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.

I am favouring mauls at the moment. MY terminator usually roll with 2x axes and 2x mauls.

Recently i have been using the Black mace on my Chaos Lord but i havn't played against a MEQ list yet so i guess we'll see.

I like the thoght of the Black mace due to the additional S4 wound you can cause - it's just a shame it doesn't maintain the +2S a normal maul has.

 Praxiss wrote:
I am favouring mauls at the moment. MY terminator usually roll with 2x axes and 2x mauls.

Recently i have been using the Black mace on my Chaos Lord but i havn't played against a MEQ list yet so i guess we'll see.

I like the thoght of the Black mace due to the additional S4 wound you can cause - it's just a shame it doesn't maintain the +2S a normal maul has.

True... but Fleshbane makes it awesome. I played against MEQ with this thing and it wrecked face. So many wounds caused turn after turn....

 Exergy wrote:

 Lucre wrote:


Most of the things you are really getting your 15 points worth for the maul aren't things that MEQ or bolters tend to have much trouble taking care of when you come down to it. I guess you have to look at it in a comparative points sort of way though. Why am I investing in killing dire avengers and fire warriors better? Don't my guys do that pretty well already? And getting into close combat with any unit of hiveguard means you are doing your job anyway.

MCs with a crappy armor save and scarab bases are certainly an exception to this, I suppose toughness 3 models with FNP are too, but you don't tend to see too many of those anymore, or many of any of those things for that matter.

I'm really looking for the plan for the maul here, but besides trying kill warriors a little faster and instant kill the rare scarab bases hopefully before the spyders get stuck in I'm just not seeing it.

Against 3+ saves with no invul equal toughness to str the sword triples the wound output, the maul nearly doubles them
Against 4+ saves with no invul equal toughness to str the sword doubles the wound output, the maul almost quadruples them
Against 2+ saves, equal toughness to str the sword does jack, the maul nearly doubles the wound output
Against 3+ saves with no invul toughness +1 to str the sword triples the wounds output, the maul fully doubles them. (meq vs bikes, plaguemarines, necronlords/lychguard and geq vs meq)

worth 15 points, entirely dependent on the character wielding it, but at least with the maul you will never get no benefit from it in combat. The sword has a bunch of situations where you dont get anything.

I think partly what I'm trying to say here, if I can use your terminator case, or even the vs wraiths case, the benefit you may be getting might be comparatively great, but when you look at the number of wounds your chances improve by for the 15 points it's pretty dismal.

normal 3 attacks x .5 to hit x .5 to wound x .16 terminator armor = .12 wounds in that round of combat
Maul 3 attacks x .5 to hit x .83 to wound x .16 terminator armor = .195 wounds in that round of combat

Doesn't seem like 15 points worth of difference to me.

lets have the poor moron fighting an orc boy instead maybe

normal 3 attacks x .5 to hit x .5 to wound x .16 orc armor = .75 wounds in that round of combat
Maul 3 attacks x .5 to hit x .83 to wound = 1.24 wounds in that round of combat

you are killing something like .75 more 6 point models per turn for your 15 point investment.

I feel like it will feel similarly goofy throwing your guy who is specially kitted out to kill baby seals into groups of guardsman or guardians. Seems like win more to me. I'm not sure it's about flashy expensive tricks when trying to deal with inexpensive crap like that, it's making your units more efficient. Then again, I've been feeling like special close combat weapons have needed a discount for a while now.


I try not to think about it on HQ units because people are

and the sword?

normal 3 attacks x .5 to hit x .5 to wound x .16 terminator armor = .12 wounds in that round of combat
sword 3 attacks x .5 to hit x .83 to wound x .16 terminator armor = .12 wounds in that round of combat

normal 3 attacks x .5 to hit x .5 to wound x .16 orc armor = .625 wounds in that round of combat
sword 3 attacks x .5 to hit x .5 to wound = .75 wounds in that round of combat

or against a rhino
again no difference

is that worth 15 points?

but you aren't buying the sword for those reasons.

I was giving you guys examples of the poor returns on 15 points in cases you lot claim are favorable for the mace.

I'm saying in cases where the mace is decent (or best option of the three), it feels like the improvement isn't that great, it isn't 15 points worth.

Sword has it's uses these days, but mainly in silver bullet type units or in mainly marine environments.| Out side of that I can't say 15 points are a reasonable expenditure for most characters to be mildly better at killing things, but I think it's extra dumb when you are buying the maul because your SMs tend to be alright at killing most of it's targets anyway.

I think most characters should forego the option unless you mean to do something with them in a challenge. If you are really worried about adding utility or a nanny to a squad the power fist just has much more depth to it and the axe isn't a horrible poor mans alternative if you are just worried about having a guy that can put wounds on any armor save.

Power weapons just seem kinda trashy on sergeants to me, and despite there are cases where the maul is better than the others, the benefit doesn't really add up to much. IC's might be a different story but I think there tend to be better options out there. Maybe there is a home for the maul if every character you meet has a storm shield or better but I'd say avoid making supped up challenge characters if that's your meta and force lords to spend their flashy attacks eating a cheap sarge

Ill prob use power lances on my eldar.

+2 str from a maul is cool, but there is alot of 3+ out there.

 Lucre wrote:
but you aren't buying the sword for those reasons.

I was giving you guys examples of the poor returns on 15 points in cases you lot claim are favorable for the mace.

I'm saying in cases where the mace is decent (or best option of the three), it feels like the improvement isn't that great, it isn't 15 points worth.

Sword has it's uses these days, but mainly in silver bullet type units or in mainly marine environments.| Out side of that I can't say 15 points are a reasonable expenditure for most characters to be mildly better at killing things, but I think it's extra dumb when you are buying the maul because your SMs tend to be alright at killing most of it's targets anyway.

I think most characters should forego the option unless you mean to do something with them in a challenge. If you are really worried about adding utility or a nanny to a squad the power fist just has much more depth to it and the axe isn't a horrible poor mans alternative if you are just worried about having a guy that can put wounds on any armor save.

Power weapons just seem kinda trashy on sergeants to me, and despite there are cases where the maul is better than the others, the benefit doesn't really add up to much. IC's might be a different story but I think there tend to be better options out there. Maybe there is a home for the maul if every character you meet has a storm shield or better but I'd say avoid making supped up challenge characters if that's your meta and force lords to spend their flashy attacks eating a cheap sarge

Ah ok well that's a fair enough point. I guess we can cover the instances where one would want a power weapon though, and have to choose one though.

 Xeriapt wrote:
Ill prob use power lances on my eldar.

+2 str from a maul is cool, but there is alot of 3+ out there.

There's vastly more combats that last more than one phase than there are 3+ saves.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Xeriapt wrote:
Ill prob use power lances on my eldar.

+2 str from a maul is cool, but there is alot of 3+ out there.

There's vastly more combats that last more than one phase than there are 3+ saves.

for low str eldar, the maul is even better comparatively.

Well in my experience combat with DE or Eldar doesnt usually go for more than a turn or 2.

Id prefer to kill people before they get a chance to hit me in the first place.

I think CC special weapons just need an overhaul. Especially on poor eldar.

Why? GW finally made a well balanced rule that actually makes some sense. Sure, CC isn't as killy as it was, but in the far future, you SUPPOSED to want to shoot someone rather then punch them.

Armadeus wrote:
Why? GW finally made a well balanced rule that actually makes some sense. Sure, CC isn't as killy as it was, but in the far future, you SUPPOSED to want to shoot someone rather then punch them.

Why?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Armadeus wrote:
Why? GW finally made a well balanced rule that actually makes some sense. Sure, CC isn't as killy as it was, but in the far future, you SUPPOSED to want to shoot someone rather then punch them.

Why?

40k has an identity crisis. A bunch of us are enjoying playing a High Fantasy game that happens to be set in space rather than playing a Space Opera one. It's Starship Troopers, Lord of the Rings, and Paradise Lost, rolled into one giant ball and everyone focuses on the part that resonates with them.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Armadeus wrote:
Why? GW finally made a well balanced rule that actually makes some sense. Sure, CC isn't as killy as it was, but in the far future, you SUPPOSED to want to shoot someone rather then punch them.

Why?

What makes more sense, shooting someone with your rocket propelled machine gun, or slashing them with a hunk of mettle?

Armadeus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Armadeus wrote:
Why? GW finally made a well balanced rule that actually makes some sense. Sure, CC isn't as killy as it was, but in the far future, you SUPPOSED to want to shoot someone rather then punch them.

Why?

What makes more sense, shooting someone with your rocket propelled machine gun, or slashing them with a hunk of mettle?

That depends really doesn't it - all througout history you've seen fluctuations between Melee and Ranged, as armour adapts to be more resilient against ranged weaponry (i.e. Knights against Archers - the arrows tended to bounce off), at which point Armour becomes more prevalent, as does melee weaponry which is easier to make effective against the armour.
Then an advancement in ranged weaponry will come about, often prevalent enough to nullify the invariably slower heavy armoured opponents (i.e. - knights against early firearms).

One assumes that there's a relative balance between armour resiliency, firearms and melee ability within 40k, with a slight bias to armour and firearms - with ranged weaponry being good enough to make armoured soldiers think twice, but not good enough to invalidate it.

Armadeus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Armadeus wrote:
Why? GW finally made a well balanced rule that actually makes some sense. Sure, CC isn't as killy as it was, but in the far future, you SUPPOSED to want to shoot someone rather then punch them.

Why?

What makes more sense, shooting someone with your rocket propelled machine gun, or slashing them with a hunk of mettle?

If the hunk of mettle has a much much much greater chance of penetrating the armour of this someone than the rocket launcher, I'd say the hunk of mettle is better.

I have my PA command squad have the two regulars armed with halberds. Technically I could count them as axes or swords, depends on the army I face.

Edit; Just realised this is sort of off track from the thread. I personally Love mauls. In a tournament I killed so many characters in challenges. So many. All in all I think I killed One deathwing sergeant an inquisitor and some other third thing. Not bad for a regular space marine sergeant.

 Ovion wrote:

Armadeus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Armadeus wrote:
Why? GW finally made a well balanced rule that actually makes some sense. Sure, CC isn't as killy as it was, but in the far future, you SUPPOSED to want to shoot someone rather then punch them.

Why?

What makes more sense, shooting someone with your rocket propelled machine gun, or slashing them with a hunk of mettle?

That depends really doesn't it - all througout history you've seen fluctuations between Melee and Ranged, as armour adapts to be more resilient against ranged weaponry (i.e. Knights against Archers - the arrows tended to bounce off), at which point Armour becomes more prevalent, as does melee weaponry which is easier to make effective against the armour.
Then an advancement in ranged weaponry will come about, often prevalent enough to nullify the invariably slower heavy armoured opponents (i.e. - knights against early firearms).

One assumes that there's a relative balance between armour resiliency, firearms and melee ability within 40k, with a slight bias to armour and firearms - with ranged weaponry being good enough to make armoured soldiers think twice, but not good enough to invalidate it.

This is just wrong. Knights got to abandon their armour due to fast melee weaponry killing armoured soldiers way to easy. Once knight armour was gone long bows and alike was developed. After that basically fire power has prevailed untill today, and it will not change in the comming years. Sometimes soldiers will put a bajonet on their m16 but most often they will prefer firing from a distance

Can't really talk about 40k in the terms of medieval human history. Space marine armor is enough to shrug off everything but a fething Missile and Terminator armor is impervious to almost everything aside from the most powerful weapons in the universe. If I was walking around in that then you're damn right I would want to run up and pound something to bits with my giant electro-magnetic fist that can cut through tanks like a hot knife through butter.

Back on topic. After reading this thread I think that I'll try out the maul. It'll be even better for me just because Guard and Eldar are prevalent in my meta. Meaning i'm generally ignoring armor and getting that phat +2 strength for popping rear armor on chimeras.