 to take a heavy weapon would do a lot, but that would have to be in addition to the survivable change, because they would still be far too easily killed to merit investing 200+ points into 1 heavy relentless weapon that can't ride in a rhino. Improving the storm bolter would be meh, extra shots from a str4 ap5 weapon really won't make them any more viable in the meta. Give their storm bolters rending and we're in business.

I think terminators are more undergunned than not survivable enough. 40K is about offense unless you are a deathstar or layered save MC. Everyone else might as well be wearing tissue paper in 7th. I know, for example, that my entire army is functionally a grot in the face of the ion accelerator, terminators included.

Martel732 wrote:
I think terminators are more undergunned than not survivable enough. 40K is about offense unless you are a deathstar or layered save MC. Everyone else might as well be wearing tissue paper in 7th. I know, for example, that my entire army is functionally a grot in the face of the ion accelerator, terminators included.

Yeah I suppose that's true, but if you could deep strike terminators and expect them to survive for a round, that might change things a bit. High strength AP2 weapons will always have a use in melee.

And again, I'm not advocating that survivability is the only problem here, just pointing out that if you up their guns, you still face similar problems as they're not too hard to pop.

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think terminators are more undergunned than not survivable enough. 40K is about offense unless you are a deathstar or layered save MC. Everyone else might as well be wearing tissue paper in 7th. I know, for example, that my entire army is functionally a grot in the face of the ion accelerator, terminators included.

Yeah I suppose that's true, but if you could deep strike terminators and expect them to survive for a round, that might change things a bit. High strength AP2 weapons will always have a use in melee.

That gives your enemy a turn to react. You beam down, shoot me ineffectually, and then on my turn, I park a free Rhino in your squad's path. You aren't assaulting anything other than what I want you to. I don't care if you survive or not at that point. You spent 1 turn in reserve, 1 turn shooting effectually, and then another turn being cockblocked by a Rhino. And the game is half over now. Good job terminators.

Dead units don't shoot back. Ask scatterbikes about that.

Martel732 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think terminators are more undergunned than not survivable enough. 40K is about offense unless you are a deathstar or layered save MC. Everyone else might as well be wearing tissue paper in 7th. I know, for example, that my entire army is functionally a grot in the face of the ion accelerator, terminators included.

Yeah I suppose that's true, but if you could deep strike terminators and expect them to survive for a round, that might change things a bit. High strength AP2 weapons will always have a use in melee.

That gives your enemy a turn to react. You beam down, shoot me ineffectually, and then on my turn, I park a free Rhino in your squad's path. You aren't assaulting anything other than what I want you to. I don't care if you survive or not at that point. You spent 1 turn in reserve, 1 turn shooting effectually, and then another turn being cockblocked by a Rhino. And the game is half over now. Good job terminators.

Dead units don't shoot back. Ask scatterbikes about that.

Well let's pause then for a minute - what do you think the use case for terminators should be?

I don't know anymore. Personally, I'd advocate for making them feared by mounting assault cannons on all tactical terminators and throw storm bolters and missile launchers in the garbage. Why should only Xenos have mass S 6/7? At that point, rending becomes a little useful, actually. 20 rending shots generate 2.22 rends. I realize that base Eldar units can do this, but we have to take what we can get here.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Except durability isn't their gimmick. Just because in fluff it is more durable than Power Armor doesn't mean it is the most durable armor ever. I have no clue why people keep thinking this.

You really are into denying this without any sort of facts.

Outside the fact that the fluff is that they're super elite, and that they're sent on dangerous missions, which Terminator Armor is made for. Like I said, just because it is more durable doesn't mean you guys need to make them more durable than a Carnifex for the points, which is literally almost all the suggestions here because you guys are blind to what the Terminators are. You see the 2+ which was rare and now you've blown it put of proportion.

I'm simply suggesting fixes to make them fit in line with the storming role they actually have based off their wargear and options and rules (STORM Bolter, Deep Strike, Land Raiders, etc). You guys, however, want to make them Centurions instead of making them unique.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think terminators are more undergunned than not survivable enough. 40K is about offense unless you are a deathstar or layered save MC. Everyone else might as well be wearing tissue paper in 7th. I know, for example, that my entire army is functionally a grot in the face of the ion accelerator, terminators included.

Yeah I suppose that's true, but if you could deep strike terminators and expect them to survive for a round, that might change things a bit. High strength AP2 weapons will always have a use in melee.

And again, I'm not advocating that survivability is the only problem here, just pointing out that if you up their guns, you still face similar problems as they're not too hard to pop.

Therefore, if you want something hard to pop, grab Centurions.

Basically. I prefer the route of more survivable, strong in melee units. For a drop pod ranged platform, there are already solid well defined rolls for this (Centurions, Skyhammer, Cataphractii Captain + Devs).

Outside the fact that the fluff is that they're super elite, and that they're sent on dangerous missions, which Terminator Armor is made for. Like I said, just because it is more durable doesn't mean you guys need to make them more durable than a Carnifex for the points, which is literally almost all the suggestions here because you guys are blind to what the Terminators are. You see the 2+ which was rare and now you've blown it put of proportion.

I started in 2nd edition, what I saw was a 3+ on a 2D6, the only armor type in the game to do so, which 3rd edition ground to a 2+, the same as artificer armor for some reason, storm bolters had a higher potential rate of fire, the assault cannon had a potential rate of 9 hits if you were lucky

You keep saying we are blind to what Terminators are, but honestly it just sounds like you've seen them in one or two editions and thus based your idea on those stats.

Stormbolters were really bad in 2nd, though, because of the jam result.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Outside the fact that the fluff is that they're super elite, and that they're sent on dangerous missions, which Terminator Armor is made for. Like I said, just because it is more durable doesn't mean you guys need to make them more durable than a Carnifex for the points, which is literally almost all the suggestions here because you guys are blind to what the Terminators are. You see the 2+ which was rare and now you've blown it put of proportion.

I started in 2nd edition, what I saw was a 3+ on a 2D6, the only armor type in the game to do so, which 3rd edition ground to a 2+, the same as artificer armor for some reason, storm bolters had a higher potential rate of fire, the assault cannon had a potential rate of 9 hits if you were lucky

You keep saying we are blind to what Terminators are, but honestly it just sounds like you've seen them in one or two editions and thus based your idea on those stats.

I've played since 4th. I know what I'm about.

Martel732 wrote:
Stormbolters were really bad in 2nd, though, because of the jam result.

Well I can speak for Chaos Terminators when Twin Linked meant there's two guns and we've now doubled the amount of shots.

Speaking of Chaos Terminators, Combi-Bolters need to be Rapid Fire 2.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Speaking of Chaos Terminators, Combi-Bolters need to be Rapid Fire 2.

Rapid Fire 2 is not a meaningful weapon profile.

Do you mean something like "2 shots at max range, 4 shots at half range"?

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Speaking of Chaos Terminators, Combi-Bolters need to be Rapid Fire 2.

Rapid Fire 2 is not a meaningful weapon profile.

Do you mean something like "2 shots at max range, 4 shots at half range"?

Salvo 2/4?

Terminators simply should have been elevated to the position the Centurions got, rather than Centurions being invented.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Terminators simply should have been elevated to the position the Centurions got, rather than Centurions being invented.

Centurions are only good because of grav.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Speaking of Chaos Terminators, Combi-Bolters need to be Rapid Fire 2.

Rapid Fire 2 is not a meaningful weapon profile.

Do you mean something like "2 shots at max range, 4 shots at half range"?

Salvo 2/4?

Sorta, though Salvo reacts based on movement, rather than the range to the target.

I wouldn't mind seeing All Terminators get "Terminator Stormbolter: Treat as a Bolter, but may fire twice in the same shooting phase" or the like.

That would basically be what I presume was meant by "Rapid Fire 2".

Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing Rapid Fire changed to allow exactly those sorts of representations. I'm just saying that, as is, a number of shots after the Rapid Fire type has no meaning in the current ruleset.