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.

Terminators get a 2+ save and a 5++ save. The invulnerable save would only come in handy against weapons that are AP 4- and higher. That almost never happens. I think it's a joke of a rule.

Gives them a save against Melta / Aeldari D-weapons etc. It’s a holdover from previous editions, and not wonderful with how AP now works. Terminators sadly needed an overhaul but didn’t get one.

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Terminators get a 2+ save and a 5++ save. The invulnerable save would only come in handy against weapons that are AP 4- and higher. That almost never happens. I think it's a joke of a rule.

So you would be fine with no inv save and no point cost change?

tneva82 wrote:

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Terminators get a 2+ save and a 5++ save. The invulnerable save would only come in handy against weapons that are AP 4- and higher. That almost never happens. I think it's a joke of a rule.

So you would be fine with no inv save and no point cost change?

I would. It's a pointless rule.

It is just a leftover of previous editions, and more of a "had always been that way (copy&paste)" than something the designers thought about while writing the rules for them

It is not the only one and you just have to accept that 40k will always have "legacy" rules from the past that make no sense in the current edition and will never be changed unless the unit is the new focus in a Codex written for the new rules

They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

With the prevelance of multi-damage middling -AP e.g. Helblasters, termies are a sub-optimal choice. The only redeeming feature they have is deepstrike and if you don't kill your target on arrival you may as well forgoe rolling dice and just take them off the table.

My 2p.

Gitdakka wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Terminators get a 2+ save and a 5++ save. The invulnerable save would only come in handy against weapons that are AP 4- and higher. That almost never happens. I think it's a joke of a rule.

So you would be fine with no inv save and no point cost change?

I would. It's a pointless rule.

Well you go right ahead & ignore it if you like.

The rest of us will keep using it whenever it manages to matter.

It is funny when you think about it.
Initially in 3rd edition they only had the 2+ save and people complained that they were not durable enough. In that edition melee power weapons ignored every kind of armor straight and ranged weapons had an AP value which stated what kind of save they ignore.

For example an autocannon had S 7 AP 4 and would ignore every kind of save of 4+, while at the same time 3+ and 2+ were not affected or worsened at all.

The 5++ was a way to give Terminators more survivability.

A few editions later and now we have a thread saying the 5++ is not needed at all.

Not (dis)agreeing to any side, I just find it funny.

I honestly think at this point keep the 5++ for legacy sake, I quite enjoy it on my termies but also let it reduce all incoming damage by 1 to a minimum of one.

Of course also give this to all terminators and chaosify it up, I dunno, call it "Desecrated Fortitude".

tneva82 wrote:

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Terminators get a 2+ save and a 5++ save. The invulnerable save would only come in handy against weapons that are AP 4- and higher. That almost never happens. I think it's a joke of a rule.

So you would be fine with no inv save and no point cost change?

Maybe then GW would let all termintors have storm shields. And that would be nice.

A few editions later and now we have a thread saying the 5++ is not needed at all.

I don't know much about older editions, but unless termintors were very cheap back then, a ++5 save on a 2W model is very bad. You are just not saving enough models with it. now a ++2 or ++3, or even ++4 on a multi wound model is something different. Then it act as a bullet sponge and have a good chance of tanking a single shot hvy weapon. ++5 inv often ends like this, I get to roll 11-12 of it save 3-4, and the unit of terminator goes down to 1-2 model and dies from small weapon fire next.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:


It is not the only one and you just have to accept that 40k will always have "legacy" rules from the past that make no sense in the current edition and will never be changed unless the unit is the new focus in a Codex written for the new rules

It is hard to ignore when almost all characters in your army, and half the troops, and a third of all infantry are running around in termintor armour.

Karol wrote:
I don't know much about older editions, but unless termintors were very cheap back then, a ++5 save on a 2W model is very bad. You are just not saving enough models with it. now a ++2 or ++3, or even ++4 on a multi wound model is something different. Then it act as a bullet sponge and have a good chance of tanking a single shot hvy weapon. ++5 inv often ends like this, I get to roll 11-12 of it save 3-4, and the unit of terminator goes down to 1-2 model and dies from small weapon fire next.

Terminators were never very good, rules wise. They were more expensive and only had 1 wound.

Some rules gave them several small renaissances(?) throughout the years, but never enough for top competitive play. Rules including:
- Storm Shields giving 3++ against all kind of attacks (not just a 4++ in melee, IIRC)
- Rework of Assault cannons having 4 rending shots (auto wound and ignore armor on hit rolls of 6)
- Very durable attached characters being able to soak up damage for the Terminators
- Wound shenanigans with Terminator like units (Nobs? Meganobs? Can't remember and Grey Knight Paladins, who were the first Terminators with 2 wounds). Basically you gave every model in your unit a different weapon loadout. This way your opponent had to damage every single model at least once before you had to remove the first Terminator from the unit.

well if they were never writen properly then maybe now it is the time to do it, instead of focusing on primaris. Specially for those marine armies that can't take them. A lot of people say how aggressors, centurions or the new scout dread are a great replacment for shoting or melee centric termintors. Which is awesome, for armies that can take those 3 units and have the special rules to support them.

Aren't very good, so they have to be bad, Doesn't cut it when more then half the models in your army are in termintor armour.

I have a complete GK Terminator army at home, I know how you feel

It is a shame that such an iconic and I would wager popular unit never had rules that matched their fluff properly.

Terminator survivability should be increased across the board for all factions, in my opinion.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I have a complete GK Terminator army at home, I know how you feel

It is a shame that such an iconic and I would wager popular unit never had rules that matched their fluff properly.

Terminator survivability should be increased across the board for all factions, in my opinion.

You know me. I love me some GK. Unfortunately, terminators are centric to the codex, so here we are. Do you happen to have pics of your army?

As others have stated, it’s a legacy option. But it does come up periodically, so I’m glad it’s there.

Terminators are probably in their best place in decades.

Stormbolters are decent for the first time since 3rd. Their heavy options are OK (the loss of relentless can be mitigated in a few chapters) With the new Angels of Death rules the extra attack helps them get a little more from their powerfists.

Historically, they were never able to take fire. Which is ironic, as the fluff builds them up as an anvil unit. With one wound a T4, you could either drown them in small arms and wait for the 1s on the the armor saves, or toss some AP2 fire at them and cut through that expensive armor. Even after the 5++ was added, it didn’t stop enough plasma to make them viable. The only thing TDA was really good at stopping was low volume, bad AP firepower.

In 8th they got the extra wound. This helps soak up small arms. The change to the armor system means that their armor is less all or nothing. Better in some ways, worse in others. The 5++ is a nice way of putting a cap on how bad it can get.

The main issue is that what little buffs to survivability they got this edition was greatly overshadowed by how killy everything got in comparison. AP and D2 is being handed out like Candy, so the 2+ save is never really made a 2+ in most situations, while the extra wound is effectively ignored since overcharged plasma and autocannons are all over the place.

If they wanted more survivability, they needed a toughness boost (so plasma wounds them on 3's) and/or for them to reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1 like aberrants. At least then they're tanking enough to hold objectives.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

Go old school, I like it. As long as my Khornate Chaos Lord can get re-rolls on it.

Weak this edition? Absolutely.

Weak in second? Nope. Used to HATE terminators in 2nd. And I think 3rd too, though some of that time period blends together for me now.

Used to smash whole armies trying to take out termies to protect myself from legions of cyclone missile launch and assault canon spam.

Just gonna share my opinion on this post.

 Nevelon wrote:
Terminators are probably in their best place in decades.

False. The only answer to terminators were weight of fire. Now they drop like flies if you just looked at them funny.

 Nevelon wrote:
Stormbolters are decent for the first time since 3rd.

False. Bolter discipline is a stop gap and nothing more.

 Nevelon wrote:
Their heavy options are OK (the loss of relentless can be mitigated in a few chapters)

False. PC fell out when they horribly messed up the small blast translation to 8th. CML is grossly over costed. HF will never see any use due to range and M value. AC is the only decent heavy option but it nearly doubles their cost.

 Nevelon wrote:
With the new Angels of Death rules the extra attack helps them get a little more from their powerfists.

Useless unless you pump them with CT's and CP's because they'll never get in melee otherwise.

 Nevelon wrote:
Historically, they were never able to take fire. Which is ironic, as the fluff builds them up as an anvil unit.

They did redirect meltas & lascannons (when they were affordable) from your other high priorities, especially when DS was high risk, high reward option.

 Nevelon wrote:
In 8th they got the extra wound. This helps soak up small arms.

Offset by plethora of multi-D, mid AP weapons.

 Nevelon wrote:
The change to the armor system means that their armor is less all or nothing.

More like nothing at all.

 Nevelon wrote:
Better in some ways, worse in others. The 5++ is a nice way of putting a cap on how bad it can get.

More like a consolation prize for being so over costed.

The first step in making termies less bad is correct their built-in gear cost. WS2+ needs their PF cost increased to near TH level and WS3+ PF needs points reduced to 5~6 points.

 skchsan wrote:
Just gonna share my opinion on this post.

 Nevelon wrote:
Terminators are probably in their best place in decades.

False. The only answer to terminators were weight of fire. Now they drop like flies if you just looked at them funny.

 Nevelon wrote:
Stormbolters are decent for the first time since 3rd.

False. Bolter discipline is a stop gap and nothing more.

 Nevelon wrote:
Their heavy options are OK (the loss of relentless can be mitigated in a few chapters)

False. PC fell out when they horribly messed up the small blast translation to 8th. CML is grossly over costed. HF will never see any use due to range and M value. AC is the only decent heavy option but it nearly doubles their cost.

 Nevelon wrote:
With the new Angels of Death rules the extra attack helps them get a little more from their powerfists.

Useless unless you pump them with CT's and CP's because they'll never get in melee otherwise.

 Nevelon wrote:
Historically, they were never able to take fire. Which is ironic, as the fluff builds them up as an anvil unit.

They did redirect meltas & lascannons (when they were affordable) from your other high priorities, especially when DS was high risk, high reward option.

 Nevelon wrote:
In 8th they got the extra wound. This helps soak up small arms.

Offset by plethora of multi-D, mid AP weapons.

 Nevelon wrote:
The change to the armor system means that their armor is less all or nothing.

More like nothing at all.

 Nevelon wrote:
Better in some ways, worse in others. The 5++ is a nice way of putting a cap on how bad it can get.

More like a consolation prize for being so over costed.

The first step in making termies less bad is correct their built-in gear cost. WS2+ needs their PF cost increased to near TH level and WS3+ PF needs points reduced to 5~6 points.

Sorry, but the only people that say "Terminators aren't as durable anymore" are the same people incapable of doing math to prove it.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

Go old school, I like it. As long as my Khornate Chaos Lord can get re-rolls on it.

I like it in theory, but needing to roll every armor save individually just doesn't work in a system where a single 200 point unit can be reasonably expected to put 54 individual wounding shots on target against them. Under the current rules they really need to be T5 or T6 and W3 and even then they might be overcosted.

The Newman wrote:
I like it in theory, but needing to roll every armor save individually just doesn't work in a system where a single 200 point unit can be reasonably expected to put 54 individual wounding shots on target against them. Under the current rules they really need to be T5 or T6 and W3 and even then they might be overcosted.

It's not really feasible at the current scale of AP, Lascannons were -6 AP when this rule was in effect, making the save a 9+ on 2d6. At the current levels of AP a rule like this would make Terminators very tough, especially with CP re-rolls, cover, chapter tactics, it would get out of hand real quick.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

With the prevelance of multi-damage middling -AP e.g. Helblasters, termies are a sub-optimal choice. The only redeeming feature they have is deepstrike and if you don't kill your target on arrival you may as well forgoe rolling dice and just take them off the table.

My 2p.

No no no no!

I swing with 10 Berserkers into your Terminators. They all have a Chainsword and Chainaxe, with an Exalted Champ nearby. That is...

62 Chainaxe attacks
~41 hits
~36 wounds at AP-1

20 Chainsword attacks
~13 hits
~11 wounds at AP0

Roll 36 saves, on two dice, one at a time, looking for 4+.
Then roll 11 at 3+.

The length of time would just be ridiculous.

How about salamander cataphracti terminators?
The cheapest squad is 170 pts for storm bolters and lightning claws, ap 0 and ap -1 keeps their save at 2+ and any ap above -2 is a waste due to the 4++.
Not bad to drop in on turn two so they get the -1 ap on their bolters.
Not amazing but decent chaff clearing and board control, especially if you can drop them in cover.

I'd rather see all Terminators' datasheets get stuck together and give them all a 4++. Different marks of power armour don't come with different rules, the only reason different marks of Terminator armour do is so GW can say "this datasheet has only parts we sell you in one box!".

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'd rather see all Terminators' datasheets get stuck together and give them all a 4++. Different marks of power armour don't come with different rules, the only reason different marks of Terminator armour do is so GW can say "this datasheet has only parts we sell you in one box!".

Exactly what I've been wanting. Could you imagine that a Chapter that was nearly killed off would have two of each armor, but never field them together because GW said so?

It's stupid, purely stupid.

I think it's hilarious people are tossing around making Terminators T6 with 3W each. Ok, then what do we do for Custodes terminators at more than double the points cost? Make them T7 with 5W each? Then I guess make commanders 9W each, and now tanks have to get a pump up, so make those 17W.....

See how silly this gets? We need to keep in mind that Terminators, no matter how much we may love them, are a outdated and inferior unit to the NuBoys. You make ripples every time you change a low level unit, because everything about that needs to change to compensate. That means Aggressors have to get a change. Dreadnaughts need a change. Every single Custodes Infantry model now needs a change.

Because we decided to make a 29pt unit T6 with 3W.

Terminators do need an overhaul. And it needs to be more than ‘crikey they’re a bit tough to kill’.

See, Terminators should be bloody terrifying to your opponent, as they were in 2nd Ed when I cut my teeth.

Superior weapons, decent attacks with Powerfists, and tough to kill thanks to 3+ on 2D6.

Remember, in 3rd it took an errata to grant them their 5++. It wasn’t an immediate thing.

Now, how to do that? I’m not familiar enough with the game to offer sensible suggestions. But it has to be more than just making them a bit tougher. And as Jnap ably demonstrated, the 2D6 save just isn’t going to work in the modern game.

Left field brain drivel? What if Terminator armour, as well as the 2+/5++ offered all wound rolls a -1 modifier? It turns most small arms into a 5+/6+ wounding bracket, and even helps reduce wounds taken from heavier weapons?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
They should roll back to previous edition rules where termies got a 3+ on 2d6. Make them valid again.

With the prevelance of multi-damage middling -AP e.g. Helblasters, termies are a sub-optimal choice. The only redeeming feature they have is deepstrike and if you don't kill your target on arrival you may as well forgoe rolling dice and just take them off the table.

My 2p.

No no no no!

I swing with 10 Berserkers into your Terminators. They all have a Chainsword and Chainaxe, with an Exalted Champ nearby. That is...

62 Chainaxe attacks
~41 hits
~36 wounds at AP-1

20 Chainsword attacks
~13 hits
~11 wounds at AP0

Roll 36 saves, on two dice, one at a time, looking for 4+.
Then roll 11 at 3+.

The length of time would just be ridiculous.

I was commenting on survivability.

You seem to be commenting on convenience.

How many dice do you think a green tide Ork army gets through in a game?

We are talking about a unit that bridges a gap. It's better than a space marine, but not as good as the next unit. It's cost also reflects that. Unless we are clamoring to remake the entire baseline for old-boys, I don't see how much it can change without stepping on toes.