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.

In 5th there were no power swords

That is true all 8th, all weapons other then falchions were an infirior option against any target. 9th comes GW decides to buff other weapons and hike the prices to impossible levels, and suddenly my halabard dudes are the WAAC option.

Well I guess the new WD is showing us what GW thinks of power weapon unification. Named captin comes with a power ax, and an always on never overheating plasma pistol. I guess GW is pro options.

 catbarf wrote:

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.

Another aspect is that Power Fists had a much more significant drawback in prior editions.

But yes, Power Weapons meant a lot more when they ignored all armour.

 catbarf wrote:
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.

I agree.

The worst part, though, is that most S3 models don't even have access to Mauls (so they can't even do count-as to get a worthwhile Power Weapon profile).

 Mezmorki wrote:
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.

And trust me when I say pretty much all of those need consolidation in some manner too.

How do you do it then. By GW design each primaris unit , which isn't melee, is suppose to have access to an assaul, rapid fire and heavy version of a weapon they carry. Then some units also have access to squad specific weapons, and in case of heavy intercessors this means another set of heavy guns.

You can't force the gun in to one gun, because all the chapter tactics, special rules and stratagems that come with them assume that depending on a specific chapter you play, you are going to prioritize a specific type of bolt weapon.

It is the same situation as the one with the power weapons. different armies want different weapons. And they can't be streamlined, because GW decied that all marine faction should have access to the whole core model line GW makes, which happens to be primaris.

Karol wrote:
How do you do it then. By GW design each primaris unit , which isn't melee, is suppose to have access to an assaul, rapid fire and heavy version of a weapon they carry. Then some units also have access to squad specific weapons, and in case of heavy intercessors this means another set of heavy guns.

You can't force the gun in to one gun, because all the chapter tactics, special rules and stratagems that come with them assume that depending on a specific chapter you play, you are going to prioritize a specific type of bolt weapon.

It is the same situation as the one with the power weapons. different armies want different weapons. And they can't be streamlined, because GW decied that all marine faction should have access to the whole core model line GW makes, which happens to be primaris.

OR

you use the same design paradigm for LSM as you do for the other power armor, bolter wielding humans.
Sisters get 4 0 1 bolters, CSM get 4 0 1 bolters. Give LSM 4 0 1 bolters too.

Karol wrote:
How do you do it then. By GW design each primaris unit , which isn't melee, is suppose to have access to an assaul, rapid fire and heavy version of a weapon they carry. Then some units also have access to squad specific weapons, and in case of heavy intercessors this means another set of heavy guns.

You can't force the gun in to one gun, because all the chapter tactics, special rules and stratagems that come with them assume that depending on a specific chapter you play, you are going to prioritize a specific type of bolt weapon.

It is the same situation as the one with the power weapons. different armies want different weapons. And they can't be streamlined, because GW decied that all marine faction should have access to the whole core model line GW makes, which happens to be primaris.

Very simple actually. Simply don't overthink it.
1. Bolt Rifle
2. Assault Bolt Rifle
3. Stalker Bolt Rifle
4. Hurricane Bolter
5. Heavy Bolt Pistol
6. Twin Bolt Rifle
7. Bolt Carbine
8. Boltstorm

BAM thats about cut in half.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Karol wrote:
How do you do it then. By GW design each primaris unit , which isn't melee, is suppose to have access to an assaul, rapid fire and heavy version of a weapon they carry. Then some units also have access to squad specific weapons, and in case of heavy intercessors this means another set of heavy guns.

You can't force the gun in to one gun, because all the chapter tactics, special rules and stratagems that come with them assume that depending on a specific chapter you play, you are going to prioritize a specific type of bolt weapon.

It is the same situation as the one with the power weapons. different armies want different weapons. And they can't be streamlined, because GW decied that all marine faction should have access to the whole core model line GW makes, which happens to be primaris.

Very simple actually. Simply don't overthink it.
1. Bolt Rifle
2. Assault Bolt Rifle
3. Stalker Bolt Rifle
4. Hurricane Bolter
5. Heavy Bolt Pistol
6. Twin Bolt Rifle
7. Bolt Carbine
8. Boltstorm

BAM thats about cut in half.

Yup, that would pretty much do. There's no good reason why Heavy Intercessors need a different type of gun to regular Intercessors. The fact they're in Gravis armour is enough of a distinction without also adding 5 more bolt weapons to the list. Same with the various near-identical guns for things like Incursors, Infiltrators and Reivers. All of those are just bolters and if you really want to add a special rule to them (hint: you probably don't) you can add it to the unit rather than the gun. It gets absurd when you realise that Stalker Bolt Rifle and Stalker-pattern Boltgun are two different guns. If you're running out of descriptives for your guns you probably have too many.

Slipspace wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Karol wrote:
How do you do it then. By GW design each primaris unit , which isn't melee, is suppose to have access to an assaul, rapid fire and heavy version of a weapon they carry. Then some units also have access to squad specific weapons, and in case of heavy intercessors this means another set of heavy guns.

You can't force the gun in to one gun, because all the chapter tactics, special rules and stratagems that come with them assume that depending on a specific chapter you play, you are going to prioritize a specific type of bolt weapon.

It is the same situation as the one with the power weapons. different armies want different weapons. And they can't be streamlined, because GW decied that all marine faction should have access to the whole core model line GW makes, which happens to be primaris.

Very simple actually. Simply don't overthink it.
1. Bolt Rifle
2. Assault Bolt Rifle
3. Stalker Bolt Rifle
4. Hurricane Bolter
5. Heavy Bolt Pistol
6. Twin Bolt Rifle
7. Bolt Carbine
8. Boltstorm

BAM thats about cut in half.

Yup, that would pretty much do. There's no good reason why Heavy Intercessors need a different type of gun to regular Intercessors. The fact they're in Gravis armour is enough of a distinction without also adding 5 more bolt weapons to the list. Same with the various near-identical guns for things like Incursors, Infiltrators and Reivers. All of those are just bolters and if you really want to add a special rule to them (hint: you probably don't) you can add it to the unit rather than the gun. It gets absurd when you realise that Stalker Bolt Rifle and Stalker-pattern Boltgun are two different guns. If you're running out of descriptives for your guns you probably have too many.

Ultimately the best thing to do is give Gravis similar rules to the Terminator armor of yore. You count as stationary and can advance without penalty to Assault weapons. Bump them up a couple points and they serve quite a purpose.

This whole discussion is just an exercise in marine privilege. Sisters of battle have 2 power weapon options: S+1 AP3 powerswords and S+3 AP-1 Power Mauls. Being S3 and having bloody rose means that the powermaul is better against a wide variety of moderately armored (or heavily invuled) targets, which gives it a great spot as a horde clearing weapon or alternatively a decent duelist pick for celestians to take out characters/terminators, while the powersword is the better marine killer at AP-3(4 with BR).

'These things are all mechanically identical therefore they should be separate' is certainly a take.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
'These things are all mechanically identical therefore they should be separate' is certainly a take.

Given that they all operate in the same way and have existed for many editions what is the benefit of changing them and removing flavour?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
'These things are all mechanically identical therefore they should be separate' is certainly a take.

Given that they all operate in the same way and have existed for many editions what is the benefit of changing them and removing flavour?

The benefit is removing duplication of weapons and reducing the number of different weapons people have to remember stats for. You streamline the game. The flavour can still be there in the form of background text. I really don't understand this idea that for something to be flavourful it has to have different stats or a different name in the game.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
'These things are all mechanically identical therefore they should be separate' is certainly a take.

Given that they all operate in the same way and have existed for many editions what is the benefit of changing them and removing flavour?

Consolidation will not stop you from calling it Power Sword, Power Maul, or Power Ballad, and it will not stop you from modelling it as you wish. If anything it would open up modelling potential. If anything there should only be two weapon stat likes: One-Handed Power Weapon and Two-handed Power Weapon as those two can actually give you meaningful choice considering the fact that most humans in the 40k century have 2 hands.

In the end it's just the illusion of flavor and choice, whereas consolidation would give you absolute flavor and choice. I'll be honest though, I despise illusions of choice so I have strong opinions about it. I also just like modelling and kitbashing, and these endless useless weapon datasheets tend to mess with the modelling and kitbashing aspect of the game.

Slipspace wrote:
The benefit is removing duplication of weapons and reducing the number of different weapons people have to remember stats for. You streamline the game. The flavour can still be there in the form of background text. I really don't understand this idea that for something to be flavourful it has to have different stats or a different name in the game.

You don't have to remember very much to figure out that most things with bolter in the name will generally be small arms that are best for clearing chaff. Beyond that ask your opponent or look up the rules on the computer that you're carrying around in your pocket.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
The benefit is removing duplication of weapons and reducing the number of different weapons people have to remember stats for. You streamline the game. The flavour can still be there in the form of background text. I really don't understand this idea that for something to be flavourful it has to have different stats or a different name in the game.

You don't have to remember very much to figure out that most things with bolter in the name will generally be small arms that are best for clearing chaff. Beyond that ask your opponent or look up the rules on the computer that you're carrying around in your pocket.

So a S5 AP-2 D2 weapon is small arms for clearing chaff?

 Eldarsif wrote:
Consolidation will not stop you from calling it Power Sword, Power Maul, or Power Ballad, and it will not stop you from modelling it as you wish. If anything it would open up modelling potential. If anything there should only be two weapon stat likes: One-Handed Power Weapon and Two-handed Power Weapon as those two can actually give you meaningful choice considering the fact that most humans in the 40k century have 2 hands.

In the end it's just the illusion of flavor and choice, whereas consolidation would give you absolute flavor and choice. I'll be honest though, I despise illusions of choice so I have strong opinions about it. I also just like modelling and kitbashing, and these endless useless weapon datasheets tend to mess with the modelling and kitbashing aspect of the game.

What if they decide that they want a storm bolter to have different stats than a twin boltgun again?

Also, how is removing background fluff and telling you what kind of bolter that unit uses (which is well within GWs rights to do) making your army any more flavourful? If anything you gain flavour for knowing that those different bits you've put on your models are combi-bolters and not storm bolters so you can explain the lore reason why your dudes have one and not the other. If you don't care about that level of detail then you don't care about fluff at all and only care about modelling, in which case may I recommend you some gunpla and shuffle you away from GW products.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
The benefit is removing duplication of weapons and reducing the number of different weapons people have to remember stats for. You streamline the game. The flavour can still be there in the form of background text. I really don't understand this idea that for something to be flavourful it has to have different stats or a different name in the game.

You don't have to remember very much to figure out that most things with bolter in the name will generally be small arms that are best for clearing chaff. Beyond that ask your opponent or look up the rules on the computer that you're carrying around in your pocket.

So a S5 AP-2 D2 weapon is small arms for clearing chaff?

If you can't figure out what a heavy bolter is why are you in this hobby?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Consolidation will not stop you from calling it Power Sword, Power Maul, or Power Ballad, and it will not stop you from modelling it as you wish. If anything it would open up modelling potential. If anything there should only be two weapon stat likes: One-Handed Power Weapon and Two-handed Power Weapon as those two can actually give you meaningful choice considering the fact that most humans in the 40k century have 2 hands.

In the end it's just the illusion of flavor and choice, whereas consolidation would give you absolute flavor and choice. I'll be honest though, I despise illusions of choice so I have strong opinions about it. I also just like modelling and kitbashing, and these endless useless weapon datasheets tend to mess with the modelling and kitbashing aspect of the game.

What if they decide that they want a storm bolter to have different stats than a twin boltgun again?

Also, how is removing background fluff and telling you what kind of bolter that unit uses (which is well within GWs rights to do) making your army any more flavourful? If anything you gain flavour for knowing that those different bits you've put on your models are combi-bolters and not storm bolters so you can explain the lore reason why your dudes have one and not the other. If you don't care about that level of detail then you don't care about fluff at all and only care about modelling, in which case may I recommend you some gunpla and shuffle you away from GW products.

Who said anything about removing the background? You could easily include it in the unit description page.

Do we need differences between Godwin and Diaz Bolters?

And C5, that wasn't a Heavy Bolter. Hell, isn't that a good example of there being too many bolters? You got confused about which Bolter I was talking about, despite the statlines being different!

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
The benefit is removing duplication of weapons and reducing the number of different weapons people have to remember stats for. You streamline the game. The flavour can still be there in the form of background text. I really don't understand this idea that for something to be flavourful it has to have different stats or a different name in the game.

You don't have to remember very much to figure out that most things with bolter in the name will generally be small arms that are best for clearing chaff. Beyond that ask your opponent or look up the rules on the computer that you're carrying around in your pocket.

But is it Assault 2, or Assault 3, or Rapid Fire 1, or Rapid Fire 2, or 18" range, or 24" range, or 30" range, or a pistol, or is it a mega-bolter which contrary to the name isn't mega-good at clearing chaff but actually more of a rapid-fire autocannon, or is it S4 or S5, or does it have any AP, or is it D1 or D2, or does it have strange special rules attached to it? There are many permutations of stats that make up the "bolter" label, and while you may be happy not knowing what anything does and having to skim through spreadsheets any time you want a unit to fire I don't think having a weapon for every possible permutation of stats adds much to the game.

Who said anything about removing the background? You could easily include it in the unit description page.

Do we need differences between Godwin and Diaz Bolters?

Does it hurt the game if the rules say clarify which pattern of bolter each main chapter uses and gives guidelines for which patterns successor chapters should use? Then you could give pattern specific perks, like a unit equipped with Godwin pattern bolters may re-roll a single failed hit roll while a unit equipped with Diaz pattern bolters can re-roll a wound roll of 1. Then simply expect that everybody will use an app on their smart device of choice to offload some of the memorizations. Done.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Who said anything about removing the background? You could easily include it in the unit description page.

Do we need differences between Godwin and Diaz Bolters?

Does it hurt the game if the rules say clarify which pattern of bolter each main chapter uses and gives guidelines for which patterns successor chapters should use? Then you could give pattern specific perks, like a unit equipped with Godwin pattern bolters may re-roll a single failed hit roll while a unit equipped with Diaz pattern bolters can re-roll a wound roll of 1. Then simply expect that everybody will use an app on their smart device of choice to offload some of the memorizations. Done.

Does it hurt the game? I'd say yes.

Too many rules, too much bloat makes the game harder to get into, harder to play smoothly, and doesn't really do anything to help the game actually be better.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And C5, that wasn't a Heavy Bolter. Hell, isn't that a good example of there being too many bolters? You got confused about which Bolter I was talking about, despite the statlines being different!

A Heavy Bolter has that exact stat line in Dev doctrine, you needed to include the full stat line if you wanted your point to be clear but you knew that adding in range and RoF would make it to obvious which weapon you were posting about so you removed them.

ERJAK wrote:This whole discussion is just an exercise in marine privilege. Sisters of battle have 2 power weapon options: S+1 AP3 powerswords and S+3 AP-1 Power Mauls. Being S3 and having bloody rose means that the powermaul is better against a wide variety of moderately armored (or heavily invuled) targets, which gives it a great spot as a horde clearing weapon or alternatively a decent duelist pick for celestians to take out characters/terminators, while the powersword is the better marine killer at AP-3(4 with BR).

Power sword as Bloody Rose vs MEQ: Wound on 4+, no save, ave 0.5 wounds per hit.
Power maul as Bloody Rose vs MEQ: Wound on 3+, 5+ save, ave 0.44 wounds per hit.

The weapon that you identify as the go-to Marine killer is a whopping 12% better than the suboptimal pick.

Okay, now let's beat up on Guardsmen, since the Maul is a better crowd-clearing weapon.

Maul: Wound on 2+, no save, ave 0.83 wounds per hit.
Sword: Wound on 3+, no save, ave 0.67 wounds per hit.

On a Canoness over the course of two rounds of combat, that difference amounts to about one Guardsman.

If you're not Bloody Rose, the two weapons have virtually identical damage output against Guardsmen (0.69 to 0.67), so take either.

These just aren't significantly game-altering choices for anyone. It's not unique to Marines.

Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
'These things are all mechanically identical therefore they should be separate' is certainly a take.

Given that they all operate in the same way and have existed for many editions what is the benefit of changing them and removing flavour?

Insisting on messier rules for the sake of flavor is such a uniquely '40K community' thing. Most WW2 games have no problem consolidating all the Kar.98ks, M91/30s, Lee-Enfield No4MkI*s, and Arisaka Type 99s into a generic 'bolt-action rifle' profile. Flavor comes from unique mechanics and the actual differences between the factions, not giving the same stat block different names depending on who's using it.

If you feel that specifying that a unit has a Combi-Bolter rather than a Storm Bolter is important for immersion, you can always do the 'Equipment: Combi-Bolter (counts as Storm Bolter)', and then include the same Storm Bolter stat block you use for everything else.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And C5, that wasn't a Heavy Bolter. Hell, isn't that a good example of there being too many bolters? You got confused about which Bolter I was talking about, despite the statlines being different!

A Heavy Bolter has that exact stat line in Dev doctrine, you needed to include the full stat line if you wanted your point to be clear but you knew that adding in range and RoF would make it to obvious which weapon you were posting about so you removed them.

No, I just posted the most relevant stats. I was not trying to confuse anyone.

 catbarf wrote:
Insisting on messier rules for the sake of flavor is such a uniquely '40K community' thing. Most WW2 games have no problem consolidating all the Kar.98ks, M91/30s, Lee-Enfield No4MkI*s, and Arisaka Type 99s into a generic 'bolt-action rifle' profile. Flavor comes from unique mechanics and the actual differences between the factions, not giving the same stat block different names depending on who's using it.

If you feel that specifying that a unit has a Combi-Bolter rather than a Storm Bolter is important for immersion, you can always do the 'Equipment: Combi-Bolter (counts as Storm Bolter)', and then include the same Storm Bolter stat block you use for everything else.

Personally, I'd use "Twin Bolter" as the generic RF2 Bolter Profile.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
But is it Assault 2, or Assault 3, or Rapid Fire 1, or Rapid Fire 2, or 18" range, or 24" range, or 30" range, or a pistol, or is it a mega-bolter which contrary to the name isn't mega-good at clearing chaff but actually more of a rapid-fire autocannon, or is it S4 or S5, or does it have any AP, or is it D1 or D2, or does it have strange special rules attached to it? There are many permutations of stats that make up the "bolter" label, and while you may be happy not knowing what anything does and having to skim through spreadsheets any time you want a unit to fire I don't think having a weapon for every possible permutation of stats adds much to the game.

I would love it if 40k became a full simulationist wargame where each player submits all their orders in secret and then those orders are played out based on unit initiative, in phase, with chances that the target you wanted to shoot at has moved before you were able to fire. Go further, make it so that each player is playing on their own board and only gets ? markers for enemy units unless a unit spends an action to radio to HQ and update the situation. Go full simulation and I'd love the hell out of your game that takes an entire weekend to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And C5, that wasn't a Heavy Bolter. Hell, isn't that a good example of there being too many bolters? You got confused about which Bolter I was talking about, despite the statlines being different!

A Heavy Bolter has that exact stat line in Dev doctrine, you needed to include the full stat line if you wanted your point to be clear but you knew that adding in range and RoF would make it to obvious which weapon you were posting about so you removed them.

No, I just posted the most relevant stats. I was not trying to confuse anyone.

So range and RoF aren't relevant to a weapon now? I guess we should remove those from the game then!

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
But is it Assault 2, or Assault 3, or Rapid Fire 1, or Rapid Fire 2, or 18" range, or 24" range, or 30" range, or a pistol, or is it a mega-bolter which contrary to the name isn't mega-good at clearing chaff but actually more of a rapid-fire autocannon, or is it S4 or S5, or does it have any AP, or is it D1 or D2, or does it have strange special rules attached to it? There are many permutations of stats that make up the "bolter" label, and while you may be happy not knowing what anything does and having to skim through spreadsheets any time you want a unit to fire I don't think having a weapon for every possible permutation of stats adds much to the game.

I would love it if 40k became a full simulationist wargame where each player submits all their orders in secret and then those orders are played out based on unit initiative, in phase, with chances that the target you wanted to shoot at has moved before you were able to fire. Go further, make it so that each player is playing on their own board and only gets ? markers for enemy units unless a unit spends an action to radio to HQ and update the situation. Go full simulation and I'd love the hell out of your game that takes an entire weekend to play.

You are probably not alone in that, but you're very much a minority. One of the big reasons I play 40k is that it's accessible. As-in, lots of people play it, so (were it not for Covid) getting a game isn't too hard.

Changing it to that would ensure that no-I can't get a game in easily. And what good is a game you can't play?

Edit: Are you really trying to claim I want to remove RoF and Range from weapon profiles because I didn't include them in a single post?

 catbarf wrote:
Insisting on messier rules for the sake of flavor is such a uniquely '40K community' thing.

Nice, isn't it?

I mean, if you're not a fan of this sort of thing, maybe you're playing the wrong game?

 catbarf wrote:

ERJAK wrote:This whole discussion is just an exercise in marine privilege. Sisters of battle have 2 power weapon options: S+1 AP3 powerswords and S+3 AP-1 Power Mauls. Being S3 and having bloody rose means that the powermaul is better against a wide variety of moderately armored (or heavily invuled) targets, which gives it a great spot as a horde clearing weapon or alternatively a decent duelist pick for celestians to take out characters/terminators, while the powersword is the better marine killer at AP-3(4 with BR).

Power sword as Bloody Rose vs MEQ: Wound on 4+, no save, ave 0.5 wounds per hit.
Power maul as Bloody Rose vs MEQ: Wound on 3+, 5+ save, ave 0.44 wounds per hit.

The weapon that you identify as the go-to Marine killer is a whopping 12% better than the suboptimal pick.

Okay, now let's beat up on Guardsmen, since the Maul is a better crowd-clearing weapon.

Maul: Wound on 2+, no save, ave 0.83 wounds per hit.
Sword: Wound on 3+, no save, ave 0.67 wounds per hit.

On a Canoness over the course of two rounds of combat, that difference amounts to about one Guardsman.

If you're not Bloody Rose, the two weapons have virtually identical damage output against Guardsmen (0.69 to 0.67), so take either.

These just aren't significantly game-altering choices for anyone. It's not unique to Marines.

What are you on about? 12% is a massive difference. I'm not kidding, a 12% difference in save percentages in the NHL means going from the best goalie to the 11th best goalie, then from that 11th best goalie you drop all the way down to 31st. Are you claiming that all of those goalies are equal in terms of what they provide their teams? I could also show F1 where a 5% difference can be literally all it takes to go from 1st to last in qualifying.

Over the number of attacks that get made in a game of 40k 10% or so is massive and is what makes a top tier list top tier.

Canadian 5th wrote:Insisting on messier rules for the sake of flavor is such a uniquely '40K community' thing. Most WW2 games have no problem consolidating all the Kar.98ks, M91/30s, Lee-Enfield No4MkI*s, and Arisaka Type 99s into a generic 'bolt-action rifle' profile. Flavor comes from unique mechanics and the actual differences between the factions, not giving the same stat block different names depending on who's using it.

If you feel that specifying that a unit has a Combi-Bolter rather than a Storm Bolter is important for immersion, you can always do the 'Equipment: Combi-Bolter (counts as Storm Bolter)', and then include the same Storm Bolter stat block you use for everything else.

The difference is that we know how those real-world weapons actually worked and can look at their results in battle and say, 'They're within x% efficacy and thus can be represented by a single set of rules'. As far as I know, we have no such set of data for 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Edit: Are you really trying to claim I want to remove RoF and Range from weapon profiles because I didn't include them in a single post?

"S5 AP-2 D2" "I just posted the most relevant stats." Are range and RoF relevant to a weapon or aren't they?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
But is it Assault 2, or Assault 3, or Rapid Fire 1, or Rapid Fire 2, or 18" range, or 24" range, or 30" range, or a pistol, or is it a mega-bolter which contrary to the name isn't mega-good at clearing chaff but actually more of a rapid-fire autocannon, or is it S4 or S5, or does it have any AP, or is it D1 or D2, or does it have strange special rules attached to it? There are many permutations of stats that make up the "bolter" label, and while you may be happy not knowing what anything does and having to skim through spreadsheets any time you want a unit to fire I don't think having a weapon for every possible permutation of stats adds much to the game.

I would love it if 40k became a full simulationist wargame where each player submits all their orders in secret and then those orders are played out based on unit initiative, in phase, with chances that the target you wanted to shoot at has moved before you were able to fire. Go further, make it so that each player is playing on their own board and only gets ? markers for enemy units unless a unit spends an action to radio to HQ and update the situation. Go full simulation and I'd love the hell out of your game that takes an entire weekend to play.

You are probably not alone in that, but you're very much a minority. One of the big reasons I play 40k is that it's accessible. As-in, lots of people play it, so (were it not for Covid) getting a game isn't too hard.

Changing it to that would ensure that no-I can't get a game in easily. And what good is a game you can't play?

That depends on how much you value the experience of reading the rules, of learning the system, and of theory crafting lists over and over again. As somebody who reads the rules for RPG systems I'll never play I'd love to dive into such a system and figure out what makes it tick. My enjoyment of a system is just as valid as your desire to see the game streamline so why is my fun bad-- while yours is good++?

Range and RoF are relevant. I felt that, at the moment in this conversation, they were not as relevant as the Strength, AP, and Damage.

And 12% would be huge, if you consistently saw large units of people equipped with Power [SWORD/MAUL]s in combat with MEQ.

As-is, the only unit that can take large amounts of Power Weapons are, to my knowledge, the Zephyrim, which are Swords only. Usually, you'll get a single Sergeant of a squad with a Sword or Maul, so 12% of those attacks are small peanuts.
If it was 12% difference on their BOLTERS or something, then yes, that is huge. Because you can take a ton of them. But when you're taking maybe half a dozen Power Weapons that can be either Swords or Mauls, on units that won't spend a ton of time in Close Combat... Not so important.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Range and RoF are relevant. I felt that, at the moment in this conversation, they were not as relevant as the Strength, AP, and Damage.

If you posted those would it have cleared up which weapon you were posting about to a degree that the stats you posted did not?

And 12% would be huge, if you consistently saw large units of people equipped with Power [SWORD/MAUL]s in combat with MEQ.

As-is, the only unit that can take large amounts of Power Weapons are, to my knowledge, the Zephyrim, which are Swords only. Usually, you'll get a single Sergeant of a squad with a Sword or Maul, so 12% of those attacks are small peanuts.
If it was 12% difference on their BOLTERS or something, then yes, that is huge. Because you can take a ton of them. But when you're taking maybe half a dozen Power Weapons that can be either Swords or Mauls, on units that won't spend a ton of time in Close Combat... Not so important.

So 12% is relevant and thus those weapons do have distinct battlefield roles with statistically significant differences against certain targets.