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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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.

12% is technically relevant. But is it relevant enough to be worth modeling, is the question at hand. In my opinion, no-not for Sister's, certainly. Hell, the first list of Sisters I saw on this forum, had what looks like 6 squads that could each take a Power [SWORD/MAUL]. I think that's 14 attacks total, if every unit made it to close combat. Meaning that with a Sword against MEQ, they'd do 2.92. With Mauls, 2.33. In either case, it's enough to kill one Marine and not a second, unless that Marine was already wounded.
As I said-small peanuts.

You're free to disagree about whether or not they should be consolidated, but please do not strawman others' posts.

 Dysartes wrote:

 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?

It wasn't that long ago that you could fit all the Marine weapon stats on a notecard, and I expect sooner or later we'll be headed back in that direction.

Right now the community feels that having a million bolt weapons is important for immersion; in a few years when GW inevitably makes an attempt to streamline the game, the same community will sing their praises for making the game cleaner and easier to play. So it goes.

Canadian 5th wrote: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.

No, no, when you give irrelevant sports comparisons it's supposed to be about placement at your all-boy's wrestling school.

Canadian 5th wrote: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'.

We know Storm Bolters and Combi-Bolters and Twin Bolters can all be represented by a single set of rules because they already are.

 JNAProductions wrote:
12% is technically relevant. But is it relevant enough to be worth modeling, is the question at hand. In my opinion, no-not for Sister's, certainly. Hell, the first list of Sisters I saw on this forum, had what looks like 6 squads that could each take a Power [SWORD/MAUL]. I think that's 14 attacks total, if every unit made it to close combat. Meaning that with a Sword against MEQ, they'd do 2.92. With Mauls, 2.33. In either case, it's enough to kill one Marine and not a second, unless that Marine was already wounded.
As I said-small peanuts.

That's potentially 2 or three extra wounds over the course of the game which could easily be the difference between clearing an objective or not. Even in single roles pushing your odds of a favourable result up will change the win-rate of your army list.

There's a reason why modern video games Devs often aim to buff and nerf outliers by small amounts, like 10 damage on a 200 damage ability, while expecting that change to impact that outlier's win-rate by 0.5% to 1%. Do fraction of a percent changes in a faction or lists win-rate not count towards game balance now or are we going to admit that 40k is impossible to balance because we can't have both simplicity in datasheets and fine granularity to balance around at the same time?

You're free to disagree about whether or not they should be consolidated, but please do not strawman others' posts.

I think my answer to that question is pretty self-evident.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
We know Storm Bolters and Combi-Bolters and Twin Bolters can all be represented by a single set of rules because they already are.

So the rules as they are must be perfect then and we should freeze development right now and play with the rules as they are forever more! Sure, I'm down for that, let's go.

If that isn't the case then we should probably acknowledge that there have been many times over the game's history where that wasn't the case and accept that in the future GW may again decide that these weapons should behave differently.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
12% is technically relevant. But is it relevant enough to be worth modeling, is the question at hand. In my opinion, no-not for Sister's, certainly. Hell, the first list of Sisters I saw on this forum, had what looks like 6 squads that could each take a Power [SWORD/MAUL]. I think that's 14 attacks total, if every unit made it to close combat. Meaning that with a Sword against MEQ, they'd do 2.92. With Mauls, 2.33. In either case, it's enough to kill one Marine and not a second, unless that Marine was already wounded.
As I said-small peanuts.

That's potentially 2 or three extra wounds over the course of the game which could easily be the difference between clearing an objective or not. Even in single roles pushing your odds of a favourable result up will change the win-rate of your army list.

There's a reason why modern video games Devs often aim to buff and nerf outliers by small amounts, like 10 damage on a 200 damage ability, while expecting that change to impact that outlier's win-rate by 0.5% to 1%. Do fraction of a percent changes in a faction or lists win-rate not count towards game balance now or are we going to admit that 40k is impossible to balance because we can't have both simplicity in datasheets and fine granularity to balance around at the same time?

You're free to disagree about whether or not they should be consolidated, but please do not strawman others' posts.

I think my answer to that question is pretty self-evident.

First things first-I goofed on the math slightly. I was running without Bloody Rose's AP buff.
The actual numbers are 3.5 (Swords) and 3.11 (Mauls).

With those correct numbers, to have a difference in one wound takes 36 attacks, or three rounds of combat from every last Power Weapon equipped Sergeant.

How often do you see that happening at all?

 JNAProductions wrote:
First things first-I goofed on the math slightly. I was running without Bloody Rose's AP buff.
The actual numbers are 3.5 (Swords) and 3.11 (Mauls).

With those correct numbers, to have a difference in one wound takes 36 attacks, or three rounds of combat from every last Power Weapon equipped Sergeant.

How often do you see that happening at all?

Over thousands of games enough to impact win-rates and thus balance. As I said before, there are games that have millions of matches played daily that change things which make even less of an impact and yet still contribute positively to the balance of those games. Would you argue that a 0.5% win-rate change to one of 141 different playable heroes of which 10 will be played and 10 more will be banned each game* isn't a smaller change than consolidating power weapons would be for the Sisters of Battle? Basically, can 40k afford to ignore any possible lever to balance the game when so many players feel that it isn't currently balanced?

*In the standard ranked play game mode.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
If that isn't the case then we should probably acknowledge that there have been many times over the game's history where that wasn't the case and accept that in the future GW may again decide that these weapons should behave differently.

...Then if they decide to do that, they can split those weapons out again into their own profiles?

Like, what even is the argument here? GW can't roll storm bolters and combi-bolters into a single 'twin bolter' weapon profile because at some hypothetical point in the future they might decide those should be different, and then it will be impossible for a new SM codex to have 'storm bolters' and a new CSM codex to have 'combi-bolters' because... reasons?

 catbarf wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
If that isn't the case then we should probably acknowledge that there have been many times over the game's history where that wasn't the case and accept that in the future GW may again decide that these weapons should behave differently.

...Then if they decide to do that, they can split those weapons out again into their own profiles?

Like, what even is the argument here? GW can't roll storm bolters and combi-bolters into a single 'twin bolter' weapon profile because at some hypothetical point in the future they might decide those should be different, and then it will be impossible for a new SM codex to have 'storm bolters' and a new CSM codex to have 'combi-bolters' because... reasons?

Say you want to make bikes bolters have a strat. You would then need "bike twin bolters not purchased as wargear upgrades" to stop it applying to the sargeants stormbolter or "twin bolter" which has the same name now. Just having names for stuff makes writing inclusions and exceptions easier.

 catbarf wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
If that isn't the case then we should probably acknowledge that there have been many times over the game's history where that wasn't the case and accept that in the future GW may again decide that these weapons should behave differently.

...Then if they decide to do that, they can split those weapons out again into their own profiles?

Like, what even is the argument here? GW can't roll storm bolters and combi-bolters into a single 'twin bolter' weapon profile because at some hypothetical point in the future they might decide those should be different, and then it will be impossible for a new SM codex to have 'storm bolters' and a new CSM codex to have 'combi-bolters' because... reasons?

If the rules don't change and nearly everybody knows that combi-bolters = storm bolters why make the change? At best you could name them Combi-Bolter (Twin Boltgun), Storm Bolter (Twin Boltgun) and go on with your day.

Dudeface wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
If that isn't the case then we should probably acknowledge that there have been many times over the game's history where that wasn't the case and accept that in the future GW may again decide that these weapons should behave differently.

...Then if they decide to do that, they can split those weapons out again into their own profiles?

Like, what even is the argument here? GW can't roll storm bolters and combi-bolters into a single 'twin bolter' weapon profile because at some hypothetical point in the future they might decide those should be different, and then it will be impossible for a new SM codex to have 'storm bolters' and a new CSM codex to have 'combi-bolters' because... reasons?

Say you want to make bikes bolters have a strat. You would then need "bike twin bolters not purchased as wargear upgrades" to stop it applying to the sargeants stormbolter or "twin bolter" which has the same name now. Just having names for stuff makes writing inclusions and exceptions easier.

We already have strats like that and the solution is very simple: it targets the unit and the weapon. This is a non-issue.

It’s also entirely hypothetical. “If a new rule is made that makes Storm Bolters and Twin Bolters different, then they’ll be different!” Is not false, but is also not really important.

Dudeface wrote:Say you want to make bikes bolters have a strat. You would then need "bike twin bolters not purchased as wargear upgrades" to stop it applying to the sargeants stormbolter or "twin bolter" which has the same name now. Just having names for stuff makes writing inclusions and exceptions easier.

That's such an extreme edge case that it's far more logical to treat it as such than to write the rest of the game around the possibility that it might someday exist. If Grinding Advance can distinguish between a Russ's hull weapons and turret weapons, you can write a stratagem to distinguish between guns mounted on bikes and guns carried by riders. We don't need a whole separate list of names for Russ turret guns so that Grinding Advance can single them out.

Keeping weapons separate because they might be potentially treated differently by stratagems in the future is a fast track to madness. Death Korps use different lasguns from Cadians, why don't we split that out into two identical profiles? Maybe we'll someday want the hull-mounted Demolisher of the Baneblade to behave differently from the turret-mounted Demolisher on a Russ, so why not split those out too? Every single Tyranid unit's scything talons are shaped differently; should they each have a unique weapon profile?

We have tons and tons of different bolter variants of varying size and caliber that all share the same RF1/24"/S4/AP0/D1 profile labeled 'bolter'. Why do we need a bunch of different weapon entries to represent wholly cosmetic variations on 'two bolters stuck together'?

Canadian 5th wrote:If the rules don't change and nearly everybody knows that combi-bolters = storm bolters why make the change?

Eliminating redundant profiles reduces cognitive burden and decreases the amount of reference material needed to play the game.

Canadian 5th wrote:At best you could name them Combi-Bolter (Twin Boltgun), Storm Bolter (Twin Boltgun) and go on with your day.

That's literally what I suggested, for crying out loud. GW used to do this all the time.

'[such and such character] is armed with the Vicious Talon of the Abyss (counts as master-crafted boltgun)'
'[unit] possesses an inhuman agility, eagerly leaping across the battlefield to reach their foes. This unit has the Fleet special rule.'

You can easily have your unit-specific flavor text and then mechanically represent it with a standard rules component. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

 catbarf wrote:
Eliminating redundant profiles reduces cognitive burden and decreases the amount of reference material needed to play the game.

So would writing 3 allowable lists for each codex and eliminating list building. There are some of us that want the game to be complex and for brewing lists to require a mastery of your codex and a firm knowledge of the meta, for which the throwing of dice and movement of plastic is secondary to the pregame planning, why should we be ignored because some people have faulty memories?

That's literally what I suggested, for crying out loud. GW used to do this all the time.

'[such and such character] is armed with the Vicious Talon of the Abyss (counts as master-crafted boltgun)'
'[unit] possesses an inhuman agility, eagerly leaping across the battlefield to reach their foes. This unit has the Fleet special rule.'

You can easily have your unit-specific flavor text and then mechanically represent it with a standard rules component. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Except that we currently don't have USRs or weapons stats in the BRB so each of those Name (Brackets) style weapons would still, by RAW, be a unique profile and that means we've changed nothing! This is the exact thing I was trying to highlight by bringing up Name (Brackets) as a solution in the first place.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
So would writing 3 allowable lists for each codex and eliminating list building. There are some of us that want the game to be complex

Stopping you right there. Explain how having multiple identical weapon profiles makes the game deeper. It doesn't affect your listbuilding. It doesn't affect the gameplay. It just clutters up your reference sheet and gives you more things to remember.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Except that we currently don't have USRs or weapons stats in the BRB so each of those Name (Brackets) style weapons would still, by RAW, be a unique profile and that means we've changed nothing!

This is factually untrue, because there are plenty of units that don't have the stats for all their weapons listed on their datasheet. You can find those weapons at the back of the codex. They're not USRs, but they're functionally the same: Instead of every single unit profile having its own uniquely-named bolter profile with all the same S4/AP0 statline, they all just use the same generic 'bolter' entry then referenced once at the back of the book.

You don't need a duplicate weapon profile for every pattern of bolter. A single 'bolter' profile works fine.

You don't need a duplicate weapon profile for every pattern of two-bolters-stuck-together. A single 'twin bolter' (or storm bolter, or combi-bolter, or whatever you want to call it) profile works fine.

 catbarf wrote:
Stopping you right there. Explain how having multiple identical weapon profiles makes the game deeper.

You're the one claiming that removing weapon names makes the game more complicated and confusing, so these profiles must add some complexity to the game.

This is factually untrue, because there are plenty of units that don't have the stats for all their weapons listed on their datasheet. You can find those weapons at the back of the codex. They're not USRs, but they're functionally the same: Instead of every single unit profile having its own uniquely-named bolter profile with all the same S4/AP0 statline, they all just use the same generic 'bolter' entry then referenced once at the back of the book.

Looks at C:SM, doesn't seem like they do that for anything except combi-bolters all the other bolters are on datasheets as they are main arms for the entire squad and not special options taken on a limited number of models.

Dudeface wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
If that isn't the case then we should probably acknowledge that there have been many times over the game's history where that wasn't the case and accept that in the future GW may again decide that these weapons should behave differently.

...Then if they decide to do that, they can split those weapons out again into their own profiles?

Like, what even is the argument here? GW can't roll storm bolters and combi-bolters into a single 'twin bolter' weapon profile because at some hypothetical point in the future they might decide those should be different, and then it will be impossible for a new SM codex to have 'storm bolters' and a new CSM codex to have 'combi-bolters' because... reasons?

Say you want to make bikes bolters have a strat. You would then need "bike twin bolters not purchased as wargear upgrades" to stop it applying to the sargeants stormbolter or "twin bolter" which has the same name now. Just having names for stuff makes writing inclusions and exceptions easier.

I'd solve this problem by removing strats from the game entirely.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Stopping you right there. Explain how having multiple identical weapon profiles makes the game deeper.

You're the one claiming that removing weapon names makes the game more complicated and confusing, so these profiles must add some complexity to the game.

Why not just write all the rules in Chinese then, if unnecessarily harder to learn = deeper play experience? We can throw in some reference sheets in Wingdings for good measure, preferably printed backwards and in 3pt font. Stat blocks will be given in the form of differential equations, and points values expressed as Sports Almanac score lookups. I guarantee it'll be the most difficult to learn and confusing edition of 40K yet, so it'll just blow your socks off with how DEEP it'll be. Even if the rules are actually exactly the same as they are now.

I trust that the 40K design team understands the difference between complexity and depth; I can only hope they're ignoring the feedback of players who don't.

 catbarf wrote:
Why not just write all the rules in Chinese then, if unnecessarily harder to learn = deeper play experience? We can throw in some reference sheets in Wingdings for good measure, preferably printed backwards and in 3pt font. Stat blocks will be given in the form of differential equations, and points values expressed as Sports Almanac score lookups. I guarantee it'll be the most difficult to learn and confusing edition of 40K yet, so it'll just blow your socks off with how DEEP it'll be. Even if the rules are actually exactly the same as they are now.

I trust that the 40K design team understands the difference between complexity and depth; I can only hope they're ignoring the feedback of players who don't.

That would be a very interesting challenge. If you decide to make it let me know and I'll buy the first copy.

I know the bolter topic is adjacent to this one, but I started this thread to just focus on melee/power weapons.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I know the bolter topic is adjacent to this one, but I started this thread to just focus on melee/power weapons.

I think there's a correlation between the two strands that's quite illuminating. The key question your thread asks is essentially "when are two or more weapons similar enough that they should be consolidated into a single profile". If there are a group of people who don't even want to see mechanically identical weapons consolidated into a single profile I'm not sure the extent to which you can meaningfully discuss this with those people involved. If literally zero difference is sufficient to warrant a different weapon then there must logically be infinitely many weapon profiles that could be justified.

I think that just leads to what we've seen ITT, with two sides arguing past each other. If your stance is that mechanically identical weapons should remain differently named then I don't think there's much point in discussing anything with that group, so the real discussion would need to be between groups who recognise there are some situations where actual differences between weapons are not meaningful and then trying to define where the point is where that distinction lies.

My position is to reduce the number of weapons available to the minimum required to promote meaningful choices in list building while increasing the freedom of hobbyists to build their models in the way they find more aesthetically pleasing without being negatively affected on the tabletop. This would also reduce the amount of bloat and complexity in how GW writes and presents its rules. This mainly affects SM players as many Xenos factions don't have the same number of options as SM do. Interestingly, that doesn't seem to affect the character and identity of those Xenos armies.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
(though counterintuitively it is the mace offering the worst AP).

warning long winded and just overly wordy reply that probably missed the trees for the forest.

A mace doesn't batter through armor any better than a sword would slice through it. for a mace to do any real damage you would need to hit something like a joint where the armor would be weaker and bone is closer to the surface, or hit their head which would most likely stun or disorient long enough to delivery a finishing blow. a suit of say platemail or hell power armor is quite good as dissipating blunt force. To get the kind of damage most people expect from a mace in fantasy would require typically a 2 handed mace or warhammer, or be mounted cavalry.

A sword is far more versatile weapon, better defensively, easier to aim for gaps in the armor, hence the higher AP, not to mention swords evolve with armor, as armor got heavier swords typically developed into more of a thrusting weapon than a slashing, better able to pierce through chainmail and hit gaps easier.

A mace however comes with alot of downsides, unbalanced, most of its weight is focused on its head, leading to easy counterattacks comparatively on missed or diverted strikes. A typical mace weights about the same as a sword and sometimes is lighter and someone on foot wont be able to really generate the force needed to hurt someone through their armor itself. (most injuries would be on non or lightly protected areas like their arms and joints. so if anything the higher strength stat to make it easier to wound is probably correct compared to the higher ap, more wounds = more saves = more casualties, rather than some saves that get through the armor easier). Most maces people typically think of would most likely be a cavalry mace and not a standard infantry mace.

after all the vast majority of knights who were killed was with a dagger after being incapacitated or stunned and taken to the ground. usually by say opening their visor and stabbing them in the face likely through an eye socket, under the armpit or groin.

Hell if anything we should probably see a power knife with s+0 and ap4 or 5

Slipspace wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I know the bolter topic is adjacent to this one, but I started this thread to just focus on melee/power weapons.

I think there's a correlation between the two strands that's quite illuminating.

I totally get you, but there are two factors; bolters are ranged combat verses melee so the dynamic is different, especially due to strength and attacks profiles. A lot of the discussion has centered on the different effects for S3 models vs S4, for example. The second is that bolter discussion is one of those 'trigger words' which inevitably goes to... let's put it as 'the current level of Marines discussion'.

If there are a group of people who don't even want to see mechanically identical weapons consolidated into a single profile I'm not sure the extent to which you can meaningfully discuss this with those people involved. If literally zero difference is sufficient to warrant a different weapon then there must logically be infinitely many weapon profiles that could be justified.

See what I mean?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warmaster21 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
(though counterintuitively it is the mace offering the worst AP).

warning long winded and just overly wordy reply that probably missed the trees for the forest.

A mace doesn't batter through armor any better than a sword would slice through it. for a mace to do any real damage you would need to hit something like a joint where the armor would be weaker and bone is closer to the surface, or hit their head which would most likely stun or disorient long enough to delivery a finishing blow. a suit of say platemail or hell power armor is quite good as dissipating blunt force. To get the kind of damage most people expect from a mace in fantasy would require typically a 2 handed mace or warhammer, or be mounted cavalry.

A sword is far more versatile weapon, better defensively, easier to aim for gaps in the armor, hence the higher AP, not to mention swords evolve with armor, as armor got heavier swords typically developed into more of a thrusting weapon than a slashing, better able to pierce through chainmail and hit gaps easier.

A mace however comes with alot of downsides, unbalanced, most of its weight is focused on its head, leading to easy counterattacks comparatively on missed or diverted strikes. A typical mace weights about the same as a sword and sometimes is lighter and someone on foot wont be able to really generate the force needed to hurt someone through their armor itself. (most injuries would be on non or lightly protected areas like their arms and joints. so if anything the higher strength stat to make it easier to wound is probably correct compared to the higher ap, more wounds = more saves = more casualties, rather than some saves that get through the armor easier). Most maces people typically think of would most likely be a cavalry mace and not a standard infantry mace.

Your description is that swords have a better chance to wound while maces have better armor penetration, so I think we are on the same page.

Hell if anything we should probably see a power knife with s+0 and ap4 or 5

From their release I have been saying this is what Reivers need...

 warmaster21 wrote:

warning long winded and just overly wordy reply that probably missed the trees for the forest.

A mace doesn't batter through armor any better than a sword would slice through it. for a mace to do any real damage you would need to hit something like a joint where the armor would be weaker and bone is closer to the surface, or hit their head which would most likely stun or disorient long enough to delivery a finishing blow. a suit of say platemail or hell power armor is quite good as dissipating blunt force. To get the kind of damage most people expect from a mace in fantasy would require typically a 2 handed mace or warhammer, or be mounted cavalry.

Sorry but this just isn't true.

If you're talking about platemail then a sword will not slice through it at all. Seriously, you can strike a sword against a breastplate as hard as you can and it won't make a dent.

Meanwhile, a mace is far better at concentrating force in one specific area (in addition to the extra weight, they also tend to have spikes, nodules or other protrusions so that the impact isn't spread out over a large area). They absolutely do not need to strike a joint in order to be effective. Even striking a hard surface, they can penetrate, they can inflict concussive damage (fracturing bones), and they can even bend/dent the armour inwards.

Hell, one of the most common techniques was for knights to grip their swords by the blade, striking their opponent with the hilt like an improvised warhammer.

Further, a two-handed mace/warhammer would make far less difference than you seem to think. It might give you a little more control, but it won't significantly improve your ability to penetrate armour.

(Obviously I'm purely talking medieval warfare here, as I have no idea how power armour fares against power weapons - both game and fluff seem highly inconsistent on the issue.)

 warmaster21 wrote:

A sword is far more versatile weapon, better defensively, easier to aim for gaps in the armor, hence the higher AP, not to mention swords evolve with armor, as armor got heavier swords typically developed into more of a thrusting weapon than a slashing, better able to pierce through chainmail and hit gaps easier.

A sword is perhaps better at going for gaps in armour than a mace, but it's nowhere near as easy as you seem to be making out. Maybe if you're able to get your opponent on the ground (though then a dagger would probably work better).

What's more, I'm rather puzzled about swords becoming more thrusting weapons than slashing. Can I ask what you're referring to here?


TLR Swords can be used against people in armour, but they are nowhere near as effective at it than maces, warhammers, and other weapons specifically designed to penetrate armour. The advantage of swords (as you actually said) is their versatility - they're easy to carry, they're manoeuvrable, they can be used in a variety of ways, and they can be used to parry (obviously you can parry with other weapons, but it's a good deal easier to parry with a sword than with a mace - hence why the latter was typically used alongside a shield). Outside of greatswords, swords were almost universally sidearms, because they're highly versatile but don't excel in any one role - especially when it comes to penetrating armour.

Question, vipoid - how would you describe the role of axes in warfare, and what sort of role would they fill compared to a sword or mace?

The role of axes in warfare as most warfare weapons in history was more cultural than "practical".

Real life wasnt an RTS. If one wanted to have mounted cavalry in his army but his people didn't had them culturally then sad news for him.

The most similar thing to that were romans with their auxiliares taken from all kind of different cultures, but theres a reason why in medieval england it was, by King's decree, obligatory for men from 6 years onwards to practice with the longbow each week, to have readely trained bowmen for the kings armies.

So there was no point in history were some guy said "You know, axes are good for X, lets arm our dudes with them".

That only changed with fire weapons, because anyone can use them with a little bit of training and they superseed all other forms of warfare. And even then, in the first compases of fire and pike warfare, you had cultural ways of making war like spanish tercios, swiss pikemen, french heavy cavalry, german landskanetes, etc...

 Dysartes wrote:
Question, vipoid - how would you describe the role of axes in warfare, and what sort of role would they fill compared to a sword or mace?

It would probably depend to an extent on the specific axe (some were barely different from regular axes, whilst others - like pollaxes - were more specialised and included other spikes/spears in addition to the axe-blade).

In general, though, they would probably be closer to maces than swords (primarily due to the top-heavy weight distribution). They're generally quite effective against armour because (as with maces) they have a lot of mass behind them, which the blade can concentrate quite effectively. However, they'd be a bit less effective than maces because of the shape of the head. The shape and the fact that it protrudes linearly from the shaft means that it's a lot easier for it to glance off armour - especially if the strike isn't perpendicular.

The advantage you'd get is that they're a little more versatile than maces. If the axe is sharp, then you can hold it closer to the head and have more control and still use it as a slashing weapon (not as effective against armour, but better than a mace). If it's not sharp, it's still going to be more effective than a sword because it'll still have weight behind the swing. And if it's a pollaxe (or something along those lines), then you'll also have more reach than a mace, plus some additional tools for stabbing/thrusting/hooking.

I'd say that putting them between swords and maces as 40k does is pretty reasonable, tbh. However, this is speaking purely from a medieval perspective. Whether they'd really need to be differentiated from Maces in terms of stats (relative to other considerations) is another matter.


EDIT: Oh, just to say, Galas is also correct in that (with a few exceptions) axes tended to be more cultural or improvised weapons than ones manufactured specifically for warfare.

 vipoid wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Question, vipoid - how would you describe the role of axes in warfare, and what sort of role would they fill compared to a sword or mace?

It would probably depend to an extent on the specific axe (some were barely different from regular axes, whilst others - like pollaxes - were more specialised and included other spikes/spears in addition to the axe-blade).

In general, though, they would probably be closer to maces than swords (primarily due to the top-heavy weight distribution). They're generally quite effective against armour because (as with maces) they have a lot of mass behind them, which the blade can concentrate quite effectively. However, they'd be a bit less effective than maces because of the shape of the head. The shape and the fact that it protrudes linearly from the shaft means that it's a lot easier for it to glance off armour - especially if the strike isn't perpendicular.

The advantage you'd get is that they're a little more versatile than maces. If the axe is sharp, then you can hold it closer to the head and have more control and still use it as a slashing weapon (not as effective against armour, but better than a mace). If it's not sharp, it's still going to be more effective than a sword because it'll still have weight behind the swing. And if it's a pollaxe (or something along those lines), then you'll also have more reach than a mace, plus some additional tools for stabbing/thrusting/hooking.

I'd say that putting them between swords and maces as 40k does is pretty reasonable, tbh. However, this is speaking purely from a medieval perspective. Whether they'd really need to be differentiated from Maces in terms of stats (relative to other considerations) is another matter.


EDIT: Oh, just to say, Galas is also correct in that (with a few exceptions) axes tended to be more cultural or improvised weapons than ones manufactured specifically for warfare.

I think its also important to point out that it also depends on the type of sword we are comparing the axe with as well ... Both the type of axe and the type of sword makes a difference. A claymore and a samuri sword are going to be utalized in very different ways and for very different battlefield purposes just like the difference between a throwing axe and pole axe... IRL there are way to many variables that exist which are honestly completely different from the variables that can exist in a tabletop war game.

 vipoid wrote:
What's more, I'm rather puzzled about swords becoming more thrusting weapons than slashing. Can I ask what you're referring to here?

Not the person you replied to, but over the course of roughly 1400-1600 swords underwent a general evolution towards reach and thrusting in infantry use. While swords had been primarily thrusting weapons for infantry since the Roman gladius, the basket-hilted rapiers common as sidearms by the time of the Thirty Years War were good for thrusting and nothing else. As use of personal armor diminished, Cavalry swords evolved in a different direction and became sabres intended primarily for slashing.

A lot of this was due to improvements in materials as much as change in battlefield doctrine.

 Galas wrote:
That only changed with fire weapons, because anyone can use them with a little bit of training and they superseed all other forms of warfare. And even then, in the first compases of fire and pike warfare, you had cultural ways of making war like spanish tercios, swiss pikemen, french heavy cavalry, german landskanetes, etc...

This is getting away from the thread but the idea that firearms took off as military arms because anyone could use one is a deeply-engrained myth. Manuals of arms from the early Renaissance describe anywhere from 15 to as many as 70 (!) drill movements needed to operate an arquebus. Poorly-trained troops in densely-packed formation handling loose powder and lit matches burning from both ends was a dangerous combination; the high standards of training required were a driving force (along with the training needed to use a pike in formation) behind the development of professional mercenaries and then standing armies. The guns themselves were attractive due to their superior range and killing power compared to bows, but also because the logistical burden in making powder and lead (the troops would cast their own projectiles) was substantially easier to bear than the labor-intensive process of fletching, and the effectiveness of a firearm was not contingent on the physical health or stamina of the wielder.

...Which, actually, really all goes to show that the driving forces behind weapon adoption often have to do with battlefield context, logistics, culture, training, and a variety of other concerns as much as sheer battlefield performance. The Anglo-Saxons weren't carrying axes because they were stronger but not as armor-piercing as swords; they carried them because swords were prohibitively expensive in raw materials and every able-bodied man had experience using axes in civilian contexts. Japanese swords weren't curved because their fighting styles favored using them as slashing weapons; they used them as slashing weapons because the pattern-welding technique used to make the blades forced the blade to curve. A lot of historical games fall into the trap of ascribing rock-paper-scissor stats to different kinds of hand weapons (let alone assuming everyone in a formation is identically armed), when it's more the guy carrying the weapon that's important.

Applied to 40K, I wonder if the discussion on power weapons and different weapon niches is maybe missing the forest for the trees- there's more difference between a Guardsman with a mace and a Guardsman with a sword than there is between a Guardsman with a sword and a Marine with a sword, and that seems wrong. Maybe it's not the power weapons that need to be differentiated so much as the melee profiles of the troops using them.

Given the difference in strength and attack profile I'd say they are quite differentiated. Before getting into that a power weapon fluff-wise no doubt cares less who is wielding it than a basic close combat weapon. Even in the hands of a weak, unskilled user it is still a rod of advanced metal alloy emitting a matter-disrupting energy field.

Though that touches on the reality that while baseline humans may be S3 T3 in game, in the fluff they are S2 T2.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Given the difference in strength and attack profile I'd say they are quite differentiated. Before getting into that a power weapon fluff-wise no doubt cares less who is wielding it than a basic close combat weapon. Even in the hands of a weak, unskilled user it is still a rod of advanced metal alloy emitting a matter-disrupting energy field.

I suppose this comes back to the point of whether there's a need for differentiation in the first place.

As in, if the heart of a Power Weapon is the power field, then would it not be fair to suggest that the actual shape of the weapon makes little difference?

To put it another way, swords (as already discussed) are very poor at penetrating armour. However, laser-swords (i.e. lightsabers) can cut right through almost anything. The reason being that while they're sword-shaped, they nevertheless don't "cut" in the same manner as swords - instead they simply melt almost anything they come into contact with.

I can't remember the precise lore description of Power Weapons offhand, but is it reasonable to suggest that they might work in a similar manner? i.e. the shape of the blade makes little difference because it's the power field that does the actual damage.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Though that touches on the reality that while baseline humans may be S3 T3 in game, in the fluff they are S2 T2.

Out of interest, would Eldar also be S2 T2 in that case, or are they meant to be somewhere between humans and SMs?

 vipoid wrote:
I can't remember the precise lore description of Power Weapons offhand, but is it reasonable to suggest that they might work in a similar manner? i.e. the shape of the blade makes little difference because it's the power field that does the actual damage.

The original fluff of power weapons was that the energy field worked by disrupting the molecular bonds in the target, essentially making their armour (and flesh) more fragile so the weapon's blade or striking head could more easily deal damage. Sometimes the disruptor field was powerful enough to physically tear the target apart even before the weapon itself made contact (e.g. you could backhand someone with a lightning claw and shred them apart without the blades even having to physically touch their flesh).

Somewhere along the line, BL authors started describing power weapons as very hot, with the energy field working by vaporising the target's armour with intense heat, and power weapon wounds being self-cauterizing (like a lightsabre). But the original fluff never mentioned any heat being involved, just molecular disruption.