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.

Yeah, if we were going to assign AP and Strength bonuses to weapons based on the actual weapon design, and there is no real reason we couldn't, the weapon chart would look something like this.

Sword: Str User, AP -1, +1 attack
Axe: +2 Str, AP -2, -1 to hit
Mace: +1 Str, AP-3

So the sword would be the superior choice for killing chaff, and general all around utility. The Axe would be the specialized high strength. The Mace would be your dedicated anti armor and minor strength buff.

Oh, I understand. I'm not saying you guys are wrong or calling your experience into question. I just felt that the conversation of "What is a sword? How do the numbers make you feel?" was a bit on the pointless side.

I'm also rather disappointed with the power fist. Yeah, It'll scare multi wound infantry still, but it's a big nerf against vehicles, and weak compared to both meltas and lascannons. Yes, the main advantage is more attacks, but they have range, overwatch, and can be taken in high quantities.

But I imagine that's not going to bother most people, who are going to be rock hard over chainswords being special

I don't know about a nerf vs vehicles. Say you got a sergeant with a power fist. That's 2-3 attacks on a charge. With a potential 3D3 wounds being caused.

If it's a unit of powerfists like a terminator squad, that's a lot of D3 wounds getting thrown your way.

Imperial Guard (and other Str 3 guys) will LOVE the changes to the powerfist.
Sure they might wound less often against the average guys (needing 3's against T4 now)
But it won't be practically worthless for them to be using one against Dreadnoughts/Imperial Knights etc. (Current 40K need 6's to glance the dread, and can't even touch the Knight)

And most of the Str 3 guys that can get them are Ws 4(or higher) in the current edition so should be alright in the hitting department

"Potential" is the key word there. Potentially, a squad of 24 grots could one shot a knight titan with their grot blastas. more likely, a power fist is getting two attacks (with the lost of an attack from charging), hitting on 4+, wounding on 3+ at best, and move vehicles will probably get a +6 save after reduction. This is pretty big compared to hitting on 3+ or even automatically, penning on 3+, no save, and potentially exploding it in one go

I'm sure squads like Terminator will be fine. I'm more worried about the nobz in my boy mobs

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, if we were going to assign AP and Strength bonuses to weapons based on the actual weapon design, and there is no real reason we couldn't, the weapon chart would look something like this.

Sword: Str User, AP -1, +1 attack
Axe: +2 Str, AP -2, -1 to hit
Mace: +1 Str, AP-3

So the sword would be the superior choice for killing chaff, and general all around utility. The Axe would be the specialized high strength. The Mace would be your dedicated anti armor and minor strength buff.

That seems accurate according to my understanding of weapons

Submit it to games workshop immediately so they can correct their work

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't know about a nerf vs vehicles. Say you got a sergeant with a power fist. That's 2-3 attacks on a charge. With a potential 3D3 wounds being caused.

If it's a unit of powerfists like a terminator squad, that's a lot of D3 wounds getting thrown your way.

Actually it's a bit more balanced knowing power fists subtract 1 from the hit making it a 4+ hit in melee.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
"Potential" is the key word there. Potentially, a squad of 24 grots could one shot a knight titan with their grot blastas. more likely, a power fist is getting two attacks (with the lost of an attack from charging), hitting on 4+, wounding on 3+ at best, and move vehicles will probably get a +6 save after reduction. This is pretty big compared to hitting on 3+ or even automatically, penning on 3+, no save, and potentially exploding it in one go

I'm sure squads like Terminator will be fine. I'm more worried about the nobz in my boy mobs

Against the big targets, how many boyz are dying a round? As such, how many attacks of PK nobz are you getting, or how many rounds of your attacked unit will not be shooting?

I'm not guaranteeing your Ork boyz will be potent and/or useful, but I'm hopeful.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Oh, I understand. I'm not saying you guys are wrong or calling your experience into question. I just felt that the conversation of "What is a sword? How do the numbers make you feel?" was a bit on the pointless side.

I'm also rather disappointed with the power fist. Yeah, It'll scare multi wound infantry still, but it's a big nerf against vehicles, and weak compared to both meltas and lascannons. Yes, the main advantage is more attacks, but they have range, overwatch, and can be taken in high quantities.

But I imagine that's not going to bother most people, who are going to be rock hard over chainswords being special

Hate the word nerf in these contexts. It doesn't really make any sense because of the apples to oranges nature of the comparison. It's basically like if 40k came out with a model called 'Denegra' and people were like 'AWWW she's SO nerfed from warmahordes'!

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
"Potential" is the key word there. Potentially, a squad of 24 grots could one shot a knight titan with their grot blastas. more likely, a power fist is getting two attacks (with the lost of an attack from charging), hitting on 4+, wounding on 3+ at best, and move vehicles will probably get a +6 save after reduction. This is pretty big compared to hitting on 3+ or even automatically, penning on 3+, no save, and potentially exploding it in one go

I'm sure squads like Terminator will be fine. I'm more worried about the nobz in my boy mobs

Gonna have to come up with a new way to kill tanks I guess ... Lots of guns.
Moar dakka!
Oh and tankbusters with bomb squigs .

 Vaktathi wrote:


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.

I disagree a sword should have the best AP because you could use it to stab your opponent. And stabbing is much more effective vs armored targets compered to using with an axe or even a blunt mace. It makes much more sense how the CC weapons work compered to 7th ed.

EDIT: if we are talking about a mace with spikes thats different. And it should have the same AP as the sword.

nordsturmking wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


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.

I disagree a sword should have the best AP because you could use it to stab your opponent. And stabbing is much more effective vs armored targets compered to using with an axe or even a blunt mace. It makes much more sense how the CC weapons work compered to 7th ed.

EDIT: if we are talking about a mace with spikes thats different. And it should have the same AP as the sword.

Spikes on maces are not for penetrating armour. It's used to bite into the armour to avoid glancing off. It helps you put all the impact into your opponent. It's VERY unlikely a mace spike will go through plate and the gambeson beneath.

Regarding swords and stabbing, you will not get through plate armour with thrusts. You have to either go around the armour (gaps) or use high impact techniques and weapons.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, if we were going to assign AP and Strength bonuses to weapons based on the actual weapon design, and there is no real reason we couldn't, the weapon chart would look something like this.

Sword: Str User, AP -1, +1 attack
Axe: +2 Str, AP -2, -1 to hit
Mace: +1 Str, AP-3

So the sword would be the superior choice for killing chaff, and general all around utility. The Axe would be the specialized high strength. The Mace would be your dedicated anti armor and minor strength buff.

Except you system has a problem

Fist: STR x2 Ap -3, -1 to hit

Unless you're STR 2 the fist is a superior weapon. Then you also have a secondary problem sword +2 bonus axe +3 net bonus (+4 -1) and mace +4 bonus. This makes mace by far the best choice. ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jbz` wrote:
Imperial Guard (and other Str 3 guys) will LOVE the changes to the powerfist.
Sure they might wound less often against the average guys (needing 3's against T4 now)
But it won't be practically worthless for them to be using one against Dreadnoughts/Imperial Knights etc. (Current 40K need 6's to glance the dread, and can't even touch the Knight)

And most of the Str 3 guys that can get them are Ws 4(or higher) in the current edition so should be alright in the hitting department

I'm not sure they won't love the new axe most. Against most targets they'll be in the same place.

Darkagl1 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, if we were going to assign AP and Strength bonuses to weapons based on the actual weapon design, and there is no real reason we couldn't, the weapon chart would look something like this.

Sword: Str User, AP -1, +1 attack
Axe: +2 Str, AP -2, -1 to hit
Mace: +1 Str, AP-3

So the sword would be the superior choice for killing chaff, and general all around utility. The Axe would be the specialized high strength. The Mace would be your dedicated anti armor and minor strength buff.

Except you system has a problem

Fist: STR x2 Ap -3, -1 to hit

Unless you're STR 2 the fist is a superior weapon. Then you also have a secondary problem sword +2 bonus axe +3 net bonus (+4 -1) and mace +4 bonus. This makes mace by far the best choice. ?

umm, shouldn't the Power Fist be a superior weapon? It's going to cost more points.

Also, the net of the bonuses isn't an issue. +1 str =/= +1 attack =/= -1 AP.

A point of AP is less valuable vs poorly armored target. Sure, you might make that guardsmen's save go from 5+ to no save at all. But +1 attack would be superior considering the low chance of him passing a 6+ save from a sword. You're more likely to cause another wound.

Likewise, vs a high toughness target, a point of strength is more valuable than a point of AP. It's possibly equal to another attack, but it depends on the actual toughness values.

So each weapon has a distinct purpose and niche. The sword is your weapon for killing cheap mooks. The Axe is for killing high toughness targets. And the Mace is for penetrating armor. Power Fists are for both high toughness and heavily armored targets, but they are more expensive.

I guess I don't see why this is a benedit over the system they've shown. Seems both power weapon systems are just swapping numbers around.

nordsturmking wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


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.

I disagree a sword should have the best AP because you could use it to stab your opponent. And stabbing is much more effective vs armored targets compered to using with an axe or even a blunt mace. It makes much more sense how the CC weapons work compered to 7th ed.

EDIT: if we are talking about a mace with spikes thats different. And it should have the same AP as the sword.

Swords are not effective against armored targets. It will glance off. Warhammers and maces are specifically designed for defeating armor. Half-swording exists to improve your anti-armor capabilities.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

nordsturmking wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


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.

I disagree a sword should have the best AP because you could use it to stab your opponent. And stabbing is much more effective vs armored targets compered to using with an axe or even a blunt mace. It makes much more sense how the CC weapons work compered to 7th ed.

EDIT: if we are talking about a mace with spikes thats different. And it should have the same AP as the sword.

Swords are not effective against armored targets. It will glance off. Warhammers and maces are specifically designed for defeating armor. Half-swording exists to improve your anti-armor capabilities.

Don't think it applies to swords covered in space magic but w/e.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

nordsturmking wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


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.

I disagree a sword should have the best AP because you could use it to stab your opponent. And stabbing is much more effective vs armored targets compered to using with an axe or even a blunt mace. It makes much more sense how the CC weapons work compered to 7th ed.

EDIT: if we are talking about a mace with spikes thats different. And it should have the same AP as the sword.

Swords are not effective against armored targets. It will glance off. Warhammers and maces are specifically designed for defeating armor. Half-swording exists to improve your anti-armor capabilities.

Yes i know that's what i was trying to say.

In the majority of cases, these power weapon variants are actually almost identical (except the fist). This impression that you're getting weapons with distinct tactical niches is deceptive.








Automatically Appended Next Post:
Assuming that there are no further rules, like Concussive for the maul.

What about lightning claws will they do multiple wounds at -1 rend they need to be different from swords and other power weapons.

I imagine the Lightning Claw will do 2 Wounds flat or something but otherwise I cannot guess a Rend value for them.

Vaktathi wrote:
Swords are really, really, really bad at this unless its chainmail.

Even then, riveted chainmail will stop thrusts from most swords, albeit not as effectively as plate armour.

Vaktathi wrote:
Swords are really, really, really bad at this unless its chainmail.

And even with chainmail, the only reason a sword is getting through is brute force. Chainmail is also, like most light armor, not designed to absorb a killing blow. It's more for avoiding smaller minor injuries, like a poorly aimed cut or a long range arrow, which at the time would likely get infected and potentially a slow lingering death. Chainmail isn't going to do anything against a blow that is solidly aimed and has killing force behind it.

You need to get to heavy plate, or more complex suits of chainmail(like Cataphracts), before you are talking about armor that will actually stop a deadly blow. Heavy chainmail like this is also well suited to stopping a sword's cutting force, a stab can still get through. And both can lead to internal injuries from the force of the blow since the chainmail isn't going to absorb any of the force. You get a slash across the ribs, it may not do anything to the chainmail, but it will give you cracked ribs and heck of a bruise. A mace or an axe would do an even more extensive injury. You could have someone who outwardly shows no sign of injury, but they've suffered massive internal trauma. If they don't die quickly, they might die a few hours or even days down the road.

aren't they using 'power' weapons? That's gona make the weapon function a bit differently to regular weapons. Also, you can't run a properly made historical chainmai through with a properly made historical sword. The thing is that chainmail used to be much more expensive.

nordsturmking wrote:

I disagree a sword should have the best AP because you could use it to stab your opponent. And stabbing is much more effective vs armored targets compered to using with an axe or even a blunt mace.

This is completely wrong. Stabbing an armoured target is about the least effective thing you can do. Especially with a sword.

You see, despite what Hollywood and Anime seem to think, swords were never designed to penetrate armour. Indeed, armour itself was far more effective than many people seem to realise. If a person could just stab right through plate mail armour, no one would have bothered wearing it.

Anyway, to elaborate, there are three main problems with stabbing a sword through armour:
1) Swords tend to be relatively lightweight and (since you are thrusting it, not swinging it) the blow will have relatively little power behind it.
2) Armour is specifically designed so that blows glance off it.
3) Even if your strike is not deflected, the sword itself will bend and absorb much of the energy from the impact.

Put simply, your strike will likely just glance off the armour and even if it doesn't it will lack the power to penetrate the armour.

Axes and maces (even blunt ones) are far more effective mainly because of their sheer weight. Indeed, they don't actually need to penetrate the armour - instead, they can cause it to bend or buckle (causing severe damage to the flesh within), or break bones through sheer force of impact.

Now, if you're wondering, there was a historical precedent for using swords against armour. Indeed, there were two ways in which it was done - but both involved the large, two-handed swords (or zweihanders). The first is for the knight to grip the blade with one of his hands to give it more control and then attempt to stab weak spots in his opponent's armour. The second is where the knight grips the blade with both hands and uses the hilt of the sword as an improvised mace or axe. You'll note that both of these involve using the sword in an abnormal manner, and neither involve using it to actually stab through the armour. What's more, I don't believe either of these would actually work in 40k. The first method would suffer because the swords used are one-handed ones, and this is based on a two-handed sword with appropriate length and design. The second method wouldn't work because it would involve hitting an enemy with the un-powered end of the sword (not to mention that most 40k swords don't have appropriate guards for this purpose anyway). Not to mention that both would require the user to hold the sword by its powered blade, which seems like a really bad idea.

 koooaei wrote:
aren't they using 'power' weapons? That's gona make the weapon function a bit differently to regular weapons. Also, you can't run a properly made historical chainmai through with a properly made historical sword. The thing is that chainmail used to be much more expensive.

Not really. The way Power Fields are described only enhances the existing properties of the weapon. While a Power sword will definitely cut far better than any non-power weapon, when you have 2 different power weapons their basic designs are still going to present themselves, and that is swords being inferior to other weapons at penetrating armor.

Power fields don't make the design of the weapon irrelevant, they're simply an enhancement of the weapon's base properties. A mace or hammer will still be superior at causing injury through armor than a sword.

I'm a little disappointed that Power Fists are only D3 damage, the same as Force Weapons. I was thinking they'd be D6 damage, with Chainfists re-rolling or something similar. I really hope Power Fists got cheaper than last edition comparative to Power Weapons. On the subject of which I'm no mathematician but aren't all those different profiles going to have pretty much the same effect in-gamr except for pretty niche situations?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
aren't they using 'power' weapons? That's gona make the weapon function a bit differently to regular weapons. Also, you can't run a properly made historical chainmai through with a properly made historical sword. The thing is that chainmail used to be much more expensive.

Not really. The way Power Fields are described only enhances the existing properties of the weapon. While a Power sword will definitely cut far better than any non-power weapon, when you have 2 different power weapons their basic designs are still going to present themselves, and that is swords being inferior to other weapons at penetrating armor.

Power fields don't make the design of the weapon irrelevant, they're simply an enhancement of the weapon's base properties. A mace or hammer will still be superior at causing injury through armor than a sword.

Unless of course the power field allows the sword to cut through armor like butter due to its properties being enhanced.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Power fields don't make the design of the weapon irrelevant, they're simply an enhancement of the weapon's base properties. A mace or hammer will still be superior at causing injury through armor than a sword.

This kind of argument is why they look down on our hobby. I can't hold it against them when people in my hobby are arguing like they are indeed weapon-powerfield experts.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
aren't they using 'power' weapons? That's gona make the weapon function a bit differently to regular weapons. Also, you can't run a properly made historical chainmai through with a properly made historical sword. The thing is that chainmail used to be much more expensive.

Not really. The way Power Fields are described only enhances the existing properties of the weapon. While a Power sword will definitely cut far better than any non-power weapon, when you have 2 different power weapons their basic designs are still going to present themselves, and that is swords being inferior to other weapons at penetrating armor.

Power fields don't make the design of the weapon irrelevant, they're simply an enhancement of the weapon's base properties. A mace or hammer will still be superior at causing injury through armor than a sword.

Unless of course the power field allows the sword to cut through armor like butter due to its properties being enhanced.

you mean like what power fields have been described to do in every bit of fluff ever?