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.

Ok realistically:

Aggressor: T5, W3, A3, 3+, with an 18" Assault 9 bolter and PF, Storm of Fire, 37 points.
Terminator: T4, W2, A2, 2+/5++, with a 24" Assault 4 bolter and PF, Deep Strike, 32 points.

That's really not that far off on base stats, what puts it out of whack is that:
1) The basic rules favor attack output over everything else for a non-horde model.
2) The basic rules make W3 a lot more than 50% better than W2.
3) There are a couple of strats and super-doctrines that completely cancel the limitations on Storm of Fire.
4) There are no strats/doctrines/traits that boost Termies that don't work better on Aggressors.
5) Teminators are still stuck with the 5-10 man squad size, they'd compete better if they started at 91 points instead of 175.

1 can't be fixed without a complete overhaul of the rules, but it could be mitigated. The Invictor's Pistol Grip rule would go a long way toward giving Termies a niche. 2 and 5 can be fixed with a simple revision in CA, they did it for Cents and Aggressors so there's no reason they couldn't do the same for Termies. 3 and 4 ... it's possible the Templar rules will have something special for Terminators, but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't think the Termies are unfixable, it's a question of whether GW cares to address them.

I have the impression GW is phasing out the non-Primaris line.

Old-school models like Tacs, Termies and Land Raiders are going to directed to a few unique chapters like Templars.

I'm confident my Salamanders will continue to have non primaris units for a while...same with BT.

I just want some pyroclasts for 40k. Firedrakes are easy since they're in Cataphractii w TH/SS.

The Newman wrote:
Ok realistically:

Aggressor: T5, W3, A3, 3+, with an 18" Assault 9 bolter and PF, Storm of Fire, 37 points.
Terminator: T4, W2, A2, 2+/5++, with a 24" Assault 4 bolter and PF, Deep Strike, 32 points.

That's really not that far off on base stats, what puts it out of whack is that:
1) The basic rules favor attack output over everything else for a non-horde model.
2) The basic rules make W3 a lot more than 50% better than W2.
3) There are a couple of strats and super-doctrines that completely cancel the limitations on Storm of Fire.
4) There are no strats/doctrines/traits that boost Termies that don't work better on Aggressors.
5) Teminators are still stuck with the 5-10 man squad size, they'd compete better if they started at 91 points instead of 175.

1 can't be fixed without a complete overhaul of the rules, but it could be mitigated. The Invictor's Pistol Grip rule would go a long way toward giving Termies a niche. 2 and 5 can be fixed with a simple revision in CA, they did it for Cents and Aggressors so there's no reason they couldn't do the same for Termies. 3 and 4 ... it's possible the Templar rules will have something special for Terminators, but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't think the Termies are unfixable, it's a question of whether GW cares to address them.

I've been saying extra attack and WS/BS2+.

I always thought it was a little ridiculous the s/T system in 40k. A Guardman has a Strength rating of 3, a SM has a S/t of 4, and a Custodes 5. That is all great. A primarch should be around S/t6 if Gman is anything to go by. A Titan is 14. But Angron lifted one that was trying to step on him, so that must make him 15 at least. Which, because Vulkan was stronger (wrong?) he must be at least a 16? Which means a Vulkan can 1punchman a Guardsman approximately twice as hard as a lascannon to the face.

But Terminators fall in there somewhere with S5. Don't even get me started on Bullgryns.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I always thought it was a little ridiculous the s/T system in 40k. A Guardman has a Strength rating of 3, a SM has a S/t of 4, and a Custodes 5. That is all great. A primarch should be around S/t6 if Gman is anything to go by. A Titan is 14. But Angron lifted one that was trying to step on him, so that must make him 15 at least. Which, because Vulkan was stronger (wrong?) he must be at least a 16? Which means a Vulkan can 1punchman a Guardsman approximately twice as hard as a lascannon to the face.

But Terminators fall in there somewhere with S5. Don't even get me started on Bullgryns.

Strength=/=Weight.

The Newman wrote:
Ok realistically:

Aggressor: T5, W3, A3, 3+, with an 18" Assault 9 bolter and PF, Storm of Fire, 37 points.
Terminator: T4, W2, A2, 2+/5++, with a 24" Assault 4 bolter and PF, Deep Strike, 32 points.

That's really not that far off on base stats, what puts it out of whack is that:
1) The basic rules favor attack output over everything else for a non-horde model.
2) The basic rules make W3 a lot more than 50% better than W2.
3) There are a couple of strats and super-doctrines that completely cancel the limitations on Storm of Fire.
4) There are no strats/doctrines/traits that boost Termies that don't work better on Aggressors.
5) Teminators are still stuck with the 5-10 man squad size, they'd compete better if they started at 91 points instead of 175.

1 can't be fixed without a complete overhaul of the rules, but it could be mitigated. The Invictor's Pistol Grip rule would go a long way toward giving Termies a niche. 2 and 5 can be fixed with a simple revision in CA, they did it for Cents and Aggressors so there's no reason they couldn't do the same for Termies. 3 and 4 ... it's possible the Templar rules will have something special for Terminators, but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't think the Termies are unfixable, it's a question of whether GW cares to address them.

As much as I feel quoting myself is bad form, I also did this comparison very much wrong and I can't let that stand. (Also, I've responded to other comparisons that I thought were off-base in exactly this manner. Consistency is a thing.)

The valid comparison is the minimum 5-man Terminator squad to 3-man Aggressor squad:

10 wounds vs 9 wounds. The difference on D1 and D2/Dd3 weapons is really only one failed save either way. Aggressors lose vs anything else, but again it's only by a couple of failed saves. Toughness and save differences also mostly cancel out for the narrow band of weapons where they matter.

16 attacks on a charge vs 13, but 4 of those 16 are Power Sword instead of Power Fist, so basically a wash.

20 shots at a 29" threat vs 28 shots at a 23" + 1d6" threat, before you do the sensible thing and pick a faction that lets the Aggressors move and double-tap.

175 points vs 111 points. That isn't remotely close to being properly balanced. Even if you concede that Deep Strike is as valuable as Fire Storm five Terminators should still be cheaper than three Aggressors, and that's before you get into the rules that let Aggressors have access to both pseudo-Deep Strike and ways to shut off the limitations on Fire Storm.

The thing is, that would put an equiped Terminator to 22 points and 11+ of that is gear. That's also clearly not right, so one has to conclude that regardless of whether the Terminators are over-priced, the Aggressors are currently under-priced.

Another way to look at it is to start with another T4 W2 A2 model: Autobolter Intercessors. 18 points. A 5++ is a Combat Shield, currently 1 point, 19 total. Reivers pay 1 for Deep Strike, 20 total. A Power Fist makes 29. A 2+ and Stable Platform can't be free, that's 31 at a minimum. Assuming Intercessors and Power Fists are properly pointed (which I'm not asserting they are, I'm just taking it as a given for the Terminator/Aggressor discussion) them Termies are just about right and Aggressors should actually be over 50 points per model, which in turn can't be right because that's the range of an Assault Centurion with a Hurricane Bolter (which is also 5 points more than it should be).

The only thing I can say for sure is that Marine point costs are jacked up left right and center.

Why can't termintors just have different point costs for different codex? A DA player doesn't have access to the aggres or buffing doctrins or new stratagems. why should his termintor cost be glued to termintor cost in a different codex, when they have or don't have access to different stuff.

Am not even sure if DA can take centurions to be honest.

I am and they can't. Also, their Termies have some entirely unique wargear layouts.

Personally I think any model with the TERMINATOR keyword should either be bumped to a 1+ save (with 1's still failing) and make the Crux Terminatus ability count D2 as D1
OR
Keep those models save at 2+, but add +1 to armour saving throw to the Crux rule. (So Termies would still be 2+/5++, but get +1 to their armour saves)
OR
Just make Termies count Ap-1 as Ap-0

There's just so, so many way to make Termies as durable as they should be, but GW is stuck on making them boring 2+/5++ only

-

The thing is, Termies without the PF are 25 points. Give them a Chainsword option and make Deep Strike a 1 ppm upgrade so their 24 ppm base (maybe knock another point or two off of that...) and they're basically just Veteran Intercessors with a better save that cost points instead of CPs. That might actually see play. As stands they're stuck with a less than ideal wargear layout and squad size.

Seeing how GW is doing things though they're a lot more likely to do something like taking the Grenade Harness options from the Cataphracii/Tartaros sergeants and make it a 1 ppm upgrade for the whole squad. That would actually work pretty well with the rest of their kit and do enough for their shot output to start looking worth the points. Dropping to a three-man minimum squad size would get them the rest of the way from there I think.

The Newman wrote:
Ok
4) There are no strats/doctrines/traits that boost Termies that don't work better on Aggressors.

Terminators do have a stratagem only them can use giving them +1 to hit in any phase.

 godardc wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Ok
4) There are no strats/doctrines/traits that boost Termies that don't work better on Aggressors.

Terminators do have a stratagem only them can use giving them +1 to hit in any phase.

I stand corrected, althought that's not remotely as big a swing as shutting off the stationary requirement on Fire Storm.

Terminators need to be 18PPM before wargear, so 140 for a base squad, then bumped up to T6. Leave them at 2 wounds.

Djangomatic82 wrote:
Terminators need to be 18PPM before wargear, so 140 for a base squad, then bumped up to T6. Leave them at 2 wounds.

There's no way an unarmed Terminator should be one more ppm than a basic Intercessor and T6.

The Newman wrote:

Djangomatic82 wrote:
Terminators need to be 18PPM before wargear, so 140 for a base squad, then bumped up to T6. Leave them at 2 wounds.

There's no way an unarmed Terminator should be one more ppm than a basic Intercessor and T6.

If an Intercessor squads war gear cost were also 50 points with absolutely no cheaper load out available, then yes, I agree that Terminators should not be of similar points costs per model. But really, people need to stop looking at the base cost without war gear as though it has any significance at all.
As it is, Terminators NEED to be 18PPM before their exorbitant war gear costs

WS2+, BS2+, ignore penalty for heavy weapons including CC weapons.

Throw on ignore the first AP point as well for kicks.

 godardc wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Ok
4) There are no strats/doctrines/traits that boost Termies that don't work better on Aggressors.

Terminators do have a stratagem only them can use giving them +1 to hit in any phase.

Just generic termintors or all termintors?

You could give Terminators a 1+ save, and basically, a roll of 1 still always fails.

So that way, vs AP-1, they still get a 2+. AP-2, they get a 3+
That, and Terminators could easily get a rule to ignore hit penalties for heavy melee weapons.

There. They're nasty now.

Custodes terminators are in a rough spot though. Same issues as a Space Marine, but more than twice as expensive (79 points? cmon)
Not sure how to fix them minus making them 70 points.

WS/BS2+, 1+ Armour (1s still fail) and Swap the 5++ (because with a 1+ armour you really do not NEED and invul at all) for D2 counts as D1

Done. Terminators fixed

-

Djangomatic82 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Djangomatic82 wrote:
Terminators need to be 18PPM before wargear, so 140 for a base squad, then bumped up to T6. Leave them at 2 wounds.

There's no way an unarmed Terminator should be one more ppm than a basic Intercessor and T6.

If an Intercessor squads war gear cost were also 50 points with absolutely no cheaper load out available, then yes, I agree that Terminators should not be of similar points costs per model. But really, people need to stop looking at the base cost without war gear as though it has any significance at all.
As it is, Terminators NEED to be 18PPM before their exorbitant war gear costs

I really want to argue that point, but an Aggressor is carrying a Power Fist and either a Hurricane Bolter (more or less) or a Twin Linked Flamer, either of which adds up to 19 points and puts the base T5 W3 A3 model with Fire Storm and ignoring Advance-and-Fire penalties to a measly 17 or 18 ppm.

I don't know if the Aggressor is too cheap or the Termie is to expensive or both, but there is no way at all that they should be within 2 points of each other.

At 17pts this would mean he costs half of what a GK termintor with stormbolter costs. Nice.

Karol wrote:
At 17pts this would mean he costs half of what a GK termintor with stormbolter costs. Nice.

Let's be fair, GK need a top-to-bottom overhaul. Everything in that codex is severely over-costed, how anything else compares to them is a bad metric.

Still even if agressors cost 34pts they would still cost less then a GK termintor.

Karol wrote:
Still even if agressors cost 34pts they would still cost less then a GK termintor.

Aggressors are 37 ppm, loyalist Terminators are 34. Or did you mean without gear?

Terminators are fine. They are a middle ground between a space marine and a Primaris. They already have some pretty crazy options and viable builds.

The Newman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Still even if agressors cost 34pts they would still cost less then a GK termintor.

Aggressors are 37 ppm, loyalist Terminators are 34. Or did you mean without gear?

Without gear. Still 37 for 3W is a really low cost. Paladins are 3W, and cost a lot more. At least aggressors aren't troops, so there is at leas that.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Terminators are fine. They are a middle ground between a space marine and a Primaris. They already have some pretty crazy options and viable builds.

Lolwut? Terminators aren't even close to viable compared to Aggressors and Assault Centurions.

Anything involving a save on 2d6 is dead in the water. imagine the process when I charge your terminators with 30 ork boyz, base 2 attacks 1 for choppa 1 for being over 20 1 is the nob so we roll 29x4 attacks = 116 attacks , 77.3 hit str 4 t 4, 38.7 wounds, call it 39. now let us pull up a chair and wait while you roll 39 individual saves (before the nob strikes)

honestly I just think terminators could be fixed with a rewrite of the crux terminator warger "units subtract 1 from to wound rolls against this unit to a minimum of 6".

keeps the 6's always wound, though to be fair almost everything other than gretchin are over str 2. in the case aboce vs the orks they go from taking 39 wounds to 26 wounds. after saves they go from 6.5 wounds getting through saves to 4.3.

makes them more durable but not ridiculous.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Terminators are fine. They are a middle ground between a space marine and a Primaris. They already have some pretty crazy options and viable builds.

The problem is that GW decided to glue the point costs for all termintors. So GK pay for theirs as if they had extra rules on top the normal GK ones, but they do not get the normal marines options and options GK had when the codex was writen down are no longer legal to do in matched play. Plus GK have no access to primaris, so there is no middle ground.
so either GW has to rewrite termintor rules for everyone, which has more chance to happen, or they have to rewrite and recost GK termis, which after 2 CA and like 5 FAQ has close to zero chance to happen.