PDA

View Full Version : Assault terminators in 6th Ed.



Dkoz
20-09-2013, 14:10
I'm working on a new army and I've been reading the forums and seeing a lot of posts about how assault terminator w/ TH&SS aren't very good any more. I just was hoping to get an explanation as to why they are no longer good or are people who say this just nuts?

Ironbone
20-09-2013, 15:16
Well, with some overall assoult neff in 6th ed, every cc unit is bit weaker than in 5th. Hammerators are still one of the best, just not as strong as before.

Surgency
20-09-2013, 15:35
Because its (sic) "common knowledge" that assault units are terrible and should never ever ever be taken....

Joking aside, properly supported assault terminators are nasty. They are capable enough to do a significant amount of damage to whatever they get in combat with. I don't know if I'd equip all of them with the TH/SS combo though, I've always been a fan of mixing the weapons in the squad

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

wilsonian
20-09-2013, 15:44
Normally I give the Sgt lighting claws and everyone else TH-SS. This way if a challenge comes in he doesn't strike last.

Telemachus
20-09-2013, 16:00
One of my favourite units in 5th was a 7 man SM Assault Terminator Squad, all with TLC and a Terminator Chaplain out of a Land Raider Crusader. Haven't played it in 6th, but I don't think that it would be much less effective than it was in 5th.

As for the TH/SS Assault Terminator, I think it's the extra points costs and loss of initiative that's driving the They're a rubbish unit now camp. I've never liked the loss of initiative that the TH/SS combo brought with it, so never really used them, but surely the saves they get have got to be worth something.

Randomman
21-09-2013, 09:59
Mr Ironbone has hit the nail on the head, assault got a 'little' worse in this edition and Cruddy in his limited foresight went Baa and followed other power armoured dexes in putting up the points. Truth is there is a lot more AP2 template out there now and they are not as good as they were five years ago. He should have bucked the trend and kept them at 40pts, I fully expect one MEQ codex to have done this by the end of 6th edition when GW see their sales plummet of that model, making the whole escapade a little pointless really.

God only knows what he was smoking when he put attack bikes up 5pts. But that is a conversation for another thread!

ashc
21-09-2013, 10:45
Well, with some overall assoult neff in 6th ed, every cc unit is bit weaker than in 5th. Hammerators are still one of the best, just not as strong as before.

Absolutely this. Still a great unit, come on 2+/3++ save and hit like a truck. Once more, just not an autoinclude in 6th because the paradigm has shifted.

Bartali
21-09-2013, 10:54
The problem with Assault Terminators are down to cost (both for them and their transport) and their limited usefulness in 6th ed meta. Terminators of either sort don't do well against high volumes of shots or attacks.

Treadhead_1st
21-09-2013, 21:09
Mr Ironbone has hit the nail on the head, assault got a 'little' worse in this edition and Cruddy in his limited foresight went Baa and followed other power armoured dexes in putting up the points. Truth is there is a lot more AP2 template out there now and they are not as good as they were five years ago. He should have bucked the trend and kept them at 40pts, I fully expect one MEQ codex to have done this by the end of 6th edition when GW see their sales plummet of that model, making the whole escapade a little pointless really.

God only knows what he was smoking when he put attack bikes up 5pts. But that is a conversation for another thread!

The bashing of Cruddace is getting really annoying - it is almost as bad as the fever-pitch of Ward-bashing a few years ago.

Anyway, I think that the Assault Terminators needed to go up in price, and 5 points is a fair trade. It always bugged me that a 5-man Terminator Squad cost exactly the same as an Assault Terminator squad regardless of whether the latter squad had Lightning Claws or Thunder Hammers & Storm Shields, when to get even the cheapest upgrades (Heavy Flamer/Chainfist) cost at least 5 points, AND the Sergeant was locked into a Power Sword unlike is brother leading the Assault Squad. Then you also have the fact that THSS Terminators were almost always better than TLLC Terminators thanks to the incredible survivability that the Storm Shield provided (on a personal level, I think it should have been EITHER 3+ versus Shooting, or an all-time 4+, not the abomination that we got).

Not too mention, when you are taking a 200+ point unit and a 240+ point transport, is an extra 25 points really going to break the bank? I think that the cost differential, and the changes of 6th Edition as a whole, has finally helped to balance all the variants of Terminators out there (albeit it would be better if Terminators could take 2 Heavy Weapons in a 5-man squad) - do you choose between a unit that can go without a Transport and is very flexible (guns, upgraded guns & Power Sword/Fists), a unit that can charge in and mulch Power Armour (and Characters thanks to 2+/3+/Str8/AP2 if you give the Sergeant a Thunder Hammer & Storm Shield) or smack around Monstrous Creatures with ease (and shrug off the typical "terminator-killer" shots/attacks in the process)?

I find it quite funny that players spent so long moaning about THSS Terminators (either facing them, or fielding them because other choices were "invalidated") and now such a minor points-change makes them utterly worthless? Rubbish - a THSS squad still makes a very strong bulwark in the centre of your battle-line, particularly if you are playing with the recommended terrain levels and they/their transport cannot be blasted apart from 50" away in all directions. Assault may be worse than 5th, but it still has its place, and Assault Terminators (of both stripes) are still very potent - and normal Terminators are much better too.

Freman Bloodglaive
21-09-2013, 22:55
Normal terminators are better, assault terminators are worse (and more expensive), neither is particularly good when you consider the points you have to dedicate to making them usable.

Against non-AP3 shooting they're less survivable point for point than Tactical Marines. Point for point their firepower is inferior to the Tactical Marine, and of course with the changes to rapid fire weapons their relentless rule doesn't compensate. Their assault ability is better (of course) but in 6th edition, unless you're Chaos Daemons, assault itself is rather underwhelming and if you're in assault you're not using those guns that are included in your cost. Assault terminators either run across the battlefield, or double their points buying a Land Raider as a delivery bus.

They should have been reduced in cost (like nearly everything else in the Codex) but instead they remained the same or got more expensive.

There are just better choices to spend your points on, like Sternguard if you want shooting, or *cough cough choke* Vanguard if you want assault.

Poseidal
21-09-2013, 23:52
Currently, Honour Guard have 85% (made up number) the ability of a Terminator for 63% of the cost. They lack heavy weapon options, or invulnerable save options but you can cram more in for fewer points, have ok shooting and don't have the downsides of TDA.

I will probably take some of those where I would have taken assault Terminators, especially in my Pedro lists where my Elites are taken up with Sternguard.

Belakor
22-09-2013, 09:10
I suspect if people played the game with enough terrain as the rules suggest, instead of the horrific "2 milk boxes, 1 forest and 1 ruin/fantasy house because they had nothing else" seen in 95%+ of the battle reports by picture or youtube, they would be better and this online nonsense would die out.

Ironbone
22-09-2013, 10:24
I suspect if people played the game with enough terrain as the rules suggest, instead of the horrific "2 milk boxes, 1 forest and 1 ruin/fantasy house because they had nothing else" seen in 95%+ of the battle reports by picture or youtube, they would be better and this online nonsense would die out.



Exaclty. My games tend to incloude no less than 9 or more terrains of various type ( usually 3 forests, 3 ruins, and 3 large los blockers ) not counting aegis lines or similar, on 72x48" board. And thats why i'm saying that assoult was hit with "some" neff ( its hard to deny its worse than in 5th ), not "large/terrible/too hard" ( in fact my IG still think assoult is too strong compared to shooting ;););) ) as some itnetnetz say. Internetz are sometimes so wrong :p.

Poseidal
22-09-2013, 10:41
Note that TH/SS terminators are still one of the premium assault unit against MCs. Rather than being 'offensive', they can put off MCs from just flying in and assaulting your other units by being near them.

lordbeefy
22-09-2013, 11:11
TH/SS terminators are as effective in 6th as the ywere in 5th.....when viewed across the whole range of assault options.

Yes they arnt as effective as they were, but then the whole assault balance has changed.

They still feature in virtually every army list I make up, and I simply love the models aesthetic.

Simply put, if you want a non-character assault unit, available to all marine armies, you will be hard pushed to find one that does it better than TH/SS termies.....but that's just my opinion.

lordbeefy
22-09-2013, 11:14
double post

Nightmare84
22-09-2013, 13:12
Blood angels still make the best assault termies( with sang priest) in my eyes. Fnp 2+\3++ is pretty awesome and it doesn't eat up all your points at 1500. Is solid enough to not need your hq babysitting.

Mandragola
22-09-2013, 13:51
Honestly, I never thought assault terminators warranted the amount of love they received online. It's probably a play style issue but the never really worked for me and I've never been especially scared of other peoples'.

They were ok in 5th. Nothing more than that. In 6th they are bad. They are an expensive single-use non-scoring unit, requiring a very expensive transport to get into position. They will get to fight one combat if they are lucky. They won't get their points back.

They might influence your opponent's plan if he has daemons or something, or they might not. Given that the top two armies right now are tau and eldar, an expensive counter-assault unit will often do nothing at all.

Guns are good. Get some of those instead.

wyvirn
22-09-2013, 15:10
Why are we talking about cover when the most commonly seen Terminator load out already has a 3++? Terrain won't improve that at all, only serve to slow them down

Ssilmath
22-09-2013, 15:17
Why are we talking about cover when the most commonly seen Terminator load out already has a 3++? Terrain won't improve that at all, only serve to slow them down

Because we are not talking about cover, we are talking about terrain. A 2+/3++ is very resilient, but can still be torrented down. That is why they need things to put between themselves and portions of the enemy army.

I swear, I need to macro this. Every single thread where terrain comes up, people will say you need LOS blocking terrain and people always ask the same "How does that help, it's just cover" question.

Surgency
22-09-2013, 15:22
They won't get their points back.

This is not a way to determine how valuable something is in an army. After all, unless you're EXTREMELY lucky a rhino won't "make its points back" either.

Instead, to look at a units effectiveness, look at what the opponent has to dedicate to destroy it, or how the unit can fit into your overall battle plan and disrupt the opponents plan. If that unit of terminator slogs up the board and takes 50% of the opponents fire every turn for three turns, That means the rest of your army spent three turns virtually unmolested.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Ironbone
22-09-2013, 15:27
I swear, I need to macro this. Every single thread where terrain comes up, people will say you need LOS blocking terrain and people always ask the same "How does that help, it's just cover" question.
Los blockers, especialy large ones, matters a lot - while its rarity they will deny all enemy shooting, good use of them,will reduce it, either by forcing enemy to move, or simply hiding from part of enemy army.

Just do not use too many of them :shifty:.

DoctorTom
22-09-2013, 20:09
Mr Ironbone has hit the nail on the head, assault got a 'little' worse in this edition and Cruddy in his limited foresight went Baa and followed other power armoured dexes in putting up the points. Truth is there is a lot more AP2 template out there now and they are not as good as they were five years ago. He should have bucked the trend and kept them at 40pts, I fully expect one MEQ codex to have done this by the end of 6th edition when GW see their sales plummet of that model, making the whole escapade a little pointless really.

God only knows what he was smoking when he put attack bikes up 5pts. But that is a conversation for another thread!

There may be more AP2 template, but there's much less AP2 close combat weaponry for the termies to worry about, and what there is usually is unwieldy. That offsets that a bit.

Mandragola
22-09-2013, 20:10
This is not a way to determine how valuable something is in an army. After all, unless you're EXTREMELY lucky a rhino won't "make its points back" either.

Instead, to look at a units effectiveness, look at what the opponent has to dedicate to destroy it, or how the unit can fit into your overall battle plan and disrupt the opponents plan. If that unit of terminator slogs up the board and takes 50% of the opponents fire every turn for three turns, That means the rest of your army spent three turns virtually unmolested.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

I know this, and said it myself in the post you partially quoted.

But actually, whether something will get its points back is a fairly good measure of effectiveness of a unit that doesn't score, doesn't transport another, etc. if such a unit doesn't kill much either, but just does after beating up one unit cheaper than itself, if you're lucky, why bother? It doesn't take 3 turns to shoot these guys dead. During that time they are doing nothing.

They do have a presence on the board, denying some ground while they live, but how many armies is that actually useful against? Not tau or eldar, who don't care about midfield control. Not daemons, who just eat them. Grey hunters also just beat them, though with a combination of bolters and cc, not just cc. Not IG, obviously. It's only against other MEQs who want to fight you over the centre that assault termies have any real utility, and not much of it.

Deployment is one of the biggest nails in their coffin. In 5th there would be objectives in midfield for them to fight over. Now that objectives are 6" from table edges, sometimes in hammer and anvil, there's no point whatsoever in these guys.

Ssilmath
22-09-2013, 20:13
So start putting objectives back into the middle of the table.

Mandragola
22-09-2013, 22:14
Doing that is usually going to disadvantage you, unless your opponent does too. Actually more and more people, and many tournaments, are switching back to the 5th edition system of placing objectives before deciding sides precisely so that games take place in the middle. Doing that increases the value of up close fighty scoring units like grey hunters and IG blobs relative to scout snipers, windriders etc. it improves assault termies a fair bit too - just not enough for me to consider taking them. They are still bad against good 6th edition armies, so they are irrelevant.

Ssilmath
22-09-2013, 22:21
Hardly. But putting all of the objectives towards the middle is a start.

There is this sense of helplessness from so many people, that they have no control over their games. That they have to play with the minimums suggested by the rules, that they must play according to tournament sensibilities. It's almost as if nobody has the power or the guts to talk with their opponent and suggest changes.

Tournament organizers know the problems with how they have been doing things, they know the shortcomings (real or perceived) of 6th edition. Why they have not taken the steps to solve these problems, why they refuse to adapt from 5th (and 4th) edition mindsets baffles me. Maybe it is just easier to complain and point a finger at GW for killing melee.

Mandragola
22-09-2013, 23:30
TOs often do change it, either by placing objectives before choosing sides or by having them in fixed positions.

Of course, many TOs don't change it, and many others don't. But it's obviously not their fault things are like this - it's GW's. You can hardly blame TOs for not amending GW's errors as you'd like them to. Still, they all make some changes and GW are the only people I know of running events without some kind of changes to the basic set up.

Carnage
23-09-2013, 00:54
I know this, and said it myself in the post you partially quoted.

But actually, whether something will get its points back is a fairly good measure of effectiveness of a unit that doesn't score, doesn't transport another, etc. if such a unit doesn't kill much either, but just does after beating up one unit cheaper than itself, if you're lucky, why bother? It doesn't take 3 turns to shoot these guys dead. During that time they are doing nothing.

They do have a presence on the board, denying some ground while they live, but how many armies is that actually useful against? Not tau or eldar, who don't care about midfield control. Not daemons, who just eat them. Grey hunters also just beat them, though with a combination of bolters and cc, not just cc. Not IG, obviously. It's only against other MEQs who want to fight you over the centre that assault termies have any real utility, and not much of it.

Deployment is one of the biggest nails in their coffin. In 5th there would be objectives in midfield for them to fight over. Now that objectives are 6" from table edges, sometimes in hammer and anvil, there's no point whatsoever in these guys.

This hits the nail on the head. I'll add that they don't contribute at range, so their threat "bubble" is 6" + 2D6" charge, meaning they can be ignored for a LONG time in many games, and their melee damage output is barely more than tactical terminators with powerfists, and at least they can contribute some ranged damage on the way in to melee.

The +5 points increase would have been perfect in early to mid 5th edition, but after the DE, GK and Necron codexes and 5th's shift towards a more shooting focused game their 40 points felt right. Now that melee has taken another couple of small nerfs (random charges, overwatch...etc) and shooting is even MORE deadly with pseudo-rending shurikens, plasma everywhere, grav weapons, Ion-Riptides, Suncannons, double plasma crisis suits, massed bolter fire via SoD and either bikers/greenwing....etc, the +5 point increase seems needless, and all terminators should have DROPPED 5 or more points, not gone the other direction. I could go on and on, but look at the colossal drop that Honor guard took (almost 28%), and they are still barely "decent".

Ssilmath
23-09-2013, 01:28
Well, it's probably a good thing then that Assault Terminators have Deep Strike built in, which puts them at a range where they can't be ignored easily. Or access to one of the toughest tanks in the game that happens to be an assault transport. And another thousand points or more of army working alongside those Assault Terminators and killing the horrible nasty enemy shooting as the Terminators soak up AP2 fire. And terrain to block line of sight from some (Or all, they need to be smooshed up for the bolter banner) of that massed anti infantry fire. Or do you waddle a single squad across no mans land, letting them got shot to pieces before actually using the rest of your army?

It's this hopeless, helpless attitude that is killing the game.

Swordsman
23-09-2013, 02:06
It's this hopeless, helpless attitude that is killing the game.

They're speaking from a competitive stand-point; so stop trying to force your 'can do!' attitude on other players.

It's just as abrasive to tourney players, as their 'negativity' is to you- I assure you.

Ssilmath
23-09-2013, 02:11
They're speaking from a competitive stand-point; so stop trying to force your 'can do!' attitude on other players.

It's just as abrasive to tourney players, as their 'negativity' is to you- I assure you.

You'll have to forgive me for trying to help them improve their competitive games. The fact is that the competitive crowd is wallowing in their anger and frustration while refusing to implement changes that will improve their experience and shift the game away from the much bemoaned gunlines. You don't even need to houserule or anything. But it's easier to shift the blame elsewhere instead of make the necessary changes.

Swordsman
23-09-2013, 02:16
You'll have to forgive me for trying to help them improve their competitive games.

No offense intended, but Mandragola really, really does not need your help. He's an exceptional gamer, and has contributed a lot to this community - tactically - for some time now.

As someone who isn't a competitive player, how does their evaluation of this unit negatively effect you?


The fact is that the competitive crowd is wallowing in their anger and frustration

Where is this supposed emotional investment? The comments regarding the competitiveness of terminators was made fairly casually, and was put forth as a 'here's the situation'- nothing like what you're describing.

Ssilmath
23-09-2013, 02:27
Because Mandragola placed a unit in the worst possible situation and in an utter vacuum and then said "See, they're bad!" This is a common argument made by the competitive crowd.

Similarly, just because I don't actively go to major tournaments has no bearing on finding what is fun and trying to steer people towards that. Specifically regarding objectives, I place objectives towards the middle, and it turns games from trying to snipe out enemy troops into games about maneuvering into the best position. Regarding terrain, I have found that in my casual games having LOS blocking terrain in the middle of the board turns it from a gunline dakkafest and gives mid range shooting and melee a much bigger role in the game. So why does that continually get dismissed out of hand by the competitive crowd? Because I don't play hypercompetitively anymore?

And the emotional investment? You do read these boards, right? Endless posts about how melee is dead, guns are king, GW can't write rules, etc. All coming from the competitive crowd, not understanding that those are symptoms of how the competitive games are set up. And any time anybody points that out, we get drowned in a deluge of insults, boasting and strawmen. This thread has been reasonable about it, but even it suffers from the "Woe is me, but I won't fix it" mentality.

Edit: Also, don't assume that I don't know how to play competitively. Like IcedCrow, I used to play with a very competitive mindset. I would take just enough flavorful/bad units to not completely crush my opponents, and pulled out all the stops when playing against good players. I also used to play in a highly competitive environment, with WAAC players and even those who would actively cheat to win. I still did rather well. I just don't do that anymore.

itcamefromthedeep
23-09-2013, 02:52
Assault Terminators suffer to the proliferation of torrent firepower, overwatch shots, and random-er charge ranges.

---

You could support Assault Terminators in order to make them passable, or you could support a better unit and get spectacular results.

Surgency
23-09-2013, 03:18
You could support Assault Terminators in order to make them passable, or you could support a better unit and get spectacular results.

Assault Terminators still provide spectacular results, when actually supported and not left hanging in the breeze.

Mine regularly chase units right off the board (guard blob squads), destroy tactical marine squads, clear objectives, and much more

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Swordsman
23-09-2013, 03:24
Because Mandragola placed a unit in the worst possible situation and in an utter vacuum and then said "See, they're bad!" This is a common argument made by the competitive crowd.

To be fair, he placed it in the situation that it's typically going to find itself in should he be in a tourney game. Let's address the issues-

Your opponent is not going to place objectives midfield, unless he's a flesh-hound list. Meaning that it's down to you to do so.
Your opponent is not going to be intimidated - unless he is a fellow MEQ - of your terminator's presence as a midfield deterrent.
Your opponent is going to be fielding significant amounts of AP2 or pseudo-rending, thus making your invulnerable save your 'save'.
Your table is not going to have adequate amounts of terrain, as it's a tourney. It sucks, but it is what it is.

These issues alone make the cost of terminators off-putting to many. Then add in gimmick issues like d-scythes, etc. This, added to the edition making shooting more prominent, makes for a compelling reason not to field them in a competitive setting.


So why does that continually get dismissed out of hand by the competitive crowd? Because I don't play hypercompetitively anymore?

Would you accept tourney advice - regarding any hobby, or sport - from someone who admittedly no longer takes part in said scene? Now consider that you admit to playing with amounts of terrain that no tourney a player visits will ever possess, and your 'competitive advice' becomes questionable.


And the emotional investment? You do read these boards, right?

You seem much more upset than those offering a critique of terminators.

That's just how it reads though- you might not be.


Also, don't assume that I don't know how to play competitively.

Out of curiosity, what's your background? Any titles of note that I'd recognize? Or is it all pretty much local tourneys, etc?

Ssilmath
23-09-2013, 03:40
In answer to the first part: That is why I suggest the changes I do concerning tournaments. (Also, Assault Termies aren't intimidated by AP2 fire. I thought it was mass bolter fire that scared them.) I don't claim it's a cure all, but it is a way to start solving the problems that are readily apparent.

In answer to the second: I would accept advice from anybody, so long as they are giving suggestions for how to solve my problems. The amount of terrain should not be such an issue. I made enough terrain to give 50% coverage to two tables with half of that blocking line of sight with 40 dollars and an afternoon. Lacking terrain is something that can be fixed.

In answer to the third: It is not the critique of the Terminators I have issue with, though it was not entirely honest either. It is the attitude that nothing will change and nobody fixing things that irks me.

In answer to the fourth: I have no major tournaments to my name. Every time I had the opportunity for one, my money ran out. Not that it will likely convince anybody, but I placed second at our store 'Ard Boyz tournament. The only person who could go was our 5th place player, and he took...4th at regionals I think? Maybe lower, I didn't like him very much. I also regularly played against (And beat) the winner of the only Ex Illis tournament. Like I say, it probably won't matter since I don't have a major tournament pedigree, just hard games in a competitive minded meta. (Our Warmachine meta was even tougher)

Mandragola
23-09-2013, 09:13
For the record I don't think it's necessary for someone to have a great tournament record for their opinion to count. I know that's not what Swordsman was saying either but just wanted to make the point. Ssilmath makes excellent contributions to this board on many subjects. Personally, I am lucky to live in London with lots of major tournaments nearby, and a budget to more of less support going to them. I tend to do roughly one 50+ player event a month, and in 6th I've had almost exactly an 80% win record at tournaments. Sometimes a bunch of those wins come in a row and I win a tournament. I never play in shops and rarely get to play during the week so most of the games I play are either at events or practice games under tournament conditions, preparing for them.

So enough about me. There's no reason for this to be a personal thing. We just rate the effectiveness of a unit differently. No big deal!


In answer to the second: I would accept advice from anybody, so long as they are giving suggestions for how to solve my problems.

I want to address this because I think it's a good point in most cases, but there are couple of reasons it doesn't necessarily apply here. First of these is that it wasn't you asking for help. The OP was asking if assault terminators were good, and I think it's reasonable to answer a question like that with a "no", stating your reasons, if that's your honest opinion. I would not advise anyone to go out and spend their money on assault terminators.

Second, I do think it's a fact that some units are better than others on the tabletop. Assault terminators actually aren't awful, they just aren't very good. So if this was a thread about how to get the most out of assault terminators I'd either have nothing much to contribute, or I'd want to point out other ways you could achieve the same effect. Actually I'd like it if it was more viable to have things like land raiders full of termies crashing around the place. That would be cool.

Final point: I am not somebody who is all about parroting the conventional "internet wisdom". My first post, for example:


Honestly, I never thought assault terminators warranted the amount of love they received online. It's probably a play style issue but the never really worked for me and I've never been especially scared of other peoples'.

totgeboren
23-09-2013, 09:35
Hammernators have had their role changed a bit. they used to be a sort of fire-and-forget unit, that you just moved 6" forward, and if you managed to get within 6" on an enemy, you got to move them 6" extra and remove the enemy unit.
Now they shine as a deterrent, especially against monsters and walkers and such.
Do you have any trouble stopping monsters before they get to your lines? You should, especially if they are flying. If so, a unit of 5 hammernators might be all you need to deal with said monster, instead of having it picking your army apart piece by piece.

Inquisitor Shego
23-09-2013, 09:41
I tend to find Assault Terminators are not worth their bread and butter so much anymore primarily down to the 6th edition trend of infantry getting cheaper. Whilst the TH/SS got 5 points more expensive, the marine and company are dropping a point or two in price, and some of them are getting chapter tactics helping their bolter fire out. A deep striking assault terminator unit might arrive on turn 2 and scatter. It might arrive on turn 3, but not be assaulting until turn 4. When played, I think they actually work best for a gun line army, sitting back and waiting to counter charge. Things like Bloodthirsters will hate the 3++ invulnerable, and the unit will still need a good deal of firepower to whittle them down. Ideally, they're something I find I can ignore or outmaneuver if they come up in my table edge with deep strike, but if they're sitting some place I need to go, hiding behind a building meaning I need to close in to root them out, or go a great sweeping distance to "slice the pie" ( http://www.cqb-team.com/pie_slice.php ).

Worse still, they can at times tarpit, and will demolish MEQ units one on one. In short, I find (from personal experience) they're great as a defensive unit kept out the way. If they have to deep strike they'll be in it too late, and/or give me a turn to react. If they're transported in a land raider, we're in super expensive country for points. If they're foot slogging, I've got the rest of my foe's army to worry about first.

FINALLY........

You all make some valid points.