Terminators

[breng77]

I think for me the HF comes down to a few things.

 

1.) YOu give up the ability to take a SS/LCs on that termi.

2.) It is not a flexible choice. IF you have a heavy flamer, your squad is only effective when rushing to assault, so if at any point in the game you need the squad to do something else the flamer is no longer useful.

3.) IT does not kill Mech. While not a huge issue Pure DW armies generally lack range, and tank busting power outside of HtH, so giving up a tank busting weapon, for anti-horde.(sort of) limits your ability to stop your opponents tanks. (especially against say DE, who can run away from you). The ability for one squad to pop a tank and then assault the contents should not be underrated.

 

THe issue with using it as anti-horde, is that if your opponent spreads out you are not killing much. Furthermore, IMO Deathwing is pretty much screwed against a true horde anyway (not enough attacks to kill 130+ models, so unless you are running all storm bolters, you are unlikely to win that game anyway, so taking a token HF just incase is not really worth it to me.

[march10k]

%march10k : I don't think it deals with the way we use termies in general. My analysis is based on the sum of different opponent and point out the problem you'll face with each

 

When you make the count j'

 

- against Meq : AP too weak.

- against hords : risk of exterminating all the model in range -> in this case you recognize you won't use the only shoot of flamer you'll be allowed of.

- against hords : risk of eliminating too many models -> morale check failed -> flee out of range -> same as above.

- against all : use at turn 2 when charging but what about the 4 following turns? What will your HF do after that?

 

You can say that it's'only 5 pts wasted for an useful weapon comaprimg to the higher cost of CML or AC but since a DW army as few powerful range weapon IMO it's'also wasting an "HW slot"

 

Again I'm reasonning in building an all comer DW list... If an IG player propose me a battle -'d'surely include an HF or 2 ;-)

 

 

~shrug~ Consider the alternatives. Against MEQ, the AC has a 50% chance of getting a single pen. That's hardly overwhelming. At the same time, you're looking at ~3 hits. You're going to average one casualty. The CML, firing kraks, is the best option, of course, against MEQs, but it's still averaging far fewer than two kills. Not really a quantum leap in effectiveness over the other two options.

 

Against hordes...well, the chance of exterminating all models in range is a risk you take firing ANY weapon against a foe that you intend to charge. Nice problem to have... but you're really not significantly more likely to accidentally achieve this effect than you would be with any other weapon. In fact, against hordes, the outcome is more predictable, not less, since you know how many hits you're going to get, plus or minus one (usually minus, we tend to overestimate the size of the template in our greed to satisfy Khorne), and you can pretty much assume that what horde members the flamer touches, it kills. The "oh, crap, all four shots hit and all four enemy failed their cover saves" effect is noticably absent! The bit about the horde failing a panic test is a different story. I'm not sure it's as bad an outcome as you suggest, though. If they flee, they may or may not later recover, but in the short term, at least, they're not a problem any longer. And if they don't flee, you charge, and then they break, and whether you run them down or not, you're just as "out in the open with nothing to protect you but a suit of tactical dreadnought armor" (another nice "problem" to have, if you can arrange it) as you would be if the flamer broke them. I mean, a little analysis reveals that the outcome is pretty much the same if they break from the flamer or if you get the charge off.

 

The "what do you do with the flamer after turn two" bit is really rich. So your terminator squads execute a single melee on turn two, and then stand around wondering what to do next? My assualt squads generally fight at least two melees per game, often charging out of a crusader both times. If their first charge is to clear an enemy off of an objective that they subsequently camp on, the camping is generally done from inside the crusader, which means that no weapon would be shooting. And if I'm playing a DWA army instead of a mech army (in which case I'm only fielding one HF anyway), a heavy flamer peeking out from an objective makes a pretty decent assault deterent against anything lighter than power armor, and power armored objective-reclaimers would ensure that they had a cover save against your CML anyway, so what's the difference in that case?

 

I think you're guilty of misrepresenting the worst case scenario as "what happens every game." It's like arguing that you shouldn't field a land raider because everyone knows that they always blow up on the top of turn one. Now, that's happened to me, just as I've been known to destroy three ravagers on the top of turn one, but is it really that common?

 

As far as I'm concerned, the best argument for fielding a heavy flamer in an assault terminator squad is that it allows you the liberty to pork up on thunderhammers in the rest of the squad without worrying about facing a horde. The thunderhammers are more than plenty to win against MEQs (besides which neither the CML nor the AC is going to make any real dent in them!), but don't put out enough attacks to mow down a horde. Whether the flamer cuts them down to a reasonable size or breaks them isn't really critical, the point is that it enables the squad to deal with them in relatively short order so they can move on to the next target.

 

As for wasting the opportunity to field a heavy weapon with some range, theres certainly some validity to that in a DWA squad, but in a mounted squad, it makes no sense, since the squad won't be shooting ANYTHING as long as they're buttoned up, and if they do charge out, it's not like they can shoot the CML at a tank, then charge some infantry. Besides that, DW is short in two areas, not one. Almost a bigger problem than tank control (which, after all, we do best up close and personally, with melee weapons) is horde control. A pair of frag templates is just whistling past the graveyard on that front, and forget about an AC, but a heavy flamer, if you can get one in range (which is the problem with the vennie-mounted one, although I do field them that way, too!), is the second best tool we have, after the crusader. The best thing is that a crusaderload of assault terminators including one with heavy flamer and chainfist answers both threats more than adequately, while the flamer kills a fraction of a marine less on average than the alternatives.

 

 

DWAing (guided by RW telehomers), I like a mix of HF and AC...with RW to prevent scatter, if the enemy's got infantry at the front of his deployment zone (they always do), I can put a template on them on turn one 100% of the time. The AC is more for side shots on tanks when I DWA. Without ravenwing, I'd DWA with AC only.

 

 

You must be a better player than me then. 24 inchs between deployment zones. RW have a 12 inch scout (so assuming you start on the front line), that's 12 inches to cover. deepstrike happens before movement on your turn so you get another 6 inches. let's say you get another inch by using the circular deployment to get your flamer at the front.

 

your heavy flamer is still 5 (or being generous, 4) inches away from the enemy's deployment zone. the flamer template is, what, 8 inches long? that's 2 or 3 hits, if you're lucky. i don't see that being worth losing the cml slot, tbh. especially as it pretty much commits you to that move.

 

please explain where i've gone wrong here?

 

 

Okay, you have most of it right...after the scout move, the ravenwing are 12" from the enemy's deployment zone. Only the first model down (the one that would otherwise scatter and then have concentric rings of squadmates around him) need cut inside the 6" ring around the telehomer-bearing model. That model need not be the flamer-bearer. So the start of the flamer template can be ~3" closer to the enemy. That starts the template 3" from the enemy's frontline. There's plenty of potential for more than 2-3 hits what with the fat end of the template being the business end and all... As for it being "worth losing the CML slot," to each his own. I think it is for this particular squad, as well as for a mounted squad...now, when DWAing two squads, I only give one the HF, because lining up a worthwhile second flamer template off of the same telehomer is...hard.

 

As for being committed to the move, if I'm playing a DWA telehomer list...I'm pretty much committed to the move regardless of the heavy weapon that I equip. And it's not a bad move, dumping eleven terminators and eight bikes (including, as I do, an IC on bike, who joins the squadron on turn one) in the enemy's lap on turn one. That's as good an example of siezing the initiative and forcing the enemy to play a reactive game instead of executing his own plan as I can think of...

 

I think for me the HF comes down to a few things.

 

1.) YOu give up the ability to take a SS/LCs on that termi.

2.) It is not a flexible choice. IF you have a heavy flamer, your squad is only effective when rushing to assault, so if at any point in the game you need the squad to do something else the flamer is no longer useful.

3.) IT does not kill Mech. While not a huge issue Pure DW armies generally lack range, and tank busting power outside of HtH, so giving up a tank busting weapon, for anti-horde.(sort of) limits your ability to stop your opponents tanks. (especially against say DE, who can run away from you). The ability for one squad to pop a tank and then assault the contents should not be underrated.

 

THe issue with using it as anti-horde, is that if your opponent spreads out you are not killing much. Furthermore, IMO Deathwing is pretty much screwed against a true horde anyway (not enough attacks to kill 130+ models, so unless you are running all storm bolters, you are unlikely to win that game anyway, so taking a token HF just incase is not really worth it to me.

 

1. True...same can be said of the AC...but at the same time, you gain the freedom to take a chainfist on the flamer-bearer, which isn't the worst thing in the world.

 

2. That's not entirely true, although I get your point. The flamer suffers from a lack of range. That's why I only put them on squads that will actually be dedicated to seeking out melee combat...it's not something I'm forced into by the presence of the flamer, it's the squad's predetermined role that unlocks the flamer as a viable choice. And if I need the squad to do something else (what, camp an objective?), first of all, that something else is probably pretty important if I'm diverting my attack dog to the mission, and second, the flamer is deterring enemy assaults that might otherwise intercept the squad on their new mission.

 

3. I do agree with that. I have run into situations where my termies step off of the assault ramp, their crusader whiffs on opening up the can, and so does the supporting antitank fire from the mars pattern land raider in my deployment zone, the CML in my footslogging/OBJ-camping squad, and the twinlinked autocannon on my vennie. Then again, the CML in the squad that wants to pop its own can and subsequently assault the contents isn't guaranteed not to fail, either. I just find that situations where my mounted assault squads wish they had a CML are less common than the situations where they're glad to have the flamer.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't spam heavy flamers. Only two types of squads get them. When I'm playing DWA, exactly one termie-borne HF makes the list. When playing mech, both crusader-mounted squads get them. I'm not arguing against the alternative choices, I'm just arguing against the idea that there's no role for the HF. I'd actually be more likely to agree that the assault cannon, between its cost and being worse than either the CML or the HF at any given role, is the least useful. And yet, in my DWA list, I field one (specifically in the second DWAing squad, since, as mentioned, it's hard to get two flamer templates to work out on turn one).

[Tengo]

I'm with march10K 100%, he's already argued fully, much of what I was going to say, so I won't bother to repeat it (or atleast I'll try not to!)

 

What I said about the 'natural role of the termie' was talking in game terms just as much as fluff based ideology.

 

Let's face it, Termies are not long range units, Their stats, wargear and options make them clear potential CC demons, you can give them better CC gear than ranged gear, for free. No matter how you gear them, they will normally be more effective in a round of CC than a round of shooting (ofcourse, you are likely to get in more rounds of shooting than CC). The most effective and economic use of that 200 odd points is to take advantage of the TH+SS/LC and go all "Termy Mad, Termy SMASH!"

So, having said that, my first priority when fielding terminators, is that I have atleast one unit that really maximises their potential in that role, as such the TH+SS/LC combo is a must. I add a HF(and make up for the waste of TH with a CF) because it's a way to get some hurt in before the distances close. The increased range offered by CML/AC/SB doesn't mean anything for this squad, if it's that far away from the enemy it wants to hurt, then it jumps in a raider and whizzes off to them.

There's no need to spend that many extra points in order to pop off a few shots a turn, especially as this unit will always be supported by a firebase, or have a Land raider to rain the pain before the termies do their job: crush the enemies and jump back in the raider, to zoom to the next enemy. The HF just acts as a cheap pre-assault bonus which makes the enemy unit just a few (but still potentially more than if an AC/CML/SB was fielded) enemies weaker, which means a whole lot more considering they're getting plunged into an assault they'd really rather avoid straight afterwards.

 

I'm not discarding the usefulness of shooty termies, and in a DW list I always field support termies, with SBs + AC/CML

Yes they do make great obj campers, but they're not going to be able to effectively blast away capable units with shooting, the only way to make 'em dead quick is to give 'em a taste of what it's like to dance with a murderous veteran in tactical dreadnought armour.

Ofcourse, smart enemies don't get too close, and try to draw you out from your position, that's where shooty termies really come in handy, it's like "If you want the objective, come and get it, with my saves and my ability to return fire, I'm not moving" The combination of their CC prowess and the fact that they can also return some fire is great for keeping enemies away.

 

In my opinion, the Job termies do best is smashing the enemy's face in, allowing you to really step up some fire pressure. However, they do make the best obj campers, they don't offer as much fire as a Tac/Dev squad equal in points, but they're hard as nails, so you won't suffer under enemy fire so much and they certainly don't invite enemy assaults. So it's a bit of a conundrum I guess.

 

IMO, the CML shots are not as good for killing mech than some TH/CF goodness, you've got less attempts to crack the armour with the CML, The less attempts you get, the more damaging a mucky to hit/to wound roll is, and you're left with a lot less chance of taking mech down compared to smashing it up close. You can safely bet that the mech will be ruined after one turn of assault with TH/CF across the board(especially considering possible Belial/Chaplain bonuses) but a CML will most likely end up taking more than one turn to ruin an enemy tank.

 

In short, if you're maximising the pain potential of your terminator's best assets (2/4 saves and free TH+SS/LC), giving them a CML/AC is a waste of points, at such a close range that they're going to be if you field them in this role, a 5pt HF does the job just as well, if not better than a 20pt CML or 30pt AC.

 

But, if you're building your list strategically, and fielding your termies so they can fulfill that strategy, give 'em SBs ('cos PW, +1A for the SB, both counting as PW, or just PF +1A is a sweet enough deal) and an AC/CLM (depending whether you're facing horde or mech/toughness spam orientated armies) feel free to maybe throw in one TH+SS/LC to give that round of CC an extra bite, and stick 'em on a obj, they'll keep it nice and safe ^_^ Termies are naturally kitted to withstand fire and fight a decent melee as standard, all you have to do is give them the ability to shoot back, so the enemy can't just stay over 12" away and annoy you with shooting in an attempt to whittle you down/draw you out.

 

So, to conclude, If you're fielding Termies to fulfill the role of the elite, CC fiend, the HF does the job for much cheaper than a AC/CML. At close range the HF is equally useful against horde as the AC for +25pts, and TH/CF/PF in CC is more likely to kill mechs than a CML for +20. Sacrificing range for more potential hits/kills is a trade that totally fits the role.

 

However, If you're fielding termies to fulfill the elite, hard as nails guard role, the HF is a silly choice over the AC or CML, and depending on what you're facing, either is a far better choice than the HF

 

Termies do both roles brilliantly, better than anything else in the army, so that's why I always field both types of termies, with a good number of extra tankbusting/infantry rending elements aswell, for good measure. No DW army is complete without a Raider or Dread.

[breng77]

I think looking at termies as primarily assault units is a mistake, they are also very durable weapons platforms. While I agree that if you never assault it is a waste, I just prefer the tactical options offered by the CML. It does not make the other choices bad, the HF is a fine weapon it just makes that unit dedicated to a particular role.

[Tengo]

I think looking at termies as primarily assault units is a mistake, they are also very durable weapons platforms. While I agree that if you never assault it is a waste, I just prefer the tactical options offered by the CML. It does not make the other choices bad, the HF is a fine weapon it just makes that unit dedicated to a particular role.

 

 

I did say that they make excellent and unmovable platforms and campers, just that they can be kitted out so they can specialise in CC, and become absolute monsters in an assault whereas SBs and 1 AC/CML hardly makes them a specialised shooting squad, guaranteed to gun down their target.

Personally, I think Termies should be allowed HBs and more heavy weapons, that way they can become much more powerful long range, and can be geared to be a unit to really be reckoned with in shooting, just as much as they are in CC.

Ofcourse, this would overpower them like crazy.

 

The CML fits the platform/camping role as well as the HF fits the 'in yer face' role, I don't think anyone said any particular choice is a bad one.

 

If you build your termies to conform with the generally regarded 'best build' of TH+SS, with a LC or two thrown in for good measure, they've aleady been built to be dedicated to a certain role, and the HF really compliments that role, you're not going to built termies with TH+SS/LCs and stick 'em on an objective and hope the enemy is foolish enough to charge you, granted they'll keep enemies far away, but a single CML/AC won't stop enemies converging and blasting bits off you, you'll need a handful of SB shots to combat that.

 

So if you have equipped your termies with TH+SS/LCs, you've already given them the dedicated role of getting up and close, and that's where the usefulness of the HF far out grows its 5pt cost.

Tactical termies, with SB+PF/PW are already built to be dedicated for guarding areas, I'm not saying that they're only good for shooting, their CC prowess is part of this role, it means any isolated assault they find themselves will be in their favour, but I don't see this as flexibility, as they aren't really kitted for the other termy role, getting into the thick of the enemy forces. So, given an AC/CML the role they perform best is (rear)guards, destroying isolated units and seriously giving the enemy problems if he wishes to flank you or attack from the rear, and ensuring that you keep your objectives.

 

I don't think it's possible for a termy unit to truly be flexible I think you can either build them one way or the other, you either give them all amazing close combat weapons, and charge them into the middle of the enemy, or you gear them with something with a bit more range and stick 'em in a critical location, and they'll hold that bugger alright.

Your termies will always have a dedicated role, they are not expendable soldiers, that can do several jobs as well as the last, but specialised experts, decide what their role will be and utilise 'em best for that role, it's better to be firmly in one camp, than half way between either when it comes to an individual unit of termies.

 

If you're fielding several units, there's no reason not to build them to both roles, so you can get the best of both worlds, and not just, some of the good bits of both worlds.

[march10k]

Right, neither of us is saying "flamers only," we're saying "flamers on assault-dedicated squads." Yet, the counter argument seems to be "but they're not the best weapon for an objective camper." Huh? You're countering an argument that we aren't making! You say "taking a flamer locks them into an assault role." No. I chose them for that role, then decided how to kit them out. If I wanted a flexible maneuver unit, terminators wouldn't be my first choice at all! That's what tactical squads do for a living. For termies, it's either camp an objective with a CML and a few stormbolters, or kick in the enemy's door with lightning claws and thunderhammers. Try to be good at both, and you'll wind up mediocre at both. It's hard enough to balance thunderhammers against lightning claws in a squad, try to make them a ranged unit and you really end up with a schizophrenic mess of a unit that doesn't have a clearly defined role and isn't sufficiently better at any role to justify taking TDA over power armor in the first place.

[breng77]

It really depends on your DW list. I don't generally dedicate roles for my units. I tend to keep them flexible. Which what I'm saying is if you run into an army that you don't want to assault with termies, then the CML allows them to do something else, while really not changing their assault effectiveness all that much. Sure against horde armies the flamer might deal a bit more pain on the way in, but against MEQ firing 2 krak missiles on they way in likely kills just as many marines as a heavy flamer.

 

Also I don't find DA tacticals (or tacticals in general) to be very good at much of anything. Nor are they all that flexible because they are pretty terrible in the assault.

[march10k]

It really depends on your DW list.

 

...which I've said all along, only to run up against an entire choir of people saying "no matter what your list looks like or what tactics you use, the flamer is junk."

 

Which what I'm saying is if you run into an army that you don't want to assault with termies

 

Huh? How often does that happen? I run into units that I don't want to assault with termies (power-weapon-pure death company, harlequins, etc), but an entire army? Nah.

 

Also I don't find DA tacticals (or tacticals in general) to be very good at much of anything. Nor are they all that flexible because they are pretty terrible in the assault.

 

Well, they have fallen a long way. I remember three ten-man tactical squads being my immovable object back in 3rd edition... But, even today, I find them to be decent objective campers...I give them a plasma gun, a plasma cannon, and a power sword (I have other things to handle fisting duites, and with one less attack, at initiative:ASL, for the cost of an assault marine, I'm no fan of the fist for sergeants, these days...better to take a sword and meltabombs if you want to be able to punch tanks), and sit them in cover on an OBJ... In melee, they're really no worse than any non-assault-dedicated unit in the game, and better than most.

 

If your definition of "flexible" is that they have to be as fast as a jetbike, as durable as a stormshield terminator, as slicey as Shrike, and as shooty as an obliterator, all for the price of a guardsman," then, yes, they fail. My own definition is "no matter what job you give them, there's a chance of success, and there are worse units you could have taken instead." In other words, universal mediocrity over specialized excellence. 40k-wide, they have an above average shooting phase, they score, have a good statline for melee, power armor, and they score. Tell a tau player how sucky tactical marines are!

[breng77]

I'm of the general opinion that tacticals are one of the worst troop choices in the game especially our tacticals. THey are really not as good or better than most non assault units for the points you spend. The squad you listed runs around 220 points I believe which is the price (or near enough) of another Deathwing squad. They do fill a different roll with plasma shooting, but they are not mobile at all, and are pretty terrible in CC. DA Tacticals rank around 32rd out of 44 troop choices in the game for their close combat ofensive ability(un upgraded, but most other troops have the same/similar upgrades.) Un pgraded DA tacticals also rank about 15th for shooting ability (up grades help this some). Now they are reasonably durable with a 3+ save and T4, but most of the time you are paying a lot of points for guys that are ablative wounds for the sarge and special weapons.

 

As To Tau, un-upgraded Kroot deal more wounds in Hth than marines point for point, and shoot better. Fire warriors, shoot better, but CC worse. The difference comes in that marines have useful upgrades to their unit and are more durable.

 

Standard Tacticals (for their points) have above average durablility, and average(or slightly above) shooting, and very low close combat ability (to kill things) Now they can win some cc fights due to durability but generally they kill very little and remain in combat.

 

TO me flexibility comes down to can I take another unit, for comparable points, that will do the same job better. And with tactical squads (in almost every marine book) the answer comes back as yes. If for 235 points ((15 more points) I can take a deathwing squad with 2 missle shots, that are as durable (more against AP3 less against AP1/2), better in CC (similar # of attacks + power weapons), more mobile (I don't lose effectiveness by moving, tacitcals can mitigate this with a transport but then cost more than the termies).