Are Termagants over costed at 6pts

[gauntlet]

Are Termagants over costed?

Termagants 60pts
10W T3 Sv5+ OC10
18" A10S5 AP0 D1
A10 S3 AP0 D1

Warriors 70pts
9W T5 Sv4+ OC6
24" 9xS5 AP-1 D1
A15 S5 AP-1 D1
(completely ignoring Barbarded Strangler and Venom Cannon).

Tyranid Warriors are much better value.
5 Space Marines is better than 10 Termagaunts.

How much were Termagants in the edition before Cuddace?

From 4th Edition Tyranid Codex
Carnifex with DeathSpitters and Venom Cannon 135 pts
Zoanthropes 35pts
Termagants with Fleshborer 6pts
Fleshborer 12" S4 AP5 Living Ammunition(reroll wounds)

[parzaius]

Yes, they are.

Fleshborer lost its -1 AP, Devourer lost its 3rd shot AND assault, and spinefist improved but the 12" range still makes them irrelevant for damage output. Add to that that the unit dropped from max 30 to max 20 and all the damage multiplier auras/strats got stripped out and you're left with a unit that struggles to kill even itself. 20 shooting into more termagants do 10 wounds with spinefists, 8 with devourers, and only 4 with fleshborers. Their numbers are far lower vs marine equivalents (3, 3, 2).

It may seem counter-intuitive, but the worst thing to happen to Termagants was gaining a point of Sv. Going from 6+ to 5+ was all the justification they needed to strip offence off their guns and still keep their costs as high as similar units that can actually take powerful special/heavy weapons (guard, GSC). Termagants are being treated as if they had 1-2 lascannons in their units despite lacking any options, range, or punch. Back in 2nd edition, termagants had no armor save at all and were even cheaper because that was their role: swarm and die. Adding a 6+ save did virtually nothing to keep them alive, but justified thrusting their cost far above the point that it should've been. Then, 9th edition did the same thing. Now, 10th has pulled all the offense out while keeping points unreasonably high, pulling back the survivability of larger unit sizes, AND stripping away true synapse.

Termagants exist to take up space on an objective. They have double the OC of neurogants, but they're 50% more expensive, which ain't a great tradeoff. Factor in that you're going to need to use the strat to shore them up as a CP drain (when you could've just had a larger unit that didn't need the strat to replenish its numbers) and they look even worse. Any kind of dedicated anti-swarm weapon is going to scoop them (and what a shock, the marines JUST got a brand new unit of flamers designed to hard counter a swarm play style).

The only thing that makes any of these things viable is, ironically, how powerful all the vehicles are. With people bringing as many anti-tank weapons as possible, there's less room for the easy, 100% effective anti-swarm tools.

tl;dr - Termagants cost too much for what they bring to the game. They have no offense, a defense that actively hurts them, core changes that invalidate their old strengths, and a cheaper alternative that does the same thing for less.

[yoritomo]

Aren’t termagants OC 2? That would make termagants OC 20.

[gauntlet]

Looking at old Codices Termagants have been more expensive than I remembered 6+ pts (only looking at Fleshborers). The cheapest Termagants were in the Crudex 5pts.

[hivefleetkerrigan]

8e was 4 ppm. 9e was 5 ppm I think.

[trashcan01]

I don't think they're overcosted. They are kind of okay, but we have much better units to choose from for each role Termagants should have.

We have Gargoyles for objective stealing - 10" FLY with Deep Strike and moving after shooting
We have Hormagaunts for pressure, more predictable with their table presence, but still much more mobile than Termagants.
We have Barbgaunts for keeping our objectives safe, they are tougher, hit harder, shoot farther, debuff the opponent and are cheaper 10 points per unit.
We have Neurogaunts for screening that provide additional utility to the army and are cheaper.

[yoritomo]

8th edition was 4ppm + weapon, so 5 points.

[swarm492]

Perhaps the neuroguant is part of the problem. If temagaunts were 5, you would get alot of mileage for just 1pnt over the neurogaunt, putting that unit in an odd spot.

[piersonsmuppet]

Jul 10, 2023 21:58:31 GMT trashcan01 said:

I don't think they're overcosted. They are kind of okay, but we have much better units to choose from for each role Termagants should have.

We have Gargoyles for objective stealing - 10" FLY with Deep Strike and moving after shooting
We have Hormagaunts for pressure, more predictable with their table presence, but still much more mobile than Termagants.
We have Barbgaunts for keeping our objectives safe, they are tougher, hit harder, shoot farther, debuff the opponent and are cheaper 10 points per unit.
We have Neurogaunts for screening that provide additional utility to the army and are cheaper.

This sums it up pretty well, though Gargs are 12" Mv. I don't think Ngaunts really have much effect on running Tgants, most lists are running more Tgants than Ngaunts (if they run these at all). Bgaunts are half competing, half not. They moreso compete with Warriors for a niche imo since they don't have the OC power of Tgants and aren't a target for Endless Swarm.

[jimmicus]

I think they're fine, at least in that other units need more attention to their points cost (really annoyed about Toxicrene and screamer killer overpricing). With Devourers and a tervigon to give lethal hits they can pack a punch through shear numbers of dice and are easy to bring back. 5+ save isn't too shocking in an edition where AP has been lowered for most weapons and cover is fairly easy to obtain. Throw in some FNP from strat or other source and they are quite difficult to shift and easy to reinforce each turn. I've found so far that my opponent either has to put significant resources into getting rid of them or they will just keep reinforcing until they are a threat again, normally in 1-2 turns. They are my go to unit for contesting the central objective.

[alx51]

They are fine at 6pts. Their cost in previous editions is irrelevant, everything is more pricey, standard layouts have far more los blocking terrains than before

If they were OC 1 I wouldnt consider them unless they are 4pts

[dkng]

Jul 12, 2023 5:25:47 GMT alx51 said:

They are fine at 6pts. Their cost in previous editions is irrelevant, everything is more pricey, standard layouts have far more los blocking terrains than before

If they were OC 1 I wouldnt consider them unless they are 4pts

If Termagants were 4 ppm then Neurogants would have to be like 2 ppm. Can you imagine fielding a 1000 of them? Would they even fit in a deployment zone?

[gauntlet]

Jul 12, 2023 14:24:32 GMT dkng said:

Jul 12, 2023 5:25:47 GMT alx51 said:

They are fine at 6pts. Their cost in previous editions is irrelevant, everything is more pricey, standard layouts have far more los blocking terrains than before

If they were OC 1 I wouldnt consider them unless they are 4pts

If Termagants were 4 ppm then Neurogants would have to be like 2 ppm. Can you imagine fielding a 1000 of them? Would they even fit in a deployment zone?

Would they fit? Depends on the size of the landfill dump. Better to recycle.
EDIT: I just had a disturbing thought enter my mind, of each Neuroguant being equipped with top hat, silver tipped walking cane, and eye monocle. Weird. Maybe because they look like naked old men?

[parzaius]

They're still limited by max units. You can only have 120 from being battleline. If 2ppm was too much, they could just be non-battleline and they'd be max 60. In any event, the issue is more than termagants should be 5 ppm or simply better.

Termagants are nearly unchanged from their original incarnations (+1 Sv, slightly changed guns, way worse synapse 20 max unit, down from 24/30) and are 6 pts (used to be 5). Meanwhile, default marines are +1 W, +2 A, +1 shot at long-range, infinitely better core rule) and are 17.5 pts, up from 15. Like, the issue is that everything else got way, WAY better while barely increasing in cost and the weakest of nids are as bad as ever. That means they either need to be better (get the -1 AP back) or go down in cost (back to 5pts, drop neurogants to 3).

[yoritomo]

Better how? Do they need a 3+ save? Or Ap-4 fleshborers? Or a rule that says you can’t come within engagement range of a termagant?

I think the real question here is not “Are termagants overcost?” but “What do I expect my termagants to do?” I’d you expect your termagants to kill anything then they will be overcost until GW literally make them fart lightning. If you expect them to win you games then they are priced about right. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised to see them go up to 7ppm at the next 6 month point adjustment.

The fallacy here is the idea that tyranid units need to earn their points back. Stop thinking like this. Tyranids do not win games by earning their points back, they win by scoring victory points and denying their opponent victory points.

When we look at termagants this way they are actually a very good unit.

The first thing you want from your termagants is to max out the number of units you take. This means taking six units thanks to the battle line keyword. Many tyranid players struggle to come up with 60 termagants, and very few have over 120 termagants; which makes the drop to a 20 man unit size academic for the most part. But if you need more you can always use hormagaunts or gargoyles for just a few points more.

The second thing you want from your termagants is to secure objectives. Termagants are OC 2, which means 10 have an OC value of 20 (around par for most battleline units) and 20 termagants have an OC of 40. What has an OC value greater than 40? A warlord titan? Point being they are one of the top dogs for OC.

The third thing you want from your termagants is to not give up victory points. Sadly the are lacking here. As long as GW rewards killing thing this will always be a weak point with termagants. Though I would point out that it takes a deceptive amount of shooting to kill 20 termagants.

The last thing you want from your termagants is to be in the way of your opponent’s units. This does a couple of things. It dictates where your opponent can deep strike his units. It also prevents him from assaulting high value targets with his best units. The can also box your opponent out of objective markers and clog movement lanes. All that was in previous editions. Now they have an ability to move around in your opponent’s movement phase. This makes them even better as the termagant’s enormous footprint now move around in reaction to what your opponent does. Most people just think this allows them to back away from a potential assault, but it also lets you move more bodies in to contest an objective, or more fully screen a unit from assault, or get in the face of a enemy unit a force an assault they don’t want to make. I literally could not have chosen a better ability for the termagant if I tried.



So if you think termagants are over cost then you are either not playing them correctly or are just looking at their down sides while ignoring everything positive about them (or both). And that’s okay. If termagants don’t work for you then don’t play them. We have plenty of other options to choose from. You could try nidzills or a warrior list, both of those are viable armies. Don’t get stuck playing units you don’t like.