Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Assault Terminators - are they really necessary?

 Post subject: Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:36 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5602
Location: Bristol
I think their abilities are very different from regular Terminators and that they definitely deserve to be represented. I'm a bit baffled by the assertion Assault Terminators aren't any good and I disagree myself. They're definitely specialised, but are better at what they do and I'd happily take them over regular Terminators for the same cost any day.

Most Terminator formations are upgraded with a Chaplain as they're an excellent combination. If you compared the amount of a hits a formation of Terminators or Assault Terminators with a Chaplain gets the Assault Terminators with their better 2+ CC get 0.6 more regular hits and 0.83 more MW hits. Against enemies with 4+ saves say that equates to 25% more kills from the Assault Terminators, which seems pretty good to me. Please no 2 x MW! That would be overpowered, disproportionate and isn't needed. Plus they also have invulnerable saves so take less damage, it may be only a 6+ but it still makes a difference.

Ironhelm wrote:
Note that the v4.1 Black Templars list has gone too far imho by FORCING the player to only use Assault Terminators and as I posted elsewhere, these are practically useless against skimmer armies holding objectives/BTS such as the case with Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necron, Tau.

Epic lists with variant Terminators have generally replaced them rather than having both e.g. the Salamanders list has Salamanders list has Salamander Terminators (with Heavy Flamers) instead of regular Terminators. I'm not suggesting the Black Templars don't have regular Terminators but as a chapter they are themed much more towards assault than Codex marines, and Assault Terminators fit the theme better than regular Terminators. House ruling them to have either seems a good idea, though I reckon you've made them overly powerful myself.

Given that they teleport or fly in on aircraft they should be able to initially target ground troops even in a mostly skimming army. Even against a very rare all skimmer army (Saim-hann say) they're not then useless. A player could get blast markers(s) prepped, some FF support in place and use them as a tough unit to teleport in and initiate a clipping assault on an important target without taking much damage.

Dobbsy wrote:
So far I lean towards making Assault Termies an optional replacement to Tactical Termies in all lists who use them, rather than cutting them completely.


Interesting idea, perhaps. I'd be happy to see them generally added or at least tested. Would the formation have to be all Assault Terminators OR regular ones (like some unit options in other SM lists) or a free mix? I'm cautious of the latter as I suspect a mix of the two would be better than either current mono-sorts and that characters would often optimally be placed with Assault Terminators to maximise the MW hits.

If you end up doing a 2014 revision to the Codex Astartes list can I suggest the previously well supported cheaper LS Typhoon be included too? If you're particularly open to change switching Scout's transport to the Land Speeder Storm would be great too.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:48 pm
Posts: 681
Location: Australia
Noting GlynG's comment above, I really think CC3+ is the way to go, particularly when you consider the addition of a character.

CC2+ makes the characters MW even more powerful and significantly reduces the element of risk in an assault as the hit generation is less random. At least at CC3+, any attached character is just as good in CC be he in a normal or assault terminator unit.

Understand some people think assault terminators are significantly better, but to be effective your almost forced to spend another 200pts on a Thawk and 50pts on a chaplain. They should be good at CC because they suck at anything else.

Like the idea of a being able to take a mix within the 4 stands (or 6 stands in the case of Dark angels)

Still think CC3+ with 2 EA MW & Invulnerable save is a fair trade off for a FF stat and 2x Assault Cannons but if required, a middle ground could look something like:

Assault Terminator Inf 4+, CC: 3+ FF: -
Weapons:
Thunderhammers (base contact) Assault Weapons EA +1, MW
Lightning Claws (base contact) Assault Weapons EA +1,
Notes:
Reinforced Armour, Thick Rear Armour, Invulnerable Save.

Still have potential for 3 hits each but now only 1 is MW. Granted Lightning claws are pretty good and still power weapons but they don't bypass armour like a hammer or power/chain fist does.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9658
Location: Manalapan, FL
Now that ^^ I like.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 3:12 pm
Posts: 867
Why an invulnerable save?

_________________
@MephistonAG for all sorts of twitter madness


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:09 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 6003
Location: UK
MephistonAG wrote:
Why an invulnerable save?

stormsheilds on the thunderhammer users.

though if you are bringing lightning claws in they wouldn't all have shields.

If they are only for the IF list then all thunderhammers makes more sense anyway. Don't think anyone is suggesting adding them to codex marines, just IF (mostly hammers) and maybe 1 or 2 other chapters.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net