How to Improve Terminators! Suggestion and Ideas welcome!

[Lathe Biosas]

I'm not much of a space marine player, so bear with me...

 

How do Assault Terminators stack up with Deathwing Terminators/Knights/etc.?

 

 

[Karhedron]

Deathwing Terminators are not particularly special IMHO.

 

Deathwing Knights on the other hand are on a completely different tier to regular Terminators. Firstly they get the -1 Damage rule which is incredibly good when stacked on a model with 4 Wounds and a 2+/4++ save. Secondly their Maces have Anti-vehicle 4+ and Anti-Monster 4+ meaning they can pose a reliable threat to even T9+ targets which regular Terminators struggle with.

 

But DWKs are a lot more expensive and have no shooting. Compared to Hammernators they fill a similar role as an anvil unit but are a lot better at it thanks to the -1D rule. They are also better placed to kill the things that can normally threaten Terminators in melee. However even DWKs are not exactly a powerhouse unit and yu rarely see more than 1-2 squads in competitive lists.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

43 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

Deathwing Terminators are not particularly special IMHO.

 

Deathwing Knights on the other hand are on a completely different tier to regular Terminators. Firstly they get the -1 Damage rule which is incredibly good when stacked on a model with 4 Wounds and a 2+/4++ save. Secondly their Maces have Anti-vehicle 4+ and Anti-Monster 4+ meaning they can pose a reliable threat to even T9+ targets which regular Terminators struggle with.

 

But DWKs are a lot more expensive and have no shooting. Compared to Hammernators they fill a similar role as an anvil unit but are a lot better at it thanks to the -1D rule. They are also better placed to kill the things that can normally threaten Terminators in melee. However even DWKs are not exactly a powerhouse unit and yu rarely see more than 1-2 squads in competitive lists.

Personally unless you’re playing a first company list, I think it should only be 1-2 squads of terminators total.

 

 

[Tacitus]

6 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Weird it takes hammernators 3 turns, when it typically only takes my aggressors two turns.

 

especially with two of our detachments providing advance and shoot capability in the detachment rules. If you go second and deploy aggressively, it should be pretty easy to to get into melee by T2

 

Played my first game in months two weeks ago. Played my guard vs WE, was basically tabled by the end of T4.

Khârn, wrecked a Russ, a chimera, and a sentinel.

 

 

Deep Strike was your plan, I just applied the rules.  Khârn is not 5" move Terminators.  You keep trying to move the goalposts.  Deep Strike lands on Turn 2 at the earliest.   A successful charge on the same turn you Deep Strike is a long shot.  That makes the charge by turn three pretty much the earliest.  That was your concept.  Even if we do let you change your premise every other turn for Terminators are only 7.5 attacks a turn.  This is not a "payoff" for zero range melee weapons.

[Tacitus]

On 11/7/2025 at 12:35 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 am absolutely positive it was deliberate.  As I mentioned GW has a habit of underpowering melee in 40K.  I'm not sure the problem with vehicles was melee vulnerability so much as awful rules for deployment, movement, and so on.  Its a fortification, but remember when someone checked all the maps for deployment areas on the tournament map packs for the new (at the time) bunker?  You could only deploy the thing on something like 4 out of six maps at all.  Its footprint is not that different from Land Raiders and Repulsors.

[Tacitus]

6 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

I disagree, I think melee was overpowered in 8th/9th editions. 10th edition is better in that both shooting and melee are viable. If anyone thinks melee is underpowered, my Space Wolves took on Tau last night. The Headtakers with Wolf Priest were definite MVPs as they carved their way through a Ghostkeel, a Crisis Team and Enforcer Commander and delivered the killing blow to a Riptide (although it had been softened up by shooting).

 

Now don't get me wrong, the Tau shooting was good but with careful use of cover and a good charge roll, a well delivered charge from the Headtakers was brutal and carved their way through the entire Tau flank.

8th edition was awful to the Fight Phase - it was the edition they had to bandaid the fight phase.  Multiple times.  They added an attack (or -1AP I'm not sure yet) to chainswords (and chainsword adjacent stuff) because melee units lost their +1A for two weapons (or weapon + pistol) and then also had to add Hateful/Shock Assault to marines to make up the loss of the +1A for Charging.  And they still didn't always fix the same problems with the non-marine armies.  If I remember right Eldar were howling like banshees because their chainswords and melta (because Fusion Guns weren't Melta or some such) and didn't get the boost for example.

[Tacitus]

5 hours ago, Lathe Biosas said:

I'm not much of a space marine player, so bear with me...

 

How do Assault Terminators stack up with Deathwing Terminators/Knights/etc.?

 

 

Deathwing Terminators are somewhat of a very minor downgrade.  Normal Terminator Sergeants can swap to a Power Fist.  Deathwing Terminator Sergeants are locking into a Power sword.  Deathwing Terminators can take a Plasma Canon, but the Plasma Canon isn't very good.  The Deathwing bespoke rule isn't bad, but its pretty niche/situational.  The Watcher in the Dark as a one time 4+++ is probably the best difference.  And theoretically worth the extra points per five.  And I just saw you asked about DW Termies vs Assault Termies - Deathwing Termies can no longer swap to Close Combat loads.  Not mix and match, no 2LCs or TH/SS at all for DW Terminators.  All Melee Terminators in a Dark Angel armor will be Knights or Assault Terminators.

 

Edit to Add:  Belial is also pretty much worse than all three generic Terminator character/leaders.  His Retribution ability is difficult to use, turning their crits into precision is nice but not going to rock anybody's world.  His own Precision on his sword is a much bigger impact than that bespoke.  He's just not really more interesting than Reroll Charges, Sustained Hits, and assorted Feel No Pain 4+++'s all the time vs 1 turn on the Knights.  The Terminator Libby has some sneaky appeal with Sustained Hits, and giving a 4+++ FNP vs Psychic as that's going to be both mortals from psychic powers, and psychic keyworded attacks like force weapons, singing spears, Horrors and such.

Edited November 13 by Tacitus

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Tacitus said:

Deep Strike was your plan, I just applied the rules.  Khârn is not 5" move Terminators.  You keep trying to move the goalposts.  Deep Strike lands on Turn 2 at the earliest.   A successful charge on the same turn you Deep Strike is a long shot.  That makes the charge by turn three pretty much the earliest.  That was your concept.  Even if we do let you change your premise every other turn for Terminators are only 7.5 attacks a turn.  This is not a "payoff" for zero range melee weapons.

I gave one option, and you’re like hyper focused on that one thing. 

[Tacitus]

17 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I gave one option, and you’re like hyper focused on that one thing. 

You gave only one option, and presented it as THE SOLUTION.  It is not.  You then tried to backpedal into marching them up the field.  Which still isn't the solution.

[Tacitus]

18 hours ago, Tacitus said:

Deathwing Terminators are somewhat of a very minor downgrade.  Normal Terminator Sergeants can swap to a Power Fist.  Deathwing Terminator Sergeants are locking into a Power sword.  Deathwing Terminators can take a Plasma Canon, but the Plasma Canon isn't very good.  The Deathwing bespoke rule isn't bad, but its pretty niche/situational.  The Watcher in the Dark as a one time 4+++ is probably the best difference.  And theoretically worth the extra points per five.  And I just saw you asked about DW Termies vs Assault Termies - Deathwing Termies can no longer swap to Close Combat loads.  Not mix and match, no 2LCs or TH/SS at all for DW Terminators.  All Melee Terminators in a Dark Angel armor will be Knights or Assault Terminators.

 

Edit to Add:  Belial is also pretty much worse than all three generic Terminator character/leaders.  His Retribution ability is difficult to use, turning their crits into precision is nice but not going to rock anybody's world.  His own Precision on his sword is a much bigger impact than that bespoke.  He's just not really more interesting than Reroll Charges, Sustained Hits, and assorted Feel No Pain 4+++'s all the time vs 1 turn on the Knights.  The Terminator Libby has some sneaky appeal with Sustained Hits, and giving a 4+++ FNP vs Psychic as that's going to be both mortals from psychic powers, and psychic keyworded attacks like force weapons, singing spears, Horrors and such.

More thoughts:  Dark Angels do not get the +1 to Wound vs OOM targets.  The Terminator Chaplain gives them both +1 to Wound in melee, and a 4+++ FNP vs all mortals (Thus including things like Dev Wounds)  That gives all the S8 melee weapons:  Power Fists, Chain Fists (but Anti remains unmodified so 3+ is 3+ not 2+1), Thunder Hammers a wounding on a 4+ vs T12.  Incidentally that's another ding on the Deathwing Terminators.  If you're not taking other DA units, they still make you a DA not a generic SM army costing you the +1 to wound on OOM.

 

Librarian in Terminator Armor gives the 4+++ FNP vs PSYCHIC and SH1 to all (shoot and fight) weapons which would be great for Twin Lightning Claws if Lightning Claws were even OK.  He might be OK with Deathwing Knights - the Bashy version already has SH1 on the Sergeant weapon, but 16 Anti Anti attacks should still average just over 2 and a half extra hits.  The Slashy version gets even more boost (but gives up the bespoke benefits of Anti- Anti- and Dev Wounds etc.  They Slashy Knights get 26 attacks, meaning a little over 4 extra hits from SH1.  I'm still slightly leaning Chaplain for melee terminators and Libby for the Shooty ones.  At that point you can have 10 terminators, at least 8 Storm bolters with 32-40 (based on chosen heavy) attacks, a couple heavies with another average 4 to 28 (+ blase) attacks and 30-31 melee attacks (all of that is before the average 1 per 6 extra hits)  Its also expensive.

 

The Generic Captain is easily second place here.  Rites Of Battle is a shadow of its former self, but the insurance of Unstoppable Valor isnt something to sneeze at.  As as been mentioned there are several ways to get Advance and/or Fallback and Shoot and/or Charge - but rolling snake eyes on your charge can cost you ALL those melee attacks. SH1 and/or +1 to wound doesn't help at all on 0 attacks because you failed your charge.  But that's pretty niche and more of a nightmare while you're sleeping.

 

Belial as mentioned doesn't even do that.

[HeadlessCross]

On 11/12/2025 at 11:58 AM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Weird it takes hammernators 3 turns, when it typically only takes my aggressors two turns.

 

especially with two of our detachments providing advance and shoot capability in the detachment rules. If you go second and deploy aggressively, it should be pretty easy to to get into melee by T2

Other detachments will grant ways to get stuff stuck in faster too or help encourage it. For example, you mentioned Aggressors and they do fantastic in Firestorm/Forgefather since you can still advance them and get offensive potential because Advance + Shoot. 

 

I'm able to get something as weak as Assault Intercessors into melee by T2 at times. I'm not sure what Tacticus is doing wrong. 

7 hours ago, Tacitus said:

You gave only one option, and presented it as THE SOLUTION.  It is not.  You then tried to backpedal into marching them up the field.  Which still isn't the solution.

That solution involves Rapid Ingress. You just have to be smart about it so they won't get shot off the board. 

 

That said, there's still options. You just don't like them for some reason. 

[jaxom]

On 11/10/2025 at 10:42 PM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

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.

 

Personally, I agree regarding Marines with Custodes stats. However, I think that enters into the broader "replace d6 with d10 and really crack open the stat ranges" conversation that pops up often, and I'd like to avoid that here.  At the most, I will say I do think all flavors of Terminators should have a baked in +1 to Strength to represent the extra servo-motors and what have you that are present relative to power armor; but that's tertiary solution here because it would impact so many factions beyond Loyalist Marines. 

 

Working within the current paradigm, I always temper my expectations. I don't expect 5 Terminators to kill 50 guardsmen, but I do expect them to pull a reliable 2-to-1 kill ratio in close combat against normal Plague Marines or that 5 Terminators with Thunderhammers should rip through a Rhino in one turn. It is entirely subjective, which is why earlier in the discussion I asked if the benchmarks I used for the first set of calculations made sense. 

 

On 11/11/2025 at 6:17 PM, Tacitus said:

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?

 

I think melee is in a good place for melee armies; not too strong, not too weak. I think the problem is appropriately tuning specialist melee units in non-melee armies; and really I think that comes down to the designers not exploring design possibilities to achieve results. They were excited to announce weapon stats divorced from a single reference but have not taken advantage of it enough. Instead they come up with a blanket statline for a weapon type and maybe tweak the WS/BS and Atks.

 

On 11/11/2025 at 8:05 AM, Tacitus said:

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.

 

I was trying to think of weapons I'd aim at Gravis and Terminators, and stuck with Marine centric because they're mostly like to be understood in an Marine sub-forum. Heck if I can predict how often each weapon among all the various factions are taken. So let's take a trip down generical lane:

 

Spoiler

Caveat: I am tired, please check my math.

 

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

 

Str 1,2, and 4 weapons wound Terminators and Gravis with the same roll. Save always favors the Terminators, increasingly against AP3 and better weapons.

Str 7-9 weapons wound Terminators and Gravis with the same roll. Save always favors the Terminators, increasingly against AP3 and better weapons.

Str 12 and higher weapons wound Terminators and Gravis with the same roll. Save always favors the Terminators, increasingly against AP3 and better weapons.

 

Str 3 may have one result which isn't a wash, if you consider 2/36 to be a significant difference (I don't, but hey I'll toss into the Gravis pile and just consider 1/36 or 0 difference a wash).

Spoiler

Str 3 AP0

(2/6)_T*(1/6)_T = (1/6)_G*(2/6)_G

(2/36) = (2/36)

 

Str 3 AP1

(2/6)_T*(2/6)_T ~ (1/6)_G*(3/6)_G

(4/36) ~ (3/36)

 

Str 3 AP2

(2/6)_T*(3/6)_T ~ (1/6)_G*(4/6)_G

(6/36) =/= (4/36)

 

Str 3 AP3

(2/6)_T*(3/6)_T ~ (1/6)_G*(5/6)_G

(6/36) ~ (5/36)

 

Str 3 AP4

(2/6)_T*(3/6)_T = (1/6)_G*(6/6)_G

(6/36) = (6/36)

 

Str 5 has one significant result favoring Gravis: AP1.

Spoiler

Str 5 AP0

(3/6)_T*(1/6)_T ~ (2/6)_G*(2/6)_G

(3/36) ~ (4/36)

 

Str 5 AP1

(3/6)_T*(2/6)_T =/= (2/6)_G*(3/6)_G

(12/36) =/= (6/36)

 

Str 5 AP2

(3/6)_T*(3/6)_T ~ (2/6)_G*(4/6)_G

(9/36) ~ (8/36)

 

Str 5 AP3

(3/6)_T*(3/6)_T ~ (2/6)_G*(5/6)_G

(9/36) ~ (10/36)

 

Str 5 AP4

(3/6)_T*(3/6)_T =/= (2/6)_G*(6/6)_G

(9/36) =/= (18/36)

 

Str 6 has one significant result favoring Gravis: AP1.

Spoiler

Str 6 AP0

(4/6)_T*(1/6)_T =/= (3/6)_G*(2/6)_G

(4/36) =/= (6/36)

 

Str 6 AP1

(4/6)_T*(2/6)_T =/= (3/6)_G*(3/6)_G

(12/36) =/= (9/36)

 

Str 6 AP2

(4/6)_T*(3/6)_T = (3/6)_G*(4/6)_G

(12/36) = (12/36)

 

Str 6 AP3

(4/6)_T*(3/6)_T =/= (3/6)_G*(5/6)_G

(12/36) =/= (15/36)

 

Str 6 AP4

(4/6)_T*(3/6)_T =/= (3/6)_G*(6/6)_G

(12/36) =/= (18/36)

 

Str10/11 has no results favoring Gravis

Spoiler

Str 10/11 AP0

(5/6)_T*(1/6)_T ~ (4/6)_G*(2/6)_G

(5/36) =/= (8/36)

 

 

Str 10/11 AP1

(5/6)_T*(2/6)_T =/= (4/6)_G*(3/6)_G

(10/36) =/= (12/36)

 

Str 10/11 AP 2

 

(5/6)_T*(3/6)_{T ~} (4/6)_G*(4/6)_G

(15/36) ~ (16/36)

 

 

Str 10/11 AP 3

(5/6)_T*(3/6)_T =/= (4/6)_G*(5/6)_G

(15/36) =/= (20/36)

 

Str 10/11 AP 4

(5/6)_T*(3/6)_T =/= (4/6)_G*(6/6)_G

(15/36) =/= (24/36)

 

 

Strength 1 - 12, AP0 - 4, so 12*5 combinations = 60 total. 3/60 results favor Gravis. 57/60 results favor Terminators or are a wash.

 

Right... Terminator weapons. Table:

I think it's crazy 5 Termies with Thunderhammers can't reliably kill 5 basic Marine bodies. Similarly, I don't like the overlap area of T9 where TH and LC are both wounding on 5+. The Devastating Wounds don't make enough of a difference compared to WS3+ and 2 more attacks.

 

Low-hanging fruit: TH with WS3+ or TH with Str 12

I really like how the WS4+ Str12 numbers come out. Reliably killing 5-man Marine-ish Power Armoured Bodies, reliably killing 3 Terminator-ish Bodies, one good turn to kill an Armiger (or reliably if buffed), three turns to reliably kill a Questoris body. Yeah, this works for me.

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 11/13/2025 at 3:38 PM, Tacitus said:

You gave only one option, and presented it as THE SOLUTION.  It is not.  You then tried to backpedal into marching them up the field.  Which still isn't the solution.

I didn’t try to back pedal. I gave an option, then I gave another option.

 

21 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Other detachments will grant ways to get stuff stuck in faster too or help encourage it. For example, you mentioned Aggressors and they do fantastic in Firestorm/Forgefather since you can still advance them and get offensive potential because Advance + Shoot. 

 

I'm able to get something as weak as Assault Intercessors into melee by T2 at times. I'm not sure what Tacticus is doing wrong. 

That solution involves Rapid Ingress. You just have to be smart about it so they won't get shot off the board. 

 

That said, there's still options. You just don't like them for some reason. 

I’m sure his excuse about assault intercessors will be they get M6 lol.

 

some people just want melee to dominate the game again, and won’t be satisfied until they do.

 

 

[Tacitus]

On 11/13/2025 at 9:25 PM, HeadlessCross said:

Other detachments will grant ways to get stuff stuck in faster too or help encourage it. For example, you mentioned Aggressors and they do fantastic in Firestorm/Forgefather since you can still advance them and get offensive potential because Advance + Shoot. 

 

I'm able to get something as weak as Assault Intercessors into melee by T2 at times. I'm not sure what Tacticus is doing wrong. 

That solution involves Rapid Ingress. You just have to be smart about it so they won't get shot off the board. 

 

That said, there's still options. You just don't like them for some reason. 

I already do Calgar + Aggressors.  Advance, Fall Back, Shoot, Charge its all good. 

 

Rapid Ingress doesn't let you skip battle rounds.  Note the Restriction.

[Tacitus]

7 hours ago, jaxom said:

 

Strength 1 - 12, AP0 - 4, so 12*5 combinations = 60 total. 3/60 results favor Gravis. 57/60 results favor Terminators or are a wash.

 

The wash was a large part of my point.  If its a wash, that's not Terminators being more durable than Gravis.  Plus the ones that are close to a wash.  A whole bunch of the Basic Troop units I checked out were that wash.  Assault Cannons are a wash.  Onslaught Gatling is a wash.  I think Lastalons are a wash I think.  The wash and near wash feels like they're much more common on the stat lines until you get into the "overkill" options.  This biggest swings are likely the rare weapons with more than -2 AP  Conceptually you need -3 or better to shift the Armor Save Pips beyond their current gap.  Moving the SvT gap has bands at S3, S4, S5-S6, S7-9, S10-11 and S12.  Gravis "wins" S3, S5-6, and 10-11.  

 

Quote

Right... Terminator weapons. Table:

I think it's crazy 5 Termies with Thunderhammers can't reliably kill 5 basic Marine bodies. Similarly, I don't like the overlap area of T9 where TH and LC are both wounding on 5+. The Devastating Wounds don't make enough of a difference compared to WS3+ and 2 more attacks.

Don't forget Twin Linked.  Compared to 3+, almost double the attacks, and Twin Linked to fish for those 5's.  Its the Heavy Bolter and Grav Cannon of which one was it?  8th Ed? Where they killed tanks because they had so many shots, not because they were tank killers?

 

Quote

Low-hanging fruit: TH with WS3+ or TH with Str 12

I really like how the WS4+ Str12 numbers come out. Reliably killing 5-man Marine-ish Power Armoured Bodies, reliably killing 3 Terminator-ish Bodies, one good turn to kill an Armiger (or reliably if buffed), three turns to reliably kill a Questoris body. Yeah, this works for me.

This actually feeds into my preferred solution here.  Strike and Sweep style.  3A WS3 S8 D2  Dev or no Dev meh.  then 1 or 2A S12 D3 or D6 or something similar.  I'm just pulling numbers out for ballpark not actual use.

[jaxom]

9 hours ago, Tacitus said:

The wash was a large part of my point.  If its a wash, that's not Terminators being more durable than Gravis.  Plus the ones that are close to a wash.  A whole bunch of the Basic Troop units I checked out were that wash.  Assault Cannons are a wash.  Onslaught Gatling is a wash.  I think Lastalons are a wash I think.  The wash and near wash feels like they're much more common on the stat lines until you get into the "overkill" options.  This biggest swings are likely the rare weapons with more than -2 AP  Conceptually you need -3 or better to shift the Armor Save Pips beyond their current gap.  Moving the SvT gap has bands at S3, S4, S5-S6, S7-9, S10-11 and S12.  Gravis "wins" S3, S5-6, and 10-11.  

 

I think we may be talking past each other or I agree with you given variations in what we consider more durable? I agree that in most cases where the the Wound Roll Difference exists, there's not a significant difference. Yet, I'm not sure how you're reaching the end conclusion about Gravis winning in those Str ranges, especially throwing out the "wash" results. Doing say only leaves two results favoring favoring Gravis: Str 5 AP1 and Str 6 AP1. Spoilers to save space (there's a chart in there).
 

Spoiler

All the Strengths outside of 3, 5, 6, 10, and 11 have the same wound math, so it comes down to saves and the progression for AP is always the same so the math in save difference is always the same.

 

Str 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12....

AP0 17% save fail rate vs 33% save fail rate favoring Terminators

AP1 33% save fail rate vs 50% save fail rate favoring Terminators

AP2 50% save fail rate vs 66% save fail rate favoring Terminators

AP3 50% save fail rate vs 83% save fail rate favoring Terminators

AP4 50% save fail rate vs 100% save fail rate favoring Terminators

 

It's an interesting plot.

 

You're right about bigger swings at AP3 and AP4; though we see AP 0 is also a big swing. The lowest percent difference (33%) is at AP2, and I subjectively consider that worth noting.

 

I can't really say what all of this plays out to because I don't have an omniscient knowledge how often weapons with specific Str/AP combinations see play. The most I could do would be a frequency analysis of those combinations in weapon rules. I'm not so down the rabbit hole that I want to compile the weapon stats for all the weapons in the game, so this is where I'll stop the analysis.

Suffice to say for this thread, I don't think Terminators need a defensive boost.

 

9 hours ago, Tacitus said:

Don't forget Twin Linked.

 

Twin-link was included for the Lightning Claws because it's part of their natural profile. Weapon titles only included special rules to show they were added/different from the normal profile. It's most noticeable against T4 3+Sv 2W (Basic Marine Bodies) and T5 4+Sv 2W -1toWound (Nobz), where the TH wounds on a 2+ vs the LC on a 3+, or the TH wounds on a 4+ and the LC wounds on a 5+. In the other results, Devastating Wounds bypassing saving throws helps Thunderhammers alot.

 

9 hours ago, Tacitus said:

Compared to 3+, almost double the attacks, and Twin Linked to fish for those 5's.  Its the Heavy Bolter and Grav Cannon of which one was it?  8th Ed? Where they killed tanks because they had so many shots, not because they were tank killers?

 

Yep, and we see that with the Armiger results. Lightning Claws are currently better for bringing down an Armiger than Thunder Hammer. As far as the math showed me, T9 was the only Toughness were this happened based on current Lightning Claws. I worry a boost to Lightning Claws which is not targeted solely on how they effect infantry will expand that to additional Toughnesses.

 

9 hours ago, Tacitus said:

This actually feeds into my preferred solution here.  Strike and Sweep style.  3A WS3 S8 D2  Dev or no Dev meh.  then 1 or 2A S12 D3 or D6 or something similar.  I'm just pulling numbers out for ballpark not actual use.

 

Did the math and the Strike you suggest turns out pretty damn close to the same results as making them Str12 while keeping 3A and WS4+; they're effectively the same when you drop the attack but improve the WS. My issue with the Sweep is it leaves Lightning Claws in the dust even against infantry:

 

 

Of course, that's without any improvement to Lightning Claws too.

 

I do think you are on to something though. Something for tweaking the attack based on preferred target. Maybe not for altering the weapons themselves, but for an Assault Terminator Squad dataslate rule. Something like if a Wound roll would require a 5+ or higher, +1A; and if a Wound roll requires 4+ or less, +1D. Or the opposite? +1D if wounding on a 5+ higher, and +1A if wounding on a 4+ or less? Uh, I need to math this.

 

[Tacitus]

9 hours ago, jaxom said:

 

I think we may be talking past each other or I agree with you given variations in what we consider more durable? I agree that in most cases where the the Wound Roll Difference exists, there's not a significant difference. Yet, I'm not sure how you're reaching the end conclusion about Gravis winning in those Str ranges, especially throwing out the "wash" results. Doing say only leaves two results favoring favoring Gravis: Str 5 AP1 and Str 6 AP1. Spoilers to save space (there's a chart in there).
 

  Reveal hidden contents

All the Strengths outside of 3, 5, 6, 10, and 11 have the same wound math, so it comes down to saves and the progression for AP is always the same so the math in save difference is always the same.

 

Str 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12....

AP0 17% save fail rate vs 33% save fail rate favoring Terminators

AP1 33% save fail rate vs 50% save fail rate favoring Terminators

AP2 50% save fail rate vs 66% save fail rate favoring Terminators

AP3 50% save fail rate vs 83% save fail rate favoring Terminators

AP4 50% save fail rate vs 100% save fail rate favoring Terminators

 

It's an interesting plot.

 

 

You're right about bigger swings at AP3 and AP4; though we see AP 0 is also a big swing. The lowest percent difference (33%) is at AP2, and I subjectively consider that worth noting.

 

I can't really say what all of this plays out to because I don't have an omniscient knowledge how often weapons with specific Str/AP combinations see play. The most I could do would be a frequency analysis of those combinations in weapon rules. I'm not so down the rabbit hole that I want to compile the weapon stats for all the weapons in the game, so this is where I'll stop the analysis.

Suffice to say for this thread, I don't think Terminators need a defensive boost.

 

I think we are, but counting the "wash" as Gravis not being as durable i.e. 57 out of 60 (or whatever it was) felt off to me.  It implies Terminators are more durable in the washes.

 

Quote

Twin-link was included for the Lightning Claws because it's part of their natural profile.

Just making sure as that wasn't part of your list of factors.

 

Quote

 

Did the math and the Strike you suggest turns out pretty damn close to the same results as making them Str12 while keeping 3A and WS4+; they're effectively the same when you drop the attack but improve the WS. My issue with the Sweep is it leaves Lightning Claws in the dust even against infantry:

 

 

Of course, that's without any improvement to Lightning Claws too.

 

I do think you are on to something though. Something for tweaking the attack based on preferred target. Maybe not for altering the weapons themselves, but for an Assault Terminator Squad dataslate rule. Something like if a Wound roll would require a 5+ or higher, +1A; and if a Wound roll requires 4+ or less, +1D. Or the opposite? +1D if wounding on a 5+ higher, and +1A if wounding on a 4+ or less? Uh, I need to math this.

Yeah, I was ballparking.  And I wouldn't call it strike and sweep - but something like charged and overcharged.  The point of the dual statline is to give them a punch against the T12ish Monsters and Vehicles that doesn't start whomping on Heavy Infantry. (And again these are theory numbers not crunched ones) 5A (for 5 Terminators) doing 5 hits, -3 or -4 and D3+3 wounds vs 15A at S8, -2 D2 does (or can when fine tuned) make optimal targets for each statline that doesn't cross over like the Lightning Claws v T9.  I think Lightning Claws need a rework, I think they should lose Twin Link and just get ginsu chooper attacks that will filet at least MEQ and below - I'm on the fence for TEQ and the like.  Barring special rules like ANTI-X I think we've got basically 4 different zones/bands GuardEQ, Marine EQ, the middling hardened stuff like Light Vehicles, TEQ, Cents, yadda yadda, and then the real behemoths who could but probably don't need to be split into two sub groups.  I think the trick is to make sure weapons don't cross over accidentally.  I mean Lighting Claws crossing over on GuardEQ and MEQ makes sense and can/should/could/would be on purpose.  Lightning Claws crossing over onto Armigers is an accident.

[HeadlessCross]

On 11/14/2025 at 10:23 PM, Tacitus said:

I already do Calgar + Aggressors.  Advance, Fall Back, Shoot, Charge its all good. 

 

Rapid Ingress doesn't let you skip battle rounds.  Note the Restriction.

Rapid Ingress is as good as skipping battle rounds if you're not just dumping in the middle of your opponent's army and wondering why they died. 

[Tacitus]

6 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Rapid Ingress is as good as skipping battle rounds if you're not just dumping in the middle of your opponent's army and wondering why they died. 

No, its not. IF you go second, you can Deep Strike on their turn, and move on your turn.  IF you go first, you still can't deep strike sooner than you could have before.

[Lathe Biosas]

If you want to make CC Terminators more lore accurate, then lean into the fact that their armour is the best of the best.

 

Give them the ability to always be able to strike in CC. Even if the model would have been removed earlier in the Fight Phase.

 

Or, you could give them a "shock and awe" style ability where in the turn they Rapid Ingress they can force the nearest enemy unit to make a Battle Shock test.

 

Just some ideas.

[Tacitus]

23 hours ago, Lathe Biosas said:

If you want to make CC Terminators more lore accurate, then lean into the fact that their armour is the best of the best.

 

Give them the ability to always be able to strike in CC. Even if the model would have been removed earlier in the Fight Phase.

 

Or, you could give them a "shock and awe" style ability where in the turn they Rapid Ingress they can force the nearest enemy unit to make a Battle Shock test.

 

Just some ideas.

Their problem isn't accuracy.  Nor is it durability.  And they already cause a Battle Shock test for everyone in engagement range when the complete a charge which is better but not really because Battle Shock isn't good because battleshock doesn't last. Their problem is damage output.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Tacitus said:

Their problem isn't accuracy.  Nor is it durability.  And they already cause a Battle Shock test for everyone in engagement range when the complete a charge which is better but not really because Battle Shock isn't good because battleshock doesn't last. Their problem is damage output.

Damage output isn’t the role terminators fill…their role is absorb damage so it doesn’t go elsewhere while doing some damage as well.

 

aggressors’ role is to do damage while absorbing slightly more damage than tacticus marines can take.

[Tacitus]

5 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Damage output isn’t the role terminators fill…their role is absorb damage so it doesn’t go elsewhere while doing some damage as well.

 

aggressors’ role is to do damage while absorbing slightly more damage than tacticus marines can take.

Do you have any facts to back this up, or is it like the "Trust me Bro" crap you're floating about Carrier doctrine?  You realize you're trying to make this claim while Terminators are walking around with the biggest baddest mass produced weapons in their man-portable melee arsenal right? Thunderhammers are generally considered the pinnacle of melee weapons in the Infantry Space Marine's armory, you get that right?  Its like claiming Devastators aren't supposed to deal damage, they're just supposed to attract slightly more incoming fire than Tactical Squads.

[HeadlessCross]

7 hours ago, Tacitus said:

Do you have any facts to back this up

The fact is based on their loadouts and special rules. Ain't that difficult to figure out. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

11 hours ago, Tacitus said:

Do you have any facts to back this up, or is it like the "Trust me Bro" crap you're floating about Carrier doctrine?  You realize you're trying to make this claim while Terminators are walking around with the biggest baddest mass produced weapons in their man-portable melee arsenal right? Thunderhammers are generally considered the pinnacle of melee weapons in the Infantry Space Marine's armory, you get that right?  Its like claiming Devastators aren't supposed to deal damage, they're just supposed to attract slightly more incoming fire than Tactical Squads.

You mean aside from the datasheets and their stats?

 

TH has identical stats to a PF, the keyword special rules are the only things that make a difference, and with the PFs on aggressors having TL, I’d bet they’re just about as good in melee against vehicles as the TH. Meanwhile the aggressors will edge out TH against monsters and likely obliterate it against infantry.

 

and compared to regular terminators TL gives them the advantage in melee, along with TL giving them the advantage in shooting compared to terminators’ stormbolters, doubly so when you consider the aggressor’s special ability.
fragstorm is a pretty abysmal replacement for a cyclone ML sure but it was clearly what it was supposed to be.

now let’s look at durability. Terminators are clearly the more durable option with their 2+/4++ and 4W on TH/SS terminators it’s not even close.

 

Edited November 18 by Dr_Ruminahui
Deleting personal and inflammatory comment