How to Improve Terminators! Suggestion and Ideas welcome!

[Tacitus]

A lot of the Melee Can Openers need a STR boost  Anti-Vehicle 3+ on Chain Fists made for a nice bandaid, but still doesn't work vs Monsters. 

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, Tacitus said:

A lot of the Melee Can Openers need a STR boost  Anti-Vehicle 3+ on Chain Fists made for a nice bandaid, but still doesn't work vs Monsters. 

 

I think that this is deliberate. Melee was a bit too effective vs tanks in 9th edition. To take down vehicles now you need either dedicated anti-tank firepower or seriously massed heavy melee units. Personally I am happy with that as vehicles were almost never taken in 9th. We have better balance in 10th meaning vehicles are actually viable (without being overpowered).

[DemonGSides]

Yeah there was a mid-edition bit of "Okay the amount of vehicles are getting a little crazy" but I think we've evened out pretty well now where Tanks and Infantry are both viable without being an obvious "If you bring a vehicle you're just throwing it away" that it was in 9th.

[Tacitus]

5 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

I think that this is deliberate. Melee was a bit too effective vs tanks in 9th edition. To take down vehicles now you need either dedicated anti-tank firepower or seriously massed heavy melee units. Personally I am happy with that as vehicles were almost never taken in 9th. We have better balance in 10th meaning vehicles are actually viable (without being overpowered).

Thematically vehicles being vulnerable to infantry is somewhat on point.  And I'd prefer it if melee vs armor was better than shooting vs armor because of the tradeoffs.  Thunderhammers have no range.  The vehicle will (in theory) get to defend itself against a Thunderhammer.  Not so much vs all the lascannon that outrange it, AND are in cover, AND get to shoot first. 

[Karhedron]

A lascannon normally gets one shot per turn. The payoff for getting a Thunder Hammer into melee range is that it can make 3-4 attacks (more if wielded by a Character). I am inclined to believe that the current balance for melee vs vehicles is about right as Vehicles are viable in the current meta without being overpowered. In 9th the only vehicles seen were Knights with their invulnerable saves. 

[Tacitus]

3 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

A lascannon normally gets one shot per turn. The payoff for getting a Thunder Hammer into melee range is that it can make 3-4 attacks (more if wielded by a Character). I am inclined to believe that the current balance for melee vs vehicles is about right as Vehicles are viable in the current meta without being overpowered. In 9th the only vehicles seen were Knights with their invulnerable saves. 

But you still have to get that Thunderhammer into melee range.  That's the whole reason its supposed to have a pay off.    Thunder Hammers should have a similar Strength/Damage to Lascannons.  Probably Chain Fists too.  and good vs Monsters and Machines.  Power Fists should be a step below Maybe S10 with more-ish A maybe.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Improve the ranged output of the terminators, they step on the toes of aggressors, and vice versa if you increase the durability of aggressors you step on the toes of terminators.

 

personally sure allow the cyclone ML and the assault cannon/hvy flamer, but leave the weapons themselves the same.

 

 

giving the squad an extra upgrade weapon, then buffing that weapon, and then buffing the storm bolters seems absolutely bonkers.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 11/7/2025 at 3:35 AM, Karhedron said:

 

I think that this is deliberate. Melee was a bit too effective vs tanks in 9th edition. To take down vehicles now you need either dedicated anti-tank firepower or seriously massed heavy melee units. Personally I am happy with that as vehicles were almost never taken in 9th. We have better balance in 10th meaning vehicles are actually viable (without being overpowered).

I think people overlook the weight of attacks mid S melee weapons get in marine units compared to ranged AT.

 

5 terminators with PFs get 15 attacks…sure they’re wounding on 5s but there’s a lot of them compared to the AT on a thunder or hammerstrike, or a repulsor, or lancer, where you’re generally getting very few high S attacks.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 11/7/2025 at 4:28 PM, Tacitus said:

But you still have to get that Thunderhammer into melee range.  That's the whole reason its supposed to have a pay off.    Thunder Hammers should have a similar Strength/Damage to Lascannons.  Probably Chain Fists too.  and good vs Monsters and Machines.  Power Fists should be a step below Maybe S10 with more-ish A maybe.

The pay off is a massive amount of attacks…

let’s compare TH termies to a thunderstrike speeder.

 

The speeder gets 1 S12 attack, 2 S9 attacks, and D3 S8 attacks. S8 attacks are also very short ranged. A total of 6 attacks at most.

 

You’re getting likely 9+ TH attacks once you get into melee range. In this case you’ve got T5 4W models with a 4++, that can deep strike. You’re having problems getting them into melee range that’s either a you problem or they’re drawing so much fire that it leaves the rest of your army pretty much unmolested for a turn or two.

 

getting models into melee is not hard for marines and chaos marines…

[Tacitus]

How often do you get your Assault Terminators into Melee after a deepstrike on Turn 1?  I mean - sure its a lot easier to get Hammernators into melee if you don't follow the rules, but I think most of us understand Hammernators cannot normally Deep Strike on Turn 1, and on the turn they DO get to Deepstrike in, a successful charge is ridiculously unlikely.   That's ~40% of their opportunity already gone.  IF they get to Deepstrike on Turn 2.   We also understand 3 of those Speeder Attacks are D6+1 damage not D2.

 

I also notice you mention how "short" the range on those 24" shooting attacks are.  Exactly what range do you think Thunderhammers have?  I have the feeling ignoring or misplaying at least one of these rules may be why you think 5" Moving Terminators are easy to get into melee - especially as often as a 14" moving Speeder can shoot with 24" guns. 

[Karhedron]

I rarely use Deep Strike for dedicated melee unit. I usually use Transports or Jump Packs. I tend to use Deep Strike for short-ranged Shooty units or for snagging Objectives. 

[Tacitus]

24 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

I rarely use Deep Strike for dedicated melee unit. I usually use Transports or Jump Packs. I tend to use Deep Strike for short-ranged Shooty units or for snagging Objectives. 

You do get the point I was making though, right?  3+ turns get the basically same number of the much shorter ranged and no S12 or more than D2 attacks the Speeder would get in those 3 turns?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Tacitus said:

How often do you get your Assault Terminators into Melee after a deepstrike on Turn 1?  I mean - sure its a lot easier to get Hammernators into melee if you don't follow the rules, but I think most of us understand Hammernators cannot normally Deep Strike on Turn 1, and on the turn they DO get to Deepstrike in, a successful charge is ridiculously unlikely.   That's ~40% of their opportunity already gone.  IF they get to Deepstrike on Turn 2.   We also understand 3 of those Speeder Attacks are D6+1 damage not D2.

 

I also notice you mention how "short" the range on those 24" shooting attacks are.  Exactly what range do you think Thunderhammers have?  I have the feeling ignoring or misplaying at least one of these rules may be why you think 5" Moving Terminators are easy to get into melee - especially as often as a 14" moving Speeder can shoot with 24" guns. 

Who said anything about T1?

 

1 hour ago, Tacitus said:

How often do you get your Assault Terminators into Melee after a deepstrike on Turn 1?  I mean - sure its a lot easier to get Hammernators into melee if you don't follow the rules, but I think most of us understand Hammernators cannot normally Deep Strike on Turn 1, and on the turn they DO get to Deepstrike in, a successful charge is ridiculously unlikely.   That's ~40% of their opportunity already gone.  IF they get to Deepstrike on Turn 2.   We also understand 3 of those Speeder Attacks are D6+1 damage not D2.

 

I also notice you mention how "short" the range on those 24" shooting attacks are.  Exactly what range do you think Thunderhammers have?  I have the feeling ignoring or misplaying at least one of these rules may be why you think 5" Moving Terminators are easy to get into melee - especially as often as a 14" moving Speeder can shoot with 24" guns. 

I have no problem getting my aggressors into melee, they don’t have 4++ and get one less wound.

 

the tables are small. Use the terrain you have available. It’s really not that hard.

[jaxom]

 

 

 

On 10/28/2025 at 10:36 PM, HeadlessCross said:

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. 

 

Improvement is not what Assault Terminators need. They need a better holistic design for the dataslate.  

 

On 10/29/2025 at 9:08 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. 

 

I need to do the math on this.

 

On 10/31/2025 at 8:55 PM, CastellanDeMolay said:

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. 

 

Agreed.

 

On 11/1/2025 at 8:49 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? 

On 11/1/2025 at 10:37 AM, 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.

 

I had a thought about this and it makes me want to rework the math I've been working on. While one activates a unit all at once, each model technically makes its attacks separately. Instead of fast rolling, one could alternate between Thunder Hammers and Lightning Claws to try deal with odd numbers of wounds, like 3W. For example, three TH attacks generate one unsaved wound, dealing 2 damage; follow that with 1D Lightning Claw to take off the odd wound and try to get another model to 2W so the next TH can clean it up. Mind you, it wouldn't always be useful.

 

 

On 11/1/2025 at 1:20 PM, 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.

 

I think that would reduce the distinctiveness of Custodes and Death Guard. My problem is not Terminators excelling as damage dealers; it is Terminators not meeting benchmarks for their power fantasy.

 

On 11/1/2025 at 3:58 PM, Moonstalker said:

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.

 

Yeah, I think of Terminators as troubleshooters. It isn't so much that they should be objective controllers as they should be objective takers or from another perspective, an execution force. Tip of the spear, and all that. 15 Intercessors are sticky-ing 3 uncontested (or lightly) contested objectives, while the Terminators should be dealing with or taking an objective from the enemy assets which would wipe out those Intercessors .

 

On 11/1/2025 at 6:21 PM, CastellanDeMolay said:

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. 

 

Yeah, I'm not sure how often mixed squads come up. I usually see Assault Terminators with Thunder Hammers because Devastating Wounds.

 

On 11/1/2025 at 6:47 PM, Moonstalker said:

 

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."

 

Mechanically, I agree. It would introduce a very interesting twist; on the other hand... I think such a thing would give the wrong impression of what Terminators are about. Power fantasy is part of gameplay satisfaction.

 

On 11/2/2025 at 5:35 PM, Tacitus said:

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. 

 

Personally, I want Lightning Claw to be distinct from Power Sword. However, everything I can think of would require a pretty big paradigm shift. Like, Str2 Anti-Infantry 3+ as the simplest change. I've abandoned that line of inquiry.

 

On 11/2/2025 at 5:35 PM, Tacitus said:

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.

Starting to get tired so I hope this makes sense. It's not about individual breakpoints, but the difference and that is compensated for by the save difference. There aren't a lot of weapons where the Str break point and AP diverge too much. For example, the heavy bolt rifle. It needs a 4+ to wound Termies, but they save on 3+; vs 5+ Gravis and 4+ save. Then there's all the weapons where there is no difference in the wound roll and the save is all the difference.

 

(Wound Chance)_T*(Failed Save Chance)_T = (Wound Chance)_G*(Failed Save Chance)_G

 

Heavy Bolt Rifle

(3/6)*(2/6)=(2/6)*(3/6)

6/36 = 6/36

 

No difference in results. Then there's other weapons

 

Power Fist

(4/6)*(3/6)=/=(4/6)*(4/6)

12/36 =/= 16/36

 

Bolt Rifle

(2/6)*(2/6)=/=(2/6)*(3/6)

4/36 =/= 6/36

 

Power Sword

(3/6)*(3/6)=/=(2/6)*(4/6)

9/36 =/= 8/36

 

Plasma - normal

(4/6)*(3/6)=(4/6)*(4/6)

12/36 = 12/36

 

Plasma - overcharge

(5/6)*(3/6)=(4/6)*(5/6)

15/36 = 20/36

 

Lascannon

(5/6)*(3/6)=/=(4/6)*(5/6)

15/36 =/= 20/36

 

Melta

(5/6)*(3/6)=/=(4/6)*(6/6)

15/36 =/= 24/36

 

Bolt Sniper Rifle

(3/6)*(3/6)=(2/6)*(4/6)

9/36 = 8/36

 

Obviously not a full list, but it is telling (to me) that the only case where Gravis is better is Str5 AP2 and it's by 1/36.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

45 minutes ago, jaxom said:

 

 

 

 

Improvement is not what Assault Terminators need. They need a better holistic design for the dataslate.  

 

 

I need to do the math on this.

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

I had a thought about this and it makes me want to rework the math I've been working on. While one activates a unit all at once, each model technically makes its attacks separately. Instead of fast rolling, one could alternate between Thunder Hammers and Lightning Claws to try deal with odd numbers of wounds, like 3W. For example, three TH attacks generate one unsaved wound, dealing 2 damage; follow that with 1D Lightning Claw to take off the odd wound and try to get another model to 2W so the next TH can clean it up. Mind you, it wouldn't always be useful.

 

 

 

I think that would reduce the distinctiveness of Custodes and Death Guard. My problem is not Terminators excelling as damage dealers; it is Terminators not meeting benchmarks for their power fantasy.

 

 

Yeah, I think of Terminators as troubleshooters. It isn't so much that they should be objective controllers as they should be objective takers or from another perspective, an execution force. Tip of the spear, and all that. 15 Intercessors are sticky-ing 3 uncontested (or lightly) contested objectives, while the Terminators should be dealing with or taking an objective from the enemy assets which would wipe out those Intercessors .

 

 

Yeah, I'm not sure how often mixed squads come up. I usually see Assault Terminators with Thunder Hammers because Devastating Wounds.

 

 

Mechanically, I agree. It would introduce a very interesting twist; on the other hand... I think such a thing would give the wrong impression of what Terminators are about. Power fantasy is part of gameplay satisfaction.

 

 

Personally, I want Lightning Claw to be distinct from Power Sword. However, everything I can think of would require a pretty big paradigm shift. Like, Str2 Anti-Infantry 3+ as the simplest change. I've abandoned that line of inquiry.

 

Starting to get tired so I hope this makes sense. It's not about individual breakpoints, but the difference and that is compensated for by the save difference. There aren't a lot of weapons where the Str break point and AP diverge too much. For example, the heavy bolt rifle. It needs a 4+ to wound Termies, but they save on 3+; vs 5+ Gravis and 4+ save. Then there's all the weapons where there is no difference in the wound roll and the save is all the difference.

 

(Wound Chance)_T*(Failed Save Chance)_T = (Wound Chance)_G*(Failed Save Chance)_G

 

Heavy Bolt Rifle

(3/6)*(2/6)=(2/6)*(3/6)

6/36 = 6/36

 

No difference in results. Then there's other weapons

 

Power Fist

(4/6)*(3/6)=/=(4/6)*(4/6)

12/36 =/= 16/36

 

Bolt Rifle

(2/6)*(2/6)=/=(2/6)*(3/6)

4/36 =/= 6/36

 

Power Sword

(3/6)*(3/6)=/=(2/6)*(4/6)

9/36 =/= 8/36

 

Plasma - normal

(4/6)*(3/6)=(4/6)*(4/6)

12/36 = 12/36

 

Plasma - overcharge

(5/6)*(3/6)=(4/6)*(5/6)

15/36 = 20/36

 

Lascannon

(5/6)*(3/6)=/=(4/6)*(5/6)

15/36 =/= 20/36

 

Melta

(5/6)*(3/6)=/=(4/6)*(6/6)

15/36 =/= 24/36

 

Bolt Sniper Rifle

(3/6)*(3/6)=(2/6)*(4/6)

9/36 = 8/36

 

Obviously not a full list, but it is telling (to me) that the only case where Gravis is better is Str5 AP2 and it's by 1/36.

Just curious, but what in this game lives up to the power fantasy of its lore?

 

marines should be what custodes are at least, to come close to living up the marine power fantasy.

[Tacitus]

12 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Who said anything about T1?

 

I have no problem getting my aggressors into melee, they don’t have 4++ and get one less wound.

 

the tables are small. Use the terrain you have available. It’s really not that hard.

Apparently it is that hard.  Who said anything about T1?  Its literally the point being made.  The Speeder that YOU chose to compare them to can shoot on Turn 1.  And Turn 2.  And Turn 3.  The Terminators are almost assuredly NOT getting into fights Turn 1. Especially if they Deepstrike, which was also YOUR idea.  At best they're getting into a fight on Turn 3.  So by Turn 3, your Speeder has had 3 S12 attacks, 6 S9 attacks, and 3D3 S8 attacks  or about 15 attacks all better or equal to S8 D2.  By turn 3, if you're lucky your Hammernators have had 15 S8 D2 attacks.  They are not getting more attacks, they are not getting better attacks.  They get more attacks per turn, but quite obviously have more turns where absolutely no attacks happen.   It averages out to the same attacks by turn 3 of a 5 turn game.  There is no table small enough to allow the Terminators you want to Deep Strike to show up and charge before turn 3.

[Tacitus]

9 hours ago, jaxom said:

Starting to get tired so I hope this makes sense. It's not about individual breakpoints, but the difference and that is compensated for by the save difference.

Oh I'd disagree.  Its the breakpoint.  And its the availability.  Your list was pretty marine centric and tailored   S3 0 D1 (which is a "win" for Gravis") is a common stat line - lasguns, grot blasters, most "Close Combat Weapons" Singing Spears (melee) and Witchblades as most armies are default S3 - Autopistols, Hand Flamers, Spinefists, and so on plus all the S5 0 D1 stuff that'll wash (or S4 0 D1 that will almost wash)  Scatter Lasaers, Fleshborers, Tesla Carbines, Ironstorm Missile Pods,   The Thunderstrike Guantlet sweeps (Plus the Reaper Launcher Starshot - Starswarm is a different but similar end result at S5 -2) at S10 -2 so 2's and 4s vs 3's amd 5s. Just about everything on a blue horror, Improvised weapons on the Poxwalkers... Like you, not a definitive list, but I checked most of the BATTLELINE of most factions.  And then you get into the S6 -0s stuff like Assault Cannons, Multilasers, and so on.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 hours ago, Tacitus said:

Apparently it is that hard.  Who said anything about T1?  Its literally the point being made.  The Speeder that YOU chose to compare them to can shoot on Turn 1.  And Turn 2.  And Turn 3.  The Terminators are almost assuredly NOT getting into fights Turn 1. Especially if they Deepstrike, which was also YOUR idea.  At best they're getting into a fight on Turn 3.  So by Turn 3, your Speeder has had 3 S12 attacks, 6 S9 attacks, and 3D3 S8 attacks  or about 15 attacks all better or equal to S8 D2.  By turn 3, if you're lucky your Hammernators have had 15 S8 D2 attacks.  They are not getting more attacks, they are not getting better attacks.  They get more attacks per turn, but quite obviously have more turns where absolutely no attacks happen.   It averages out to the same attacks by turn 3 of a 5 turn game.  There is no table small enough to allow the Terminators you want to Deep Strike to show up and charge before turn 3.

Maybe it can.

 

my 72” range vanquisher cannon was unable to shoot anything on T1 my last game.

 

you act like terrain doesnt exist.

 

the rockets likely aren’t ever shooting on T1 especially if you’re going first, but nice try.

 

5 terminators also have an extra 9 wounds over the speeder, and again a 2+/4++…

Edited 6 hours ago by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[HeadlessCross]

15 hours ago, jaxom said:

Improvement is not what Assault Terminators need. They need a better holistic design for the dataslate.  

They 100% need a new datasheet rule, it's agree on that front. 

[Tacitus]

5 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Maybe it can.

 

my 72” range vanquisher cannon was unable to shoot anything on T1 my last game.

 

you act like terrain doesnt exist.

 

the rockets likely aren’t ever shooting on T1 especially if you’re going first, but nice try.

 

5 terminators also have an extra 9 wounds over the speeder, and again a 2+/4++…

They (The Speeders) also cost less and have a much higher toughness.  Why are you moving the goalposts?  Your claim was that they get so many more attacks.  But they don't as we just worked out.  Your scenario failed.  Melee weapons have an opportunity cost and Hammernators (and Clawnators) do not overcome that cost. 

[Tacitus]

4 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

They 100% need a new datasheet rule, it's agree on that front. 

Both.  Though I suspect if we drill down further its melee in general that needs the improvement, and not specifically Assault Terminators.  GW has a habit of underpowering melee in 40K and then having to bandaid things.  Remember when they had to add an attack to chainswords?  And then had to do it again for non-marines?