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.

Considering that changing it to a generic profile would save you somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3 lines of text in a single chart, and there a lot of people like differentiated profiles, I say leave it as is.

I didn't really like the generic power weapon era.I treat the various power weapons like I treat choices of specials and heavies: I build a bunch of models equipped with each of the options and then choose which set to use based on which army I'm facing.

 Lance845 wrote:
There are not enough different kinds of targets to diferintiate the different weapons and make them all real choices. Realistically you need something to take out GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Light Vehicles, Heavy Vehicles. So for weapon options marines have chainsword, claws (GEQ), Power weapons (MEQ) relic blade (TEQ) Fists (Light vehicles) Thunder hammers (light/heavy vehicles).

And somehow you want to find jobs for 2 other varieties of power weapon to have a job to do? There literally isn't the design space.

By that logic shouldn't there only be 5 different ranged weapons profiles too? One that's cheap and default, one that's for anti-horde, one that cracks armor, one that cracks gravis/terminators, and one that hunts vehicles. If you really want variety you could make 3 versions of each for different range bands; 12" Assault 2, 24" Rapid Fire 1, 48" Heavy 1. After all there just aren't enough target types to justify more than that many ranged weapons.

Ranged weapon interactions are relevant in the shooting, movement and (somewhat) charge phases vis a vis melee's single phase.

Like the wielder's stats argument, I can see the line of logic there.

Catulle wrote:
Ranged weapon interactions are relevant in the shooting, movement and (somewhat) charge phases vis a vis melee's single phase.

Like the wielder's stats argument, I can see the line of logic there.

So let's make melee weapons actually interesting then.

They can have ranges 1/2" for basic weapons, 1" for pole weapons, and 2" for monstrous creatures/dreadnaughts; some weapons might be better only when the unit is charging (or only when the unit is being charged); others might apply debuffs such as halving enemy movement until the end of your next turn; yet others might have different profiles for use against different targets like more attacks/less strength on one mode and fewer attacks/more strength in a second mode; some weapons may even cost an attack instead of adding one. These are just a few ideas.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
There are not enough different kinds of targets to diferintiate the different weapons and make them all real choices. Realistically you need something to take out GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Light Vehicles, Heavy Vehicles. So for weapon options marines have chainsword, claws (GEQ), Power weapons (MEQ) relic blade (TEQ) Fists (Light vehicles) Thunder hammers (light/heavy vehicles).

And somehow you want to find jobs for 2 other varieties of power weapon to have a job to do? There literally isn't the design space.

By that logic shouldn't there only be 5 different ranged weapons profiles too? One that's cheap and default, one that's for anti-horde, one that cracks armor, one that cracks gravis/terminators, and one that hunts vehicles. If you really want variety you could make 3 versions of each for different range bands; 12" Assault 2, 24" Rapid Fire 1, 48" Heavy 1. After all there just aren't enough target types to justify more than that many ranged weapons.

If all 5 were available on one unit. Yes.

The SM captain can take ALL of those weapon options. And the power weapons when available on other units are still fighting for design space with each other. They don't get different ranges. It's just 3 weapons doing the same job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Catulle wrote:
Ranged weapon interactions are relevant in the shooting, movement and (somewhat) charge phases vis a vis melee's single phase.

Like the wielder's stats argument, I can see the line of logic there.

So let's make melee weapons actually interesting then.

They can have ranges 1/2" for basic weapons, 1" for pole weapons, and 2" for monstrous creatures/dreadnaughts; some weapons might be better only when the unit is charging (or only when the unit is being charged); others might apply debuffs such as halving enemy movement until the end of your next turn; yet others might have different profiles for use against different targets like more attacks/less strength on one mode and fewer attacks/more strength in a second mode; some weapons may even cost an attack instead of adding one. These are just a few ideas.

Yeah lets make the game WAY more complicated then it already is by giving melee weapons a bunch of different modes and ranges even though everyone will just pile in anyway. And we STILL won't gain any design space.

For what its worth AoS had ranges for melee weapons.

 Thadin wrote:
For the sake of my sanity, quite a few melee profiles could be consolidated. While it's not the same situation as power weapons, it was very unpleasant, playing against a new player running Death guard Terminators with an assortment of different melee weapons that were marginally different. Took quite a long time of pointlessly separated rolling to take my Skitarii off the board.

For this specific problem, GW could just put enough weapons in the box so you can equip all your terminators with axes or swords. Currently, this is not possible.

Oh, and if you ever run into this problem again, do the flail first - it should wipe your skitarii on its own, cutting down the need to roll for the other stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tygre wrote:
For what its worth AoS had ranges for melee weapons.

Some larger daemons have ranged weapon profiles which represent long range melee weapons. I think this a better way or representing long/flail weapons for 40k where needed - just add a ranged profile to those weapons.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
For several editions now we have had the once generic "power weapon" split into different categories. Broadly these are the sword, axe, and mace, offering different combinations of bonus strength and AP (though counterintuitively it is the mace offering the worst AP). But is it needed? Is it even wanted? What do you/your community think about the distinction?

Needed? Definitely not.

Wanted? That's entirely subjective.

I've always liked having different profiles for swords, maces and axes for example but with the to-wound mechanics of 8-9th editions they might as well have a single unique profile. I mean the difference between S5 and S6 was significant in older editions, when the latter granted 2s to wound against any infantry models, now they all wound on 3s against T4 models which makes the double profile useless. Also AP-2 or AP-3 aren't that different now while the difference between one point of AP in older edition was pretty big.

In conclusion I'd love different profiles for swords, maces and axes but they have to bring some real flavor and use. +1S AP-3, +3A Ap-1 and +2S AP-2 are basically the same thing, with the sword profile being simply most efficient.

It's a different thing depending on your starting strength though. In addition, no every unit has access to all three.

 Thadin wrote:
For the sake of my sanity, quite a few melee profiles could be consolidated. While it's not the same situation as power weapons, it was very unpleasant, playing against a new player running Death guard Terminators with an assortment of different melee weapons that were marginally different. Took quite a long time of pointlessly separated rolling to take my Skitarii off the board.

I'm for consolidated power weapons. Let GK's have their special Halberds and dual-wielded power weapons, but most everything else can just be "Power Weapon."

And a little thought I had. Could Relic Blade and the new Mastercrafted Power Sword consolidate together as well?

Probably not when Relic Blades go back to being a 2handed weapon and that matters.

I’m on the other side of the fence. Not only should we keep the differentiation they have, but that differentiation should be emphasized. The difference between a power sword and a power axe should not only be something in Space Wolf wheelhouses, it should be rewarded by Wolves for doing so.

Are power weapons even an option outside swords? With the exception of space marine veterans, what unit can take axes or maces for a significant number of models in the unit? They are more like a prestige weapon for the sargeant, and in that way I can see why GW wants to have them separated, basically because the sargeant is always the little bit of personalization most people want in their army.

Many units have a couple of weapon options like Dark Eldar Wytches, etc... but as I said, I cannot remember from memory many units where power axes and maces are generic options.

Only Grey Knights are an army were you have this problem, where most squads have three options of power (force) weapons with very similar profiles. In their case, staffs acts as a defensive weapon, thats fine, falchions as an anti horde weapon, and hammers as an expensive anti all weapon with a minus to hit.
The problem is that spears and swords even if they look badass are normally worse falchions because the extra attack is just better. They probably could be consolidated into a single profile of anti-armoured opponents. Or give the force sword and anti invulnerable saves weapon and the spear an charge bonus.

 Canadian 5th wrote:


They can have ranges 1/2" for basic weapons, 1" for pole weapons, and 2" for monstrous creatures/dreadnaughts; some weapons might be better only when the unit is charging (or only when the unit is being charged); others might apply debuffs such as halving enemy movement until the end of your next turn; yet others might have different profiles for use against different targets like more attacks/less strength on one mode and fewer attacks/more strength in a second mode; some weapons may even cost an attack instead of adding one. These are just a few ideas.

Sounds like Warmachine weapons
-different ranges
-charge/ anti-charge bonuses
-debuffs application
-boosting vs buying attacks decisions
-choosing power attacks instead of regular attacks


As for WH40K different profiles. The question is simple "does the fact that the profile is different make you make different decisions while you play the game?" If not, it's just unnecessary burden.

I'm in the consolidate them camp. Its an illusion of choice/imitation chrome.

In previous editions 98% of power weapons that were actually used were of one of the three types (IIRC power axes were traditionally the most popular in 6th or 7th edition), almost nobody who was actually trying to win a game ever ran the other two options.

I don't see this changing now, the difference in stats offered are basically marginal in most cases due to the way the to wound chart works AND the realities of the wider meta. If you accept the idea that the majority of models in the game are S4 T4, then the majority of players will probably be using power swords. Why? Because on a S4 model, S+1 from the power sword, the S+2 from a power axe, and S+3 from the power maul will all wound against a T4 model on a 3+, but the power sword gives you AP-3 which has a lot more utility than the power mauls AP-1, and marginally greater utility than the AP-2 from the axe.

Against T3 models, its true that the power maul gets you to 2+ to wound, but so does the Power Axe which gives you an additional point of AP. Really, the only point at which power mauls become preferable for an S4 model is against a T6+ model - but there are so many more preferable ways of dealing with those models (and those models are typically only a minority within any given army list) that its hard to justify taking the maul over the axe or sword unless you're kitting out an entire unit with mauls as a dedicated troubleshooter - even then its questionable that you would want to, because while you can dish out wounds most higher toughness models have the benefit of a better armor save, against which your AP-1 isn't going to necessarily offer you much of a benefit. I could see axes becoming more popular than the sword if T5 becomes more widespread or more popular in the meta (I.E. if Death Guard, etc. got buffed and suddenly became meta), but until then I think the Sword has greater overall utility to the average unit.

The choices seem a bit more interesting for S3 models, but I think its largely an illusion of choice. The sword gets you 4+ to wounds against T4 and the Axe 4+ wounds against the increasingly common T5 (as well as 3+ wounds against T4). Both are reasonable choices, but I think the Axe is the better all-around option of the two since it'll have the most benefit against T4 and under which are the most likely targets for a S3 model in melee. I think power mauls are a trap for S3 models - T5 opponents aren't quite yet common enough to justify the 3+ to wound benefit - and the majority of them have a 2+ or 3+ save, so AP-1 isn't much of a help there. If you're taking a maul on an S3 model, then chances are you're doing it because you want to paste T3 models in melee with 2+ to wound rolls - but lets be real here, getting an couple wounds over the course of a game from your guard sergeant or whatever against a T3 opponent in melee probably isn't going to swing the tide of the battle, there are better ways to handle T3 opponents out there.

chaos0xomega wrote:
If you accept the idea that the majority of models in the game are S4 T4, then the majority of players will probably be using power swords.

Nope. They will be using lightning claws. Reroll to wound and an extra attack is better than +1S and an extra point of AP in almost all cases. Lightning claws make all other 'cheap' power weapons (i.e. sword/axe/mace) obsolete in purely competitive/math-hammer terms. In the narrow range where that's not the case (T8-9 and Sv 4+ or better), you really want a better (and more expensive) weapon like a thunder hammer anyway.

Of course, if you aren't playing ultra-competitive games then it doesn't matter which weapon you pick. You might as well just choose whichever weapon fits the fluff of your army or your aesthetic preferences the best.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
But what do you all think?

I say don't take choices away from people.

By consolidation you remove artificial non-choices and establish modelling choices.
By non-consolidation you add artificial non-choices and remove modelling choices.

By non-choices I mean that due to how swingy the rules the lesser options tend to be non-options. Especially considering the fact that a consolidated sheet would mean you could model your epic units with the weapon you wish(ie. a visible option), whereas a non-consolidated sheet means you will be faced with 4/5 bad weapons that are rarely used and always complained about for being bad.

In other words, with consolidation a choice is never really moved, only the illusion of choice.

This is one area where Age of Sigmar shows its superiority for the most part as it gives gamers who are hobbyists and modellers a freedom of expression that is generally very limited in Warhammer 40.000.

 Eldarsif wrote:
This is one area where Age of Sigmar shows its superiority for the most part as it gives gamers who are hobbyists and modellers a freedom of expression that is generally very limited in Warhammer 40.000.

You can call it consolidation all you like. I call what AoS does dumbing down.

 Duskweaver wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
If you accept the idea that the majority of models in the game are S4 T4, then the majority of players will probably be using power swords.

Nope. They will be using lightning claws. Reroll to wound and an extra attack is better than +1S and an extra point of AP in almost all cases. Lightning claws make all other 'cheap' power weapons (i.e. sword/axe/mace) obsolete in purely competitive/math-hammer terms. In the narrow range where that's not the case (T8-9 and Sv 4+ or better), you really want a better (and more expensive) weapon like a thunder hammer anyway.

Of course, if you aren't playing ultra-competitive games then it doesn't matter which weapon you pick. You might as well just choose whichever weapon fits the fluff of your army or your aesthetic preferences the best.

Fair point. I was more analyzing the three power weapon options in a vacuum, assuming that power weapons were the only options available either due to wargear list or points availability, etc.

By consolidation you remove artificial non-choices and establish modelling choices.
By non-consolidation you add artificial non-choices and remove modelling choices.

By non-choices I mean that due to how swingy the rules the lesser options tend to be non-options. Especially considering the fact that a consolidated sheet would mean you could model your epic units with the weapon you wish(ie. a visible option), whereas a non-consolidated sheet means you will be faced with 4/5 bad weapons that are rarely used and always complained about for being bad.

In other words, with consolidation a choice is never really moved, only the illusion of choice.

This is one area where Age of Sigmar shows its superiority for the most part as it gives gamers who are hobbyists and modellers a freedom of expression that is generally very limited in Warhammer 40.000.

This is an outstanding comment and 100% correct.

I started 40k in late 3rd/early 4th edition, at the time all power weapons were just power weapons. You paid your 5 or 10 points or whatever for a power weapon, and that was it - you were free to model it however you wanted, and indeed we did. Lots of people just stuck with swords because they were ubiquitous, simple, and culturally cool, but lots of people also made cool alternative weapons (tridents, spears, axes, glaives, halberds, etc.) and it was okay because it was all wysiwyg and it made no difference mechanically what kind of weapon they were toting. But now, the type of weapon is very strictly defined, and those modeling options are no longer on the table if I want to keep my minis WYSIWYG - the choice has been removed and I am forced to build my minis to fit the mold of established mechanical paradigms. I have been given an illusory choice to select between one of three mechanical options, even though only one of those three options is ever really an ideal option, and in turn I am forced to build my model in a way I don't necessarily desire in order to correlate the model to the mechanics.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
This is one area where Age of Sigmar shows its superiority for the most part as it gives gamers who are hobbyists and modellers a freedom of expression that is generally very limited in Warhammer 40.000.

You can call it consolidation all you like. I call what AoS does dumbing down.

Yeah I like AoS but lets not pretend their weapon options are something to replicate in 40k, with all the false choices or +3/+4 or +4/+3 stuff like the options of stormcast liberators, stormcast crosbowmen, chaos warriors, etc...

Theres a place to both be more specific and add choices and places to consolidate. In Fantasy you had spears, you had halberds, you had two handed weapons, and you had close combat weapons. And it worked fine for a fantasy game centered about meele combat because all had a clear place.

40k has always wanted for each unit to have their special stuff, options, etc... and thats fine.

I'm on the simplify side. I agree completely with the simplify opens up modeling. The idea of a normal and heavy works as well. (1 or 2 handed maybe?)
Although you can model things into generic groups too. My white scars Khan's spear is clearly a spear, my friends trident is clearly a spear as well...
The real issue to me falls under play style.
If you play for efficiency (my term for what has the best chance to win on the table), yes it really is a set of fake choices. The right option is obvious.
If you play for fun (or narrative, or whatever term you like) then modeling what you want is just fine and counts as.
If you are in between, say you are a modeler but play with a group who does or yourself for efficiency, there's the trouble.
I don't think GW can cater to all three options, and I find the simplify idea the best (if not perfect) compromise.

 Lance845 wrote:
There are not enough different kinds of targets to diferintiate the different weapons and make them all real choices. Realistically you need something to take out GEQ, MEQ, TEQ, Light Vehicles, Heavy Vehicles. So for weapon options marines have chainsword, claws (GEQ), Power weapons (MEQ) relic blade (TEQ) Fists (Light vehicles) Thunder hammers (light/heavy vehicles).

And somehow you want to find jobs for 2 other varieties of power weapon to have a job to do? There literally isn't the design space.

Also, not all factions are marines, therefore not all factions have Lightning Claws, Relic Blades, Power Fists and Thunder Hammers.

If you want to give Marines Generic power weapons, yeah, that's probably okay since they have all the other stuff.

But non marine armies probably want to keep differentiation in power weapons because we don't get all the other variety.

I know I certainly do.

Aside from Guardsmen, what other armies have power mauls, swords, and axes?
Sisters only get to chose between Mauls and Swords, IIRC.

PenitentJake wrote:
But non marine armies probably want to keep differentiation in power weapons because we don't get all the other variety.

I know I certainly do.

Is there something that makes having a bunch of flavors of near-identical power weapon more appealing than having a single generic power weapon profile, but additional weapon options that do distinctly different things?

I think someone has already touched upon this.

Differentiate more to make the differences matter or don't bother and just have a generic profile- i'd be fine either way.

For example (this is by no means perfect before nit pickers strike, it would need more complexity to differentiate better but it's a basic approach to start with)

When differentiating, differentiate from the bottom as, like others have said, with shooting weapons:

Base Type, a weapon can only be one base type:
Fast Melee (swords, claws), Piercing Melee (halberds, spears, lances, Maces, axes), Heavy Melee (hammers, fists, two handed weapons), Assault (flails).

Fast Melee (+1 A)
Piercing (+1 AP)
Heavy (+1 Strength, -1 to hit & +1 Damage)
Assault (each attack is D3 and damage spills)

Then the next differentiation could be a advanced type. A weapon can have more than one advanced type but certain types cannot be combined (ie Power and Warp or Power and Daemon):

Power (add +1 strength, x2 on hvy)
Warp (add +1 AP, -2 on hvy)
Dark Age/Relic (add +1D, becomes D3 on hvy)
Master Crafted (+1 Attack)
Daemon (add D6 to specific strat - AP for Slan, A for Khorne, D for Tzeentch and AP for nurgle).

You could then add exotic traits:

Forged of Rare Metal: (+1 AP)
Consecrated (+D3 damage to daemons)
Adaptive (+D3 damage to all)
Poisoned (damage ignores feel no pain type abilities)
Predictive (ignores invulnerable saves)

etc etc

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Aside from Guardsmen, what other armies have power mauls, swords, and axes?
Sisters only get to chose between Mauls and Swords, IIRC.

CSM do.
Elfs have power swords.
Inquisition them.

Something that is missing from the discussion is armor saves and AP. The system has severely limited design space. Remove it, switch to AA, and suddenly there are more options for giving weapons meaningful differences.

A lot of good discussion here, thanks everyone.

A repeating trend I see is very few people expressing a desire to leave it the way it is. People want it more differentiated or generic, and some even happy with either option. It is interesting that so many are dissatisfied with the current layout.

I actually think they're fine as is. They have some minor differences, save the heavier variants like power fists and thunder hammers, the rest of them all cost the same and swing one aspect or another in their profile at the cost of another.

In 2nd edition, I want to say there were as many different melee options, and they all did different stuff with lots of different rules (I want to say swords had the parry ability, axes gave you a bonus to damage, but its been 20+ years so forgive me). People weren't crazy about that system because it was really convoluted (and you could never get enough chainsword and powerfist combos to outfit you melee dudes with one of each, because you wanted them hitting power and armour penetration of the powerfist, which I think was like a D20+8, but you also wanted the parry result to make your opponent reroll a six to hit).

In 3rd edition, they moved everything to power weapons, save the powerfist, thunder hammer, and chain fist (and maybe some specific weapons) and people weren't super happy about that because it watered it down.

I think right now, it's pretty close to calling it good. Maybe a little more differentiation between the weapons would be nice, but I really don't have any complaints as is.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Aside from Guardsmen, what other armies have power mauls, swords, and axes?
Sisters only get to chose between Mauls and Swords, IIRC.

Guardsmen don't have those options, as none of the kits come with them and the codex rules are reflective of the kits. I know for a fact that power mauls and power axes are not included in Codex: Astra Militarum, the only way to use them was through the Index options, which I believe are no longer valid in 9e.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the Sororitas and Space Marines might be the only factions that have Codex access to power mauls currently - I think pretty much everyone else lost theirs in 8e (and most also lost axes) as they were an option added in 6th or 7th that were never really reflected in the majority of kits put out for the game.

Chaos Termies either do (or used to) have a Maul weapon army.

*checks box listing on GW site*

Yeah, the box has one power sword, one power axe and one power maul, so going by recent GW logic, that unit should have access to all three.

Would people seriously have problems with the following profiles?
Bladed/Light Power Weapon: S+1 AP-3
Blunt/Heavy Power Weapon: S+2 AP-2

That really covers everything to be honest. The fact we have a whole separate profile for the Genestealer Cult Power Pickaxe is...stupid. It's just stupid. There's no other word for it.