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.

My strategy is to just remember "bolter" because for most of them the variants don't actually matter to my tactical decisions.

So let me get this straight. Your base line argument in this thread is that badly designed wargear that eats up a ton of space and serves no purpose is the only thing you find interesting in the game? And further, that it should stay around because instead of proposing to fix the problems of the shallow crap game that 40k is you would rather sit around in the bad game with useless wargear options as some kind of band aid for the shallow experience?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

The core rules for 40k are so shallow that once we strip away the 'challenge' of picking the right tools for the job there really won't be anything left. People dislike losing in the list building phase but it's the most choice we get, on the tabletop the game is only blocking movement with early game charges, shooting at the objectively correct targets and using starts as appropriate. It has the depth of a wading pool and is massively propped up by list building and meta chasing.

I completely agree. But if we're discussing rule changes, is this not something we should be aiming to fix as well?

Granted, you could argue that it should be higher on the agenda than Power Swords (and I wouldn't disagree), but still.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

You wouldn't make any baseline changes to bolter if possible, instead you'd alter the special ability to buff or nerf.
Essentially it uses a memory trick. Remembering the "Bolter Statline" + "This unit gives 1 ap" is easier to remember than 30 different statlines.

I agree with your diagnosis of the problem, but I fear your solution doesn't really change anything. We wouldn't be getting rid of bloat - we'd just be moving the bloat from weapons to units.

What's more, it would make dataslates much more awkward - as you'd look to their weapon profiles, and then have to look down at their abilities to find the *actual* weapon profiles.

I could see this maybe working for special abilities. e.g. if you want a unit with bolters that ignore cover, it might be better to give the unit that rule - rather than making a whole new type of bolter, which is exactly like a regular bolter except that it ignores cover, just for the purpose of that one specific unit.

Honestly, rather than trying to spread the bloat to other areas, I'd seriously question how many of these bolter variants are necessary in the first place. It seems many of them could be rolled together with no real loss.

So my only concern is: Custodes Weapons. I apologize if this was already brought up in the last 4 pages, but here goes.

Right now, barring FW weapons and dreads, everything we get is some variant of S+ AP2 D3. The only variation appears to be the ranged option baked into the weapon. Swords are pistols, and spears/axes are Master Crafted Bolters.

We have begged since 8th to give our spears some form of difference to axes. Be it; multiple attack profiles, flat damage, damage vs type of model, or just flat buff to damage. With the new Power weapons overhaul, I really see Custodes (if they get it) getting a good change.

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Other potential words include: flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting...

Is S6 versus S5 flavorful?
Is AP-2 versus AP-3 characterful?

Because they all perform, mechanically, very similarly against the majority of targets.

That is like saying that being 2ed or 3ed in an event is the same as being first. Of course being the best and better is more flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Its only useful or interesting if they actually do a different job. They dont so they aren't

Go before a commission for sports and tell them that being 7th placed is the same being 1st. I mean you placed, in the same thing, did the same stuff as others. Nothing different between one and the other.

Completely irrelevant to the discussion and a bad comparison.
Minute differences like that don't make the weapon flavorful at all.
What makes them flavorful is what type of weapon it is physically.
Storm shields + power spears make for flavorful hoplites.
power mauls make for flavorful knights/clerics
a weapon being made to kill tanks (thunder hammer) vs another being made to kill large blobs of infantry (lightning claws) is flavorful.

the weapons hitting you at 5 -3 1 vs 6 -2 1 isnt flavorful

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Dai wrote:

The core rules for 40k are so shallow that once we strip away the 'challenge' of picking the right tools for the job there really won't be anything left.

I think it says a lot about the game that the only meaningful decisions being made by its players are done while they are sitting at home with their calculator writing an army list rather than while they are actually playing it.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Dai wrote:
I'd agree with C5th. Would prefer they were made more interesting than consolidated it the issue is they are too similar.

That said I think the idea of consolidating them is a bit of a strange hill to die on, if they are all pretty much the same anyway why any issue with them having slightly different profiles if some find that more engaging. I understand that for some it would be an issue with the game as a whole but this particular instance seems like it should be a particularly low priority even then!

The core rules for 40k are so shallow that once we strip away the 'challenge' of picking the right tools for the job there really won't be anything left. People dislike losing in the list building phase but it's the most choice we get, on the tabletop the game is only blocking movement with early game charges, shooting at the objectively correct targets and using starts as appropriate. It has the depth of a wading pool and is massively propped up by list building and meta chasing.

So because the rules are shallow we're not allowed to try and theorycraft some changes?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Other potential words include: flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting...

What's interesting about the Power Pickaxe profile compared to any other weapon?

I'll give you a hint. Well not really a hint. It isn't interesting. At all.

To you. Other people feel differently.

We've been over this.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Other potential words include: flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting...

What's interesting about the Power Pickaxe profile compared to any other weapon?

I'll give you a hint. Well not really a hint. It isn't interesting. At all.

To you. Other people feel differently.

We've been over this.

I'm curious, what exactly do you find interesting about the power pickaxe's stats?

I mean they are a weapon with stats. Theres not that many weapons in 40k that I would define as interesting.

 Galas wrote:
I mean they are a weapon with stats. Theres not that many weapons in 40k that I would define as interesting.

But the existence of a Power Pickaxe really need new stats compared to, say, JUST using the Power Axe stats?

I would prefer generic rules for "power weapons" and "heavy power weapons" as well just to free up the option to model the style I prefer.

Power weapons should be marine killers. So I would say all power weapons could be str +1 ap -3 2d. Then there are the odd ball ones that are doube str like the chain fist, hammer, and fist which could be the same profile above but 2xstr instead of +1. This could be standard across all armies. Makes them good at killing armored marine and ok at vehicles. Would open up the modeling for rule of cool and not hinder you if you like the look over hammers compared to fists.

The Salt Mine wrote:
Power weapons should be marine killers. So I would say all power weapons could be str +1 ap -3 2d. Then there are the odd ball ones that are doube str like the chain fist, hammer, and fist which could be the same profile above but 2xstr instead of +1. This could be standard across all armies. Makes them good at killing armored marine and ok at vehicles. Would open up the modeling for rule of cool and not hinder you if you like the look over hammers compared to fists.

Go a step further and have all power weapons just ignore armour saves completely and fists be x2 strength, roll the clocks back 6 editions and return to all the problems that come with it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I mean they are a weapon with stats. Theres not that many weapons in 40k that I would define as interesting.

But the existence of a Power Pickaxe really need new stats compared to, say, JUST using the Power Axe stats?

Given that a pick behaves differently to an axe... yes.

In case you're missing the... point, and to borrow terminology from D&D for a minute, one is a Piercing weapon as it spikes you, while the other is a Slashing weapon as it cuts/hews you. Impact on the target and the target's armour would be modeled differently.

 Dysartes wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I mean they are a weapon with stats. Theres not that many weapons in 40k that I would define as interesting.

But the existence of a Power Pickaxe really need new stats compared to, say, JUST using the Power Axe stats?

Given that a pick behaves differently to an axe... yes.

In case you're missing the... point, and to borrow terminology from D&D for a minute, one is a Piercing weapon as it spikes you, while the other is a Slashing weapon as it cuts/hews you. Impact on the target and the target's armour would be modeled differently.

There indeed is a difference, if you go deep into the details. But in a game where there is only one point of strength difference between a standard human and a genetically engineered giant killing machine, that sort of difference just won't show anymore. It's the same as all the different kinds of bolters. Sure, they will have differences, just like different modern assault rifles have differences. None of those however are large enough to be reflected in the kind of highly abstracted rules that you see in 40k.

 Dysartes wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I mean they are a weapon with stats. Theres not that many weapons in 40k that I would define as interesting.

But the existence of a Power Pickaxe really need new stats compared to, say, JUST using the Power Axe stats?

Given that a pick behaves differently to an axe... yes.

In case you're missing the... point, and to borrow terminology from D&D for a minute, one is a Piercing weapon as it spikes you, while the other is a Slashing weapon as it cuts/hews you. Impact on the target and the target's armour would be modeled differently.

Would it though? In the context of a game with 40k's scale do we really need to differentiate between the armour piercing of one weapon versus the blunt force trauma of another versus the cutting/stabbing efficiency of another? Where do we stop? Do we need target locations on each enemy so we can model how effective the armour in that area is against slashing/piercing/bludgeoning damage and modify our stats accordingly? 40k already abstracts the armour penetration of different types of attacks for shooting so why not for melee too? Being hit by a railgun slug, a ball of plasma or a high-explosive blast would all be different but if the S, AP and damage stats are all the same the game doesn't care about the type of damage. That's the kind of thing that belongs in an RPG, not a tabletop wargame.

So, would the game really be worse if a Power Pickaxe were just a Power Axe?

PLEASE Dear lord in Goto, do not include "damage types" into 40k. That is a level of complexity we do not need. It's half the reason I stopped allowing them in DnD games. Either a model is resistant to damage or it isn't. I don't care to slow down a game to check what magic words the sheet has ever single combat phase.

 Dysartes wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

But the existence of a Power Pickaxe really need new stats compared to, say, JUST using the Power Axe stats?

Given that a pick behaves differently to an axe... yes.
and the target's armour would be modeled differently.

A gladius behaves differently to a khopesh; and yet...

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
PLEASE Dear lord in Goto, do not include "damage types" into 40k. That is a level of complexity we do not need. It's half the reason I stopped allowing them in DnD games. Either a model is resistant to damage or it isn't. I don't care to slow down a game to check what magic words the sheet has ever single combat phase.

seems like removing them from your games really changes how your games must be running. I quite like the idea that some monsters are resistant to certain types of weapons (killing a skeleton with arrows shouldnt really work imo)

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
PLEASE Dear lord in Goto, do not include "damage types" into 40k. That is a level of complexity we do not need. It's half the reason I stopped allowing them in DnD games. Either a model is resistant to damage or it isn't. I don't care to slow down a game to check what magic words the sheet has ever single combat phase.

I wasn't meaning to insert P/S/B wholesale into 40k, Fezzik, merely to point out that the different ways weapons behave can be modeled into their stats.

We see this, to a degree, with the existing power axe/maul/sword trinity, which each have different S/AP values, at a minimum - a pick doesn't behave the same way as an axe, so is unlikely to share a statline with it.

There are tons of varieties of lasgun. Some are full-auto low-power machine guns, others are semi-auto high-power battle rifles. Some are designed for accuracy, others are compact and portable. Some have integrated optics, others have crude ironsights.

Then you've got autoguns, which range from AK knockoffs to high-power select-fire battle rifles in incredibly powerful calibers.

Every single one of those lasguns and autoguns shares the exact same S3 AP- profile.

Marine armor, Sisters armor, and Aspect Warrior armor are all the same save. Guardsmen, Tau, Eldar, and Termagants are all the same S.

A sword, an axe, a club, a mace, a spear, a halberd, a dagger all have the same general melee profile.

But a power pick and power axe need different stats?

That kind of chrome is way too granular for the scale 40K operates at. The minute differences in battlefield performance between a pick and an axe are not the kind of thing a battalion commander is going to care about in the slightest.

And, I mean, from a realism perspective, most of the purported differences between melee weapons are RPG game-balance junk to begin with. The idea that a sword is weak but good at piercing armor while a maul is strong but can't handle heavy armor while an axe occupies a safe middle ground has zero real-world basis.

To be fair, AP is all jacked up in 40k in general.

A chainsword in Assault Doctrine has the same ability to penetrate armor as an ATGM.

Has anyone ever actually tried to HIT a piece of armor with a chainsaw? I don't care how doctrinally trained you are, it won't go well.

Rise up servants of the four armed Emperor, they'll have to pry the power picks from our cold, mutated hands.

On one hand I think the endless proliferation of gear (the 18+ boltguns) does take away something from the setting. On the other, it feels like an invented problem. Apart from legacy Marine characters I'm not sure what else really gets a choice on which power weapon it gets to use - and the degree of customisation seems to be shrinking rather than growing. Harlequins are in a similar boat I guess, but since they are top tier who likes them any more.

I mean I'm sure Abberants could have got a special rule that says they do D3 damage than than 1 with their "power axes" and can make an extra claw attack - but you might as well just give them a different weapon profile.

 Dysartes wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
PLEASE Dear lord in Goto, do not include "damage types" into 40k. That is a level of complexity we do not need. It's half the reason I stopped allowing them in DnD games. Either a model is resistant to damage or it isn't. I don't care to slow down a game to check what magic words the sheet has ever single combat phase.

I wasn't meaning to insert P/S/B wholesale into 40k, Fezzik, merely to point out that the different ways weapons behave can be modeled into their stats.

We see this, to a degree, with the existing power axe/maul/sword trinity, which each have different S/AP values, at a minimum - a pick doesn't behave the same way as an axe, so is unlikely to share a statline with it.

First off, I apologize for implying that you were doing that. You were not. Second, I still say it's a level of sophistication that gets in the way of a fun time. Does your arrow hit the skeleton? Roll for damage. I can make up any sort of fantastical fluff reason why your (Insert legolas trope here) managed to deal damage to a creature that is simply bones. But I shouldn't have to. I can get behind resistent to magic vs non-magic though, because I don't care how well you roll, that pitchfork isn't going to damage the Air elemental.

I think you could make the same argument for 40k. It's been said numerous times that anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons should work differently for their non-intended targets. I think a las pistol CAN do damage to a titan, but it shouldn't. I think a Volcano cannon should obliterate a a tank, but not a squad of marines. GW seems to have taken a massive step in the other direction however, and given the randomness of the D6 system, it's very unlikely that we will ever change.

Oh, something I wanted to bring up. I've noticed that Power Weapons are often discussed from the perspective of Marines. As in 'if you make them anti-infantry, Lightning Claws will still be better; if you make them anti-tank, Power Fists/Thunder Hammers will still be better etc., so maybe if we make them somewhere in between the two, but not quite as good as Relic weapons . . .'

However, I think it's important to remember that many models besides Marines have access to Power Weapons, and many such models don't have access to Lightning Claws, Power Firsts, Relic Blades, or even equivalents of such.

Whether or not Power Weapons are merged, this seems a very important thing to keep in mind with regard to their statline(s). If anything, it seems like it would be wiser to focus more on S3 models - especially those without access to Lightning Claws, Power Fists etc.. Primarily because these are the models that don't necessarily have a 'best choice' to fall back on for every given role in the event of Power Weapons being largely ineffective.

Time to start calling this game bolthammer...

auto bolt rifle
bolt pistol
bolt rifle
stalker bolt rifle
heavy bolt pistol
executor bolt rifle
heavy bolt rifle
hellstorm bolt rifle
marksman bolt carbine
occulus bolt carbine
boltgun
absolver bolt pistol
bolt carbine
special issue bolt pistol
auto boltstorm gauntlet
storm bolter
combi-bolter
hurricane bolter
twin bolt rifle
assault bolter
bolt sniper rifle
instigator bolt carbine

I'm sure I missed a few, and I didn't even do the heavy weapon bolters in all their 20 different flavors.

Seriously, there are more flavors of bolt weapons than some armies used to have in total.

 vipoid wrote:
Oh, something I wanted to bring up. I've noticed that Power Weapons are often discussed from the perspective of Marines. As in 'if you make them anti-infantry, Lightning Claws will still be better; if you make them anti-tank, Power Fists/Thunder Hammers will still be better etc., so maybe if we make them somewhere in between the two, but not quite as good as Relic weapons . . .'

However, I think it's important to remember that many models besides Marines have access to Power Weapons, and many such models don't have access to Lightning Claws, Power Firsts, Relic Blades, or even equivalents of such.

Whether or not Power Weapons are merged, this seems a very important thing to keep in mind with regard to their statline(s). If anything, it seems like it would be wiser to focus more on S3 models - especially those without access to Lightning Claws, Power Fists etc.. Primarily because these are the models that don't necessarily have a 'best choice' to fall back on for every given role in the event of Power Weapons being largely ineffective.

Yes. For s3 models who end up having 5+ to wound power swords have almost always been a really iffy buy since they were s: user for so long.

pelicaniforce wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Oh, something I wanted to bring up. I've noticed that Power Weapons are often discussed from the perspective of Marines. As in 'if you make them anti-infantry, Lightning Claws will still be better; if you make them anti-tank, Power Fists/Thunder Hammers will still be better etc., so maybe if we make them somewhere in between the two, but not quite as good as Relic weapons . . .'

However, I think it's important to remember that many models besides Marines have access to Power Weapons, and many such models don't have access to Lightning Claws, Power Firsts, Relic Blades, or even equivalents of such.

Whether or not Power Weapons are merged, this seems a very important thing to keep in mind with regard to their statline(s). If anything, it seems like it would be wiser to focus more on S3 models - especially those without access to Lightning Claws, Power Fists etc.. Primarily because these are the models that don't necessarily have a 'best choice' to fall back on for every given role in the event of Power Weapons being largely ineffective.

Yes. For s3 models who end up having 5+ to wound power swords have almost always been a really iffy buy since they were s: user for so long.

Back in 3rd-5th, a power sword (edit: or any power weapon, since they all had the same effect) was a reasonable choice for a S3 combat character- against Marines it outright tripled your damage output, and unless you went for a powerfist you weren't boosting your S anyways. Now, though, specifically power mauls are the best choice for S3 characters, as wounding on 3+ with a 4+ save is better than wounding on 5+ with a 6+ save, you don't waste AP on lightly-armored things, and it lets you better threaten T6-8. It's really a no-brainer that makes me want to just count my officers' swords as mauls, and that's what I dislike about the system.

Which brings up another point; when codex get updated or editions change, the differences between those power weapons change, and suddenly people's models are stuck with the wrong options.

Sidenote; two pages before the thread got toxic, not bad!