Lightning Claws are technically broken

[Xenith]

I think we all know how goo lightning claws are in HH3.0, and there's a few reason for that, however let me go into the main reason why I can prove this is true, instead of feeling.

 

1. In previous versions of the rules, you gained an extra attack for having 2 melee weapons, including a pistol.
2. Things like hammers, fists and claws were too strong to get a bonus attack with from a 1pt pistol, so they made the paired/specialist weapon rule
3. This led to people taking the smart choice of hammer+claw to have flexibility as well as +1A, and hammer+claw was cheaper than 2x Hammer. 
4. To make 2X claw stronger and more attractive, the team gave claws a single additional bonus attack both in 40k and HH2.0, so one claw gets nothing, a pair of claws was +2 total (+1 from paired weapons, +1 from being claws)
5. This +1 always included the base +1 attack from having a pair of specialist weapons. 
6. In 3.0, the +1A from a pair of weapons was removed from the rules, and instead baked directly into the profiles of models that came stock with 2x melee weapons/bp+chain sword etc. 
7. The +2 attacks from the claws remained as-is, despite all other paired weapons losing the bonus attack.
8. This means the claws benefit from the+1A baked into the profile of melee units AND the +1 A for 2 melee weapons baked into the claw profile. 
9. In practice, this means:
   1. A Legion praetor with 2 hammers gets 5 attacks in 2.0 and 5 attacks in 3.0
   2. A Legion Praetor with 2 claws gets 6 attacks in 2.0 and 7 attacks in 3.0. 
   3. Night raptors with 2 claws in 2.0 get 4 attacks, and 5 attacks each in 3.0.

 

There are more examples than this, and some units come out the same as before, like normal terminators who are 4A in both instances, same with assault sergeants.

 

How is my thinking on this? While they might be technically broken, as in, they do not follow the same rules as every other weapon in the edition, I dont think they are game breaking. We do see them everywhere now, though, and they have gone from a 'rule of cool' choice to a top pick for killing things, mainly due to:

1. More reliable AP2 (on hit with auto wound compared to 6+ to wound in 2.0)
2. Loss of 2+ saves in power armoured squads, meaning claws are free to carve up 3+ saves with abandon. 

[SlickSamos]

Not broken as they perform how I'd expect them to (spot the pedant - that's right it's me!), however they are definitely undercosted!  Pairs should probably be 5/10 points more depending on the equipment options available.

 

As a response to 9,

9.1. You no longer need to spend points on a second TH to get 5 attacks with it

9.2. Paired LCs are the most expensive option on this character which seems fair, but if they take TDA then it becomes cheaper than a PF/TH for some reason (so are undercosted)

9.3. Absolutely undercosted for what they do, and also single LCs on veteran type units are also undercosted

To add another one (9.4.?) terminator squads seem pretty fairly costed for both one LC and paired LC.

 

Yeah it's not great cost balancing, but it only really sucks is everyone is taking them instead of a mix of close combat weapons in units like Assault Veterans.  

[Xenith]

All those things you describe isn't "as you expect them to" though, but "drastically over perform for the points", which is broken 

Agree though, a couple of extra points wouldn't hurt. I think the dogmatic multiples of 5 really hurts the game. Base power weapons should only be 5pts for a line grunt. 

[Gorgoff]

I think 3.0 is overengineered without any testing done and it shows. 

Personally I came to the conclusion that I really don't need 574 different kind of close combat weapons which habe two ir three clear winner which every new player takes and spams and the rest being only book filler with no real purpose.

That's why I'd prefer if GW goes back to only have power weapons which ignore armour, one kind of power fist kind of weapon which doubles S and hits last and maybe one weapon in between.

That's it. 

It would allow the most possible freedom in building your models, no possible loop holes (or less of these) easy to understand and remember and still enough variation to choose from.

[Spagunk]

I don't agree with the statement about having so many different CCWs. Part of the flavo(u)r of HH is that rules and gear are more "crunchy" than standard 40k. We have spears being distinct from axe which is distinct from fists etc. I think GW did some favors by adding things like Breaching vs. Rending or making things +- initiative. Lord knows I hated how axes were just worse fists in previous editions. But I want more reasons to mount different weapons, not less.

 

Claws used to stink in previous editions because they were too costly and few units could use them meaningfully. Other than a bit of a price increase, I think they're a good, legitimate choice now rather than being fodder for the bits box.

Edited July 20 by Spagunk

[Gorgoff]

On 7/20/2026 at 8:07 PM, Spagunk said:

 Lord knows I hated how axes were just worse fists in previous editions. But I want more reasons to mount different weapons, not less.

 

That's basically what I've said though.

If power weapons all had the same rule -that they ignore armour saves-the balancing between them would be perfect and you could take every type and not just one obvious better version over all the others.

Having ten different weapons to choose from is an illusion if only one of them is actualy good or so obvious more powerful like the double lightning claw on sergeants.

 

It make literally no sense to take a power sword or power maul on a despoiler sergeants if lightning claws are an option. And it is the same in so many many instances in the game. 

It makes even less sense to give a tactical marines sarge any power weapon at all.

It would be purely decorative and had no ingame purpose. So why bother with making different rules for different weapons?

 

Edited July 24 by Gorgoff

[Spagunk]

On 7/23/2026 at 7:49 AM, Gorgoff said:

...

It make literally no sense to take a power sword or power maul on a despoiler sergeants if lightning claws are an option. And it is the same in so many many instances in the game. 

...

Not for me (Ba player :p ). I need that +1 str so I can wound you on a 2+ in the charge. Lightning claws don't give me that.

Edited September 24 by Spagunk

[Xenith]

Compared to the auto wound on a 6 to hit? 

[Xenith]

On 7/23/2026 at 3:49 PM, Gorgoff said:

If power weapons all had the same rule -that they ignore armour saves-the balancing between them would be perfect and you could take every type and not just one obvious better version over all the others.

The power with this lies in modelling and narrative - if I want my legion command squad all to have swords and shields for example, because it looks cool and they're imperial fists, I'm not necessarily punished for taking the less good power weapon option. It's why we saw so many special character conversions in 3rd, it didn't matter whether the guy had a sword, axe, mace or power-chainsaw, they were all functionally the same. 

Edited September 26 by Xenith

[Spagunk]

On 9/26/2026 at 2:15 AM, Xenith said:

Compared to the auto wound on a 6 to hit? 

I'm never that lucky.

[Gorgoff]

On 9/24/2026 at 10:52 PM, Spagunk said:

Not for me (Ba player :p ). I need that +1 str so I can wound you on a 2+ in the charge. Lightning claws don't give me that.

"Blood Nacels have the Soecial rule Furious Charge. It gives +1S on the charge" 

I really struggle to see the problem if all Power weapons had the exact same rules no matter the Look of the model. 

It is also a prime example why adding a bus load of different ccw to the game because the moment a unit ir a faction gets a rule like Furious charge the balancing between those weapons goes out of the window. 

[Spagunk]

3 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

"Blood Nacels have the Soecial rule Furious Charge. It gives +1S on the charge" 

I really struggle to see the problem if all Power weapons had the exact same rules no matter the Look of the model. 

It is also a prime example why adding a bus load of different ccw to the game because the moment a unit ir a faction gets a rule like Furious charge the balancing between those weapons goes out of the window. 

Let's be truthful: Nothing I say can help you with the struggle. However my understanding is that having different power weapons doing different things adds variety and customization that makes it so you can tailor an army for specific purpose. Sure, I can dump a ton of points into maximizing that +1 strength to stack on top of my furious charge but now I have less points for ranged weapons which puts me at disadvantage etc.  It's a matter of choice and customization that people enjoy which in turn makes HH different than 40k. I recognize that this customization will produce maybe a unit or two that hit a bit better or outshine others but if I concentrate on melee power then a proper shooting army is going to wipe me out before I even get into melee, yes?

 

In fact, by your logic, this also means we shouldn't have different combi-weapons, plasma, volkite weapons or all those "auto" weapons, correct? What about Imperial fist which can add +1 to hit for bolt weapons which allow seekers to hit on 2+? Should we not collapse kraken bolters down to just bolters since one army clearly has a cheesy advantage?
 

[Gorgoff]

On 9/30/2026 at 8:51 PM, Spagunk said:

Let's be truthful: Nothing I say can help you with the struggle. However my understanding is that having different power weapons doing different things adds variety and customization that makes it so you can tailor an army for specific purpose. Sure, I can dump a ton of points into maximizing that +1 strength to stack on top of my furious charge but now I have less points for ranged weapons which puts me at disadvantage etc.  It's a matter of choice and customization that people enjoy which in turn makes HH different than 40k. I recognize that this customization will produce maybe a unit or two that hit a bit better or outshine others but if I concentrate on melee power then a proper shooting army is going to wipe me out before I even get into melee, yes?

 

 

In theory I am all for a very granulated system where each kind of weapons have different stat lines but in practise we saw in the last 25 years that GW never got the balancing right.

That's what this very thread is all about after all.

If a model has access to a lightning claw there is zero reason to take a power sword for example and most players doesn't do so because of it.

Same with other stuff.

It sounds good to have so much variety but in practise it is just a big pile of trash with few very obvious choices which everyone takes.

So the so called variety is an illusion.

And THAT'S why I came to the conclusion that we should go back to a system where we just have an entry which says power weapon. Thus we have freedom of creativity what bitz to use. 

[Spagunk]

2 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

 

 

In theory I am all for a very granulated system where each kind of weapons have different stat lines but in practise we saw in the last 25 years that GW never got the balancing right.

That's what this very thread is all about after all.

If a model has access to a lightning claw there is zero reason to take a power sword for example and most players doesn't do so because of it.

Same with other stuff.

It sounds good to have so much variety but in practise it is just a big pile of trash with few very obvious choices which everyone takes.

So the so called variety is an illusion.

And THAT'S why I came to the conclusion that we should go back to a system where we just have an entry which says power weapon. Thus we have freedom of creativity what bitz to use. 

 

Look, I don't play other armies so I can't make generalized statements like yours but I can tell you that I have a lot of reasons NOT to pick claws as a BA player. I am sorry if your army makes you feel stuck but I never felt that when I benefit from more bespoke Power weapons due to army rules and have more options for swapping out power weapons than perhaps your army does.

 

I do know that there are a few other armies that also benefit from bespoke power weapons so my opinion feels applicable for more than just the flavor of space marines I play. Because my experience is counter to yours, I can't agree with your statements. Sorry.

[SvenIronhand]

As an Iron Hands player, I lean towards fists and swords more than anything, because anything in melee is going to be either hitting first or (hopefully) tanking the first swing. It might be different with my WB; we’ll see. Not too impressed by Tainted Weapons, but Warpfire looks good for killing T4 W1 3+ bodies.

[SlickSamos]

2 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

So the so called variety is an illusion.

This.

 

On 9/30/2026 at 7:51 PM, Spagunk said:

In fact, by your logic, this also means we shouldn't have different combi-weapons, plasma, volkite weapons or all those "auto" weapons, correct?

Not really, but GW has absolutely done something like this for 40k combi-weapons!  (Not saying it has been implemented in a balanced fashion though)

 

The issue with Volkite vs Combi-Bolters on Terminators is kinda the same as with LCs vs PWs in that one is worse.  (See also Volkite in Special Weapon squads).  The main issue is GW can't balance complexity so having Volkite = Bolter or Lightning Claw = Power Weapon wouldn't be the worst idea.  

 

I really want fast, interesting games where people don't get punished for making cool modeling options or for not spending hours on list building.

 

I'd do this:

CCW/Chainsword = free and do nothing 

Power Weapons = AP3 & Breaching (6+) for +10 Pts

Twin Lightning Claws = add 2 attacks for Terminators (power armour don't have this option but a model with two LCs just looks cool and counts as Power Weapon) - Costs same as PF

PF/CF/TH = 2xS AP2 D2 for +20 Pts (so +10 Pts for Terminators)

 

And for ranged weapons I'd say:

Bolt Pistol = Same old

Shotgun = 2x BP

Bolter = 2nd Ed rules

Volkite = Bolter equivalent (both of the heavy ones will share the HB stat line)

Flamer = D6 BP hits (sorry I hate templates, they waste of everyone's time)

Plasma = 2nd Ed

Melta = 3rd Ed

Grav = Plasma

Disintegrator = Plasma

Rotor Cannon = HB

[Gorgoff]

You completely lost me with the range weapons and the Flamer as a Maschine gun. 

Templates rock and shouldn't have been removed from any gw game.

I almost wrote Worst decision ever but then I remembered that in 40k vehicles became big infantry models like monsters which clearly is even worse than that. 

@Spagunk So you would pay in a minmaxed BA army for bayonets or chain bayonets? 

There are weapons in this game which literally nobody takes because their rules are crap. Just becaue one or two factions in the game get some juice put of these doesn't justify having them at all. Or at least it wouldn't change anything for the rest of the 23 factions if they cut the weapons significantly and reduce them to just three or four entries. 

 

Just look at Militia and tell me that you would pay 10 points to give a ws3 s3 model a power sword in a minmaxed army without laughing. 

It is just a ridiculous pathetic weapon in almost any hand in the game so why keep it? Or why keep the terrible rules and not replace it with a generic entry which allows anyone to enjoy having a sword on their models without having that bad feeling in your gut for throwing out points for almost nothing? 

 

Edited October 5 by Gorgoff

[Spagunk]

@Gorgoff Elaborate: What do you mean by minmaxed bayonets?

Do I have some of my tac squads with bayonets (chain or otherwise)? I have exactly one squad with them if that is what you mean. But those are not power weapons. Also, I have been playing since 1.0 so most of my tacticals have a CCW from the before times.

Edited October 5 by Spagunk

[Gorgoff]

13 hours ago, Spagunk said:

@Gorgoff Elaborate: What do you mean by minmaxed bayonets?

Do I have some of my tac squads with bayonets (chain or otherwise)? I have exactly one squad with them if that is what you mean. But those are not power weapons. Also, I have been playing since 1.0 so most of my tacticals have a CCW from the before times.

Haha what I meant was that if you or any other honorable gentlemen would like to minmax their army none of them would waste points on things like bayonets or power swords. 

And yeah I feel you. I have 20 tacticals with chainswords on their waist and 20 with combat knives. 

:cuss:ing changes.

 

[Fifty]

I don't mind that power axes, power mauls and lightning claws are all the same cost, because they at least they each have their own niche. 

 

I am completely at a loss to understand why power swords and lightning claws cost the same when one is objectively better in every regard. Even if swords were 9pts and claws 11pts, it would do something to offset the issue, but as it stands lightning claws are just too good to ever take a sword, for any reason.

 

I have stopped running events, but if I ran another one, I'd just add a rule that Power Swords get the same 6+ Rending as Lightning Claws.

Edited October 7 by Fifty