Are Terminators viable in an 8th edition RG army?

[Panzer]

Terminators are worth using if you're willing to think outside the box.

As I've said before, they're a unit that doesn't match their fluff. They might teleport in and single handedly obliterate enemy armies in the fiction, but on the table they don't.

They are one of less than a handful of units in the codex that gets a 2+ armor save, and the only unit type that backs that up with an invulnerable save.

Terminators hold ground against advancing infantry while whittling down said infantry.

Raven Guard Terminators parked in terrain are tough to shift. -1 to hit them at range, with a cover bonus to mitigate the weapons that kill them fastest like lascannons and missiles. They get a 4+ save against lascannon fire while in cover!

 

It's my opinion that we Raven Guard players have made ourselves slaves to the SftS play. Everything we discuss here seems to be viewed through the Strike from the Shadows filter, and that's not a good thing in the long term. We do have other tools in the toolbox! Ones that won't cost us friends when we keep using them ad nauseum.

 

The invul save on Terminators is REALLY uninteresting unless you take a Stormshield. It takes an AP-4 wound for the 5++ to matter on a 2+ armor model. If anything, it only contributes to the Terminators being overcosted. I'd take a re-roll rule over the 5++ any time.

 

But I agree on the rest. They aren't the guys who drop in and solo half an army. What they can do is board control once they are where they want to be. They can buy you the time you need with the rest of the army. Especially if you use them with SftS since it lets you deploy them and secure part of the board before the enemy had any chance to move (especially now with the deep strike beta rule). If you thought Nurglings and Scouts were annoying, try to shift a bigger unit of Terminators.

Trust me, I play a lot of Stealth Suits with my T'au and often place them in cover if possible (T4, Sv2+ in Cover, W2 and the tasty -1 to-hit as cherry on the top) and while they aren't unkillable them simply being there standing around on key positions means that my opponent usually focusses a lot of his turn 1 damage output on trying to remove them instead of shooting my other stuff (the occasional Fusion Blaster surely helps a lot to make them a target I guess lol).

 

I think using a 10 man Terminator unit with 2x Assault Cannon and a Teleport Homer (placed near your shooty guys and/or an objective) with SftS is one of the first thing I'd try when trying to make Terminators a viable unit choice. It's a big chunk of your army (slightly above 400p) but also a huge brick of Sv2+ W2 models with moderate dakka and powerfists standing anywhere on the board before turn 1).

 

 

Actually, the entire premise of the thread from the title and the first post is if they're viable or not. If you want to get into how they can potentially be viable or if they're not viable at all, unfortunately that includes "wish listing"  (which is apparently forbidden though I honestly don't understand why) and comparing them to other units within the army.

 

The one thing Terminators have going for them over Aggressors (outside of not being Primaris imo) is versatility, which is also what at least my post comparing them versus Aggressors shows - along with their ability to teleport onto the battlefield from Reserves and their ability to at least be transported in Storm Ravens and Land Raiders.

 

As for the -1 to hit, that comes at the cost of not being able to rapid fire storm bolters and paying for power fists you're not using, whereas a unit like Aggressors or even Heavy Bolter Devastators (to compare small arms volume fire units) get full use of their weaponry and still get a -1 to be hit in retaliatory fire.

 

Because wishlisting is anything but not constructive.

 

To not go even more offtopic on this particular argument:

Comparing is okay imo but T5 is simply not as durable as Sv2+, even with the 3p difference between Bolter Aggressors and Powerfist Terminators.

 

 

Yes, Aggressors do a lot more damage when in range and that's usually better in competetive matches than being more durable due the importance of alpha strikes, tho even just considering Terminators currently makes you leave the really competetive area already anyway so I don't think that's much of an argument here.

Doing damage on their own is not the Terminators job anymore.

[deadangel101]

Terminators got better in 8th edition, but there is still something wrong. Maybe it's the point cost. I wish it wasn't so. As a former Deathwing player, I love terminators. But even in 8th edition, the thought of fielding a Deathwing army against any half-way competitive army fills me with the quiet dread of humiliating loss. I can say this, Wolf Guard and Chaos terminators are mich more scary because of their wargear options. Maybe GW needs to pit the classic version of terminators to rest, and actually allow them to be all they can be?

[Panzer]

Yeah Chaos Terminators have LOTS of support.

 - no need to buy expensive powerfists

 - combi-weapon on every model

 - double shooting stratagem as slaanesh

 - +1 to wound stratagem

 

However even with all those things they struggle. Often you see chaos player rather take Obliterators than Terminators in tournaments.

[Shadow Captain Vyper]

Actually, the entire premise of the thread from the title and the first post is if they're viable or not.

 

Declaring to the thread its intentions (especially when you're not the OP) comes across as disingenuous, condescending, and crass.

 

If you want to get into how they can potentially be viable or if they're not viable at all, unfortunately that includes "wish listing"  (which is apparently forbidden though I honestly don't understand why) and comparing them to other units within the army.

 

It really doesn't. Wishlisting serves no purpose as it isn't productive, in practical (To steal and Ultramarines term). It's frowned upon because it doesn't typically move the thread to its objective: a conclusion.

 

The one thing Terminators have going for them over Aggressors (outside of not being Primaris imo) is versatility, which is also what at least my post comparing them versus Aggressors shows - along with their ability to teleport onto the battlefield from Reserves and their ability to at least be transported in Storm Ravens and Land Raiders.

 

I think you'll find this is the crux of the problem.

 

This game is very mutable with nearly infinite permutations. When we as a community make an attempt to classify and objectify units by their relative strength, it becomes very difficult to draw lines in the sand.

 

Furthermore, a strength in the form of versatility is nearly impossible to quantify. What is versatile to one player may seem a hindrance to another.

 

As for the -1 to hit, that comes at the cost of not being able to rapid fire storm bolters and paying for power fists you're not using, whereas a unit like Aggressors or even Heavy Bolter Devastators (to compare small arms volume fire units) get full use of their weaponry and still get a -1 to be hit in retaliatory fire.

 

I see this argument thrown around in a lot of different threads that evaluate units or SFTS in that context. Just because a unit is optimal at 12" or closer, does not mean they don't benefit from our Chapter Tactics. No enemy can deploy in a 1" circle and retaliate, in full, against a unit within that distance. Ultimately, in practice, a unit of Terminators using STFS (or Deep Strike), and being at a closer range to double-tap, you are still going to have the benefits of our Chapter Tactic against over 70% of the opponents forces. 

 

To expand upon this, not only does it still work, but you, as the controller of the Terminators get to decide who its going to work against, and who it isn't. The less mobile a force (Guard), the more you can leverage this fact. The more mobile (with firepower), the more irrelevant it becomes (Eldar).

 

For me this thread boils down to a conflict of definition.

 

What is viable?

 

Its obviously a subjective term that means different things to different people.

 

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing they are a powerhouse unit.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing they are points efficient.

I don't think anyone in this thread is stating, definitively, they are NOT viable.

I think the important thing to do is focus of the context of the OP:

 

Hey all,

 

Just getting back into the hobby, and looking to build an army of RG. I have stacks of Terminator models (both assault and shooty). Do they have any place in 8th ed. RG forces?

He clearly doesn't quantify his statement to be applied to a competitive context, so we can assume that isn't important to him (or we can ask him )

 

He's clearly a gent coming back to the game with a boatload of terminator models, and he's trying to shop around and pick a Chapter that works well with them. I think this thread has laid down some good pro's and cons thus far. 

 

Our Chapter Tactic does play well with Terminators

Our Stratagem does play well with Terminators

 

At the end of their day, the viability of Terminators is going to be weighed against the rest of your army. If you combine them with the right units/support, you will find your return on investment increased. If you deploy them on an island, without support, most competent players will avoid them, and the net result will be disappointment.

 

For me, personally, if I were to run them (and I have not in 7th or 8th, I haven't run them since 5th? edition). I would use them in a strategy where I want to commit to a very heavy Alpha Strike. I would dump them, aggressively, in the center, and have them form an anvil that the rest of my alpha strike plays the hammer in to them.

 

This strategy has very easily exploitable flaws, but (in my opinion) its probably the best way to play them. On foot, with SFTS, acting as an anchor to your lines (when your lines happen to be right in front of your enemy).

 

Feel free to take it all with a grain of salt though, as I am a fan of playing a heavy composition of units that leverage our Chapter Tactic. This means I don't care for Land Raiders (as a general rule), and most other forms of armor. That being said, I am a big fan of Storm Ravens, and if I were to run Terminators in an armored Transport capacity, that would be my preferred go-to route.

[taikishi]

Funny thing, the last time I brought either Land Raiders or Terminators was 3E -- and this was before the Crusader was published and before Terminators got a 5++.

 

They were actually part of a fairly poorly built all-comers Blood Angels army that had a lot of success through a combination of luck and a few opponents who weren't very good. Still remember my Vindicator pulling the same stunt every game that tournament:

 

Turn 1 roll a hit and obliterate a unit within 24"

Turns 2-end of match/destroyed, proceed to fail every Black Rage roll and never be able to fire its Vindicator Cannon

 

The Land Raider, meanwhile, transported my Honor Guard all with power weapons accompanied by a Sanguinary High Priest with a Grail. The Terminators often left me disappointed because they wouldn't show up until at least turn 4-5 and rarely did anything.

 

If I ever get around to re-building my Space Marine army (likely as Raptors, sold everything off a number of years ago for way too little), it'll be more of a "reasonable marine" army.... but also a 7E army if I can find opponents because I'm really not a fan of 8th.

 

As for Terminators in general, I really think their time was in 2nd Edition and they just never recovered from 3E's changes to the game. It's easier to be an elite unit when the game, as a whole, tends to have fewer models/units (30PPM Space Marines) and your stat line (WS5, BS5, I5, 3+ 2d6 save) reflects your eliteness.