Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.
Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
Vaktathi wrote: Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.
Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
No, I have to disagree there. Most of those models were modelled with a chainsword to go with the pistol they would also commonly carry, for the +1 attack. That rule seems to be gone, since the pistol's strength is now that it can be shot while you're locked in combat. This way, that model will still have his +1 attack that he was modelled for, but it now just comes from the chain sword.
amanita wrote: Not sure why a power axe would only be -2 while a sword is -3 either, but what the heck?
Because as they state, a lot of things are modelled with swords. And unlike what it looks like at first glance, the sword is the more jack of all trades of the three weapons listed. While one is balanced between -AP and S, actually stacking -AP is probably the better option in most cases. Getting that 1S is going to be best if you're fighting an army where you're just 1 from a S vs T duel getting better, the +2S if you've got some special target in mind, but the -3 AP will basically always be useful to some extent.
Vaktathi wrote: Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.
Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
No, I have to disagree there. Most of those models were modelled with a chainsword to go with the pistol they would also commonly carry, for the +1 attack. That rule seems to be gone, since the pistol's strength is now that it can be shot while you're locked in combat. This way, that model will still have his +1 attack that he was modelled for, but it now just comes from the chain sword.
There's a lot of unknown in that, have they come out and straight said that? I could have missed it if so.
Either way, if the second attack is gone, it seems like that was done intentionally, why does the Chainsword need an extra attack over a CCW when they were previously the same thing when that 2nd attack is incorporated into being able to shoot the pistol? Which then makes it awkward for the dudes in the same unit modeled with things like combat knives instead of chainswords (like Chaos Space Marines which come with both), or for units that just don't come with chainswords but otherwise operated the same way that kits that did come with chainswords did.
Vaktathi wrote: Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.
Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
No, I have to disagree there. Most of those models were modelled with a chainsword to go with the pistol they would also commonly carry, for the +1 attack. That rule seems to be gone, since the pistol's strength is now that it can be shot while you're locked in combat. This way, that model will still have his +1 attack that he was modelled for, but it now just comes from the chain sword.
Vaktathi wrote: Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.
Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
No, I have to disagree there. Most of those models were modelled with a chainsword to go with the pistol they would also commonly carry, for the +1 attack. That rule seems to be gone, since the pistol's strength is now that it can be shot while you're locked in combat. This way, that model will still have his +1 attack that he was modelled for, but it now just comes from the chain sword.
There's a lot of unknown in that, have they come out and straight said that? I could have missed it if so.
Either way, if the second attack is gone, it seems like that was done intentionally, why does the Chainsword need an extra attack over a CCW when they were previously the same thing when that 2nd attack is incorporated into being able to shoot the pistol? Which then makes it awkward for the dudes in the same unit modeled with things like combat knives instead of chainswords, or for units that just don't come with chainswords but otherwise operated the same way that kits that did come with chainswords did.
They have not said the extra attack is gone, but they have said you can shoot pistols while in close combat. Since I feel like that alone makes pistols a really cool strategical choice but also too powerful if they also have the extra attack, I'm inferring the second part.
I'll go ahead and assume the chainsword will have a cost now, so those guys with the bigass Catachan dagger will be a little less expensive, but you now have the choice of still getting your +1 attack using the chainsword.
Banshees: Always attacks first, has las pistol for shooting phase, Str 3, AP -3 D 1 swords (Probably 2 attacks each)
Striking Scorpions: Has Shuriken Pistol for shooting, Str 3, AP 0, D1 (Probably 3 attacks each) with a mantiblaster that can do a mortal wound before each fight phase.
Vaktathi wrote: Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.
Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
No, I have to disagree there. Most of those models were modelled with a chainsword to go with the pistol they would also commonly carry, for the +1 attack. That rule seems to be gone, since the pistol's strength is now that it can be shot while you're locked in combat. This way, that model will still have his +1 attack that he was modelled for, but it now just comes from the chain sword.
Also of note it means things like assault marines can maintain a typical marine stat line while having more attacks. So if the buff to assault marines is that they now have 3 attacks standard I'd be fine with that.
amanita wrote: Not sure why a power axe would only be -2 while a sword is -3 either, but what the heck?
Because if it wasn't the power sword would basically be useless, kind of like how it is already is but worse due to initiative no longer existing.
I think Amanita is more remarking on the actual armor piercing capabilities of an axe vs a sword.
Axes don't pierce armor well. Maces and axes provide crushing / concussive force force. Swords are designed to pierce and slash. These changes make sense. Use axes against high toughness models. use swords against lower toughness models.
I think these are great changes. I love the sword, and its absence has been felt in my play group. I like that the sword is your go-to slicey slicey, and the Axe is also pretty useful too by upping your strength. However, I worry that the Axe is going to be the new rarely-seen, as if you care about the strength bonus you'll probably go to the Maul. Still, it's hard to say, because the new wounding chart makes those differences much more situational. There'll be more times when the Axe and the Maul will wound on the same values (3's or 5's), so then the Axe's greater AP will be better. The Maul is only better to help you get to or past T5/T6, and to wound T3's on 2+'s instead of 3+'s. Against T4/T7+ both the Axe and the Maul are the same for wounding, so you'd probably rather the axe.
Loving these changes!
Oh, and chain-swords giving you more attacks is AWESOME. Makes it very different and very effective at the right times. Wonder how they're going to balance that though since, you're right, it's currently a VERY common weapon. Heck, there are even Harlequin modelling options for Chainswords!
Vaktathi wrote: Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.
Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
No, I have to disagree there. Most of those models were modelled with a chainsword to go with the pistol they would also commonly carry, for the +1 attack. That rule seems to be gone, since the pistol's strength is now that it can be shot while you're locked in combat. This way, that model will still have his +1 attack that he was modelled for, but it now just comes from the chain sword.
There's a lot of unknown in that, have they come out and straight said that? I could have missed it if so.
Either way, if the second attack is gone, it seems like that was done intentionally, why does the Chainsword need an extra attack over a CCW when they were previously the same thing when that 2nd attack is incorporated into being able to shoot the pistol? Which then makes it awkward for the dudes in the same unit modeled with things like combat knives instead of chainswords, or for units that just don't come with chainswords but otherwise operated the same way that kits that did come with chainswords did.
They have not said the extra attack is gone, but they have said you can shoot pistols while in close combat. Since I feel like that alone makes pistols a really cool strategical choice but also too powerful if they also have the extra attack, I'm inferring the second part.
I'll go ahead and assume the chainsword will have a cost now, so those guys with the bigass Catachan dagger will be a little less expensive, but you now have the choice of still getting your +1 attack using the chainsword.
The issue I have is that this then results in awkward mismashed units and more weird list construction and model building complexity just to make the chainsword "special" for its own sake over a CCW that did the exact same thing before. I'm not seeing the reason to make the Chainsword special on its own, especially given that for most units, like CSM's or Assault Marines, the pistol attack vs the chainsword attack will be literally the same thing (3+ to hit, S4, AP0), and most of these units would basically just gain both benefits, pretty much just punking out CCW modeled dudes.
Yarium wrote: I think these are great changes. I love the sword, and its absence has been felt in my play group. I like that the sword is your go-to slicey slicey, and the Axe is also pretty useful too by upping your strength. However, I worry that the Axe is going to be the new rarely-seen, as if you care about the strength bonus you'll probably go to the Maul. Still, it's hard to say, because the new wounding chart makes those differences much more situational. There'll be more times when the Axe and the Maul will wound on the same values (3's or 5's), so then the Axe's greater AP will be better. The Maul is only better to help you get to or past T5/T6, and to wound T3's on 2+'s instead of 3+'s. Against T4/T7+ both the Axe and the Maul are the same for wounding, so you'd probably rather the axe.
Loving these changes!
Oh, and chain-swords giving you more attacks is AWESOME. Makes it very different and very effective at the right times. Wonder how they're going to balance that though since, you're right, it's currently a VERY common weapon. Heck, there are even Harlequin modelling options for Chainswords!
It might also vary depending on faction (assuming these hold for multiple factions). A guardsman might well prefer the maul going to S5, or the Axe to the sword, where a higher S model may not worry as much.
Vaktathi wrote: Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.
Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
No, I have to disagree there. Most of those models were modelled with a chainsword to go with the pistol they would also commonly carry, for the +1 attack. That rule seems to be gone, since the pistol's strength is now that it can be shot while you're locked in combat. This way, that model will still have his +1 attack that he was modelled for, but it now just comes from the chain sword.
There's a lot of unknown in that, have they come out and straight said that? I could have missed it if so.
Either way, if the second attack is gone, it seems like that was done intentionally, why does the Chainsword need an extra attack over a CCW when they were previously the same thing when that 2nd attack is incorporated into being able to shoot the pistol? Which then makes it awkward for the dudes in the same unit modeled with things like combat knives instead of chainswords, or for units that just don't come with chainswords but otherwise operated the same way that kits that did come with chainswords did.
They have not said the extra attack is gone, but they have said you can shoot pistols while in close combat. Since I feel like that alone makes pistols a really cool strategical choice but also too powerful if they also have the extra attack, I'm inferring the second part.
I'll go ahead and assume the chainsword will have a cost now, so those guys with the bigass Catachan dagger will be a little less expensive, but you now have the choice of still getting your +1 attack using the chainsword.
The issue I have is that this then results in awkward mismashed units and more weird list construction and model building complexity just to make the chainsword "special" for its own sake over a CCW that did the exact same thing before. I'm not seeing the reason to make the Chainsword special on its own, especially given that for most units, like CSM's or Assault Marines, the pistol attack vs the chainsword attack will be literally the same thing (3+ to hit, S4, AP0), and most of these units would basically just gain both benefits, pretty much just punking out CCW modeled dudes.
Except for the cheaper price thing. And it allows for you to make models in the future that carry a chainsword in one hand and a rifle in the other, making it uniform with the rest of the unit without sacrificing the extra attack in melee. I think it does give better options, but you're right that current models people have aren't optimised for the change.
amanita wrote: Not sure why a power axe would only be -2 while a sword is -3 either, but what the heck?
Because if it wasn't the power sword would basically be useless, kind of like how it is already is but worse due to initiative no longer existing.
I think Amanita is more remarking on the actual armor piercing capabilities of an axe vs a sword.
Axes don't pierce armor well. Maces and axes provide crushing / concussive force force. Swords are designed to pierce and slash. These changes make sense. Use axes against high toughness models. use swords against lower toughness models.
Everyone weapon now has a place
As someone who spends 3 knights a week doing HEMA swordplay, swords are not the optimal weapon against armor. They are very much for fighting unarmored or lightly armored opponents. Concussive force weapons are the go-to against armored opponents because that force transfers through the armor and bends/crushes it (with the wearer inside), while armor will easily set aside thrusts and cuts, hence why you get into the awkward nature of half-swording and a whole lot more grappling when swordfighting armored opponents.
Vaktathi wrote: As someone who spends 3 knights as week doing HEMA swordplay, swords are not the optimal weapon against armor. They are very much for fighting unarmored or lightly armored opponents. Concussive force weapons are the go-to against armored opponents because that force transfers through the armor and bends/crushes it (with the wearer inside), while armor will easily set aside thrusts and cuts, hence why you get into the awkward nature of half-swording and a whole lot more grappling when swordfighting armored opponents.
Historical and/or Real World accuracy aside, it's refreshing to not look at the list of power weapons and see an auto-take option. There's a cool graphical analysis of the performance of S and AP vs. various T and Saves somewhere on Dakka. Saw it a few days ago. The results of that indicate each weapon type (axe, sword, maul) will outperform each other in fairly narrow T/S bands, with no clear winner except when you are able to predict a meta. For example: "In my area, everyone foot-slogs T3 dudes with 4+ armor saves...So I'll be taking Swords, since they wound on 3's--I'm a Spehs Mureen--and, at -3AP, deny the poor sods any save at all. Muwahahaha." etc.
I mentioned it in the other thread, but I'm confused as to how this works for Wysiwyg. Chaos Marines have had the option for CCW for years now, no differentiation between a chain blade or a combat knife, but now there is suddenly a difference between the two. Is it free? Does it cost anything?
I modeled my cultists champion to have a chainsaw hand, is this now illegal?
Some Orks have chain choppaz, AR these suddenly better? Did Orks with a Slugga choppaz get worse? So far this is the only disappointing news for 8th.
I can see why they would want to make chainswords unique but they should have established a difference years ago if that were the case
Nightlord1987 wrote: I mentioned it in the other thread, but I'm confused as to how this works for Wysiwyg. Chaos Marines have had the option for CCW for years now, no differentiation between a chain blade or a combat knife, but now there is suddenly a difference between the two. Is it free? Does it cost anything?
Some Orks have chain choppaz, AR these suddenly better? Did Orks with a Slugga choppaz get worse? So far this is the only disappointing news for 8th.
If you're getting a benefit (and the other CCW doesn't provide a benefit), then you're probably going to have to pay a point cost for that benefit.
Because, y'know, you're getting a benefit.
Edit: wait, its disappointing news that two things you can literally ONLY SPECULATE concerning (weapons without previewed stats and the point costs for them) are speculated to be something you don't like? Wow.
On the whole, I like the changes, tho to be fair, I would have rather seen Chainswords get something like -1 Rend, or maybe +1S, instead of the extra attack. To more accurately portray the fact that it's essentially a weaponized chain saw.
The force weapons are a bit 'meh', but probably done as a balance factor due to GK. Still, nice to see that for the most part, there's not simply the best 'go to' weapon for every scenario anymore.
It's a rule that favors Loyalist Marines more than anything since they have had chainswords since forever, while Chaos has CCW. If I have to pay a point or two more now for everything, OR miss out on a CCW attack due to WYSIWYG then yea. Disappointing.
Nightlord1987 wrote: It's a rule that favors Loyalist Marines more than anything since they have had chainswords since forever, while Chaos has CCW. If I have to pay a point or two more now for everything, OR miss out on a CCW attack due to WYSIWYG then yea. Disappointing.
If you have to pay a point for them, then so will the loyalists, because in theory, all units will be balanced for their point costs. If loyalists will come bog-standard with chainswords, then they won't even have the CHOICE whether they pay the extra point or two or lose the extra attack.
Nightlord1987 wrote: I mentioned it in the other thread, but I'm confused as to how this works for Wysiwyg. Chaos Marines have had the option for CCW for years now, no differentiation between a chain blade or a combat knife, but now there is suddenly a difference between the two. Is it free? Does it cost anything?
I modeled my cultists champion to have a chainsaw hand, is this now illegal?
Some Orks have chain choppaz, AR these suddenly better? Did Orks with a Slugga choppaz get worse? So far this is the only disappointing news for 8th.
I can see why they would want to make chainswords unique but they should have established a difference years ago if that were the case
"Every marine in this chaos marine unit has a chainsword even if some don't have one".
Vaktathi wrote: Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.
Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
No, I have to disagree there. Most of those models were modelled with a chainsword to go with the pistol they would also commonly carry, for the +1 attack. That rule seems to be gone, since the pistol's strength is now that it can be shot while you're locked in combat. This way, that model will still have his +1 attack that he was modelled for, but it now just comes from the chain sword.
There's a lot of unknown in that, have they come out and straight said that? I could have missed it if so.
Either way, if the second attack is gone, it seems like that was done intentionally, why does the Chainsword need an extra attack over a CCW when they were previously the same thing when that 2nd attack is incorporated into being able to shoot the pistol? Which then makes it awkward for the dudes in the same unit modeled with things like combat knives instead of chainswords, or for units that just don't come with chainswords but otherwise operated the same way that kits that did come with chainswords did.
They have not said the extra attack is gone, but they have said you can shoot pistols while in close combat. Since I feel like that alone makes pistols a really cool strategical choice but also too powerful if they also have the extra attack, I'm inferring the second part.
I'll go ahead and assume the chainsword will have a cost now, so those guys with the bigass Catachan dagger will be a little less expensive, but you now have the choice of still getting your +1 attack using the chainsword.
The issue I have is that this then results in awkward mismashed units and more weird list construction and model building complexity just to make the chainsword "special" for its own sake over a CCW that did the exact same thing before. I'm not seeing the reason to make the Chainsword special on its own, especially given that for most units, like CSM's or Assault Marines, the pistol attack vs the chainsword attack will be literally the same thing (3+ to hit, S4, AP0), and most of these units would basically just gain both benefits, pretty much just punking out CCW modeled dudes.
But many of the "classic" dedicated assault units, like Assault Marines and Khorne Berzerkers, have the options to take some Plasma Pistols over Bolt pistols. They would still get that bonus attack, but now at an improved profile.
It's a similar situation for Guardsmen. Sergeants start with Laspistols, which may have the same profile as themselves (S3) for the extra attacks. But they could (at least previously) upgrade to Bolt Pistols, which Commissars already have. That would get them a S4 attack in melee, which could help against tougher enemies. Plus they themselves could get Plasma Pistols as well to further their melee output.
Personally, I am okay with removing the +1 attack rule for having pistols. It streamlines the game a bit by removing something, and by shooting them into your melee you still get that "extra" attack, but at the potential of a better profile, and giving a good reason to equip out Plasma or other Pistol weapons to models since they can now shoot them more than the one or two shots you would normally expect in previous editions.
In my EARLIEST games of 5th Edition, I was convinced that Assault Weapons could be used in the Assault Phase instead of the model attacking with their melee statline. It made sense when looking at the Black Reach Starter Set box (back when it was Storm Bolters on Terminators, and Big Shootas for the Orks, and the Rockits for the Deff Coptas). So firing guns in melee is kinda of nostalgic for my earliest games of 40K when I was first learning the game. Neat!
Vaktathi wrote: As someone who spends 3 knights as week doing HEMA swordplay, swords are not the optimal weapon against armor. They are very much for fighting unarmored or lightly armored opponents. Concussive force weapons are the go-to against armored opponents because that force transfers through the armor and bends/crushes it (with the wearer inside), while armor will easily set aside thrusts and cuts, hence why you get into the awkward nature of half-swording and a whole lot more grappling when swordfighting armored opponents.
I always figured that a "power" weapon had this sort of energy field running through it that allowed it to atomically separate armor, or something like that. Basically, the sword has a battery hooked up to it that makes it cut things like a lightsaber (or vibro-weapon from Star Wars, if you prefer). I can't remember where I originally read that, but I think that it was one of the old 5th Edition Codexes (Codices?) when I first started playing.
Nightlord1987 wrote: It's a rule that favors Loyalist Marines more than anything since they have had chainswords since forever, while Chaos has CCW. If I have to pay a point or two more now for everything, OR miss out on a CCW attack due to WYSIWYG then yea. Disappointing.
epronovost wrote: That chainsword thing is going to be complecated with orks. They do have chainswords, mixed with axes and machettes.
Hey guys, it will probably state on the unit's datasheet what the unit is equipped with, and how that weapon will function. The rules are getting simplified, and each unit will have its weapon options available on its datasheet, and it will state what each model comes with, rather than having a large section in the rulebook or Codex that contains the rules for each weapon. I wouldn't be too concerned yet about it.
If nothing else, send a message to GW directly to voice your concerns. They are listening to us now
Nightlord1987 wrote: It's a rule that favors Loyalist Marines more than anything since they have had chainswords since forever, while Chaos has CCW. If I have to pay a point or two more now for everything, OR miss out on a CCW attack due to WYSIWYG then yea. Disappointing.
You sound like Trump. Sad.
And what are you ON about? The CSM sprue has had chainswords on it since caveman days.
amanita wrote: Force weapons cause D3 wounds now? Interesting if a bit underwhelming.
They do power-fist damage at the cost of not reducing your to hit roll. Still very strong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I like the new chainsword. There will be situations where a chain-sword is actually the weapon of choice on a melee unit. I think assualt marines might actually be playable now. Can shoot their bolt pistol and make 2 attacks with their chiansword. This will ruin lightly armored infantry.
Vaktathi wrote: Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.
Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
Blunt weapons aren't actually good at penetrating armour, they are good against armour because they are good at transfering a lot of force through the armour into the squishy, which is represented by being easier to wound but it doesn't actually "cut" or "penetrate" through the armour. Axes are good at penetrating as they concentrate a lot of force into a small cutting edge. Swords however need a niche role. That was supposed to be what happened in 6th and 7th, with GW thinking the Unwieldy Rule would counteract the str and AP. Obviously however, people mathhammered everything to death and found that its just better to go Axe for the extra damage output.
THink of it this way
6th and 7th Ed
Mace has the highest Strength and worst AP Sword has the lowest strength and middle AP Axe has middle strength and best AP.
Assigning an arbitrary ranking to each point in this. Assume that a power weapon gets +0 "Usefulness" for having the worst Strength or AP, +1 for middle AP or Str, and +2 for best AP or Str.
Mace gets +2 for being highest strenght and +0 for worst AP. Total = 2. +1 for Concussive. That's 3.
Swords get +0 for being lowest strength and +1 for medium AP. Total = 1
Axes get +1 for being medium strength and +2 for best AP, total = 3.
Now in 7th, Axes and Maces are just superior. But in 8th?
8th Ed
Mace gets +0 for having worst AP and +2 for best strength, total = 2
Axes get +1 for medium Str and +1 for medium AP = 2 total
Swords get +0 for worst strength, and +2 for best AP. Total = 2
So by that simple formula, in 7th, Swords were definitely inferior to Axes and Maces, but in 8th, they are all on par. This is of course all on paper and mathhammer may find that meta makes Swords far more useful or Maces useless, but that's to be seen.
Actually, many swords were designed to penetrate armour, like a Ropera Sword or a Rapier. And they did it much better than Maces or Axes, that don't penetrates armour, they just hurt who is inside by brute force.
So the relation in: AP= Penetrating capabilities and Strenght= How easy is to hurt in the meele profiles are not only a good balance but historically correct at the same time. As much historically correct you can have with power-magic weapons
Vaktathi wrote: Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.
Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
Blunt weapons aren't actually good at penetrating armour, they are good against armour because they are good at transfering a lot of force through the armour into the squishy, which is represented by being easier to wound but it doesn't actually "cut" or "penetrate" through the armour.
Right...they basically ignore the armor, having the armor provide superior defense against such weapons over a sword is nonsensical when the force transmission is effectively bypassing the armor.
Meanwhile the sword, with its point and cutting edges, has superior wounding capability against soft targets, *it* should be the one with the Strength bonus and poor armor pen if anything, not the mace or axe.
The more straightforward progression on the power weapons is welcome, imo.
As for why the specific weapons occupy their specific role I think the sword makes perfect sense where it is. Compared to the others it's much more of a finesse weapon and less reliant on the swing. When you eke out the kill because of that AP3 that represents your dude piercing through a gap in the opponent's armour and running him through.
Vaktathi wrote: Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.
Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
Blunt weapons aren't actually good at penetrating armour, they are good against armour because they are good at transfering a lot of force through the armour into the squishy, which is represented by being easier to wound but it doesn't actually "cut" or "penetrate" through the armour.
Right...they basically ignore the armor, having the armor provide superior defense against such weapons over a sword is nonsensical when the force transmission is effectively bypassing the armor.
Meanwhile the sword, with its point and cutting edges, has superior wounding capability against soft targets, *it* should be the one with the Strength bonus and poor armor pen if anything, not the mace or axe.
Strength is how hard you hit. Maces and axes hit harder, they have more weight at the strike end and have greater momentum transfer that swords, which have the weight at the hilt/handle end.
Armour Penetration is how well it penetrates armour. Maces don't penetrate armour, it bypasses it. Simple.
Swords can be better at penetrating armour with a thrust (a lot of force being a very tiny surface area) but in general its an abstraction for game purposes because the competitive crowd were the ones test-playing, not the Realism or narrative crowds.
Vaktathi wrote: Right...they basically ignore the armor, having the armor provide superior defense against such weapons over a sword is nonsensical when the force transmission is effectively bypassing the armor.
Meanwhile the sword, with its point and cutting edges, has superior wounding capability against soft targets, *it* should be the one with the Strength bonus and poor armor pen if anything, not the mace or axe.
So, since we're talking chainsaws and powerfields, how do you expect an ax or sword to behave when they get smacked into concrete or an ablative substance rather than traditional metal armor? Traditional expectations are going to go out the window pretty quick there if we want to start talking about realism.
Axes vs. Mauls. vs. Swords is like the debate on which weapon to take in D&D for the slashing, crushing, or stabbing damage in order to take on different foes. Higher Strength or Higher AP? Different targets will need different strategies. Got a monster or vehicle with low save to attack? Maul. Got low Toughness, high save model? Sword. Something in between? Axe.
I'm just over here wondering what a Power Spear will look like
Mixed bag, I correctly guessed powerfist would get a minus to hit back when everyone was freaking about about charges going first, but I really expected force weapons to deal mortal wounds.
Other thoughts, ap vs strength is a non-comparison. To get to 2+ you need to double out their toughness, something a +2 to strength is probably not going to help you accomplish. On the other hand every point of AP is valuable as it affects the enemies save. So against MEQ wielded by a MEQ, axe and sword are going to balance out, because +1 str will get you to a 3+ to wound which makes up for the fact they will be saving on a 5+ rather than a 6+. In most cases though sword will be better, up to toughness 7.
Power Maul just suck, the only edge case where they are useful for marines is against units with invuls and toughness 3 or 5, which is wytches or lychguard. That's a pretty small use case. They should have given mauls something, but they were painted into a corner by power fists only doing a d3 damage (another thing I called in advance). So mauls just continue sucking.
If the rule granting +1 attack for having a pistol was removed, then Assault Marines and similar units needed chainswords to grant extra attacks, because otherwise they'd be no more effective in assault than Tactical Marines. You couldn't add an attack to the Assault Marine's profile, because the fluff states a Tac Marine goes through Dev and Assault Squads before being assigned to a Tac Squad, so you'd have a situation where a Marine gained an attack going to the Assault Squad, then lost it again when he was promoted to a Tac Squad.
Vaktathi wrote: Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.
Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
Blunt weapons aren't actually good at penetrating armour, they are good against armour because they are good at transfering a lot of force through the armour into the squishy, which is represented by being easier to wound but it doesn't actually "cut" or "penetrate" through the armour.
Right...they basically ignore the armor, having the armor provide superior defense against such weapons over a sword is nonsensical when the force transmission is effectively bypassing the armor.
Meanwhile the sword, with its point and cutting edges, has superior wounding capability against soft targets, *it* should be the one with the Strength bonus and poor armor pen if anything, not the mace or axe.
Strength is how hard you hit. Maces and axes hit harder, they have more weight at the strike end and have greater momentum transfer that swords, which have the weight at the hilt/handle end.
Strength is a lot of things, not just physical force. Even then, the relative difference in raw force between a mace and a sword of the style common in 40k is not going to warrant a meaningful difference. We're not talking epee or rapier here, most 40k swords are the kind you can put some stonk behind, and, ultimately, it's not hard to inflict a wound with a sword, all you need to do with a sword to run them through is just point it and step forward and it'll go right through end to end.
Armour Penetration is how well it penetrates armour. Maces don't penetrate armour, it bypasses it. Simple.
which is why they should have the better pen, the armor is of dramatically less protective value, it's not going to deflect or shed as well, and it's going to have to absorb more force. The armor is going to be less effective or completely ineffective.
Swords can be better at penetrating armour with a thrust (a lot of force being a very tiny surface area)
Not anything plate, as most 40k armor is, it can penetrate chainmail if designed for thrusting, but not proper armor plate, they bend and flex and slip against plate. When that came about, suddenly you started seeing actual warhammers show up. Swords, thrusting or cutting, are awful against armor, hence why you see other weapons come about when armor got serious.
but in general its an abstraction for game purposes because the competitive crowd were the ones test-playing, not the Realism or narrative crowds.
All those chosen with the free CCW have been combat blades.
Now all of a sudden chain blades Do something special when previously they were just bog standard CCW.
For all that time, Chainswords were literally CCW in one form or another. I'm actually surprised to see this, and I wonder if it will be just for specific units or for them all.
Scorpions have a form of Chainsword, so it stands to reason that they will keep this ability, as a higher volume of Attacks is what offensively differentiates them fro Banshees (who will now have some great AP, albeit at low Str and lower Attacks).
Comparison of a tactical marine with a chainsword (CS) vs a tactical marine with a power maul. Assuming 1 base attack.
Noting that the chainsword grants a bonus attack.
Probabilitities are given as the likelyhood of a tactical marine killing a target with thier full set of melee attacks. ie a kill in one round of combat.
Against other tacticals
P(CS) = 2/9
P(maul) = 2/9
Against terminators
P(CS) = 1/9 = 3/27
P(maul) = 4/27
Against T3 4+ base armour
P(CS) = 4/9 = 12/27
P(Maul) = 10/27
Against T4 4+ base armour
P(CS) = 1/3 = 3/9 = 9/27
P(Maul) = 8/27
So the maul is situational but not much better than a chainsword.The opportunity to attack T 10-11 should not be ignored though.
I think the maul will shine as a buff weapon on GEQ sergeants and be useful for attacking high toughness enemies.
The chainsword gains a lot from providing a second attack, especially if it is a fairly cheap choice.
It is entirely possibly I've made a mistake in at least one calculation, so if there is a mistake, please point it out.
Vaktathi wrote: Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.
Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
Blunt weapons aren't actually good at penetrating armour, they are good against armour because they are good at transfering a lot of force through the armour into the squishy, which is represented by being easier to wound but it doesn't actually "cut" or "penetrate" through the armour.
Right...they basically ignore the armor, having the armor provide superior defense against such weapons over a sword is nonsensical when the force transmission is effectively bypassing the armor.
Meanwhile the sword, with its point and cutting edges, has superior wounding capability against soft targets, *it* should be the one with the Strength bonus and poor armor pen if anything, not the mace or axe.
Strength is how hard you hit. Maces and axes hit harder, they have more weight at the strike end and have greater momentum transfer that swords, which have the weight at the hilt/handle end.
Strength is a lot of things, not just physical force. Even then, the relative difference in raw force between a mace and a sword of the style common in 40k is not going to warrant a meaningful difference. We're not talking epee or rapier here, most 40k swords are the kind you can put some stonk behind, and, ultimately, it's not hard to inflict a wound with a sword, all you need to do with a sword to run them through is just point it and step forward and it'll go right through end to end.
Armour Penetration is how well it penetrates armour. Maces don't penetrate armour, it bypasses it. Simple.
which is why they should have the better pen, the armor is of dramatically less protective value, it's not going to deflect or shed as well, and it's going to have to absorb more force. The armor is going to be less effective or completely ineffective.
Swords can be better at penetrating armour with a thrust (a lot of force being a very tiny surface area)
Not anything plate, as most 40k armor is, it can penetrate chainmail if designed for thrusting, but not proper armor plate, they bend and flex and slip against plate. When that came about, suddenly you started seeing actual warhammers show up. Swords, thrusting or cutting, are awful against armor, hence why you see other weapons come about when armor got serious.
A broadsword still doesn't have the weight and momentum transfer of an axe or mace, it is balanced to make sure the majority of the weight is in the hilt. A 40k sword maybe be more effective cutting than a rapier but it'll never have the same cutting power as an equivilent size axe or the crushing power of an equivilent mace.
But maces don't have better armour penetration. I mean that literally. They bypass it, but they don't penetrate. You shouldn't have better Armour Penetration values if the weapon is actually worse at armour penetration. Which is why it has higher strength, as armour save can't protect vs an easier To Wound roll.
Those plate armour sets and swords in history were made of comparably strong materials (tempered or forged steel). 40k Power weapons have an armour-sundering, monomolecular-edged, handwavium powerfield around it that rips apart the atoms in the way, so the materials aren't of comparable strength. Also, you contradict yourself because in your first point you say this
"all you need to do with a sword to run them through is just point it and step forward and it'll go right through end to end."
Which is counter to the point I've just mentioned where you say that the sword will slip and roll off plate. Can't do both.
amanita wrote: Not sure why a power axe would only be -2 while a sword is -3 either, but what the heck?
If you ignore previous 40k rules and look at the weapon as a weapon, it does make sense. Axes aren't great at armour piercing, swords are. maces are the worst of the three, relying on the impact rather than a cutting edge.
It's your classic piercing vs slashing vs blunt force weapon setup.
*edit* Oh - and let's not forget that Armor Piercing isn't the same as "being effective versus armour". Maces are effective versus armour, but they're not piercing it. they're using the force of the impact to hurt the plate wearer (+strength) instead of piercing the armour (-armour piercing).
amanita wrote: Not sure why a power axe would only be -2 while a sword is -3 either, but what the heck?
If you ignore previous 40k rules and look at the weapon as a weapon, it does make sense. Axes aren't great at armour piercing, swords are. maces are the worst of the three, relying on the impact rather than a cutting edge.
...I mean, if you're trying to look at the weapon as a weapon the 'cutting edge' is kind of irrelevant where armour is concerned; you fight people in heavy armour with maces/hammers/really heavy swords to batter them into submission or with giant picks to actually crack the armour, you don't try and shove a sharp thing at them and hope for the best...
But 'power fields' make realism an unhelpful way of looking at the problem, so...
Interestingly enough, my Crusader Assault Squads with 2 Power Swords, 1 Special Pistol, 1 Flamer, 9 Bolt Pistols, and 7 Chainswords is going to be brutal in the Fight Phase no matter the target.
Too bad I got rid of their fire support to help get them there.
amanita wrote: Not sure why a power axe would only be -2 while a sword is -3 either, but what the heck?
If you ignore previous 40k rules and look at the weapon as a weapon, it does make sense. Axes aren't great at armour piercing, swords are. maces are the worst of the three, relying on the impact rather than a cutting edge.
...I mean, if you're trying to look at the weapon as a weapon the 'cutting edge' is kind of irrelevant where armour is concerned; you fight people in heavy armour with maces/hammers/really heavy swords to batter them into submission or with giant picks to actually crack the armour, you don't try and shove a sharp thing at them and hope for the best...
But 'power fields' make realism an unhelpful way of looking at the problem, so...
Yeah, but that's the point. A sword can be used as a piercing weapon versus armour, so it's effective at ignoring the armour. Maces rely on strength of impact instead of penetrating the armour. Axes are in the middle now.
And yeah, just ignore the power fields. you've got em on all of them, it's what's granting them their "budget" of Strength+AP I'd say. All three would be very useless without the power fields, which is why they'd be categorized as your regular CCW.
nekooni wrote: ...It's your classic piercing vs slashing vs blunt force weapon setup.
(If you want to go for realism 'slashing damage' is the worst possible thing to have against armour.)
But not the worst for armour penetration. which is what the stat is called.
a sharp edge has a higher chance to penetrate armour when compared to a blunt edge - you can penetrate eg leather armour with an axe or sabre, but a mace usually wouldn't even penetrate cloth. It'd still do damage to the wearer though. see: strength stat
nekooni wrote: ...It's your classic piercing vs slashing vs blunt force weapon setup.
(If you want to go for realism 'slashing damage' is the worst possible thing to have against armour.)
But not the worst for armour penetration. which is what the stat is called.
a sharp edge has a higher chance to penetrate armour when compared to a blunt edge - you can penetrate eg leather armour with an axe or sabre, but a mace usually wouldn't even penetrate cloth. It'd still do damage to the wearer though. see: strength stat
The problem with this argument is that "blade physically going through the armour" (the physics argument you're making) is distinct from "armour prevents attack from doing damage" (the function of save/AP in the game). So I suppose the real lesson here is that the "armour penetration" stat is badly named.
Of course power swords have better armor slicing power. This isn't real world logic we're using, they're swords from the future sheathed in a field of energy! A field of energy like that over a hammer head is just going to make it hit harder, not pierce armor better. You're using logic from 40,000 years in the past
Now the question, how are different chain weapons going to compare. Chain axes had the same AP as mauls, so would would those look like? Ap-1, bonus attack and S+1? Or just the ap and attack minus the strength buff they should have.
Chainfists will be pretty brutal now, I imagine they'll get d6 damage instead of armourbane. That would pretty much turn them into pseudo destroyer weapons.
A broadsword still doesn't have the weight and momentum transfer of an axe or mace
Depends on the mace or axe and sword. Axes in particular arent amazing combat weapons, they're often really a tool improvised into a weapon, and rarely saw use amongst those who could afford better except in very specialized forms. I can swing my Longsword feder with much more force than a typical feudal levy hand axe for example.
Likewise, I dont need much force to hurt someone with a sword, I can cut someone to the bone with relatively little force with a sword, where the same force with a mace will do no more than bruise at best. With a sabre wrist cut I can leave uou with a 2" deep cut, while a mace would have just hurt but not inflicted any lasting harm with the same amount of force.
Ultimately however swords will inflict grievous wounds just as easily or easier than a mace against a soft target, maces only come out really amongst really poor or really heavily armored fighters.
But maces don't have better armour penetration. I mean that literally. They bypass it, but they don't penetrate. You shouldn't have better Armour Penetration values if the weapon is actually worse at armour penetration.
The point is that it doesnt need to penetrate. The armor is ineffective against the attack. The armor does not protect.
Same way an IS2 couldnt necessarily penetrate a Panther turret from lots of angles, but it was irrelevant because the big whomping HE shell would simply blast the turret out of its ring and kill everything inside through shock. Yeah the armor wasnt penetrated, but thats irrelevant because the armor didnt offer any protection anyway.
When it comes to melee weapons, if you're fighting someone in armor, a sword is not the optimal choice, hence the rise of the warhammer (lowet case) against armored opponents.
Even then actually, warhammers could penetrate when given a tip to do so, such were very strong relative to a sword tip (and wouldnt cut flesh the same way) and would absolutely crush and penetrate plate.
.
Which is why it has higher strength, as armour save can't protect vs an easier To Wound roll.
Which is largely nonsensical with these weapons, because the sword should be the weapon that has a far easier time wounding, while the mace should be much more effective against an opponent in armor. With a sword, you have to adopt a totally different, much more close range, much more grapply/wrestling fighting style against an armored opponent and attack gaps in the armor, with a mace you just swing and cave the armor into their flesh and crush bones beneath it without worrying about gaps or closing distance.
Those plate armour sets and swords in history were made of comparably strong materials (tempered or forged steel). 40k Power weapons have an armour-sundering, monomolecular-edged, handwavium powerfield around it that rips apart the atoms in the way, so the materials aren't of comparable strength.
And the armor is similarly advanced with high tech materials and force fields and the like. More to the point, it's almost all modeled and conceptualized off Fantasy/medieval stuff in the first place
Also, you contradict yourself because in your first point you say this
"all you need to do with a sword to run them through is just point it and step forward and it'll go right through end to end."
Which is counter to the point I've just mentioned where you say that the sword will slip and roll off plate. Can't do both.
Hrm, no, my earlier statement was in regards to thrusting a soft target, not an armored one. Very different things.
If I swing a mace at someone's chest, I may break some bones and bruise flesh, maybe even rupture an organ, but I'm not going run them through. If they are in armor, the armor may absorb a bit of that but I can otherwise inflict the same harm with enough stonk behind it. A sword will thrust right through an unarmored target with great ease and go completely through, the flesh will yield, the tip will peirce and the edges will slice as it goes through, but will do squat all against an armored plate were it'll slip or shed instead, particularly as the blade is flexible, no matter how much stonk you put on it.
Really what a sword should do is increase your ability to hit and defend, it is a much more agile and versatile weapon than a mace or axe, not be the super penetrator weapon.
This thread is an entertaining demonstration of how little most people know about the effect of common medieval weapons. Which is fine because it's only a game, right? But then to argue that a power sword has some unknown power field space magic, etc., is just as lazy. Why then use the terms of axe, sword and maul? Don't all these weapons have the same magic techno-disruption field? And if the overall effect is relatively the same then why bother having 3 categories of weapon types when I thought the whole idea of 8th was to streamline the game?
It doesn't really matter to me; it just seems somewhat unnecessarily counter-intuitive. I just find it funny when people apply their mental gymnastics to defend whatever GW spews, cuz it's all NEW AND IMPROVED!
amanita wrote: ...This thread is an entertaining demonstration of how little most people know about the effect of common medieval weapons...
And/or just how enthusiastic we are to get into arguments about fiddly little granular bits of a company-scale wargame in which we should probably have just stuck with "power weapons" instead of splitting them up.
amanita wrote: This thread is an entertaining demonstration of how little most people know about the effect of common medieval weapons. Which is fine because it's only a game, right? But then to argue that a power sword has some unknown power field space magic, etc., is just as lazy. Why then use the terms of axe, sword and maul? Don't all these weapons have the same magic techno-disruption field? And if the overall effect is relatively the same then why bother having 3 categories of weapon types when I thought the whole idea of 8th was to streamline the game?
It doesn't really matter to me; it just seems somewhat unnecessarily counter-intuitive. I just find it funny when people apply their mental gymnastics to defend whatever GW spews, cuz it's all NEW AND IMPROVED!
So you don't like how people don't understand how medival weapons work, but you also aren't ok with people being ok with a fictional scifi explanation for it either?
Its not mental gymnastics, its that most people who paint and push miniatures around aren't historical weapons buffs. I don't know how space travel works, and I know its all kinds of impractical in Star Wars, but that still doesn't mean I don't get to enjoy Star Wars.
amanita wrote: This thread is an entertaining demonstration of how little most people know about the effect of common medieval weapons. Which is fine because it's only a game, right? But then to argue that a power sword has some unknown power field space magic, etc., is just as lazy. Why then use the terms of axe, sword and maul? Don't all these weapons have the same magic techno-disruption field? And if the overall effect is relatively the same then why bother having 3 categories of weapon types when I thought the whole idea of 8th was to streamline the game?
It doesn't really matter to me; it just seems somewhat unnecessarily counter-intuitive. I just find it funny when people apply their mental gymnastics to defend whatever GW spews, cuz it's all NEW AND IMPROVED!
So you don't like how people don't understand how medival weapons work, but you also aren't ok with people being ok with a fictional scifi explanation for it either?
Its not mental gymnastics, its that most people who paint and push miniatures around aren't historical weapons buffs. I don't know how space travel works, and I know its all kinds of impractical in Star Wars, but that still doesn't mean I don't get to enjoy Star Wars.
Bizarre internal mental-gymnastics logic says "the power field covers the blade only, not the haft, so a power sword has more power field because the blade is a bigger portion of the weapon, therefore it has better AP."
D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
they are trying to cancel any way to one shot a model, until 8th force weapon could be very dangerous,a lucky hit and you lost a big model, they are trying to avoid those kind of things. they are doing the same with D weapons and stomps for example, and i agree with them.
Well, those bigger titan-type attacks with fixed damage of 4+ are still mostly one-shotting and individual infantry model, including characters if the wound gets though, but I'm ok with that. I'm also very ok with there not being an easy way to one-shot the more expensive vehicles.
Fenris-77 wrote: Well, those bigger titan-type attacks with fixed damage of 4+ are still mostly one-shotting and individual infantry model, including characters if the wound gets though, but I'm ok with that. I'm also very ok with there not being an easy way to one-shot the more expensive vehicles.
that can be accettable , it's not lost a BT for example with single 6.
I quite like the dynamic of Axe/Maul/Sword. It doesn't appear that any 1 of them is superior. Had they made Axes AP -3 and Swords AP -2, there would be a clear winner.
There also is no such thing a "Unwieldy" in 8E so the Axe needed some kind of balance.
This change also makes power weapons good again as they have a good affect on any target (unlike 6E & 7E).
Combine with the new 'to-wound' chart, Power Sword wielding Terminators are no longer garbage.
A broadsword still doesn't have the weight and momentum transfer of an axe or mace
Depends on the mace or axe and sword. Axes in particular arent amazing combat weapons, they're often really a tool improvised into a weapon, and rarely saw use amongst those who could afford better except in very specialized forms. I can swing my Longsword feder with much more force than a typical feudal levy hand axe for example.
Likewise, I dont need much force to hurt someone with a sword, I can cut someone to the bone with relatively little force with a sword, where the same force with a mace will do no more than bruise at best. With a sabre wrist cut I can leave uou with a 2" deep cut, while a mace would have just hurt but not inflicted any lasting harm with the same amount of force.
Ultimately however swords will inflict grievous wounds just as easily or easier than a mace against a soft target, maces only come out really amongst really poor or really heavily armored fighters.
But maces don't have better armour penetration. I mean that literally. They bypass it, but they don't penetrate. You shouldn't have better Armour Penetration values if the weapon is actually worse at armour penetration.
The point is that it doesnt need to penetrate. The armor is ineffective against the attack. The armor does not protect.
Same way an IS2 couldnt necessarily penetrate a Panther turret from lots of angles, but it was irrelevant because the big whomping HE shell would simply blast the turret out of its ring and kill everything inside through shock. Yeah the armor wasnt penetrated, but thats irrelevant because the armor didnt offer any protection anyway.
When it comes to melee weapons, if you're fighting someone in armor, a sword is not the optimal choice, hence the rise of the warhammer (lowet case) against armored opponents.
Even then actually, warhammers could penetrate when given a tip to do so, such were very strong relative to a sword tip (and wouldnt cut flesh the same way) and would absolutely crush and penetrate plate.
.
Which is why it has higher strength, as armour save can't protect vs an easier To Wound roll.
Which is largely nonsensical with these weapons, because the sword should be the weapon that has a far easier time wounding, while the mace should be much more effective against an opponent in armor. With a sword, you have to adopt a totally different, much more close range, much more grapply/wrestling fighting style against an armored opponent and attack gaps in the armor, with a mace you just swing and cave the armor into their flesh and crush bones beneath it without worrying about gaps or closing distance.
Those plate armour sets and swords in history were made of comparably strong materials (tempered or forged steel). 40k Power weapons have an armour-sundering, monomolecular-edged, handwavium powerfield around it that rips apart the atoms in the way, so the materials aren't of comparable strength.
And the armor is similarly advanced with high tech materials and force fields and the like. More to the point, it's almost all modeled and conceptualized off Fantasy/medieval stuff in the first place
Also, you contradict yourself because in your first point you say this
"all you need to do with a sword to run them through is just point it and step forward and it'll go right through end to end."
Which is counter to the point I've just mentioned where you say that the sword will slip and roll off plate. Can't do both.
Hrm, no, my earlier statement was in regards to thrusting a soft target, not an armored one. Very different things.
If I swing a mace at someone's chest, I may break some bones and bruise flesh, maybe even rupture an organ, but I'm not going run them through. If they are in armor, the armor may absorb a bit of that but I can otherwise inflict the same harm with enough stonk behind it. A sword will thrust right through an unarmored target with great ease and go completely through, the flesh will yield, the tip will peirce and the edges will slice as it goes through, but will do squat all against an armored plate were it'll slip or shed instead, particularly as the blade is flexible, no matter how much stonk you put on it.
Really what a sword should do is increase your ability to hit and defend, it is a much more agile and versatile weapon than a mace or axe, not be the super penetrator weapon.
Yeah, but that's the point. A sword can be used as a piercing weapon versus armour, so it's effective at ignoring the armour.
Swords are really, really, really bad at this unless its chainmail.
Interesting argument. I'm not sure the stats don't like up better not just in the future sense but even versus current admiring technology. In the past a mace had the energy to deform the metal used to make armor. If someone were to build armor out of hardened steel much less ceramic I'm not sure the mace would be effective at that point at bypassing armor. Fast forward to 40k times and everyone is wearing ceramic hardened armor. So I don't know that the mace is really effective in that manner. Then there is the additional consideration of which part of hitting/wounding/penning does each part of the combat go into. A sword is more finesse does that go into hit or does it go into pen because in can manage to stab in weak parts of armor?
amanita wrote: This thread is an entertaining demonstration of how little most people know about the effect of common medieval weapons. Which is fine because it's only a game, right? But then to argue that a power sword has some unknown power field space magic, etc., is just as lazy. Why then use the terms of axe, sword and maul? Don't all these weapons have the same magic techno-disruption field? And if the overall effect is relatively the same then why bother having 3 categories of weapon types when I thought the whole idea of 8th was to streamline the game?
I've been enjoying people argue about the relative merits of particular types of weapons while treating armor as some single monolithic entity that always functions in one manner with the same weaknesses and benefits. Not to mention I don't think anyone has really been talking about effectiveness vs modern military armor or riot gear.
As for your questions:
Streamlining is good, but as with all things moderation. Unit customization is one area you can easily trim way to much if you aren't careful.
It's worth noting that, at least in the fantasy flight games, the weapons did have some justification for why they acted differently. Also they are all melee weapons so they can work even without power (so at least you still have a sword/axe/maul to defend yourself, if it breaks).
Spoiler:
Power axes are fitted with larger generators, as balance of the weapon isn't an issue.
Power swords need to be balanced for actual sword play, so they can't have as large a power field generator.
Mauls don't work as well, as apparently the generator doesn't work super well with penetration when spread over a larger area. However the weapon itself also mounts a large generator like the axe, so it's still got a lot of punch.
Powerfists are basically what happens if you just mount a huge power generator. Apparently, if you put a big enough power field on a weapon and put enough juice on it, the whole spread out over a larger area thing stops mattering, and hits really hard. It's also hideous awkward and cumbersome.
So that's the logic I've seen from an admittly questionable fluff source. In the new edition, it seems they kinda ran with a similar idea. Larger power generators can be fitted on more weapons that don't require much finesse, which means the weapons hit harder, but those weapons diffuse the powerfield over a larger area meaning worse penetration (this all supposes the sword is stabbing, or the powerfield somehow makes the axe more like a hammer?). One of those basic sci-fi things you get from people with a real basic knowledge of physics.
Didn't chainswords have an AP value way back in 2nd Ed, or am I making that up? I think there is a precedent for them being different than a standard CCW, but I could be mistaken.
I'm guessing with orks they aren't going to make a distinction between chain choppas and regular choppas. Orks have such a wide variety of mis-matched stuff within a single unit that I think they're just going to go with an approximation. That's how I always pictured ork armor saves. Many orks aren't wearing any armor, while some have enough are plates to plausibly be considered 5+, so 6+ is just an abstraction for an average amount of scrap plates and squig hide.
I am really curious to see what the rules are going to be for the choppa though. If they keep regular ork boyz at S3 (and I'm hoping they change to S4) I'm guessing they'll give choppas a +1 Strength modifier.
I like the rule that pistols can shoot in close combat. At first glance that is actually bad for slugga boyz, as they are garbage at shooting, but it's too early to say as their rules have not been released. I'm optimistic that slugga boyz will be good.
I'm moderately pleased with the way ccws are shaping up. My grey knights will all caused d3 wounds with their weapons. And their swords actually will have a purpose over halberds. We won't be disadvantaged vs other 2+ saves.
amanita wrote: Why then use the terms of axe, sword and maul? Don't all these weapons have the same magic techno-disruption field? And if the overall effect is relatively the same then why bother having 3 categories of weapon types when I thought the whole idea of 8th was to streamline the game?
Because choice is fun.
In the fluff power weapons all essentially function the same, with the changes in shape being mostly symbolic. But mechanically having the power spears, swords, axes, maces. staves, fists, hammers etc all use the same profile would not only be boring but would mechanically create problems. If spears had the same profile as swords then no one would ever take shining spears, whereas swords having the same profile as spears would probably be overpowered and create damage creep.
amanita wrote: Why then use the terms of axe, sword and maul? Don't all these weapons have the same magic techno-disruption field? And if the overall effect is relatively the same then why bother having 3 categories of weapon types when I thought the whole idea of 8th was to streamline the game?
Because choice is fun.
In the fluff power weapons all essentially function the same, with the changes in shape being mostly symbolic. But mechanically having the power spears, swords, axes, maces. staves, fists, hammers etc all use the same profile would not only be boring but would mechanically create problems. If spears had the same profile as swords then no one would ever take shining spears, whereas swords having the same profile as spears would probably be overpowered and create damage creep.
Isn't that how it used to be? All power weapons were the same stat wise no matter how they were modeled
amanita wrote: Why then use the terms of axe, sword and maul? Don't all these weapons have the same magic techno-disruption field? And if the overall effect is relatively the same then why bother having 3 categories of weapon types when I thought the whole idea of 8th was to streamline the game?
Because choice is fun.
In the fluff power weapons all essentially function the same, with the changes in shape being mostly symbolic. But mechanically having the power spears, swords, axes, maces. staves, fists, hammers etc all use the same profile would not only be boring but would mechanically create problems. If spears had the same profile as swords then no one would ever take shining spears, whereas swords having the same profile as spears would probably be overpowered and create damage creep.
Sure. But if you are going to use terminology people are familiar with, why not let those terms represent their real world counterparts? For example, an axe is much better at penetrating armor than a sword but is much less handy. So why did they make a sword better at penetrating? Why not just make the axe also -1 to hit?
I don't have an issue with making a few categories; I just have an issue with GW's assessment of said weapons - and with people defending the reasoning without really thinking about it.
it strikes me that swords have a better armor peircing because they're more accurate. a blade tends to be better balanced, it's easier to be precise etc with it. thus a power sword is proably easier to direct at the weak spots of your armor (like say... the joints on a space Marines armor) the power axe, little less precise but still directable, but also hits a bit harder, thus it's got less AP, but more STR, a power maul? well at that point you've pretty much abandoned any pretense of fencing and finding weak spots and are just trying to power through his armor.
and yes medieval full plate may be partiuclarly vunerable to concussive weapons, but it does NOT follow space marine power armor would be. power armor is a LOT more complex then just an outer shell of metal
BrianDavion wrote: it strikes me that swords have a better armor peircing because they're more accurate. a blade tends to be better balanced, it's easier to be precise etc with it. thus a power sword is proably easier to direct at the weak spots of your armor (like say... the joints on a space Marines armor)
This is an excellent example of how you can fit the rule with fluff if you think it through enough.
it's a similar reason why I like that Power Fists are a simple -1 to hit instead of striking last. Both affects represent using a heavy cumbersome weapon, but in a system in which the assaulter attacks first, -1 to hit feels better.
amanita wrote: So why did they make a sword better at penetrating? Why not just make the axe also -1 to hit?
Because then it would be strictly inferior to a power fist and the only reason anyone would ever take it would be to save a small amount of points- just like how it was pre-8th. The objective here is to make each weapon have a clearly defined tactical niche- not to have a similar dynamic to pre-8th where the only incentive for taking weapon A over B was points costs.
I just have an issue with GW's assessment of said weapons - and with people defending the reasoning without really thinking about it.
Unless GW has claimed at some point to base their weapon profiles off of real-world mechanics your criticism is essentially a strawman, attacking an argument that was never made.
Cool. Now how about profiles for a power-longsword versus a power-shortsword? Power-throwing-axe versus power-handaxe, power-battleaxe, power-greataxe, power-orc-double-axe? When do the power-glaives, power-guisarmes, and power-glaive-guisarmes arrive? Why not power-knives? Power-tridents? Power-nunchucks?
(I know I'm slippery-slope/logical-extreming this argument, but there's a really big difference between choices that are relevant/meaningful and choices that exist solely to be choices. Over-specializing power weapons does nothing but make people spend more time squinting at their models/make people grumble that they've got to find a whole bunch of extra axes because GW only shipped the box with one.)
I'm pretty excited on this direction. Not because I agree with the stats and decisions on the weapons, but one of many traits of older 40K which I liked immensely was that weapons were very clearly different. If you allow the difference to exist in a game between an axe and a sword, or a heavy bolter and a lascannon - ideally they should be different enough to be viable choices in different situations.
I personally think 40K has way too many damn weapons and I think that's a bad choice, because I see a hell of a lot of copycat weapons, repeats with minor changes just for the sake of saying "Oh no, that Ork doesn't have a bolter...he's got a shoota!", etc. This is completely unnecessary. It's fine when you have maybe 5-6 armies, but 25+ factions don't all need unique rifles or missile launchers. I don't think it adds much at all to the game. Do the Eldar lose anything by returning a bright lance to a simple lascannon? No, not really.
I'd like to see the hinted at close combat weapons be the stats for the majority of armies. Unfortunately I think we'll see...Scorpion Chainswords, and Ork Chainswords, and special Chaos Power Axes, and bla bla bla. This is the kind of chunk that I find completely pointless. GW finds itself trying too damn hard to make everyone a special princess instead of just letting the stat line do the work (oddly something that stated would happen...though we're not seeing that in the current rules previews).
So, in short...happy to see weapons differentiated, as long as we don't end up with 468 other special close combat weapons. Keep it simple, stupid.
Cool. Now how about profiles for a power-longsword versus a power-shortsword? Power-throwing-axe versus power-handaxe, power-battleaxe, power-greataxe, power-orc-double-axe? When do the power-glaives, power-guisarmes, and power-glaive-guisarmes arrive? Why not power-knives? Power-tridents? Power-nunchucks?
(I know I'm slippery-slope/logical-extreming this argument, but there's a really big difference between choices that are relevant/meaningful and choices that exist solely to be choices. Over-specializing power weapons does nothing but make people spend more time squinting at their models/make people grumble that they've got to find a whole bunch of extra axes because GW only shipped the box with one.)
Because you've had an entire edition to get used to the sword/axe/staff mechanic. And marines have been equipped with swords/axes/staffs and nothing else for the past every edition ever. Its not a big deal.
Interesting argument. I'm not sure the stats don't like up better not just in the future sense but even versus current admiring technology. In the past a mace had the energy to deform the metal used to make armor. If someone were to build armor out of hardened steel much less ceramic I'm not sure the mace would be effective at that point at bypassing armor. Fast forward to 40k times and everyone is wearing ceramic hardened armor. So I don't know that the mace is really effective in that manner.
As advanced as the armor may be, so too likely are the maces. Ceramic armor will smash quite easily, it will prevent penetration from something like a bullet but will still transmit shock (hence, the bullet may not penetrate but you can still be left with cracked ribs and breathless) but is then compromised and easily defeated by subsequent attacks. Hardened steel will resist deformation far better than older materials, but is also expensive and heavy and will still yield to sufficient force as something like a Power Mace would likely be imparting and will pass shock through as well.
40k is also really, at its core, still a fantasy universe, not a scifi one, and the armor and weapon designs and type reflect that.
Then there is the additional consideration of which part of hitting/wounding/penning does each part of the combat go into. A sword is more finesse does that go into hit or does it go into pen because in can manage to stab in weak parts of armor?
it's really hard to do that with a sword in practice, again, there's a reason the warhammer (lowercase) came about as it did. I dont know anyone doing HEMA fighting that could reliably land shots on unarmored weak joints in actual sparring/combat, it might happen sometimes but it'd be very hard.
BrianDavion wrote: it strikes me that swords have a better armor peircing because they're more accurate. a blade tends to be better balanced, it's easier to be precise etc with it. thus a power sword is proably easier to direct at the weak spots of your armor (like say... the joints on a space Marines armor) the power axe, little less precise but still directable, but also hits a bit harder, thus it's got less AP, but more STR, a power maul? well at that point you've pretty much abandoned any pretense of fencing and finding weak spots and are just trying to power through his armor.
In swordplay, you dont really "aim" for weak points like that, rather there are either specific lines of attack (e.g. if holding on your right side from the shoulder and throwing a direct attack at your opponent, you're going to hit an upper quadrant target, ideally where the shoulder meets the neck on their left side if you are cutting the line correctly) or targets of opportunity (like extended hands), but not really directed aim at weak joints, that requires getting in close and doing stuff like halfswording which is as much wrestling as anything else.
You kinda get some aiming with thrusts, but, like firearms, it's pretty much center mass, not trying to hit a half inch gap under the armpit or something. I wear a gorget when sparring as a safety measure in case of a thrust to the throat (a narrow target often not coverrd by armor, such as on a Space Marine) and it has absolutely saved my life at least 3 times while sparring, but that's also out of hundreds of bouts over several years. It's really hard to land those kinds of hits
You can attack and follow through with second intent attacks or parry wayyyyy easier with a sword over a mace or axe, it handles and moves nicer, but they're awful against armor.
and yes medieval full plate may be partiuclarly vunerable to concussive weapons, but it does NOT follow space marine power armor would be. power armor is a LOT more complex then just an outer shell of metal
the basic principle is the same, power armor may be superior to metal plate, but we have equally advanced supermaces. Power armor, from the depictions we have, will fundamentally act the same way as plate as portrayed in 40k most of the time, basically it's all generally fantasy stuff given a scifi skin.
Then there is the additional consideration of which part of hitting/wounding/penning does each part of the combat go into. A sword is more finesse does that go into hit or does it go into pen because in can manage to stab in weak parts of armor?
it's really hard to do that with a sword in practice, again, there's a reason the warhammer (lowercase) came about as it did. I dont know anyone doing HEMA fighting that could reliably land shots on unarmored weak joints in actual sparring/combat, it might happen sometimes but it'd be very hard.
Yup, and if you wanted to put a weapon into a weak spot then you had the stiletto.
Interesting argument. I'm not sure the stats don't like up better not just in the future sense but even versus current admiring technology. In the past a mace had the energy to deform the metal used to make armor. If someone were to build armor out of hardened steel much less ceramic I'm not sure the mace would be effective at that point at bypassing armor. Fast forward to 40k times and everyone is wearing ceramic hardened armor. So I don't know that the mace is really effective in that manner.
As advanced as the armor may be, so too likely are the maces. Ceramic armor will smash quite easily, it will prevent penetration from something like a bullet but will still transmit shock (hence, the bullet may not penetrate but you can still be left with cracked ribs and breathless) but is then compromised and easily defeated by subsequent attacks. Hardened steel will resist deformation far better than older materials, but is also expensive and heavy and will still yield to sufficient force as something like a Power Mace would likely be imparting and will pass shock through as well.
40k is also really, at its core, still a fantasy universe, not a scifi one, and the armor and weapon designs and type reflect that.
Then there is the additional consideration of which part of hitting/wounding/penning does each part of the combat go into. A sword is more finesse does that go into hit or does it go into pen because in can manage to stab in weak parts of armor?
it's really hard to do that with a sword in practice, again, there's a reason the warhammer (lowercase) came about as it did. I dont know anyone doing HEMA fighting that could reliably land shots on unarmored weak joints in actual sparring/combat, it might happen sometimes but it'd be very hard.
BrianDavion wrote: it strikes me that swords have a better armor peircing because they're more accurate. a blade tends to be better balanced, it's easier to be precise etc with it. thus a power sword is proably easier to direct at the weak spots of your armor (like say... the joints on a space Marines armor) the power axe, little less precise but still directable, but also hits a bit harder, thus it's got less AP, but more STR, a power maul? well at that point you've pretty much abandoned any pretense of fencing and finding weak spots and are just trying to power through his armor.
In swordplay, you dont really "aim" for weak points like that, rather there are either specific lines of attack (e.g. if holding on your right side from the shoulder and throwing a direct attack at your opponent, you're going to hit an upper quadrant target, ideally where the shoulder meets the neck on their left side if you are cutting the line correctly) or targets of opportunity (like extended hands), but not really directed aim at weak joints, that requires getting in close and doing stuff like halfswording which is as much wrestling as anything else.
You kinda get some aiming with thrusts, but, like firearms, it's pretty much center mass, not trying to hit a half inch gap under the armpit or something. I wear a gorget when sparring as a safety measure in case of a thrust to the throat (a narrow target often not coverrd by armor, such as on a Space Marine) and it has absolutely saved my life at least 3 times while sparring, but that's also out of hundreds of bouts over several years. It's really hard to land those kinds of hits
You can attack and follow through with second intent attacks or parry wayyyyy easier with a sword over a mace or axe, it handles and moves nicer, but they're awful against armor.
and yes medieval full plate may be partiuclarly vunerable to concussive weapons, but it does NOT follow space marine power armor would be. power armor is a LOT more complex then just an outer shell of metal
the basic principle is the same, power armor may be superior to metal plate, but we have equally advanced supermaces. Power armor, from the depictions we have, will fundamentally act the same way as plate as portrayed in 40k most of the time, basically it's all generally fantasy stuff given a scifi skin.
I can confirm it's difficult to hit a weakspot with a sword.
Anyway, it's worth mention that during WWII, blunt-headed penetrators were found to be superior to pointy-headed penetrators, because the latter deflected off of armor easier. I suspect that, if your sword or spear point were to strike perfectly perpendicular to the armor panel it would defeat the armor easier than a mace or hammer, but as the armor becomes increasingly angled, the mace or hammer would retain effectiveness for longer.
Also worth mention is that warhammers had a spike on the back side, also for breaching armor.
I do agree the Axe>Sword>Maul penetrating effect is kind of backwards.
On a marginally related note, I kind of want a Vigilator half-swording her Executioner Greatsword.
This thread is about 90% fluff, armchair weaponology, and hype, and I'm disappointed how few people are looking at this critically...
Napkin crunching the numbers, it seems like the differences are minuscule in actual practice. a number of combinations do the same damage because of how the to wound chart now works, which make the sword the better choice most of the time with a situation. where the situation might have a difference, it means little.
For example:
Str 4 Vs Space Marines
Sword = 4+ to wound, 6+ to save= %41.6~ to damage
Axe = 3+ to wound, 5+ to save = %44.4~ to damage
We're quite literally arguing over %2.8 This is Diablo/Borderlands levels of "Is this weapon better?"
Luke_Prowler wrote: This thread is about 90% fluff, armchair weaponology, and hype, and I'm disappointed how few people are looking at this critically...
Napkin crunching the numbers, it seems like the differences are minuscule in actual practice. a number of combinations do the same damage because of how the to wound chart now works, which make the sword the better choice most of the time with a situation. where the situation might have a difference, it means little.
For example:
Str 4 Vs Space Marines
Sword = 4+ to wound, 6+ to save= %41.6~ to damage
Axe = 3+ to wound, 5+ to save = %44.4~ to damage
We're quite literally arguing over %2.8 This is Diablo/Borderlands levels of "Is this weapon better?"
Well, it's not really armchair weaponology. I have some actual experience with swords and maces and spears, and Vaktathi has quite a bit more. It's more of an observation that the arrangement of AP values is in reverse of reality. Whether or not it make balancing sense from a game perspective nonwithstanding, it doesn't make a lot of sense for a mace to be the worst at defeating armor.
Yeah, if we were going to assign AP and Strength bonuses to weapons based on the actual weapon design, and there is no real reason we couldn't, the weapon chart would look something like this.
Sword: Str User, AP -1, +1 attack
Axe: +2 Str, AP -2, -1 to hit
Mace: +1 Str, AP-3
So the sword would be the superior choice for killing chaff, and general all around utility. The Axe would be the specialized high strength. The Mace would be your dedicated anti armor and minor strength buff.
Oh, I understand. I'm not saying you guys are wrong or calling your experience into question. I just felt that the conversation of "What is a sword? How do the numbers make you feel?" was a bit on the pointless side.
I'm also rather disappointed with the power fist. Yeah, It'll scare multi wound infantry still, but it's a big nerf against vehicles, and weak compared to both meltas and lascannons. Yes, the main advantage is more attacks, but they have range, overwatch, and can be taken in high quantities.
But I imagine that's not going to bother most people, who are going to be rock hard over chainswords being special
I don't know about a nerf vs vehicles. Say you got a sergeant with a power fist. That's 2-3 attacks on a charge. With a potential 3D3 wounds being caused.
If it's a unit of powerfists like a terminator squad, that's a lot of D3 wounds getting thrown your way.
Imperial Guard (and other Str 3 guys) will LOVE the changes to the powerfist.
Sure they might wound less often against the average guys (needing 3's against T4 now)
But it won't be practically worthless for them to be using one against Dreadnoughts/Imperial Knights etc. (Current 40K need 6's to glance the dread, and can't even touch the Knight)
And most of the Str 3 guys that can get them are Ws 4(or higher) in the current edition so should be alright in the hitting department
"Potential" is the key word there. Potentially, a squad of 24 grots could one shot a knight titan with their grot blastas. more likely, a power fist is getting two attacks (with the lost of an attack from charging), hitting on 4+, wounding on 3+ at best, and move vehicles will probably get a +6 save after reduction. This is pretty big compared to hitting on 3+ or even automatically, penning on 3+, no save, and potentially exploding it in one go
I'm sure squads like Terminator will be fine. I'm more worried about the nobz in my boy mobs
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, if we were going to assign AP and Strength bonuses to weapons based on the actual weapon design, and there is no real reason we couldn't, the weapon chart would look something like this.
Sword: Str User, AP -1, +1 attack
Axe: +2 Str, AP -2, -1 to hit
Mace: +1 Str, AP-3
So the sword would be the superior choice for killing chaff, and general all around utility. The Axe would be the specialized high strength. The Mace would be your dedicated anti armor and minor strength buff.
That seems accurate according to my understanding of weapons
Submit it to games workshop immediately so they can correct their work
Grey Templar wrote: I don't know about a nerf vs vehicles. Say you got a sergeant with a power fist. That's 2-3 attacks on a charge. With a potential 3D3 wounds being caused.
If it's a unit of powerfists like a terminator squad, that's a lot of D3 wounds getting thrown your way.
Actually it's a bit more balanced knowing power fists subtract 1 from the hit making it a 4+ hit in melee.
Luke_Prowler wrote: "Potential" is the key word there. Potentially, a squad of 24 grots could one shot a knight titan with their grot blastas. more likely, a power fist is getting two attacks (with the lost of an attack from charging), hitting on 4+, wounding on 3+ at best, and move vehicles will probably get a +6 save after reduction. This is pretty big compared to hitting on 3+ or even automatically, penning on 3+, no save, and potentially exploding it in one go
I'm sure squads like Terminator will be fine. I'm more worried about the nobz in my boy mobs
Against the big targets, how many boyz are dying a round? As such, how many attacks of PK nobz are you getting, or how many rounds of your attacked unit will not be shooting?
I'm not guaranteeing your Ork boyz will be potent and/or useful, but I'm hopeful.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Oh, I understand. I'm not saying you guys are wrong or calling your experience into question. I just felt that the conversation of "What is a sword? How do the numbers make you feel?" was a bit on the pointless side.
I'm also rather disappointed with the power fist. Yeah, It'll scare multi wound infantry still, but it's a big nerf against vehicles, and weak compared to both meltas and lascannons. Yes, the main advantage is more attacks, but they have range, overwatch, and can be taken in high quantities.
But I imagine that's not going to bother most people, who are going to be rock hard over chainswords being special
Hate the word nerf in these contexts. It doesn't really make any sense because of the apples to oranges nature of the comparison. It's basically like if 40k came out with a model called 'Denegra' and people were like 'AWWW she's SO nerfed from warmahordes'!
Luke_Prowler wrote: "Potential" is the key word there. Potentially, a squad of 24 grots could one shot a knight titan with their grot blastas. more likely, a power fist is getting two attacks (with the lost of an attack from charging), hitting on 4+, wounding on 3+ at best, and move vehicles will probably get a +6 save after reduction. This is pretty big compared to hitting on 3+ or even automatically, penning on 3+, no save, and potentially exploding it in one go
I'm sure squads like Terminator will be fine. I'm more worried about the nobz in my boy mobs
Gonna have to come up with a new way to kill tanks I guess ... Lots of guns.
Moar dakka!
Oh and tankbusters with bomb squigs .
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
I disagree a sword should have the best AP because you could use it to stab your opponent. And stabbing is much more effective vs armored targets compered to using with an axe or even a blunt mace. It makes much more sense how the CC weapons work compered to 7th ed.
EDIT: if we are talking about a mace with spikes thats different. And it should have the same AP as the sword.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
I disagree a sword should have the best AP because you could use it to stab your opponent. And stabbing is much more effective vs armored targets compered to using with an axe or even a blunt mace. It makes much more sense how the CC weapons work compered to 7th ed.
EDIT: if we are talking about a mace with spikes thats different. And it should have the same AP as the sword.
Spikes on maces are not for penetrating armour. It's used to bite into the armour to avoid glancing off. It helps you put all the impact into your opponent. It's VERY unlikely a mace spike will go through plate and the gambeson beneath.
Regarding swords and stabbing, you will not get through plate armour with thrusts. You have to either go around the armour (gaps) or use high impact techniques and weapons.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, if we were going to assign AP and Strength bonuses to weapons based on the actual weapon design, and there is no real reason we couldn't, the weapon chart would look something like this.
Sword: Str User, AP -1, +1 attack
Axe: +2 Str, AP -2, -1 to hit
Mace: +1 Str, AP-3
So the sword would be the superior choice for killing chaff, and general all around utility. The Axe would be the specialized high strength. The Mace would be your dedicated anti armor and minor strength buff.
Except you system has a problem
Fist: STR x2 Ap -3, -1 to hit
Unless you're STR 2 the fist is a superior weapon. Then you also have a secondary problem sword +2 bonus axe +3 net bonus (+4 -1) and mace +4 bonus. This makes mace by far the best choice. ?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jbz` wrote: Imperial Guard (and other Str 3 guys) will LOVE the changes to the powerfist.
Sure they might wound less often against the average guys (needing 3's against T4 now)
But it won't be practically worthless for them to be using one against Dreadnoughts/Imperial Knights etc. (Current 40K need 6's to glance the dread, and can't even touch the Knight)
And most of the Str 3 guys that can get them are Ws 4(or higher) in the current edition so should be alright in the hitting department
I'm not sure they won't love the new axe most. Against most targets they'll be in the same place.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, if we were going to assign AP and Strength bonuses to weapons based on the actual weapon design, and there is no real reason we couldn't, the weapon chart would look something like this.
Sword: Str User, AP -1, +1 attack
Axe: +2 Str, AP -2, -1 to hit
Mace: +1 Str, AP-3
So the sword would be the superior choice for killing chaff, and general all around utility. The Axe would be the specialized high strength. The Mace would be your dedicated anti armor and minor strength buff.
Except you system has a problem
Fist: STR x2 Ap -3, -1 to hit
Unless you're STR 2 the fist is a superior weapon. Then you also have a secondary problem sword +2 bonus axe +3 net bonus (+4 -1) and mace +4 bonus. This makes mace by far the best choice. ?
umm, shouldn't the Power Fist be a superior weapon? It's going to cost more points.
Also, the net of the bonuses isn't an issue. +1 str =/= +1 attack =/= -1 AP.
A point of AP is less valuable vs poorly armored target. Sure, you might make that guardsmen's save go from 5+ to no save at all. But +1 attack would be superior considering the low chance of him passing a 6+ save from a sword. You're more likely to cause another wound.
Likewise, vs a high toughness target, a point of strength is more valuable than a point of AP. It's possibly equal to another attack, but it depends on the actual toughness values.
So each weapon has a distinct purpose and niche. The sword is your weapon for killing cheap mooks. The Axe is for killing high toughness targets. And the Mace is for penetrating armor. Power Fists are for both high toughness and heavily armored targets, but they are more expensive.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
I disagree a sword should have the best AP because you could use it to stab your opponent. And stabbing is much more effective vs armored targets compered to using with an axe or even a blunt mace. It makes much more sense how the CC weapons work compered to 7th ed.
EDIT: if we are talking about a mace with spikes thats different. And it should have the same AP as the sword.
Swords are not effective against armored targets. It will glance off. Warhammers and maces are specifically designed for defeating armor. Half-swording exists to improve your anti-armor capabilities.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
I disagree a sword should have the best AP because you could use it to stab your opponent. And stabbing is much more effective vs armored targets compered to using with an axe or even a blunt mace. It makes much more sense how the CC weapons work compered to 7th ed.
EDIT: if we are talking about a mace with spikes thats different. And it should have the same AP as the sword.
Swords are not effective against armored targets. It will glance off. Warhammers and maces are specifically designed for defeating armor. Half-swording exists to improve your anti-armor capabilities.
Don't think it applies to swords covered in space magic but w/e.
EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.
I disagree a sword should have the best AP because you could use it to stab your opponent. And stabbing is much more effective vs armored targets compered to using with an axe or even a blunt mace. It makes much more sense how the CC weapons work compered to 7th ed.
EDIT: if we are talking about a mace with spikes thats different. And it should have the same AP as the sword.
Swords are not effective against armored targets. It will glance off. Warhammers and maces are specifically designed for defeating armor. Half-swording exists to improve your anti-armor capabilities.
In the majority of cases, these power weapon variants are actually almost identical (except the fist). This impression that you're getting weapons with distinct tactical niches is deceptive.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Assuming that there are no further rules, like Concussive for the maul.
Vaktathi wrote:
Swords are really, really, really bad at this unless its chainmail.
And even with chainmail, the only reason a sword is getting through is brute force. Chainmail is also, like most light armor, not designed to absorb a killing blow. It's more for avoiding smaller minor injuries, like a poorly aimed cut or a long range arrow, which at the time would likely get infected and potentially a slow lingering death. Chainmail isn't going to do anything against a blow that is solidly aimed and has killing force behind it.
You need to get to heavy plate, or more complex suits of chainmail(like Cataphracts), before you are talking about armor that will actually stop a deadly blow. Heavy chainmail like this is also well suited to stopping a sword's cutting force, a stab can still get through. And both can lead to internal injuries from the force of the blow since the chainmail isn't going to absorb any of the force. You get a slash across the ribs, it may not do anything to the chainmail, but it will give you cracked ribs and heck of a bruise. A mace or an axe would do an even more extensive injury. You could have someone who outwardly shows no sign of injury, but they've suffered massive internal trauma. If they don't die quickly, they might die a few hours or even days down the road.
aren't they using 'power' weapons? That's gona make the weapon function a bit differently to regular weapons. Also, you can't run a properly made historical chainmai through with a properly made historical sword. The thing is that chainmail used to be much more expensive.
I disagree a sword should have the best AP because you could use it to stab your opponent. And stabbing is much more effective vs armored targets compered to using with an axe or even a blunt mace.
This is completely wrong. Stabbing an armoured target is about the least effective thing you can do. Especially with a sword.
You see, despite what Hollywood and Anime seem to think, swords were never designed to penetrate armour. Indeed, armour itself was far more effective than many people seem to realise. If a person could just stab right through plate mail armour, no one would have bothered wearing it.
Anyway, to elaborate, there are three main problems with stabbing a sword through armour:
1) Swords tend to be relatively lightweight and (since you are thrusting it, not swinging it) the blow will have relatively little power behind it.
2) Armour is specifically designed so that blows glance off it.
3) Even if your strike is not deflected, the sword itself will bend and absorb much of the energy from the impact.
Put simply, your strike will likely just glance off the armour and even if it doesn't it will lack the power to penetrate the armour.
Axes and maces (even blunt ones) are far more effective mainly because of their sheer weight. Indeed, they don't actually need to penetrate the armour - instead, they can cause it to bend or buckle (causing severe damage to the flesh within), or break bones through sheer force of impact.
Now, if you're wondering, there was a historical precedent for using swords against armour. Indeed, there were two ways in which it was done - but both involved the large, two-handed swords (or zweihanders). The first is for the knight to grip the blade with one of his hands to give it more control and then attempt to stab weak spots in his opponent's armour. The second is where the knight grips the blade with both hands and uses the hilt of the sword as an improvised mace or axe. You'll note that both of these involve using the sword in an abnormal manner, and neither involve using it to actually stab through the armour. What's more, I don't believe either of these would actually work in 40k. The first method would suffer because the swords used are one-handed ones, and this is based on a two-handed sword with appropriate length and design. The second method wouldn't work because it would involve hitting an enemy with the un-powered end of the sword (not to mention that most 40k swords don't have appropriate guards for this purpose anyway). Not to mention that both would require the user to hold the sword by its powered blade, which seems like a really bad idea.
koooaei wrote: aren't they using 'power' weapons? That's gona make the weapon function a bit differently to regular weapons. Also, you can't run a properly made historical chainmai through with a properly made historical sword. The thing is that chainmail used to be much more expensive.
Not really. The way Power Fields are described only enhances the existing properties of the weapon. While a Power sword will definitely cut far better than any non-power weapon, when you have 2 different power weapons their basic designs are still going to present themselves, and that is swords being inferior to other weapons at penetrating armor.
Power fields don't make the design of the weapon irrelevant, they're simply an enhancement of the weapon's base properties. A mace or hammer will still be superior at causing injury through armor than a sword.
I'm a little disappointed that Power Fists are only D3 damage, the same as Force Weapons. I was thinking they'd be D6 damage, with Chainfists re-rolling or something similar. I really hope Power Fists got cheaper than last edition comparative to Power Weapons. On the subject of which I'm no mathematician but aren't all those different profiles going to have pretty much the same effect in-gamr except for pretty niche situations?
koooaei wrote: aren't they using 'power' weapons? That's gona make the weapon function a bit differently to regular weapons. Also, you can't run a properly made historical chainmai through with a properly made historical sword. The thing is that chainmail used to be much more expensive.
Not really. The way Power Fields are described only enhances the existing properties of the weapon. While a Power sword will definitely cut far better than any non-power weapon, when you have 2 different power weapons their basic designs are still going to present themselves, and that is swords being inferior to other weapons at penetrating armor.
Power fields don't make the design of the weapon irrelevant, they're simply an enhancement of the weapon's base properties. A mace or hammer will still be superior at causing injury through armor than a sword.
Unless of course the power field allows the sword to cut through armor like butter due to its properties being enhanced.
Grey Templar wrote: Power fields don't make the design of the weapon irrelevant, they're simply an enhancement of the weapon's base properties. A mace or hammer will still be superior at causing injury through armor than a sword.
This kind of argument is why they look down on our hobby. I can't hold it against them when people in my hobby are arguing like they are indeed weapon-powerfield experts.
koooaei wrote: aren't they using 'power' weapons? That's gona make the weapon function a bit differently to regular weapons. Also, you can't run a properly made historical chainmai through with a properly made historical sword. The thing is that chainmail used to be much more expensive.
Not really. The way Power Fields are described only enhances the existing properties of the weapon. While a Power sword will definitely cut far better than any non-power weapon, when you have 2 different power weapons their basic designs are still going to present themselves, and that is swords being inferior to other weapons at penetrating armor.
Power fields don't make the design of the weapon irrelevant, they're simply an enhancement of the weapon's base properties. A mace or hammer will still be superior at causing injury through armor than a sword.
Unless of course the power field allows the sword to cut through armor like butter due to its properties being enhanced.
you mean like what power fields have been described to do in every bit of fluff ever?
koooaei wrote: aren't they using 'power' weapons? That's gona make the weapon function a bit differently to regular weapons. Also, you can't run a properly made historical chainmai through with a properly made historical sword. The thing is that chainmail used to be much more expensive.
Not really. The way Power Fields are described only enhances the existing properties of the weapon. While a Power sword will definitely cut far better than any non-power weapon, when you have 2 different power weapons their basic designs are still going to present themselves, and that is swords being inferior to other weapons at penetrating armor.
Power fields don't make the design of the weapon irrelevant, they're simply an enhancement of the weapon's base properties. A mace or hammer will still be superior at causing injury through armor than a sword.
Unless of course the power field allows the sword to cut through armor like butter due to its properties being enhanced.
you mean like what power fields have been described to do in every bit of fluff ever?
Given that people are arguing that the Swords should still be unable to penetrate as a result...
xlDuke wrote: . On the subject of which I'm no mathematician but aren't all those different profiles going to have pretty much the same effect in-gamr except for pretty niche situations?
Yes, they're very close to each other.
E.g., assuming 3+ to hit S4 vs. GEQ
Power sword 0.67 x 0.67 = 0.45
Power axe 0.67 x 0.67 = 0.45
Power maul 0.67 x 0.83 x 0.83 = 0.46
xlDuke wrote: . On the subject of which I'm no mathematician but aren't all those different profiles going to have pretty much the same effect in-gamr except for pretty niche situations?
Yes, they're very close to each other.
E.g., assuming 3+ to hit S4 vs. GEQ
Power sword 0.67 x 0.67 = 0.45 Power axe 0.67 x 0.67 = 0.45 Power maul 0.67 x 0.83 x 0.83 = 0.46
what a difference!
And against MEQs and TEQs? Because who is getting power weapons to kill models with 5+ saves?
xlDuke wrote: . On the subject of which I'm no mathematician but aren't all those different profiles going to have pretty much the same effect in-gamr except for pretty niche situations?
Yes, they're very close to each other.
E.g., assuming 3+ to hit S4 vs. GEQ
Power sword 0.67 x 0.67 = 0.45
Power axe 0.67 x 0.67 = 0.45
Power maul 0.67 x 0.83 x 0.83 = 0.46
what a difference!
And against MEQs and TEQs? Because who is getting power weapons to kill models with 5+ saves?
someone who fails to realize chainswords are superior for this?
koooaei wrote: aren't they using 'power' weapons? That's gona make the weapon function a bit differently to regular weapons. Also, you can't run a properly made historical chainmai through with a properly made historical sword. The thing is that chainmail used to be much more expensive.
Not really. The way Power Fields are described only enhances the existing properties of the weapon. While a Power sword will definitely cut far better than any non-power weapon, when you have 2 different power weapons their basic designs are still going to present themselves, and that is swords being inferior to other weapons at penetrating armor.
Power fields don't make the design of the weapon irrelevant, they're simply an enhancement of the weapon's base properties. A mace or hammer will still be superior at causing injury through armor than a sword.
Unless of course the power field allows the sword to cut through armor like butter due to its properties being enhanced.
you mean like what power fields have been described to do in every bit of fluff ever?
Woah woah woah woah hold up. You can't use Warhammer 40k logic in Warhammer 40k, you have to use 14th century medival combat logic! After all, how will the internet know how smart I am about historical weaponry?
Let alone the fact that armored ceramite is a fictional material which nobody knows the properties of because we aren't techmarines.
koooaei wrote: aren't they using 'power' weapons? That's gona make the weapon function a bit differently to regular weapons. Also, you can't run a properly made historical chainmai through with a properly made historical sword. The thing is that chainmail used to be much more expensive.
Not really. The way Power Fields are described only enhances the existing properties of the weapon. While a Power sword will definitely cut far better than any non-power weapon, when you have 2 different power weapons their basic designs are still going to present themselves, and that is swords being inferior to other weapons at penetrating armor.
Power fields don't make the design of the weapon irrelevant, they're simply an enhancement of the weapon's base properties. A mace or hammer will still be superior at causing injury through armor than a sword.
Unless of course the power field allows the sword to cut through armor like butter due to its properties being enhanced.
you mean like what power fields have been described to do in every bit of fluff ever?
Woah woah woah woah hold up. You can't use Warhammer 40k logic in Warhammer 40k, you have to use 14th century medival combat logic! After all, how will the internet know how smart I am about historical weaponry?
Let alone the fact that armored ceramite is a fictional material which nobody knows the properties of because we aren't techmarines.
If we used the actual logic of power weapons in 40k, it wouldn't matter what the shape of the weapon was as the power field works the exact same way regardless. So the axe, maul and sword would all be equally capable of penetrating armour because it is the power field doing all of the work, the actual properties of the weapon are inconsequential.
xlDuke wrote: . On the subject of which I'm no mathematician but aren't all those different profiles going to have pretty much the same effect in-gamr except for pretty niche situations?
Yes, they're very close to each other.
E.g., assuming 3+ to hit S4 vs. GEQ
Power sword 0.67 x 0.67 = 0.45
Power axe 0.67 x 0.67 = 0.45
Power maul 0.67 x 0.83 x 0.83 = 0.46
what a difference!
And against MEQs and TEQs? Because who is getting power weapons to kill models with 5+ saves?
Against MEQ:
Sword 2/3 x 1/2 x 5/6 = 0.28
Axe 2/3 x 2/3 x 2/3 = 0.30
Maul 2/3 x 2/3 x 1/2 = 0.22
Fist 1/2 x 5/6 x 5/6 = 0.43
Against Terminators
Sword 2/3 x 1/2 x 2/3 = 0.22
Axe 2/3 x 2/3 x 1/2 = 0.22
Maul 2/3 x 2/3 x 1/3 = 0.15
Fist 1/2 x 5/6 x 2/3 = 0.27 x 2 = 0.54
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The short version is that the sword and axe are almost always virtually the same. The maul is almost always almost the same or worse; the big exception is attacking units with no armour saves, or invulnerable saves better than their armour saves (Genestealers, Wyches), in which mauls are somewhat better.
The power fist though is significantly better against MEQ and especialyl TEQ.
A WS3, S3 model [ImpyGuard Sergeant, Sister Superior], attacking a Space Marine, has a
13.6% chance of inflicting a wound with each sword attack
17.1% chance of inflicting a wound with each axe attack
17.2% chance of inflicting a wound with each mace attack
13.6% chance of inflicting a wound with each sword attack
17.1% chance of inflicting a wound with each axe attack
17.2% chance of inflicting a wound with each mace attack
These weapons are statistically so close to each other that I don't know why they bothered to differentiate them.
13.6% chance of inflicting a wound with each sword attack
17.1% chance of inflicting a wound with each axe attack
17.2% chance of inflicting a wound with each mace attack
These weapons are statistically so close to each other that I don't know why they bothered to differentiate them.
This represents a Sister Superior in melee [WS3, S3, A1]. The Veteran Sister Superior gains one additional attack [WS3, S3, A2]. This assumes that no additional attack is granted for having a pistol and a close combat weapon.
13.6% chance of inflicting a wound with each sword attack
17.1% chance of inflicting a wound with each axe attack
17.2% chance of inflicting a wound with each mace attack
These weapons are statistically so close to each other that I don't know why they bothered to differentiate them.
This represents a Sister Superior in melee [WS3, S3, A1]. The Veteran Sister Superior gains one additional attack [WS3, S3, A2]. This assumes that no additional attack is granted for having a pistol and a close combat weapon.
Edit: I added powerfists to it.
I feel like your powerfist math is screwy somewhere, or you are adding in the D6 damage. Otherwise, why would 4-6 even be on the chart? A powerfist can only kill 1 model per attack, and marines having a single wound makes this a somewhat unnecessary calculation to the chart.
13.6% chance of inflicting a wound with each sword attack
17.1% chance of inflicting a wound with each axe attack
17.2% chance of inflicting a wound with each mace attack
These weapons are statistically so close to each other that I don't know why they bothered to differentiate them.
This represents a Sister Superior in melee [WS3, S3, A1]. The Veteran Sister Superior gains one additional attack [WS3, S3, A2]. This assumes that no additional attack is granted for having a pistol and a close combat weapon.
Edit: I added powerfists to it.
I feel like your powerfist math is screwy somewhere, or you are adding in the D6 damage. Otherwise, why would 4-6 even be on the chart? A powerfist can only kill 1 model per attack, and marines having a single wound makes this a somewhat unnecessary calculation to the chart.
The Veteran Superior/ImpyGuard Sergeant gets 2 attacks, and can therefore get 2d3 damage. I figured it was relevant considering the fact that the new Primaris Marines are W2
Here, I did a casualty count assuming each marine has 1 wound.
Edit: I added in unarmed attacks.
It's fairly apparent that if you paid points for the extra attack, you should also pay for a power weapon. Otherwise, you might just want to stick with your fists, unless the price of a chainsword is dirt cheap. More importantly, you shouldn't pay for the extra attack, or the power weapon.
I'd Just like to add in regards to the power fields of various power weapons, perhaps they function slightly differently on each style?
Power Swords functioning with a fine energy cutting/slicing/stabbing blade edge/tip.
Power Mauls expelling energy on impact in a concussive force like that of a thunder hammer.
Power Axe being in between with a penetrating edge but also some of the explosive force of the maul.
Power Fists able to throw bone shattering punches, ripping tanks apart and crushing foes in their grip. Personally my favorite, violently disrupting any solid matter it touches... Beautiful.
I'm certain giant gloves were not an effective weapon compared to swords and what not IRL.
Come on guys, too many times I've read through these forums and everyone seems to lack the creativity to think outside the box a little.
Not everything in the far future is so clear cut and has to follow what to us now is "common" knowledge........ Orks with super mind powers to make stuff work the way they think it does... Need I say more?
I like how people try to compare medieval weapons to thier sci-fi alternatives. Yes in 1268 a maul would be better against armour than a sword ... but you try hitting a modern battle tank with either and you'll notice they have a very similar effect irl.
One thing to note is powerswords are wasted against 5/6+ armour which is actually fullfy because even without the force field the physical blade would be a deadly weapon.
The in game utility of maces may actually be attacking vehicles,, against the toughness 6 we can expect to be much more common wounding on 4's versus 6's is gonna be big.
So, the axe seems to be the most stable, a bit better vs meq than the sword and the mace seems to have a niche of dealing with tougher models with high invuls or without saves. And surprisingly, swords seem to be best at dealing with transports and most monsters.
koooaei wrote: aren't they using 'power' weapons? That's gona make the weapon function a bit differently to regular weapons. Also, you can't run a properly made historical chainmai through with a properly made historical sword. The thing is that chainmail used to be much more expensive.
Not really. The way Power Fields are described only enhances the existing properties of the weapon. While a Power sword will definitely cut far better than any non-power weapon, when you have 2 different power weapons their basic designs are still going to present themselves, and that is swords being inferior to other weapons at penetrating armor.
Power fields don't make the design of the weapon irrelevant, they're simply an enhancement of the weapon's base properties. A mace or hammer will still be superior at causing injury through armor than a sword.
Unless of course the power field allows the sword to cut through armor like butter due to its properties being enhanced.
you mean like what power fields have been described to do in every bit of fluff ever?
Given that people are arguing that the Swords should still be unable to penetrate as a result...
No, that's not what anybody is saying.
What is being said is that the weapon design will still have an effect on the penetration qualities of the weapon.
Swords are worse at penetrating armor than specialized anti-armor weapons, like maces and hammers. Thus it stands to reason that if you apply space magic to both types of weapons(swords and hammers), the difference will still be the weapon's basic design.
A power sword will still be capable of cutting through armor, just not as effectively as a power maul or hammer will. This is pretty basic physics, even when you add space magic you still have swords.
If a power field truly made the weapon design irrelevant, then we'd still be back in the old 3rd-5th edition rules where all power weapons were identical.
13.6% chance of inflicting a wound with each sword attack
17.1% chance of inflicting a wound with each axe attack
17.2% chance of inflicting a wound with each mace attack
These weapons are statistically so close to each other that I don't know why they bothered to differentiate them.
Because people who like certain weapons (like World Eaters being modeled with Axes of all shapes and sizes) didn't like feeling gimped because of it. Now that they are statistically so close together, you're free to model how you like and not feel bad about it.
13.6% chance of inflicting a wound with each sword attack
17.1% chance of inflicting a wound with each axe attack
17.2% chance of inflicting a wound with each mace attack
These weapons are statistically so close to each other that I don't know why they bothered to differentiate them.
Because people who like certain weapons (like World Eaters being modeled with Axes of all shapes and sizes) didn't like feeling gimped because of it. Now that they are statistically so close together, you're free to model how you like and not feel bad about it.
If that was the sole reason, then they might as well have had a single profile. But that's not all. It makes them very similar, gives some illusion of choice (which is nice) and also, it does help for edge cases. So while it will not matter in 99% of fights, it does allow you to gear for that one specific threat, even if it's just by a few percent. It's a good balance. Not so different that one is a clear winner, but different enough for specific fights.
Well, axes are 33% more effective than maces vs meq, 20% more effective than swords vs bikers. But 25% less effective than swords vs t6 monsters. They're almost twice as effective as swords and 1.5 times as effective as maces vs naughts and russes. Though, it's not very important cause killing tough vehicles with non-specialised weapons in mellee is going to be MUCH harder.
Anywayz, axes seem to still be the go-to weapon cause they're less affected by invuls than swords, still kill meq better than swords and maces, deal with bikers a tad better than swords.
Another thing is to check effectiveness between chainswords, power weapons and pfists vs certain targets.
For example, let's look at a regular marine sarge trying to take down a 3+ armored target.
t4:
Chainsword - 0.33
p.sword - 0.55
p. axe - 0.59
p. mace - 0.44
p. fist - 0.69 (not counting d3)
t5:
Chainsword - 0.22
p.sword - 0.37
p. axe - 0.44
p. mace - 0.44
p. fist - 0.55 (not counting d3)
t6:
Chainsword - 0.22
p.sword - 0.37
p. axe - 0.3
p. mace - 0.33
p. fist - 0.55 (not counting d3)
Ofc, higher invuls move the balance back to maces and chainswords. Unsurprisingly, fists and axes seem to be the best option vs targets w/o invuls.
The mace seems to solely exist to be better against things that are T3 with poor save (sooooo gaunts, guardians, and guardsmen... and gdemons.), but then so is the chainsword which is at least cheaper. against the stats for the starweaver (T5 Sv4+) it also winns out at .44~ vs the axe at .416~. so I guess it's the go to against Deldar and clowns.
According to my calculations, the sword becomes better against 2+ save, at worse tying with the axe at toughness 4,5, 8, and 9, so long as it has a inv save of 5 or less
the chainsword is PROABLY cheaper. for alll we know GW has decided that dedicated melee weapons are all inheriantly balanced and will have the same cost. (they've done stupdier things in the past)
Probably, yes. If I were to guess, the reason why all the melee weapons are so familiar in actual wound output is because that way, if you play open/narrative you can put any of them on your model and not have a massive advantage for picking one in particular (although the fist would still win just due to having 1d3 damage).
Also, Kooaei, do those numbers account for the fist hitting at -1 ws?
Also, Kooaei, do those numbers account for the fist hitting at -1 ws?
yep
We also have no info on lances. But they are...an odd concept. Noone really fights with a lance in cc. It's just for the impact damage. So, in this regard rough rider lances seem to be the most appropriate.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I wonder if Lightning Claws and Fenrisian Claws will still be a thing.
Probably. Too many assault Terminator squads out there for them to ditch them. Whether Space Wolves will continue to get their special Wolfiness +1 on all their weapons remains to be seen.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I wonder if Lightning Claws and Fenrisian Claws will still be a thing.
Probably. Too many assault Terminator squads out there for them to ditch them. Whether Space Wolves will continue to get their special Wolfiness +1 on all their weapons remains to be seen.
With all marines now under 1 codex, I think it'll be too difficult trying to differentiate and will be dropped. What's to stop a person saying that their Assault Termies are actually WGT with twin Wolf Claws instead of Lightning Claws? Wolf claws will vanish, though Frost Blades and Axes may stay, or may just get rolled into Power Weapons and Chainswords.
What's stopping them doing that now? The army lists will initially be in one book, but that doesn't mean they'll be in one [/]army list[/I] (or Faction, if that's the term now). And those books are only until they start doing army -specific Codex books again (precedent: 4th and 6th edition Warhammer, 2nd and 3rd edition 40k, Age of Sigmar).
Ego788 wrote: Has anyone heard anything about Thunder Hammers, mainly if they will receive the -1 to hit like PFs?
Extremely like, Thunder Hammers have pretty much always been Power Fists + (what we now call Concussive) since 4th Ed. They are also big and unwieldy and I'd bet my wages on TH getting -1 to hit (seeing as Axes and Fists both share this trait.
Ego788 wrote: Has anyone heard anything about Thunder Hammers, mainly if they will receive the -1 to hit like PFs?
Extremely like, Thunder Hammers have pretty much always been Power Fists + (what we now call Concussive) since 4th Ed. They are also big and unwieldy and I'd bet my wages on TH getting -1 to hit (seeing as Axes and Fists both share this trait.
Yeah, but I was hoping... I'd love to play Deathwing again without a bunch of needless penalties. Maybe there will still be a way. Doubt it, though.
Ego788 wrote: Has anyone heard anything about Thunder Hammers, mainly if they will receive the -1 to hit like PFs?
Extremely like, Thunder Hammers have pretty much always been Power Fists + (what we now call Concussive) since 4th Ed. They are also big and unwieldy and I'd bet my wages on TH getting -1 to hit (seeing as Axes and Fists both share this trait.
Yeah, but I was hoping... I'd love to play Deathwing again without a bunch of needless penalties. Maybe there will still be a way. Doubt it, though.
The -1 to hit is much better than going last, which anyone can do these days. So there will be situations where you will have -1 to hit AND go last... but... there will be times when you get to strike FIRST! Just with a slight penalty of -1 to hit (So your Deathwing need a 4+ or 3+ instead of 3+ and 2+ which isn't bad at all)
Ego788 wrote: Has anyone heard anything about Thunder Hammers, mainly if they will receive the -1 to hit like PFs?
Extremely like, Thunder Hammers have pretty much always been Power Fists + (what we now call Concussive) since 4th Ed. They are also big and unwieldy and I'd bet my wages on TH getting -1 to hit (seeing as Axes and Fists both share this trait.
Yeah, but I was hoping... I'd love to play Deathwing again without a bunch of needless penalties. Maybe there will still be a way. Doubt it, though.
The -1 to hit is much better than going last, which anyone can do these days. So there will be situations where you will have -1 to hit AND go last... but... there will be times when you get to strike FIRST! Just with a slight penalty of -1 to hit (So your Deathwing need a 4+ or 3+ instead of 3+ and 2+ which isn't bad at all)
Vaktathi wrote: As someone who spends 3 knights a week doing HEMA swordplay, swords are not the optimal weapon against armor. They are very much for fighting unarmored or lightly armored opponents. Concussive force weapons are the go-to against armored opponents because that force transfers through the armor and bends/crushes it (with the wearer inside), while armor will easily set aside thrusts and cuts, hence why you get into the awkward nature of half-swording and a whole lot more grappling when swordfighting armored opponents.
Maybe they are doing mordhau strikes with the power sword
