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

Hey all, everywhere I read that a tactical squad sgt should always take a PowerFist. I need some help understanding why.
Wouldn't a PowerWeapon be almost the same for 10pts savings? A PF barely out damages a PW because the extra attack almost balances out the higher wound percentage. Going at a higher initiative could save a couple of your troopers. If the sole reason is to attack vehicles, you could add melta bombs for 5 pts.
Thanks in advance,
-Pav

Anouther couple of reasons for taking a Powerfist is to deal with Monsterous creatures and causes instant death to most models with toughness 4 or less also they are a little bit better than a Melta-Bomb due to having more attacks where as a Melta-Bomb may not hit at all.

MC are a big reason I run Power Fists in all my squads. Its 25 or so points most of the time, but worth it if it means the squad can at least be a threat to a Wraithlord or similar style model that looks to muscle into CC with it.

Who is saying they should always take a Fist in a Tac squad? For the most part, I'd suggest the opposite, since Tac Squads are generally meant to be cheap and shooty.

In some lists, particularly Drop Pod lists, or others that work at short range (and risk getting assaulted), a Fist is great insurance. As has been said, MCs and instant death are big. When you've got a Power Fist, a whole lot of things have to think twice before messing with them.

Orks? They don't care, in they go. But Monstrous Creatures, Dreadnoughts, Independant Characters, etc. etc.

A Power Weapon will make a shooty squad marginally better in close combat. A Power Fist makes them better still, but more importantly it allows them to effectively fight against any unit in the game.

Just for reference, comparison vs MEqs:

Base Sarge (30 points): 3A, 1.5 hits, .75 wounds, .25 dead, .0083 killed per point
Power Weapon (40 points): 3A, 1.5 hits, .75 dead, .0188 killed per point
Power Fist (55 points): 2A, 1 hit, .83 dead, .0151 killed per point

So, Power Weapons are marginally less effective against MEqs than Power Fists, but are more points effective.

In general, Power Weapons are really only useful if you get them in numbers, as you would with Banshees, or if you want to preserve then Initiative score of a model (such as an IC).

Why don't you get the extra attack with the power fist, even with the pistol doesn't it count as 2 cc weapons?

Golga wrote:Why don't you get the extra attack with the power fist, even with the pistol doesn't it count as 2 cc weapons?

Page 42 in rulebook.

Ah I see. nm then I always figured you got the additonal

Golga wrote:Why don't you get the extra attack with the power fist, even with the pistol doesn't it count as 2 cc weapons?

Try putting on a huge lump of metal that weighs twice as much as you and try and throw it at someone 2-3 times in a row fast, vdeo it and put it on youtube ^^ if you cant then accept that the rules are fair

1. Loss of 2nd attack
2. cost compared to a PW
3. Combat Tactics
4. Krak grenades

All of these changes have decreased the importance of PF in Tactical Squads. It is still a good option, but by no means is it a no brainer.

If you get assaulted by a MC, and loose the assault, you simply fall back with combat tactics and shoot the MC next turn.

Personally, I think the Powerweapon is your best all around option, not too expensive and will give you a nice CC bump for added versatility. But honestly, you can get by just find with no upgrades in your line squads.

Just bring the meltas

Squig_herder wrote:

Golga wrote:Why don't you get the extra attack with the power fist, even with the pistol doesn't it count as 2 cc weapons?

Try putting on a huge lump of metal that weighs twice as much as you and try and throw it at someone 2-3 times in a row fast, vdeo it and put it on youtube ^^ if you cant then accept that the rules are fair

I would if i had the str eqiv of a sm.

lol, same ^^ oh and the spare pwerfist lying around ^^

Power Weapons are good, so are Power Fists. If you load up on Terminators maybe you are looking at Power Weapons or even Chainswords in your tac squads.

Two squads with two Powerfists charging, you get 6 attacks on the charge.

Eh im going with alot of power fists in my army even though I lose that extra attack. Just seems like the crimson fist thing to do.

It looks like your calculations didn't add the extra attack for a Power Weapon. I would personally drop the boltgun for the PW and get the extra attack.
It should be 4A, 2.0 hits, 1.0 dead, 0.025 killed per point

Phryxis wrote:
Just for reference, comparison vs MEqs:

Base Sarge (30 points): 3A, 1.5 hits, .75 wounds, .25 dead, .0083 killed per point
Power Weapon (40 points): 3A, 1.5 hits, .75 dead, .0188 killed per point
Power Fist (55 points): 2A, 1 hit, .83 dead, .0151 killed per point

pavonis wrote:It looks like your calculations didn't add the extra attack for a Power Weapon. I would personally drop the boltgun for the PW and get the extra attack.
It should be 4A, 2.0 hits, 1.0 dead, 0.025 killed per point

Phryxis wrote:
Just for reference, comparison vs MEqs:

Base Sarge (30 points): 3A, 1.5 hits, .75 wounds, .25 dead, .0083 killed per point
Power Weapon (40 points): 3A, 1.5 hits, .75 dead, .0188 killed per point
Power Fist (55 points): 2A, 1 hit, .83 dead, .0151 killed per point

He did add the additional attack for wielding two close combat weapons. He just didn't add a bonus attack for charging, which would only make the power fist look better (50% increase for the power fist versus 33% increase for the power weapon).

On topic though, I think you shouldn't put either on your tactical squads. Tactical squads are a shooty unit. You don't want to have them in close combat, so why gear them for it? If you get bogged down by a Dreadnought or Wraithlord you can always use combat tactics to fall back and regroup.

edit- missed the quote and fixed it below.

2A base +1 2CCW
2A base +1 CCW+PW
2A base PF

Phryxis wrote:
Just for reference, comparison vs MEqs:

Base Sarge (30 points): 3A, 1.5 hits, .75 wounds, .25 dead, .0083 killed per point
Power Weapon (40 points): 3A, 1.5 hits, .75 dead, .0188 killed per point
Power Fist (55 points): 2A, 1 hit, .83 dead, .0151 killed per point

All of these changes have decreased the importance of PF in Tactical Squads. It is still a good option, but by no means is it a no brainer.

It's worth noting that in 4e, and with the previous SM Codex, the PF was such a massive no brainer, it may have been the biggest in the game.

These days, I still think it's a no brainer for any unit that's going to see close combat. I can see no reason to take a Power Weapon, it's either PF or nothing.

Combat Tactics is nice and all, but it's really not a huge game winner. You can easily get caught, which causes additional wounds, and keeps you locked in. Also, even if you can extricate yourself from the combat, all you're doing is staying alive. With a PF, you're not just staying alive, you're threatening the attacker. The PF doesn't just offer you the opportunity to win the combat, it offers you the opportunity to not have to fight it at all, since the enemy is unwilling to charge you.

I've played quite a few games where my Flyrant had to run away from Boyz mobs, or Crusader squads, because he didn't want to get pitted into a big squad with a PF in it, which would almost certainly whittle him down before he could do much.

Back in 4th edition a Powerfist was only a no-brainer if you were playing people that weren't any good at laying up assaults. Otherwise the I1 was a serious drawback when your opponent made sure your Powerfist model was in the kill-zone and got killed before swinging. Power weapons still had the advantage of the higher Initiative.

These days regular Power Weapons still have the advantage of Initiative plus the bonus attack for an extra close combat weapon, and they are much cheaper across the board. Now they compete much more with Relic Blades.

But Powerfists have had commiserate increases in protection now that the kill-zone in close combat is the whole unit, meaning you can't just scare a big unit with a small unit anymore.

Of course, you should only be assaulting with 3:1 odds anyhow, so if you're being detered from assaults by the presence of a Powerfist, chances are that you shouldn't attack that unit anyways. Likewise, when you're being attacked by such overwhelming force, then a few hits with a Power Weapon before you go down is better than nothing with a Power Fist.

My advice, then, is that you should take Powerfists in full squads, rather than Combat Squads because otherwise there won't be enough bodies for the Powerfist-wielder to shelter behind.

Keep in mind that a smart player won't charge that unit with an Independent Character, or Walker, or Monstrous Creature alone, that he'll charge in with another assault unit, so take Powerfists where either you're planning on charging, or you have the ability to restrict access to your unit so that your opponent has to engage in a risky 1:1 combat.

Of course, you should only be assaulting with 3:1 odds anyhow

How's that? Model for model? Or point for point?

Are you suggesting that one shouldn't assault a unit of 10 Tactical Marines with a unit of 10 Chaos Raptors with Power Fist and Mark of Khorne?

Cause I think I would.

I also think I'd assault a squad of 10x Tactical Marines with a squad of 5x Assault Terminators. I'd also assault 10x Tactical Marines with one Flyrant.

Phryxis:

You engage in combats at 3:1 odds of winning the combat of course.

10 Tactical Marines have, including a Sergeant with a Powerfist, 11 attacks.

10 Chaos Raptors have, including the Champion with a Powerfist, an Icon of Khorne, and the assault, 40 attacks.

All else, Initiative, Armour, Etc, is equal. Therefore, since 40:11 > 3:1, I am suggesting that one should assault said unit of Tactical Marines with said unit of Chaos Raptors.

Offhand I'd say that the Tactical Sergeant with the Powerfist is unlikely to do anything before failing an armour save.

I say take a PF only if you think that your army lacks hard hitters. Say like if you're taking a non assault termy squad with attached i.c. that way you save lots of points that you can put elsewhere... like into your assault terminator squad.

I mean lets face it, a PF isn't going to scare anyone who is going to assault you in the first place. And it really only earns its points when you can consistently roll 4+ to hit rolls. Which means that on average you should only inflict 1 wound with the PF. To me it's not worth the 25 pts. (Exception: If you are playing any flavor of marines that have "-Fists" in their names you are by law required to have a PF in every squad capable of taking one.

You engage in combats at 3:1 odds of winning the combat of course.

Interesting idea.

I'd say you should only engage in combats that will lead to your victory. In some cases combats you have no chance of winning are still worth initiating for the greater effect they will have in the game.

For example, running a unit of WoN Gaunts into a Broadside team guarding an objective.

I'd also say that even if you're strictly assessing things in terms of points tradeoff, then I'd suggest it's worth assaulting if you have anything better than 1:1 odds to win. Certainly 2:1 odds would be sufficient.

This whole notion of needing 3:1 odds seems misplaced to me. If those were the sorts of choices your opponent is consistently presenting, then you really won't need such pseudo-helpful guidelines to table them.

10 Chaos Raptors have, including the Champion with a Powerfist, an Icon of Khorne, and the assault, 40 attacks.

CSM Codex, p81: "Icon of Khorne: All models in the unit, except Independant Characters joining the unit, have the Mark of Khorne."

But, since we're playing the pompous correction game, let me take a turn:

But Powerfists have had commiserate increases in protection.

You mean "commensurate."

Nurglitch wrote:Phryxis:

You engage in combats at 3:1 odds of winning the combat of course.

10 Tactical Marines have, including a Sergeant with a Powerfist, 11 attacks.

10 Chaos Raptors have, including the Champion with a Powerfist, an Icon of Khorne, and the assault, 40 attacks.

All else, Initiative, Armour, Etc, is equal. Therefore, since 40:11 > 3:1, I am suggesting that one should assault said unit of Tactical Marines with said unit of Chaos Raptors.

Offhand I'd say that the Tactical Sergeant with the Powerfist is unlikely to do anything before failing an armour save.

I'd disagree with you on this.

I think you should attack when the expected benefits of doing so outweigh the expected costs. For instance, if your 10 man tactical squad has no hope in hell of being able to take out that ork squad on their own. However, charging gives you 10 bp shots (or assault weapons), then 21/22 attacks as well as denying the orks the charge, and may just be able to hold that ork unit in place for a turn thus preventing them from contesting an objective. There are other times where you realize that the odds of winning/losing may come to a coinflip decision, but a win would hand you the game whereas a lose would put you no worse off, making charging another no brainer.

...occasionally there's times I charge just because the dice have been going my way, and it would be sooo cool if that lone terminator took out the last wound on that daemonprince all by his lonesome

Though I suppose you were just meaning if the assault was observed in a vacuum, which I suppose would make you correct.

Phryxis:

The concept of engaging the enemy with 3:1 odds of winning is basically building a margin of error into your actions.

If you have 1:1 odds, then you need to win and win big, as otherwise you will have either played a zero-sum game and essentially traded material for time or space, or you will have lost.

If you have 2:1 odds, then you can win a Pyrrhic victory and still have some material left over in addition to any gains made in time and space. But then whatever's left over will be going at 1:1 odds or worse, so you'll need to get some serious advantage in time and space to justify the loss of material.

If you have 3:1 odds, then you can confidently win by losing since you will be able to lose 1/3 of your committed force just to wipe out the enemy. More likely you will win, and preserve more material in winning, and hence have more material to use in your next action.

So yes, of course, you can make gains in time and space by sacrificing material to wear down, redirect, or stall the enemy, but keeping to the 3:1 rule of thumb means that you can force a material advantage as well as a positional and temporal advantage.

Likewise of course you should only engage in combats that will lead to your victory. That's, well, given. The only interesting question is that, given you should only engage in such combats, how can you ensure that you play them at 3:1 odds?

So, of course, it's not a matter of your opponent being stupid enough to throw easy pickings your way, it's a strategic goal to force your opponent to concede easy pickings in order to defer advantages in time and space.

I think we're all familiar with the concept of hammering a unit in the shooting phase until it dies and then moving onto the next unit, and the complementary strategies of either having more targets than can be engaged, or misdirecting fire by threatening a valuable unit.

Similarly you should launch the assaults that will win you the game when you have assured yourself of 3:1 odds rather than simply assaulting to get in combat, to avoid shooting, or to hold up and/or misdirect an enemy unit. This is about goals, if you want to win the game, not about prevailing conditions, like playing Jimmy the Idiot Boy down at the GW play-pen.

Holding off for 3:1 odds will pay out for a player.

Regardless, in the example you give a Power Weapon will be much more useful to the Tactical Sergeant because it will enable the Tactical Marines to at least wear the Chaos Raptors before they get mangled.

It's interesting that you should choose such an example since it is precisely one of the instances where having a Power Weapon will serve the Space Marine player better than the Powerfist since the Sergeant may be able to gank a few Raptors.

Similarly, having a Power Weapon against a Wraithlord is a good idea because if the Wraithlord attacks alone it can't do much damage, but enough to permit an attempt at Combat Tactics, and if the Wraithlord attacks in conjunctions with some Aspect Warriors, then the increased number of attacks will pay-off vs the diminishing returns on strength from the Power Fist.

I think it comes down to what Alphus says though, that you should look to see if you have Powerfists concentrated in units or spread amongst your army, and as I suggested, if they're spread, make sure that they're spread into big units rather than small units.

I think it's rather absurd to only assault with 3:1 odds. With KPs being limited to 1/3 of all games you play, the importance of objectives, the Fantasy style break tests and the proliferation of cover saves.....I'm much more aggressive with HTH. Honestly, my friends don't allow 3:1 scenarios anyways...well unless they get a hell of a scatter .

The concept of engaging the enemy with 3:1 odds of winning is basically building a margin of error into your actions.

I understand the motivation. I just think it's sophistry.

Basically what you're saying, in a very longwinded, overcomplicated, "I think reading Sun Tzu makes me good at 40K" sort of way, is "always fight combats that you can win big."

It's "good advice" in the same sense as it's good advice to tell a baseball player to "wait for the pitcher to throw the ball, then hit it out of the park."

In real life, you're not that much better than the other guy. And in 40K, the rules see to it that you're not.

In real life baseball, sometimes you want to try to hit a sacrifice fly. Sometimes you just want to hit the ball on the ground and try to get on base.

Bottom line: In real life, you don't swing for the fences every single time.

This is a game where reasonably balanced armies face off. You don't just get to break the game down into a number of combats you have 3:1 odds to win. If you try to make that happen, you'll just lose.

I just don't feel like this 3:1 commandment is good advice. In fact, it feels to me like the bad instincts of a new player. I can recall my first games of 40K, where I was primarily focused on not losing any models, and thought that I had to massacre every skirmish to win.

Put it this way: the game itself is 1:1. What exactly are you going to do to turn a 1:1 balance into nothing but 3:1 in your favor? You've offered nothing to explain that. You've just spent a lot of words saying "you should always win."

Offhand I'd say that the Tactical Sergeant with the Powerfist is unlikely to do anything before failing an armour save.

I couldn't resist further demonstration of the folly of your suggestion by showing that not only do you give bad advice around odds, but you're also pretty poor at oddsmaking.

The Chaos Raptors have 9 models with BP+CCW. With MoK, that's 4A on the charge, 37A total.

37A, 18.5 hit, 9.25 wounds to allocate.

So, rarely will you even have to allocate a wound to the PFist. A better "offhand" here would tell us that the PF Sarge will die before he can attack roughly one time in 12.

Is 11:12 "unlikely" in your estimation?

Phryxis wrote:

You engage in combats at 3:1 odds of winning the combat of course.

Interesting idea.

I'd say you should only engage in combats that will lead to your victory. In some cases combats you have no chance of winning are still worth initiating for the greater effect they will have in the game.

For example, running a unit of WoN Gaunts into a Broadside team guarding an objective.

I'd also say that even if you're strictly assessing things in terms of points tradeoff, then I'd suggest it's worth assaulting if you have anything better than 1:1 odds to win. Certainly 2:1 odds would be sufficient.

This whole notion of needing 3:1 odds seems misplaced to me. If those were the sorts of choices your opponent is consistently presenting, then you really won't need such pseudo-helpful guidelines to table them.

10 Chaos Raptors have, including the Champion with a Powerfist, an Icon of Khorne, and the assault, 40 attacks.

CSM Codex, p81: "Icon of Khorne: All models in the unit, except Independant Characters joining the unit, have the Mark of Khorne."

But, since we're playing the pompous correction game, let me take a turn:

But Powerfists have had commiserate increases in protection.

You mean "commensurate."

I wholy agree. I once charge a broad side team with 5 scouts. I was surprised i won. But they held them up enough so they couldn't fire their h weapons.

I love tying up units of Broadsides and other Tau shootys with scouts. They're evenly matched stats in CC. I can't get scouts to do anything else for me though. :(