| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Assault Terminators - are they really necessary? http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=27299 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Dobbsy [ Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Assault Terminators - are they really necessary? |
How do people generally feel about these? I have heard quite a few people think they're not all that useful and lack tactical flair. Fluff calls aside, and given the Codex Terminators are an abstraction of all possible abilities, do people feel we could ditch them entirely in all lists? |
|
| Author: | jimmyzimms [ Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary? |
I found them effective WE killers especially in lists without heavier element such as IF. They have their place, appropriately costed |
|
| Author: | Dobbsy [ Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary? |
Yes, but do standard Termies generally provide the same effect...? |
|
| Author: | jimmyzimms [ Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary? |
I'd take regular over CC any day as the 3+ vs 2+ isn't enough a boost to discourage me taking them for the additional shooting unless we're looking at getting them on the cheap. Personally I'd rather see them EA+2 at full price. Yes they'll cut through just about any enemy stupid enough to get un their way as they should be. However as they are now, I concede your point. |
|
| Author: | Ironhelm [ Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary? |
Faux pas here by we "house rule" them otherwise they'd be useless compared to normal terminators. House rule them as follows: * Terminator formation has as Upgrade "Assault Terminators" as a free upgrade and you convert them all to Assault Terminators instead (sort of how you can swap all Bikes to be Attack Bikes for free). * EA+1 due to hammers and claws (for clarity, that is 4x stands doing a total of 8x MW base contact attacks). They are a great fluff addition, and the free exchange for regular terminators leaves them as an OPTION to the players. 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. Leaving them as a fluff option is very cool and attractive for fun play. Forcing them instead of normal terminators is virtually guaranteed to never see them on the table in a tournament where you are likely to face skimmer armies. Looking at what Jimmy said about EA+2 ... that would be 4x stands doing 12x MW base contact attacks ... it just sounds over the top ... I'd say that would make them worth the gamble to add them to a tourn list, however, it probably would be no fun at all for the other player if you actually got them into base to base contact with anything. |
|
| Author: | mordoten [ Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary? |
They would only be doing 8xMW attacks and 4xnormal. The MW is only for the extra attack no? |
|
| Author: | kyussinchains [ Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary? |
@Ironhelm remember when a weapon has the MW ability and gives extra attacks, the MW only applies to the extra attacks  so in jimmy's example you'd get 4x CC2+ and 8x MW2+ attacks not 12x MW2+ Personally I agree with Dobbsy, I very much felt railroaded into including them in the IF list, despite having argued against using them in epic previously.... |
|
| Author: | mordoten [ Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary? |
Like Jimmy said, give them EA +2 and they might be worth it. Having them as an free option to swap for is good too! |
|
| Author: | Tiny-Tim [ Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary? |
I have to agree with Dobbsy and Hena here. I don't see the need for increased stat Assault Terminators. I thought that the whole point was that they were a mixture of weapons any way. |
|
| Author: | Ginger [ Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary? |
My favourite formation, LC with Termies and Dreadnoughts would go from horrendous to even worse (Memo to self - - - stop drooling). I agree that it is probably unnecessary. The point being that this variant is not sufficiently different from the standard Termie to warrant a different unit. |
|
| Author: | ortron [ Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary? |
I'd much prefer the option to take them - not an all or nothing formation. And have 4+RA, CC:3+, FF: -, Lightning claws and thunder hammers, (Close combat) MW EA+2. Reinforced armour, Thick rear armour, Invulnerable save. So yes, potential for 12 attack but in reality its likely to be 3 standard and 5 MW. In essence you swap out 2x assault cannons and a 3+ FF for and extra MW CC attack and Invulnerable save. by keeping them at CC: 3+ it also makes rolling for a mixed terminator force in assaults quicker - not that that should be the reasoning but its an added advantage. A lot of people have gone to the trouble of making these, shame to loose them all together. ** Soap box warning ** As epic moves on over the years, I think we should move away from this mentality of restricting new units. This, IIRC was to help with the initial playtesting of lists to get them approved. The core lists have achieved this, the occasional new unit keeps things interesting. I'd prefer a core list with more options than a million off shoot lists that all aim to show off a different facet of the force. ACs would probably find it easier to secure play testers and achieve balance to if fewer variant lists were in existence. ***END RANT*** |
|
| Author: | Apocolocyntosis [ Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary? |
ortron wrote: A lot of people have gone to the trouble of making these, shame to loose them all together. You still use them as terminators to make your army look fluffy. Nothing stops you proxying custom minis and conversions into lists. For example, the chaos list really does not need a forgefiend added, but it would be great to model some and proxy them for defilers. I've got terminators with cyclone missile launchers added on, doesn't mean they need rules to represent this at epic. In lists with thunderhawks/LC I think they are too powerful. In non-thawk lists I am ambivalent and can see they are very iconic to some chapters. |
|
| Author: | ortron [ Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Assault Terminators - are they really necessary? |
Quote: So I have no understanding how this would average 3+5 in your count, if I get to double my CC hits. Actually with a formation of CC termies, I might just buy two Thawks so that I could use them each turn. Well with CC3+ your hitting 66% of the time. 4x 0.66 = 2.6 rounded to 3, 0.66 x 8MW = 5.28 rounded to 5. You don't get to double, you just get 4 extra MW CC attacks. Perhaps your terminators and chaplain are just statistically awesome  What is fact, is that without that extra 200pts (or 400pts for the two) spent on the thunderhawk delivery system you standard terminators are a lot better off than the CC ones. Quote: As for models, you can use them as regular termies without any hassle. However if a unit is in playtesting list it does not mean that it will be there as well in the end. For sure, no argument there, I just don't like the constant resentment of new units. As Apoc points out, we don't need everything, so I'm not expecting 4 sets of terminator units - 1 for each heavy weapon options and the CC ones. But where there is a distinct difference between units types in both 40k and potentially in epic, and the community + AC think its worthwhile - then add it in. There is no hard and fast rule for this, why do we have 3 types of landspeeder, multiple landraiders but can't have assault terminators and veterans in power armour.. the point is if people want it, work at making things work, applying an appropriate points cost and army list entry otherwise the community will loose people. Whats that saying.. "If you don’t like change, you’re going to like irrelevance even less." For me personally, I believe that for epic to remain a healthy game system and community, Epic Armageddon will need to accept a level of change and adaptability each year. For me that would be revision of existing army lists & units as well as review of the basic rules. Other probably believe it should be left as it is - each to their own. Any while we're at it lets do that every 2 years and charge people $100 for a new rule book and $80 for each new army list..  (VTIC)
|
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|