40K Online

The Armies of 40k => Space Marines => Topic started by: Gal'rgae Neverborne on May 14, 2019, 07:26:11 PM

Title: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Gal'rgae Neverborne on May 14, 2019, 07:26:11 PM
No Structure yet so may come across little ranty.

I'm a Deathwing player and rather dedicated but terminators are bunk.

2+/5++ and 2 wounds sound good, I've played a couple of games with the better bolters rule and they're still a non-competitive choice. It's so sad that one of the most iconic units has been regulated out of competitive since 2nd 3rd edition (with a small window when you could take Deathwing terminators as Troops with storm shields in a ~6 month period between a FAQ and new codex).

Honestly, I can't think of another (squad) unit which has been so constantly bad for so long, bearing in mind there are SIX(loyalist) kits, Regular, Assault, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights.- (I think GK may have been good at some point)

I heard a rumour that Termies may be getting +1 W and/OR +1 T (apply mountains of salt), which I think would move some only to "Usable" in a competitive sense not certainly not an auto-include.

The problem is there are far too many mortal wounds flying around, far too many 2+ damage weapons and far too many negative modifiers.

In 8th units either need to be good, probably actually OP, or contribute to command points or they're just not really worth taking. It feels like GW have been on the troops train for 3 editions and these Veterans are an unfortunate casualty that ambition, along with the aforementioned.

It's just well sad...


(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c3/a9/e8/c3a9e8577d019f6efe670cc8cfb50ec5--warhammer-k-miniatures-warhammer-figures.jpg)
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Grand Master Lomandalis on May 14, 2019, 10:06:31 PM
I absolutely agree that Terminators are suffering.  Even with the drastic point reduction they got, and the bolter rules, they still aren't up to snuff.

Hell, the only way I have found to make them work is to have a ten man unit deep strike beside Belial and use Deathwing Assault; and even then they aren't effective.

I would agree that 3 wounds would definitely help, but keeping them at T4 would make sense to me.  If you bump them to T5, then they become Custodians... and we already have those.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Blazinghand on May 15, 2019, 04:30:35 AM
One of the core issues is the change to the way the AP system works, from a threshold system to a modifier system. Sv2+ is extremely good in a threshold system, basically a terminator unit can shrug off autocannon fire and heavy bolter fire no problemo in the olden days. Nowadays, a heavy bolter actually is pretty decent against terminators, because it modifies the save.

I've seen Blightlord Terminators do pretty well from time to time, but they're sort of a special case. Good toughness, good armor save, a great invulnerable save, and disgustingly resilient, make them in a class of their own for durability.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Gal'rgae Neverborne on May 15, 2019, 05:41:11 AM
Termies are usable in 5th, you know, back when there was a risk vs reward factor in the game. We still play 5th ed and termies can be a real problem for my CWE in the hands of a clever player.


As for 8th ed...
The hay-day for the Terminator was actually 4th edition where Assault Cannons were statistically more likely to kill a Land Raider than a Lascannon was.  Lysander-wing was the new hotness and it was disgusting.



I don't think either of these are accurate by "Competitive" while it doesn't need to be an adepticon or equivalent winner per se. But they would need to be realistic in that environment i.e table 1. They've never been that since 3rd edition (included) other than the deathwing build i mentioned.   


I would agree that 3 wounds would definitely help, but keeping them at T4 would make sense to me.  If you bump them to T5, then they become Custodians... and we already have those.

While i agree with the overall point you're making with this upgrade I don't think they would be playable in a "competitive" and far from an auto-include.

The command point system means that players fish for these and HQ/Troops are the most economical way and the only other units that get included are the OP/abusable ones. This is another brick in the wall unto of what we've already discussed
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Wyddr on May 15, 2019, 09:28:32 AM
Honestly? I think we should go back to letting them save on 2 dice like in the ancient days of 2nd Edition. When you're taking a 2+ or 3+ on 2D6, AP modifiers just don't matter that much anymore.

Other alternatives:
-Let them re-roll all armor saves
-Allow them to ignore AP up to a certain threshold (which might be another way of saying "increase their invul to a 4+ or 3+ as standard)
-Reduce the size of their teleportation bubble to 7" or something

Beyond that, I'll say that this problem *isn't* just limited to terminators. The whole edition is stacked against elite units of any stripe. Any unit that is short on wounds and relies on its armor save for salvation is suffering big time.

Point reductions are not helpful or even good, since the whole point of Terminators is that there are precious few of them carving through the hordes. But hordes are so damned good right now and there is no way elites can survive.

So they need to be made drastically more deadly and proportionally expensive.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Gal'rgae Neverborne on May 15, 2019, 10:53:14 AM
Honestly? I think we should go back to letting them save on 2 dice like in the ancient days of 2nd Edition. When you're taking a 2+ or 3+ on 2D6, AP modifiers just don't matter that much anymore.

Other alternatives:
-Let them re-roll all armor saves
-Allow them to ignore AP up to a certain threshold (which might be another way of saying "increase their invul to a 4+ or 3+ as standard)
-Reduce the size of their teleportation bubble to 7" or something

Beyond that, I'll say that this problem *isn't* just limited to terminators. The whole edition is stacked against elite units of any stripe. Any unit that is short on wounds and relies on its armor save for salvation is suffering big time.

Point reductions are not helpful or even good, since the whole point of Terminators is that there are precious few of them carving through the hordes. But hordes are so damned good right now and there is no way elites can survive.

So they need to be made drastically more deadly and proportionally expensive.

I do think that Terminators have been in this situation longer than most if not all other units. But.... other than that!

(https://media.giphy.com/media/x6sfBlcbXW7kc/giphy.gif)

Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Grand Master Lomandalis on May 15, 2019, 11:36:18 PM
The issue I have with a lot of suggestions is that they bring Terminators in line with Custodes, which they should not be.

A basic Terminator (bolter and fist) is 34pts.  Keeping the same point cost, but bumping them up to 3 wounds makes them much more viable.  They are no longer being one shot by a lucky autocannon hit or overcharged plasma.

Increase their toughness / invulnerable save as well, and they are approaching the level of Custodians.  A custodian with Guardian Spear is 52pts.  Change their save to what it was in 2nd edition where you rolled a 3+ save on 2d6, or allowed them to reroll their saves, and that will put them past custodians.

I am a firm believer that +1 wound helps them in their survivability.  As it stands right now, the basic bolter requires 36 shots to kill a terminator.  If you give them an additional wound, that number jumps to 54.  Against Autocannons, they go from needing 13 shots to needing 27.  Plasma goes from needing an average 2 shots to needing 4.  Those are huge increases to their survival.  If they're Deathwing or Wolfguard, you have the added bonus of including a few Storm Shields to increasing their tanking against the hard hitting attacks; which helps them stand out as the true elite Terminators that they are.

To make them worth even more, from an offensive standpoint, I would say that you need to add a rule for weapon stabilization so that they do not suffer the penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons.  Now those Cyclones are a threat on a tough platform... now those assault cannons will punch holes in swarms.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Gal'rgae Neverborne on May 16, 2019, 06:38:52 AM
While I'd agree that +1 wound would help (and weapon stability), I think it's still a far cry away from "Competitive" using the prior mentioned definition for usable in a GT environment. These guys are probably close to point-for-point the least effective thing in the Dex and need a lot more help.

Though I am persuaded that they shouldn't be clones or nearly clones Custodes.

I'm opposed to the idea of "it would take X number Y to kill Z" in any situation. Due to the plethora of force multipliers, it's not representative to make these calculations anymore.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: magenb on May 16, 2019, 07:00:59 AM
What about changing it so AP1 and ap2 weapons don't have any effect on the armour roll. This still means anti-tank weapons ap3 and 4 could one shot them, same as previous editions, but will also make them very hard to kill against most infantry.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Wyddr on May 16, 2019, 10:08:23 AM
I mean, Custodes could do with being better, too.

I do agree, though, that the easiest fix *army wide* is to give every single unit in the Space Marine Codex +1 wound and +1 attack with no point change whatsoever.

I *still* think in that instance there isn't much of a good reason to take regular terminators. Assault Terminators, though, become reasonably good.

What about changing it so AP1 and ap2 weapons don't have any effect on the armour roll. This still means anti-tank weapons ap3 and 4 could one shot them, same as previous editions, but will also make them very hard to kill against most infantry.

I would agree with this--let them ignore AP -1 weapons makes a lot of sense and then you stop having your terminators mowed down by heavy bolters.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Gal'rgae Neverborne on September 27, 2019, 06:54:08 PM
Firstly I know this topic is more than 30 days past the last reply but in context is the 5th most recent post on this board at the time of posting.

Secondly, I know this is a ridiculous question before I ask it. But Terminator by chance improved to a competitive level in the context of a tournament event by any chance in the new codex?
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Grand Master Lomandalis on September 28, 2019, 10:15:49 AM
No, and I don't think we will see any major changes to them until either the Dark Angels come out, or Chapter Approved drops their points yet again.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Wyddr on September 28, 2019, 03:19:28 PM
I think *Deathwatch* Terminators are reasonably good, but that's only because Special Issue Ammunition is amazing when coupled with storm bolters.

As it is, they're too fragile for their cost. I do think you can make TH/SS termies work, but again, cost becomes an issue. Are they good enough for what you have to pay? No.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Gal'rgae Neverborne on September 28, 2019, 04:02:47 PM
Honestly, I can't think of another (squad) unit which has been so constantly bad for so long, bearing in mind there are SIX(loyalist) kits, Regular, Assault, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights.- (I think GK may have been good at some point)

Anyone think there's any truth in this?
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Wyddr on September 28, 2019, 04:33:30 PM
Assault Terminators were quite good in 5th Edition and held their own in 6th/7th (but weren't great).

Standard terminators were great in 2nd Ed, okay in 3rd-5th, and have been generally crap ever since. Too many other units do their job better and a 5+ invul save just isn't much to write home about.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Grand Master Lomandalis on September 28, 2019, 05:28:14 PM
The hayday for the shooty terminators was definitely 4th edition when you could have a squad of 5 packing two assault cannons when rending was disgustingly good.  Grey Knights were at their peak with Draigo and Paladins in 5th ed.

But generally, no, there aren't many units that have been the butt end of the GW jokes for as long as Terminators.

Frankly, for what they do, I think Terminators won't see the field in their current state unless they dropped to around 25pts a piece for a basic terminator with a fist / bolter.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Wyddr on September 28, 2019, 10:03:52 PM
The hayday for the shooty terminators was definitely 4th edition when you could have a squad of 5 packing two assault cannons when rending was disgustingly good.

Oh crap! I forgot about that set-up. The Lysander Wing was pretty damned good back then, yeah!
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Grand Master Lomandalis on September 29, 2019, 12:12:27 AM
The hayday for the shooty terminators was definitely 4th edition when you could have a squad of 5 packing two assault cannons when rending was disgustingly good.

Oh crap! I forgot about that set-up. The Lysander Wing was pretty damned good back then, yeah!
Oh yeah.  Three squads of 5 and two command squads, each with two assault cannons that were statistically more likely to kill a Land Raider than a Lascannon was!
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Gal'rgae Neverborne on September 30, 2019, 11:34:12 AM
It wouldn't be a giant leap of faith to say that Space Marines and their various flavours are the most protected codex going.

It just seems mad that they've been so poorly written for so long.

I can see, for instance, how improving the 2+/5++ basic would affect other units so it's difficult to make a change to only benefits terminators.

Dropping the points to 25 all-in or even lower would probably do it. But puts them close to "Send in another wave" bracket of 40k units.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Wyddr on September 30, 2019, 11:35:44 AM
I think Terminators need +1 T, +1 Wound, and the cost for their special weapons should be reduced. The Cyclone Missile Launcher is *nowhere near* worth the cost.

Also getting back the ability to shoot accurately while moving would be huge.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Gal'rgae Neverborne on September 30, 2019, 06:12:42 PM
T5 Terminators as mentioned by GML brings them too close too to custodes.

A squad of terminators should feel like a squad of terminators, the subtle difference between Space Marnie terminators work in groups whereas Custodes work as a group of individuals.

The problems terminators have are (assuming the points were accurate)

Too Slow
Too Fragile
Not Enough damage output.
Don't Create Command points
Few Uses for them

Could we fix these, better deep strike options, more durability (without copy-pasting other "terminators" better damage output)

Being able to fire a storm bolter within 1"
Ability to gain a +1 to armour..... somehow... maybe based on them being "in the thick of it"?
Closer deep-strike
Turn 1 Deepstike
Re-Deepstrike
More Attacks
Ignoring -1 with Heavy Weapons
Ignoring -1 with Powerfist
Ignoring -1 with Thunder hammer


Not obviously all of the above... maybe some? Others?

Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Killersquid on October 9, 2019, 12:00:44 PM
I think they should just ignore rend -1. I think that'd make a huge difference.

I use them in my space wolves sometimes,  and they do work. I've come to really appreciate chainfists, especially when fighting marines. The +1 attack in the first round of combat helps a lot.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Grand Master Lomandalis on January 18, 2020, 08:53:14 AM
I think the question needs to be raised now that we've seen the previews for Ritual of the Damned as to whether it does enough to make Terminators (specifically Deathwing) viable?

It's an expensive combination, but if you're willing to spend 5 command points in one shot you can have a squad of 10 Terminators shooting twice (4cp if it is a 5 man unit), and deep striking close enough to the enemy to also pull off a reliable charge.  The Warlord trait also does help to make them a threat against vehicles.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Gal'rgae Neverborne on January 26, 2020, 03:43:51 PM
Just reading what you've written, there are three answers.

Does it make a (pure) Deathwing army for viable - Absolutely not.

Deathwing models just don't have the firepower to make shooting twice viable. To put this in context of how wrong GW has got Terminators in general, they've gone from 2 shots at 24" to, 4 Shots at 24" if stationary & 8 With command points to now 4" all the time and still shots with command points and they are still bunk. - Grade (E-)

Does it make a Death Raven army viable - No.

There's just no way a Death/Raven army is going to generate the command points (and use them pragmatically)  to pull this off, and the instances where you could do it, deep strike is too easy to screen off with cannon fodder, and the few instances you could do it with no obvious counter you're putting to many command points into this.. (F)

Does it help a Greenwing army? Well yeah, I've got to give you that as it's an option. But ultimately this is actually probably the worse use.

However, you'd need to take terminators, and enough to make it viable, and Ravenwing bikes, and fill out the FoC. And the points you're committing is now to great not to use this. And there will always be a better strategery for your army build - In the context to what you could have in a "greenwing army" (F-)
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Grand Master Lomandalis on January 26, 2020, 04:05:29 PM
There is no way that a pure Deathwing list will ever be viable with Terminators in the state that they are.  I built a list that focuses around a shooty Deathwing-bomb, and it requires double Battalions to pull off.  Basically, it is a fun list to say "Look what I can do."  The only biker in the list is a Ravenwing Apothecary whose only job is to survive until turn 2.

2nd turn looks something like this:

Cute, but definitely not worth the commitment.  Sadly, Ritual of the Damned continues the trend that the most efficient Dark Angel army is still one that is centred around the 2nd Company.  Thanks to Impeccable Mobility, I'm looking at a list that has 8 Land Speeders, including the Dark Shroud (Sammy, 2 Talonmasters, 2 Tornadoes, 2 Typhoons, Darkshroud).
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Gal'rgae Neverborne on May 4, 2020, 01:53:08 PM
Not sure on if i should start a new topic for this, but I've decided not too. Essentially because there's only been a handful of topics in the last 12 months.

I've had an idea.

*Ahem*

Models in terminator armour have a 2+ save, in addition, they reduce all save modifiers by 1. (5++ removed )

eg. a -1 becomes 0

Storm shields grant a 3+ Save, in addition, they reduce all save modifiers by 1, if a model in terminator amour also has a storm shield all save modifiers are reduced by 2. (3++ removed)


Good bad OP?
 
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Blazinghand on May 4, 2020, 04:34:14 PM
If GW were going to completely rework terminators, you could just give then a Sv value of 1+. This would still fail on a roll of a 1, but would require that foes have more AP to penetrate it.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Killersquid on May 4, 2020, 07:05:14 PM
If GW were going to completely rework terminators, you could just give then a Sv value of 1+. This would still fail on a roll of a 1, but would require that foes have more AP to penetrate it.


Not quite. A save of 1+ means the model is immune to ap.

An unmodified save roll of a 1 always fails. When a save roll is modified by the Ap characteristic of an attack, it can never be modified to less than 1. When a model has a Save characteristic of 1+, modified save rolls of 1 are successfully saved.

This means, while the Terminators have a save roll of 1+, only unmodified save rolls of 1 will inflict damage regardless of the AP characteristic of the weapon used for the attack.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Grand Master Lomandalis on May 4, 2020, 07:43:25 PM
I think it could be kept within the realms of mechanics that are already in the game.


Following this, you get rid of the invulnerable save so there is the rare chance to actually bypass their armour.  The way I look at it is that if you want to get through Tactical Dreadnought Armour, you should be firing the heaviest weapons you have at them.  If you use it to crack a battle tank, you should use it to crack open the marine.
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: CharlesM on May 22, 2020, 11:10:02 PM
I've been using my Deathwing force to play on and off again since 5th edition and while they are down at the moment for play-ability.  Hopefully they will bounce back and become relevant in the near future.  My Deathwing group still makes up the most points in my Dark Angels army.  Just wish I could use it or other parts of my Dark Angels to play sometime this year instead of just painting and displaying it.  Of course an active venue would help since mine dried up almost 2 years ago.       
Title: Re: The Problem with terminators
Post by: Calamity on May 23, 2020, 06:04:47 AM
I want to throw my hat into the ring and also back giving Terminators +1 wound.

Actually, come to think of it, how many extra wounds could you happily give them before it comes silly?  Because I think extra wounds is definitely the way to go.