How to Improve Terminators! Suggestion and Ideas welcome!

[jaxom]

8 hours ago, Tacitus said:

But they should have so many D1 attacks they have similar output to a D2 or D3+1 statline.

My concern with this is it makes Lightning Claws too good against certain vehicle profiles. As it is, they out damage power fists against Armiger equivalent profiles.

[Rhavien]

Well, they are fists with swords attached at the end of the day. However, I would like to not give them random damage because the number of rolls add up quite a lot with claws. To Hit (+  reroll if OoM), to wound+ reroll because twinlinked and finally DMG roll. That's quite a lot, especially as they have a high number of attacks.

How would the math come out if we just slap dev wounds on them? Twinlinked should guarantee some sixes which makes them a threat to anything. Sure, Dev wounds are hammer territory, but the hammernators come with shields and also need some adjustments if you ask me. I would be fine if LCs would outdamage the THs most of the time because they brought two of them into a gunfight with no shield to hide behind 

[Karhedron]

How about if LCs lost twin-linked but gained Sustained Hits 2? That would make them less OP  at pushing through damage on light vehicles but absolutely blend infantry. 

[Tacitus]

18 hours ago, Karhedron said:

How about if LCs lost twin-linked but gained Sustained Hits 2? That would make them less OP  at pushing through damage on light vehicles but absolutely blend infantry. 

That was somewhat where I was going.  Instead of Lightning Claw (Twin Linked) 5A yadda yadda. I was thinking Paired Lightning Claws, 8A no twin link.  Lightning Claws are the parallel to Storm Bolters for Assault Terminators.  They should have that kind of output increased for higher "opportunity costs" as melee only with even more boost because they give up an entire phase.  Shootinators have both the ablity to shoot at range, and a power fist as a second weapon for a second phase of damage dealing. 

[HeadlessCross]

Y'all definitely shouldn't be in charge of balance. We don't need D2 let alone D3 claws or 8 attacks from a non-character model. 

[CastellanDeMolay]

56 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Y'all definitely shouldn't be in charge of balance. We don't need D2 let alone D3 claws or 8 attacks from a non-character model. 

Thanks for dropping by, but your post didn't really add anything to the conversation and the tone could be read as dismissive with the way you've worded it. The reason we're here is to discuss things, and the way we do that is by offering ideas and inviting a response, then trading posts back and forth to gain more ideas and a better understanding of each other and the things we're discussing. If you'd like to participate, then a better way of going about it would be to explain to us why you disagree, and maybe share examples of any maths you did or experience you have that helped you to reach your conclusions. 

We've reached something of a consensus that Lightning Claws are a bad pick compared to Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields, and since Wargear doesn't cost points at the moment, and we don't foresee Assault Terminators getting split into multiple Datasheets, we've decided to spitball some ideas that we think would make LCs as attractive an option as TH/SS. While the prospect of 8A with LCs, or higher damage values may seem like a lot to you, we're looking at the trade-offs that are made when choosing LCs, like sacrificing the disruptive effects of the extra Wound from having a SS, the comparative offensive advantages of similarly priced units, and if you check the numbers above it sure looks like 5 LC attacks with the current profile aren't really cutting the mustard, even against less elite opponents. 

Do you think LCs need to be improved relative to TH/SS, and in either case why do you think that? 

[HeadlessCross]

4 hours ago, CastellanDeMolay said:

Do you think LCs need to be improved relative to TH/SS, and in either case why do you think that? 

Offensively they don't need improvement. In fact, against many targets they excel vs the Thunder Hammer AND get a lot out of random buffs. 

The problem is how valuable the W4 coming from the Storm Shield is. It helps against ANY D1, D3, and Dd6 in addition to mortal wounds. 

 

You also have little reason to use them when most range weapons will do the job vs infantry already. As mediocre as TH/SS is, they sorta perform a role. The basic range Terminator and LC Terminators aren't exactly finding a home. 

[Karhedron]

5 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

The basic range Terminator and LC Terminators aren't exactly finding a home. 

 

Hence the discussion here on how these two flavours of Terminators could be improved. You may be right that 8 LC attacks may give more damage output than THs against most targets but you also need to factor in the +1W from the SS. It is the overall package that needs to be balanced, not just the damage output.

 

The other option is to provide a bonus to LCs other than a straight offensive buff. In 2nd edition, LCs could parry meaning that they provided Terminators with better defence in melee. Perhaps this could be represented by them providing -1 to Hit against incoming melee attacks. 

[DemonGSides]

8 attacks does feel kind of insane, leading to a 5 man swinging 40 attacks which feels egregious before even considering a leader.

 

I think the sustained 2 would be enough to juice up their current attacks without being ridiculous. Maybe give them a way to grab Lethals on the charge or something to give them a little more impact. 

[HeadlessCross]

10 hours ago, Karhedron said:

Perhaps this could be represented by them providing -1 to Hit against incoming melee attacks. 

I find that funny due to the fact a Shield should theoretically do the same. 

I think just adding Sustained 1 would juice them up just enough to make the tradeoff of durability worth it. 

 

My fix for the range ones is the same I'd give all Terminator variants, which is a straight BS/WS2+ and work out hit values of less accurate weapons after. 

[Tacitus]

On 10/29/2025 at 6:08 AM, DemonGSides said:

8 attacks does feel kind of insane, leading to a 5 man swinging 40 attacks which feels egregious before even considering a leader.

 

I think the sustained 2 would be enough to juice up their current attacks without being ridiculous. Maybe give them a way to grab Lethals on the charge or something to give them a little more impact. 

8 attacks are ALL their attacks.  Shootinators are going to put out 4 Storm Bolter attacks, and then 3 more Power/Chain fist attacks or 4 Power Weapon attacks.  

 

Shootinators get 4 attacks "all the time" and 7-8 attacks when the succeed the charge.

Clawinators get 0 attacks "all the time" and 8 attacks when they succeed the charge.

 

8 attacks doesn't feel all that egregious anymore does it?

[Orange Knight]

On 10/29/2025 at 1:08 PM, DemonGSides said:

8 attacks does feel kind of insane, leading to a 5 man swinging 40 attacks which feels egregious before even considering a leader.

 

The new Ultramarine unit can put out 42 damage 2 attacks with no character support. That's 7 attacks each 

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Tacitus said:

8 attacks are ALL their attacks.  Shootinators are going to put out 4 Storm Bolter attacks, and then 3 more Power/Chain fist attacks or 4 Power Weapon attacks.  

 

Shootinators get 4 attacks "all the time" and 7-8 attacks when the succeed the charge.

Clawinators get 0 attacks "all the time" and 8 attacks when they succeed the charge.

 

8 attacks doesn't feel all that egregious anymore does it?

No, it still does, seeing as those "4 attacks all the time" are not even close to eauivalent of either squad's melee attacks. Not even the Chaos Terminator Lord gets that many attacks going Lightning Claws. 

 

When you make these suggestions, you have to think about how the rest of the game would need to adjust. Do Lightning Claw Terminators NEED that many more attacks versus, say, Warp Talons? The dual claw dudes in Chaos Terminators and Chosen? The Blackshield in a Deathwatch Vet squad? Both Raven Guard characters? 

[HeadlessCross]

39 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

The new Ultramarine unit can put out 42 damage 2 attacks with no character support. That's 7 attacks each 

And I don't think anyone will argue that's healthy. However this is slightly inaccurate too. They have normally 5 attacks, besides the Champ, and then get an extra attack once per battle. The Champ and Banner guy are also unique so you can't do that with every Victrix squad. 

[CastellanDeMolay]

25 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

No, it still does, seeing as those "4 attacks all the time" are not even close to eauivalent of either squad's melee attacks. Not even the Chaos Terminator Lord gets that many attacks going Lightning Claws. 

 

When you make these suggestions, you have to think about how the rest of the game would need to adjust. Do Lightning Claw Terminators NEED that many more attacks versus, say, Warp Talons? The dual claw dudes in Chaos Terminators and Chosen? The Blackshield in a Deathwatch Vet squad? Both Raven Guard characters? 

I think You're downplaying the intrinsic values of shooting that melee weapons don't get, such as how much more forgiving ranged weapons are when positioning units, or how much easier it is to put those attacks into a suitable target, or even just the ability to never leave potential damage on the table because you failed a charge, or got screened out or left out of position due to a reactive move, etc. Those 4 Attacks all the time aren't up to much, but I think that the "all the time" part is actually very valuable, especially at lower levels of play among unskilled players, and in smaller games like Combat Patrol. (Hypothetically, if anyone actually played CP)

I don't think we do need to compare the LC Termies Vs all those other units, they are after all, different units with a different points cost. The main reason we're comparing against THSS is because they compete for parts from the same kit, and lacking granular Wargear costs means the LCs should ideally be as attractive a prospect as the THSS option. Whether those other units should have their number of attacks buffed or be given additional special rules or a buffed LC profile would be more an issue of player's feelings about how different the units were, which is beyond the scope of the internal balance of the Assault Terminators Datasheet. I'll readily accept that it should be a consideration in real-world published rules, but since we're operating at a purely conceptual level here I think that makes it ok to examine one unit in a vacuum. 

[Tacitus]

3 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

No, it still does, seeing as those "4 attacks all the time" are not even close to eauivalent of either squad's melee attacks. Not even the Chaos Terminator Lord gets that many attacks going Lightning Claws. 

 

When you make these suggestions, you have to think about how the rest of the game would need to adjust. Do Lightning Claw Terminators NEED that many more attacks versus, say, Warp Talons? The dual claw dudes in Chaos Terminators and Chosen? The Blackshield in a Deathwatch Vet squad? Both Raven Guard characters? 

So 8 attacks are insane.  Until they're not.  And we're not taking everything into account because the Chaos Lord only gets 7 attacks.  Which are still Twin Linked which you failed to take into account.  Or the fact that Lightning Claws just plain suck which is why they have to be fixed in the first place.

 

Its pretty simple.  Lightning Claw Terminators ONLY get to attack during the fight phase.  Attacks you can't make don't matter when it comes to quality.  4 Reliable Chaff-ish Attacks with 3 50% super attacks seems pretty balanced against 8 50% Good But Not Super attacks.  Melee-Only units especially slower melee only units (Not just lightning Claw terminators) have built in lost turns.  Anybody think they can reliably get stuck in on turn 1?  Anybody at all?   How many attacks do they make when they're not engaged, and can't get engaged this turn?

[CastellanDeMolay]

Looking back at past editions, one of the benefits of using LCs over THSS was the initiative system, THs [and PFs] always struck last, meaning there was [theoretically/situationally] less chance of taking casualties before you could make your attacks against the enemy unit when using LCs than with THSS. Would we feel any better about the current LC profile if LCs gained Fights First, or if THSS gained Fights Last? 

[Moonstalker]

1 hour ago, CastellanDeMolay said:

Looking back at past editions, one of the benefits of using LCs over THSS was the initiative system, THs [and PFs] always struck last, meaning there was [theoretically/situationally] less chance of taking casualties before you could make your attacks against the enemy unit when using LCs than with THSS. Would we feel any better about the current LC profile if LCs gained Fights First, or if THSS gained Fights Last? 

 

I had a similar thought, but that doesn't play well with the current combat system - you select the unit to fight, not models.  IMO the best way to represent this in the current ruleset is Lighting Claws grant fight on death.  Their attacks may need to be buffed, but instead of trying to pile all the value into straight attacks give them something special in their wargear.  Shields give +1 W, your second lightning claw gives fight on death.

[Lathe Biosas]

Wouldn't it be easier to lean into their defenses a little more?

 

Give them Custodes levels of survivability?

 

This way they can excel not as damage dealers, but as objective controllers.

[Moonstalker]

2 hours ago, Lathe Biosas said:

Wouldn't it be easier to lean into their defenses a little more?

 

Give them Custodes levels of survivability?

 

This way they can excel not as damage dealers, but as objective controllers.

 

Overall, not a bad plan if you mean making terminators in general more viable.  Deathwing Knights and Wolfguard Terminators get a leg up on regular terminators for having extra durability, makes them worth bringing competitively.  Making them Custodes-level is a bit much.  However, in the specific case of making Lightning Claw terminators viable, buffing their defense is a bit questionable.  You've already got the durable option, TH/SS, in the squad right next to them.

 

I disagree about trying to redefine assault terminators specifically as objective controllers.  Tactical terminators, maybe, but if assault terminators aren't getting into melee and breaking something then they were a waste of points.  You could've brought like 15 intercessors for nearly the same points, stickied three objectives, and had a bunch of shooting output out of them at the same time.  Tactical terminators can afford a round or two of dilly-dallying, but if you bring terminators they really should be taking objectives away from the enemy, not sitting back and controlling your own.  They're not passive backfield units.  Sitting around and getting shot while standing on an objective is what Heavy Intercessors are for, if anything.

[CastellanDeMolay]

7 hours ago, Moonstalker said:

 

I had a similar thought, but that doesn't play well with the current combat system - you select the unit to fight, not models.  IMO the best way to represent this in the current ruleset is Lighting Claws grant fight on death.  Their attacks may need to be buffed, but instead of trying to pile all the value into straight attacks give them something special in their wargear.  Shields give +1 W, your second lightning claw gives fight on death.

The problem I see with this is that you only see the benefit of this rule if your models are removed as casualties, and the main appeal of Terminators over say Aggressors is their defensive profile. I tend to agree with your other comment about THSS being the more defensive option, I don't think LCs need a defensive buff, However I think it's worth keeping in mind that Terminators themselves are the more defensive option in the context of the wider army, I don't think their usefulness should be designed around getting killed. 

I hadn't considered mixed squads when I was thinking about the order in which assaults are fought, I had assumed uniform armaments across the whole squad. 

Incidentally, I had a look for a profile for a single Lightning Claw, and It's looking like they're currently being treated as regular PWs in the rules, and only acknowledged as a distinct category when wielded in a pair, which I thought was interesting. 

 

[Moonstalker]

7 minutes ago, CastellanDeMolay said:

The problem I see with this is that you only see the benefit of this rule if your models are removed as casualties, and the main appeal of Terminators over say Aggressors is their defensive profile. I tend to agree with your other comment about THSS being the more defensive option, I don't think LCs need a defensive buff, However I think it's worth keeping in mind that Terminators themselves are the more defensive option in the context of the wider army, I don't think their usefulness should be designed around getting killed. 

I hadn't considered mixed squads when I was thinking about the order in which assaults are fought, I had assumed uniform armaments across the whole squad. 

Incidentally, I had a look for a profile for a single Lightning Claw, and It's looking like they're currently being treated as regular PWs in the rules, and only acknowledged as a distinct category when wielded in a pair, which I thought was interesting. 

 

 

It's not that their usefulness is designed around being killed, but that they become more problematic to kill in melee and start giving your opponent more bad options and fewer good options.  IMO the ideal design goal isn't that you always take a maxed squad of 5 TH/SS or 5 TLC, but that they both feel like they have their place in the squad.  If you've got a little of both, then your opponent starts getting bad options like, "I can shoot this unit, but the TH/SS terminators all have 4 HP and my best anti-terminator weapons are 3 damage, so if he starts putting the wounds on the TH/SS I will need twice the shots to actually wipe them," or "I can charge and try to beat them in melee, but they're tanky enough that I might not kill them all, and if he starts pulling TLC models first, they fight on death, so he still hits me in the end."  On top of that the TLC guys bring enough attacks to do a little horde clear and keep the unit from being tarpitted too badly.

 

Basically, the special rules don't only come into effect when they die, but when it makes it harder for the opponent to figure out how to deal with the squad.  They might be tanky, but this is 10th edition and there's a lot of lethal stuff walking around.  I don't want my opponent thinking in terms of, "I'll just charge first and wipe the squad, easy."  I want them thinking, "Damn, there's no way I'm going to kill this squad without getting punched in the face for it."

[Tacitus]

On 11/1/2025 at 5:49 AM, CastellanDeMolay said:

Looking back at past editions, one of the benefits of using LCs over THSS was the initiative system, THs [and PFs] always struck last, meaning there was [theoretically/situationally] less chance of taking casualties before you could make your attacks against the enemy unit when using LCs than with THSS. Would we feel any better about the current LC profile if LCs gained Fights First, or if THSS gained Fights Last? 

Those were the mid editions.  In the early editions they were even more of a ginsu than power swords.  THSS already gets a version of -1 to hit.  I'd pick one or the other but not both.  In the grand scheme of things I'd even give THSS some sort of boost instead of a drawback and give 2LC an even bigger boost.  Again you're looking at 4 sures +3 maybe -ish vs 5 or 3 all maybe.  Assault Terminators are almost assuredly going to get fewer opportunities to attack than shootinators.  Their attacks should be quantified with that in mind.  

[Tacitus]

23 hours ago, CastellanDeMolay said:

The problem I see with this is that you only see the benefit of this rule if your models are removed as casualties, and the main appeal of Terminators over say Aggressors is their defensive profile. I tend to agree with your other comment about THSS being the more defensive option, I don't think LCs need a defensive buff, However I think it's worth keeping in mind that Terminators themselves are the more defensive option in the context of the wider army, I don't think their usefulness should be designed around getting killed. 

I hadn't considered mixed squads when I was thinking about the order in which assaults are fought, I had assumed uniform armaments across the whole squad. 

Incidentally, I had a look for a profile for a single Lightning Claw, and It's looking like they're currently being treated as regular PWs in the rules, and only acknowledged as a distinct category when wielded in a pair, which I thought was interesting. 

 

To put it in video game terms the single Lightning Claw is just a fancy skin on a power sword.  Its when you get the pair and it generally costs you your shooting that we need to start boosting them. 

 

If we were going to give Lightning Claws a defensive boost, I'd give them a "parry" rule similar to 2nd Ed.  Either -1 to hit in melee, or reroll 1 melee hit per LC etc some version of making them harder to hit in melee.

 

Finally we have an assumption here that Terminators are more "defensive" than Aggressors(or more technically correct: Gravis).  I'm not sure that's true.  T6 is a much bigger +1 than T5 - Not sure what the 4++ does in there too - as there aren't many -3 or better AP weapons and 2+ -2 for power weapons etc is still 4+.  S5 weapons are fairly easy to obtain:  Powerswords, (ironically) Lightning Claws, Heavy Bolt Rifles, Heavy Bolters, Bolt Sniper Rifles, most Smites, Assault Bolters, Absolver Bolt Pistols, Heavy Flamers, Super Frag, Pyreblasters, and on and on.  S6 is much harder to find.  S10 is more common than S12.  The plateau jump from S4 to S5 is much "easier" than the jump from S5/10 to S6/12.