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.

So, it's pretty obvious from many, many editions of the game, that GW game designers really, really think that a unit design where you've got yourself a unit of models and every one of them has different wargear is cool and something they'd like to be able to put into the game. And it's also pretty obvious that even when every choice is perfectly 100% balanced against every other choice, it's still going to be bascially always optimal to field squads in that vein armed with exact copies of the same loadout.

The current solution appears to be The Dreaded Kit Options Virus, which results in unit wargear entries like the new Primaris Sword Brethren:

-every model starts with a chainsword and pistol
-any model can replace their chainsword with a sword
-one models can replace their chainsword with a power axe
-one model can replace their chainsword with a power maul
-one model can replace both weapons with 2 lightning claws
-one model can replace their pistol with a plasma pistol
-two models can replace their pistol with a hand flamer THAT FOR SOME REASON WE RE-NAMED BECAUSE feth YOU??
-one model can replace their chainsword with a power fist
-one model can replace their chainsword with a thunder hammer

to use the technical game design analysis term, BLECH.

one, not only is Spike still going to run the numbers on what's most optimal and wipe the floor with Johnny's Blade Brother squad in this situation, it's now just utterly impenetrable by any casual or newer player.

Lets look at this from another angle though: What is the imagined ROLE of one of these specialized squads? What's the purpose? As a game designer, it seems like they want "Versatility". They want the veteran squads to be a way to get a lot of capabilities onto the table compared to taking more specialized units like, say, a unit of Aggressors, where everyone has a powerfist, and everyone has a flamer. The reason you take Blade Brethren should be that they allow you to take SOME flamers and SOME powerfists but maybe not pay the same cost as the Aggressor squad where EVERYONE brings those things.

So let me pitch you this system: Specialist Squad weapon lists.

Specialist Squad weapon lists are printed on the datasheets of certain units, and the point cost that unit pays for those weapons is different from other units in the codex. Specialist Squad lists also have a "Repeat Fee" which you must pay any time a model in the unit is going to be armed with a weapon that another model in the unit is already armed with. Note that the repeat fee only must be paid for weapons in the list, and any weapons that the models are armed with by default are exempt from the repeat fee.

Example of a Specialist Squad Weapon List: Black Templars Sword Brethren

22pts/model with an Astartes Chainsword and Bolt Pistol

Any modelmay replace their Astartes Chainsword and/or Bolt Pistol with choices from the Specialist Weapon Squad List

Repeat Fee: 1pt

Power Sword: 1pt
Power Maul: 1pt
Power Axe: 1pt
Pair of Lightning Claws: 3pt
Thunder Hammer: 5pt
Power Fist: 3pt
Pyre Pistol: 2pt
Plasma Pistol: 2pt

Squad Building examples:

Varied Squad: 1 Pyre Pistol, 1 Power Sword, 1 Thunder Hammer, 1 pair Lightning Claws, 1 Power Maul - 122pts
All Pyre Pistols: 1 Pyre Pistol, 2 Pyre Pistols (+1), 3 Pyre Pistols (+2), 4 Pyre Pistols (+3), 5 Pyre Pistols (+4) - 130pts

A couple notes:

1 - it is intended that it be generally cheaper to build these specialist squads as smaller units than as a larger unit, because being a larger unit inherently optimises them toward single unit buffs like stratagems, relic wargear, warlord traits etc

2 - Obviously there are business decisions behind the kit wargear virus format as well, this is basically approaching the system assuming 'good faith' and making 'mixed squads are not inherently undesirable' a design goal in and of itself.

I don't think I agree with the premise, since you can choose which casualties to pull having some degree of variety in your squad allows you to be prepared for different types of units by having variety or to save on points by not taking all thunder hammers. I put 20-40% anti-light infantry weapons on my Wraiths just in case, often I end up pulling them first, but if I come up against a horde or an enemy that reduces damage 2 to damage 1 then I've got it.

GW should just sell upgrade sprues and let people be free to take more standardized units, buff weapons that are not being taken and it is pretty likely you will see some mixed weapon units. I don't think most players actually want a hodge podge of different weaponry in their units, otherwise, I would see more people do it in casual games. It's a huge hassle when it comes to resolving attacks to have 3+ weapon types.

So what if Timmy only gets 1 chaingun per Havoc unit? He can learn to kitbash (which has always been part of the hobby) or he can play with his 1 chaingun. With ultimate freedom in terms of picking targets it is not that bad an option and chainguns are expensive so his squad ends up being cheaper and he can leave his chaingun alive for last.

The better way to do it would be having all power weapons/Plague Marine meleee weapons use the same profile. Now you can standardize or vary your squad's weapons as you please and resolving attacks does not take an eternity.

 vict0988 wrote:


The better way to do it would be having all power weapons/Plague Marine meleee weapons use the same profile. Now you can standardize or vary your squad's weapons as you please and resolving attacks does not take an eternity.

This is true, and is basically the way Age of Sigmar does it and I generally do not mind this approach one whit - I'm operating off of the assumption that most 40k players seem highly invested in the distinction between a Bolt Carbine and an Oculus Bolt Carbine and a Bolt Rifle and a Boltgun and a Storm Boltgun and a Light Heavy Bolt Rifstol and like having different stats for those little micro-distinctions in the game.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:


The better way to do it would be having all power weapons/Plague Marine meleee weapons use the same profile. Now you can standardize or vary your squad's weapons as you please and resolving attacks does not take an eternity.

This is true, and is basically the way Age of Sigmar does it and I generally do not mind this approach one whit - I'm operating off of the assumption that most 40k players seem highly invested in the distinction between a Bolt Carbine and an Oculus Bolt Carbine and a Bolt Rifle and a Boltgun and a Storm Boltgun and a Light Heavy Bolt Rifstol and like having different stats for those little micro-distinctions in the game.

Passing thought: What if the weapons on such squads didn't actually represent specific weapons but instead a single generic profile representing an assortment of high-quality gear? And then you could do things with that profile to represent the flexibility provided by those weapons.

So for example:
Instead of Chosen (hypothetically) being forced to take 1 of each option in a future book, you could give them generic "chosen weapons" that let you choose one of several profiles at the start of each player turn. So you might have choices like:
* Slash and Dash: Basically a chainsword profile, and you can consolidate 6" instead of 3".
* Set up and Smash: 1 in 3 models may use a powerfist profile with no to-hit penalty.
* Bolt and Blade: +1 to-hit and -1 AP on all bolt and melee weapons this turn.

So you're adding flexibility to your unit by modeling them with a half dozen different weapon setups, but you're not slowing down the game by resolving a bunch of mismatched profiles each turn. The generic profile is assumed to represent the combined weaponry of the entire unit as they execute different maneuvers and fighting styles.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:


The better way to do it would be having all power weapons/Plague Marine meleee weapons use the same profile. Now you can standardize or vary your squad's weapons as you please and resolving attacks does not take an eternity.

This is true, and is basically the way Age of Sigmar does it and I generally do not mind this approach one whit - I'm operating off of the assumption that most 40k players seem highly invested in the distinction between a Bolt Carbine and an Oculus Bolt Carbine and a Bolt Rifle and a Boltgun and a Storm Boltgun and a Light Heavy Bolt Rifstol and like having different stats for those little micro-distinctions in the game.

Passing thought: What if the weapons on such squads didn't actually represent specific weapons but instead a single generic profile representing an assortment of high-quality gear? And then you could do things with that profile to represent the flexibility provided by those weapons.

So for example:
Instead of Chosen (hypothetically) being forced to take 1 of each option in a future book, you could give them generic "chosen weapons" that let you choose one of several profiles at the start of each player turn. So you might have choices like:
* Slash and Dash: Basically a chainsword profile, and you can consolidate 6" instead of 3".
* Set up and Smash: 1 in 3 models may use a powerfist profile with no to-hit penalty.
* Bolt and Blade: +1 to-hit and -1 AP on all bolt and melee weapons this turn.

So you're adding flexibility to your unit by modeling them with a half dozen different weapon setups, but you're not slowing down the game by resolving a bunch of mismatched profiles each turn. The generic profile is assumed to represent the combined weaponry of the entire unit as they execute different maneuvers and fighting styles.

I am not a fan, I think there needs to be a difference between power weapons and chainswords. It is similar to the old Wood Elves Blade Dancer rules from WHFB.

What, exactly, was wrong with just letting the models buy weapons off the wargear lists?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
What, exactly, was wrong with just letting the models buy weapons off the wargear lists?

If you want 5 power axes because they are more effective then you need to buy from someone other than GW, or buy a lot of boxes, GW does not like third parties getting any of the action. Instead of producing bits GW decided to solve the issue with rules.

Wargear lists are also kind of opaque, I think they should be printed on the same page, you should not have to flip 10+ pages to find it. Wargear lists also cannot be adjusted based on the individual unit, a power sword on a Tactical Sergeant is not worth the same as one on a VanVet Sergeant with a jump pack.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
What, exactly, was wrong with just letting the models buy weapons off the wargear lists?

I mean, I dont know about you, but MY experience for five editions has been any time a unit is allowed to just buy weapons off a wargear list, some eggheads would mathematically calculate the single best weapon and then arm every single model with that weapon loadout.

This grants an enormous gameplay advantage to someone who buys their squad of, say, deathwatch veterans, and then goes to a 3rd party modeler/3d prints 10 storm shields and storm bolters vs Little Timmy who built his deathwatch vets with the assortment of wargear shown on the box and (probably) assumed by the designers.

Instead of removing the choice entirely to specialize the squad, the proposal is to create an actual role for those 'flexible, varied equipment veteran' type units by giving them a discount on the wargear compared to other units in the 'dex armed entirely with the same stuff. That way a Kommando squad with a rokkit, a burna and a power klaw would end up paying less for each of those models than an individual burna boy in a burna boy squad, a tankbusta in a tankbusta squad, and a power klaw in a nob squad.

Just wait 'til you hear my opinion on whether or not sergeants in squads armed entirely with ranged weaponry should be paying full price - or even, in some cases when they give up a ranged weapon, ANY price - for melee wargear!

 the_scotsman wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
What, exactly, was wrong with just letting the models buy weapons off the wargear lists?

I mean, I dont know about you, but MY experience for five editions has been any time a unit is allowed to just buy weapons off a wargear list, some eggheads would mathematically calculate the single best weapon and then arm every single model with that weapon loadout.

This grants an enormous gameplay advantage to someone who buys their squad of, say, deathwatch veterans, and then goes to a 3rd party modeler/3d prints 10 storm shields and storm bolters vs Little Timmy who built his deathwatch vets with the assortment of wargear shown on the box and (probably) assumed by the designers.

Instead of removing the choice entirely to specialize the squad, the proposal is to create an actual role for those 'flexible, varied equipment veteran' type units by giving them a discount on the wargear compared to other units in the 'dex armed entirely with the same stuff. That way a Kommando squad with a rokkit, a burna and a power klaw would end up paying less for each of those models than an individual burna boy in a burna boy squad, a tankbusta in a tankbusta squad, and a power klaw in a nob squad.

Just wait 'til you hear my opinion on whether or not sergeants in squads armed entirely with ranged weaponry should be paying full price - or even, in some cases when they give up a ranged weapon, ANY price - for melee wargear!

Wouldn't it be easier to get the eggheads to help you balance the loadouts so that there wasn't one obvious superior loadout for everything before releasing the rules, instead of throwing up your hands and saying "of course we're going to screw up the balance between these options, bring me a more complicated system to obfuscate that fact!"?

 vict0988 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
What, exactly, was wrong with just letting the models buy weapons off the wargear lists?

If you want 5 power axes because they are more effective then you need to buy from someone other than GW, or buy a lot of boxes, GW does not like third parties getting any of the action. Instead of producing bits GW decided to solve the issue with rules.

Wargear lists are also kind of opaque, I think they should be printed on the same page, you should not have to flip 10+ pages to find it. Wargear lists also cannot be adjusted based on the individual unit, a power sword on a Tactical Sergeant is not worth the same as one on a VanVet Sergeant with a jump pack.

Why that sword is not worth the same?
The only difference between the two sgts is movement, which you pay for when you buy jumppack.
If you think the jp is too cheap, complain about that cost, but a power sword is a power sword

The Deer Hunter wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
What, exactly, was wrong with just letting the models buy weapons off the wargear lists?

If you want 5 power axes because they are more effective then you need to buy from someone other than GW, or buy a lot of boxes, GW does not like third parties getting any of the action. Instead of producing bits GW decided to solve the issue with rules.

Wargear lists are also kind of opaque, I think they should be printed on the same page, you should not have to flip 10+ pages to find it. Wargear lists also cannot be adjusted based on the individual unit, a power sword on a Tactical Sergeant is not worth the same as one on a VanVet Sergeant with a jump pack.

Why that sword is not worth the same?
The only difference between the two sgts is movement, which you pay for when you buy jumppack.
If you think the jp is too cheap, complain about that cost, but a power sword is a power sword

A jp is a jp, it should cost 3 pts for Assault Marines and for Captains right? Do you see how silly that sounds? A Captain gets more benefit from a jp than an Assault Marine, so it should cost more. If it cost 3 pts then you would always take the jump pack upgrade for Captains.

VanVet Sergeant has an extra attack compared to a Tactical Sergeant and is part of a dedicated melee squad. If you have pts leftover the first place you should upgrade melee weapons is for melee units and the first place to upgrade ranged weapons is for ranged units because it is more likely the weapon will see use.

So would it be worth going back to the 5e-7e paradigm where the wargear lists are individual to the squad and printed on the squad's datasheet?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So would it be worth going back to the 5e-7e paradigm where the wargear lists are individual to the squad and printed on the squad's datasheet?

Yes, that and adding pts to datasheets would IMO make datasheets as perfect as possible. The options are already all listed out in the pts section so GW can change flamer cost for Tactical Squads without changing the cost for Assault Squads.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So would it be worth going back to the 5e-7e paradigm where the wargear lists are individual to the squad and printed on the squad's datasheet?

That is, in essence, what I am proposing.

But I'll also point out, that even if all weapons were perfectly and meticulously balanced, the most effective squad loadouts WOULD REMAIN 99% of the time, all models in the unit holding the same weapons.

Recall that my philosophy here IS NOT throwing up my hands and saying GW will never balance broad weapon-list units like Vanvets, it is instead saying that if GW's stated design goal is to make mixed-weapon squads viable, the alternative that pleases those that enjoy those weapons having different rules and not:

A - a "Hybrid Metamorph" approach where all weapons simply Count As a single profile

B - a "Sword Brethren" approach where each model's weapon option is strictly controlled to force a mixed loadout

.....is to grant some kind of a discount to account for the inherent inefficiency when you do nnot arm the whole squad with the same weapon.

 vict0988 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So would it be worth going back to the 5e-7e paradigm where the wargear lists are individual to the squad and printed on the squad's datasheet?

Yes, that and adding pts to datasheets would IMO make datasheets as perfect as possible. The options are already all listed out in the pts section so GW can change flamer cost for Tactical Squads without changing the cost for Assault Squads.

They don't add points to the datasheets because they know they'll change them pretty frequently, unlike older editions. We only have PL on datasheets as they are in fact left untouched for the entire edition. GW wants to keep datasheets as free of future erratas/changes as possible, which is a good thing.

 Blackie wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So would it be worth going back to the 5e-7e paradigm where the wargear lists are individual to the squad and printed on the squad's datasheet?

Yes, that and adding pts to datasheets would IMO make datasheets as perfect as possible. The options are already all listed out in the pts section so GW can change flamer cost for Tactical Squads without changing the cost for Assault Squads.

They don't add points to the datasheets because they know they'll change them pretty frequently, unlike older editions. We only have PL on datasheets as they are in fact left untouched for the entire edition. GW wants to keep datasheets as free of future erratas/changes as possible, which is a good thing.

Ohhhhhhhhh, if ONLY, if ONLY there were SOME WAY to magically....take the datasheets, and put them, up, somewhere, somehow CAST them up into...into the ether, such that they could be changed! Rebalanced on a whim! of coruse I know this is all fantasy, my friend I'm trying to just visionarily visionize such a bizarre science-fiction phenomenon that would allow this....some form of...simultaneous letter exchange? Carrier pigeons, perhaps, which would bring all the rules updates to the players so that they might take them and staple them into their books! oh what a fantastical world that would be....but alas, never to be a reality.

Rise, rise from the dead. Heed my call now, necrothread!

Reading through the new Tau codex and the harlequin spoilers got me thinking about this thread. Specifically:

A.) They've done something similar to the_scotsman's opening post with crisis suits. Basically, each additional copy of a given weapon that you put on a given crisis suit increases its cost by a bit. So the first flamer on a suit costs X, the second flamer on the same suit costs X+5, the third X+10. So it becomes less cost-effective to specialize your weapon systems too much. You're encouraged to take a combination of weapons. Granted, this is on a mode-l-by-model basis rather than unit-by-unit, but it's similar enough to warrant mentioning.

B.) Some wargear now gives a unit a keyword that allows you to target that unit with a stratagem. Ex: take the countermeasures wargear for X points (and a wargear slot), and you can use the countermeasures stratagem to mitigate incoming attacks. It's a bit fuzzy, but it seems like harlequin weapons might be doing something similar.

So maybe that's the approach to take with mixed weapon squads? Give the wargear with worse stats a stratagem that makes you want to include at least one of said wargear in the unit? So off the top of my head, you could do:

* A chosen squad containing a storm shield can use a strat that gives the whole unit a 5+ invuln (representing the shield guy trying to intercept high-powered attacks.)
* A chosen squad containing a power maul can use a strat where you reduce the Attacks characteristic of a single model within 2" of one of your mauls. (He's swinging with so much force that it forces the model to back off and fight more defensively.)
* A chosen squad containing a plasmagun or combi-plas can use a strat that lets one of your plas models make up to two attacks with a plasma-like profile in the fight phase.
* A lightning claw model unlocks a strat that lets you impose a -1 penalty to armor saves for enemy models within 2" of one of your claw models in the fight phase. (He's not worrying about the kill so much as he's dancing around forcing the enemy to focus on him while his buddies go in for the kill).

Probably not the best fluff/crunch matchups in those examples, but you get the idea. Basically, units that are intended to have a hodge-podge of wargear end up being less good against a specialized target, but they gain a bag of tricks to make them useful against a wide variety of targets provided you're willing to feed them some CP.

So your warp talons might be better at chewing through light infantry or whatever without support/strats, but your chosen can be just as good (or even better) against light infantry, heavy infantry, vehicles, etc. at the cost of needing CP to match the specialist warp talons in their field. If you really like a certain piece of wargear for fluff or aesthetic reasons, you can still include duplicates of those pieces of wargear. You'll just be trading some stratagem diversity for redundancy. So if I decide my Night Lord chosen really like lightning claws, I can field four sets of them in my chosen squad, and I'll retain access to the lightning claw stratagem until the last claw model in the squad is dead.

Yeah and it was a dumb idea for pushing it on Crisis Suits.

I thought the Crisis Suite rule was an elegant fix to a vexing problem. GW wants you to mix weapons on a Crisis Suit, but they don't want to prevent you from doing so. So instead, they encourage it by making taking the same weapon over and over again an inefficient choice.

So a best of both worlds. You can have your triple fusion Crisis Suit if you want, but you pay a premium price for it. That makes a mixed option more attractive because it actually becomes more efficient.

The points costs are way too punishing, I think it could work if the punishment was 2/4 points instead of 5/10 points. Tonnes of people will have to rip apart their Crisis Suits if they want a halfway pts-efficient unit and that is not okay. GW should not flip-flop between one weapon option and a second weapon option being an auto-take each edition, it's not fair to long-time fans of the faction.

Weapon efficiency aside, I was more trying to draw attention to the non-weapon wargear options and how they unlock stratagems for the unit. And to the notion that stratagems could be used to make a points-inefficient generalist unit temporarily efficient against a given target at the cost of CP. That seems like it could be a useful niche for mixed-weapon units in general.

So rather than a squad of chosen being directly better/worse at melee than a warp talons squad, they can be "worse*" with an asterisk. That asterisk being that they can be roughly as good as the warp talons against warp talons' preferred targets and roughly as good as possessed against their preferred target and so on. The talons and possessed can fill their own niches comfortably all the time without spending CP, but the chosen can fill either niche *if* you spend CP.

You could also theoretically give them stratagems to pull off stunts other than dealing damage, though I'm not sure what wargear options you'd give to chosen to pull that off.

You could have a powered weapon ability for Chosen. If the unit includes any power axes then models with power swords and power mauls counts as being armed with power axes as well, if the unit includes any power swords then models with power axes and power mauls counts as being armed with power axes, if any models in the unit are armed with power mauls then models armed with power axes and power swords counts as being armed with power mauls.

This way you don't slow the game down with forcing people to roll attacks for 3 different profiles and you encourage variety.

I think the game has too many Stratagems already.

Why don't we consolidate all power weapons into a single profile, leaving modellers free to show what looks cool rather than being pigeon holed by best loadouts.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Why don't we consolidate all power weapons into a single profile, leaving modellers free to show what looks cool rather than being pigeon holed by best loadouts.

Wouldn't hate that. Although obviously this only fixes power weapons and not other options that compete for the same space. (Thinking harlequins and tyranid warriors.)

Would point out for those non in the know that that's basically how power weapons were handled for a long time. There weren't power swords/axes/mauls. There were basically just power weapons, power fists, and whatever bespoke weapons your characters had. Differentiating power weapon types made a certain amount of sense when Challenges were a thing and the To-Wound chart was different. My canoness, for instance, might want a power sword that could ignore marine armor but only wounded the marine on a 5+, or she might want a powermaul that did nothing to marine armor but wounded orks on a 2 (iirc) while still ignoring 'eavy armor. Trading AP for Strength also made a bit of sense in editions where that extra strength made a huge difference in how likely you were to hurt a vehicle in melee.

So the introduction of different stats for different power weapons made sense at the time, but the current edition has largely reduced the differences between power weapons down to mathing out which weapon is best against a given target. And if we're talking swords vs axes vs mauls, chances are one of those is going to just be less useful than the other two. Like, if one is better against heavy infantry and the other is better against hordes, the third weapon might struggle to find a niche.

So yeah. Could be that the differences between power weapons might just not be worth the extra stat blocks this edition, especially if GW is intent on doing this wonky squad gear option thing. Then again, I don't really want to see various xenos melee weapons get a similar treatment just because of an imperial problem, so... Maybe not.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Why don't we consolidate all power weapons into a single profile, leaving modellers free to show what looks cool rather than being pigeon holed by best loadouts.

I'm actually for that for the most part. The Power Axe and Power Sword profiles pretty much hit everything we need after all, and most units don't need something "different" for the sake of it outside VERY specific circumstances.

So I'd leave that at Bladed Power Weapon, Heavy Power Weapon, Lightning Claw, and the Fists. That about encompasses everything.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'd leave that at Bladed Power Weapon, Heavy Power Weapon, Lightning Claw, and the Fists. That about encompasses everything.

What need is there for heavy power weapons and lightning claws? Is it a problem if dual-wielding power axes is a viable option?

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'd leave that at Bladed Power Weapon, Heavy Power Weapon, Lightning Claw, and the Fists. That about encompasses everything.

What need is there for heavy power weapons and lightning claws? Is it a problem if dual-wielding power axes is a viable option?

Lightning Claws is more a legacy thing. That said, wielding two of the same weapon should confer a bonus.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Why don't we consolidate all power weapons into a single profile, leaving modellers free to show what looks cool rather than being pigeon holed by best loadouts.

I'm actually for that for the most part. The Power Axe and Power Sword profiles pretty much hit everything we need after all, and most units don't need something "different" for the sake of it outside VERY specific circumstances.

So I'd leave that at Bladed Power Weapon, Heavy Power Weapon, Lightning Claw, and the Fists. That about encompasses everything.

What about the Power Maul? Where does it fit in?

I'm all for Power Weapon, Lightning Claw, and Power Fist as the standards. You can still allow for specialized weapons for specific units, but no other generalized "power" weapons.

I'm also all for the idea of consolidated weapon profiles like the new Harlequin weapons or the rumored Accursed Weapons of Chaos Terminators. Give the models more general freedom of expression without bogging down the hobbying with the search for the proper bits to powergame your unit and gameplay with the need to make 5 different sets of attack roles because everyone in your unit has different weapon profile.

 alextroy wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Why don't we consolidate all power weapons into a single profile, leaving modellers free to show what looks cool rather than being pigeon holed by best loadouts.

I'm actually for that for the most part. The Power Axe and Power Sword profiles pretty much hit everything we need after all, and most units don't need something "different" for the sake of it outside VERY specific circumstances.

So I'd leave that at Bladed Power Weapon, Heavy Power Weapon, Lightning Claw, and the Fists. That about encompasses everything.

What about the Power Maul? Where does it fit in?

I'm all for Power Weapon, Lightning Claw, and Power Fist as the standards. You can still allow for specialized weapons for specific units, but no other generalized "power" weapons.

Power Maul would fit in the Heavy category I'd wager.

I'd merge the maul in the same category of axes, rods, halbreds and swords aka generic power weapons.

I'd keep three profiles for SM melee weapons: claws, power weapons and fists. Thunder Hammers would be fists equivalents. Chainfists would be regular power fists, just aesthetically cooler. Crozium arcanum would be a regular power weapon, like it used to be in 3rd edition.