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.

 Melissia wrote:
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"

'by the logic presented here'

Nah. Nobody's said or implied that, you're just deliberately refusing to address the actual argument. You can keep going 'NO UR DUMB' if random insults make you feel better.

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

The stats say otherwise. I already compared the three power weapons available to S3 characters against both MEQs and GEQs, and they're virtually identical. You need to get into extreme edge cases to start seeing differences of more than 17%.

But please. Show some examples where power mauls, power axes, and power swords do drastically different things. I'd genuinely love to see a niche for each of them.

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

Okay, so you're accusing someone of lying because you don't know what you're talking about. Power weapons used to ignore armor saves altogether and didn't affect your S. The current power sword profile (no change to S, AP-3) is closest to that.

 catbarf wrote:
Power weapons used to ignore armor saves altogether and didn't affect your S

I've been playing 40k for longer than you have, I already know this. That's not how they work in this edition, and the addition of power axes and power mauls still, no matter how much you try to get around it, do different things than power swords.

 Melissia wrote:
I've been playing 40k for longer than you have, I already know this. That's not how they work in this edition

Then what on earth was this supposed to mean?

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:
I already compared the three power weapons available to S3 characters against both MEQs and GEQs, and they're virtually identical.

And I and others have already demonstrated situations where they are in fact useful, which you completely ignored because it destroys the nonsense that you call an argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
Then what on earth was this supposed to mean?

That previous editions are irrelevant and they are choosing the profile they like the most / that matches their army's strengths the most.

Quite obviously, given that I explicitly said that on the same page.

Power swords, mauls, and axes were all different weapons with different rules, until they were merged into a single entry in 3rd edition. So splitting them back up was more of a return to how they used to be.

 Melissia wrote:
And I and others have already demonstrated situations where they are in fact useful, which you completely ignored because it destroys the nonsense that you call an argument.

You, and others, gave examples of units where the power maul is objectively the best choice. Not where it occupies a particular tactical niche distinct from the others. That's the problem here: You haven't demonstrated any reason to take a power sword or power axe on a S3 character; you've demonstrated reasons to take power mauls, and the others aren't worth taking.

I haven't ignored anything. Do you get something out of peppering your posts with those obnoxious quips about how you're DESTROYING your opponents with facts and logic?

 catbarf wrote:
You, and others, gave examples of units where the power maul is objectively the best choice, Not where it occupies a particular tactical niche distinct from the others.

Your argument is getting desperate, here.

That something is objectively better in a specific situation explicitly means that is its tactical niche. Your argument is the equivalent of "just because assault marines are objectively better in assault than tactical marines doesn't mean they have a tactical niche!"

Lascannons are objectively better against tough, heavily armored tanks. Doing damage to them is the tactical niche of lascannons.

Just like power mauls have a niche use in armies that can best utilize them, same with power swords and power axes.

 Melissia wrote:
Your argument is getting desperate, here.

Oh no! I'm getting desperate! Somebody help me!

 Melissia wrote:
That something is objectively better in a specific situation explicitly means that is its tactical niche. Your argument is the equivalent of "just because assault marines are objectively better in assault than tactical marines doesn't mean they have a tactical niche!"

Lascannons are objectively better against tough, heavily armored tanks. Doing damage to them is the tactical niche of lascannons.

Just like power mauls have a niche use in armies that can best utilize them, same with power swords and power axes.

Again, this is a false equivalence, because you're comparing weapons having different utility within the same army to weapons that have different utility in different armies.

Meltaguns and lascannons have different tactical niches within any army that can take both: You take meltaguns for close-range, mobile, anti-tank, and you take lascannons for long-range, static anti-tank.

Power mauls and power swords do not have different tactical niches in a S3 army: You take power mauls, and simply don't take power swords.

Having a different tactical niche means having several equally valid choices. Do I take meltaguns and try to get up close, or do I take lascannons and try to stay at range? That's a meaningful choice that shapes how your army plays.

Having one good choice, and a couple of choices that do the same thing but worse, is not a 'tactical niche'. Do I take a power maul and be effective, or do I take a power sword and be less effective? That's not a meaningful choice.

Give me a reason why you'd willingly take a power sword over a power maul in a Sisters army. What is the tactical niche in your army that the power sword fills?

 catbarf wrote:
Again, this is a false equivalence, because you're comparing weapons having different utility within the same army to weapons that have different utility in different armies.

Plenty of people would say you should never, ever take missile launchers because lascannons are flat out better for all things tank-hunting, and that frag missiles are bad. And plenty of weapons are more useful in some armies and less useful in others. Ironically enough, many Sisters players abhor using flamers and view them as objectively inferior, even though they're quite popular among the Tau, and even have a non-insignificant use among space marines or guard.

 catbarf wrote:

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

Okay, so you're accusing someone of lying because you don't know what you're talking about. Power weapons used to ignore armor saves altogether and didn't affect your S. The current power sword profile (no change to S, AP-3) is closest to that.

Only for certain editions - 3 through 5, I believe? I seem to recall the split back to sword/axe/maul/lance happened in 6th edition.

They have worked differently for at least as long as they have worked the way you claim they have.

If we're going to shift how they work, I'd actually advocate going to how they worked in 1st/2nd edition over 3rd/4th/5th edition - a fixed S, that doesn't rely on the user. Off the top of my head, a power sword was S5, for example - and with that one change, you start the process of making units such as Howling Banshees usable again. It also meant you had options such as using a power axe with one or two hands, with a different profile for each.

I'd accept a slight tweak to that approach - use the weapon's S or the user's, whichever was higher, but keep the weapon's save modifier - but trying to claim the game has only used one approach for power weapons prior to the current one is a claim made in bad faith (or ignorance).

This argument is pointless because the roots of contention stem from a fundamental disagreement in game theory. Which is to say that if your priority is having a streamlined game with balanced choices and clear cut rules you will favor simple concepts like grouping all generic special weapons into a single category called "power weapon" and calling you today, where as if you're someone who's in it for the role playing in the flavor you will appreciate the extra granularity that comes with individual weapons having special rules and diferring statistics and whatnot. This debate is no different from the debate regarding whether or not armor facings and templates should have been removed from the game or not.

I will agree though that ultimately the deferring rules among power weapons provide merely the illusion of choice rather than any actual tactical decision. Because 40K is a math-based game you end up in a situation where one of the three weapons is going to always be statistically better than the rest depending on the unit. Power mauls are going to ALWAYS be better on strength 3 and strength 4 models then claws and swords, so ultimately what tactical decision are you actually making by taking the maul? Why even bother giving you the option? The counter argument will be that taking other weapons might look cool or fit the fluff of your army better, to which my counter to that would be that if all power weapons shared the same rules you could put literally any weapon you want on the model and say that for rules purposes it is a power weapon.

Tactical decisions aren't really tactical decisions when one choice is flat out better than the rest.

 Dysartes wrote:
Off the top of my head, a power sword was S5, for example - and with that one change, you start the process of making units such as Howling Banshees usable again.

They should get something like "banshee blades" anyway. The Eldar sharing Imperial weapons is weird, should have gone when they switched to starcannons and stuff.

 Melissia wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Again, this is a false equivalence, because you're comparing weapons having different utility within the same army to weapons that have different utility in different armies.

Plenty of people would say you should never, ever take missile launchers because lascannons are flat out better for all things tank-hunting, and that frag missiles are bad. And plenty of weapons are more useful in some armies and less useful in others. Ironically enough, many Sisters players abhor using flamers and view them as objectively inferior, even though they're quite popular among the Tau, and even have a non-insignificant use among space marines or guard.

Missile launchers have the tactical niche of flexibility. Historically they've overpaid for that flexibility, and their anti-infantry ability hasn't usually been worth the trade-off, but they can do things that lascannons don't. There's a balance issue for sure, but there is still a distinction inherent to their design. I can make an argument for when you'd rather use a missile launcher over a lascannon, because one is not simply more powerful than the other in all circumstances.

What's the tactical niche of a power sword in a Sisters army? Why would you take one over a power maul?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

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

Okay, so you're accusing someone of lying because you don't know what you're talking about. Power weapons used to ignore armor saves altogether and didn't affect your S. The current power sword profile (no change to S, AP-3) is closest to that.

Only for certain editions - 3 through 5, I believe? I seem to recall the split back to sword/axe/maul/lance happened in 6th edition.

They have worked differently for at least as long as they have worked the way you claim they have.

If we're going to shift how they work, I'd actually advocate going to how they worked in 1st/2nd edition over 3rd/4th/5th edition - a fixed S, that doesn't rely on the user. Off the top of my head, a power sword was S5, for example - and with that one change, you start the process of making units such as Howling Banshees usable again. It also meant you had options such as using a power axe with one or two hands, with a different profile for each.

I'd accept a slight tweak to that approach - use the weapon's S or the user's, whichever was higher, but keep the weapon's save modifier - but trying to claim the game has only used one approach for power weapons prior to the current one is a claim made in bad faith (or ignorance).

That's all completely fair. My bewilderment was at the vague accusation that seemed to imply that saying S-/AP-3 is closest to the pre-distinct-profiles rules (which would be 3rd-5th) would be lying.

I'm completely fine with power weapons having different profiles, if those profiles give you real choice. The current ones don't; you're either using what you have modeled or you're taking the clear optimal choice for your army. Melissia keeps bringing up weird analogies to CSM, or between different kinds of ranged weapon that have vastly different profiles, that aren't analogous at all.

 Trickstick wrote:
...The Eldar sharing Imperial weapons is weird...

Is it possible that using one statline might not have to refer to literally sharing Imperial weapons?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
...The Eldar sharing Imperial weapons is weird...

Is it possible that using one statline might not have to refer to literally sharing Imperial weapons?

I know, but thematically it was weird having lasguns instead of shuriken weapons.

 Trickstick wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
...The Eldar sharing Imperial weapons is weird...

Is it possible that using one statline might not have to refer to literally sharing Imperial weapons?

I know, but thematically it was weird having lasguns instead of shuriken weapons.

What's wrong with lasblasters/Hawk's Talons/scatter lasers/bright lances?

 Melissia wrote:

 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.

What do you mean better for my army? My "power weapons" are both AP-3 one is +1 S and the other is +1 A. Removing the option of power mauls and power axes is good for Nids and Orks that rely foremost on toughness and little on save. I don't really care which one is the one that remains, as long as nobody has to rip their models apart I'm happy. Now you seem firm in your support of power mauls, would you then agree that it would be a good suggestion to someone that they rip apart their S3 models armed with power swords and instead arm them with power mauls? Would you then not also agree that this is an unfortunate part of wanting the best rules clashing with constructing the models how you like? A really tight balance mostly removes the issue, unfortunately GW has chosen to reduce the internal balance of Necron wargear options in CA19 and I don't believe they have endevoured to improve this balance for other factions have they? This means I can no longer say "they're good for different things, take whichever one suits you army more" instead it's "take voidblade or voidscythe, the extra price is almost always worth paying compared to the hyperphase sword or warscythe".

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Not all gun statlines benefit all armies equally

And therefore 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".

No, it benefits Orks and has historically been the way power weapons have worked, only improving armour penetration, not strength. They are all more or less the same and I think people should have freedom in terms of what power weapon they give their unit without it impacting rules. I don't think that same freedom should extend to special weapons, maybe that's because I started in an edition where it didn't matter and then suddenly everybody had to rip their models apart or proxy. Maybe people that buy kits today build the right power weapon options, maybe GW will eventually get around to internally balancing power weapons for every faction.

@ Catbarf:

Looking at an 10 succesful hits from S3 model (like for example IG Commanders or Commissars) for power sword/ power axe/power maul
vs. Cultists/Hormagaunts (T3, 6+): 5/6.67/6.67 => Axe/Maul
vs. Guard (T3/5+): 5/6.67/5.56 => Axe
vs. Tau Firewarriors(T3/4+): 5/5.56/4.44 => Axe
vs. Sisters (T3/3+/6++): 4.17/4.44/3.33 => Axe
vs. Boyz (T4/6+): 3.33/5/6.67 => Maul
vs. Necron Warriors (T4/4+): 3.33/4.17/4.44 => Maul
vs. Marines (T4/3+): 2.78/3.33/3.33 => Axe/Maul

The same if you play Catachan:
vs. Cultists/Hormagaunts (T3, 6+): 6.67/6.67/8.33 => Maul
vs. Guard (T3/5+): 6.67/6.67/6.94 => Maul
vs. Tau Firewarriors(T3/4+): 6.67/5.56/5.56 => Sword
vs. Sisters (T3/3+/6++): 5.56/4.44/4.17 => Sword
vs. Boyz (T4/6+): 5/6.67/6.67 => Axe/Maul
vs. Necron Warriors (T4/4+): 5/5.67/4.44 => Axe
vs. Marines (T4/3+): 4.17/4.44/3.33 => Axe


Now what do I want to say with that? It shows me that each of the power weapons has a niche, depending on the armies I want to fight or better: against the type of units I expect my power weapon wielding dudes to get into CC with. Also if I have some Catachans in my army (and a lot of people have), another weapon might be better suited for the task. For mere mortals it is roughly the Axe vs. T3, the Maul vs. T4, for Catachans the Maul vs. T3 with bad saves, the Sword vs. T3 with good saves and the Axe vs. T4.
Also while weaker in all categories on normal guardsmen, the sword allows to use the Heirlooms of conquest (and look cooler). Also note that for the T3 models: it is more likely that the sisters will want to get into melee than the Cultists, Guardsmen or Cultist, so for Catachans the maul might actually be the inferior choice.


EDIT: Niche reading here: it might differ WHICH units I want my dudes get into melee with or WHICH units I expect want to get into melee with my dudes.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
What's wrong with lasblasters/Hawk's Talons/scatter lasers/bright lances?

I was talking about back before shuriken weapons, when Eldar used lasguns. Even if they had the same stats, Shuriken weapons are more thematic.

 Melissia wrote:

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".

Hrm, I'd argue the differences between these melee weapons are substantially less relevant, and the instances in which the differences make significant difference are far more niche. The lack of any difference in Range/RoF/Damage means that it's pretty much entirely dictated by the underying statlines, and in most instances you'll find two or all three are nearly identical in terms of damage output, or that there's one clear option that's significantly worse than the other nearly identical options. There is a reason that the thought given to the type of power weapon unit leader is equipped with is generally given far less concern (and far more often left to rule of cool) than what heavy weapon they're toting.

Looking at say, MEQ vs MEQ fighting, the Mace is clearly the worst option, while the Axe and Sword are within 10% of each others damage output. In GEQ vs GEQ fighting, the Sword is clearly the worst option while the Mace and Axe are within about 5% of each other. For MEQ vs GEQ fighting, the Axe and Sword have identical damage output with the mace being about 5% better. It's only when we look at GEQ vs MEQ that we see real meaningful differences, with the Axe being the highest performer ahead of the Sword by about 20% and the Mace by 33%, but this is also by far the worst situation with the lowest damage output of all 4 scenarios.

At least in this set of scenarios, of infantry fighting other infantry, we see that in general, there's two identical or nearly identical options and one clearly inferior option, and one choice that's solid in every single matchup (the axe) and one that's generally suboptimal across the board (the Mace).

if we want to look at anti-tank/monster matchups, with regards to MEQ's, the Axe will give you the best average output. The sword will be better against T6/7 but appallingly bad against T8/9, and there's no situation where you'd take the Mace over the axe. With regards to GEQ's, the Axe is your best bet unless engaging T8/9 where the Mace comes into its own, but at that point, if you're fighting T8/9 with GEQs in melee, none of these options are terribly capable or intended for that sort of role.

Are there differences? Yes. Do they matter? Not a whole lot most of the time (particularly next to the above listed ranged weapons), and the differences are most pronounced only where they are at their least effective. If they were all just merged to use the Axe profile would anything be substantially hurt/lost? Not really.




That said, I'd also argue the Missile Launcher has been a redundant weapon for several editions, doing no job particularly as well as other weapons, but costing more towards Lascannon pricing, and their general lack of presence on tables when other options are available speaks volumes

Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Catbarf:

Looking at an 10 succesful hits from S3 model (like for example IG Commanders or Commissars) for power sword/ power axe/power maul
vs. Cultists/Hormagaunts (T3, 6+): 5/6.67/6.67 => Axe/Maul
vs. Guard (T3/5+): 5/6.67/5.56 => Axe
vs. Tau Firewarriors(T3/4+): 5/5.56/4.44 => Axe
vs. Sisters (T3/3+/6++): 4.17/4.44/3.33 => Axe
vs. Boyz (T4/6+): 3.33/5/6.67 => Maul
vs. Necron Warriors (T4/4+): 3.33/4.17/4.44 => Maul
vs. Marines (T4/3+): 2.78/3.33/3.33 => Axe/Maul

The same if you play Catachan:
vs. Cultists/Hormagaunts (T3, 6+): 6.67/6.67/8.33 => Maul
vs. Guard (T3/5+): 6.67/6.67/6.94 => Maul
vs. Tau Firewarriors(T3/4+): 6.67/5.56/5.56 => Sword
vs. Sisters (T3/3+/6++): 5.56/4.44/4.17 => Sword
vs. Boyz (T4/6+): 5/6.67/6.67 => Axe/Maul
vs. Necron Warriors (T4/4+): 5/5.67/4.44 => Axe
vs. Marines (T4/3+): 4.17/4.44/3.33 => Axe


Now what do I want to say with that? It shows me that each of the power weapons has a niche, depending on the armies I want to fight or better: against the type of units I expect my power weapon wielding dudes to get into CC with. Also if I have some Catachans in my army (and a lot of people have), another weapon might be better suited for the task. For mere mortals it is roughly the Axe vs. T3, the Maul vs. T4, for Catachans the Maul vs. T3 with bad saves, the Sword vs. T3 with good saves and the Axe vs. T4.
Also while weaker in all categories on normal guardsmen, the sword allows to use the Heirlooms of conquest (and look cooler). Also note that for the T3 models: it is more likely that the sisters will want to get into melee than the Cultists, Guardsmen or Cultist, so for Catachans the maul might actually be the inferior choice.


EDIT: Niche reading here: it might differ WHICH units I want my dudes get into melee with or WHICH units I expect want to get into melee with my dudes.

Getting into this analysis, I think generally it tracks with what I've said above. Most of the time, either all 3 will perform very similarly or there will be two identical or nearly identically performing options (rounding to the same wound value or near ~10% damage variance), with one that clearly does not perform as well, with the Axe generally showing the best across the board. Not in every case, but most. Enough that it seems kinda silly to differentiate these weapons most of the time in a game where the far more cogent concern should be the gunline across the board is capable of blowing 50 dudes off the table turn 1

Give the subject of this thread is FW indexes hopes, can we move the theoretical discussion on the merits of different power weapons somewhere else?

Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Catbarf:

Looking at an 10 succesful hits from S3 model (like for example IG Commanders or Commissars) for power sword/ power axe/power maul
vs. Cultists/Hormagaunts (T3, 6+): 5/6.67/6.67 => Axe/Maul
vs. Guard (T3/5+): 5/6.67/5.56 => Axe
vs. Tau Firewarriors(T3/4+): 5/5.56/4.44 => Axe
vs. Sisters (T3/3+/6++): 4.17/4.44/3.33 => Axe
vs. Boyz (T4/6+): 3.33/5/6.67 => Maul
vs. Necron Warriors (T4/4+): 3.33/4.17/4.44 => Maul
vs. Marines (T4/3+): 2.78/3.33/3.33 => Axe/Maul

The same if you play Catachan:
vs. Cultists/Hormagaunts (T3, 6+): 6.67/6.67/8.33 => Maul
vs. Guard (T3/5+): 6.67/6.67/6.94 => Maul
vs. Tau Firewarriors(T3/4+): 6.67/5.56/5.56 => Sword
vs. Sisters (T3/3+/6++): 5.56/4.44/4.17 => Sword
vs. Boyz (T4/6+): 5/6.67/6.67 => Axe/Maul
vs. Necron Warriors (T4/4+): 5/5.67/4.44 => Axe
vs. Marines (T4/3+): 4.17/4.44/3.33 => Axe


Now what do I want to say with that? It shows me that each of the power weapons has a niche, depending on the armies I want to fight or better: against the type of units I expect my power weapon wielding dudes to get into CC with. Also if I have some Catachans in my army (and a lot of people have), another weapon might be better suited for the task. For mere mortals it is roughly the Axe vs. T3, the Maul vs. T4, for Catachans the Maul vs. T3 with bad saves, the Sword vs. T3 with good saves and the Axe vs. T4.
Also while weaker in all categories on normal guardsmen, the sword allows to use the Heirlooms of conquest (and look cooler). Also note that for the T3 models: it is more likely that the sisters will want to get into melee than the Cultists, Guardsmen or Cultist, so for Catachans the maul might actually be the inferior choice.


EDIT: Niche reading here: it might differ WHICH units I want my dudes get into melee with or WHICH units I expect want to get into melee with my dudes.

Thank you for taking the time to do the math on that.

My point is that while there is a difference between them, it's negligibly small in most cases, and not something you can reasonably take into consideration when assembling your models, given how sensitive it is to the target profile of each army.

Consider a power fist: Investing the points to take a power fist on an officer is a significant decision, especially for Catachans. It's expensive, but it's a substantial upgrade to killing power in close combat. I can start to think about how I'm going to get him into melee, and what I'm going to target to take most advantage of his high (well, higher) strength, high AP, and multiple damage. I don't know exactly what army I'll be going up against, but most every army has some high-T, multi-wound vehicles, monsters, or heavy infantry that it can beat up. Worst case, it's great for walloping T3/T4 characters. I can plan around this.

But I am never going to hash out the numbers and conclude- while assembling the models- that I need a power axe rather than a power maul to take advantage of a 20% improvement against Guard and a 33% improvement against Sisters. I don't know what army I'll be playing against, so I can't take advantage of their differing optimal targets, nor would it really matter given how minor those differences are. The maul is typically on par with the axe and costs a point less, so that's the winner and that's what I give to everybody.

In practice, if you're low on points or building a non-combat character you stick with the default CCW. If you want to invest a few points to make him a lot better at fighting, you take a power maul. If you have points to blow and want a real slugger, you take a power fist. That's the meaningful choice you have in melee weapon selection, with clear trade-offs at each level that you know at the model-building/listbuilding stage. The subdivision within the 'power weapon' category is generally only about finding which of the three is optimal for whoever's taking it.

If power swords, mauls, and axes were rolled into a single profile, it wouldn't change anything about how I build my armies. That's what I'm getting at. It's not an impactful choice, even if it does have minor statistical consequences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
Give the subject of this thread is FW indexes hopes, can we move the theoretical discussion on the merits of different power weapons somewhere else?

I know it looks off-track, but the original context for this discussion is the preservation of legacy options in the indices. Some feel strongly that FW should retain the variety of melee weapon types available, while others feel it should be condensed to a smaller set that match what the models are typically equipped with.

PenitentJake wrote:

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.

That’s the thing, the lack of unit specific stratagems hurts FW almost as much as generally poor base stats for price (with many exceptions, admittedly). At the very least, do you think all the LR specific stratagems would apply to the malcador, and all the BB ones apply to the marcharius, for example. But that’s the thing, will this make FW units viable competitive choices to build a force around? Or will the stay mediocre casual options.

 Eipi10 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

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.

That’s the thing, the lack of unit specific stratagems hurts FW almost as much as generally poor base stats for price (with many exceptions, admittedly). At the very least, do you think all the LR specific stratagems would apply to the malcador, and all the BB ones apply to the marcharius, for example. But that’s the thing, will this make FW units viable competitive choices to build a force around? Or will the stay mediocre casual options.

I'm not sure it's the lack of stratagems that really make them suffer so much as the lack of special rules. All the Guard tanks were pretty mediocre until the Leman Russ got Grinding Advance, and suddenly that propelled it to a much more usable state.

The Malcador effectively has half the output of a Russ, so it can't keep up. The Macharius is actually in a better place, oddly, as it has two guns and each one does D6 damage instead of D3, so it still has almost twice the damage output as a Russ, but it's still too expensive for what it provides.

With the 40K team now handling the rules entirely, and hopefully putting more effort into them, I could see these units start to hold their own. They might not be quite as competitively optimal if they don't benefit from all the same stratagems as their codex counterparts, but they'd at least be fine for casual play.

Since we're talking strength and ap, I'd like to see the ae profile of the fellblade accelerator cannon increased to str16 from the current str14. It would make it more effective against t8 (read: knights) without affecting effectiveness against other targets. Accelerator cannon is imperial for rail gun and a rail gun of that size should be able to tear through heavy armour.

A return of legacies of ruin would be nice as well, I particularly miss "Veteran of the Scouring ". Would be great against marines.

 vict0988 wrote:
and has historically been the way power weapons have worked

Actually historically it didn't work that way. That was a change made a few editions in to 40k's life, not something 40k did from the start.

I'm having a hard time taking this discussion seriously at this point. I'm out.

@ Vaktathi & catbarf: looking at my last post a second time and reading your comments I have to say you convinced me that the difference in output between the power weapons is small enough that the relevance of three different profiles is questionable. Especially since most units that really want to go into CC have usually better options (power fist or whatever SM have like thunderhammers etc.) and those that are typically fitted with power weapons will likely not do a lot in CC either (due to low survivability, strength and number of attacks). So I agree that one could as well skip the different profiles and let everyone use whatever powerweapon he likes with the same. Finally the Death Korps can get their Power shovel!

I think what buggers me more (and I assume I'm not alone with that) is what profile would be fair for a generalized power weapon. As others have said: what is a good power weapon profile for a marine is not a good profile for others like IG, Sisters and other S3 models. And the same goes for the targets.


Back to the Index hopes:
I'm not sure I mentioned this here already, but a while back I had a threat on possible ways to make Malcador/Macharius worthwile between LR and Baneblades. And like back than I would really wish for at least one of them to have a tactical Gimmick instead of only turning the firepower and price screws.
Potential Gimmicks being:
- unconventional weaponry (like the Carnodon which can take Volkites or 5 Multilasers... I don't say the latter is useful, but it's funny). Volkites, Gravguns, Inferno Guns, whatever. Something the LR/BB just can't have
- command abbility (a Macharius ordering arround Malcadors could be funny. Or a commander for your infantry that is much harder to remove than your flimsy T3 dudes, even if he's a massive investment)
- transport capacity, small, but unconventional (like transporting a single cyclops, or something like 5 man, but without the AM restriction)
- ramming ability (no clue how to reflect that. maybe mortal wounds on a successful charge? The Baneblade would still be superior in CC, but you could at least finish off that almost dead sqad with your Malcador)
- something like a forcefield, 6++ for infantry withing 3''

=> I don't think anything of that would make them superior to the LR/BB, who would still be the more effective Price/Power combination, but it would give you some reason to take them other than "the model looks cool!"

How about 40k rules for the Leman Russ Incinerator? I would like to know what a volkite demi-culverin looks like.

Yeah, would be nice too... but the LR is soooo versatile already. Besides the weak spot in my heart for the Malcador and Macharius, if they bring the LR Incinerator into 40k they hopefully really have a look, that it does not make the Hellhound inferior.

 catbarf wrote:
I'm not sure it's the lack of stratagems that really make them suffer so much as the lack of special rules. All the Guard tanks were pretty mediocre until the Leman Russ got Grinding Advance, and suddenly that propelled it to a much more usable state.

The Malcador effectively has half the output of a Russ, so it can't keep up. The Macharius is actually in a better place, oddly, as it has two guns and each one does D6 damage instead of D3, so it still has almost twice the damage output as a Russ, but it's still too expensive for what it provides.

With the 40K team now handling the rules entirely, and hopefully putting more effort into them, I could see these units start to hold their own. They might not be quite as competitively optimal if they don't benefit from all the same stratagems as their codex counterparts, but they'd at least be fine for casual play.

Guard artillery gets a big boost from its specialist detachments and stratagems if you have the CP, FW artillery has no such help. Also the Macharius is twice the cost of a russ and has few secondary weapons, I wouldn't say it's in a better place at all.

Either way, you think that FW will get special rules and maybe points changes to put them inline with their GW counterparts, except for stratagem support to keep them from having that competitive edge? That would be fair, stratagems add a lot of bloat to the game and there are already too many imo. It's just that these are supposed to be true codices, and stratagems are the big thing that separates codex from non-codex armies. I would almost think it more likely that they give FW stratagems sooner than they give them special rules.