DakkaDakka - Warhammer 40000, Flames of War, Warmachine and Warhammer Forums
ForumGalleryArticlesVideoHobby BlogsStore FinderPlayer FinderArmy PainterJoin Us!
Switch Theme:

Power Weapon rules changing in 40K 6E?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Made in us
Satyxis Raider







I don't know if this is the right place for speculation, but here goes.

In the new Necron codex, one of the characters (Orikan the diviner) has a special weapon called the "Staff of Tomorrow." It's rules state that he re-rolls to-hit rolls in close combat, and that wounds caused by it ignore armor saves. It doesn't have any ranged abilities, so I can't think of any reason why this wasn't just labeled a power weapon. It's not like Orikan can take a pistol, so I doubt that's the issue (since the staff isn't explicitly labeled a CCW).

Am I reading too much into this, or is there a chance that they needed to make a distinction between Orikan's staff and a power weapon for a reason that might not become evident until 6E?

Legion eLylyth 50pts 6-0
Cryx pGaspy 35pts 4-1
Cyriss Aurora 35pts 6-2
Cyriss Syntherion (T4) 35pts 1-0 
   
Advert


Login or Register to make this and other promotional elements disappear from your dakka browsing.
Made in de
Fixture of Dakka





Yup, also irritated me but at that point, we can't really make any hard guess. Good spot.
   
Made in us
Winged Kroot Vulture







The same wording exists for the Warscythe. I think you're on to something.

   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Magistrate





Prattville, AL

You're reading too much into it. Many of the Dark Eldar weapons say the same thing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/07 22:15:42


You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
I'm Alpharius and so can you!
Hallowed is the All Pie
DR:80S++G++M+B+I+Pwmhd03#+D+++A(WTF)/mWD230R+++T(S)DM+++ 
   
Made in ca
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Utapau

Well spotted

Your conclusion seems valid indeed... the only possible hole I can think of is that it's the GW proofreading department at (lack of) work again...

~1200
DT:90-S+G++M---B--I+Pw40k10+D+A+/mWD372R+T(D)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Satyxis Raider







Oaka wrote:The same wording exists for the Warscythe. I think you're on to something.


Noticed that too! And yet, hyperphase swords and rods of the covenant are still "power weapons."

Legion eLylyth 50pts 6-0
Cryx pGaspy 35pts 4-1
Cyriss Aurora 35pts 6-2
Cyriss Syntherion (T4) 35pts 1-0 
   
Made in us
Winged Kroot Vulture







It's a very bold suggestion, but is it possible power weapons may be considered AP 3 in sixth edition? That would really throw a spanner into the current mix!

Edit: This discussion reminds me of when choppas and Khorne axes reduced armor saves to 4+. That was a fantastic rule that didn't last very long and should certainly make a comeback.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/07 22:26:59


   
Made in us
Satyxis Raider







Oaka wrote:It's a very bold suggestion, but is it possible power weapons may be considered AP 3 in sixth edition? That would really throw a spanner into the current mix!


Or perhaps something like -2 to the armor save.

Legion eLylyth 50pts 6-0
Cryx pGaspy 35pts 4-1
Cyriss Aurora 35pts 6-2
Cyriss Syntherion (T4) 35pts 1-0 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon





The House that Peterbilt

Maybe they will bring back the old parry rules, so a distinction between a power weapon and a weapon that just ignores armor will be important? Not sure. DE and tyranid weapons state the same sort of thing, as do some GK ones IIRC.

   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Lord of Carrion






Dusseldorf

Oaka wrote:It's a very bold suggestion, but is it possible power weapons may be considered AP 3 in sixth edition? That would really throw a spanner into the current mix!

Edit: This discussion reminds me of when choppas and Khorne axes reduced armor saves to 4+. That was a fantastic rule that didn't last very long and should certainly make a comeback.


Huh? That rule lasted for something like 8 years. That's ages.
And it was a stupid rule. It made orks great against marines (especially termies) and MEQs, but crap against GEQ and so on. +1 S gives the same odds of killing a marine but reduced odds on a termie, and increased odds against everything else.

A better rule might be -1 to save. But GW is afraid of negative modifiers for 40K.



Mantic Undead Showcase:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/560734.page 
   
Made in de
Fixture of Dakka





Maybe they'll go for the WHFB rule of high S reducing enemy sv and power weapons give +X on...*shudders*
   
Made in ie
Freaky Flayed One




I just took it to mean that it wasn't, in fact, a power weapon. A power weapon ignores armour saves and nothing more. The Staff of Tomorrow and the Warscythe both confer additional bonuses. Perhaps the fact that both weapons needed a detailed description of their abilities it was added that they ignore armour save to prevent some kind of rules argument?

Gah I suck at explaining things. But I honestly think you're reading too much into it. It's probably just messy wording, there's quite a bit of that in the Codex.

Necrons (W/D/L): 4/1/0
Reset with the new Codex. 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Lord Commander






San Jose, CA

It is not, in fact, appropriate to post speculation in "News & Rumors." Problem rectified.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? 
   
Made in gb
Servoarm Flailing Magos





I'm sure i've seen this in other codexes as well. I think you're reading too much into this.

Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION 
   
Made in nl







Well, if it's only 5th edition codexes, theres still a patern.

 
   
Made in gb
Wicked Warp Spider






Joey wrote:I'm sure i've seen this in other codexes as well. I think you're reading too much into this.


Agree with that. Personally I'd guess it's a background/flavour difference. Lots of weapons that are actually powered are described as power weapons, lots of models that are just really strong or whatnot are described as having attacks that ignore armour saves. It's certainly not some super-subtle groundwork for a rules change (after all such a radical change would require written amendments to most codexes anyway)

Eldar Corsairs: 4000 pts
Imperial Guard: 4000 pts

Corregidor 700 pts
Acontecimento 400 pts 
   
Made in au
Satyxis Raider



Australia

I think there are three possible avenues with the reasoning behind the wording:

1. Inconsistent wording from GW *most likely reason*
2. Changes to power weapons in 6th. Distinction between weapons that ignores armour saves and a power weapons.
3. “Ignores armour saves” wording specifically used to prevent rules arguments

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/11/08 02:34:08


Over 2000 Points worth of Black Legion
Collecting Privateer Press due to the current state of GW

H.B.M.C. wrote: Goood! Goooood!

Your hate has made you powerful. Now take your Privateer Press tape measure and strike me down with all your hatred and your journey to the dark side will be complete!!!


 
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Chosen Marine Riding a Fiend






The sink.

What GW's being inconsistent? That never happens.
   
Made in us
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot





Atlanta GA

If found in the Dark Eldar codex as well, that could be read and interpreted as a sign of these possible changes. If rumors hold true, and 6ed is around the corner, then that could certainly have been considered when the DE codex was coming out.

Speculation, but interesting nonetheless.

BLU
Opinions should go here. 
   
Made in gb
Servoarm Flailing Magos





eldar codex wrote:Mirrorswords ignore armour saves

That's from the 4th edition Eldar codex.
So unless GW are planning this gak two editions in advance, not likely.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/08 02:35:08


Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION 
   
Made in us
Brainy Zoanthrope





It says that about Tyranid boneswords?

Hive Fleet Ryujin 3000 Points


My name is Legion, for we are many.
Purge this!!┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐


Everblight 60 Points 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






Minnesota, land of 10,000 Lakes and 10,000,000,000 Mosquitos

My guess is that it's just the lack of proper proofreading. The Necron codex has a good amount of weirdly worded rules. Considering that GW has been pushing towards simplifying 40k, I can't see them changing power weapons in such a way to give negative modifiers to armor. Although I'll admit I know next to nothing about previous editions, having only been playing since 5th.

My Armies:
Kal'reia Sept Tau - Farsight Sympathizers
Da Great Looted Waaagh!
The Court of the Wolf Lords

The Dakka Code:
DT:90-S+++G+++MB-IPw40k10#++D++A+++/sWD-R++T(Ot)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions




Arlington, VA, USA

Sigvatr wrote:Maybe they'll go for the WHFB rule of high S reducing enemy sv and power weapons give +X on...*shudders*


The Strength-modifies-armour save was in 2nd edition 40k, too. Different weapons there had additional abilities, e.g. I think Chainsword gave a -2 save penalty although was Strength 4, and Power Swords and Power Axes had some distinction, although I forget what the rules were. Melee combat was more complicated then--although a Space Marine tactical squad was 300 points basic, so there were fewer models on the table, and it didn't slow things down much for typical game sizes.
   
Made in us
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne






Nashville, TN

Inconsistent wording. GW has had plenty of instances of "ignores armor saves" instead of "Power Weapon".

Proverbs 18:2

"CHEESE!" is the battlecry of the ill-prepared.

 warboss wrote:

GW didn't mean to hit your wallet and I know they love you, baby. I'm sure they won't do it again so it's ok to purchase and make up.


Albatross wrote:I think SlaveToDorkness just became my new hero.

EmilCrane wrote:Finecast is the new Matt Ward.

Don't mess with the Blade and Bolter! 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Power weapons are single handed Special CCW, by not saying theyre power weapons they avoid having to consider bonus attacks being possible.
   
Made in gb
Swamp Troll



Northampton

Oaka wrote:It's a very bold suggestion, but is it possible power weapons may be considered AP 3 in sixth edition? That would really throw a spanner into the current mix!


That would make Terminators the nastiest unit in the game. It's so f'in wrong, I love it!!!

Mr Mystery wrote:Suffice to say, if any of this is actually true, then clearly Elvis is hiding behind my left testicle, and Lord Lucan behind the right.


X Wing record: 5-0 Rebels. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to:   

Dakka 5.42 - Privacy Policy - Legal Stuff - Forum Rules