Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
|
2017/05/19 14:01:57
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine
|
|
9000
8000
Knights / Assassins 800 |
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:08:32
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 14:13:35
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:09:26
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
Force weapons cause D3 wounds now? Interesting if a bit underwhelming.
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:10:43
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle
|
I was hoping power weapons would cause D3 wounds as well. Really, I was hoping CC weapons would have a bit more oomph overall.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:12:56
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
Not sure why a power axe would only be -2 while a sword is -3 either, but what the heck?
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:15:04
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord
Inside Yvraine
|
amanita wrote:Not sure why a power axe would only be -2 while a sword is -3 either, but what the heck?
Because if it wasn't the power sword would basically be useless, kind of like how it is already is but worse due to initiative no longer existing.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 14:15:48
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:15:47
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:18:06
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
Maybe now people will stop complaining about chainswords. But I wonder what scorpion chainswords do.
|
tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam |
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:20:22
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
amanita wrote:Not sure why a power axe would only be -2 while a sword is -3 either, but what the heck?
Because as they state, a lot of things are modelled with swords. And unlike what it looks like at first glance, the sword is the more jack of all trades of the three weapons listed. While one is balanced between - AP and S, actually stacking - AP is probably the better option in most cases. Getting that 1S is going to be best if you're fighting an army where you're just 1 from a S vs T duel getting better, the +2S if you've got some special target in mind, but the -3 AP will basically always be useful to some extent.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:21:33
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
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 (like Chaos Space Marines which come with both), or for units that just don't come with chainswords but otherwise operated the same way that kits that did come with chainswords did.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 14:24:32
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:22:01
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle
|
BlaxicanX wrote: amanita wrote:Not sure why a power axe would only be -2 while a sword is -3 either, but what the heck?
Because if it wasn't the power sword would basically be useless, kind of like how it is already is but worse due to initiative no longer existing.
I think Amanita is more remarking on the actual armor piercing capabilities of an axe vs a sword.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 14:22:34
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:22:13
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
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.
this was what I was thinking. Much cleaner
|
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:24:26
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:24:33
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
So, looking from an eldar point of view:
Banshees: Always attacks first, has las pistol for shooting phase, Str 3, AP -3 D 1 swords (Probably 2 attacks each)
Striking Scorpions: Has Shuriken Pistol for shooting, Str 3, AP 0, D1 (Probably 3 attacks each) with a mantiblaster that can do a mortal wound before each fight phase.
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:25:24
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
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.
Also of note it means things like assault marines can maintain a typical marine stat line while having more attacks. So if the buff to assault marines is that they now have 3 attacks standard I'd be fine with that.
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:27:05
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine
|
Luciferian wrote: BlaxicanX wrote: amanita wrote:Not sure why a power axe would only be -2 while a sword is -3 either, but what the heck?
Because if it wasn't the power sword would basically be useless, kind of like how it is already is but worse due to initiative no longer existing.
I think Amanita is more remarking on the actual armor piercing capabilities of an axe vs a sword.
Axes don't pierce armor well. Maces and axes provide crushing / concussive force force. Swords are designed to pierce and slash. These changes make sense. Use axes against high toughness models. use swords against lower toughness models.
Everyone weapon now has a place
|
9000
8000
Knights / Assassins 800 |
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:27:22
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I think these are great changes. I love the sword, and its absence has been felt in my play group. I like that the sword is your go-to slicey slicey, and the Axe is also pretty useful too by upping your strength. However, I worry that the Axe is going to be the new rarely-seen, as if you care about the strength bonus you'll probably go to the Maul. Still, it's hard to say, because the new wounding chart makes those differences much more situational. There'll be more times when the Axe and the Maul will wound on the same values (3's or 5's), so then the Axe's greater AP will be better. The Maul is only better to help you get to or past T5/T6, and to wound T3's on 2+'s instead of 3+'s. Against T4/T7+ both the Axe and the Maul are the same for wounding, so you'd probably rather the axe.
Loving these changes!
Oh, and chain-swords giving you more attacks is AWESOME. Makes it very different and very effective at the right times. Wonder how they're going to balance that though since, you're right, it's currently a VERY common weapon. Heck, there are even Harlequin modelling options for Chainswords!
|
Galef wrote:If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors. |
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:30:54
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
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.
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:31:37
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
Yarium wrote:I think these are great changes. I love the sword, and its absence has been felt in my play group. I like that the sword is your go-to slicey slicey, and the Axe is also pretty useful too by upping your strength. However, I worry that the Axe is going to be the new rarely-seen, as if you care about the strength bonus you'll probably go to the Maul. Still, it's hard to say, because the new wounding chart makes those differences much more situational. There'll be more times when the Axe and the Maul will wound on the same values (3's or 5's), so then the Axe's greater AP will be better. The Maul is only better to help you get to or past T5/T6, and to wound T3's on 2+'s instead of 3+'s. Against T4/T7+ both the Axe and the Maul are the same for wounding, so you'd probably rather the axe.
Loving these changes!
Oh, and chain-swords giving you more attacks is AWESOME. Makes it very different and very effective at the right times. Wonder how they're going to balance that though since, you're right, it's currently a VERY common weapon. Heck, there are even Harlequin modelling options for Chainswords!
It might also vary depending on faction (assuming these hold for multiple factions). A guardsman might well prefer the maul going to S5, or the Axe to the sword, where a higher S model may not worry as much.
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:33:48
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
Vaktathi wrote: 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.
Except for the cheaper price thing. And it allows for you to make models in the future that carry a chainsword in one hand and a rifle in the other, making it uniform with the rest of the unit without sacrificing the extra attack in melee. I think it does give better options, but you're right that current models people have aren't optimised for the change.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:35:09
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
Naaris wrote: Luciferian wrote: BlaxicanX wrote: amanita wrote:Not sure why a power axe would only be -2 while a sword is -3 either, but what the heck?
Because if it wasn't the power sword would basically be useless, kind of like how it is already is but worse due to initiative no longer existing.
I think Amanita is more remarking on the actual armor piercing capabilities of an axe vs a sword.
Axes don't pierce armor well. Maces and axes provide crushing / concussive force force. Swords are designed to pierce and slash. These changes make sense. Use axes against high toughness models. use swords against lower toughness models.
Everyone weapon now has a place
As someone who spends 3 knights a 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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 14:37:16
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:40:23
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
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.)
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 14:43:03
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:48:23
Subject: Re:New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Furious Fire Dragon
|
Historical and/or Real World accuracy aside, it's refreshing to not look at the list of power weapons and see an auto-take option. There's a cool graphical analysis of the performance of S and AP vs. various T and Saves somewhere on Dakka. Saw it a few days ago. The results of that indicate each weapon type (axe, sword, maul) will outperform each other in fairly narrow T/S bands, with no clear winner except when you are able to predict a meta. For example: "In my area, everyone foot-slogs T3 dudes with 4+ armor saves...So I'll be taking Swords, since they wound on 3's--I'm a Spehs Mureen--and, at -3AP, deny the poor sods any save at all. Muwahahaha." etc.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 14:49:31
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:52:28
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
UK
|
You'll actually see power mauls in play, nice.
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:52:32
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator
|
I mentioned it in the other thread, but I'm confused as to how this works for Wysiwyg. Chaos Marines have had the option for CCW for years now, no differentiation between a chain blade or a combat knife, but now there is suddenly a difference between the two. Is it free? Does it cost anything?
I modeled my cultists champion to have a chainsaw hand, is this now illegal?
Some Orks have chain choppaz, AR these suddenly better? Did Orks with a Slugga choppaz get worse? So far this is the only disappointing news for 8th.
I can see why they would want to make chainswords unique but they should have established a difference years ago if that were the case
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 14:58:06
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:54:49
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Stealthy Kroot Stalker
|
Nightlord1987 wrote:I mentioned it in the other thread, but I'm confused as to how this works for Wysiwyg. Chaos Marines have had the option for CCW for years now, no differentiation between a chain blade or a combat knife, but now there is suddenly a difference between the two. Is it free? Does it cost anything?
Some Orks have chain choppaz, AR these suddenly better? Did Orks with a Slugga choppaz get worse? So far this is the only disappointing news for 8th.
If you're getting a benefit (and the other CCW doesn't provide a benefit), then you're probably going to have to pay a point cost for that benefit.
Because, y'know, you're getting a benefit.
Edit: wait, its disappointing news that two things you can literally ONLY SPECULATE concerning (weapons without previewed stats and the point costs for them) are speculated to be something you don't like? Wow.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 14:56:32
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 14:58:40
Subject: Re:New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Lesser Daemon of Chaos
Phoenix, Arizona
|
On the whole, I like the changes, tho to be fair, I would have rather seen Chainswords get something like -1 Rend, or maybe +1S, instead of the extra attack. To more accurately portray the fact that it's essentially a weaponized chain saw.
The force weapons are a bit 'meh', but probably done as a balance factor due to GK. Still, nice to see that for the most part, there's not simply the best 'go to' weapon for every scenario anymore.
|
Sometimes, the only truth people understand, comes from the barrel of a gun.
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 15:00:17
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator
|
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.
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 15:02:35
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Stealthy Kroot Stalker
|
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.
If you have to pay a point for them, then so will the loyalists, because in theory, all units will be balanced for their point costs. If loyalists will come bog-standard with chainswords, then they won't even have the CHOICE whether they pay the extra point or two or lose the extra attack.
So yeah, speculating.
|
|
|
|
2017/05/19 15:02:51
Subject: New Warhammer 40,000: Close Combat Weapons - NEW
|
|
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain
Vigo. Spain.
|
Nightlord1987 wrote:I mentioned it in the other thread, but I'm confused as to how this works for Wysiwyg. Chaos Marines have had the option for CCW for years now, no differentiation between a chain blade or a combat knife, but now there is suddenly a difference between the two. Is it free? Does it cost anything?
I modeled my cultists champion to have a chainsaw hand, is this now illegal?
Some Orks have chain choppaz, AR these suddenly better? Did Orks with a Slugga choppaz get worse? So far this is the only disappointing news for 8th.
I can see why they would want to make chainswords unique but they should have established a difference years ago if that were the case
"Every marine in this chaos marine unit has a chainsword even if some don't have one".
And done.
|
Crimson Devil wrote:
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote:Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|