76825
Post by: NinthMusketeer
For several editions now we have had the once generic "power weapon" split into different categories. Broadly these are the sword, axe, and mace, offering different combinations of bonus strength and AP (though counterintuitively it is the mace offering the worst AP). But is it needed? Is it even wanted? What do you/your community think about the distinction?
As a sidenote, this is not so much about army-specific variants getting differences (like Grey Knight halberds) but focused on the weapons which used to be bundled under the generic "power weapon" profile.
Personally I can see why they did it, but I preferred when it was just one power weapon profile. As a converter it really gave me freedom to customize models without worrying over the actual stat profile, and it was a hell of a lot easier to remember in-game. Previously I could do something like theme a chapter of Marines by having all the power sword wielders carrying axes instead--something distinct and visually consistent that speaks to a divergence of chapter culture/armament without altering stats. I also do not feel the distinctions are particularly helpful in a mechanical sense; power weapons have a niche in being a melee option that cuts through armor without offering the huge strength bonus of power fists. There isn't much wiggle room within that niche, especially with power claws on the opposite end giving more of a 'blender' approach.
Personally I think giving power weapons a generic profile of +1S, AP -3 would work well, putting them between claws and 'heavy' melee weapons of fists/chainfists/hammers. I would say only +1S rather than +2 to keep it cheap in points cost.
But what do you all think?
93221
Post by: Lance845
+1 Str -2AP D1 makes a good generic profile that allows a Relic Blade to be +2 Str -3 AP Dd3 as a flat upgrade the the generic Power Weapon profile.
If the PW profile gets any better then that it takes away from the upgrade that is the relic blade and -2 AP is already pretty great.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Honestly only two are really needed, and that would be the choice between the profiles of the Axe and Sword. Chainswords and Choppas they can do whatever with.
125898
Post by: RegularGuy
As guard, I appreciate the power maul's +2 strength or power fist's 2x in giving mere mortals a better wound chance.
121864
Post by: Castozor
I wouldn't mind a consolidated datasheet, it's how I already play my Terminators (as in, I tell my opponent pre-game this unit has either full swords or axes regardless of how they are modeled). I cba rolling 2 different sets of dice for such a small difference.
112860
Post by: Thadin
For the sake of my sanity, quite a few melee profiles could be consolidated. While it's not the same situation as power weapons, it was very unpleasant, playing against a new player running Death guard Terminators with an assortment of different melee weapons that were marginally different. Took quite a long time of pointlessly separated rolling to take my Skitarii off the board.
I'm for consolidated power weapons. Let GK's have their special Halberds and dual-wielded power weapons, but most everything else can just be "Power Weapon."
And a little thought I had. Could Relic Blade and the new Mastercrafted Power Sword consolidate together as well?
120227
Post by: Karol
 Lance845 wrote:+1 Str -2AP D1 makes a good generic profile that allows a Relic Blade to be +2 Str -3 AP Dd3 as a flat upgrade the the generic Power Weapon profile.
If the PW profile gets any better then that it takes away from the upgrade that is the relic blade and -2 AP is already pretty great.
This screws over any marine type that doesn't have access to relic blades or has access to multiple power weapons with specific rules. No thank you. Also random number of wounds done on a relic blade, just means that everyone is going to use a hammer or a fist.
56277
Post by: Eldarain
I agree. Especially with the idea that the added options restrict modeling and collecting freedom. I feel the same way about subfaction minutia.
It makes the universe feel a lot smaller now that choosing a paint scheme of an established subfaction locks you into a specific way of playing (not even getting into the brutal power disparities)
93221
Post by: Lance845
Karol wrote: Lance845 wrote:+1 Str -2AP D1 makes a good generic profile that allows a Relic Blade to be +2 Str -3 AP Dd3 as a flat upgrade the the generic Power Weapon profile.
If the PW profile gets any better then that it takes away from the upgrade that is the relic blade and -2 AP is already pretty great.
This screws over any marine type that doesn't have access to relic blades or has access to multiple power weapons with specific rules. No thank you. Also random number of wounds done on a relic blade, just means that everyone is going to use a hammer or a fist.
I disagree. It gives a rock solid profile for a melee weapon that any unit that has access to a power weapon would be able to put to good use. Compared to other melee options that are not the 3 power weapons the OP is talking about it fills a distinct role that the other melee weapons don't encroach on. The thunderhammer/Powerfist having -1 to hit is a good reason why you would take a power weapon over them if your intended target isn't high toughness high wounds. The hammer and fist could also be consolidated into a singular "heavy power weapon" profile for that matter. But the OP wasn't asking about that bit yet.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Karol wrote: Lance845 wrote:+1 Str -2AP D1 makes a good generic profile that allows a Relic Blade to be +2 Str -3 AP Dd3 as a flat upgrade the the generic Power Weapon profile.
If the PW profile gets any better then that it takes away from the upgrade that is the relic blade and -2 AP is already pretty great.
This screws over any marine type that doesn't have access to relic blades or has access to multiple power weapons with specific rules. No thank you. Also random number of wounds done on a relic blade, just means that everyone is going to use a hammer or a fist.
Who's to say said Factions shouldn't something of equivalent value though?
Quite frankly the fact regular Marine HQs even HAVE regular Power Weapons is bizarre.
121864
Post by: Castozor
 Thadin wrote:For the sake of my sanity, quite a few melee profiles could be consolidated. While it's not the same situation as power weapons, it was very unpleasant, playing against a new player running Death guard Terminators with an assortment of different melee weapons that were marginally different. Took quite a long time of pointlessly separated rolling to take my Skitarii off the board.
Those are actually the Terminators I was talking about, and those are power weapons, albeit our own versions that get a "re-roll 1's to wound" tacked on for being plague weapons.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I say don't take choices away from people.
105694
Post by: Lord Damocles
The mechanical difference between the various different power weapons is so small (all but non-existent) that the 'choice' of which to take is an illusion.
We would be better served having a single power weapon profile, and then be free to model whatever type we prefer.
How many power lances did you see in 6th/7th editions?
115174
Post by: CEO Kasen
Now, do you mean taking modelling choices away from people by differentiating power weapons, or taking mechanical choices away from people by homogenizing them?
26169
Post by: Groslon
 CEO Kasen wrote:Now, do you mean taking modelling choices away from people by differentiating power weapons, or taking mechanical choices away from people by homogenizing them?
Mechanical choices, obviously. WYSIWYG isn't a real rule, so make whatever (reasonable) model you want. This is a conversation about the rule set for a game of dice rolling, not a modelling competition. No need to be pedantic.
93221
Post by: Lance845
If you want mechanical choices then you should be interested in actual mechanical choices and not a ton of overlapping meaningless choices that amount to the illusion of choice.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
CEO Kasen wrote:Now, do you mean taking modelling choices away from people by differentiating power weapons, or taking mechanical choices away from people by homogenizing them?
The latter. Models should matter, and what you put on a model should represent what they do in the game.
64217
Post by: greatbigtree
I would also like to see a mechanical return to homogenized power weapons.
I think +1 S, -2 AP would be a good baseline. “Generic” axes, swords, clubs, spiky rifles, claws, etc are all the same. For the scope of the game, it would make sense to me to have a generic modifier for Powered versions.
53939
Post by: vipoid
I'd also be in favour of power weapons being more homogenised.
Failing that, could we at least make it that the Power Sword (the only variety of Power Weapon available to many units) isn't also by far the least useful?
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Bladed Power Weapons are S+1, AP-3 and Heavy Power Weapons are S+2 AP-2. Bam, done.
20901
Post by: Luke_Prowler
I think the problem needs the opposite solution: The power weapons (and the many other variants of special melee weapons) need to be more differentiated. The main issue with power weapons is that because their differences are small, their uses are muddled especially when you're comparing units with different strengths. The Maul is more useful for space marines wanting to put the occasional wound on a vehicle... but ie better for hitting GEQ for guardsmen... which is the axe for space marines.
Melee special weapons should be as different as ranged special weapons, and then they'll feel less pointless.
111831
Post by: Racerguy180
H.B.M.C. wrote:I say don't take choices away from people.
H.B.M.C. wrote: CEO Kasen wrote:Now, do you mean taking modelling choices away from people by differentiating power weapons, or taking mechanical choices away from people by homogenizing them?
The latter. Models should matter, and what you put on a model should represent what they do in the game.
Bingo, but that wouldn't work for players wanting perfect balance/chess. I like the differentiation between a sword, maul, fist, etc...they all serve a different purpose and should fit their "real world" usage.
Luke_Prowler wrote:I think the problem needs the opposite solution: The power weapons (and the many other variants of special melee weapons) need to be more differentiated. The main issue with power weapons is that because their differences are small, their uses are muddled especially when you're comparing units with different strengths. The Maul is more useful for space marines wanting to put the occasional wound on a vehicle... but ie better for hitting GEQ for guardsmen... which is the axe for space marines.
Melee special weapons should be as different as ranged special weapons, and then they'll feel less pointless.
yup
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
 Luke_Prowler wrote:Melee special weapons should be as different as ranged special weapons, and then they'll feel less pointless.
Well that's the best argument I've heard so far.
8042
Post by: catbarf
Luke_Prowler wrote:Melee special weapons should be as different as ranged special weapons, and then they'll feel less pointless.
I agree with the issue about melee weapons not being differentiated, but disagree with using ranged weapons as the reference point.
First, melee is as much about the guy wielding the sword as it is about the sword itself. With ranged weapons you've got BS, and... that's it. Just an accuracy stat against which the weapon profile is applied. Melee, on the other hand, is dictated by the user's WS, S, and A, with the weapon supplying modifiers to those stats and then a Damage stat. So there's less need for differentiation between melee weapons when a weapon can have very different stats on two different models.
Second, there is much less room for variation in melee weapons due to the simpler stat profiles. They have no analogue to range, type, or shots, which leads to the current situation of having a whole host of weapons that are the same Damage, and thus just exchange S for AP or vice-versa, which in turn means for any given unit there's usually one weapon that's optimal. You don't get the same thing with guns, where an 8" Assault weapon and a 36" Heavy weapon are used in completely different ways even if they otherwise have the same stats.
But I think the issue with power weapons isn't an endemic problem to melee; it's just that GW isn't using their design space effectively. I mean, why are hammers, swords, picks, daggers, shovels, halberds, and axes all abstracted to a generic 'close combat weapon' profile, but when you add a power field suddenly an axe, maul, and sword all have different profiles with bonus S and AP? The power weapons don't represent meaningful choice from one another because they all occupy the same niche of 'hit harder than a CCW', just with one generally doing it best.
In terms of gameplay effect, we'd have more variety if A, S, and AP were separated out into different archetypes of weapons:
- CCW
-Fast CCW (bonus A)
-Heavy CCW (bonus S)
-Power weapon (bonus AP)
-Heavy Power Weapon (bonus S and bonus AP, strikes last)
That gives you a basic cheap weapon, a bonus-A weapon for killing chaff, a bonus-S weapon for dealing with tough stuff, a bonus- AP weapon for dealing with armored stuff, and then your powerfists/thunder hammers/etc that kill everything but always strike last. This gives the weapons distinct roles and optimal targets, and provides more scope for adjustment.
113969
Post by: TangoTwoBravo
Agreed! Little things matter. It's good to have decisions to make. "Chrome" matters in a wargame, especially a miniature wargame.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
TangoTwoBravo wrote:Agreed! Little things matter. It's good to have decisions to make. "Chrome" matters in a wargame, especially a miniature wargame.
I honestly can't tell if you're being facetious.  catbarf wrote:But I think the issue with power weapons isn't an endemic problem to melee; it's just that GW isn't using their design space effectively. I mean, why are hammers, swords, picks, daggers, shovels, halberds, and axes all abstracted to a generic 'close combat weapon' profile, but when you add a power field suddenly an axe, maul, and sword all have different profiles with bonus S and AP? The power weapons don't represent meaningful choice from one another because they all occupy the same niche of 'hit harder than a CCW', just with one generally doing it best. In terms of gameplay effect, we'd have more variety if A, S, and AP were separated out into different archetypes of weapons: - CCW -Fast CCW (bonus A) -Heavy CCW (bonus S) -Power weapon (bonus AP) -Heavy Power Weapon (bonus S and bonus AP, strikes last) That gives you a basic cheap weapon, a bonus-A weapon for killing chaff, a bonus-S weapon for dealing with tough stuff, a bonus- AP weapon for dealing with armored stuff, and then your powerfists/thunder hammers/etc that kill everything but always strike last. This gives the weapons distinct roles and optimal targets, and provides more scope for adjustment.
I'd go the opposite direction. I agree that they're not using the design space, but to me that just means they have endless room to expand. I mean for shooting we have: 1. Pistol 2. Grenade 3. Rapid Fire 4. Assault 5. Heavy And for melee we have: 1. Melee If they weren't so petrified of USRs then perhaps they could expand upon this a little.
113969
Post by: TangoTwoBravo
 H.B.M.C. wrote:TangoTwoBravo wrote:Agreed! Little things matter. It's good to have decisions to make. "Chrome" matters in a wargame, especially a miniature wargame.
I honestly can't tell if you're being facetious.
I am being serious - I am agreeing with you.
I guess I should work on my delivery/tone?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
TangoTwoBravo wrote:I am being serious - I am agreeing with you.
I guess I should work on my delivery/tone?
Nah it's cool. The confusion is entirely on me. 
111961
Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine
I think power weapons should be condensed, especially now that with +1S to Power Swords, they're well, all the same.
They haven't always been different. In addition, like, it apparently doesn't matter if you have a board with a nail through it or a four-foot knife, that's all the same, but the relative difference between a power sword, axe, and maul when they're essentially entirely interchangeable is a critical differentiation.
93221
Post by: Lance845
There are not enough different kinds of targets to diferintiate the different weapons and make them all real choices. Realistically you need something to take out GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Light Vehicles, Heavy Vehicles. So for weapon options marines have chainsword, claws (GEQ), Power weapons (MEQ) relic blade (TEQ) Fists (Light vehicles) Thunder hammers (light/heavy vehicles).
And somehow you want to find jobs for 2 other varieties of power weapon to have a job to do? There literally isn't the design space.
120048
Post by: PenitentJake
Considering that changing it to a generic profile would save you somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3 lines of text in a single chart, and there a lot of people like differentiated profiles, I say leave it as is.
I didn't really like the generic power weapon era.I treat the various power weapons like I treat choices of specials and heavies: I build a bunch of models equipped with each of the options and then choose which set to use based on which army I'm facing.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
Lance845 wrote:There are not enough different kinds of targets to diferintiate the different weapons and make them all real choices. Realistically you need something to take out GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Light Vehicles, Heavy Vehicles. So for weapon options marines have chainsword, claws ( GEQ), Power weapons ( MEQ) relic blade ( TEQ) Fists (Light vehicles) Thunder hammers (light/heavy vehicles).
And somehow you want to find jobs for 2 other varieties of power weapon to have a job to do? There literally isn't the design space.
By that logic shouldn't there only be 5 different ranged weapons profiles too? One that's cheap and default, one that's for anti-horde, one that cracks armor, one that cracks gravis/terminators, and one that hunts vehicles. If you really want variety you could make 3 versions of each for different range bands; 12" Assault 2, 24" Rapid Fire 1, 48" Heavy 1. After all there just aren't enough target types to justify more than that many ranged weapons.
121131
Post by: Catulle
Ranged weapon interactions are relevant in the shooting, movement and (somewhat) charge phases vis a vis melee's single phase.
Like the wielder's stats argument, I can see the line of logic there.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
Catulle wrote:Ranged weapon interactions are relevant in the shooting, movement and (somewhat) charge phases vis a vis melee's single phase.
Like the wielder's stats argument, I can see the line of logic there.
So let's make melee weapons actually interesting then.
They can have ranges 1/2" for basic weapons, 1" for pole weapons, and 2" for monstrous creatures/dreadnaughts; some weapons might be better only when the unit is charging (or only when the unit is being charged); others might apply debuffs such as halving enemy movement until the end of your next turn; yet others might have different profiles for use against different targets like more attacks/less strength on one mode and fewer attacks/more strength in a second mode; some weapons may even cost an attack instead of adding one. These are just a few ideas.
93221
Post by: Lance845
 Canadian 5th wrote: Lance845 wrote:There are not enough different kinds of targets to diferintiate the different weapons and make them all real choices. Realistically you need something to take out GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Light Vehicles, Heavy Vehicles. So for weapon options marines have chainsword, claws ( GEQ), Power weapons ( MEQ) relic blade ( TEQ) Fists (Light vehicles) Thunder hammers (light/heavy vehicles). And somehow you want to find jobs for 2 other varieties of power weapon to have a job to do? There literally isn't the design space.
By that logic shouldn't there only be 5 different ranged weapons profiles too? One that's cheap and default, one that's for anti-horde, one that cracks armor, one that cracks gravis/terminators, and one that hunts vehicles. If you really want variety you could make 3 versions of each for different range bands; 12" Assault 2, 24" Rapid Fire 1, 48" Heavy 1. After all there just aren't enough target types to justify more than that many ranged weapons.
If all 5 were available on one unit. Yes. The SM captain can take ALL of those weapon options. And the power weapons when available on other units are still fighting for design space with each other. They don't get different ranges. It's just 3 weapons doing the same job. Automatically Appended Next Post: Canadian 5th wrote:Catulle wrote:Ranged weapon interactions are relevant in the shooting, movement and (somewhat) charge phases vis a vis melee's single phase. Like the wielder's stats argument, I can see the line of logic there.
So let's make melee weapons actually interesting then. They can have ranges 1/2" for basic weapons, 1" for pole weapons, and 2" for monstrous creatures/dreadnaughts; some weapons might be better only when the unit is charging (or only when the unit is being charged); others might apply debuffs such as halving enemy movement until the end of your next turn; yet others might have different profiles for use against different targets like more attacks/less strength on one mode and fewer attacks/more strength in a second mode; some weapons may even cost an attack instead of adding one. These are just a few ideas.
Yeah lets make the game WAY more complicated then it already is by giving melee weapons a bunch of different modes and ranges even though everyone will just pile in anyway. And we STILL won't gain any design space.
105897
Post by: Tygre
For what its worth AoS had ranges for melee weapons.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Thadin wrote:For the sake of my sanity, quite a few melee profiles could be consolidated. While it's not the same situation as power weapons, it was very unpleasant, playing against a new player running Death guard Terminators with an assortment of different melee weapons that were marginally different. Took quite a long time of pointlessly separated rolling to take my Skitarii off the board.
For this specific problem, GW could just put enough weapons in the box so you can equip all your terminators with axes or swords. Currently, this is not possible. Oh, and if you ever run into this problem again, do the flail first - it should wipe your skitarii on its own, cutting down the need to roll for the other stuff. Automatically Appended Next Post: Tygre wrote:For what its worth AoS had ranges for melee weapons.
Some larger daemons have ranged weapon profiles which represent long range melee weapons. I think this a better way or representing long/flail weapons for 40k where needed - just add a ranged profile to those weapons.
108848
Post by: Blackie
 NinthMusketeer wrote:For several editions now we have had the once generic "power weapon" split into different categories. Broadly these are the sword, axe, and mace, offering different combinations of bonus strength and AP (though counterintuitively it is the mace offering the worst AP). But is it needed? Is it even wanted? What do you/your community think about the distinction?
Needed? Definitely not.
Wanted? That's entirely subjective.
I've always liked having different profiles for swords, maces and axes for example but with the to-wound mechanics of 8-9th editions they might as well have a single unique profile. I mean the difference between S5 and S6 was significant in older editions, when the latter granted 2s to wound against any infantry models, now they all wound on 3s against T4 models which makes the double profile useless. Also AP-2 or AP-3 aren't that different now while the difference between one point of AP in older edition was pretty big.
In conclusion I'd love different profiles for swords, maces and axes but they have to bring some real flavor and use. +1S AP-3, +3A Ap-1 and +2S AP-2 are basically the same thing, with the sword profile being simply most efficient.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
It's a different thing depending on your starting strength though. In addition, no every unit has access to all three.
8824
Post by: Breton
Thadin wrote:For the sake of my sanity, quite a few melee profiles could be consolidated. While it's not the same situation as power weapons, it was very unpleasant, playing against a new player running Death guard Terminators with an assortment of different melee weapons that were marginally different. Took quite a long time of pointlessly separated rolling to take my Skitarii off the board.
I'm for consolidated power weapons. Let GK's have their special Halberds and dual-wielded power weapons, but most everything else can just be "Power Weapon."
And a little thought I had. Could Relic Blade and the new Mastercrafted Power Sword consolidate together as well?
Probably not when Relic Blades go back to being a 2handed weapon and that matters.
I’m on the other side of the fence. Not only should we keep the differentiation they have, but that differentiation should be emphasized. The difference between a power sword and a power axe should not only be something in Space Wolf wheelhouses, it should be rewarded by Wolves for doing so.
110703
Post by: Galas
Are power weapons even an option outside swords? With the exception of space marine veterans, what unit can take axes or maces for a significant number of models in the unit? They are more like a prestige weapon for the sargeant, and in that way I can see why GW wants to have them separated, basically because the sargeant is always the little bit of personalization most people want in their army.
Many units have a couple of weapon options like Dark Eldar Wytches, etc... but as I said, I cannot remember from memory many units where power axes and maces are generic options.
Only Grey Knights are an army were you have this problem, where most squads have three options of power (force) weapons with very similar profiles. In their case, staffs acts as a defensive weapon, thats fine, falchions as an anti horde weapon, and hammers as an expensive anti all weapon with a minus to hit.
The problem is that spears and swords even if they look badass are normally worse falchions because the extra attack is just better. They probably could be consolidated into a single profile of anti-armoured opponents. Or give the force sword and anti invulnerable saves weapon and the spear an charge bonus.
127131
Post by: Cyel
Canadian 5th wrote:
They can have ranges 1/2" for basic weapons, 1" for pole weapons, and 2" for monstrous creatures/dreadnaughts; some weapons might be better only when the unit is charging (or only when the unit is being charged); others might apply debuffs such as halving enemy movement until the end of your next turn; yet others might have different profiles for use against different targets like more attacks/less strength on one mode and fewer attacks/more strength in a second mode; some weapons may even cost an attack instead of adding one. These are just a few ideas.
Sounds like Warmachine weapons 
-different ranges
-charge/ anti-charge bonuses
-debuffs application
-boosting vs buying attacks decisions
-choosing power attacks instead of regular attacks
As for WH40K different profiles. The question is simple "does the fact that the profile is different make you make different decisions while you play the game?" If not, it's just unnecessary burden.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
I'm in the consolidate them camp. Its an illusion of choice/imitation chrome.
In previous editions 98% of power weapons that were actually used were of one of the three types (IIRC power axes were traditionally the most popular in 6th or 7th edition), almost nobody who was actually trying to win a game ever ran the other two options.
I don't see this changing now, the difference in stats offered are basically marginal in most cases due to the way the to wound chart works AND the realities of the wider meta. If you accept the idea that the majority of models in the game are S4 T4, then the majority of players will probably be using power swords. Why? Because on a S4 model, S+1 from the power sword, the S+2 from a power axe, and S+3 from the power maul will all wound against a T4 model on a 3+, but the power sword gives you AP-3 which has a lot more utility than the power mauls AP-1, and marginally greater utility than the AP-2 from the axe.
Against T3 models, its true that the power maul gets you to 2+ to wound, but so does the Power Axe which gives you an additional point of AP. Really, the only point at which power mauls become preferable for an S4 model is against a T6+ model - but there are so many more preferable ways of dealing with those models (and those models are typically only a minority within any given army list) that its hard to justify taking the maul over the axe or sword unless you're kitting out an entire unit with mauls as a dedicated troubleshooter - even then its questionable that you would want to, because while you can dish out wounds most higher toughness models have the benefit of a better armor save, against which your AP-1 isn't going to necessarily offer you much of a benefit. I could see axes becoming more popular than the sword if T5 becomes more widespread or more popular in the meta (I.E. if Death Guard, etc. got buffed and suddenly became meta), but until then I think the Sword has greater overall utility to the average unit.
The choices seem a bit more interesting for S3 models, but I think its largely an illusion of choice. The sword gets you 4+ to wounds against T4 and the Axe 4+ wounds against the increasingly common T5 (as well as 3+ wounds against T4). Both are reasonable choices, but I think the Axe is the better all-around option of the two since it'll have the most benefit against T4 and under which are the most likely targets for a S3 model in melee. I think power mauls are a trap for S3 models - T5 opponents aren't quite yet common enough to justify the 3+ to wound benefit - and the majority of them have a 2+ or 3+ save, so AP-1 isn't much of a help there. If you're taking a maul on an S3 model, then chances are you're doing it because you want to paste T3 models in melee with 2+ to wound rolls - but lets be real here, getting an couple wounds over the course of a game from your guard sergeant or whatever against a T3 opponent in melee probably isn't going to swing the tide of the battle, there are better ways to handle T3 opponents out there.
117884
Post by: Duskweaver
chaos0xomega wrote:If you accept the idea that the majority of models in the game are S4 T4, then the majority of players will probably be using power swords.
Nope. They will be using lightning claws. Reroll to wound and an extra attack is better than +1S and an extra point of AP in almost all cases. Lightning claws make all other 'cheap' power weapons (i.e. sword/axe/mace) obsolete in purely competitive/math-hammer terms. In the narrow range where that's not the case (T8-9 and Sv 4+ or better), you really want a better (and more expensive) weapon like a thunder hammer anyway.
Of course, if you aren't playing ultra-competitive games then it doesn't matter which weapon you pick. You might as well just choose whichever weapon fits the fluff of your army or your aesthetic preferences the best.
71077
Post by: Eldarsif
By consolidation you remove artificial non-choices and establish modelling choices.
By non-consolidation you add artificial non-choices and remove modelling choices.
By non-choices I mean that due to how swingy the rules the lesser options tend to be non-options. Especially considering the fact that a consolidated sheet would mean you could model your epic units with the weapon you wish(ie. a visible option), whereas a non-consolidated sheet means you will be faced with 4/5 bad weapons that are rarely used and always complained about for being bad.
In other words, with consolidation a choice is never really moved, only the illusion of choice.
This is one area where Age of Sigmar shows its superiority for the most part as it gives gamers who are hobbyists and modellers a freedom of expression that is generally very limited in Warhammer 40.000.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
 Eldarsif wrote:This is one area where Age of Sigmar shows its superiority for the most part as it gives gamers who are hobbyists and modellers a freedom of expression that is generally very limited in Warhammer 40.000.
You can call it consolidation all you like. I call what AoS does dumbing down.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
 Duskweaver wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:If you accept the idea that the majority of models in the game are S4 T4, then the majority of players will probably be using power swords.
Nope. They will be using lightning claws. Reroll to wound and an extra attack is better than +1S and an extra point of AP in almost all cases. Lightning claws make all other 'cheap' power weapons (i.e. sword/axe/mace) obsolete in purely competitive/math-hammer terms. In the narrow range where that's not the case (T8-9 and Sv 4+ or better), you really want a better (and more expensive) weapon like a thunder hammer anyway.
Of course, if you aren't playing ultra-competitive games then it doesn't matter which weapon you pick. You might as well just choose whichever weapon fits the fluff of your army or your aesthetic preferences the best.
Fair point. I was more analyzing the three power weapon options in a vacuum, assuming that power weapons were the only options available either due to wargear list or points availability, etc.
By consolidation you remove artificial non-choices and establish modelling choices.
By non-consolidation you add artificial non-choices and remove modelling choices.
By non-choices I mean that due to how swingy the rules the lesser options tend to be non-options. Especially considering the fact that a consolidated sheet would mean you could model your epic units with the weapon you wish(ie. a visible option), whereas a non-consolidated sheet means you will be faced with 4/5 bad weapons that are rarely used and always complained about for being bad.
In other words, with consolidation a choice is never really moved, only the illusion of choice.
This is one area where Age of Sigmar shows its superiority for the most part as it gives gamers who are hobbyists and modellers a freedom of expression that is generally very limited in Warhammer 40.000.
This is an outstanding comment and 100% correct.
I started 40k in late 3rd/early 4th edition, at the time all power weapons were just power weapons. You paid your 5 or 10 points or whatever for a power weapon, and that was it - you were free to model it however you wanted, and indeed we did. Lots of people just stuck with swords because they were ubiquitous, simple, and culturally cool, but lots of people also made cool alternative weapons (tridents, spears, axes, glaives, halberds, etc.) and it was okay because it was all wysiwyg and it made no difference mechanically what kind of weapon they were toting. But now, the type of weapon is very strictly defined, and those modeling options are no longer on the table if I want to keep my minis WYSIWYG - the choice has been removed and I am forced to build my minis to fit the mold of established mechanical paradigms. I have been given an illusory choice to select between one of three mechanical options, even though only one of those three options is ever really an ideal option, and in turn I am forced to build my model in a way I don't necessarily desire in order to correlate the model to the mechanics.
110703
Post by: Galas
H.B.M.C. wrote: Eldarsif wrote:This is one area where Age of Sigmar shows its superiority for the most part as it gives gamers who are hobbyists and modellers a freedom of expression that is generally very limited in Warhammer 40.000.
You can call it consolidation all you like. I call what AoS does dumbing down.
Yeah I like AoS but lets not pretend their weapon options are something to replicate in 40k, with all the false choices or +3/+4 or +4/+3 stuff like the options of stormcast liberators, stormcast crosbowmen, chaos warriors, etc...
Theres a place to both be more specific and add choices and places to consolidate. In Fantasy you had spears, you had halberds, you had two handed weapons, and you had close combat weapons. And it worked fine for a fantasy game centered about meele combat because all had a clear place.
40k has always wanted for each unit to have their special stuff, options, etc... and thats fine.
102599
Post by: edwardmyst
I'm on the simplify side. I agree completely with the simplify opens up modeling. The idea of a normal and heavy works as well. (1 or 2 handed maybe?)
Although you can model things into generic groups too. My white scars Khan's spear is clearly a spear, my friends trident is clearly a spear as well...
The real issue to me falls under play style.
If you play for efficiency (my term for what has the best chance to win on the table), yes it really is a set of fake choices. The right option is obvious.
If you play for fun (or narrative, or whatever term you like) then modeling what you want is just fine and counts as.
If you are in between, say you are a modeler but play with a group who does or yourself for efficiency, there's the trouble.
I don't think GW can cater to all three options, and I find the simplify idea the best (if not perfect) compromise.
120048
Post by: PenitentJake
Lance845 wrote:There are not enough different kinds of targets to diferintiate the different weapons and make them all real choices. Realistically you need something to take out GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Light Vehicles, Heavy Vehicles. So for weapon options marines have chainsword, claws ( GEQ), Power weapons ( MEQ) relic blade ( TEQ) Fists (Light vehicles) Thunder hammers (light/heavy vehicles).
And somehow you want to find jobs for 2 other varieties of power weapon to have a job to do? There literally isn't the design space.
Also, not all factions are marines, therefore not all factions have Lightning Claws, Relic Blades, Power Fists and Thunder Hammers.
If you want to give Marines Generic power weapons, yeah, that's probably okay since they have all the other stuff.
But non marine armies probably want to keep differentiation in power weapons because we don't get all the other variety.
I know I certainly do.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
Aside from Guardsmen, what other armies have power mauls, swords, and axes?
Sisters only get to chose between Mauls and Swords, IIRC.
8042
Post by: catbarf
PenitentJake wrote:But non marine armies probably want to keep differentiation in power weapons because we don't get all the other variety.
I know I certainly do.
Is there something that makes having a bunch of flavors of near-identical power weapon more appealing than having a single generic power weapon profile, but additional weapon options that do distinctly different things?
26238
Post by: Semper
I think someone has already touched upon this.
Differentiate more to make the differences matter or don't bother and just have a generic profile- i'd be fine either way.
For example (this is by no means perfect before nit pickers strike, it would need more complexity to differentiate better but it's a basic approach to start with)
When differentiating, differentiate from the bottom as, like others have said, with shooting weapons:
Base Type, a weapon can only be one base type:
Fast Melee (swords, claws), Piercing Melee (halberds, spears, lances, Maces, axes), Heavy Melee (hammers, fists, two handed weapons), Assault (flails).
Fast Melee (+1 A)
Piercing (+1 AP)
Heavy (+1 Strength, -1 to hit & +1 Damage)
Assault (each attack is D3 and damage spills)
Then the next differentiation could be a advanced type. A weapon can have more than one advanced type but certain types cannot be combined (ie Power and Warp or Power and Daemon):
Power (add +1 strength, x2 on hvy)
Warp (add +1 AP, -2 on hvy)
Dark Age/Relic (add +1D, becomes D3 on hvy)
Master Crafted (+1 Attack)
Daemon (add D6 to specific strat - AP for Slan, A for Khorne, D for Tzeentch and AP for nurgle).
You could then add exotic traits:
Forged of Rare Metal: (+1 AP)
Consecrated (+D3 damage to daemons)
Adaptive (+D3 damage to all)
Poisoned (damage ignores feel no pain type abilities)
Predictive (ignores invulnerable saves)
etc etc
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:Aside from Guardsmen, what other armies have power mauls, swords, and axes?
Sisters only get to chose between Mauls and Swords, IIRC.
CSM do.
Elfs have power swords.
Inquisition them.
120045
Post by: Blastaar
Something that is missing from the discussion is armor saves and AP. The system has severely limited design space. Remove it, switch to AA, and suddenly there are more options for giving weapons meaningful differences.
76825
Post by: NinthMusketeer
A lot of good discussion here, thanks everyone.
A repeating trend I see is very few people expressing a desire to leave it the way it is. People want it more differentiated or generic, and some even happy with either option. It is interesting that so many are dissatisfied with the current layout.
120963
Post by: Seabass
I actually think they're fine as is. They have some minor differences, save the heavier variants like power fists and thunder hammers, the rest of them all cost the same and swing one aspect or another in their profile at the cost of another.
In 2nd edition, I want to say there were as many different melee options, and they all did different stuff with lots of different rules (I want to say swords had the parry ability, axes gave you a bonus to damage, but its been 20+ years so forgive me). People weren't crazy about that system because it was really convoluted (and you could never get enough chainsword and powerfist combos to outfit you melee dudes with one of each, because you wanted them hitting power and armour penetration of the powerfist, which I think was like a D20+8, but you also wanted the parry result to make your opponent reroll a six to hit).
In 3rd edition, they moved everything to power weapons, save the powerfist, thunder hammer, and chain fist (and maybe some specific weapons) and people weren't super happy about that because it watered it down.
I think right now, it's pretty close to calling it good. Maybe a little more differentiation between the weapons would be nice, but I really don't have any complaints as is.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Aside from Guardsmen, what other armies have power mauls, swords, and axes?
Sisters only get to chose between Mauls and Swords, IIRC.
Guardsmen don't have those options, as none of the kits come with them and the codex rules are reflective of the kits. I know for a fact that power mauls and power axes are not included in Codex: Astra Militarum, the only way to use them was through the Index options, which I believe are no longer valid in 9e.
In fact, I'm pretty sure the Sororitas and Space Marines might be the only factions that have Codex access to power mauls currently - I think pretty much everyone else lost theirs in 8e (and most also lost axes) as they were an option added in 6th or 7th that were never really reflected in the majority of kits put out for the game.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
Chaos Termies either do (or used to) have a Maul weapon army.
*checks box listing on GW site*
Yeah, the box has one power sword, one power axe and one power maul, so going by recent GW logic, that unit should have access to all three.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Would people seriously have problems with the following profiles?
Bladed/Light Power Weapon: S+1 AP-3
Blunt/Heavy Power Weapon: S+2 AP-2
That really covers everything to be honest. The fact we have a whole separate profile for the Genestealer Cult Power Pickaxe is...stupid. It's just stupid. There's no other word for it.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
Other potential words include: flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting...
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
 Dysartes wrote:Other potential words include: flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting...
Is S6 versus S5 flavorful?
Is AP-2 versus AP-3 characterful?
Because they all perform, mechanically, very similarly against the majority of targets.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Dysartes wrote:Other potential words include: flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting...
What's interesting about the Power Pickaxe profile compared to any other weapon?
I'll give you a hint. Well not really a hint. It isn't interesting. At all.
93221
Post by: Lance845
Its only useful or interesting if they actually do a different job. They dont so they aren't
120227
Post by: Karol
 JNAProductions wrote: Dysartes wrote:Other potential words include: flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting...
Is S6 versus S5 flavorful?
Is AP-2 versus AP-3 characterful?
Because they all perform, mechanically, very similarly against the majority of targets.
That is like saying that being 2ed or 3ed in an event is the same as being first. Of course being the best and better is more flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Lance845 wrote:Its only useful or interesting if they actually do a different job. They dont so they aren't
Go before a commission for sports and tell them that being 7th placed is the same being 1st. I mean you placed, in the same thing, did the same stuff as others. Nothing different between one and the other.
93221
Post by: Lance845
A sports commision has nothing to do with game design. Good try though.
120048
Post by: PenitentJake
catbarf wrote:PenitentJake wrote:But non marine armies probably want to keep differentiation in power weapons because we don't get all the other variety.
I know I certainly do.
Is there something that makes having a bunch of flavors of near-identical power weapon more appealing than having a single generic power weapon profile, but additional weapon options that do distinctly different things?
Against power armour, save mod is the most important stat.
Against high toughness, str bonus is the most important stat.
Swords are better vs MEQ than mauls.
Mauls are better vs monstrous nids than swords.
It's also worth mentioning that not all factions get all options; Inquisition has no axes, Sisters have no fists, etc. Make it generic and everyone has everything- just takes away flavour from individual armies. I think the only factions that have access to everything are marines. I know, shocking, right?
83210
Post by: Vankraken
Power weapons being different had more meaning when armor was all or nothing, AV was a thing, USRs was a thing, and the to wound table was more punishing (aka 7th). There was a lot of trade offs between axe vs maul vs sword. Same for the whole assortment of other weapons like claws, fist, TH, chainfist, etc where they all operated in a different capacity to various degrees. Now it's all just kinda boils down to what outputs the most damage output, it doesn't really matter much to have a half dozen different power weapon options.
You still had some half baked ideas like power lances which had a lot of potential but was poorly executed in terms of balance (hit real hard on the charge but lose a lot of killing power when stuck in protracted combat. I used them extensively to meh effect). GW's blanket wargear pricing tended to plague these options as power swords where not remotely equivalent to mauls or axes and 25 points for a PF/PK on a guardsman's sergeant is not even remotely equivalent to a PK on an Ork Warboss.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Except there wasn't a lot of trade offs. Axes did everything and Mauls had the benefit of the wounding chart at that time + Concussion. Swords were awful.
117188
Post by: Eonfuzz
Yes it's a needless distinction. No one should have to worry about the power wolf bladed axe of runeterra or something.
Not to mention remembering that for every other subfaction. Just give them a blanket rule so that new players that model for fun aren't gimped because they chose the slightly weaker but cooler looking Power Jackhammer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
This exact same problem applies to the whole page of bolter variations Space Mahreooins now have. Cut. Down. The. Bloat.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
There are at least 20 bolt weapons to get rid of before you compress power weapons.
117188
Post by: Eonfuzz
 Insectum7 wrote:There are at least 20 bolt weapons to get rid of before you compress power weapons.
Agreed. At this point I'm almost tempted to say that the small weapon differences should be an ability on the unit, ie kraken rounds or cawl autoloaders etc.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Insectum7 wrote:There are at least 20 bolt weapons to get rid of before you compress power weapons.
Oh I'm all for consolidation of MANY of those profiles.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
Lance845 wrote:If all 5 were available on one unit. Yes.
The SM captain can take ALL of those weapon options. And the power weapons when available on other units are still fighting for design space with each other. They don't get different ranges. It's just 3 weapons doing the same job.
That sounds a lot like Devastators to me:
They start with the basic boltgun for free and can upgrade to be better against different target profiles with some options that are traps and others that easily fill a useful role. Should we consolidate down their weapon options and, for example, squat the missile launcher because it doesn't fill out any given role properly and is a trap option?
Yeah lets make the game WAY more complicated then it already is by giving melee weapons a bunch of different modes and ranges even though everyone will just pile in anyway. And we STILL won't gain any design space.
Yeah, let's keep melee as a boring phase where we bang blocks of stats into one another and the main difference between units is getting them into melee at all rather than ability once they get there.
-----
EDIT: Also, as a challenge for you, show me examples of weapons that aren't from Codex: Space Marines (and which exist outside of legends) that also need consolidation. Bonus points are available for your thoughts on how consolidation may impact other armies that use the same weapons as those used in C: SM.
117188
Post by: Eonfuzz
Canadian 5th wrote: Lance845 wrote:If all 5 were available on one unit. Yes.
The SM captain can take ALL of those weapon options. And the power weapons when available on other units are still fighting for design space with each other. They don't get different ranges. It's just 3 weapons doing the same job.
That sounds a lot like Devastators to me:
They start with the basic boltgun for free and can upgrade to be better against different target profiles with some options that are traps and others that easily fill a useful role. Should we consolidate down their weapon options and, for example, squat the missile launcher because it doesn't fill out any given role properly and is a trap option?
Yeah lets make the game WAY more complicated then it already is by giving melee weapons a bunch of different modes and ranges even though everyone will just pile in anyway. And we STILL won't gain any design space.
Yeah, let's keep melee as a boring phase where we bang blocks of stats into one another and the main difference between units is getting them into melee at all rather than ability once they get there.
-----
EDIT: Also, as a challenge for you, show me examples of weapons that aren't from Codex: Space Marines (and which exist outside of legends) that also need consolidation. Bonus points are available for your thoughts on how consolidation may impact other armies that use the same weapons as those used in C: SM.
I mean, keeping arbitrary power weapon statlines doesn't make melee more interesting lmao. So I'm not exactly sure what you're point is for
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
 Eonfuzz wrote:I mean, keeping arbitrary power weapon statlines doesn't make melee more interesting lmao. So I'm not exactly sure what you're point is for
My post from page 2 of this thread:
"So let's make melee weapons actually interesting then.
They can have ranges 1/2" for basic weapons, 1" for pole weapons, and 2" for monstrous creatures/dreadnaughts; some weapons might be better only when the unit is charging (or only when the unit is being charged); others might apply debuffs such as halving enemy movement until the end of your next turn; yet others might have different profiles for use against different targets like more attacks/less strength on one mode and fewer attacks/more strength in a second mode; some weapons may even cost an attack instead of adding one. These are just a few ideas."
So yeah, perhaps read the thread before making empty comments.
101159
Post by: Dai
I'd agree with C5th. Would prefer they were made more interesting than consolidated it the issue is they are too similar.
That said I think the idea of consolidating them is a bit of a strange hill to die on, if they are all pretty much the same anyway why any issue with them having slightly different profiles if some find that more engaging. I understand that for some it would be an issue with the game as a whole but this particular instance seems like it should be a particularly low priority even then!
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
Dai wrote:I'd agree with C5th. Would prefer they were made more interesting than consolidated it the issue is they are too similar.
That said I think the idea of consolidating them is a bit of a strange hill to die on, if they are all pretty much the same anyway why any issue with them having slightly different profiles if some find that more engaging. I understand that for some it would be an issue with the game as a whole but this particular instance seems like it should be a particularly low priority even then!
The core rules for 40k are so shallow that once we strip away the 'challenge' of picking the right tools for the job there really won't be anything left. People dislike losing in the list building phase but it's the most choice we get, on the tabletop the game is only blocking movement with early game charges, shooting at the objectively correct targets and using starts as appropriate. It has the depth of a wading pool and is massively propped up by list building and meta chasing.
117188
Post by: Eonfuzz
Canadian 5th wrote: Eonfuzz wrote:I mean, keeping arbitrary power weapon statlines doesn't make melee more interesting lmao. So I'm not exactly sure what you're point is for
My post from page 2 of this thread:
"So let's make melee weapons actually interesting then.
They can have ranges 1/2" for basic weapons, 1" for pole weapons, and 2" for monstrous creatures/dreadnaughts; some weapons might be better only when the unit is charging (or only when the unit is being charged); others might apply debuffs such as halving enemy movement until the end of your next turn; yet others might have different profiles for use against different targets like more attacks/less strength on one mode and fewer attacks/more strength in a second mode; some weapons may even cost an attack instead of adding one. These are just a few ideas."
So yeah, perhaps read the thread before making empty comments.
Weapon attack ranges are bad for the same reason Blast makers were.
Already there are people that micromeasure ignoring intent to ensure units cannot attack in melee.
This would probably be just as bad, if not worse. Automatically Appended Next Post: Canadian 5th wrote:Dai wrote:I'd agree with C5th. Would prefer they were made more interesting than consolidated it the issue is they are too similar.
That said I think the idea of consolidating them is a bit of a strange hill to die on, if they are all pretty much the same anyway why any issue with them having slightly different profiles if some find that more engaging. I understand that for some it would be an issue with the game as a whole but this particular instance seems like it should be a particularly low priority even then!
The core rules for 40k are so shallow that once we strip away the 'challenge' of picking the right tools for the job there really won't be anything left. People dislike losing in the list building phase but it's the most choice we get, on the tabletop the game is only blocking movement with early game charges, shooting at the objectively correct targets and using starts as appropriate. It has the depth of a wading pool and is massively propped up by list building and meta chasing.
Absolutely agree. Basic 40k rules are extremely shallow in the name of "accessibility", and more often go for the breadth of rules approach rather than depth.
I honestly kind've miss Blast templates even considering how some players handled them. I also miss the old melee iniative values as they added depth to the game.
Also, the current implementation of STR vs TOUGNNESS is terrible and needs to be reviewed. For almost all intents and purposes S1 and S2 weapons don't exist, and there's too many breakpoints where weapon strength does not matter.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
Eonfuzz wrote:Weapon attack ranges are bad for the same reason Blast makers were.
Already there are people that micromeasure ignoring intent to ensure units cannot attack in melee.
This would probably be just as bad, if not worse.
Oh so you're also one of the 'Positioning in a miniatures game is bad actually' crowd... Automatically Appended Next Post: Absolutely agree. Basic 40k rules are extremely shallow in the name of "accessibility", and more often go for the breadth of rules approach rather than depth.
I honestly kind've miss Blast templates even considering how some players handled them. I also miss the old melee iniative values as they added depth to the game.
Also, the current implementation of STR vs TOUGNNESS is terrible and needs to be reviewed. For almost all intents and purposes S1 and S2 weapons don't exist, and there's too many breakpoints where weapon strength does not matter.
Given this I was probably too harsh above. Still, we shouldn't build a game expecting that everybody plays it like tryharding manchildren.
93221
Post by: Lance845
Canadian 5th wrote: Lance845 wrote:If all 5 were available on one unit. Yes.
The SM captain can take ALL of those weapon options. And the power weapons when available on other units are still fighting for design space with each other. They don't get different ranges. It's just 3 weapons doing the same job.
That sounds a lot like Devastators to me:
They start with the basic boltgun for free and can upgrade to be better against different target profiles with some options that are traps and others that easily fill a useful role. Should we consolidate down their weapon options and, for example, squat the missile launcher because it doesn't fill out any given role properly and is a trap option?
Yes.
117188
Post by: Eonfuzz
Canadian 5th wrote: Eonfuzz wrote:Weapon attack ranges are bad for the same reason Blast makers were.
Already there are people that micromeasure ignoring intent to ensure units cannot attack in melee.
This would probably be just as bad, if not worse.
Oh so you're also one of the 'Positioning in a miniatures game is bad actually' crowd...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Absolutely agree. Basic 40k rules are extremely shallow in the name of "accessibility", and more often go for the breadth of rules approach rather than depth.
I honestly kind've miss Blast templates even considering how some players handled them. I also miss the old melee iniative values as they added depth to the game.
Also, the current implementation of STR vs TOUGNNESS is terrible and needs to be reviewed. For almost all intents and purposes S1 and S2 weapons don't exist, and there's too many breakpoints where weapon strength does not matter.
Given this I was probably too harsh above. Still, we shouldn't build a game expecting that everybody plays it like tryharding manchildren.
Ideally it's built to cater to all audiences. But the more I see companies try to do this, the less I believe it's possible.
In saying that though, you have games like MTG and some RTS that manage to do both.
But anyway, essentially the current depth of the game is derived from unit unique abilities - creating a ridiculous amount of breadth and false agency.
Move stuff to USR's, expand upon the basic systems so that not everything isn't a variant of ridiculous like the naming of Heavy Intercessor's Heavy AutoSTalkerBotRifle.
LOS does't really even matter, movement doesn't even really matter and positioning doesn't really even matter.
Game balance right now is decided by objectives that are designed so each player can only reach a certain amount each turn, essentially forcing balance in a terribly designed game.
8e took steps in the right direction but... the core design is meh
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
There's a key part of that post you didn't reply to. Is there a reason for that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eonfuzz wrote:Ideally it's built to cater to all audiences. But the more I see companies try to do this, the less I believe it's possible.
In saying that though, you have games like MTG and some RTS that manage to do both.
The thing with difficult games that capture a large market is that they either need to be first ( MtG, 40k), be so well balanced that they spawn their own pro-scene (Starcraft), or be so well marketed that they're inescapable (League of Legends). Once they reach that critical mass they can more or less do whatever they like and not shed too many players (see MtG and their banlist over the past few years for proof).
But anyway, essentially the current depth of the game is derived from unit unique abilities - creating a ridiculous amount of breadth and false agency.
Move stuff to USR's, expand upon the basic systems so that not everything isn't a variant of ridiculous like the naming of Heavy Intercessor's Heavy AutoSTalkerBotRifle.
I want options in the game but even I don't like the Heavy Light Heavy Bolt Rifle Carbine, nor do I think the game is better for having each unit require 3+ bespoke rules to function. That said, what do you have left if you remove them from current 40k?
LOS does't really even matter, movement doesn't even really matter and positioning doesn't really even matter.
Game balance right now is decided by objectives that are designed so each player can only reach a certain amount each turn, essentially forcing balance in a terribly designed game.
8e took steps in the right direction but... the core design is meh
Agreed.
93221
Post by: Lance845
My reasons are stated several times over the last 2 pages. Design space is limited. Actual choices are good. The illusion of choice is bad. Have good meaningful options. Consolidate and/or remove redundant or pointless options.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
Lance845 wrote:My reasons are stated several times over the last 2 pages. Design space is limited. Actual choices are good. The illusion of choice is bad. Have good meaningful options. Consolidate and/or remove redundant or pointless options.
So what does 40k look like if we cut back on every redundant option be they a weapon, unit, or special rule? Is it not just a shallow mess piled on a framework that, frankly, isn't interesting enough to be worth a damn?
40k's system is overcooked pasta and ketchup and you're proposing we throw out all the seasoning that makes it almost edible.
117188
Post by: Eonfuzz
Canadian 5th wrote: Lance845 wrote:My reasons are stated several times over the last 2 pages. Design space is limited. Actual choices are good. The illusion of choice is bad. Have good meaningful options. Consolidate and/or remove redundant or pointless options.
So what does 40k look like if we cut back on every redundant option be they a weapon, unit, or special rule? Is it not just a shallow mess piled on a framework that, frankly, isn't interesting enough to be worth a damn?
40k's system is overcooked pasta and ketchup and you're proposing we throw out all the seasoning that makes it almost edible.
I think you have to remove the seasoning before you learn to cook. Less is more.
In this case you remove as many snowflake abilities as possible and roll them into USR's, remove as many weapon variants as possible and roll them into unit abilities.
Cawl Autoloader - All models in this unit are outfitted with a Cawl Pattern Autoloader. Treat Bolters wielded by units in the squad as if they had a range of 30", and an AP of -1.
It also lets buffs / nerfs target underperforming units better.
Oh also, please hire a proof reader gw.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
Eonfuzz wrote:I think you have to remove the seasoning before you learn to cook. Less is more.
That assumes that the chef has any interest in cooking and isn't just making something good enough and then snacking on cheetos. GW has fingers so crusted in cheese dust that it's a wonder you can't see fingerprints and smudges on everything.
In this case you remove as many snowflake abilities as possible and roll them into USR's, remove as many weapon variants as possible and roll them into unit abilities.
Cawl Autoloader - All models in this unit are outfitted with a Cawl Pattern Autoloader. Treat Bolters wielded by units in the squad as if they had a range of 30", and an AP of -1.
That literally changes nothing about the weapon. You've only changed the formatting and not the end result.
Wait, it actually may make things worse as any buff to bolters now buffs multiple units.
120227
Post by: Karol
My reasons are stated several times over the last 2 pages. Design space is limited. Actual choices are good. The illusion of choice is bad. Have good meaningful options. Consolidate and/or remove redundant or pointless options.
But there is no illusion of choices. If you have multiple space marine factions, and some have bonuses to the number of A, some have bonuses to the too wound rolls, and some have neither, then all 3 are going to have different "best in slot weapon", but because GW wants people buy multiple books there options for all 3 or 4 or 5 have to be in those books, because if they went and limited it to lets say a weapon that is cheap and choppy and big weapon, then only the factions that don't care and that have bonus to wound would be okey with it, and the faction that proc stuff out of extra attacks would be constantly asking for either rules changes or faction specific weapons, to no have a stricktly inferior rule set then the armies that buff the wounding.
All such a change achives is limiting to options and armies who GW gives extra rules. It doesn't even come with the promise that the extra design time GW would get, would actualy be spend on designing things. What would most probably happen is that GW would give a cut up version of rules to people, and tell them to deal with it for years. And no one who already has rules they like wants that. I mean what is next, aknowlading that non marine factions are impossible to balance in w40k, and puting focus on marine rules only? that would save even more design time to polish all the meq factions rules.
Eonfuzz wrote:
I think you have to remove the seasoning before you learn to cook. Less is more.
I would like to see you marinate a pig without salt or bayleaf. Or cook potatoes without salt.
117188
Post by: Eonfuzz
Karol wrote:
Eonfuzz wrote:
I think you have to remove the seasoning before you learn to cook. Less is more.
I would like to see you marinate a pig without salt or bayleaf. Or cook potatoes without salt.
Imagine starting to cook pork by throwing it into a bowl of satay to marinate, then when you're done put it in some teriyaki and slap it on the grill. While it's grilling put some ketchup on, some more salt and sure why not - a beetroot too.
Yes, cooking with seasoning is required. But the less the better Automatically Appended Next Post: Canadian 5th wrote: Eonfuzz wrote:I think you have to remove the seasoning before you learn to cook. Less is more.
That assumes that the chef has any interest in cooking and isn't just making something good enough and then snacking on cheetos. GW has fingers so crusted in cheese dust that it's a wonder you can't see fingerprints and smudges on everything.
In this case you remove as many snowflake abilities as possible and roll them into USR's, remove as many weapon variants as possible and roll them into unit abilities.
Cawl Autoloader - All models in this unit are outfitted with a Cawl Pattern Autoloader. Treat Bolters wielded by units in the squad as if they had a range of 30", and an AP of -1.
That literally changes nothing about the weapon. You've only changed the formatting and not the end result.
Wait, it actually may make things worse as any buff to bolters now buffs multiple units.
You wouldn't make any baseline changes to bolter if possible, instead you'd alter the special ability to buff or nerf.
Essentially it uses a memory trick. Remembering the "Bolter Statline" + "This unit gives 1 ap" is easier to remember than 30 different statlines.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
You wouldn't make any baseline changes to bolter if possible, instead you'd alter the special ability to buff or nerf.
Essentially it uses a memory trick. Remembering the "Bolter Statline" + "This unit gives 1 ap" is easier to remember than 30 different statlines.
Or just ask for a copy of your opponent's list before the game and pull up the rules for stuff you don't know on your phone... We have tech, feel free to use it.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
My strategy is to just remember "bolter" because for most of them the variants don't actually matter to my tactical decisions.
93221
Post by: Lance845
So let me get this straight. Your base line argument in this thread is that badly designed wargear that eats up a ton of space and serves no purpose is the only thing you find interesting in the game? And further, that it should stay around because instead of proposing to fix the problems of the shallow crap game that 40k is you would rather sit around in the bad game with useless wargear options as some kind of band aid for the shallow experience?
53939
Post by: vipoid
Canadian 5th wrote:
The core rules for 40k are so shallow that once we strip away the 'challenge' of picking the right tools for the job there really won't be anything left. People dislike losing in the list building phase but it's the most choice we get, on the tabletop the game is only blocking movement with early game charges, shooting at the objectively correct targets and using starts as appropriate. It has the depth of a wading pool and is massively propped up by list building and meta chasing.
I completely agree. But if we're discussing rule changes, is this not something we should be aiming to fix as well?
Granted, you could argue that it should be higher on the agenda than Power Swords (and I wouldn't disagree), but still.
Eonfuzz wrote:
You wouldn't make any baseline changes to bolter if possible, instead you'd alter the special ability to buff or nerf.
Essentially it uses a memory trick. Remembering the "Bolter Statline" + "This unit gives 1 ap" is easier to remember than 30 different statlines.
I agree with your diagnosis of the problem, but I fear your solution doesn't really change anything. We wouldn't be getting rid of bloat - we'd just be moving the bloat from weapons to units. 
What's more, it would make dataslates much more awkward - as you'd look to their weapon profiles, and then have to look down at their abilities to find the *actual* weapon profiles.
I could see this maybe working for special abilities. e.g. if you want a unit with bolters that ignore cover, it might be better to give the unit that rule - rather than making a whole new type of bolter, which is exactly like a regular bolter except that it ignores cover, just for the purpose of that one specific unit.
Honestly, rather than trying to spread the bloat to other areas, I'd seriously question how many of these bolter variants are necessary in the first place. It seems many of them could be rolled together with no real loss.
119949
Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn
So my only concern is: Custodes Weapons. I apologize if this was already brought up in the last 4 pages, but here goes.
Right now, barring FW weapons and dreads, everything we get is some variant of S+ AP2 D3. The only variation appears to be the ranged option baked into the weapon. Swords are pistols, and spears/axes are Master Crafted Bolters.
We have begged since 8th to give our spears some form of difference to axes. Be it; multiple attack profiles, flat damage, damage vs type of model, or just flat buff to damage. With the new Power weapons overhaul, I really see Custodes (if they get it) getting a good change.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Karol wrote: JNAProductions wrote: Dysartes wrote:Other potential words include: flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting...
Is S6 versus S5 flavorful?
Is AP-2 versus AP-3 characterful?
Because they all perform, mechanically, very similarly against the majority of targets.
That is like saying that being 2ed or 3ed in an event is the same as being first. Of course being the best and better is more flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote:Its only useful or interesting if they actually do a different job. They dont so they aren't
Go before a commission for sports and tell them that being 7th placed is the same being 1st. I mean you placed, in the same thing, did the same stuff as others. Nothing different between one and the other.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion and a bad comparison.
Minute differences like that don't make the weapon flavorful at all.
What makes them flavorful is what type of weapon it is physically.
Storm shields + power spears make for flavorful hoplites.
power mauls make for flavorful knights/clerics
a weapon being made to kill tanks (thunder hammer) vs another being made to kill large blobs of infantry (lightning claws) is flavorful.
the weapons hitting you at 5 -3 1 vs 6 -2 1 isnt flavorful
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Canadian 5th wrote:Dai wrote:
The core rules for 40k are so shallow that once we strip away the 'challenge' of picking the right tools for the job there really won't be anything left.
I think it says a lot about the game that the only meaningful decisions being made by its players are done while they are sitting at home with their calculator writing an army list rather than while they are actually playing it.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Canadian 5th wrote:Dai wrote:I'd agree with C5th. Would prefer they were made more interesting than consolidated it the issue is they are too similar.
That said I think the idea of consolidating them is a bit of a strange hill to die on, if they are all pretty much the same anyway why any issue with them having slightly different profiles if some find that more engaging. I understand that for some it would be an issue with the game as a whole but this particular instance seems like it should be a particularly low priority even then!
The core rules for 40k are so shallow that once we strip away the 'challenge' of picking the right tools for the job there really won't be anything left. People dislike losing in the list building phase but it's the most choice we get, on the tabletop the game is only blocking movement with early game charges, shooting at the objectively correct targets and using starts as appropriate. It has the depth of a wading pool and is massively propped up by list building and meta chasing.
So because the rules are shallow we're not allowed to try and theorycraft some changes?
63936
Post by: Mmmpi
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Dysartes wrote:Other potential words include: flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting...
What's interesting about the Power Pickaxe profile compared to any other weapon?
I'll give you a hint. Well not really a hint. It isn't interesting. At all.
To you. Other people feel differently.
We've been over this.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
 Mmmpi wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Dysartes wrote:Other potential words include: flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting...
What's interesting about the Power Pickaxe profile compared to any other weapon?
I'll give you a hint. Well not really a hint. It isn't interesting. At all.
To you. Other people feel differently.
We've been over this.
I'm curious, what exactly do you find interesting about the power pickaxe's stats?
110703
Post by: Galas
I mean they are a weapon with stats. Theres not that many weapons in 40k that I would define as interesting.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
 Galas wrote:I mean they are a weapon with stats. Theres not that many weapons in 40k that I would define as interesting.
But the existence of a Power Pickaxe really need new stats compared to, say, JUST using the Power Axe stats?
107281
Post by: LunarSol
I would prefer generic rules for "power weapons" and "heavy power weapons" as well just to free up the option to model the style I prefer.
118653
Post by: The Salt Mine
Power weapons should be marine killers. So I would say all power weapons could be str +1 ap -3 2d. Then there are the odd ball ones that are doube str like the chain fist, hammer, and fist which could be the same profile above but 2xstr instead of +1. This could be standard across all armies. Makes them good at killing armored marine and ok at vehicles. Would open up the modeling for rule of cool and not hinder you if you like the look over hammers compared to fists.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
The Salt Mine wrote:Power weapons should be marine killers. So I would say all power weapons could be str +1 ap -3 2d. Then there are the odd ball ones that are doube str like the chain fist, hammer, and fist which could be the same profile above but 2xstr instead of +1. This could be standard across all armies. Makes them good at killing armored marine and ok at vehicles. Would open up the modeling for rule of cool and not hinder you if you like the look over hammers compared to fists.
Go a step further and have all power weapons just ignore armour saves completely and fists be x2 strength, roll the clocks back 6 editions and return to all the problems that come with it.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Galas wrote:I mean they are a weapon with stats. Theres not that many weapons in 40k that I would define as interesting.
But the existence of a Power Pickaxe really need new stats compared to, say, JUST using the Power Axe stats?
Given that a pick behaves differently to an axe... yes.
In case you're missing the... point, and to borrow terminology from D&D for a minute, one is a Piercing weapon as it spikes you, while the other is a Slashing weapon as it cuts/hews you. Impact on the target and the target's armour would be modeled differently.
92298
Post by: Dolnikan
Dysartes wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Galas wrote:I mean they are a weapon with stats. Theres not that many weapons in 40k that I would define as interesting.
But the existence of a Power Pickaxe really need new stats compared to, say, JUST using the Power Axe stats?
Given that a pick behaves differently to an axe... yes.
In case you're missing the... point, and to borrow terminology from D&D for a minute, one is a Piercing weapon as it spikes you, while the other is a Slashing weapon as it cuts/hews you. Impact on the target and the target's armour would be modeled differently.
There indeed is a difference, if you go deep into the details. But in a game where there is only one point of strength difference between a standard human and a genetically engineered giant killing machine, that sort of difference just won't show anymore. It's the same as all the different kinds of bolters. Sure, they will have differences, just like different modern assault rifles have differences. None of those however are large enough to be reflected in the kind of highly abstracted rules that you see in 40k.
109034
Post by: Slipspace
Dysartes wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Galas wrote:I mean they are a weapon with stats. Theres not that many weapons in 40k that I would define as interesting.
But the existence of a Power Pickaxe really need new stats compared to, say, JUST using the Power Axe stats?
Given that a pick behaves differently to an axe... yes.
In case you're missing the... point, and to borrow terminology from D&D for a minute, one is a Piercing weapon as it spikes you, while the other is a Slashing weapon as it cuts/hews you. Impact on the target and the target's armour would be modeled differently.
Would it though? In the context of a game with 40k's scale do we really need to differentiate between the armour piercing of one weapon versus the blunt force trauma of another versus the cutting/stabbing efficiency of another? Where do we stop? Do we need target locations on each enemy so we can model how effective the armour in that area is against slashing/piercing/bludgeoning damage and modify our stats accordingly? 40k already abstracts the armour penetration of different types of attacks for shooting so why not for melee too? Being hit by a railgun slug, a ball of plasma or a high-explosive blast would all be different but if the S, AP and damage stats are all the same the game doesn't care about the type of damage. That's the kind of thing that belongs in an RPG, not a tabletop wargame.
So, would the game really be worse if a Power Pickaxe were just a Power Axe?
119949
Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn
PLEASE Dear lord in Goto, do not include "damage types" into 40k. That is a level of complexity we do not need. It's half the reason I stopped allowing them in DnD games. Either a model is resistant to damage or it isn't. I don't care to slow down a game to check what magic words the sheet has ever single combat phase.
105694
Post by: Lord Damocles
Dysartes wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
But the existence of a Power Pickaxe really need new stats compared to, say, JUST using the Power Axe stats?
Given that a pick behaves differently to an axe... yes.
and the target's armour would be modeled differently.
A gladius behaves differently to a khopesh; and yet...
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:PLEASE Dear lord in Goto, do not include "damage types" into 40k. That is a level of complexity we do not need. It's half the reason I stopped allowing them in DnD games. Either a model is resistant to damage or it isn't. I don't care to slow down a game to check what magic words the sheet has ever single combat phase.
seems like removing them from your games really changes how your games must be running. I quite like the idea that some monsters are resistant to certain types of weapons (killing a skeleton with arrows shouldnt really work imo)
21358
Post by: Dysartes
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:PLEASE Dear lord in Goto, do not include "damage types" into 40k. That is a level of complexity we do not need. It's half the reason I stopped allowing them in DnD games. Either a model is resistant to damage or it isn't. I don't care to slow down a game to check what magic words the sheet has ever single combat phase.
I wasn't meaning to insert P/S/B wholesale into 40k, Fezzik, merely to point out that the different ways weapons behave can be modeled into their stats.
We see this, to a degree, with the existing power axe/maul/sword trinity, which each have different S/ AP values, at a minimum - a pick doesn't behave the same way as an axe, so is unlikely to share a statline with it.
8042
Post by: catbarf
There are tons of varieties of lasgun. Some are full-auto low-power machine guns, others are semi-auto high-power battle rifles. Some are designed for accuracy, others are compact and portable. Some have integrated optics, others have crude ironsights.
Then you've got autoguns, which range from AK knockoffs to high-power select-fire battle rifles in incredibly powerful calibers.
Every single one of those lasguns and autoguns shares the exact same S3 AP- profile.
Marine armor, Sisters armor, and Aspect Warrior armor are all the same save. Guardsmen, Tau, Eldar, and Termagants are all the same S.
A sword, an axe, a club, a mace, a spear, a halberd, a dagger all have the same general melee profile.
But a power pick and power axe need different stats?
That kind of chrome is way too granular for the scale 40K operates at. The minute differences in battlefield performance between a pick and an axe are not the kind of thing a battalion commander is going to care about in the slightest.
And, I mean, from a realism perspective, most of the purported differences between melee weapons are RPG game-balance junk to begin with. The idea that a sword is weak but good at piercing armor while a maul is strong but can't handle heavy armor while an axe occupies a safe middle ground has zero real-world basis.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
To be fair, AP is all jacked up in 40k in general.
A chainsword in Assault Doctrine has the same ability to penetrate armor as an ATGM.
Has anyone ever actually tried to HIT a piece of armor with a chainsaw? I don't care how doctrinally trained you are, it won't go well.
101163
Post by: Tyel
Rise up servants of the four armed Emperor, they'll have to pry the power picks from our cold, mutated hands.
On one hand I think the endless proliferation of gear (the 18+ boltguns) does take away something from the setting. On the other, it feels like an invented problem. Apart from legacy Marine characters I'm not sure what else really gets a choice on which power weapon it gets to use - and the degree of customisation seems to be shrinking rather than growing. Harlequins are in a similar boat I guess, but since they are top tier who likes them any more.
I mean I'm sure Abberants could have got a special rule that says they do D3 damage than than 1 with their "power axes" and can make an extra claw attack - but you might as well just give them a different weapon profile.
119949
Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn
Dysartes wrote:FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:PLEASE Dear lord in Goto, do not include "damage types" into 40k. That is a level of complexity we do not need. It's half the reason I stopped allowing them in DnD games. Either a model is resistant to damage or it isn't. I don't care to slow down a game to check what magic words the sheet has ever single combat phase.
I wasn't meaning to insert P/S/B wholesale into 40k, Fezzik, merely to point out that the different ways weapons behave can be modeled into their stats.
We see this, to a degree, with the existing power axe/maul/sword trinity, which each have different S/ AP values, at a minimum - a pick doesn't behave the same way as an axe, so is unlikely to share a statline with it.
First off, I apologize for implying that you were doing that. You were not. Second, I still say it's a level of sophistication that gets in the way of a fun time. Does your arrow hit the skeleton? Roll for damage. I can make up any sort of fantastical fluff reason why your (Insert legolas trope here) managed to deal damage to a creature that is simply bones. But I shouldn't have to. I can get behind resistent to magic vs non-magic though, because I don't care how well you roll, that pitchfork isn't going to damage the Air elemental.
I think you could make the same argument for 40k. It's been said numerous times that anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons should work differently for their non-intended targets. I think a las pistol CAN do damage to a titan, but it shouldn't. I think a Volcano cannon should obliterate a a tank, but not a squad of marines. GW seems to have taken a massive step in the other direction however, and given the randomness of the D6 system, it's very unlikely that we will ever change.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Oh, something I wanted to bring up. I've noticed that Power Weapons are often discussed from the perspective of Marines. As in 'if you make them anti-infantry, Lightning Claws will still be better; if you make them anti-tank, Power Fists/Thunder Hammers will still be better etc., so maybe if we make them somewhere in between the two, but not quite as good as Relic weapons . . .'
However, I think it's important to remember that many models besides Marines have access to Power Weapons, and many such models don't have access to Lightning Claws, Power Firsts, Relic Blades, or even equivalents of such.
Whether or not Power Weapons are merged, this seems a very important thing to keep in mind with regard to their statline(s). If anything, it seems like it would be wiser to focus more on S3 models - especially those without access to Lightning Claws, Power Fists etc.. Primarily because these are the models that don't necessarily have a 'best choice' to fall back on for every given role in the event of Power Weapons being largely ineffective.
114912
Post by: Mezmorki
Time to start calling this game bolthammer...
auto bolt rifle
bolt pistol
bolt rifle
stalker bolt rifle
heavy bolt pistol
executor bolt rifle
heavy bolt rifle
hellstorm bolt rifle
marksman bolt carbine
occulus bolt carbine
boltgun
absolver bolt pistol
bolt carbine
special issue bolt pistol
auto boltstorm gauntlet
storm bolter
combi-bolter
hurricane bolter
twin bolt rifle
assault bolter
bolt sniper rifle
instigator bolt carbine
I'm sure I missed a few, and I didn't even do the heavy weapon bolters in all their 20 different flavors.
Seriously, there are more flavors of bolt weapons than some armies used to have in total.
63003
Post by: pelicaniforce
 vipoid wrote:Oh, something I wanted to bring up. I've noticed that Power Weapons are often discussed from the perspective of Marines. As in 'if you make them anti-infantry, Lightning Claws will still be better; if you make them anti-tank, Power Fists/Thunder Hammers will still be better etc., so maybe if we make them somewhere in between the two, but not quite as good as Relic weapons . . .'
However, I think it's important to remember that many models besides Marines have access to Power Weapons, and many such models don't have access to Lightning Claws, Power Firsts, Relic Blades, or even equivalents of such.
Whether or not Power Weapons are merged, this seems a very important thing to keep in mind with regard to their statline(s). If anything, it seems like it would be wiser to focus more on S3 models - especially those without access to Lightning Claws, Power Fists etc.. Primarily because these are the models that don't necessarily have a 'best choice' to fall back on for every given role in the event of Power Weapons being largely ineffective.
Yes. For s3 models who end up having 5+ to wound power swords have almost always been a really iffy buy since they were s: user for so long.
8042
Post by: catbarf
pelicaniforce wrote: vipoid wrote:Oh, something I wanted to bring up. I've noticed that Power Weapons are often discussed from the perspective of Marines. As in 'if you make them anti-infantry, Lightning Claws will still be better; if you make them anti-tank, Power Fists/Thunder Hammers will still be better etc., so maybe if we make them somewhere in between the two, but not quite as good as Relic weapons . . .'
However, I think it's important to remember that many models besides Marines have access to Power Weapons, and many such models don't have access to Lightning Claws, Power Firsts, Relic Blades, or even equivalents of such.
Whether or not Power Weapons are merged, this seems a very important thing to keep in mind with regard to their statline(s). If anything, it seems like it would be wiser to focus more on S3 models - especially those without access to Lightning Claws, Power Fists etc.. Primarily because these are the models that don't necessarily have a 'best choice' to fall back on for every given role in the event of Power Weapons being largely ineffective.
Yes. For s3 models who end up having 5+ to wound power swords have almost always been a really iffy buy since they were s: user for so long.
Back in 3rd-5th, a power sword (edit: or any power weapon, since they all had the same effect) was a reasonable choice for a S3 combat character- against Marines it outright tripled your damage output, and unless you went for a powerfist you weren't boosting your S anyways. Now, though, specifically power mauls are the best choice for S3 characters, as wounding on 3+ with a 4+ save is better than wounding on 5+ with a 6+ save, you don't waste AP on lightly-armored things, and it lets you better threaten T6-8. It's really a no-brainer that makes me want to just count my officers' swords as mauls, and that's what I dislike about the system.
76825
Post by: NinthMusketeer
Which brings up another point; when codex get updated or editions change, the differences between those power weapons change, and suddenly people's models are stuck with the wrong options.
Sidenote; two pages before the thread got toxic, not bad!
39309
Post by: Jidmah
In 5th there were no power swords
120227
Post by: Karol
That is true all 8th, all weapons other then falchions were an infirior option against any target. 9th comes GW decides to buff other weapons and hike the prices to impossible levels, and suddenly my halabard dudes are the WAAC option.
Well I guess the new WD is showing us what GW thinks of power weapon unification. Named captin comes with a power ax, and an always on never overheating plasma pistol. I guess GW is pro options.
53939
Post by: vipoid
catbarf wrote:pelicaniforce wrote: vipoid wrote:Oh, something I wanted to bring up. I've noticed that Power Weapons are often discussed from the perspective of Marines. As in 'if you make them anti-infantry, Lightning Claws will still be better; if you make them anti-tank, Power Fists/Thunder Hammers will still be better etc., so maybe if we make them somewhere in between the two, but not quite as good as Relic weapons . . .'
However, I think it's important to remember that many models besides Marines have access to Power Weapons, and many such models don't have access to Lightning Claws, Power Firsts, Relic Blades, or even equivalents of such.
Whether or not Power Weapons are merged, this seems a very important thing to keep in mind with regard to their statline(s). If anything, it seems like it would be wiser to focus more on S3 models - especially those without access to Lightning Claws, Power Fists etc.. Primarily because these are the models that don't necessarily have a 'best choice' to fall back on for every given role in the event of Power Weapons being largely ineffective.
Yes. For s3 models who end up having 5+ to wound power swords have almost always been a really iffy buy since they were s: user for so long.
Back in 3rd-5th, a power sword (edit: or any power weapon, since they all had the same effect) was a reasonable choice for a S3 combat character- against Marines it outright tripled your damage output, and unless you went for a powerfist you weren't boosting your S anyways.
Another aspect is that Power Fists had a much more significant drawback in prior editions.
But yes, Power Weapons meant a lot more when they ignored all armour.
catbarf wrote: Now, though, specifically power mauls are the best choice for S3 characters, as wounding on 3+ with a 4+ save is better than wounding on 5+ with a 6+ save, you don't waste AP on lightly-armored things, and it lets you better threaten T6-8. It's really a no-brainer that makes me want to just count my officers' swords as mauls, and that's what I dislike about the system.
I agree.
The worst part, though, is that most S3 models don't even have access to Mauls (so they can't even do count-as to get a worthwhile Power Weapon profile).
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
 Mezmorki wrote:Time to start calling this game bolthammer...
auto bolt rifle
bolt pistol
bolt rifle
stalker bolt rifle
heavy bolt pistol
executor bolt rifle
heavy bolt rifle
hellstorm bolt rifle
marksman bolt carbine
occulus bolt carbine
boltgun
absolver bolt pistol
bolt carbine
special issue bolt pistol
auto boltstorm gauntlet
storm bolter
combi-bolter
hurricane bolter
twin bolt rifle
assault bolter
bolt sniper rifle
instigator bolt carbine
I'm sure I missed a few, and I didn't even do the heavy weapon bolters in all their 20 different flavors.
Seriously, there are more flavors of bolt weapons than some armies used to have in total.
And trust me when I say pretty much all of those need consolidation in some manner too.
120227
Post by: Karol
How do you do it then. By GW design each primaris unit , which isn't melee, is suppose to have access to an assaul, rapid fire and heavy version of a weapon they carry. Then some units also have access to squad specific weapons, and in case of heavy intercessors this means another set of heavy guns.
You can't force the gun in to one gun, because all the chapter tactics, special rules and stratagems that come with them assume that depending on a specific chapter you play, you are going to prioritize a specific type of bolt weapon.
It is the same situation as the one with the power weapons. different armies want different weapons. And they can't be streamlined, because GW decied that all marine faction should have access to the whole core model line GW makes, which happens to be primaris.
122989
Post by: VladimirHerzog
Karol wrote:How do you do it then. By GW design each primaris unit , which isn't melee, is suppose to have access to an assaul, rapid fire and heavy version of a weapon they carry. Then some units also have access to squad specific weapons, and in case of heavy intercessors this means another set of heavy guns.
You can't force the gun in to one gun, because all the chapter tactics, special rules and stratagems that come with them assume that depending on a specific chapter you play, you are going to prioritize a specific type of bolt weapon.
It is the same situation as the one with the power weapons. different armies want different weapons. And they can't be streamlined, because GW decied that all marine faction should have access to the whole core model line GW makes, which happens to be primaris.
OR
you use the same design paradigm for LSM as you do for the other power armor, bolter wielding humans.
Sisters get 4 0 1 bolters, CSM get 4 0 1 bolters. Give LSM 4 0 1 bolters too.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Karol wrote:How do you do it then. By GW design each primaris unit , which isn't melee, is suppose to have access to an assaul, rapid fire and heavy version of a weapon they carry. Then some units also have access to squad specific weapons, and in case of heavy intercessors this means another set of heavy guns.
You can't force the gun in to one gun, because all the chapter tactics, special rules and stratagems that come with them assume that depending on a specific chapter you play, you are going to prioritize a specific type of bolt weapon.
It is the same situation as the one with the power weapons. different armies want different weapons. And they can't be streamlined, because GW decied that all marine faction should have access to the whole core model line GW makes, which happens to be primaris.
Very simple actually. Simply don't overthink it.
1. Bolt Rifle
2. Assault Bolt Rifle
3. Stalker Bolt Rifle
4. Hurricane Bolter
5. Heavy Bolt Pistol
6. Twin Bolt Rifle
7. Bolt Carbine
8. Boltstorm
BAM thats about cut in half.
109034
Post by: Slipspace
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Karol wrote:How do you do it then. By GW design each primaris unit , which isn't melee, is suppose to have access to an assaul, rapid fire and heavy version of a weapon they carry. Then some units also have access to squad specific weapons, and in case of heavy intercessors this means another set of heavy guns.
You can't force the gun in to one gun, because all the chapter tactics, special rules and stratagems that come with them assume that depending on a specific chapter you play, you are going to prioritize a specific type of bolt weapon.
It is the same situation as the one with the power weapons. different armies want different weapons. And they can't be streamlined, because GW decied that all marine faction should have access to the whole core model line GW makes, which happens to be primaris.
Very simple actually. Simply don't overthink it.
1. Bolt Rifle
2. Assault Bolt Rifle
3. Stalker Bolt Rifle
4. Hurricane Bolter
5. Heavy Bolt Pistol
6. Twin Bolt Rifle
7. Bolt Carbine
8. Boltstorm
BAM thats about cut in half.
Yup, that would pretty much do. There's no good reason why Heavy Intercessors need a different type of gun to regular Intercessors. The fact they're in Gravis armour is enough of a distinction without also adding 5 more bolt weapons to the list. Same with the various near-identical guns for things like Incursors, Infiltrators and Reivers. All of those are just bolters and if you really want to add a special rule to them (hint: you probably don't) you can add it to the unit rather than the gun. It gets absurd when you realise that Stalker Bolt Rifle and Stalker-pattern Boltgun are two different guns. If you're running out of descriptives for your guns you probably have too many.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Slipspace wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Karol wrote:How do you do it then. By GW design each primaris unit , which isn't melee, is suppose to have access to an assaul, rapid fire and heavy version of a weapon they carry. Then some units also have access to squad specific weapons, and in case of heavy intercessors this means another set of heavy guns.
You can't force the gun in to one gun, because all the chapter tactics, special rules and stratagems that come with them assume that depending on a specific chapter you play, you are going to prioritize a specific type of bolt weapon.
It is the same situation as the one with the power weapons. different armies want different weapons. And they can't be streamlined, because GW decied that all marine faction should have access to the whole core model line GW makes, which happens to be primaris.
Very simple actually. Simply don't overthink it.
1. Bolt Rifle
2. Assault Bolt Rifle
3. Stalker Bolt Rifle
4. Hurricane Bolter
5. Heavy Bolt Pistol
6. Twin Bolt Rifle
7. Bolt Carbine
8. Boltstorm
BAM thats about cut in half.
Yup, that would pretty much do. There's no good reason why Heavy Intercessors need a different type of gun to regular Intercessors. The fact they're in Gravis armour is enough of a distinction without also adding 5 more bolt weapons to the list. Same with the various near-identical guns for things like Incursors, Infiltrators and Reivers. All of those are just bolters and if you really want to add a special rule to them (hint: you probably don't) you can add it to the unit rather than the gun. It gets absurd when you realise that Stalker Bolt Rifle and Stalker-pattern Boltgun are two different guns. If you're running out of descriptives for your guns you probably have too many.
Ultimately the best thing to do is give Gravis similar rules to the Terminator armor of yore. You count as stationary and can advance without penalty to Assault weapons. Bump them up a couple points and they serve quite a purpose.
95410
Post by: ERJAK
This whole discussion is just an exercise in marine privilege. Sisters of battle have 2 power weapon options: S+1 AP3 powerswords and S+3 AP-1 Power Mauls. Being S3 and having bloody rose means that the powermaul is better against a wide variety of moderately armored (or heavily invuled) targets, which gives it a great spot as a horde clearing weapon or alternatively a decent duelist pick for celestians to take out characters/terminators, while the powersword is the better marine killer at AP-3(4 with BR).
105694
Post by: Lord Damocles
'These things are all mechanically identical therefore they should be separate' is certainly a take.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
 Lord Damocles wrote:'These things are all mechanically identical therefore they should be separate' is certainly a take.
Given that they all operate in the same way and have existed for many editions what is the benefit of changing them and removing flavour?
109034
Post by: Slipspace
Canadian 5th wrote: Lord Damocles wrote:'These things are all mechanically identical therefore they should be separate' is certainly a take.
Given that they all operate in the same way and have existed for many editions what is the benefit of changing them and removing flavour?
The benefit is removing duplication of weapons and reducing the number of different weapons people have to remember stats for. You streamline the game. The flavour can still be there in the form of background text. I really don't understand this idea that for something to be flavourful it has to have different stats or a different name in the game.
71077
Post by: Eldarsif
Canadian 5th wrote: Lord Damocles wrote:'These things are all mechanically identical therefore they should be separate' is certainly a take.
Given that they all operate in the same way and have existed for many editions what is the benefit of changing them and removing flavour?
Consolidation will not stop you from calling it Power Sword, Power Maul, or Power Ballad, and it will not stop you from modelling it as you wish. If anything it would open up modelling potential. If anything there should only be two weapon stat likes: One-Handed Power Weapon and Two-handed Power Weapon as those two can actually give you meaningful choice considering the fact that most humans in the 40k century have 2 hands.
In the end it's just the illusion of flavor and choice, whereas consolidation would give you absolute flavor and choice. I'll be honest though, I despise illusions of choice so I have strong opinions about it. I also just like modelling and kitbashing, and these endless useless weapon datasheets tend to mess with the modelling and kitbashing aspect of the game.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
Slipspace wrote:The benefit is removing duplication of weapons and reducing the number of different weapons people have to remember stats for. You streamline the game. The flavour can still be there in the form of background text. I really don't understand this idea that for something to be flavourful it has to have different stats or a different name in the game.
You don't have to remember very much to figure out that most things with bolter in the name will generally be small arms that are best for clearing chaff. Beyond that ask your opponent or look up the rules on the computer that you're carrying around in your pocket.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Canadian 5th wrote:Slipspace wrote:The benefit is removing duplication of weapons and reducing the number of different weapons people have to remember stats for. You streamline the game. The flavour can still be there in the form of background text. I really don't understand this idea that for something to be flavourful it has to have different stats or a different name in the game.
You don't have to remember very much to figure out that most things with bolter in the name will generally be small arms that are best for clearing chaff. Beyond that ask your opponent or look up the rules on the computer that you're carrying around in your pocket.
So a S5 AP-2 D2 weapon is small arms for clearing chaff?
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
Eldarsif wrote:Consolidation will not stop you from calling it Power Sword, Power Maul, or Power Ballad, and it will not stop you from modelling it as you wish. If anything it would open up modelling potential. If anything there should only be two weapon stat likes: One-Handed Power Weapon and Two-handed Power Weapon as those two can actually give you meaningful choice considering the fact that most humans in the 40k century have 2 hands.
In the end it's just the illusion of flavor and choice, whereas consolidation would give you absolute flavor and choice. I'll be honest though, I despise illusions of choice so I have strong opinions about it. I also just like modelling and kitbashing, and these endless useless weapon datasheets tend to mess with the modelling and kitbashing aspect of the game.
What if they decide that they want a storm bolter to have different stats than a twin boltgun again?
Also, how is removing background fluff and telling you what kind of bolter that unit uses (which is well within GWs rights to do) making your army any more flavourful? If anything you gain flavour for knowing that those different bits you've put on your models are combi-bolters and not storm bolters so you can explain the lore reason why your dudes have one and not the other. If you don't care about that level of detail then you don't care about fluff at all and only care about modelling, in which case may I recommend you some gunpla and shuffle you away from GW products.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Canadian 5th wrote:Slipspace wrote:The benefit is removing duplication of weapons and reducing the number of different weapons people have to remember stats for. You streamline the game. The flavour can still be there in the form of background text. I really don't understand this idea that for something to be flavourful it has to have different stats or a different name in the game.
You don't have to remember very much to figure out that most things with bolter in the name will generally be small arms that are best for clearing chaff. Beyond that ask your opponent or look up the rules on the computer that you're carrying around in your pocket.
So a S5 AP-2 D2 weapon is small arms for clearing chaff?
If you can't figure out what a heavy bolter is why are you in this hobby?
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Canadian 5th wrote: Eldarsif wrote:Consolidation will not stop you from calling it Power Sword, Power Maul, or Power Ballad, and it will not stop you from modelling it as you wish. If anything it would open up modelling potential. If anything there should only be two weapon stat likes: One-Handed Power Weapon and Two-handed Power Weapon as those two can actually give you meaningful choice considering the fact that most humans in the 40k century have 2 hands. In the end it's just the illusion of flavor and choice, whereas consolidation would give you absolute flavor and choice. I'll be honest though, I despise illusions of choice so I have strong opinions about it. I also just like modelling and kitbashing, and these endless useless weapon datasheets tend to mess with the modelling and kitbashing aspect of the game.
What if they decide that they want a storm bolter to have different stats than a twin boltgun again? Also, how is removing background fluff and telling you what kind of bolter that unit uses (which is well within GWs rights to do) making your army any more flavourful? If anything you gain flavour for knowing that those different bits you've put on your models are combi-bolters and not storm bolters so you can explain the lore reason why your dudes have one and not the other. If you don't care about that level of detail then you don't care about fluff at all and only care about modelling, in which case may I recommend you some gunpla and shuffle you away from GW products.
Who said anything about removing the background? You could easily include it in the unit description page. Do we need differences between Godwin and Diaz Bolters? And C5, that wasn't a Heavy Bolter. Hell, isn't that a good example of there being too many bolters? You got confused about which Bolter I was talking about, despite the statlines being different!
47138
Post by: AnomanderRake
Canadian 5th wrote:Slipspace wrote:The benefit is removing duplication of weapons and reducing the number of different weapons people have to remember stats for. You streamline the game. The flavour can still be there in the form of background text. I really don't understand this idea that for something to be flavourful it has to have different stats or a different name in the game.
You don't have to remember very much to figure out that most things with bolter in the name will generally be small arms that are best for clearing chaff. Beyond that ask your opponent or look up the rules on the computer that you're carrying around in your pocket.
But is it Assault 2, or Assault 3, or Rapid Fire 1, or Rapid Fire 2, or 18" range, or 24" range, or 30" range, or a pistol, or is it a mega-bolter which contrary to the name isn't mega-good at clearing chaff but actually more of a rapid-fire autocannon, or is it S4 or S5, or does it have any AP, or is it D1 or D2, or does it have strange special rules attached to it? There are many permutations of stats that make up the "bolter" label, and while you may be happy not knowing what anything does and having to skim through spreadsheets any time you want a unit to fire I don't think having a weapon for every possible permutation of stats adds much to the game.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
Who said anything about removing the background? You could easily include it in the unit description page.
Do we need differences between Godwin and Diaz Bolters?
Does it hurt the game if the rules say clarify which pattern of bolter each main chapter uses and gives guidelines for which patterns successor chapters should use? Then you could give pattern specific perks, like a unit equipped with Godwin pattern bolters may re-roll a single failed hit roll while a unit equipped with Diaz pattern bolters can re-roll a wound roll of 1. Then simply expect that everybody will use an app on their smart device of choice to offload some of the memorizations. Done.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Canadian 5th wrote:Who said anything about removing the background? You could easily include it in the unit description page.
Do we need differences between Godwin and Diaz Bolters?
Does it hurt the game if the rules say clarify which pattern of bolter each main chapter uses and gives guidelines for which patterns successor chapters should use? Then you could give pattern specific perks, like a unit equipped with Godwin pattern bolters may re-roll a single failed hit roll while a unit equipped with Diaz pattern bolters can re-roll a wound roll of 1. Then simply expect that everybody will use an app on their smart device of choice to offload some of the memorizations. Done.
Does it hurt the game? I'd say yes.
Too many rules, too much bloat makes the game harder to get into, harder to play smoothly, and doesn't really do anything to help the game actually be better.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
JNAProductions wrote:And C5, that wasn't a Heavy Bolter. Hell, isn't that a good example of there being too many bolters? You got confused about which Bolter I was talking about, despite the statlines being different!
A Heavy Bolter has that exact stat line in Dev doctrine, you needed to include the full stat line if you wanted your point to be clear but you knew that adding in range and RoF would make it to obvious which weapon you were posting about so you removed them.
8042
Post by: catbarf
ERJAK wrote:This whole discussion is just an exercise in marine privilege. Sisters of battle have 2 power weapon options: S+1 AP3 powerswords and S+3 AP-1 Power Mauls. Being S3 and having bloody rose means that the powermaul is better against a wide variety of moderately armored (or heavily invuled) targets, which gives it a great spot as a horde clearing weapon or alternatively a decent duelist pick for celestians to take out characters/terminators, while the powersword is the better marine killer at AP-3(4 with BR).
Power sword as Bloody Rose vs MEQ: Wound on 4+, no save, ave 0.5 wounds per hit.
Power maul as Bloody Rose vs MEQ: Wound on 3+, 5+ save, ave 0.44 wounds per hit.
The weapon that you identify as the go-to Marine killer is a whopping 12% better than the suboptimal pick.
Okay, now let's beat up on Guardsmen, since the Maul is a better crowd-clearing weapon.
Maul: Wound on 2+, no save, ave 0.83 wounds per hit.
Sword: Wound on 3+, no save, ave 0.67 wounds per hit.
On a Canoness over the course of two rounds of combat, that difference amounts to about one Guardsman.
If you're not Bloody Rose, the two weapons have virtually identical damage output against Guardsmen (0.69 to 0.67), so take either.
These just aren't significantly game-altering choices for anyone. It's not unique to Marines.
Canadian 5th wrote: Lord Damocles wrote:'These things are all mechanically identical therefore they should be separate' is certainly a take.
Given that they all operate in the same way and have existed for many editions what is the benefit of changing them and removing flavour?
Insisting on messier rules for the sake of flavor is such a uniquely ' 40K community' thing. Most WW2 games have no problem consolidating all the Kar.98ks, M91/30s, Lee-Enfield No4MkI*s, and Arisaka Type 99s into a generic 'bolt-action rifle' profile. Flavor comes from unique mechanics and the actual differences between the factions, not giving the same stat block different names depending on who's using it.
If you feel that specifying that a unit has a Combi-Bolter rather than a Storm Bolter is important for immersion, you can always do the 'Equipment: Combi-Bolter (counts as Storm Bolter)', and then include the same Storm Bolter stat block you use for everything else.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Canadian 5th wrote: JNAProductions wrote:And C5, that wasn't a Heavy Bolter. Hell, isn't that a good example of there being too many bolters? You got confused about which Bolter I was talking about, despite the statlines being different!
A Heavy Bolter has that exact stat line in Dev doctrine, you needed to include the full stat line if you wanted your point to be clear but you knew that adding in range and RoF would make it to obvious which weapon you were posting about so you removed them.
No, I just posted the most relevant stats. I was not trying to confuse anyone.
catbarf wrote:Insisting on messier rules for the sake of flavor is such a uniquely ' 40K community' thing. Most WW2 games have no problem consolidating all the Kar.98ks, M91/30s, Lee-Enfield No4MkI*s, and Arisaka Type 99s into a generic 'bolt-action rifle' profile. Flavor comes from unique mechanics and the actual differences between the factions, not giving the same stat block different names depending on who's using it.
If you feel that specifying that a unit has a Combi-Bolter rather than a Storm Bolter is important for immersion, you can always do the 'Equipment: Combi-Bolter (counts as Storm Bolter)', and then include the same Storm Bolter stat block you use for everything else.
Personally, I'd use "Twin Bolter" as the generic RF2 Bolter Profile.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
 AnomanderRake wrote:But is it Assault 2, or Assault 3, or Rapid Fire 1, or Rapid Fire 2, or 18" range, or 24" range, or 30" range, or a pistol, or is it a mega-bolter which contrary to the name isn't mega-good at clearing chaff but actually more of a rapid-fire autocannon, or is it S4 or S5, or does it have any AP, or is it D1 or D2, or does it have strange special rules attached to it? There are many permutations of stats that make up the "bolter" label, and while you may be happy not knowing what anything does and having to skim through spreadsheets any time you want a unit to fire I don't think having a weapon for every possible permutation of stats adds much to the game.
I would love it if 40k became a full simulationist wargame where each player submits all their orders in secret and then those orders are played out based on unit initiative, in phase, with chances that the target you wanted to shoot at has moved before you were able to fire. Go further, make it so that each player is playing on their own board and only gets ? markers for enemy units unless a unit spends an action to radio to HQ and update the situation. Go full simulation and I'd love the hell out of your game that takes an entire weekend to play. Automatically Appended Next Post: JNAProductions wrote: Canadian 5th wrote: JNAProductions wrote:And C5, that wasn't a Heavy Bolter. Hell, isn't that a good example of there being too many bolters? You got confused about which Bolter I was talking about, despite the statlines being different!
A Heavy Bolter has that exact stat line in Dev doctrine, you needed to include the full stat line if you wanted your point to be clear but you knew that adding in range and RoF would make it to obvious which weapon you were posting about so you removed them.
No, I just posted the most relevant stats. I was not trying to confuse anyone.
So range and RoF aren't relevant to a weapon now? I guess we should remove those from the game then!
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Canadian 5th wrote: AnomanderRake wrote:But is it Assault 2, or Assault 3, or Rapid Fire 1, or Rapid Fire 2, or 18" range, or 24" range, or 30" range, or a pistol, or is it a mega-bolter which contrary to the name isn't mega-good at clearing chaff but actually more of a rapid-fire autocannon, or is it S4 or S5, or does it have any AP, or is it D1 or D2, or does it have strange special rules attached to it? There are many permutations of stats that make up the "bolter" label, and while you may be happy not knowing what anything does and having to skim through spreadsheets any time you want a unit to fire I don't think having a weapon for every possible permutation of stats adds much to the game.
I would love it if 40k became a full simulationist wargame where each player submits all their orders in secret and then those orders are played out based on unit initiative, in phase, with chances that the target you wanted to shoot at has moved before you were able to fire. Go further, make it so that each player is playing on their own board and only gets ? markers for enemy units unless a unit spends an action to radio to HQ and update the situation. Go full simulation and I'd love the hell out of your game that takes an entire weekend to play.
You are probably not alone in that, but you're very much a minority. One of the big reasons I play 40k is that it's accessible. As-in, lots of people play it, so (were it not for Covid) getting a game isn't too hard. Changing it to that would ensure that no-I can't get a game in easily. And what good is a game you can't play? Edit: Are you really trying to claim I want to remove RoF and Range from weapon profiles because I didn't include them in a single post?
21358
Post by: Dysartes
catbarf wrote:Insisting on messier rules for the sake of flavor is such a uniquely ' 40K community' thing.
Nice, isn't it?
I mean, if you're not a fan of this sort of thing, maybe you're playing the wrong game?
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
catbarf wrote:ERJAK wrote:This whole discussion is just an exercise in marine privilege. Sisters of battle have 2 power weapon options: S+1 AP3 powerswords and S+3 AP-1 Power Mauls. Being S3 and having bloody rose means that the powermaul is better against a wide variety of moderately armored (or heavily invuled) targets, which gives it a great spot as a horde clearing weapon or alternatively a decent duelist pick for celestians to take out characters/terminators, while the powersword is the better marine killer at AP-3(4 with BR).
Power sword as Bloody Rose vs MEQ: Wound on 4+, no save, ave 0.5 wounds per hit.
Power maul as Bloody Rose vs MEQ: Wound on 3+, 5+ save, ave 0.44 wounds per hit.
The weapon that you identify as the go-to Marine killer is a whopping 12% better than the suboptimal pick.
Okay, now let's beat up on Guardsmen, since the Maul is a better crowd-clearing weapon.
Maul: Wound on 2+, no save, ave 0.83 wounds per hit.
Sword: Wound on 3+, no save, ave 0.67 wounds per hit.
On a Canoness over the course of two rounds of combat, that difference amounts to about one Guardsman.
If you're not Bloody Rose, the two weapons have virtually identical damage output against Guardsmen (0.69 to 0.67), so take either.
These just aren't significantly game-altering choices for anyone. It's not unique to Marines.
What are you on about? 12% is a massive difference. I'm not kidding, a 12% difference in save percentages in the NHL means going from the best goalie to the 11th best goalie, then from that 11th best goalie you drop all the way down to 31st. Are you claiming that all of those goalies are equal in terms of what they provide their teams? I could also show F1 where a 5% difference can be literally all it takes to go from 1st to last in qualifying.
Over the number of attacks that get made in a game of 40k 10% or so is massive and is what makes a top tier list top tier.
Canadian 5th wrote:Insisting on messier rules for the sake of flavor is such a uniquely '40K community' thing. Most WW2 games have no problem consolidating all the Kar.98ks, M91/30s, Lee-Enfield No4MkI*s, and Arisaka Type 99s into a generic 'bolt-action rifle' profile. Flavor comes from unique mechanics and the actual differences between the factions, not giving the same stat block different names depending on who's using it.
If you feel that specifying that a unit has a Combi-Bolter rather than a Storm Bolter is important for immersion, you can always do the 'Equipment: Combi-Bolter (counts as Storm Bolter)', and then include the same Storm Bolter stat block you use for everything else.
The difference is that we know how those real-world weapons actually worked and can look at their results in battle and say, 'They're within x% efficacy and thus can be represented by a single set of rules'. As far as I know, we have no such set of data for 40k. Automatically Appended Next Post: JNAProductions wrote:Edit: Are you really trying to claim I want to remove RoF and Range from weapon profiles because I didn't include them in a single post?
"S5 AP-2 D2" "I just posted the most relevant stats." Are range and RoF relevant to a weapon or aren't they? Automatically Appended Next Post: JNAProductions wrote: Canadian 5th wrote: AnomanderRake wrote:But is it Assault 2, or Assault 3, or Rapid Fire 1, or Rapid Fire 2, or 18" range, or 24" range, or 30" range, or a pistol, or is it a mega-bolter which contrary to the name isn't mega-good at clearing chaff but actually more of a rapid-fire autocannon, or is it S4 or S5, or does it have any AP, or is it D1 or D2, or does it have strange special rules attached to it? There are many permutations of stats that make up the "bolter" label, and while you may be happy not knowing what anything does and having to skim through spreadsheets any time you want a unit to fire I don't think having a weapon for every possible permutation of stats adds much to the game.
I would love it if 40k became a full simulationist wargame where each player submits all their orders in secret and then those orders are played out based on unit initiative, in phase, with chances that the target you wanted to shoot at has moved before you were able to fire. Go further, make it so that each player is playing on their own board and only gets ? markers for enemy units unless a unit spends an action to radio to HQ and update the situation. Go full simulation and I'd love the hell out of your game that takes an entire weekend to play.
You are probably not alone in that, but you're very much a minority. One of the big reasons I play 40k is that it's accessible. As-in, lots of people play it, so (were it not for Covid) getting a game isn't too hard.
Changing it to that would ensure that no-I can't get a game in easily. And what good is a game you can't play?
That depends on how much you value the experience of reading the rules, of learning the system, and of theory crafting lists over and over again. As somebody who reads the rules for RPG systems I'll never play I'd love to dive into such a system and figure out what makes it tick. My enjoyment of a system is just as valid as your desire to see the game streamline so why is my fun bad-- while yours is good++?
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Range and RoF are relevant. I felt that, at the moment in this conversation, they were not as relevant as the Strength, AP, and Damage.
And 12% would be huge, if you consistently saw large units of people equipped with Power [SWORD/MAUL]s in combat with MEQ.
As-is, the only unit that can take large amounts of Power Weapons are, to my knowledge, the Zephyrim, which are Swords only. Usually, you'll get a single Sergeant of a squad with a Sword or Maul, so 12% of those attacks are small peanuts.
If it was 12% difference on their BOLTERS or something, then yes, that is huge. Because you can take a ton of them. But when you're taking maybe half a dozen Power Weapons that can be either Swords or Mauls, on units that won't spend a ton of time in Close Combat... Not so important.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
JNAProductions wrote:Range and RoF are relevant. I felt that, at the moment in this conversation, they were not as relevant as the Strength, AP, and Damage.
If you posted those would it have cleared up which weapon you were posting about to a degree that the stats you posted did not?
And 12% would be huge, if you consistently saw large units of people equipped with Power [SWORD/MAUL]s in combat with MEQ.
As-is, the only unit that can take large amounts of Power Weapons are, to my knowledge, the Zephyrim, which are Swords only. Usually, you'll get a single Sergeant of a squad with a Sword or Maul, so 12% of those attacks are small peanuts.
If it was 12% difference on their BOLTERS or something, then yes, that is huge. Because you can take a ton of them. But when you're taking maybe half a dozen Power Weapons that can be either Swords or Mauls, on units that won't spend a ton of time in Close Combat... Not so important.
So 12% is relevant and thus those weapons do have distinct battlefield roles with statistically significant differences against certain targets.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Canadian 5th wrote: JNAProductions wrote:Range and RoF are relevant. I felt that, at the moment in this conversation, they were not as relevant as the Strength, AP, and Damage.
If you posted those would it have cleared up which weapon you were posting about to a degree that the stats you posted did not?
And 12% would be huge, if you consistently saw large units of people equipped with Power [SWORD/MAUL]s in combat with MEQ.
As-is, the only unit that can take large amounts of Power Weapons are, to my knowledge, the Zephyrim, which are Swords only. Usually, you'll get a single Sergeant of a squad with a Sword or Maul, so 12% of those attacks are small peanuts.
If it was 12% difference on their BOLTERS or something, then yes, that is huge. Because you can take a ton of them. But when you're taking maybe half a dozen Power Weapons that can be either Swords or Mauls, on units that won't spend a ton of time in Close Combat... Not so important.
So 12% is relevant and thus those weapons do have distinct battlefield roles with statistically significant differences against certain targets.
12% is technically relevant. But is it relevant enough to be worth modeling, is the question at hand. In my opinion, no-not for Sister's, certainly. Hell, the first list of Sisters I saw on this forum, had what looks like 6 squads that could each take a Power [SWORD/MAUL]. I think that's 14 attacks total, if every unit made it to close combat. Meaning that with a Sword against MEQ, they'd do 2.92. With Mauls, 2.33. In either case, it's enough to kill one Marine and not a second, unless that Marine was already wounded.
As I said-small peanuts.
You're free to disagree about whether or not they should be consolidated, but please do not strawman others' posts.
8042
Post by: catbarf
Dysartes wrote: catbarf wrote:Insisting on messier rules for the sake of flavor is such a uniquely ' 40K community' thing.
Nice, isn't it?
I mean, if you're not a fan of this sort of thing, maybe you're playing the wrong game?
It wasn't that long ago that you could fit all the Marine weapon stats on a notecard, and I expect sooner or later we'll be headed back in that direction.
Right now the community feels that having a million bolt weapons is important for immersion; in a few years when GW inevitably makes an attempt to streamline the game, the same community will sing their praises for making the game cleaner and easier to play. So it goes.
Canadian 5th wrote:What are you on about? 12% is a massive difference. I'm not kidding, a 12% difference in save percentages in the NHL means going from the best goalie to the 11th best goalie, then from that 11th best goalie you drop all the way down to 31st. Are you claiming that all of those goalies are equal in terms of what they provide their teams? I could also show F1 where a 5% difference can be literally all it takes to go from 1st to last in qualifying.
No, no, when you give irrelevant sports comparisons it's supposed to be about placement at your all-boy's wrestling school.
Canadian 5th wrote:The difference is that we know how those real-world weapons actually worked and can look at their results in battle and say, 'They're within x% efficacy and thus can be represented by a single set of rules'.
We know Storm Bolters and Combi-Bolters and Twin Bolters can all be represented by a single set of rules because they already are.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
JNAProductions wrote:12% is technically relevant. But is it relevant enough to be worth modeling, is the question at hand. In my opinion, no-not for Sister's, certainly. Hell, the first list of Sisters I saw on this forum, had what looks like 6 squads that could each take a Power [SWORD/MAUL]. I think that's 14 attacks total, if every unit made it to close combat. Meaning that with a Sword against MEQ, they'd do 2.92. With Mauls, 2.33. In either case, it's enough to kill one Marine and not a second, unless that Marine was already wounded.
As I said-small peanuts.
That's potentially 2 or three extra wounds over the course of the game which could easily be the difference between clearing an objective or not. Even in single roles pushing your odds of a favourable result up will change the win-rate of your army list.
There's a reason why modern video games Devs often aim to buff and nerf outliers by small amounts, like 10 damage on a 200 damage ability, while expecting that change to impact that outlier's win-rate by 0.5% to 1%. Do fraction of a percent changes in a faction or lists win-rate not count towards game balance now or are we going to admit that 40k is impossible to balance because we can't have both simplicity in datasheets and fine granularity to balance around at the same time?
You're free to disagree about whether or not they should be consolidated, but please do not strawman others' posts.
I think my answer to that question is pretty self-evident. Automatically Appended Next Post: catbarf wrote:We know Storm Bolters and Combi-Bolters and Twin Bolters can all be represented by a single set of rules because they already are.
So the rules as they are must be perfect then and we should freeze development right now and play with the rules as they are forever more! Sure, I'm down for that, let's go.
If that isn't the case then we should probably acknowledge that there have been many times over the game's history where that wasn't the case and accept that in the future GW may again decide that these weapons should behave differently.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Canadian 5th wrote: JNAProductions wrote:12% is technically relevant. But is it relevant enough to be worth modeling, is the question at hand. In my opinion, no-not for Sister's, certainly. Hell, the first list of Sisters I saw on this forum, had what looks like 6 squads that could each take a Power [SWORD/MAUL]. I think that's 14 attacks total, if every unit made it to close combat. Meaning that with a Sword against MEQ, they'd do 2.92. With Mauls, 2.33. In either case, it's enough to kill one Marine and not a second, unless that Marine was already wounded.
As I said-small peanuts.
That's potentially 2 or three extra wounds over the course of the game which could easily be the difference between clearing an objective or not. Even in single roles pushing your odds of a favourable result up will change the win-rate of your army list.
There's a reason why modern video games Devs often aim to buff and nerf outliers by small amounts, like 10 damage on a 200 damage ability, while expecting that change to impact that outlier's win-rate by 0.5% to 1%. Do fraction of a percent changes in a faction or lists win-rate not count towards game balance now or are we going to admit that 40k is impossible to balance because we can't have both simplicity in datasheets and fine granularity to balance around at the same time?
You're free to disagree about whether or not they should be consolidated, but please do not strawman others' posts.
I think my answer to that question is pretty self-evident.
First things first-I goofed on the math slightly. I was running without Bloody Rose's AP buff.
The actual numbers are 3.5 (Swords) and 3.11 (Mauls).
With those correct numbers, to have a difference in one wound takes 36 attacks, or three rounds of combat from every last Power Weapon equipped Sergeant.
How often do you see that happening at all?
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
JNAProductions wrote:First things first-I goofed on the math slightly. I was running without Bloody Rose's AP buff.
The actual numbers are 3.5 (Swords) and 3.11 (Mauls).
With those correct numbers, to have a difference in one wound takes 36 attacks, or three rounds of combat from every last Power Weapon equipped Sergeant.
How often do you see that happening at all?
Over thousands of games enough to impact win-rates and thus balance. As I said before, there are games that have millions of matches played daily that change things which make even less of an impact and yet still contribute positively to the balance of those games. Would you argue that a 0.5% win-rate change to one of 141 different playable heroes of which 10 will be played and 10 more will be banned each game* isn't a smaller change than consolidating power weapons would be for the Sisters of Battle? Basically, can 40k afford to ignore any possible lever to balance the game when so many players feel that it isn't currently balanced?
*In the standard ranked play game mode.
8042
Post by: catbarf
Canadian 5th wrote:If that isn't the case then we should probably acknowledge that there have been many times over the game's history where that wasn't the case and accept that in the future GW may again decide that these weapons should behave differently.
...Then if they decide to do that, they can split those weapons out again into their own profiles?
Like, what even is the argument here? GW can't roll storm bolters and combi-bolters into a single 'twin bolter' weapon profile because at some hypothetical point in the future they might decide those should be different, and then it will be impossible for a new SM codex to have 'storm bolters' and a new CSM codex to have 'combi-bolters' because... reasons?
101864
Post by: Dudeface
catbarf wrote: Canadian 5th wrote:If that isn't the case then we should probably acknowledge that there have been many times over the game's history where that wasn't the case and accept that in the future GW may again decide that these weapons should behave differently.
...Then if they decide to do that, they can split those weapons out again into their own profiles?
Like, what even is the argument here? GW can't roll storm bolters and combi-bolters into a single 'twin bolter' weapon profile because at some hypothetical point in the future they might decide those should be different, and then it will be impossible for a new SM codex to have 'storm bolters' and a new CSM codex to have 'combi-bolters' because... reasons?
Say you want to make bikes bolters have a strat. You would then need "bike twin bolters not purchased as wargear upgrades" to stop it applying to the sargeants stormbolter or "twin bolter" which has the same name now. Just having names for stuff makes writing inclusions and exceptions easier.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
catbarf wrote: Canadian 5th wrote:If that isn't the case then we should probably acknowledge that there have been many times over the game's history where that wasn't the case and accept that in the future GW may again decide that these weapons should behave differently.
...Then if they decide to do that, they can split those weapons out again into their own profiles?
Like, what even is the argument here? GW can't roll storm bolters and combi-bolters into a single 'twin bolter' weapon profile because at some hypothetical point in the future they might decide those should be different, and then it will be impossible for a new SM codex to have 'storm bolters' and a new CSM codex to have 'combi-bolters' because... reasons?
If the rules don't change and nearly everybody knows that combi-bolters = storm bolters why make the change? At best you could name them Combi-Bolter (Twin Boltgun), Storm Bolter (Twin Boltgun) and go on with your day.
109034
Post by: Slipspace
Dudeface wrote: catbarf wrote: Canadian 5th wrote:If that isn't the case then we should probably acknowledge that there have been many times over the game's history where that wasn't the case and accept that in the future GW may again decide that these weapons should behave differently.
...Then if they decide to do that, they can split those weapons out again into their own profiles?
Like, what even is the argument here? GW can't roll storm bolters and combi-bolters into a single 'twin bolter' weapon profile because at some hypothetical point in the future they might decide those should be different, and then it will be impossible for a new SM codex to have 'storm bolters' and a new CSM codex to have 'combi-bolters' because... reasons?
Say you want to make bikes bolters have a strat. You would then need "bike twin bolters not purchased as wargear upgrades" to stop it applying to the sargeants stormbolter or "twin bolter" which has the same name now. Just having names for stuff makes writing inclusions and exceptions easier.
We already have strats like that and the solution is very simple: it targets the unit and the weapon. This is a non-issue.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
It’s also entirely hypothetical. “If a new rule is made that makes Storm Bolters and Twin Bolters different, then they’ll be different!” Is not false, but is also not really important.
8042
Post by: catbarf
Dudeface wrote:Say you want to make bikes bolters have a strat. You would then need "bike twin bolters not purchased as wargear upgrades" to stop it applying to the sargeants stormbolter or "twin bolter" which has the same name now. Just having names for stuff makes writing inclusions and exceptions easier.
That's such an extreme edge case that it's far more logical to treat it as such than to write the rest of the game around the possibility that it might someday exist. If Grinding Advance can distinguish between a Russ's hull weapons and turret weapons, you can write a stratagem to distinguish between guns mounted on bikes and guns carried by riders. We don't need a whole separate list of names for Russ turret guns so that Grinding Advance can single them out.
Keeping weapons separate because they might be potentially treated differently by stratagems in the future is a fast track to madness. Death Korps use different lasguns from Cadians, why don't we split that out into two identical profiles? Maybe we'll someday want the hull-mounted Demolisher of the Baneblade to behave differently from the turret-mounted Demolisher on a Russ, so why not split those out too? Every single Tyranid unit's scything talons are shaped differently; should they each have a unique weapon profile?
We have tons and tons of different bolter variants of varying size and caliber that all share the same RF1/24"/S4/AP0/D1 profile labeled 'bolter'. Why do we need a bunch of different weapon entries to represent wholly cosmetic variations on 'two bolters stuck together'?
Canadian 5th wrote:If the rules don't change and nearly everybody knows that combi-bolters = storm bolters why make the change?
Eliminating redundant profiles reduces cognitive burden and decreases the amount of reference material needed to play the game.
Canadian 5th wrote:At best you could name them Combi-Bolter (Twin Boltgun), Storm Bolter (Twin Boltgun) and go on with your day.
That's literally what I suggested, for crying out loud. GW used to do this all the time.
'[such and such character] is armed with the Vicious Talon of the Abyss (counts as master-crafted boltgun)'
'[unit] possesses an inhuman agility, eagerly leaping across the battlefield to reach their foes. This unit has the Fleet special rule.'
You can easily have your unit-specific flavor text and then mechanically represent it with a standard rules component. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
catbarf wrote:Eliminating redundant profiles reduces cognitive burden and decreases the amount of reference material needed to play the game.
So would writing 3 allowable lists for each codex and eliminating list building. There are some of us that want the game to be complex and for brewing lists to require a mastery of your codex and a firm knowledge of the meta, for which the throwing of dice and movement of plastic is secondary to the pregame planning, why should we be ignored because some people have faulty memories?
That's literally what I suggested, for crying out loud. GW used to do this all the time.
'[such and such character] is armed with the Vicious Talon of the Abyss (counts as master-crafted boltgun)'
'[unit] possesses an inhuman agility, eagerly leaping across the battlefield to reach their foes. This unit has the Fleet special rule.'
You can easily have your unit-specific flavor text and then mechanically represent it with a standard rules component. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Except that we currently don't have USRs or weapons stats in the BRB so each of those Name (Brackets) style weapons would still, by RAW, be a unique profile and that means we've changed nothing! This is the exact thing I was trying to highlight by bringing up Name (Brackets) as a solution in the first place.
8042
Post by: catbarf
Canadian 5th wrote:So would writing 3 allowable lists for each codex and eliminating list building. There are some of us that want the game to be complex
Stopping you right there. Explain how having multiple identical weapon profiles makes the game deeper. It doesn't affect your listbuilding. It doesn't affect the gameplay. It just clutters up your reference sheet and gives you more things to remember.
Canadian 5th wrote:Except that we currently don't have USRs or weapons stats in the BRB so each of those Name (Brackets) style weapons would still, by RAW, be a unique profile and that means we've changed nothing!
This is factually untrue, because there are plenty of units that don't have the stats for all their weapons listed on their datasheet. You can find those weapons at the back of the codex. They're not USRs, but they're functionally the same: Instead of every single unit profile having its own uniquely-named bolter profile with all the same S4/AP0 statline, they all just use the same generic 'bolter' entry then referenced once at the back of the book.
You don't need a duplicate weapon profile for every pattern of bolter. A single 'bolter' profile works fine.
You don't need a duplicate weapon profile for every pattern of two-bolters-stuck-together. A single 'twin bolter' (or storm bolter, or combi-bolter, or whatever you want to call it) profile works fine.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
catbarf wrote:Stopping you right there. Explain how having multiple identical weapon profiles makes the game deeper.
You're the one claiming that removing weapon names makes the game more complicated and confusing, so these profiles must add some complexity to the game.
This is factually untrue, because there are plenty of units that don't have the stats for all their weapons listed on their datasheet. You can find those weapons at the back of the codex. They're not USRs, but they're functionally the same: Instead of every single unit profile having its own uniquely-named bolter profile with all the same S4/AP0 statline, they all just use the same generic 'bolter' entry then referenced once at the back of the book.
Looks at C: SM, doesn't seem like they do that for anything except combi-bolters all the other bolters are on datasheets as they are main arms for the entire squad and not special options taken on a limited number of models.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Dudeface wrote: catbarf wrote: Canadian 5th wrote:If that isn't the case then we should probably acknowledge that there have been many times over the game's history where that wasn't the case and accept that in the future GW may again decide that these weapons should behave differently.
...Then if they decide to do that, they can split those weapons out again into their own profiles?
Like, what even is the argument here? GW can't roll storm bolters and combi-bolters into a single 'twin bolter' weapon profile because at some hypothetical point in the future they might decide those should be different, and then it will be impossible for a new SM codex to have 'storm bolters' and a new CSM codex to have 'combi-bolters' because... reasons?
Say you want to make bikes bolters have a strat. You would then need "bike twin bolters not purchased as wargear upgrades" to stop it applying to the sargeants stormbolter or "twin bolter" which has the same name now. Just having names for stuff makes writing inclusions and exceptions easier.
I'd solve this problem by removing strats from the game entirely. 
8042
Post by: catbarf
Canadian 5th wrote: catbarf wrote:Stopping you right there. Explain how having multiple identical weapon profiles makes the game deeper.
You're the one claiming that removing weapon names makes the game more complicated and confusing, so these profiles must add some complexity to the game.
Why not just write all the rules in Chinese then, if unnecessarily harder to learn = deeper play experience? We can throw in some reference sheets in Wingdings for good measure, preferably printed backwards and in 3pt font. Stat blocks will be given in the form of differential equations, and points values expressed as Sports Almanac score lookups. I guarantee it'll be the most difficult to learn and confusing edition of 40K yet, so it'll just blow your socks off with how DEEP it'll be. Even if the rules are actually exactly the same as they are now.
I trust that the 40K design team understands the difference between complexity and depth; I can only hope they're ignoring the feedback of players who don't.
45281
Post by: Canadian 5th
catbarf wrote:Why not just write all the rules in Chinese then, if unnecessarily harder to learn = deeper play experience? We can throw in some reference sheets in Wingdings for good measure, preferably printed backwards and in 3pt font. Stat blocks will be given in the form of differential equations, and points values expressed as Sports Almanac score lookups. I guarantee it'll be the most difficult to learn and confusing edition of 40K yet, so it'll just blow your socks off with how DEEP it'll be. Even if the rules are actually exactly the same as they are now.
I trust that the 40K design team understands the difference between complexity and depth; I can only hope they're ignoring the feedback of players who don't.
That would be a very interesting challenge. If you decide to make it let me know and I'll buy the first copy.
76825
Post by: NinthMusketeer
I know the bolter topic is adjacent to this one, but I started this thread to just focus on melee/power weapons.
109034
Post by: Slipspace
NinthMusketeer wrote:I know the bolter topic is adjacent to this one, but I started this thread to just focus on melee/power weapons.
I think there's a correlation between the two strands that's quite illuminating. The key question your thread asks is essentially "when are two or more weapons similar enough that they should be consolidated into a single profile". If there are a group of people who don't even want to see mechanically identical weapons consolidated into a single profile I'm not sure the extent to which you can meaningfully discuss this with those people involved. If literally zero difference is sufficient to warrant a different weapon then there must logically be infinitely many weapon profiles that could be justified.
I think that just leads to what we've seen ITT, with two sides arguing past each other. If your stance is that mechanically identical weapons should remain differently named then I don't think there's much point in discussing anything with that group, so the real discussion would need to be between groups who recognise there are some situations where actual differences between weapons are not meaningful and then trying to define where the point is where that distinction lies.
My position is to reduce the number of weapons available to the minimum required to promote meaningful choices in list building while increasing the freedom of hobbyists to build their models in the way they find more aesthetically pleasing without being negatively affected on the tabletop. This would also reduce the amount of bloat and complexity in how GW writes and presents its rules. This mainly affects SM players as many Xenos factions don't have the same number of options as SM do. Interestingly, that doesn't seem to affect the character and identity of those Xenos armies.
51613
Post by: warmaster21
warning long winded and just overly wordy reply that probably missed the trees for the forest.
A mace doesn't batter through armor any better than a sword would slice through it. for a mace to do any real damage you would need to hit something like a joint where the armor would be weaker and bone is closer to the surface, or hit their head which would most likely stun or disorient long enough to delivery a finishing blow. a suit of say platemail or hell power armor is quite good as dissipating blunt force. To get the kind of damage most people expect from a mace in fantasy would require typically a 2 handed mace or warhammer, or be mounted cavalry.
A sword is far more versatile weapon, better defensively, easier to aim for gaps in the armor, hence the higher AP, not to mention swords evolve with armor, as armor got heavier swords typically developed into more of a thrusting weapon than a slashing, better able to pierce through chainmail and hit gaps easier.
A mace however comes with alot of downsides, unbalanced, most of its weight is focused on its head, leading to easy counterattacks comparatively on missed or diverted strikes. A typical mace weights about the same as a sword and sometimes is lighter and someone on foot wont be able to really generate the force needed to hurt someone through their armor itself. (most injuries would be on non or lightly protected areas like their arms and joints. so if anything the higher strength stat to make it easier to wound is probably correct compared to the higher ap, more wounds = more saves = more casualties, rather than some saves that get through the armor easier). Most maces people typically think of would most likely be a cavalry mace and not a standard infantry mace.
after all the vast majority of knights who were killed was with a dagger after being incapacitated or stunned and taken to the ground. usually by say opening their visor and stabbing them in the face likely through an eye socket, under the armpit or groin.
Hell if anything we should probably see a power knife with s+0 and ap4 or 5
76825
Post by: NinthMusketeer
Slipspace wrote: NinthMusketeer wrote:I know the bolter topic is adjacent to this one, but I started this thread to just focus on melee/power weapons.
I think there's a correlation between the two strands that's quite illuminating.
I totally get you, but there are two factors; bolters are ranged combat verses melee so the dynamic is different, especially due to strength and attacks profiles. A lot of the discussion has centered on the different effects for S3 models vs S4, for example. The second is that bolter discussion is one of those 'trigger words' which inevitably goes to... let's put it as 'the current level of Marines discussion'.
If there are a group of people who don't even want to see mechanically identical weapons consolidated into a single profile I'm not sure the extent to which you can meaningfully discuss this with those people involved. If literally zero difference is sufficient to warrant a different weapon then there must logically be infinitely many weapon profiles that could be justified.
See what I mean? Automatically Appended Next Post:  warmaster21 wrote:
warning long winded and just overly wordy reply that probably missed the trees for the forest.
A mace doesn't batter through armor any better than a sword would slice through it. for a mace to do any real damage you would need to hit something like a joint where the armor would be weaker and bone is closer to the surface, or hit their head which would most likely stun or disorient long enough to delivery a finishing blow. a suit of say platemail or hell power armor is quite good as dissipating blunt force. To get the kind of damage most people expect from a mace in fantasy would require typically a 2 handed mace or warhammer, or be mounted cavalry.
A sword is far more versatile weapon, better defensively, easier to aim for gaps in the armor, hence the higher AP, not to mention swords evolve with armor, as armor got heavier swords typically developed into more of a thrusting weapon than a slashing, better able to pierce through chainmail and hit gaps easier.
A mace however comes with alot of downsides, unbalanced, most of its weight is focused on its head, leading to easy counterattacks comparatively on missed or diverted strikes. A typical mace weights about the same as a sword and sometimes is lighter and someone on foot wont be able to really generate the force needed to hurt someone through their armor itself. (most injuries would be on non or lightly protected areas like their arms and joints. so if anything the higher strength stat to make it easier to wound is probably correct compared to the higher ap, more wounds = more saves = more casualties, rather than some saves that get through the armor easier). Most maces people typically think of would most likely be a cavalry mace and not a standard infantry mace.
Your description is that swords have a better chance to wound while maces have better armor penetration, so I think we are on the same page.
Hell if anything we should probably see a power knife with s+0 and ap4 or 5
From their release I have been saying this is what Reivers need...
53939
Post by: vipoid
warmaster21 wrote:
warning long winded and just overly wordy reply that probably missed the trees for the forest.
A mace doesn't batter through armor any better than a sword would slice through it. for a mace to do any real damage you would need to hit something like a joint where the armor would be weaker and bone is closer to the surface, or hit their head which would most likely stun or disorient long enough to delivery a finishing blow. a suit of say platemail or hell power armor is quite good as dissipating blunt force. To get the kind of damage most people expect from a mace in fantasy would require typically a 2 handed mace or warhammer, or be mounted cavalry.
Sorry but this just isn't true.
If you're talking about platemail then a sword will not slice through it at all. Seriously, you can strike a sword against a breastplate as hard as you can and it won't make a dent.
Meanwhile, a mace is far better at concentrating force in one specific area (in addition to the extra weight, they also tend to have spikes, nodules or other protrusions so that the impact isn't spread out over a large area). They absolutely do not need to strike a joint in order to be effective. Even striking a hard surface, they can penetrate, they can inflict concussive damage (fracturing bones), and they can even bend/dent the armour inwards.
Hell, one of the most common techniques was for knights to grip their swords by the blade, striking their opponent with the hilt like an improvised warhammer.
Further, a two-handed mace/warhammer would make far less difference than you seem to think. It might give you a little more control, but it won't significantly improve your ability to penetrate armour.
(Obviously I'm purely talking medieval warfare here, as I have no idea how power armour fares against power weapons - both game and fluff seem highly inconsistent on the issue.)
warmaster21 wrote:
A sword is far more versatile weapon, better defensively, easier to aim for gaps in the armor, hence the higher AP, not to mention swords evolve with armor, as armor got heavier swords typically developed into more of a thrusting weapon than a slashing, better able to pierce through chainmail and hit gaps easier.
A sword is perhaps better at going for gaps in armour than a mace, but it's nowhere near as easy as you seem to be making out. Maybe if you're able to get your opponent on the ground (though then a dagger would probably work better).
What's more, I'm rather puzzled about swords becoming more thrusting weapons than slashing. Can I ask what you're referring to here?
TLR Swords can be used against people in armour, but they are nowhere near as effective at it than maces, warhammers, and other weapons specifically designed to penetrate armour. The advantage of swords (as you actually said) is their versatility - they're easy to carry, they're manoeuvrable, they can be used in a variety of ways, and they can be used to parry (obviously you can parry with other weapons, but it's a good deal easier to parry with a sword than with a mace - hence why the latter was typically used alongside a shield). Outside of greatswords, swords were almost universally sidearms, because they're highly versatile but don't excel in any one role - especially when it comes to penetrating armour.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
Question, vipoid - how would you describe the role of axes in warfare, and what sort of role would they fill compared to a sword or mace?
110703
Post by: Galas
The role of axes in warfare as most warfare weapons in history was more cultural than "practical".
Real life wasnt an RTS. If one wanted to have mounted cavalry in his army but his people didn't had them culturally then sad news for him.
The most similar thing to that were romans with their auxiliares taken from all kind of different cultures, but theres a reason why in medieval england it was, by King's decree, obligatory for men from 6 years onwards to practice with the longbow each week, to have readely trained bowmen for the kings armies.
So there was no point in history were some guy said "You know, axes are good for X, lets arm our dudes with them".
That only changed with fire weapons, because anyone can use them with a little bit of training and they superseed all other forms of warfare. And even then, in the first compases of fire and pike warfare, you had cultural ways of making war like spanish tercios, swiss pikemen, french heavy cavalry, german landskanetes, etc...
53939
Post by: vipoid
Dysartes wrote:Question, vipoid - how would you describe the role of axes in warfare, and what sort of role would they fill compared to a sword or mace?
It would probably depend to an extent on the specific axe (some were barely different from regular axes, whilst others - like pollaxes - were more specialised and included other spikes/spears in addition to the axe-blade).
In general, though, they would probably be closer to maces than swords (primarily due to the top-heavy weight distribution). They're generally quite effective against armour because (as with maces) they have a lot of mass behind them, which the blade can concentrate quite effectively. However, they'd be a bit less effective than maces because of the shape of the head. The shape and the fact that it protrudes linearly from the shaft means that it's a lot easier for it to glance off armour - especially if the strike isn't perpendicular.
The advantage you'd get is that they're a little more versatile than maces. If the axe is sharp, then you can hold it closer to the head and have more control and still use it as a slashing weapon (not as effective against armour, but better than a mace). If it's not sharp, it's still going to be more effective than a sword because it'll still have weight behind the swing. And if it's a pollaxe (or something along those lines), then you'll also have more reach than a mace, plus some additional tools for stabbing/thrusting/hooking.
I'd say that putting them between swords and maces as 40k does is pretty reasonable, tbh. However, this is speaking purely from a medieval perspective. Whether they'd really need to be differentiated from Maces in terms of stats (relative to other considerations) is another matter.
EDIT: Oh, just to say, Galas is also correct in that (with a few exceptions) axes tended to be more cultural or improvised weapons than ones manufactured specifically for warfare.
53667
Post by: Type40
vipoid wrote: Dysartes wrote:Question, vipoid - how would you describe the role of axes in warfare, and what sort of role would they fill compared to a sword or mace?
It would probably depend to an extent on the specific axe (some were barely different from regular axes, whilst others - like pollaxes - were more specialised and included other spikes/spears in addition to the axe-blade).
In general, though, they would probably be closer to maces than swords (primarily due to the top-heavy weight distribution). They're generally quite effective against armour because (as with maces) they have a lot of mass behind them, which the blade can concentrate quite effectively. However, they'd be a bit less effective than maces because of the shape of the head. The shape and the fact that it protrudes linearly from the shaft means that it's a lot easier for it to glance off armour - especially if the strike isn't perpendicular.
The advantage you'd get is that they're a little more versatile than maces. If the axe is sharp, then you can hold it closer to the head and have more control and still use it as a slashing weapon (not as effective against armour, but better than a mace). If it's not sharp, it's still going to be more effective than a sword because it'll still have weight behind the swing. And if it's a pollaxe (or something along those lines), then you'll also have more reach than a mace, plus some additional tools for stabbing/thrusting/hooking.
I'd say that putting them between swords and maces as 40k does is pretty reasonable, tbh. However, this is speaking purely from a medieval perspective. Whether they'd really need to be differentiated from Maces in terms of stats (relative to other considerations) is another matter.
EDIT: Oh, just to say, Galas is also correct in that (with a few exceptions) axes tended to be more cultural or improvised weapons than ones manufactured specifically for warfare.
I think its also important to point out that it also depends on the type of sword we are comparing the axe with as well ... Both the type of axe and the type of sword makes a difference. A claymore and a samuri sword are going to be utalized in very different ways and for very different battlefield purposes just like the difference between a throwing axe and pole axe... IRL there are way to many variables that exist which are honestly completely different from the variables that can exist in a tabletop war game.
8042
Post by: catbarf
vipoid wrote:What's more, I'm rather puzzled about swords becoming more thrusting weapons than slashing. Can I ask what you're referring to here?
Not the person you replied to, but over the course of roughly 1400-1600 swords underwent a general evolution towards reach and thrusting in infantry use. While swords had been primarily thrusting weapons for infantry since the Roman gladius, the basket-hilted rapiers common as sidearms by the time of the Thirty Years War were good for thrusting and nothing else. As use of personal armor diminished, Cavalry swords evolved in a different direction and became sabres intended primarily for slashing.
A lot of this was due to improvements in materials as much as change in battlefield doctrine.
Galas wrote:That only changed with fire weapons, because anyone can use them with a little bit of training and they superseed all other forms of warfare. And even then, in the first compases of fire and pike warfare, you had cultural ways of making war like spanish tercios, swiss pikemen, french heavy cavalry, german landskanetes, etc...
This is getting away from the thread but the idea that firearms took off as military arms because anyone could use one is a deeply-engrained myth. Manuals of arms from the early Renaissance describe anywhere from 15 to as many as 70 (!) drill movements needed to operate an arquebus. Poorly-trained troops in densely-packed formation handling loose powder and lit matches burning from both ends was a dangerous combination; the high standards of training required were a driving force (along with the training needed to use a pike in formation) behind the development of professional mercenaries and then standing armies. The guns themselves were attractive due to their superior range and killing power compared to bows, but also because the logistical burden in making powder and lead (the troops would cast their own projectiles) was substantially easier to bear than the labor-intensive process of fletching, and the effectiveness of a firearm was not contingent on the physical health or stamina of the wielder.
...Which, actually, really all goes to show that the driving forces behind weapon adoption often have to do with battlefield context, logistics, culture, training, and a variety of other concerns as much as sheer battlefield performance. The Anglo-Saxons weren't carrying axes because they were stronger but not as armor-piercing as swords; they carried them because swords were prohibitively expensive in raw materials and every able-bodied man had experience using axes in civilian contexts. Japanese swords weren't curved because their fighting styles favored using them as slashing weapons; they used them as slashing weapons because the pattern-welding technique used to make the blades forced the blade to curve. A lot of historical games fall into the trap of ascribing rock-paper-scissor stats to different kinds of hand weapons (let alone assuming everyone in a formation is identically armed), when it's more the guy carrying the weapon that's important.
Applied to 40K, I wonder if the discussion on power weapons and different weapon niches is maybe missing the forest for the trees- there's more difference between a Guardsman with a mace and a Guardsman with a sword than there is between a Guardsman with a sword and a Marine with a sword, and that seems wrong. Maybe it's not the power weapons that need to be differentiated so much as the melee profiles of the troops using them.
76825
Post by: NinthMusketeer
Given the difference in strength and attack profile I'd say they are quite differentiated. Before getting into that a power weapon fluff-wise no doubt cares less who is wielding it than a basic close combat weapon. Even in the hands of a weak, unskilled user it is still a rod of advanced metal alloy emitting a matter-disrupting energy field.
Though that touches on the reality that while baseline humans may be S3 T3 in game, in the fluff they are S2 T2.
53939
Post by: vipoid
NinthMusketeer wrote:Given the difference in strength and attack profile I'd say they are quite differentiated. Before getting into that a power weapon fluff-wise no doubt cares less who is wielding it than a basic close combat weapon. Even in the hands of a weak, unskilled user it is still a rod of advanced metal alloy emitting a matter-disrupting energy field.
I suppose this comes back to the point of whether there's a need for differentiation in the first place.
As in, if the heart of a Power Weapon is the power field, then would it not be fair to suggest that the actual shape of the weapon makes little difference?
To put it another way, swords (as already discussed) are very poor at penetrating armour. However, laser-swords (i.e. lightsabers) can cut right through almost anything. The reason being that while they're sword-shaped, they nevertheless don't "cut" in the same manner as swords - instead they simply melt almost anything they come into contact with.
I can't remember the precise lore description of Power Weapons offhand, but is it reasonable to suggest that they might work in a similar manner? i.e. the shape of the blade makes little difference because it's the power field that does the actual damage.
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Though that touches on the reality that while baseline humans may be S3 T3 in game, in the fluff they are S2 T2.
Out of interest, would Eldar also be S2 T2 in that case, or are they meant to be somewhere between humans and SMs?
117884
Post by: Duskweaver
vipoid wrote:I can't remember the precise lore description of Power Weapons offhand, but is it reasonable to suggest that they might work in a similar manner? i.e. the shape of the blade makes little difference because it's the power field that does the actual damage.
The original fluff of power weapons was that the energy field worked by disrupting the molecular bonds in the target, essentially making their armour (and flesh) more fragile so the weapon's blade or striking head could more easily deal damage. Sometimes the disruptor field was powerful enough to physically tear the target apart even before the weapon itself made contact (e.g. you could backhand someone with a lightning claw and shred them apart without the blades even having to physically touch their flesh).
Somewhere along the line, BL authors started describing power weapons as very hot, with the energy field working by vaporising the target's armour with intense heat, and power weapon wounds being self-cauterizing (like a lightsabre). But the original fluff never mentioned any heat being involved, just molecular disruption.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Maybe Aspect Warriors could stay above average toughness on that end, but the regular Guardians should be the same as humans.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Maybe Aspect Warriors could stay above average toughness on that end, but the regular Guardians should be the same as humans.
But many (if not most, Ulthwe *cough*) regular Guardians are former aspect warriors
76825
Post by: NinthMusketeer
Elder fluff-to-game representation is all sorts of screwed up, that could easily be its own thread. Probably should be. Automatically Appended Next Post: Duskweaver wrote: vipoid wrote:I can't remember the precise lore description of Power Weapons offhand, but is it reasonable to suggest that they might work in a similar manner? i.e. the shape of the blade makes little difference because it's the power field that does the actual damage.
The original fluff of power weapons was that the energy field worked by disrupting the molecular bonds in the target, essentially making their armour (and flesh) more fragile so the weapon's blade or striking head could more easily deal damage. Sometimes the disruptor field was powerful enough to physically tear the target apart even before the weapon itself made contact (e.g. you could backhand someone with a lightning claw and shred them apart without the blades even having to physically touch their flesh).
Somewhere along the line, BL authors started describing power weapons as very hot, with the energy field working by vaporising the target's armour with intense heat, and power weapon wounds being self-cauterizing (like a lightsabre). But the original fluff never mentioned any heat being involved, just molecular disruption.
Not mutually exclusive though, as that sounds like a process which would generate a large amount of heat. It does certainly lead into the topic of how the shape of a power weapon actually affects its performance.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
 Unit1126PLL wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Maybe Aspect Warriors could stay above average toughness on that end, but the regular Guardians should be the same as humans.
But many (if not most, Ulthwe *cough*) regular Guardians are former aspect warriors
I don't mind the occasional Craftworld specific unit like I would with Chapters, but keep in mind I'm trying to attribute it to the armor adding to said toughness.
120045
Post by: Blastaar
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Maybe Aspect Warriors could stay above average toughness on that end, but the regular Guardians should be the same as humans.
But many (if not most, Ulthwe *cough*) regular Guardians are former aspect warriors
I don't mind the occasional Craftworld specific unit like I would with Chapters, but keep in mind I'm trying to attribute it to the armor adding to said toughness.
Eldar are the primary reason that I think 40k desperately needs an evasion stat. It solves the issue of Eldar and similar units either being glass cannons, or immortal death machines, it's lore-accurate, and just plain more interesting..
119949
Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn
Question for fluffarians:
If they can make "power effect" generators small enough to fit in the hilt of a sword, or a mace, or even a dagger/knife, why isn't EVERYTHING made with this stuff? Why don't we use "power bullets" or "Power missiles", or "Power boots"?
Obviously Power weapon tech is neither rare or difficult to comeby, as seemingly every backwater world somehow has a Relic Powered weapon of a bygone age. once wielded by a mighty hero". Hive planets have rampant power mauls or powered weapons in the hands of Arbites.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Question for fluffarians: If they can make "power effect" generators small enough to fit in the hilt of a sword, or a mace, or even a dagger/knife, why isn't EVERYTHING made with this stuff? Why don't we use "power bullets" or "Power missiles", or "Power boots"? Obviously Power weapon tech is neither rare or difficult to comeby, as seemingly every backwater world somehow has a Relic Powered weapon of a bygone age. once wielded by a mighty hero". Hive planets have rampant power mauls or powered weapons in the hands of Arbites.
I was never under the impression the actual GENERATORS were in the blade, just the emitters. Tons of power weapons (e.g. the Imperial Guard Command squad power sword for both Cadian and Catachan command squads) have a wire going from the pommel to a generator stored elsewhere (in this case, the bionic limb of the wielder for the cadians or a wrist-mounted artifice of some kind, perhaps a battery, for the Catachans). Pics for reference. Presumably those are too large for bullets. Powerfield technology as far as larger weapons may already have been applied (convenient that a krak missile has the same AP capability as a power sword) and power boots absolutely could exist and were, hilariously, part of the Angry Marine fandex. The impracticality of dissolving the ground you're walking on if you leave it on might have something to do with it though.
126787
Post by: Lord Zarkov
Also they are probably very resource intensive to get - power weapons can last for centuries, even millennia so they’re worth the investment. Power bullets (and with even more miniaturisation at that) would last for seconds...
Also Arbites ‘power mauls’ are more properly shock mauls - they work through delivering a powerful electric shock that stuns the target rather than using a disruption field like a normal power weapon.
120227
Post by: Karol
The hydraphur style arbites mauls very much have a constant power field, and can break a female nobles face with just a small tap. And on full power setting are able to damage combat servitors and crack carapace armour.
99813
Post by: Nerak
We do have some examples of primarily space marine power weapons without the energy cord to the power pack thing. Keep in mind though that the SM gear is simply bigger. Maybe it can hold a bigger battery or something?
119949
Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn
Commissars regularly use Power swords (Raine with her sword) and inquisitors do as well (Eisenhorn with Barbarisata), with no cables. From the fluff I read it's primarily based in the hilt.
120227
Post by: Karol
 Nerak wrote:We do have some examples of primarily space marine power weapons without the energy cord to the power pack thing. Keep in mind though that the SM gear is simply bigger. Maybe it can hold a bigger battery or something?
It was an arbites weapon though. And was used by a female without any cybernetic augmentation or power armour.
The cables and outside power source seem to be more a thing for lenght of use, when you can't put the sword in to a recharge station. Or when the power unit for it would make the weapon too hard to use for a human, like an IG sized powerfist used without any extra augmentation.
99813
Post by: Nerak
Karol wrote: Nerak wrote:We do have some examples of primarily space marine power weapons without the energy cord to the power pack thing. Keep in mind though that the SM gear is simply bigger. Maybe it can hold a bigger battery or something?
It was an arbites weapon though. And was used by a female without any cybernetic augmentation or power armour.
The cables and outside power source seem to be more a thing for lenght of use, when you can't put the sword in to a recharge station. Or when the power unit for it would make the weapon too hard to use for a human, like an IG sized powerfist used without any extra augmentation.
Apologies for not looking into it properly. Could you post a picture? Arbites are known for their shock mauls and rarely, if ever, use power weapons.
120227
Post by: Karol
I only have the book in pdf form. And I am not even sure if it is okey to say I do have it on the forum. It gets used in the first two books by Shira Calpurnia, maybe in the 3ed on too, but I haven't gotten there yet.
Ah and I ment the different type of power maul, and explained the difference between one and the other. Where one has a guard and can be used to do fencing manuvers and only zap the opponents on contact. while the other is a solid slab of metal with power field with an off or on option, used to crush armour, bone and muscle.
119949
Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn
Look if we can make power knives and power daggers, we can make power anything basically. I want Power Epees, and power Rapiers!
Power Katanas and Estocs!
31121
Post by: amanita
Since deciding to develop our own rules since 5th Ed., our group had this discussion on differentiating power weapons. Although there was a certain appeal to the minutiae, we didn't feel that creating different classes of power weapons was necessary or even desirable in an already somewhat convoluted melee system. We retained the rules for double strength attacks for certain weapon types, but other abilities could be better represented by simply giving weapon A a +1 strength or weapon B a +1 initiative and so on (we still use initiative).
To us, power weapons represent a technology similar in capability to the ubiquitous light sabre, so it didn't matter what armor an opponent had - the power weapon would go through it. Better armor was still represented by an invulnerable save (including power armor which we gave an invulnerable save of 6++), but we did give all power weapons a rending capability which makes them better against armor on vehicles (yes, we also still use AV and facings).
In summary, we feel the more binary system of power weapons defeating all personal armor is better.
|
|
