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.

The old "how do we make terminators better thread"? Sigh.... Not facetiously, can we start a letter writing campaign? I was looking through my old posts and saw multiple " fix terminator" threads that I posted in over the years.

I wish the feedback group email was easier to find, "contact us" is their customer service group.

The correct email is 40kfaq@gwplc.com. Much harder to find.

 _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.

The entire Sisters of Battle army has a 3+ army save and a 6++ save. Just as useless. But the rule giving a 6++ save (so, useless) has another part. WHICH IS EVEN MORE USELESS.
Picture this. You are playing Sisters of Battle.
- Your opponent doesn't play psykers? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, but his psykers are too far away from your sisters? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, but he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 6 or more? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 5, but he rolls less, or more than 5? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 5, he rolls EXACTLY 5, but you don't then roll EXACTLY 6? The rule is useless.

The rule can only work if the enemy uses a psyker to cast a WC 5 power while within 24" (iirc) of your sisters, and then there is a 1 in 216 chance of it working. ONE IN TWO HUNDRED SIXTEEN CHANCE. What happens when you had the absolutely incredible luck of rolling this? The (WC5, so not really that powerful) power don't work. That's all. Congrats on your 1 in 216 chance thing.

Isn't there any cast value of 4 ?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl 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.

The entire Sisters of Battle army has a 3+ army save and a 6++ save. Just as useless. But the rule giving a 6++ save (so, useless) has another part. WHICH IS EVEN MORE USELESS.
Picture this. You are playing Sisters of Battle.
- Your opponent doesn't play psykers? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, but his psykers are too far away from your sisters? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, but he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 6 or more? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 5, but he rolls less, or more than 5? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 5, he rolls EXACTLY 5, but you don't then roll EXACTLY 6? The rule is useless.

The rule can only work if the enemy uses a psyker to cast a WC 5 power while within 24" (iirc) of your sisters, and then there is a 1 in 216 chance of it working. ONE IN TWO HUNDRED SIXTEEN CHANCE. What happens when you had the absolutely incredible luck of rolling this? The (WC5, so not really that powerful) power don't work. That's all. Congrats on your 1 in 216 chance thing.

It is two saves that you roll on a what a 9pts model? It is one thing to get an extra roll to save a 9pts model. It is another to get your almost 40 pts model try to save on a single +5 dice, when stuff that shot this edition aren't single shot weapons. Everything else is a bonus.

that is also why a smoke screen protecting orcs is great, when it is also only a +5 inv.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl 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.

The entire Sisters of Battle army has a 3+ army save and a 6++ save. Just as useless. But the rule giving a 6++ save (so, useless) has another part. WHICH IS EVEN MORE USELESS.
Picture this. You are playing Sisters of Battle.
- Your opponent doesn't play psykers? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, but his psykers are too far away from your sisters? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, but he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 6 or more? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 5, but he rolls less, or more than 5? The rule is useless.
- Your opponent play psykers, his psykers are close enough to your sisters, he tries to cast a power with a cast value of 5, he rolls EXACTLY 5, but you don't then roll EXACTLY 6? The rule is useless.

The rule can only work if the enemy uses a psyker to cast a WC 5 power while within 24" (iirc) of your sisters, and then there is a 1 in 216 chance of it working. ONE IN TWO HUNDRED SIXTEEN CHANCE. What happens when you had the absolutely incredible luck of rolling this? The (WC5, so not really that powerful) power don't work. That's all. Congrats on your 1 in 216 chance thing.

To be honest both of those rules (the deny the witch and the 6++) have a ton of built sinergy in the codex to upgrade and make something really usefull of both of them.
Also, all the rules that benefit the deny the witch part of the rules are choosed after you know your opponent so you can basically list tailor a super anty-psiker army from your normal army without a problem. ( +3 to deny, deny with 2d6 instead of 1d6 at 6" from your warlord, an your warlord becomes untargeteable for psychic powers and has a -1 to cast aura of 18" and a -2 to cast aura of 12")

I've always felt like terminators should be 1+ armor.

 godardc wrote:
Isn't there any cast value of 4 ?

Don't know any.

Karol wrote:
It is two saves that you roll on a what a 9pts model?

No, you can only ever roll one save, and the HUGE majority of the time you roll the armor save not the invulnerable one.

Karol wrote:
It is one thing to get an extra roll to save a 9pts model. It is another to get your almost 40 pts model try to save on a single +5 dice, when stuff that shot this edition aren't single shot weapons.

It's the same really. It's an invulnerable that is only useful on AP-4 weapons. That's the original complaint, that it works only on AP-4 weapons. For terminators, it's not that bad, because they are kinda maybe sometime a correct target for ap-4 weapons. For Sisters it is extremely useless!

Karol wrote:
that is also why a smoke screen protecting orcs is great, when it is also only a +5 inv.

Orks don't have a 3+ save Karol.

 Galas wrote:
To be honest both of those rules (the deny the witch and the 6++) have a ton of built sinergy in the codex to upgrade and make something really usefull of both of them.

They didn't in the index, and I don't know if they will in the new codex. And the rules without synergy are useless, might as well only exist with the synergy. Except for the 6++ on tanks specifically. Where it's about equivalent as the 5++ on terminators…

 _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.

Considering all the AP bonuses handed uot to various Marines I'd disagree with that. All my Plaama, Las and Grav Cannons in Devastator Doctrine are now AP -4, for example. Hellblasters can be -5.

 godardc wrote:
Isn't there any cast value of 4 ?

Some of the new Inquisition stuff has a Warp Charge of 4, I think.

It's the same really. It's an invulnerable that is only useful on AP-4 weapons. That's the original complaint, that it works only on AP-4 weapons. For terminators, it's not that bad, because they are kinda maybe sometime a correct target for ap-4 weapons. For Sisters it is extremely useless!

yes. it is one roll per one model. When some stuff costs a lot less, then a +5 or +6 save is better, because you are going to be saving more models, just on the base of having more models. If I get to roll 4-5 d2 invs, the unit is dead. even if I save one . I haven't read or played against sisters, so maybe I am wrong, but I know orcs like their +5 inv.

 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!".

Sure, as soon as every aspect warrior, ork, tau suit, and tyranid organism has the exact same rules. This is the quality of argument you're making - why exarchs or tau commanders should have different rules than basic grunt you used to make them? Because they have parts from one box?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This is why making Primaris separate units instead of calling them resculpts was a really stupid idea. Right now just for Imperium Infantry we need to have distinct statlines for Conscripts->Guardsmen->Guard Veterans->Stormtroopers->Skitarii->Battle Sisters->Celestians->Scouts->Sicarans->Space Marines->Marine Veterans->Primaris Marines->Terminators->Ogryn->Gravis Marines->Custodians->Custodian Terminators, and for character versions of a lot of these, and if you fiddle with any of them you have a knock-on effect up or down the whole line.

You're aware that there are bigger differences between SM and primaris than between first nine positions on your list? If anything, primaris need more rule differences, not less, no matter what people salty about their existence say. For the good of game balance, too - more expensive units had always better rules, maybe we should make Leman Russ equal to Chimera in stats while we're at it?

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Exactly. I have some of each mark of tda and mix them in units because I play chaos and we don't have separate rules for each mark. I do the same with different marks of power armour because they all have the same stats. The same should be fine for loyalists.

I like how you don't even know the rules of army you play - if you actually did, you'd knew DG cataphracti have more durability, TS have tartaros (albeit with rubric tax), and CSM have indomitus rules - exactly like loyalists. So, all of the above is completely wrong. In fact, CSM have different rules for different armor marks baked into cult troops HH style, so doubly wrong. If it "should be fine for loyalists", then let's make Berserkers A1 and Plagues T4, after all, why they should get different rules?

 Irbis wrote:

 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!".

Sure, as soon as every aspect warrior, ork, tau suit, and tyranid organism has the exact same rules. This is the quality of argument you're making - why exarchs or tau commanders should have different rules than basic grunt you used to make them? Because they have parts from one box?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This is why making Primaris separate units instead of calling them resculpts was a really stupid idea. Right now just for Imperium Infantry we need to have distinct statlines for Conscripts->Guardsmen->Guard Veterans->Stormtroopers->Skitarii->Battle Sisters->Celestians->Scouts->Sicarans->Space Marines->Marine Veterans->Primaris Marines->Terminators->Ogryn->Gravis Marines->Custodians->Custodian Terminators, and for character versions of a lot of these, and if you fiddle with any of them you have a knock-on effect up or down the whole line.

You're aware that there are bigger differences between SM and primaris than between first nine positions on your list? If anything, primaris need more rule differences, not less, no matter what people salty about their existence say. For the good of game balance, too - more expensive units had always better rules, maybe we should make Leman Russ equal to Chimera in stats while we're at it?

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Exactly. I have some of each mark of tda and mix them in units because I play chaos and we don't have separate rules for each mark. I do the same with different marks of power armour because they all have the same stats. The same should be fine for loyalists.

I like how you don't even know the rules of army you play - if you actually did, you'd knew DG cataphracti have more durability, TS have tartaros (albeit with rubric tax), and CSM have indomitus rules - exactly like loyalists. So, all of the above is completely wrong. In fact, CSM have different rules for different armor marks baked into cult troops HH style, so doubly wrong. If it "should be fine for loyalists", then let's make Berserkers A1 and Plagues T4, after all, why they should get different rules?

I play csm, not dg or ts. Those are different codexes. The fact that they have different rules has more to do with the fact they're cult troops than their armour.

Cult troops have different rules based on the gods their dedicated to not what armour they wear.

The fact that loyalists have rules for the older marks but heretics have indomatus makes no sense. If anyone would have greater access to older marks it would be the legions.

Wow we actually have someone defending the separation of the different Mks of Terminator armor as separate entries.

Now I might've seen everything.

I suggest reroll 1 on saves, and ignore negative modifiers to hit to represent the superior targetting gear and special training they have to use their terminator close combat equipment.

I know it's utterly ridiculous (even moreso considering how spoiled for choice Marines are in this department) but I'd probably put my Termies on the table a lot more if they were troops instead of elite. It's hard enough to work them into a 1000 point list when I buck the trend and play a Vanguard instead of a battalion, and giving up those 4 cps is painful.

Maybe power fist is too high at 9 points.

Compare to a power sword. Same AP, x2 S but -1 to hit, 1D3 dmg instead of 1.

Imo it is not worth 5 point difference, maybe 3 would be fair.

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

Not at all, in 2nd edition the AP modification curve was way more aggressive than it is now. If they get their 2nd edition save they'd be way more protected than they were in 2nd edition with the current curve so it makes no sense.

LoftyS wrote:

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

Not at all, in 2nd edition the AP modification curve was way more aggressive than it is now. If they get their 2nd edition save they'd be way more protected than they were in 2nd edition with the current curve so it makes no sense.

That's a valid point, LasCannons used to be AP 6 if I recall correctly. Terminators were one of the only things that got a save against them at all, and a 9+ on 2d6 is about the same as a 5++.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Maybe power fist is too high at 9 points.

Compare to a power sword. Same AP, x2 S but -1 to hit, 1D3 dmg instead of 1.

Imo it is not worth 5 point difference, maybe 3 would be fair.

I was going to say that's silly, but what's silly is having a flat point cost for gear. Whether a Power Fist is worth 9 points is entirely contingent on what's carrying it. On a Jump Pack captain, Vanguard Veteran, or any of the bike units? Absolutely. On an Autobolter Intercessor? I certainly think so. On a Tac or Devastator squad? Not a chance.

The issue on Terminators isn't that 9 points is too much for a PF (I don't think it is) but that the squad has no cheaper option. ...and even that wouldn't be a problem of the base layout was good or there was an upgrade worth taking. Aggressors and Centurions prove that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
...you know what? That's the fix right there. Give every Terminator in the entire system a Tor Garadon style shoulder-mounter Storm Bolter as a 2-ppm upgrade. Loyalist, Chaos, GK, Allarus, doesn't matter. Solves a bunch of problems.

Loyalist Termies now compete with Aggressors unless you're specifically building for Fire Storm, which they should since they're almost the same ppm. Chaos Termies still need a price cut but they look a whole lot better with 4 more shots. Custodes in general could really use a non-FW model with a decent shot count. I don't know from experience but I've heard GK need all the help they can get. Deathwatch can have it, but they're obliged to keep pay twice the points anyone else does. GW would have to have the upgrade sprues arriving at stores the same day they made the announcement, but I'd go buy 15 gun upgrades and an Assault Terminator squad on the spot once I found out about it.

Does anyone know what new point costs were given to SM termies in the CA 2019? I heard GK termies went down to about 35 per model (before or after weapons?)

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Does anyone know what new point costs were given to SM termies in the CA 2019? I heard GK termies went down to about 35 per model (before or after weapons?)

I imagine we'd all like an answer to that question.

 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.

They weren't valid even with 2d6, because Eldar small arms were -2 and weapons went to -6. And they cost an enormous amount and had one wound. GW will never go back to saves on 2d6 though.

Anyone who has ever played battletech has the solution to fast rolling multiple 2d6 rolls.... different colored pairs of dice

Martel732 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.

They weren't valid even with 2d6, because Eldar small arms were -2 and weapons went to -6. And they cost an enormous amount and had one wound. GW will never go back to saves on 2d6 though.

They were perfectly valid in 2nd, you just used them wrong. Terminators had a base 1+ to hit making them monsters on Overwatch, they couldn't be targeted if there was a closer unit to the firer, and you had tools like Blind Grenades to further control LOS for defense.

But no, we shouldn't bring back the 2D6 save for them in 8th. Terminators are easy to kill because everything is easy to kill. . . because not enough terrain is on the table and the terrain that is there isn't meaningful enough.

Karol wrote:
When some stuff costs a lot less, then a +5 or +6 save is better, because you are going to be saving more models, just on the base of having more models.

What? The number of models change nothing. You need to make one save for each wound inflicted by the enemy, regardless of the number of models.

Karol wrote:
If I get to roll 4-5 d2 invs, the unit is dead. even if I save one .

What unit has only 3 models and 6hp in total? Can you take units of 3 nobs?
And what weapon shot at that unit to inflict 4 d2 high ap shots?
Just to see if your scenario make sense.

Karol wrote:
I haven't read or played against sisters, so maybe I am wrong, but I know orcs like their +5 inv.

This is an incredibly inappropriate comparison because orks don't have a 3+ save so their 5++ happens all the time.
The invulnerable save is only useful when it works. An invulnerable save that only triggers on AP4 is only useful when taking a save against a wound from a weapon with ap4. Noone wants to shoot an AP4 weapon at a cheap unit. That's why the 6++ is much more useful on, say, an immolator or an exorcist than on a basic Sister of Battle. If that AP4, likely multi-wound and high strength weapon is shooting at my sisters, it's not getting it's point back.

Typical example : shooting a melta at a SoB? The 6++ doesn't matter much because it's just one sister dead at most from that melta shot and that's not a big deal. Shooting a melta at a character in terminator armor? The 5++ matter a lot because saving the character from losing 5/6 wounds (and therefore, likely dying) from a single melta shot IS a big deal. Just because I have more sisters of battle than I have terminator characters doesn't change the number of save I am making, because the enemy has the exact same number of meltas anyway. And if they use their melta good, then the invulnerable change a LOT on the final result, if they use their melta in extremely suboptimal way... then the invulnerable save doesn't change a lot.

I don't know, this seems quite obvious. Even GW acknowledge that the invul. on big expensive models with lots of wound was too much, and with the new SoB codex the invul. cannot be improved for vehicles anymore!

 Red Marine wrote:
The old "how do we make terminators better thread"? Sigh.... Not facetiously, can we start a letter writing campaign? I was looking through my old posts and saw multiple " fix terminator" threads that I posted in over the years.

Terminators are a decade-old non-Primaris kit that's been replaced in the Primaris range (Aggressors). They're never going to be made better.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 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.

They weren't valid even with 2d6, because Eldar small arms were -2 and weapons went to -6. And they cost an enormous amount and had one wound. GW will never go back to saves on 2d6 though.

They were perfectly valid in 2nd, you just used them wrong. Terminators had a base 1+ to hit making them monsters on Overwatch, they couldn't be targeted if there was a closer unit to the firer, and you had tools like Blind Grenades to further control LOS for defense.

But no, we shouldn't bring back the 2D6 save for them in 8th. Terminators are easy to kill because everything is easy to kill. . . because not enough terrain is on the table and the terrain that is there isn't meaningful enough.

I didn't use them. They weren't valid. They were easily massacred by the power lists in 2nd ed. It was easy to clear out marine units between the big guns and the terminators. Blind grenades weren't sufficient and everyone hated the mechanics as well.

^Won two 2nd ed tournies with Terminators in my list so I'm just not going to agree with you.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Won two 2nd ed tournies with Terminators in my list so I'm just not going to agree with you.

Nobody cares about your casual locals. It isn't good anecdotal evidence, especially for an edition KNOWN for overly broken crap.

Eldar could sling dozens of -3 shots. Power armor meant nothing and terminators wilted easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Won two 2nd ed tournies with Terminators in my list so I'm just not going to agree with you.

I saw a 1st company list tabled multiple times by turn 2. Your point?