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.

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?

+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.

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.

As guard, I appreciate the power maul's +2 strength or power fist's 2x in giving mere mortals a better wound chance.

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.

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?

 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 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)

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.

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.

 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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
But what do you all think?

I say don't take choices away from people.

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?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
But what do you all think?

I say don't take choices away from people.

Now, do you mean taking modelling choices away from people by differentiating power weapons, or taking mechanical choices away from people by homogenizing them?

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

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?

Bladed Power Weapons are S+1, AP-3 and Heavy Power Weapons are S+2 AP-2. Bam, done.

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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
But what do you all think?

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

 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.

 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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
But what do you all think?

I say don't take choices away from people.

Agreed! Little things matter. It's good to have decisions to make. "Chrome" matters in a wargame, especially a miniature wargame.

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.

 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?

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.

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.

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.