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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


I was going to agree with you, but upon second thought, I actually don't think I do.

Weapons, and particular the type of a cc weapon are one of the more defining visual characteristics of a character, and so people like to have discrete options there. I mean, I get the "power weapon is a power weapon" thing from 3rd and 4th too. But I think having interesting options to give your hero is ultimately good.

The problem is that they're ultimately not actually that interesting, "wound you on 4's and you save on 6's vs wound you on 3's and you save on 5's vs the option you're never going to take because it's objectively inferior to the other two" isn't really worth splitting out into separate options, especially when most characters only have few attacks and may only swing once or twice a game. Yes there are circumstances in which the differences can be made more profound, but they're still niche enough to not really justify needing the different types power weapons.

Ah, but my argument isn't really about the utility of the options. It's about the experience of explicitly defining your characters image. I agree that the actual in-game difference is minimal, and could easily just be "power weapon". But I think giving the player the explicit choice is honestly more "choice for the sake of choice", and I think in some places that's justified.

I know, it's weird. This is coming from my experience with customization in video games though, in which cosmetics are literally doing nothing, and people still love having the explicit choice of customizing their stuff.

If it were just Characters, I might agree, but such options aren't limited to just Characters, but often are made available to entire units, even units that are Troops in many armies. There can be multiple different kinds of melee weapons, Character's have always had several options, stuff like Powerfists and Lightning Claws, that offered radically different and much more meaningful options and flavor, without needing to care about exactly what form the blade or head of the weapon took. I think getting into whether someone is wielding a sword vs an axe is pretty pointless in a game where they may be facing a tank company as easily as a lance of BattleMechs or a horde of gibbering nightmares that aren't wearing armor anyway.

EDIT: also, personally at least, I'm a much greater fan of just being able to stick whatever I think looks coolest on and not have to deal with the micro-minuatae of "well, this edition X are better, I should break Y off and convert it to an X" or "hrm, I need to cut 1pt somewhere but the only way to do that is to exchange Weapon A for Weapon B because they're now slightly different costs for something that makes minimal difference on the table but will require spending the time to convert the model" or even worse "welp, looks like the Z option I built the model with is no longer legal..."

Also for reference we did get a generic version of a datasheet and nobody complained. Remember when everyone wanted their own Scout Captain that operated like Tellion? We got the Phobos Captain, and literally none of the Ultramarines players had their world's collapse.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


I was going to agree with you, but upon second thought, I actually don't think I do.

Weapons, and particular the type of a cc weapon are one of the more defining visual characteristics of a character, and so people like to have discrete options there. I mean, I get the "power weapon is a power weapon" thing from 3rd and 4th too. But I think having interesting options to give your hero is ultimately good.

The problem is that they're ultimately not actually that interesting, "wound you on 4's and you save on 6's vs wound you on 3's and you save on 5's vs the option you're never going to take because it's objectively inferior to the other two" isn't really worth splitting out into separate options, especially when most characters only have few attacks and may only swing once or twice a game. Yes there are circumstances in which the differences can be made more profound, but they're still niche enough to not really justify needing the different types power weapons.

Ah, but my argument isn't really about the utility of the options. It's about the experience of explicitly defining your characters image. I agree that the actual in-game difference is minimal, and could easily just be "power weapon". But I think giving the player the explicit choice is honestly more "choice for the sake of choice", and I think in some places that's justified.

I know, it's weird. This is coming from my experience with customization in video games though, in which cosmetics are literally doing nothing, and people still love having the explicit choice of customizing their stuff.

But nobody is saying get rid of the bits. In fact we are saying use even more bits to represent that power weapon however you want to add individual flavor. Want it to be a Halberd? Do that. Want a giant claymore? Do that. Want a little gladius? Go nuts. It's not the cosmetic options that are being proposed to be consolidated. In fact they are being proposed to be opened up. It's the stats that need to be consolidated.

SecondTime wrote:
We had one table flip and four quits over just conscript armies in 8th ed. I told the guy don't play the other guy with your conscript army, but he wouldn't listen...

Letting that get through testing (among other things) is why I don't give them many props for 8th.

damn, you werent kidding when you said your store was toxic.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
We had one table flip and four quits over just conscript armies in 8th ed. I told the guy don't play the other guy with your conscript army, but he wouldn't listen...

Letting that get through testing (among other things) is why I don't give them many props for 8th.

damn, you werent kidding when you said your store was toxic.

Why shouldn't someone be able to play their Conscript army though?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
We had one table flip and four quits over just conscript armies in 8th ed. I told the guy don't play the other guy with your conscript army, but he wouldn't listen...

Letting that get through testing (among other things) is why I don't give them many props for 8th.

damn, you werent kidding when you said your store was toxic.

Why shouldn't someone be able to play their Conscript army though?

never said they shouldn't, but flipping a table or quitting a game just because of the list your opponent brought is pretty toxic imo.
Ive seen plenty of complaining online about certain armies (''ill just refuse to play against marines'') but ive never actually seen someone act on it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


I was going to agree with you, but upon second thought, I actually don't think I do.

Weapons, and particular the type of a cc weapon are one of the more defining visual characteristics of a character, and so people like to have discrete options there. I mean, I get the "power weapon is a power weapon" thing from 3rd and 4th too. But I think having interesting options to give your hero is ultimately good.

The problem is that they're ultimately not actually that interesting, "wound you on 4's and you save on 6's vs wound you on 3's and you save on 5's vs the option you're never going to take because it's objectively inferior to the other two" isn't really worth splitting out into separate options, especially when most characters only have few attacks and may only swing once or twice a game. Yes there are circumstances in which the differences can be made more profound, but they're still niche enough to not really justify needing the different types power weapons.

Ah, but my argument isn't really about the utility of the options. It's about the experience of explicitly defining your characters image. I agree that the actual in-game difference is minimal, and could easily just be "power weapon". But I think giving the player the explicit choice is honestly more "choice for the sake of choice", and I think in some places that's justified.

I know, it's weird. This is coming from my experience with customization in video games though, in which cosmetics are literally doing nothing, and people still love having the explicit choice of customizing their stuff.

If it were just Characters, I might agree, but such options aren't limited to just Characters, but often are made available to entire units, even units that are Troops in many armies. There can be multiple different kinds of melee weapons, Character's have always had several options, stuff like Powerfists and Lightning Claws, that offered radically different and much more meaningful options and flavor, without needing to care about exactly what form the blade or head of the weapon took. I think getting into whether someone is wielding a sword vs an axe is pretty pointless in a game where they may be facing a tank company as easily as a lance of BattleMechs or a horde of gibbering nightmares that aren't wearing armor anyway.

EDIT: also, personally at least, I'm a much greater fan of just being able to stick whatever I think looks coolest on and not have to deal with the micro-minuatae of "well, this edition X are better, I should break Y off and convert it to an X" or "hrm, I need to cut 1pt somewhere but the only way to do that is to exchange Weapon A for Weapon B because they're now slightly different costs for something that makes minimal difference on the table but will require spending the time to convert the model" or even worse "welp, looks like the Z option I built the model with is no longer legal..."

I 100% get your position, I just think that there's a critical mass of fans that actively get something out of that stuff, and it largely doesn't impact the game in a bad way. Also, smaller games can be played that aren't company sized, and it's ok to have a little more texture.

The bloat of Bolt weapons though? I could go on all day about that $%#.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Like, did you forget about all the complainers about modifiers to begin with? We're now at the pendulum balance of nothing over -1 to hit because GW is infinitely wise.
On a larger scale you can create more granularity with -1 to hit Eldar and then the extra sneaky ones after that with an additional -1 to hit. Modifiers themselves aren't a problem, but they are on the D6 no matter how many people say "Oh you can get the same effect....", except not without a bunch of garbage Dakka×3 on a BS5+ becoming basically almost BS4+. Is it terribly necessary?

The scheme you were replying to would provide more granularity than straight penalties on a higher die count.

You keep tilting at this dice granularity windmill because you're trying to solve these problems in the sort of clunky way GW does it. There are many, many, many ways to affect a die roll besides a base value and layered bonuses/penalties, let alone effecting the desired outcome without modeling it as a die roll modifier.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


I was going to agree with you, but upon second thought, I actually don't think I do.

Weapons, and particular the type of a cc weapon are one of the more defining visual characteristics of a character, and so people like to have discrete options there. I mean, I get the "power weapon is a power weapon" thing from 3rd and 4th too. But I think having interesting options to give your hero is ultimately good.

The problem is that they're ultimately not actually that interesting, "wound you on 4's and you save on 6's vs wound you on 3's and you save on 5's vs the option you're never going to take because it's objectively inferior to the other two" isn't really worth splitting out into separate options, especially when most characters only have few attacks and may only swing once or twice a game. Yes there are circumstances in which the differences can be made more profound, but they're still niche enough to not really justify needing the different types power weapons.

Ah, but my argument isn't really about the utility of the options. It's about the experience of explicitly defining your characters image. I agree that the actual in-game difference is minimal, and could easily just be "power weapon". But I think giving the player the explicit choice is honestly more "choice for the sake of choice", and I think in some places that's justified.

I know, it's weird. This is coming from my experience with customization in video games though, in which cosmetics are literally doing nothing, and people still love having the explicit choice of customizing their stuff.

I see your point, but I think your example works against your argument: Videogame cosmetics offer you the opportunity to change your appearance without affecting stats, allowing players to customize to their heart's content. When those cosmetics are tied to ingame stats, though, then you get the 'but the stats are great' hodgepodge that everyone admits looks awful but is necessary for ingame performance. And then you have to decide between looking cool or having a gear combo that actually works, and that's no fun.

The old power weapon rules, if we're using that as an example, let you customize your model pretty much however you wanted. Does he have a melee weapon of some variety with electrical bits on it? Cool, power weapon. Is it ornate? Cool, master-crafted. Go nuts.

I can't remember who it was that brought up the Horus Heresy in one of these discussions, but it's a great example of how this choice goes- the weapons are pretty similar, but the power axe is objectively the best. If you want your character to be a fencer or knight and give him a power sword, you're actively choosing a suboptimal weapon and get penalized for it. So everyone in the Heresy is running around with an axe because it's the best, and your cosmetic choices are curtailed.

I'm not saying we should have generic profiles with no choices, but the choices should be about battlefield purpose and capability. Taking 3rd-5th as an example, choosing between footslogging, a jump pack, or a bike was significant- and you were free to model your jump pack as wings, or your bike as a dinosaur mount or centaur body or whatever. Choosing between a CCW, a power weapon, or a power fist was also significant, and all three offered a lot of flexibility in modeling. In 9th, choosing between a power sword, axe, or maul isn't much of a choice; they all do the same thing, one's generally the best, and you're locked into strict WYSIWYG.

Edit: To be clear, like I said in an earlier post I am totally cool with that level of granularity for a small-scale game like Kill Team, where those sorts of differences matter in personal combat. At the scale of a company-sized engagement, the broader picture of what capabilities are enabled by the wargear is more important.

^I disagree about the game customization thing. If you raise the action by one abstraction level, the point is that theres a "push button" choice to interact with, and the game value or lack thereof is beside the point. Choosing the type of power weapon is essentially a cosmetic choice in the grand scheme of the game, but only providing an infinitely mutable "power weapon" item actually denies you the act of explicit choice for your character.

I understand that's a little counterintuitive, but does the argument make sense? The fact that you can model whatever you want is separate. It takes a while and you gotta paint stuff and you have to really commit to a model to actually achieve your aesthetic goal. The choice of power weapon interaction is more focused on character building at the listbuilding stage, as listbuilding is it's own major point of engagement to the hobby.

It only makes sense if both there are no other options but power weapons and the weapons themselves are distinct enough to fufill distinct roles. Neither of those things are true.

The choice of power weapon generally is all going after the same target and one of those power weapons are going them better then the others. Something else like a powerfist shifts your optimal target to a different band of targets. Choosing between power weapon and power fist is an actual choice that optimizes your loadout for different jobs. A sword or a mace? No.

 Lance845 wrote:
It only makes sense if both there are no other options but power weapons and the weapons themselves are distinct enough to fufill distinct roles. Neither of those things are true.

The choice of power weapon generally is all going after the same target and one of those power weapons are going them better then the others. Something else like a powerfist shifts your optimal target to a different band of targets. Choosing between power weapon and power fist is an actual choice that optimizes your loadout for different jobs. A sword or a mace? No.

I don't believe you understood the post.

I understood it. I was saying that having 3 weapons that do the same job but one does it better isnt a choice. Its the illusion of choice.

Vaktathi wrote:I never found generic power weapons to be flavorless or an issue in that regard, especially when most of the non-powered equivalents weren't differentiated, and I much preferred just being able to stick whatever weapon I thought looked coolest on instead of having to worry about which weapons did what and what weapon combo is now illegal or underpowered and whatnot.

Absolutely. I hold my hands up that I was initially very excited about different weapon profiles, but seeing what it ended up doing (causing everyone to use axes because they were the strongest option in most circumstances) put me off that.

People should be taking axes because axes look cool. Not scouring for axeheads because they'll give you a gameplay advantage on Sergeant #3. Without a gameplay reason to incentivise certain choices, you're giving that freedom of representation to the player.

Plus, think about the options that opens up - now with all these Primaris heroes with their new "power WEAPONS", you now have explicit support for customising your Captains, Librarians, Bladeguard, Judicars, etc etc with things that AREN'T swords! Maces, axes, halberds, lances, flails, etc

Lance845 wrote:But nobody is saying get rid of the bits. In fact we are saying use even more bits to represent that power weapon however you want to add individual flavor. Want it to be a Halberd? Do that. Want a giant claymore? Do that. Want a little gladius? Go nuts. It's not the cosmetic options that are being proposed to be consolidated. In fact they are being proposed to be opened up. It's the stats that need to be consolidated.

Exactly.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:I never found generic power weapons to be flavorless or an issue in that regard, especially when most of the non-powered equivalents weren't differentiated, and I much preferred just being able to stick whatever weapon I thought looked coolest on instead of having to worry about which weapons did what and what weapon combo is now illegal or underpowered and whatnot.

Absolutely. I hold my hands up that I was initially very excited about different weapon profiles, but seeing what it ended up doing (causing everyone to use axes because they were the strongest option in most circumstances) put me off that.

People should be taking axes because axes look cool. Not scouring for axeheads because they'll give you a gameplay advantage on Sergeant #3. Without a gameplay reason to incentivise certain choices, you're giving that freedom of representation to the player.

Plus, think about the options that opens up - now with all these Primaris heroes with their new "power WEAPONS", you now have explicit support for customising your Captains, Librarians, Bladeguard, Judicars, etc etc with things that AREN'T swords! Maces, axes, halberds, lances, flails, etc

Lance845 wrote:But nobody is saying get rid of the bits. In fact we are saying use even more bits to represent that power weapon however you want to add individual flavor. Want it to be a Halberd? Do that. Want a giant claymore? Do that. Want a little gladius? Go nuts. It's not the cosmetic options that are being proposed to be consolidated. In fact they are being proposed to be opened up. It's the stats that need to be consolidated.

Exactly.

funny you mention primaris as primaris with their more restricted loadouts come out ahead that way. model a primaris captain with an axe and it's not a boig deal because it's weapon will be treated like a sword etc. it's lead to some fun conversions out there that I've seen

BrianDavion wrote:
funny you mention primaris as primaris with their more restricted loadouts come out ahead that way.

Only if you KNOW that a Primaris Captain can't have a power axe.

If someone didn't have that knowledge, they might see a Primaris Captain with a power maul and assume that they were actually armed with that weapon. I'm totally on board with how the Captain has a mono-loadout, but it shouldn't be called "power sword" or "master-crafted power sword". It should be "power weapon".

So, in concept, the Captain does a great job, but it'd be even easier if they just used a generic "power weapon" stat.

model a primaris captain with an axe and it's not a boig deal because it's weapon will be treated like a sword etc. it's lead to some fun conversions out there that I've seen

Again - it's not a big deal after you explain how it's a proxy - like how I could model a Tactical Marine with a giant sniper rifle, and say it's a count-as lascannon to represent it's single shot strength - but it doesn't change how there's initial confusion for someone not familiar with what you're doing.

Whereas a simple "power weapon" stat means that ANY power weapon has the same stats, not needing to worry about what you're trying to proxy it as. Or, what about cases of models which have a partially limited power weapon selection - such as Sororitas Sister Superiors, who have access to both power mauls and swords, but not axes. If I assemble one with an axe, how can I expect someone to understand what I'm doing?

 Lance845 wrote:
I understood it. I was saying that having 3 weapons that do the same job but one does it better isnt a choice. Its the illusion of choice.

But having 3 gives you a bigger chance that when ever GW rewrites the rules for them one of the weapons may get a good rule set. Or if a nerf comes in to a specific weapon type, often not even caused by your army, you can switch to something that maybe at least costs fewer points.

If all weapons have the same rule and GW decides that nemezis weapons should be bad, then all the melee you pay points for is bad, and there is zero chance for it to be fixed till two years later considering the speed with GW produces and rethinks updates.

It also doesn't cover the different interactions. heavy version of bolt weapons may be bad for an army like white scars or SW that try to get as close as possible, but it is not going to be bad for armies that do not want to engage in melee. Same with with assault versions of bolt weapons.

BA players with their buff to wounding maybe don't want to buy fists or hammers for their sgts, like every other chapter that does melee. So cheaper power weapons are better for them. The thing about options being an illusion is only true if someone thinks that all marines are more or less the same army, that all play the same way.

model a primaris captain with an axe and it's not a boig deal because it's weapon will be treated like a sword etc

only it is not GW seems to be thinking about the game, as a gravis captin and a gravis captin with a long range gun are two separate entries in the SM codex for 9th ed. Same with chaplains and chaplains on bikes etc


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion 793401 10975540 wrote:

funny you mention primaris as primaris with their more restricted loadouts come out ahead that way. model a primaris captain with an axe and it's not a boig deal because it's weapon will be treated like a sword etc. it's lead to some fun conversions out there that I've seen

until GW decides to give a powerful relic or weapon option to your army, and suddenly the cool ax is a thunder hammer or powerfist in some games. And at best it just allows people to make mistakes giving gear to units that can't take it, and worse it lets people play dumb when they cheat on unit load outs.

 Vaktathi wrote:


EDIT: also, personally at least, I'm a much greater fan of just being able to stick whatever I think looks coolest on and not have to deal with the micro-minuatae of "well, this edition X are better, I should break Y off and convert it to an X" or "hrm, I need to cut 1pt somewhere but the only way to do that is to exchange Weapon A for Weapon B because they're now slightly different costs for something that makes minimal difference on the table but will require spending the time to convert the model" or even worse "welp, looks like the Z option I built the model with is no longer legal..."

I'm a fan of playing with the models I have, with the loadout I gave them. If what I modeled is not the most effective combination of options at the moment, amen, I couldn't care less. I'd rather have 3 slightly different options with X being the best take in 7th, Y in 8th, and W in 9th than a single Z option.

For example I'm cool with claws, swords, axes, fists and hammers, and I'd hate to see them reduced to just 1-2 options.

 Lance845 wrote:
I understood it. I was saying that having 3 weapons that do the same job but one does it better isnt a choice. Its the illusion of choice.

Negative, because

A: The power weapon choices could be better balanced.
B: Upgrade potential for the weapons can be different.
C: There is still potential for different power weapons to be better against different targets.
D: Some people will still choose aesthetics over function.
E: Even if one choice is "obvious" a mechanical choice is still there.


Not really my original point, but just tangentially:
Going back to older editions, during 2nd a sword allowed you to force a reroll of an opponents attack dice, making it a more defensive weapon. If we used the old Wound charts, a Power Maul would wound T4 on a 2+. There's two options for equalizing the power weapons instead of having "auto-axe". Also, when a pistol anc CC weapon gave a model an extra attack, it helped balance with Lightning Claws as they would only gain a second attack if they were paired with another Lightning Claw.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I understood it. I was saying that having 3 weapons that do the same job but one does it better isnt a choice. Its the illusion of choice.

Negative, because

A: The power weapon choices could be better balanced.
B: Upgrade potential for the weapons can be different.
C: There is still potential for different power weapons to be better against different targets.
D: Some people will still choose aesthetics over function.
E: Even if one choice is "obvious" a mechanical choice is still there.


Not really my original point, but just tangentially:
Going back to older editions, during 2nd a sword allowed you to force a reroll of an opponents attack dice, making it a more defensive weapon. If we used the old Wound charts, a Power Maul would wound T4 on a 2+. There's two options for equalizing the power weapons instead of having "auto-axe". Also, when a pistol anc CC weapon gave a model an extra attack, it helped balance with Lightning Claws as they would only gain a second attack if they were paired with another Lightning Claw.

Your memory is hilarious. Nobody was taking dual Lightning Claws over the AP2 of the Axe, and Mauls were so much cheaper than the Claws even those were taken more.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I understood it. I was saying that having 3 weapons that do the same job but one does it better isnt a choice. Its the illusion of choice.

Negative, because

A: The power weapon choices could be better balanced.

1) Debatable. 2) It's not JUST the power weapon options. As I showed in my example with the tyranid warrior the design space is limited. We are not just talking about units that get access to a single power weapon or only the 3 power weapons but units that get access to the 3 power weapons a relic blade power fist etc etc...

EACH option on that datasheet should be filling a niche. And if you start spreading the power weapons out to fill different niches then they start consuming the design space of the other options on the datasheet. This isn't JUST about power weapons. It's about cleaning up the wargear options for the entire army so that the datasheets have actual options across the entire spectrum.

B: Upgrade potential for the weapons can be different.

I am happy to see your proposal for this. Not just the power weapons though. What is the SM data sheet that has the most options for melee weapons including multiple power weapon profiles? Give me a break down of each of it's options and their primary targets (MEQ/TEQ/Monsters/Light vehicles etc..) and show me how you would adjust all the profiles for every weapon so that they each fulfill a role without making something else useless.

C: There is still potential for different power weapons to be better against different targets.

Not when you start factoring in all the other SM wargear.

D: Some people will still choose aesthetics over function.

It's possible. Probable even. Some people absolutely gimp themselves for aesthetics. But that is not an argument about balance and what I am arguing is balance and design.

E: Even if one choice is "obvious" a mechanical choice is still there.

The illusion of choice is still there. If the choice isn't meaningful then it's not actually a choice.

Not really my original point, but just tangentially:
Going back to older editions, during 2nd a sword allowed you to force a reroll of an opponents attack dice, making it a more defensive weapon. If we used the old Wound charts, a Power Maul would wound T4 on a 2+. There's two options for equalizing the power weapons instead of having "auto-axe". Also, when a pistol anc CC weapon gave a model an extra attack, it helped balance with Lightning Claws as they would only gain a second attack if they were paired with another Lightning Claw.

We won't be using the old wound charts. I am glad you are looking back at old editions and saying how these things functioned mechanically under an entirely different rule set. That is very relevant.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Your memory is hilarious. Nobody was taking dual Lightning Claws over the AP2 of the Axe, and Mauls were so much cheaper than the Claws even those were taken more.

Totally incorrect post, but it's nice of you to support the fact that Axes weren't "auto take" anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I understood it. I was saying that having 3 weapons that do the same job but one does it better isnt a choice. Its the illusion of choice.

Negative, because

A: The power weapon choices could be better balanced.

1) Debatable. 2) It's not JUST the power weapon options. As I showed in my example with the tyranid warrior the design space is limited. We are not just talking about units that get access to a single power weapon or only the 3 power weapons but units that get access to the 3 power weapons a relic blade power fist etc etc...

EACH option on that datasheet should be filling a niche. And if you start spreading the power weapons out to fill different niches then they start consuming the design space of the other options on the datasheet. This isn't JUST about power weapons. It's about cleaning up the wargear options for the entire army so that the datasheets have actual options across the entire spectrum.

B: Upgrade potential for the weapons can be different.

I am happy to see your proposal for this. Not just the power weapons though. What is the SM data sheet that has the most options for melee weapons including multiple power weapon profiles? Give me a break down of each of it's options and their primary targets (MEQ/TEQ/Monsters/Light vehicles etc..) and show me how you would adjust all the profiles for every weapon so that they each fulfill a role without making something else useless.

C: There is still potential for different power weapons to be better against different targets.

Not when you start factoring in all the other SM wargear.

D: Some people will still choose aesthetics over function.

It's possible. Probable even. Some people absolutely gimp themselves for aesthetics. But that is not an argument about balance and what I am arguing is balance and design.

E: Even if one choice is "obvious" a mechanical choice is still there.

The illusion of choice is still there. If the choice isn't meaningful then it's not actually a choice.

Not really my original point, but just tangentially:
Going back to older editions, during 2nd a sword allowed you to force a reroll of an opponents attack dice, making it a more defensive weapon. If we used the old Wound charts, a Power Maul would wound T4 on a 2+. There's two options for equalizing the power weapons instead of having "auto-axe". Also, when a pistol anc CC weapon gave a model an extra attack, it helped balance with Lightning Claws as they would only gain a second attack if they were paired with another Lightning Claw.

We won't be using the old wound charts. I am glad you are looking back at old editions and saying how these things functioned mechanically under an entirely different rule set. That is very relevant.

100% disingenuuous post not worth spending time on.

If your argument is that different weapons can't possibly be better against different targets, and we should never bother looking at older editions for examples of balancing techniques, there's really no point in engaging.

Cool. I am so glad that your answer to providing evidence is either "No." or "Back when there was a different wound chart and pistols functioned entirely differently things were different"

Insectum, what different stats would you give to the Axe/Maul/Sword to make them mechanically distinct? Don't worry about points costs.

 Blackie wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


EDIT: also, personally at least, I'm a much greater fan of just being able to stick whatever I think looks coolest on and not have to deal with the micro-minuatae of "well, this edition X are better, I should break Y off and convert it to an X" or "hrm, I need to cut 1pt somewhere but the only way to do that is to exchange Weapon A for Weapon B because they're now slightly different costs for something that makes minimal difference on the table but will require spending the time to convert the model" or even worse "welp, looks like the Z option I built the model with is no longer legal..."

I'm a fan of playing with the models I have, with the loadout I gave them. If what I modeled is not the most effective combination of options at the moment, amen, I couldn't care less. I'd rather have 3 slightly different options with X being the best take in 7th, Y in 8th, and W in 9th than a single Z option.

For example I'm cool with claws, swords, axes, fists and hammers, and I'd hate to see them reduced to just 1-2 options.

Why? What value is actually added except extra pagespace taken up? Especially when most of the time most of the options will be functionally identical and you'll have either one clear standout best or worst option otherwise, that to me is just an illusion of choice, not actually anything meaningful or relevant.

More to the point, the way GW executed them doesnt even make sense. The mace should be the anti armor weapon, swords and axes historically are garbage at defeating armor, and were for fighting soft targets, maces and hammers and picks were historical weapons for defeating armor, but GWs rules work pretty much the exact opposite way

Lightning claws or Powerfists make sense to differentiate. An axe from a sword is getting into details even many RPGs dont always bother with, and that 40k generally certainly doesn't try to bother with it there isnt a power field attached.

 Insectum7 wrote:
If your argument is that different weapons can't possibly be better against different targets

I think the point is more that while they may have slightly different optimal targets, the difference between S+2/AP-1 and S+1/AP-2 is so minute in practice that it doesn't affect tactics, and one of the two will generally be better just due to target prevalence. To me that's the sort of detail that is appropriate for a Kill Team game, but feels out of place in 40K.

In contrast, the old choice between CCW, Power Weapon, or Powerfist was significant, since it slotted you into anti-chaff (or just 'not a melee fighter'), anti-heavy-infantry, or anti-vehicle respectively. Going from basic attacks to ignoring armor was a big deal, as was doubling your strength but fighting last.

If we wanted to to give users lots of choice of melee weapons, then rather than create a bunch of different flavors of power weapon, I think it would make more sense to consolidate power weapons into one option, but then provide a variety of non-power weapons as well with distinct strengths and weaknesses. So maybe a power weapon gives you bonus AP but doesn't affect your strength, while a big hammer/maul/axe gives you lots of bonus strength but no AP, and then a powerfist does both but is slow/hard to hit with/whatever as a drawback. Make them more substantially different such that it both drives and reflects what you intend to do with the unit, rather than a 'flavor choice' that contains one right answer and a couple of wrong ones, and keep the weapon types non-specific enough to allow for creative modeling.

Edit: Like Vaktathi said, it does seem odd to me that a knife and a club and an axe and a sword are all functionally interchangeable, but when you add a power field then they all get their own bespoke statline. Personally I wouldn't feel starved for choice if my options were Melee Weapon, Power Weapon, Heavy Weapon, or Heavy Power Weapon, but YMMV.

Here.

Captain. HQ choice for SM.

Comes with a bolt pistol, master crafted bolt gun, and a chain sword. He also gets grenades but thats irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

Bolt gun can be swapped for...
-Chainsword
-Lightning Claw
-Powerfist
-Power Axe
-Power Sword
-Power Maul
-Thunder Hammer

The chainsword can be swapped for...
-Relic Blade
-Lightning Claw
-Powerfist
-Power Axe
-Power Sword
-Power Maul
-Thunder Hammer
-Stormshield.

Lets look at those profiles.
-------------------------Str-------AP------D-----Ability
-Chainsword___User(4)___-_____1___+1 Attack
-Lightning Claw__U(4)____-2____1___ If equiped with 2 +1 attack. Reroll wounds
-Power Sword____U(4)___-3 ____1
-Power Axe_____+1(5)___-2____1
-Power Maul_____+2(6)___-1____1
-Relic Blade____+2 (6)___-3____d3
-Powerfist_______x2 (8)__-3____d3__-1 to hit
-Thunder Hammer_x2(8)__-3_____3__-1 to hit


So first of all. Thunder hammers and power fists are the same damn weapon. They are both the high strength armor cracking weapon to deal damage to tough monsters and vehicles or destroy TEQ.

You might notice that there is no relic axe/relic sword/relic maul. It's just relic blade. It's also a flat upgrade to the power weapon profiles by combining all their best features and giving it a potential boost to damage to boot. I like the relic blade. The power weapons should be the axe profile. Middle of the road. 5 str and -2 ap. Which means the relic blade upgrade turns a regular power weapon into a relic with +1 str -1AP and dd3.

The lightning claw has 2 interesting features. Rerolling to wounds and +1 attack. It's kind of a upgrade version of the chain sword. And the chain sword is the stock weapon.

So what you get is
Stock weapon (weak. more attacks.
Upgrade to stock weapon (some ap more attacks reroll wounds)
Anti MEQ melee weapon (Bonus to strength and some AP)
Upgrade to Anti MEQ to be anti TEQ (Bonus strength, AP, and D.
Anti Monster/tank (-1 to hit. Highest str, highest AP (tied with relic blade)

8 weapon options become 5 and the 5 you have have more modeling options while covering all the bases that the 8 were covering. 3 of those weapon options were a waste of space.

Quite frankly outside how relics work right now there's no reason you'd go generic Power Weapon over the Hammer/Fist or Relic Blade. Why shouldn't the Relic Blade for a Captain be the next step over the Chainsword?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm thinking Chainsword to Relic Blade to Fist to Hammer/Chainfist

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Quite frankly outside how relics work right now there's no reason you'd go generic Power Weapon over the Hammer/Fist or Relic Blade. Why shouldn't the Relic Blade for a Captain be the next step over the Chainsword?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm thinking Chainsword to Relic Blade to Fist to Hammer/Chainfist

I MOSTLY agree.

I am just noting that the difference in profiles do shift the power weapon from a MEQ killer to a TEQ killer and that is a distinction even if it isn't much of one. The relic blade would be just as good killing MEQ as it would TEQ and there really isn't much of a reason to not take it.

The Captain Datasheet should really be

Chain Sword,
Relic Blade
Lightning Claws
Heavy Power Weapon

The basic Power Weapon profile can show up on other datasheets where Relic Blades are not an option.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Insectum, what different stats would you give to the Axe/Maul/Sword to make them mechanically distinct? Don't worry about points costs.

My ultimate point is that it doesn't really matter, but mechanically being given a choice can feel important/fun even though it doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things. Esp. for characters.

My opinion as to how they should be balanced doesn't matter to the argument.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Insectum, what different stats would you give to the Axe/Maul/Sword to make them mechanically distinct? Don't worry about points costs.

My ultimate point is that it doesn't really matter, but mechanically being given a choice can feel important/fun even though it doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things. Esp. for characters.

My opinion as to how they should be balanced doesn't matter to the argument.

To me, it feels like there are already meaningful, fun, and important choices present in most cases without needing to differentiate between a mace and an axe (particularly when nobody cares if it doesn't have a power field attached most of the time). Most characters have options for stuff like powerfists or lightning claws and ranged weapons like combimeltas and plasma pistols or other equipment like stormshields that offers dramatically more meaningful differentiation and customization while still offering a reasonable array of options. I don't think the illusion of choice just for its own sake (particularly specifically for Characters) is worth the tradeoffs in dealing with the other issues (dealing with CSM terminator WYSIWYG for example, when the kits just come with a small random smattering of weapons to begin with that's barely enough to arm the whole squad with a melee weapon of some sort), especially when it encompasses units composed of normal models instead of characters.