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.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I don't think there's even a slight hope of getting an update to the R&H rules.

No models, no rules.

I hope you're wrong. I just spent $100 on cultists and blood pact heads before I heard the news. Oh well, I guess plan B will be some cultist mobs for my chaos marines.

 Dysartes wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Imagine thinking buying melee weapons for an 8 point model that hits on a 4+ is a good idea in any fashion to begin with.

Imagine being so arrogant as to think that your theory outweighs other people's practical experience with their army...

Seeing as Power Weapons haven't been practical on the Sergeants of other armies that like melee even more, I'm more than right to say that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:
You can buy power weapons for 4pt Guardsmen, and it can be quite effective.

No it's not effective. It's that same mentality that went to the arguments that Guard had one of the most effective melee death stars in 7th. Spoiler Alert: they don't!

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I don't think there's even a slight hope of getting an update to the R&H rules.

No models, no rules.

I hope you're wrong. I just spent $100 on cultists and blood pact heads before I heard the news. Oh well, I guess plan B will be some cultist mobs for my chaos marines.

Well r&h will either get fully revised or dies again and will be reincarnated into renegade guard or traitor guard like it allready did once.

Also , you can still Run R&H kinda, by running AL and heavily modifying kitbashing and count as.
Would even reflect rather well on the guerilla tactics employed by the bloodpact.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I don't think there's even a slight hope of getting an update to the R&H rules.

No models, no rules.

I hope you're wrong. I just spent $100 on cultists and blood pact heads before I heard the news. Oh well, I guess plan B will be some cultist mobs for my chaos marines.

Well r&h will either get fully revised or dies again and will be reincarnated into renegade guard or traitor guard like it allready did once.

Also , you can still Run R&H kinda, by running AL and heavily modifying kitbashing and count as.
Would even reflect rather well on the guerilla tactics employed by the bloodpact.

I'm hoping they get revised in the fw books. Don't want to lose my marauders.

Also was just looking at the old IA13. Damn it gw, how'd you feth things up in the transition to 8th so bad.

Office political and communication Breakdown when one Division lost it's head at the Same time.

Perfect storm really.

Yeah guess that explains all the fw indexes.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Office political and communication Breakdown when one Division lost it's head at the Same time.

Perfect storm really.

Exactly. As far as I know they had VERY limited time to actually translate the new statlines.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Sounds boring

It sounds reasonable. What the hell is the point in having 40 options if only 2 of them are viable?

$$ for GW. Coolness factor for my models. Continued use of models I've all ready got.
Look, if I'm willing to pay for options you consider useless & GW/FW is willing to make, stock, and sell them to me? What's your beef in that process?

Mostly that they don't need to be listed as separate options. I mean, do you honestly care that the Power Maul and Lance have rules when the Power Sword and Axe rules basically cover all your bases? If anything, that helps save your conversions from being useless at some point.

Dysartes wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Imagine thinking buying melee weapons for an 8 point model that hits on a 4+ is a good idea in any fashion to begin with.

Imagine being so arrogant as to think that your theory outweighs other people's practical experience with their army...

I'm pretty sure the different power weapons each have specific pros/cons....that's why I have which model armed with which weapon. My Bloody Rose benefit waaay more from mauls than swords, plus it looks fething badass. I wish I could field Zeraphim armed with them instead of swords. they would look even more pissed off than they already are!

I get it Slayer, you want minimal options so you can have this mythical "balance" that it so desperately needs. But you are forgetting one thing, GW isnt interested in your version of balance, if they were, your golden utopia of balance would happen. All the while removing things from the game that most players(I've met) want.

Why can't you understand that not every player is identical to you and emperor forbid someone have a differing opinion...operative word opinion. I can understand that you would like the game boiled down to a math problem and the more variables you have the harder it is to balance the equation, but not everyone wants that. GW will do and continue to do what hits the most bullet points for the most players.

Once again GW needs to come out with a stupid "pared down" tourney list where all of the psyker powers are same rules, all weapon types are the same rules and all of the stratagems are the same for all armies, then & only then can GW even come close to achieving your version of "balance".

Seriously man, power Mauls may not be great on Marines, but they're awesome outside of Marines.

Marines aren't the end-all be-all of balance, and the game should not be exclusively balanced around everyone playing Marines.

Those "4 points on an 8 point model" (nine points, actually) on Bloody Rose superiors change them from 4 S3 attacks at AP-1, to 3 S5 attacks at AP-2. This makes the attack go from wounding marines on a 5+ to wounding marines on a 3+, goes from marine armor being 4+ to marine armor being 5+. And probably also gains additional hits on to-hit rolls of 6.

On Celestians, at's 4 points on a 10 point model, with all of the above being true, plus 3+ to-hit with rerolls.

Power Mauls are legit useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, let's math it out.


In other words, BEFORE things like The Passion or miracle dice or strategems are taking in to account, this squad will kill a 5-man MEQ squad with shooting+charge on average every single turn with the power maul and two storm bolters. Not bad for a 58 point setup. With The Passion and miracle dice and so on, they'll put a serious dent even on primaris squads.

Power Mauls are legit useful, just not necessarily within YOUR army.

Fun fact, WB can make even more funy things happen.
Exalted possession + Power maul equals 5 S7 attacks. Fun to add in the curzed corzious, (because why not,) would make for e a pretty badass smash Lord.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Fun fact, WB can make even more funy things happen.
Exalted possession + Power maul equals 5 S7 attacks. Fun to add in the curzed corzious, (because why not,) would make for e a pretty badass smash Lord.

You're bringing in Relics to the equation. We are talking about the Maul itself. By your logic Bolt Pistols are awesome because they can be S5 AP-2 D2.

That's not what's being done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Seriously man, power Mauls may not be great on Marines, but they're awesome outside of Marines.

Marines aren't the end-all be-all of balance, and the game should not be exclusively balanced around everyone playing Marines.

Those "4 points on an 8 point model" (nine points, actually) on Bloody Rose superiors change them from 4 S3 attacks at AP-1, to 3 S5 attacks at AP-2. This makes the attack go from wounding marines on a 5+ to wounding marines on a 3+, goes from marine armor being 4+ to marine armor being 5+. And probably also gains additional hits on to-hit rolls of 6.

On Celestians, at's 4 points on a 10 point model, with all of the above being true, plus 3+ to-hit with rerolls.

Power Mauls are legit useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, let's math it out.

Spoiler:

Squad of 5 Celestians with two storm bolters and a superior with maul, bolt pistol, boltgun, shooting, charging, and fighting an MEQ squad. Assume they're near a Canoness, but without miracle dice or the passion (which would greatly enhance performance, but would make me need to put more effort in to mathhammering).

Shooting before the charge:
14 shots, 9.33 hits, additional 3.11 hits on the reroll for 12.44 hits average.
6.22 wounds average.
2.07 failed armor saves.

They charge. Overwatch might take out one celestian, but probably not.

In the assault phase, 12 attacks from the normal celestians, 8 hits, 2.67 additional on the reroll for 10.67 hits. 3.56 wounds. 1.78 failed saves.

4 attacks from the superior, 2.67 hits, 0.89 from the reroll for 3.56 net hits. 2.37 wounds, 1.58 failed save.

Total of 5.43 average failed saves from the MEQ before they get anything other than overwatch.

In other words, BEFORE things like The Passion or miracle dice or strategems are taking in to account, this squad will kill a 5-man MEQ squad with shooting+charge on average every single turn with the power maul and two storm bolters. Not bad for a 58 point setup. With The Passion and miracle dice and so on, they'll put a serious dent even on primaris squads.

Power Mauls are legit useful, just not necessarily within YOUR army.

What you fail to take into account is Axes are putting out the same number of wounds (AKA one Marine) in what is a specific trait for one army. That doesn't justify the existence of another Power Weapon stat just because you want it. Under your logic we need to bring back the Power Lance.

Quite frankly we don't need that nor do we need more bloat and false choices in the game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That doesn't justify the existence of another Power Weapon stat just because you want it

Just because you don't want it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to exist.

I don't want Chaos Marines, therefor they don't deserve to exist.

Your crusade against the power maul is absurd and ridiculous.

Also, we SHOULD get access back to the Power Lance. Good point.

Random ideas to fix Vanquisher:

-Bring Back Beast Hunter Shells or give it the option to Fire 2 Variants
-Make it flat Damage 4

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That doesn't justify the existence of another Power Weapon stat just because you want it

Just because you don't want it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to exist.

I don't want Chaos Marines, therefor they don't deserve to exist.

That's an absurd comparison. Chaos Marines fulfill a specific and distinct role in the CSM army. Power mauls are one of about nineteen different flavors of 'better melee weapon' that are all functionally interchangeable, aside from minor statistical variations based on intended target.

A Guard character can take a power maul, power axe, or power sword. Against a Marine, a single hit averages 0.33, 0.33, or 0.28 wounds respectively. Against a Guardsman, it's 0.56, 0.67, or 0.5. You don't start seeing meaningful differences between the weapons until you start looking at really extreme outliers, like models with high toughness and no save.

Instead of prior editions' easy-to-remember special rule for power weapons (ignores armor saves) that conveys an intuitive role and gives you freedom in modeling, you have three different melee statlines that ultimately do the same thing in most circumstances and are all less specialized than that one, generic profile was. Meanwhile GW has three times as many weapon profiles to balance, and since one of them (power maul) is ever-so-slightly better than the others it becomes the competitive standard.

So, yeah, I don't have any particular vendetta against power mauls, but I think they're a microcosm of where the design philosophy has gone wrong. I'd rather go back to a generic 'power weapon' profile if it meant power weapons did something beyond 'hit harder' and the game was better balanced as a result.

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That doesn't justify the existence of another Power Weapon stat just because you want it

Just because you don't want it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to exist.

I don't want Chaos Marines, therefor they don't deserve to exist.

Your crusade against the power maul is absurd and ridiculous.

Also, we SHOULD get access back to the Power Lance. Good point.

What was wrong with having one "power weapon" statline and not being punished for modeling your power weapons "wrong" and/or not swapping them out with edition changes/Codex changes and/or not having Codexes that don't have access to all the power weapons because the kit doesn't come with a sword, a spear, an axe, and a mace?

Are these going to be true codexes for FW? Will they have stratagems and special rules that incorporate them into their army? More points changes? Will FW actually be competitive for once?

 gmaleron wrote:
Random ideas to fix Vanquisher:

-Bring Back Beast Hunter Shells or give it the option to Fire 2 Variants
-Make it flat Damage 4

Unfortunately, to make the Vanquisher cannon viable as a single shot weapon, it's going to need to basically be made into a mini-Shadowsword methinks.

A basic doubleshot Battlecannon averages 3.11 wounds against a T7 3+sv target and 2.33 against a T8 3+sv target with BS4+

For comparison, a theoretical S16 AP-4 Damage D6 weapon, utilizing Russ doubleshots, is averaging 2.91 wounds against either target. That's the level the weapon would need buffing to just to get somewhere in between the average damage of the *generalist* weapon. To make it stand out in an AT role, without adding any special rules, maybe change damage to D3+3 to give it an average damage output of 4.16 wounds (or flat damage 6 if you want to be spicy and go for average 5 damage). I think at that point it should feel hilariously broken, and in many respects it is, but that's also just where the game is at

 Eipi10 wrote:
Are these going to be true codexes for FW? Will they have stratagems and special rules that incorporate them into their army? More points changes? Will FW actually be competitive for once?

At this point, the only people who know work in the Design Studio - and they ain't talkin'.

Or, if you have a hard time competing with the generalist on average, go for reliability and make it a true "vehicle sniper".

+2BS, wounds on 2+, ignores armor and invulnerability saves, flat 3 damage. All against vehicles. These bonuses representing a high AP shell with integrated tracking.
You would get 2 x 5/6 x5/6 x 3 = 4.166 damage vs all vehicles without a FNP and with very little variance. The BC would still have the higher potential damage and the upper hand when you can ensure a high number of shots, but the Vanquisher would be the reliable option.

I expect that by the time these books come out, even more of Forge World's 40k line will have been retired, and only whatever is still being produced will get any attention at all. Heck, it might be we'll only need one volume at that point. And that volume will mostly be full of scarcely-distinguishable Contemptor variants.

 catbarf wrote:
Chaos Marines fulfill a specific and distinct role in the CSM army

Of course the Chaos Space Marine army fills a specific role in the Chaos Space Marine army, that's tautological. And that doesn't mean I like it. And since I don't like it, it doesn't deserve to exist, as the argument against the power maul goes.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
What was wrong with having one "power weapon" statline

Because not all power weapon statlines benefit all armies equally, and the game shouldn't be balanced around "only what Space Marine players like to take" no matter how often my fellow Space Marine players whine bitch and moan about other people also getting stuff useful to them.

So, which statline should be used for power weapons? +2s, -1ap, which benefits your average S3 armies the most but people angrily argue is useless to S4 armies? +1s, -2ap, which benefits your average S4 armies the most? +0s, -3ap, which is primarily useful against heavy armor like power and terminator armor, but is vastly overpriced for most S3 armies? Something else?

 Eipi10 wrote:
Are these going to be true codexes for FW? Will they have stratagems and special rules that incorporate them into their army? More points changes? Will FW actually be competitive for once?

In most cases, there won't need to be strategems in these indexes because pretty much every model in the book belongs to a fully developed army that already has strategems. If some of the fringe "Armies" like SoS or R&H appear in these books, hopefully there will be strategems for them, as they don't already have strats.

Now I know that there are some strats that are unit specific, and you could argue that there's a place for those, even when the unit in question belongs to a fully developed range. But I would doubt it; FW models, while cool, tend not to be the work horses of the army- though the SoB Repressor once had that status.

 Melissia wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Chaos Marines fulfill a specific and distinct role in the CSM army

Of course the Chaos Space Marine army fills a specific role in the Chaos Space Marine army, that's tautological. And that doesn't mean I like it. And since I don't like it, it doesn't deserve to exist, as the argument against the power maul goes.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
What was wrong with having one "power weapon" statline

Because not all power weapon statlines benefit all armies equally, and the game shouldn't be balanced around "only what Space Marine players like to take" no matter how often my fellow Space Marine players whine bitch and moan about other people also getting stuff useful to them.

So, which statline should be used for power weapons? +2s, -1ap, which benefits your average S3 armies the most but people angrily argue is useless to S4 armies? +1s, -2ap, which benefits your average S4 armies the most? +0s, -3ap, which is primarily useful against heavy armor like power and terminator armor, but is vastly overpriced for most S3 armies? Something else?

+0 AP-3. The price is irrelevant to what is best for which army, the fact that power swords are bad on S3 at 4pts does not mean that you need a better alternative in the form of a power maul at 4 pts, the power sword just needs to come down in pts. I don't really care if we have a bazillion options as long as they are all very closely linked in balance such that I never get recommended to rip my models apart and such that I don't have to tell someone they'd be better off in games of 40k if they ripped their models apart. Ripping models apart is not part of the hobby, great if they're all so balanced that they do slightly different things and people want to magnetize or buy enough models to play with different wargear in different games, but if it's power maul all the time on a faction then something has gone wrong.

 Melissia wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
What was wrong with having one "power weapon" statline

Because not all power weapon statlines benefit all armies equally, and the game shouldn't be balanced around "only what Space Marine players like to take" no matter how often my fellow Space Marine players whine bitch and moan about other people also getting stuff useful to them.

So, which statline should be used for power weapons? +2s, -1ap, which benefits your average S3 armies the most but people angrily argue is useless to S4 armies? +1s, -2ap, which benefits your average S4 armies the most? +0s, -3ap, which is primarily useful against heavy armor like power and terminator armor, but is vastly overpriced for most S3 armies? Something else?

Not all gun statlines benefit all armies equally, Space Marines can get more use out of meltaguns than Battle Sisters because Drop Pods exist. Does this mean Battle Sisters' meltaguns should have different statlines from Marines'? Or is there a point at which giving people unique statlines just for the sake of uniqueness is just more bloat? Maybe if you were to, I don't know, lift the whole differential pricing thing where Guardsmen can get their guns more cheaply because their BS is worse? Or factor the fact that Space Marines have S4 into the cost of the Space Marine body? Not all armies pay the same for the platforms that can take power weapons.

 vict0988 wrote:
+0 AP-3

Ah, so basically "the statline my army likes the best is the only statline that matters", got it.

I disagree. If we're going to cram every single power weapon in to one statline, we should use S+1, AP-2, which is just generally more useful all around for everyone.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Not all gun statlines benefit all armies equally

And therefor we must get rid of all of them except for one, right?

Because that's the argument being presented here. "All power weapons should be the exact same, and should be the statline that only really benefits Marines".

So you think it is fair that lets say GK got their dreadnoughts nerfed, because of a dreadnought type they don't even hace access to or the ability to make dreadnoughts characters, which they again can't do?

Stuff should be pointed for each codex based on testing and how it performs in the army, and not based on how good the stuff is in armies with different rules.

Melissia wrote:Of course the Chaos Space Marine army fills a specific role in the Chaos Space Marine army, that's tautological. And that doesn't mean I like it. And since I don't like it, it doesn't deserve to exist, as the argument against the power maul goes.

I said Chaos Marines fill a distinct role in the CSM army list, which isn't tautological. They're basic infantry with better resilience, better firepower at range, and smaller footprint than Cultists. They're not a carbon-copy of another CSM Troops choice with -1WS and +1S, which would make them redundant.

And I don't think you understand what the argument is here, like at all, if you actually seriously think it's 'I don't like it therefore it shouldn't exist'. Redundancy, unnecessary complexity, false choices, and lack of specialization are not 'I don't like it'.

 Melissia wrote:
Ah, so basically "the statline my army likes the best is the only statline that matters", got it.

I disagree. If we're going to cram every single power weapon in to one statline, we should use S+1, AP-2, which is just generally more useful all around for everyone.

They chose the profile that most closely matches what power weapons did in earlier editions, and gives them more of a distinct role than 'hurt everything better'.

You're also just ignoring where they said that if this isn't as useful for one faction, it should be cheaper for them, just like how it works for guns...?

 Melissia wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Not all gun statlines benefit all armies equally

And therefor we must get rid of all of them except for one, right?

Because that's the argument being presented here. "All power weapons should be the exact same, and should be the statline that only really benefits Marines".

If we have three or four guns that all DO THE SAME THING then yes, we should be consolidating them. A meltagun, grenade launcher, and autocannon do not all do the same thing; the differences in range, type, and damage add more variety and define roles better than just exchanging S for AP.

There's only one 'Plasma gun'. There aren't three different versions of plasma gun that Imperials can take, with incremental variations in S and AP but otherwise exactly the same, used the same way, with statistically near-equivalent results against 90% of targets.

If someone were arguing that chainswords, power swords, and power fists should all be the same profile, then you'd have a valid point, because that's the kind of variation we have with ranged weapons. They're not. You don't.

Hellblasters have three different plasma guns, which are different from regular plasma guns.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Hellblasters have three different plasma guns, which are different from regular plasma guns.

Great example. You have the shortest-ranged, Assault type, which can move and fire at full effectiveness, but is the weakest. Then the standard, which is Rapid Fire and has longer range in addition to higher strength. And then the heavy variant, which is Heavy, only gets one shot, and has the longest range and highest strength.

So the variables that are adjusted are type, rate of fire, range, and strength, none of which are redundant to one another, and all impact the role of the guns. You do not want to stay back at maximum range or shoot high-Toughness targets with the Assault variant, nor do you want to be on the move or shooting medium infantry with the Heavy variant. I can write out a bunch of scenarios where the three variants will have markedly different performance from one another. If I'm building an army list, I can weigh the pros and cons and pick the gun that is best suited for how I want the Hellblasters to operate. That's a meaningful choice.

If the option were just to trade a point of S for a point of AP, it wouldn't be a meaningful choice, because both of those directly affect lethality and ultimately come out as a wash against most targets. That's all the different power weapons do, and that's why they're redundant to one another. When I'm picking a power weapon, I don't think at all about the role I expect it to perform, since they all do the same thing. I just take the power maul because I'm Guard and it's the best.

 catbarf wrote:
I said Chaos Marines fill a distinct role in the CSM army list, which isn't tautological.

And I was saying the entire Chaos Marine army I don't like, therefor by the logic presented here of "I don't like it, therefor it shouldn't exist"

 catbarf wrote:
And I don't think you understand what the argument is here

That I think your argument is dumb doesn't mean I don't understand it. It just means I think it's dumb.

Because I most certainly do your argument is dumb.

 catbarf wrote:
Redundancy, unnecessary complexity, false choices

Power axes and power mauls are none of those things. They're all useful in different situations, reasons, and units.

 catbarf wrote:
They chose the profile that most closely matches what power weapons did in earlier editions

I disagree, and would assert that if they claim that they're lying.

 catbarf wrote:
If we have three or four guns that all DO THE SAME THING

Good thing Power Mauls and Power Axes don't do the exact same thing. And, thus, your argument is as invalid as it is asinine.

Power Mauls, Power Axes, and Power Swords serve three different purposes, just the same as a krak missile, autocannon, and lascannon all have different purposes. Might as well say "these are all anti-tank choices therefor get rid of all of them and just have lascannons".