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.
RT target audience was people already familiar with RPGs. Everyone already had the D&D dice needed. 2nd edition threw the RPG-isms out and tried to go as hard into D6s only as possible (besides the couple odd custom dice they had).
I kind of agree with the notion that Indomi survivability is OK in the modern edition(s). Ranged output should just be beefed up some, now it feels like Assault Termies are straight up better. They should be more like a sidegrade instead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2026/05/13 20:03:37
I have recently thought that the sustained fire dice output of storm bolters should have been what was carried over, 3 shots per storm bolter, and other weapons should have had a similar fire output as well, like shuriken catapults being assault 3.
That and a small points decrease on basic terminators could have gone a long way. I think assault cannons should have gone to like... assault 3-9, where you choose between 3-9d6 to roll for attacks, but keep jam being 3 or more 1's rolled, so weigh your own risk for the shots to fire.
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
Crimson wrote: It is indeed amazing how terminators, one of the coolest marine units, have remained bad for eight consecutive editions of the game!
Well, they're at least a decent argument against the idea of GW doing revolving door balance on purpose, if nothing else.
I am also reminded of the Fleshborer Tyrannofex, which released in... 4th? 5th? And has not once been even decent. Not just good, it hasn't once managed to be more than outright bad.
From my perspective, the history of Terminator armour has been:
2nd ed, The golden age of walking tank armour
3rd-7th ed, Artificer armour +1
8th-9th ed, Primaris -1
10th ed, GW realises W & T also affect durability (and that cool models sell)
Terminators are alright in 10th, bordering on quite effective if you position them well and/or you're using one of the units with extra buffs (Hammernators having 4W, WE Termies being fast etc). In 11th I expect they will be even more popular to use as big bricks with characters attached, as there may be more ways to stack 2 characters (leader and supporter), and potentially getting 3 enhancements into the unit too.
Crimson wrote: It is indeed amazing how terminators, one of the coolest marine units, have remained bad for eight consecutive editions of the game!
They were pretty great in 4th because that edition allowed them to take two Heavy weapons in the min squad of five, and that was the peak of Assault Cannon rending when 6s to-hit meant AP1 and against vehicles they got an extra D6 to pen. You could still give out Teleport Homers too, so Deep Striking to an infiltrated Scout squad was 100% reliable. I always took a squad of 6 with the extra body to require 4 casualties before they dropped below 50% for Morale purposes. As a bonus the Starcannon dropped from 3 shots to 2 as well.
Crimson wrote: It is indeed amazing how terminators, one of the coolest marine units, have remained bad for eight consecutive editions of the game!
Well, they're at least a decent argument against the idea of GW doing revolving door balance on purpose, if nothing else.
I am also reminded of the Fleshborer Tyrannofex, which released in... 4th? 5th? And has not once been even decent. Not just good, it hasn't once managed to be more than outright bad.
Was thinking of the Land Raider myself. Has it ever been a top choice? Maybe Black Templar variants in 3rd, but the normal or the Chaos one? I don't think so. An expensive transport for an expensive unit that can deep strike. A durable tank with the same firepower of a tank half the price.
Charax wrote: the main reason they used 2D6 rather than 1d12 in 2nd edition was GW don't sell D12s
Plus the game was a lot smaller scale back then, armies were typically half the size you'd see in 3rd edition, so having neat unique effects like terminators saving on 2D6 or Shokk Attack Misfire charts or an expansive psychic phase wasn't nearly as disruptive as it would be with armies twice the size regularly able to field 20+ terminators.
Terminators have been bad since 3rd. A lot of people forget that they only got their Crux Terminatus invulnerable save in a chapter approved article, before that Plasmaguns would melt them easily, and even after that they haven't really been fantastic for the points. But they're cool models, and people love Space Hulk.
Personally I love Terminators, I fielded a bunch of them even before Death Guard got two distinct flavours of them, but that's because I've always liked small, tough, elite infantry armies and Terminators are the epitome of that.
As it happens, given the Space Hulk link, Terminators have always been best in "Zones Mortalis" type games where long-range firepower isn't a thing, short-ranged firepower and melee is most effective, and the firepower/durability differential with tacticals isn't as relevant because you can't typically bring numbers to bear anyway. Tacticals being ~2.5x more durable for the points didn't matter so much if you only ever had ten facing the enemy unit at a time.
To top it off, Terminators have always explicitly teleported (unless Space Wolves), the one method of deepstrike typically allowed in Zones Mortalis.
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
Charax wrote: the main reason they used 2D6 rather than 1d12 in 2nd edition was GW don't sell D12s
There were enough polyhedrals in 1st/2nd edition that I don't think that's the reason. GW weren't nearly as bothered back then about people sourcing accessories from elsewhere. They didn't even do hobby supplies for the vast majority of 2nd edition. I think the designers just really loved the concept and the distribution curve of a 2D6 roll. Sadly, it's unworkable at the current scale of the game.
Charax wrote: the main reason they used 2D6 rather than 1d12 in 2nd edition was GW don't sell D12s
There were enough polyhedrals in 1st/2nd edition that I don't think that's the reason. GW weren't nearly as bothered back then about people sourcing accessories from elsewhere. They didn't even do hobby supplies for the vast majority of 2nd edition. I think the designers just really loved the concept and the distribution curve of a 2D6 roll. Sadly, it's unworkable at the current scale of the game.
Forgive me if I'm being a big dummy, but isn't 3+ on 2D6 mathematically the same as 2+ re-roll 1s?
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he wants Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Insularum wrote: From my perspective, the history of Terminator armour has been:
2nd ed, The golden age of walking tank armour
3rd-7th ed, Artificer armour +1
8th-9th ed, Primaris -1
10th ed, GW realises W & T also affect durability (and that cool models sell)
Terminators are alright in 10th, bordering on quite effective if you position them well and/or you're using one of the units with extra buffs (Hammernators having 4W, WE Termies being fast etc). In 11th I expect they will be even more popular to use as big bricks with characters attached, as there may be more ways to stack 2 characters (leader and supporter), and potentially getting 3 enhancements into the unit too.
That's a good point. I will be able to field both Termie Chaplain and Captain in the same squad. That's a big boost for lethality
Crimson wrote: It is indeed amazing how terminators, one of the coolest marine units, have remained bad for eight consecutive editions of the game!
Well, they're at least a decent argument against the idea of GW doing revolving door balance on purpose, if nothing else.
I am also reminded of the Fleshborer Tyrannofex, which released in... 4th? 5th? And has not once been even decent. Not just good, it hasn't once managed to be more than outright bad.
Was thinking of the Land Raider myself. Has it ever been a top choice? Maybe Black Templar variants in 3rd, but the normal or the Chaos one? I don't think so. An expensive transport for an expensive unit that can deep strike. A durable tank with the same firepower of a tank half the price.
Absolutely, Land Raiders have enjoyed a renaissance in 40k 10th edition. Redeemers are horrifying overwatch machines, and standard Land Raiders have appeared in niche builds in various factions, with their most notable success being in triple land raider Custodian Guard armies that have seen solid success.
Charax wrote: the main reason they used 2D6 rather than 1d12 in 2nd edition was GW don't sell D12s
There were enough polyhedrals in 1st/2nd edition that I don't think that's the reason. GW weren't nearly as bothered back then about people sourcing accessories from elsewhere. They didn't even do hobby supplies for the vast majority of 2nd edition. I think the designers just really loved the concept and the distribution curve of a 2D6 roll. Sadly, it's unworkable at the current scale of the game.
Forgive me if I'm being a big dummy, but isn't 3+ on 2D6 mathematically the same as 2+ re-roll 1s?
If you are curious saving with a re-roll 1, vs re-roll failed save, vs 2D6, vs D12 all with 5+ inv
Crimson wrote: It is indeed amazing how terminators, one of the coolest marine units, have remained bad for eight consecutive editions of the game!
Well, they're at least a decent argument against the idea of GW doing revolving door balance on purpose, if nothing else.
I am also reminded of the Fleshborer Tyrannofex, which released in... 4th? 5th? And has not once been even decent. Not just good, it hasn't once managed to be more than outright bad.
Was thinking of the Land Raider myself. Has it ever been a top choice? Maybe Black Templar variants in 3rd, but the normal or the Chaos one? I don't think so. An expensive transport for an expensive unit that can deep strike. A durable tank with the same firepower of a tank half the price.
Absolutely, Land Raiders have enjoyed a renaissance in 40k 10th edition. Redeemers are horrifying overwatch machines, and standard Land Raiders have appeared in niche builds in various factions, with their most notable success being in triple land raider Custodian Guard armies that have seen solid success.
The Redeemer definitely because its weaponry and rules came together to form an effective niche. The issue with the standard Land Raider is that its a long range tank that wants to aggressively charge forward to deliver its cargo.
Actually, I remember one very important point that I think may have been forgotten to this point.
It can be cheapter to build an army of terminators than other space marines.
Because they cost more points, you need fewer models, so you need to buy and paint fewer models, so your army is up and running faster than with less expensive (points wise) miniatures.
Maybe they aren't worth it points vs effectiveness wise, but from the point of view of "time to get going" they can be seen as worth it.
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
BanjoJohn wrote: Actually, I remember one very important point that I think may have been forgotten to this point.
It can be cheapter to build an army of terminators than other space marines.
Because they cost more points, you need fewer models, so you need to buy and paint fewer models, so your army is up and running faster than with less expensive (points wise) miniatures.
Maybe they aren't worth it points vs effectiveness wise, but from the point of view of "time to get going" they can be seen as worth it.
5 Terminators are 170 points. 10 Intercessors are 160 points. That's about 6% more points per unit.
But if my maths are correct, the box price for 5 Terminators vs 10 Intercessors maths out to very slightly less than 6% more money per Terminators box.
So you're not saving much worth mentioning. Time to paint is harder to assess. That one's going to vary a lot more with player, not much maths I can do there.
Crimson wrote: It is indeed amazing how terminators, one of the coolest marine units, have remained bad for eight consecutive editions of the game!
Well, they're at least a decent argument against the idea of GW doing revolving door balance on purpose, if nothing else.
I am also reminded of the Fleshborer Tyrannofex, which released in... 4th? 5th? And has not once been even decent. Not just good, it hasn't once managed to be more than outright bad.
Was thinking of the Land Raider myself. Has it ever been a top choice? Maybe Black Templar variants in 3rd, but the normal or the Chaos one? I don't think so. An expensive transport for an expensive unit that can deep strike. A durable tank with the same firepower of a tank half the price.
Absolutely, Land Raiders have enjoyed a renaissance in 40k 10th edition. Redeemers are horrifying overwatch machines, and standard Land Raiders have appeared in niche builds in various factions, with their most notable success being in triple land raider Custodian Guard armies that have seen solid success.
The Redeemer definitely because its weaponry and rules came together to form an effective niche. The issue with the standard Land Raider is that its a long range tank that wants to aggressively charge forward to deliver its cargo.
Thats not an issue, its a design feature. (Says the aggressive player)
A Land Raider up close shoots just as well as one standing off at range. And only marginally worse if it finds itself in melee (mine often do because I frequently Tank Shock things).
And then you add in Oath of the Moment/Dark Pact/etc.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2026/05/14 17:20:32
Rational_gamer wrote: For the sake of discussion; what is a reasonable point value for a terminator? Does anyone have homebrew rules for it?
Points aren't the issue. All terminators with decent weaponry are seeing play, whether they are more or less expensive than the loyal tactical terminator squad.
Bolters and powerfists just aren't anything worth bringing unless your army has a character which massively increases their output.
Blightlords stopped being bad when their swords and bolters were improved.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Crimson wrote: It is indeed amazing how terminators, one of the coolest marine units, have remained bad for eight consecutive editions of the game!
Well, they're at least a decent argument against the idea of GW doing revolving door balance on purpose, if nothing else.
I am also reminded of the Fleshborer Tyrannofex, which released in... 4th? 5th? And has not once been even decent. Not just good, it hasn't once managed to be more than outright bad.
Was thinking of the Land Raider myself. Has it ever been a top choice? Maybe Black Templar variants in 3rd, but the normal or the Chaos one? I don't think so. An expensive transport for an expensive unit that can deep strike. A durable tank with the same firepower of a tank half the price.
Absolutely, Land Raiders have enjoyed a renaissance in 40k 10th edition. Redeemers are horrifying overwatch machines, and standard Land Raiders have appeared in niche builds in various factions, with their most notable success being in triple land raider Custodian Guard armies that have seen solid success.
The Redeemer definitely because its weaponry and rules came together to form an effective niche. The issue with the standard Land Raider is that its a long range tank that wants to aggressively charge forward to deliver its cargo.
That's only if you are using the transport capacity for assault troops. In recent editions (8th+) my most successful uses have been as bunkers for Devastators. The Land Raider can protect them from incoming first turn fire, and then deploy them into the best spots for return fire. The Land Raider movement plus the disembark from any side of the vehicle means the Devs can go quite far to get good firing angles. Also the Land Raider is a mobile LOS blocking wall, so you can shield other units behind it/them (in my last 40k game I took 2). I haven't used anything other than the traditional Lascannons/Heavy Bolters Raiders since 3rd or 4th edition.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2026/05/14 22:56:34
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
Competition Index
