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.

That chainsword thing is going to be complecated with orks. They do have chainswords, mixed with axes and machettes.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Spoiler:

 Purifier wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.

Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.

EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.

No, I have to disagree there. Most of those models were modelled with a chainsword to go with the pistol they would also commonly carry, for the +1 attack. That rule seems to be gone, since the pistol's strength is now that it can be shot while you're locked in combat. This way, that model will still have his +1 attack that he was modelled for, but it now just comes from the chain sword.

There's a lot of unknown in that, have they come out and straight said that? I could have missed it if so.

Either way, if the second attack is gone, it seems like that was done intentionally, why does the Chainsword need an extra attack over a CCW when they were previously the same thing when that 2nd attack is incorporated into being able to shoot the pistol? Which then makes it awkward for the dudes in the same unit modeled with things like combat knives instead of chainswords, or for units that just don't come with chainswords but otherwise operated the same way that kits that did come with chainswords did.

They have not said the extra attack is gone, but they have said you can shoot pistols while in close combat. Since I feel like that alone makes pistols a really cool strategical choice but also too powerful if they also have the extra attack, I'm inferring the second part.

I'll go ahead and assume the chainsword will have a cost now, so those guys with the bigass Catachan dagger will be a little less expensive, but you now have the choice of still getting your +1 attack using the chainsword.

The issue I have is that this then results in awkward mismashed units and more weird list construction and model building complexity just to make the chainsword "special" for its own sake over a CCW that did the exact same thing before. I'm not seeing the reason to make the Chainsword special on its own, especially given that for most units, like CSM's or Assault Marines, the pistol attack vs the chainsword attack will be literally the same thing (3+ to hit, S4, AP0), and most of these units would basically just gain both benefits, pretty much just punking out CCW modeled dudes.

But many of the "classic" dedicated assault units, like Assault Marines and Khorne Berzerkers, have the options to take some Plasma Pistols over Bolt pistols. They would still get that bonus attack, but now at an improved profile.

It's a similar situation for Guardsmen. Sergeants start with Laspistols, which may have the same profile as themselves (S3) for the extra attacks. But they could (at least previously) upgrade to Bolt Pistols, which Commissars already have. That would get them a S4 attack in melee, which could help against tougher enemies. Plus they themselves could get Plasma Pistols as well to further their melee output.

Personally, I am okay with removing the +1 attack rule for having pistols. It streamlines the game a bit by removing something, and by shooting them into your melee you still get that "extra" attack, but at the potential of a better profile, and giving a good reason to equip out Plasma or other Pistol weapons to models since they can now shoot them more than the one or two shots you would normally expect in previous editions.

In my EARLIEST games of 5th Edition, I was convinced that Assault Weapons could be used in the Assault Phase instead of the model attacking with their melee statline. It made sense when looking at the Black Reach Starter Set box (back when it was Storm Bolters on Terminators, and Big Shootas for the Orks, and the Rockits for the Deff Coptas). So firing guns in melee is kinda of nostalgic for my earliest games of 40K when I was first learning the game. Neat!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
As someone who spends 3 knights as week doing HEMA swordplay, swords are not the optimal weapon against armor. They are very much for fighting unarmored or lightly armored opponents. Concussive force weapons are the go-to against armored opponents because that force transfers through the armor and bends/crushes it (with the wearer inside), while armor will easily set aside thrusts and cuts, hence why you get into the awkward nature of half-swording and a whole lot more grappling when swordfighting armored opponents.

Absolutely. However, we don't really know what a "power" weapon is, nor do we know what it is that makes a space marine armour so good, so we really have no idea how those two magical objects work with eachother. And more importantly, this is a balancing change decided, as stated in the article, on the fact that swords are the most numerous melee weapon on the models as they stand today, by a pretty good margin. So I appreciate that you're arguing against someone else that brought up what was and wasn't good against armour, and you weren't the one to open that can of worms, but I'd just like to mention that it is, in fact, an unnecessary can of worms. (PS I personally think you're generally right, but then we can start bringing up the épée or florette and talking about whether or not it could poke in between armour plates and then we're just talking nonsense.)

I always figured that a "power" weapon had this sort of energy field running through it that allowed it to atomically separate armor, or something like that. Basically, the sword has a battery hooked up to it that makes it cut things like a lightsaber (or vibro-weapon from Star Wars, if you prefer). I can't remember where I originally read that, but I think that it was one of the old 5th Edition Codexes (Codices?) when I first started playing.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
It's a rule that favors Loyalist Marines more than anything since they have had chainswords since forever, while Chaos has CCW. If I have to pay a point or two more now for everything, OR miss out on a CCW attack due to WYSIWYG then yea. Disappointing.

epronovost wrote:
That chainsword thing is going to be complecated with orks. They do have chainswords, mixed with axes and machettes.

Hey guys, it will probably state on the unit's datasheet what the unit is equipped with, and how that weapon will function. The rules are getting simplified, and each unit will have its weapon options available on its datasheet, and it will state what each model comes with, rather than having a large section in the rulebook or Codex that contains the rules for each weapon. I wouldn't be too concerned yet about it.

If nothing else, send a message to GW directly to voice your concerns. They are listening to us now

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
It's a rule that favors Loyalist Marines more than anything since they have had chainswords since forever, while Chaos has CCW. If I have to pay a point or two more now for everything, OR miss out on a CCW attack due to WYSIWYG then yea. Disappointing.

You sound like Trump. Sad.

And what are you ON about? The CSM sprue has had chainswords on it since caveman days.

 amanita wrote:
Force weapons cause D3 wounds now? Interesting if a bit underwhelming.

They do power-fist damage at the cost of not reducing your to hit roll. Still very strong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like the new chainsword. There will be situations where a chain-sword is actually the weapon of choice on a melee unit. I think assualt marines might actually be playable now. Can shoot their bolt pistol and make 2 attacks with their chiansword. This will ruin lightly armored infantry.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.

Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.

EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.

Blunt weapons aren't actually good at penetrating armour, they are good against armour because they are good at transfering a lot of force through the armour into the squishy, which is represented by being easier to wound but it doesn't actually "cut" or "penetrate" through the armour. Axes are good at penetrating as they concentrate a lot of force into a small cutting edge. Swords however need a niche role. That was supposed to be what happened in 6th and 7th, with GW thinking the Unwieldy Rule would counteract the str and AP. Obviously however, people mathhammered everything to death and found that its just better to go Axe for the extra damage output.

THink of it this way

6th and 7th Ed
Mace has the highest Strength and worst AP
Sword has the lowest strength and middle AP
Axe has middle strength and best AP.

Assigning an arbitrary ranking to each point in this. Assume that a power weapon gets +0 "Usefulness" for having the worst Strength or AP, +1 for middle AP or Str, and +2 for best AP or Str.

Mace gets +2 for being highest strenght and +0 for worst AP. Total = 2. +1 for Concussive. That's 3.
Swords get +0 for being lowest strength and +1 for medium AP. Total = 1
Axes get +1 for being medium strength and +2 for best AP, total = 3.

Now in 7th, Axes and Maces are just superior. But in 8th?




8th Ed

Mace gets +0 for having worst AP and +2 for best strength, total = 2
Axes get +1 for medium Str and +1 for medium AP = 2 total
Swords get +0 for worst strength, and +2 for best AP. Total = 2





So by that simple formula, in 7th, Swords were definitely inferior to Axes and Maces, but in 8th, they are all on par. This is of course all on paper and mathhammer may find that meta makes Swords far more useful or Maces useless, but that's to be seen.

Actually, many swords were designed to penetrate armour, like a Ropera Sword or a Rapier. And they did it much better than Maces or Axes, that don't penetrates armour, they just hurt who is inside by brute force.

So the relation in: AP= Penetrating capabilities and Strenght= How easy is to hurt in the meele profiles are not only a good balance but historically correct at the same time. As much historically correct you can have with power-magic weapons

 Deadshot wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.

Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.

EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.

Blunt weapons aren't actually good at penetrating armour, they are good against armour because they are good at transfering a lot of force through the armour into the squishy, which is represented by being easier to wound but it doesn't actually "cut" or "penetrate" through the armour.

Right...they basically ignore the armor, having the armor provide superior defense against such weapons over a sword is nonsensical when the force transmission is effectively bypassing the armor.

Meanwhile the sword, with its point and cutting edges, has superior wounding capability against soft targets, *it* should be the one with the Strength bonus and poor armor pen if anything, not the mace or axe.

The more straightforward progression on the power weapons is welcome, imo.

As for why the specific weapons occupy their specific role I think the sword makes perfect sense where it is. Compared to the others it's much more of a finesse weapon and less reliant on the swing. When you eke out the kill because of that AP3 that represents your dude piercing through a gap in the opponent's armour and running him through.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.

Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.

EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.

Blunt weapons aren't actually good at penetrating armour, they are good against armour because they are good at transfering a lot of force through the armour into the squishy, which is represented by being easier to wound but it doesn't actually "cut" or "penetrate" through the armour.

Right...they basically ignore the armor, having the armor provide superior defense against such weapons over a sword is nonsensical when the force transmission is effectively bypassing the armor.

Meanwhile the sword, with its point and cutting edges, has superior wounding capability against soft targets, *it* should be the one with the Strength bonus and poor armor pen if anything, not the mace or axe.

Strength is how hard you hit. Maces and axes hit harder, they have more weight at the strike end and have greater momentum transfer that swords, which have the weight at the hilt/handle end.

Armour Penetration is how well it penetrates armour. Maces don't penetrate armour, it bypasses it. Simple.

Swords can be better at penetrating armour with a thrust (a lot of force being a very tiny surface area) but in general its an abstraction for game purposes because the competitive crowd were the ones test-playing, not the Realism or narrative crowds.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Right...they basically ignore the armor, having the armor provide superior defense against such weapons over a sword is nonsensical when the force transmission is effectively bypassing the armor.

Meanwhile the sword, with its point and cutting edges, has superior wounding capability against soft targets, *it* should be the one with the Strength bonus and poor armor pen if anything, not the mace or axe.

So, since we're talking chainsaws and powerfields, how do you expect an ax or sword to behave when they get smacked into concrete or an ablative substance rather than traditional metal armor? Traditional expectations are going to go out the window pretty quick there if we want to start talking about realism.

Chaos has had the option for CCW since caveman days.

All those chosen with the free CCW have been combat blades.

Now all of a sudden chain blades Do something special when previously they were just bog standard CCW.

And trump level? Really? Did I ask to make Chainswords Great Again?

I just don't appreciate the idea that now an aestetic design choice has a bigger impact than it previously did.

Having run the numbers, a tactical marine with a power sword is almost identical to a tactical marine with a power axe.
Assuming 1 attack:

They are identical against TEQs.
P(kill) = 2/9

Axes are better against MEQs by 1/54th.
P(sword) = 15/54
P(axe) = 16/54

vs T3 4+, (so fire warriors or storm troopers), swords come out slightly better by 2/27ths.
P(axe) = 10/27
P(sword) = 12/27

vs GEQ swords and axes are equal.
P(sword) = 4/9
P(axe) = 4/9

vs T4 4+ (space marine scouts) axes are better by 1/27th.
P(axe) = 20/54
P(sword) = 18/54

So there is very little difference between the two weapons.
Frankly, I'd still opt for the axe because it is more effective against T8-9.

May as well add the maul and chainsword to that for the most common types.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:

Did I ask to make Chainswords Great Again?

Chainswords are great agin.

Axes vs. Mauls. vs. Swords is like the debate on which weapon to take in D&D for the slashing, crushing, or stabbing damage in order to take on different foes. Higher Strength or Higher AP? Different targets will need different strategies. Got a monster or vehicle with low save to attack? Maul. Got low Toughness, high save model? Sword. Something in between? Axe.

I'm just over here wondering what a Power Spear will look like

Mixed bag, I correctly guessed powerfist would get a minus to hit back when everyone was freaking about about charges going first, but I really expected force weapons to deal mortal wounds.

Other thoughts, ap vs strength is a non-comparison. To get to 2+ you need to double out their toughness, something a +2 to strength is probably not going to help you accomplish. On the other hand every point of AP is valuable as it affects the enemies save. So against MEQ wielded by a MEQ, axe and sword are going to balance out, because +1 str will get you to a 3+ to wound which makes up for the fact they will be saving on a 5+ rather than a 6+. In most cases though sword will be better, up to toughness 7.

Power Maul just suck, the only edge case where they are useful for marines is against units with invuls and toughness 3 or 5, which is wytches or lychguard. That's a pretty small use case. They should have given mauls something, but they were painted into a corner by power fists only doing a d3 damage (another thing I called in advance). So mauls just continue sucking.

If the rule granting +1 attack for having a pistol was removed, then Assault Marines and similar units needed chainswords to grant extra attacks, because otherwise they'd be no more effective in assault than Tactical Marines. You couldn't add an attack to the Assault Marine's profile, because the fluff states a Tac Marine goes through Dev and Assault Squads before being assigned to a Tac Squad, so you'd have a situation where a Marine gained an attack going to the Assault Squad, then lost it again when he was promoted to a Tac Squad.

 Deadshot wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.

Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.

EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.

Blunt weapons aren't actually good at penetrating armour, they are good against armour because they are good at transfering a lot of force through the armour into the squishy, which is represented by being easier to wound but it doesn't actually "cut" or "penetrate" through the armour.

Right...they basically ignore the armor, having the armor provide superior defense against such weapons over a sword is nonsensical when the force transmission is effectively bypassing the armor.

Meanwhile the sword, with its point and cutting edges, has superior wounding capability against soft targets, *it* should be the one with the Strength bonus and poor armor pen if anything, not the mace or axe.

Strength is how hard you hit. Maces and axes hit harder, they have more weight at the strike end and have greater momentum transfer that swords, which have the weight at the hilt/handle end.

Strength is a lot of things, not just physical force. Even then, the relative difference in raw force between a mace and a sword of the style common in 40k is not going to warrant a meaningful difference. We're not talking epee or rapier here, most 40k swords are the kind you can put some stonk behind, and, ultimately, it's not hard to inflict a wound with a sword, all you need to do with a sword to run them through is just point it and step forward and it'll go right through end to end.

Armour Penetration is how well it penetrates armour. Maces don't penetrate armour, it bypasses it. Simple.

which is why they should have the better pen, the armor is of dramatically less protective value, it's not going to deflect or shed as well, and it's going to have to absorb more force. The armor is going to be less effective or completely ineffective.

Swords can be better at penetrating armour with a thrust (a lot of force being a very tiny surface area)

Not anything plate, as most 40k armor is, it can penetrate chainmail if designed for thrusting, but not proper armor plate, they bend and flex and slip against plate. When that came about, suddenly you started seeing actual warhammers show up. Swords, thrusting or cutting, are awful against armor, hence why you see other weapons come about when armor got serious.

but in general its an abstraction for game purposes because the competitive crowd were the ones test-playing, not the Realism or narrative crowds.

I get that, but imma grouse about it nonetheless

Where is the power spear ?

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Chaos has had the option for CCW since caveman days.

All those chosen with the free CCW have been combat blades.

Now all of a sudden chain blades Do something special when previously they were just bog standard CCW.

For all that time, Chainswords were literally CCW in one form or another. I'm actually surprised to see this, and I wonder if it will be just for specific units or for them all.

Scorpions have a form of Chainsword, so it stands to reason that they will keep this ability, as a higher volume of Attacks is what offensively differentiates them fro Banshees (who will now have some great AP, albeit at low Str and lower Attacks).

Comparison of a tactical marine with a chainsword (CS) vs a tactical marine with a power maul. Assuming 1 base attack.
Noting that the chainsword grants a bonus attack.
Probabilitities are given as the likelyhood of a tactical marine killing a target with thier full set of melee attacks. ie a kill in one round of combat.

Against other tacticals
P(CS) = 2/9
P(maul) = 2/9

Against terminators
P(CS) = 1/9 = 3/27
P(maul) = 4/27

Against GEQ
P(CS) = 16/27 = 48/108
P(Maul) = 50/108 ~ 1/2

Against T3 4+ base armour
P(CS) = 4/9 = 12/27
P(Maul) = 10/27

Against T4 4+ base armour
P(CS) = 1/3 = 3/9 = 9/27
P(Maul) = 8/27

So the maul is situational but not much better than a chainsword.The opportunity to attack T 10-11 should not be ignored though.
I think the maul will shine as a buff weapon on GEQ sergeants and be useful for attacking high toughness enemies.
The chainsword gains a lot from providing a second attack, especially if it is a fairly cheap choice.

It is entirely possibly I've made a mistake in at least one calculation, so if there is a mistake, please point it out.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ugh, that chainsword change. That's going to be...awkward, that wasn't really necessary, that feels forced, a change just made for "cool factor" sake without a real game design reason.

Adding an additional attack is going to make it worth a lot more than just a CCW for list building, and with so many kits that just included chainswords as basic CCW's and so many models built using them as just basic CCW's, that's going to result in issues with both existing model collections, army construction, and balance.

EDIT: the stats on power weapons are just weird. They made the Sword the best AP weapon, when it really should be the worst at AP but easiest/fastest to weild, while the mace is the worst at penetrating armor and really should be the best to use against an armored opponent. D3 damage per Force Weapon wound is also a bit weird, they're dramatically less effective against targets which may now have double or triple the number of wounds they had before.

Blunt weapons aren't actually good at penetrating armour, they are good against armour because they are good at transfering a lot of force through the armour into the squishy, which is represented by being easier to wound but it doesn't actually "cut" or "penetrate" through the armour.

Right...they basically ignore the armor, having the armor provide superior defense against such weapons over a sword is nonsensical when the force transmission is effectively bypassing the armor.

Meanwhile the sword, with its point and cutting edges, has superior wounding capability against soft targets, *it* should be the one with the Strength bonus and poor armor pen if anything, not the mace or axe.

Strength is how hard you hit. Maces and axes hit harder, they have more weight at the strike end and have greater momentum transfer that swords, which have the weight at the hilt/handle end.

Strength is a lot of things, not just physical force. Even then, the relative difference in raw force between a mace and a sword of the style common in 40k is not going to warrant a meaningful difference. We're not talking epee or rapier here, most 40k swords are the kind you can put some stonk behind, and, ultimately, it's not hard to inflict a wound with a sword, all you need to do with a sword to run them through is just point it and step forward and it'll go right through end to end.

Armour Penetration is how well it penetrates armour. Maces don't penetrate armour, it bypasses it. Simple.

which is why they should have the better pen, the armor is of dramatically less protective value, it's not going to deflect or shed as well, and it's going to have to absorb more force. The armor is going to be less effective or completely ineffective.

Swords can be better at penetrating armour with a thrust (a lot of force being a very tiny surface area)

Not anything plate, as most 40k armor is, it can penetrate chainmail if designed for thrusting, but not proper armor plate, they bend and flex and slip against plate. When that came about, suddenly you started seeing actual warhammers show up. Swords, thrusting or cutting, are awful against armor, hence why you see other weapons come about when armor got serious.

A broadsword still doesn't have the weight and momentum transfer of an axe or mace, it is balanced to make sure the majority of the weight is in the hilt. A 40k sword maybe be more effective cutting than a rapier but it'll never have the same cutting power as an equivilent size axe or the crushing power of an equivilent mace.

But maces don't have better armour penetration. I mean that literally. They bypass it, but they don't penetrate. You shouldn't have better Armour Penetration values if the weapon is actually worse at armour penetration. Which is why it has higher strength, as armour save can't protect vs an easier To Wound roll.

Those plate armour sets and swords in history were made of comparably strong materials (tempered or forged steel). 40k Power weapons have an armour-sundering, monomolecular-edged, handwavium powerfield around it that rips apart the atoms in the way, so the materials aren't of comparable strength. Also, you contradict yourself because in your first point you say this

"all you need to do with a sword to run them through is just point it and step forward and it'll go right through end to end."

Which is counter to the point I've just mentioned where you say that the sword will slip and roll off plate. Can't do both.

 amanita wrote:
Not sure why a power axe would only be -2 while a sword is -3 either, but what the heck?

If you ignore previous 40k rules and look at the weapon as a weapon, it does make sense. Axes aren't great at armour piercing, swords are. maces are the worst of the three, relying on the impact rather than a cutting edge.
It's your classic piercing vs slashing vs blunt force weapon setup.

*edit* Oh - and let's not forget that Armor Piercing isn't the same as "being effective versus armour". Maces are effective versus armour, but they're not piercing it. they're using the force of the impact to hurt the plate wearer (+strength) instead of piercing the armour (-armour piercing).

I'll just shoot him at 5 meters instead.

nekooni wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Not sure why a power axe would only be -2 while a sword is -3 either, but what the heck?

If you ignore previous 40k rules and look at the weapon as a weapon, it does make sense. Axes aren't great at armour piercing, swords are. maces are the worst of the three, relying on the impact rather than a cutting edge.

...I mean, if you're trying to look at the weapon as a weapon the 'cutting edge' is kind of irrelevant where armour is concerned; you fight people in heavy armour with maces/hammers/really heavy swords to batter them into submission or with giant picks to actually crack the armour, you don't try and shove a sharp thing at them and hope for the best...

But 'power fields' make realism an unhelpful way of looking at the problem, so...

Interestingly enough, my Crusader Assault Squads with 2 Power Swords, 1 Special Pistol, 1 Flamer, 9 Bolt Pistols, and 7 Chainswords is going to be brutal in the Fight Phase no matter the target.

Too bad I got rid of their fire support to help get them there.

nekooni wrote:
...It's your classic piercing vs slashing vs blunt force weapon setup.

(If you want to go for realism 'slashing damage' is the worst possible thing to have against armour.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Not sure why a power axe would only be -2 while a sword is -3 either, but what the heck?

If you ignore previous 40k rules and look at the weapon as a weapon, it does make sense. Axes aren't great at armour piercing, swords are. maces are the worst of the three, relying on the impact rather than a cutting edge.

...I mean, if you're trying to look at the weapon as a weapon the 'cutting edge' is kind of irrelevant where armour is concerned; you fight people in heavy armour with maces/hammers/really heavy swords to batter them into submission or with giant picks to actually crack the armour, you don't try and shove a sharp thing at them and hope for the best...

But 'power fields' make realism an unhelpful way of looking at the problem, so...

Yeah, but that's the point. A sword can be used as a piercing weapon versus armour, so it's effective at ignoring the armour. Maces rely on strength of impact instead of penetrating the armour. Axes are in the middle now.

And yeah, just ignore the power fields. you've got em on all of them, it's what's granting them their "budget" of Strength+AP I'd say. All three would be very useless without the power fields, which is why they'd be categorized as your regular CCW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

nekooni wrote:
...It's your classic piercing vs slashing vs blunt force weapon setup.

(If you want to go for realism 'slashing damage' is the worst possible thing to have against armour.)

But not the worst for armour penetration. which is what the stat is called.

a sharp edge has a higher chance to penetrate armour when compared to a blunt edge - you can penetrate eg leather armour with an axe or sabre, but a mace usually wouldn't even penetrate cloth. It'd still do damage to the wearer though. see: strength stat

Wonderinf if scorpion chainswords are still +1 s

nekooni wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

nekooni wrote:
...It's your classic piercing vs slashing vs blunt force weapon setup.

(If you want to go for realism 'slashing damage' is the worst possible thing to have against armour.)

But not the worst for armour penetration. which is what the stat is called.

a sharp edge has a higher chance to penetrate armour when compared to a blunt edge - you can penetrate eg leather armour with an axe or sabre, but a mace usually wouldn't even penetrate cloth. It'd still do damage to the wearer though. see: strength stat

The problem with this argument is that "blade physically going through the armour" (the physics argument you're making) is distinct from "armour prevents attack from doing damage" (the function of save/AP in the game). So I suppose the real lesson here is that the "armour penetration" stat is badly named.