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.

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.

 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.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 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.

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.

Slipspace wrote:

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?

For the very initial roll, yes, but not once modifiers come into play, off the top of my head.

 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

It will be interesting to see what marine characters are primary, and which are secondary.

Captains, chapter masters, definitely primary.
Apothecaries, ancients, those are surely support characters.

Chaplains, librarians, lieutenants? I could see arguments both ways.

I’d suspect that if they don’t already have the “can be added in addition to…” rule they are going to be support/secondary.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 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.

 Nazrak wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

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

0 97% 97% 97% 83%
-1 78% 89% 92% 75%
-2 58% 75% 83% 67%
-3 39% 56% 72% 58%
-4 33% 33% 58% 50%
-5 33% 33% 42% 42%
-6 33% 33% 33% 33%

For the sake of discussion; what is a reasonable point value for a terminator? Does anyone have homebrew rules for it?

 Ashiraya wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 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.

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.

 LunarSol wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ashiraya wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 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.

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.

 LunarSol wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ashiraya wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 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.

 Jidmah wrote:


The part you are not seeing is that durability has a value. Terminators are great for holding objectives, closing choke points and denying parts of the board. They can also deep strike into your opponent's deployment zone, clearing out all the usual objective holders and score extra VP secondaries/agendas while there. A brick of terminators with a decent character and a defensive stratagem usually is sufficient to take and hold the middle objective for a turn or two unless the opponent is well equipped to kill them.
Judging from the experiences you share of your game group, it's fairly safe to assume that these players just lack the skills to properly utilize terminators.

Beyond that, not everything is min/maxed. Taking a less optimal list increases challenge.

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


The part you are not seeing is that durability has a value. Terminators are great for holding objectives, closing choke points and denying parts of the board. They can also deep strike into your opponent's deployment zone, clearing out all the usual objective holders and score extra VP secondaries/agendas while there. A brick of terminators with a decent character and a defensive stratagem usually is sufficient to take and hold the middle objective for a turn or two unless the opponent is well equipped to kill them.
Judging from the experiences you share of your game group, it's fairly safe to assume that these players just lack the skills to properly utilize terminators.

Beyond that, not everything is min/maxed. Taking a less optimal list increases challenge.

That’s how I feel playing Daemons instead of Death Guard.

 Nevelon wrote:
It will be interesting to see what marine characters are primary, and which are secondary.

Captains, chapter masters, definitely primary.
Apothecaries, ancients, those are surely support characters.

Chaplains, librarians, lieutenants? I could see arguments both ways.

I’d suspect that if they don’t already have the “can be added in addition to…” rule they are going to be support/secondary.

I've been busy and haven't seen whatever news/leak you're talking about but from context my guess is:

Captain(and CM), Chaplain, and probably Librarians are Primary.
Lieutenants are 50/50 - they could join captains like a secondary but the other secondaries could also join them as if they were a primary.
Apothecaries and the rest of the non-lieutenant characters that could join a Captain are secondary.
Judiciars are your guess is as good as mine.

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


The part you are not seeing is that durability has a value. Terminators are great for holding objectives, closing choke points and denying parts of the board. They can also deep strike into your opponent's deployment zone, clearing out all the usual objective holders and score extra VP secondaries/agendas while there. A brick of terminators with a decent character and a defensive stratagem usually is sufficient to take and hold the middle objective for a turn or two unless the opponent is well equipped to kill them.
Judging from the experiences you share of your game group, it's fairly safe to assume that these players just lack the skills to properly utilize terminators.

Beyond that, not everything is min/maxed. Taking a less optimal list increases challenge.

Yeah, while that's somethingI would do, I don't think that's what my opponents were aiming for.

Breton wrote:

I've been busy and haven't seen whatever news/leak you're talking about but from context my guess is:

Captain(and CM), Chaplain, and probably Librarians are Primary.
Lieutenants are 50/50 - they could join captains like a secondary but the other secondaries could also join them as if they were a primary.
Apothecaries and the rest of the non-lieutenant characters that could join a Captain are secondary.
Judiciars are your guess is as good as mine.

For Lieutenants I could see them having a special rule that allows them to be secondaries if a captain is already attached to a squad otherwise they are a primary.
Judiciars, I believe, are Chaplains in training so I would expect them to be secondaries.

Breton wrote:
Beyond that, not everything is min/maxed. Taking a less optimal list increases challenge.

True, but in 10th edition (and most likely in 11th edition), you still need to utilize the strengths of the non-optimal unit if you want to have any shot at winning.

There are a lot of units scattered across codices which aren't the optimal choice to play, but there are very few units which literally have no redeeming qualities. For example, I don't think DG have a single one.

Tactical Terminators simply aren't veteran melee units with better saves anymore, they will not go toe to toe which an elite brawler unit and win. Their strengths are the 2+/4++/T5/3W stat line, deep strike, teleporter homer and are the cyclone missile launcher. They are good at flipping and defending objectives, which can be game deciding.
Is that what most veteran players expect them to do? No. Do they cost too many point for that job absolutely. But if you run them, this is what they should be doing, and you will likely win some games by catching people off guard with the teleporter homer.

Breton wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
It will be interesting to see what marine characters are primary, and which are secondary.
<snip>

I've been busy and haven't seen whatever news/leak you're talking about but from context my guess is:

Captain(and CM), Chaplain, and probably Librarians are Primary.
Lieutenants are 50/50 - they could join captains like a secondary but the other secondaries could also join them as if they were a primary.
Apothecaries and the rest of the non-lieutenant characters that could join a Captain are secondary.
Judiciars are your guess is as good as mine.

In one of the WarCom articles they talked a little bit about attaching characters to squads. You get one primary, and one secondary. And it’s done in list building. I don’t know if we’ve seen any marine datasheets showing what’s what at this point. And in theory we should get the full official rules dumped on us early this week so we’ll know the exact mechanics. But who has what keyword will probably have to wait until launch update PDFs.

Jidmah wrote:

Breton wrote:
Beyond that, not everything is min/maxed. Taking a less optimal list increases challenge.

True, but in 10th edition (and most likely in 11th edition), you still need to utilize the strengths of the non-optimal unit if you want to have any shot at winning.

There are a lot of units scattered across codices which aren't the optimal choice to play, but there are very few units which literally have no redeeming qualities. For example, I don't think DG have a single one.

Tactical Terminators simply aren't veteran melee units with better saves anymore, they will not go toe to toe which an elite brawler unit and win. Their strengths are the 2+/4++/T5/3W stat line, deep strike, teleporter homer and are the cyclone missile launcher. They are good at flipping and defending objectives, which can be game deciding.
Is that what most veteran players expect them to do? No. Do they cost too many point for that job absolutely. But if you run them, this is what they should be doing, and you will likely win some games by catching people off guard with the teleporter homer.

This is true not just for 10th, but most editions of 40k. Marine units can generally get the job done they are supposed to be doing. They are effective. Are they worth the points you spend? Often not. Many are just not efficient. But unless you are playing at top tournament levels, you can have a few “soft” units in your list. You will just have to make sure they have the tools needed to help (if they require support elements to shine) or tighten up other parts of your list to compensate. And if you fill your entire list with them, it’s going to be a handicap.

I do miss Elite Infantry being an absolute menace.

Terminators were once a thorny issue to deal with. Ridiculous armour, really solid firepower even just from Storm Bolters, and their Powerfists were a credible threat to most things.

Aspect Warriors lacked the flexibility on a per unit basis, but truly excelled in their specialism. Banshees, Warp Spiders and Dark Reapers in particular.

Time and tastes move on of course.

3rd, 4th, and 5th editions are "dead", but they still live on in the fact that GW can't FAQ/patch/edit them any more and we can all have fun games playing them with friends.