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.

BrianDavion wrote:

 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?

Given that people are arguing that the Swords should still be unable to penetrate as a result...

xlDuke wrote:
. 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?

Yes, they're very close to each other.

E.g., assuming 3+ to hit S4 vs. GEQ

Power sword 0.67 x 0.67 = 0.45
Power axe 0.67 x 0.67 = 0.45
Power maul 0.67 x 0.83 x 0.83 = 0.46

what a difference!

I hope the Power Maul is expensive to compensate for being so powerful thanks

Alcibiades wrote:

xlDuke wrote:
. 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?

Yes, they're very close to each other.

E.g., assuming 3+ to hit S4 vs. GEQ

Power sword 0.67 x 0.67 = 0.45
Power axe 0.67 x 0.67 = 0.45
Power maul 0.67 x 0.83 x 0.83 = 0.46

what a difference!

And against MEQs and TEQs? Because who is getting power weapons to kill models with 5+ saves?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

xlDuke wrote:
. 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?

Yes, they're very close to each other.

E.g., assuming 3+ to hit S4 vs. GEQ

Power sword 0.67 x 0.67 = 0.45
Power axe 0.67 x 0.67 = 0.45
Power maul 0.67 x 0.83 x 0.83 = 0.46

what a difference!

And against MEQs and TEQs? Because who is getting power weapons to kill models with 5+ saves?

someone who fails to realize chainswords are superior for this?

BrianDavion wrote:

 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?

Woah woah woah woah hold up. You can't use Warhammer 40k logic in Warhammer 40k, you have to use 14th century medival combat logic! After all, how will the internet know how smart I am about historical weaponry?

Let alone the fact that armored ceramite is a fictional material which nobody knows the properties of because we aren't techmarines.

 Don Savik wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 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?

Woah woah woah woah hold up. You can't use Warhammer 40k logic in Warhammer 40k, you have to use 14th century medival combat logic! After all, how will the internet know how smart I am about historical weaponry?

Let alone the fact that armored ceramite is a fictional material which nobody knows the properties of because we aren't techmarines.

If we used the actual logic of power weapons in 40k, it wouldn't matter what the shape of the weapon was as the power field works the exact same way regardless. So the axe, maul and sword would all be equally capable of penetrating armour because it is the power field doing all of the work, the actual properties of the weapon are inconsequential.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

xlDuke wrote:
. 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?

Yes, they're very close to each other.

E.g., assuming 3+ to hit S4 vs. GEQ

Power sword 0.67 x 0.67 = 0.45
Power axe 0.67 x 0.67 = 0.45
Power maul 0.67 x 0.83 x 0.83 = 0.46

what a difference!

And against MEQs and TEQs? Because who is getting power weapons to kill models with 5+ saves?

Against MEQ:

Sword 2/3 x 1/2 x 5/6 = 0.28

Axe 2/3 x 2/3 x 2/3 = 0.30

Maul 2/3 x 2/3 x 1/2 = 0.22

Fist 1/2 x 5/6 x 5/6 = 0.43

Against Terminators

Sword 2/3 x 1/2 x 2/3 = 0.22

Axe 2/3 x 2/3 x 1/2 = 0.22

Maul 2/3 x 2/3 x 1/3 = 0.15

Fist 1/2 x 5/6 x 2/3 = 0.27 x 2 = 0.54



Automatically Appended Next Post:

The short version is that the sword and axe are almost always virtually the same. The maul is almost always almost the same or worse; the big exception is attacking units with no armour saves, or invulnerable saves better than their armour saves (Genestealers, Wyches), in which mauls are somewhat better.

The power fist though is significantly better against MEQ and especialyl TEQ.

A WS3, S3 model [ImpyGuard Sergeant, Sister Superior], attacking a Space Marine, has a

13.6% chance of inflicting a wound with each sword attack
17.1% chance of inflicting a wound with each axe attack
17.2% chance of inflicting a wound with each mace attack

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
A WS3, S3 model [ImpyGuard Sergeant, Sister Superior], attacking a Space Marine, has a

13.6% chance of inflicting a wound with each sword attack
17.1% chance of inflicting a wound with each axe attack
17.2% chance of inflicting a wound with each mace attack

These weapons are statistically so close to each other that I don't know why they bothered to differentiate them.

My only issue with these stats is that I was really hoping for a flat bonus (+3 or +4) on the powerfist, rather than x2.

Otherwise, I'm happy.

Alcibiades wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
A WS3, S3 model [ImpyGuard Sergeant, Sister Superior], attacking a Space Marine, has a

13.6% chance of inflicting a wound with each sword attack
17.1% chance of inflicting a wound with each axe attack
17.2% chance of inflicting a wound with each mace attack

These weapons are statistically so close to each other that I don't know why they bothered to differentiate them.

This represents a Sister Superior in melee [WS3, S3, A1]. The Veteran Sister Superior gains one additional attack [WS3, S3, A2]. This assumes that no additional attack is granted for having a pistol and a close combat weapon.

Edit: I added powerfists to it.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
A WS3, S3 model [ImpyGuard Sergeant, Sister Superior], attacking a Space Marine, has a

13.6% chance of inflicting a wound with each sword attack
17.1% chance of inflicting a wound with each axe attack
17.2% chance of inflicting a wound with each mace attack

These weapons are statistically so close to each other that I don't know why they bothered to differentiate them.

This represents a Sister Superior in melee [WS3, S3, A1]. The Veteran Sister Superior gains one additional attack [WS3, S3, A2]. This assumes that no additional attack is granted for having a pistol and a close combat weapon.

Edit: I added powerfists to it.

I feel like your powerfist math is screwy somewhere, or you are adding in the D6 damage. Otherwise, why would 4-6 even be on the chart? A powerfist can only kill 1 model per attack, and marines having a single wound makes this a somewhat unnecessary calculation to the chart.

 Carnage43 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
A WS3, S3 model [ImpyGuard Sergeant, Sister Superior], attacking a Space Marine, has a

13.6% chance of inflicting a wound with each sword attack
17.1% chance of inflicting a wound with each axe attack
17.2% chance of inflicting a wound with each mace attack

These weapons are statistically so close to each other that I don't know why they bothered to differentiate them.

This represents a Sister Superior in melee [WS3, S3, A1]. The Veteran Sister Superior gains one additional attack [WS3, S3, A2]. This assumes that no additional attack is granted for having a pistol and a close combat weapon.

Edit: I added powerfists to it.

I feel like your powerfist math is screwy somewhere, or you are adding in the D6 damage. Otherwise, why would 4-6 even be on the chart? A powerfist can only kill 1 model per attack, and marines having a single wound makes this a somewhat unnecessary calculation to the chart.

The Veteran Superior/ImpyGuard Sergeant gets 2 attacks, and can therefore get 2d3 damage. I figured it was relevant considering the fact that the new Primaris Marines are W2

Here, I did a casualty count assuming each marine has 1 wound.




Edit: I added in unarmed attacks.

It's fairly apparent that if you paid points for the extra attack, you should also pay for a power weapon. Otherwise, you might just want to stick with your fists, unless the price of a chainsword is dirt cheap. More importantly, you shouldn't pay for the extra attack, or the power weapon.

I'd Just like to add in regards to the power fields of various power weapons, perhaps they function slightly differently on each style?

Power Swords functioning with a fine energy cutting/slicing/stabbing blade edge/tip.

Power Mauls expelling energy on impact in a concussive force like that of a thunder hammer.

Power Axe being in between with a penetrating edge but also some of the explosive force of the maul.


Power Fists able to throw bone shattering punches, ripping tanks apart and crushing foes in their grip. Personally my favorite, violently disrupting any solid matter it touches... Beautiful.



I'm certain giant gloves were not an effective weapon compared to swords and what not IRL.
Come on guys, too many times I've read through these forums and everyone seems to lack the creativity to think outside the box a little.
Not everything in the far future is so clear cut and has to follow what to us now is "common" knowledge........ Orks with super mind powers to make stuff work the way they think it does... Need I say more?

I like how people try to compare medieval weapons to thier sci-fi alternatives. Yes in 1268 a maul would be better against armour than a sword ... but you try hitting a modern battle tank with either and you'll notice they have a very similar effect irl.

One thing to note is powerswords are wasted against 5/6+ armour which is actually fullfy because even without the force field the physical blade would be a deadly weapon.

The in game utility of maces may actually be attacking vehicles,, against the toughness 6 we can expect to be much more common wounding on 4's versus 6's is gonna be big.

The interesting thing is to figure out what the maul is actually effective against.

vs t3 3+
s4 sword - 0.556 wounds
s5 axe - 0.444 wounds
s6 mace - 0.417 wounds

vs t4 3+
s4 sword - 0.417 wounds
s5 axe - 0.444 wounds
s6 mace - 0.333 wounds

vs t5 3+
s4 sword - 0.278 wounds
s5 axe - 0.333 wounds
s6 mace - 0.33 wounds

vs t6 3+
s4 sword - 0.278 wounds
s5 axe - 0.222 wounds
s6 mace - 0.25 wounds

vs t7 3+
s4 sword - 0.278 wounds
s5 axe - 0.222 wounds
s6 mace - 0.167 wounds

vs t8 and t9 3+
s4 sword - 0.139 wounds
s5 axe - 0.222 wounds
s6 mace - 0.167 wounds

vs t10 3+
s4 sword - 0.139 wounds
s5 axe - 0.111 wounds
s6 mace - 0.167 wounds

So, the axe seems to be the most stable, a bit better vs meq than the sword and the mace seems to have a niche of dealing with tougher models with high invuls or without saves. And surprisingly, swords seem to be best at dealing with transports and most monsters.

BTW what about lances?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 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?

Given that people are arguing that the Swords should still be unable to penetrate as a result...

No, that's not what anybody is saying.

What is being said is that the weapon design will still have an effect on the penetration qualities of the weapon.

Swords are worse at penetrating armor than specialized anti-armor weapons, like maces and hammers. Thus it stands to reason that if you apply space magic to both types of weapons(swords and hammers), the difference will still be the weapon's basic design.

A power sword will still be capable of cutting through armor, just not as effectively as a power maul or hammer will. This is pretty basic physics, even when you add space magic you still have swords.


If a power field truly made the weapon design irrelevant, then we'd still be back in the old 3rd-5th edition rules where all power weapons were identical.

Alcibiades wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
A WS3, S3 model [ImpyGuard Sergeant, Sister Superior], attacking a Space Marine, has a

13.6% chance of inflicting a wound with each sword attack
17.1% chance of inflicting a wound with each axe attack
17.2% chance of inflicting a wound with each mace attack

These weapons are statistically so close to each other that I don't know why they bothered to differentiate them.

Because people who like certain weapons (like World Eaters being modeled with Axes of all shapes and sizes) didn't like feeling gimped because of it. Now that they are statistically so close together, you're free to model how you like and not feel bad about it.

 andysonic1 wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
A WS3, S3 model [ImpyGuard Sergeant, Sister Superior], attacking a Space Marine, has a

13.6% chance of inflicting a wound with each sword attack
17.1% chance of inflicting a wound with each axe attack
17.2% chance of inflicting a wound with each mace attack

These weapons are statistically so close to each other that I don't know why they bothered to differentiate them.

Because people who like certain weapons (like World Eaters being modeled with Axes of all shapes and sizes) didn't like feeling gimped because of it. Now that they are statistically so close together, you're free to model how you like and not feel bad about it.

If that was the sole reason, then they might as well have had a single profile. But that's not all. It makes them very similar, gives some illusion of choice (which is nice) and also, it does help for edge cases. So while it will not matter in 99% of fights, it does allow you to gear for that one specific threat, even if it's just by a few percent. It's a good balance. Not so different that one is a clear winner, but different enough for specific fights.

Basically it boils down to, there's not really that much difference between them, so take what you want.

Well, axes are 33% more effective than maces vs meq, 20% more effective than swords vs bikers. But 25% less effective than swords vs t6 monsters. They're almost twice as effective as swords and 1.5 times as effective as maces vs naughts and russes. Though, it's not very important cause killing tough vehicles with non-specialised weapons in mellee is going to be MUCH harder.

Anywayz, axes seem to still be the go-to weapon cause they're less affected by invuls than swords, still kill meq better than swords and maces, deal with bikers a tad better than swords.

Another thing is to check effectiveness between chainswords, power weapons and pfists vs certain targets.

For example, let's look at a regular marine sarge trying to take down a 3+ armored target.

t4:
Chainsword - 0.33
p.sword - 0.55
p. axe - 0.59
p. mace - 0.44
p. fist - 0.69 (not counting d3)

t5:
Chainsword - 0.22
p.sword - 0.37
p. axe - 0.44
p. mace - 0.44
p. fist - 0.55 (not counting d3)

t6:
Chainsword - 0.22
p.sword - 0.37
p. axe - 0.3
p. mace - 0.33
p. fist - 0.55 (not counting d3)

Ofc, higher invuls move the balance back to maces and chainswords. Unsurprisingly, fists and axes seem to be the best option vs targets w/o invuls.

The mace seems to solely exist to be better against things that are T3 with poor save (sooooo gaunts, guardians, and guardsmen... and gdemons.), but then so is the chainsword which is at least cheaper. against the stats for the starweaver (T5 Sv4+) it also winns out at .44~ vs the axe at .416~. so I guess it's the go to against Deldar and clowns.

According to my calculations, the sword becomes better against 2+ save, at worse tying with the axe at toughness 4,5, 8, and 9, so long as it has a inv save of 5 or less

the chainsword is PROABLY cheaper. for alll we know GW has decided that dedicated melee weapons are all inheriantly balanced and will have the same cost. (they've done stupdier things in the past)

Probably, yes. If I were to guess, the reason why all the melee weapons are so familiar in actual wound output is because that way, if you play open/narrative you can put any of them on your model and not have a massive advantage for picking one in particular (although the fist would still win just due to having 1d3 damage).

Also, Kooaei, do those numbers account for the fist hitting at -1 ws?

I wonder if Lightning Claws and Fenrisian Claws will still be a thing.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

Also, Kooaei, do those numbers account for the fist hitting at -1 ws?

yep

We also have no info on lances. But they are...an odd concept. Noone really fights with a lance in cc. It's just for the impact damage. So, in this regard rough rider lances seem to be the most appropriate.

Okay good

Edit: I could see lances being similar to the striking scorpion's mandiblasters, causing a mortal wound during a charge.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I wonder if Lightning Claws and Fenrisian Claws will still be a thing.

Probably. Too many assault Terminator squads out there for them to ditch them. Whether Space Wolves will continue to get their special Wolfiness +1 on all their weapons remains to be seen.

 Karhedron wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I wonder if Lightning Claws and Fenrisian Claws will still be a thing.

Probably. Too many assault Terminator squads out there for them to ditch them. Whether Space Wolves will continue to get their special Wolfiness +1 on all their weapons remains to be seen.

With all marines now under 1 codex, I think it'll be too difficult trying to differentiate and will be dropped. What's to stop a person saying that their Assault Termies are actually WGT with twin Wolf Claws instead of Lightning Claws? Wolf claws will vanish, though Frost Blades and Axes may stay, or may just get rolled into Power Weapons and Chainswords.