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.

VladimirHerzog wrote: I know i would personally love to be able to take ANY power weapon i like visually, which is why i think the rumored "Accursed weapons" is a much better approach.

In a vacuum, I agree with you. As long as its consistent within the system. As it stands in 9th edition, that isn't the case.

What's worse, from what the rumors have said, it isn't even consistent within the codex itself. Some units get accursed weapons, other units get the whole pile of profiles. That's the worst of both worlds.

----
Now, if they FAQed melee weapons as a whole for everybody, it'd be far less of an issue to me. Though it would help if they did it right this time and not what they did with Imperial Ranged Weapons only, and left everybody else flailing.

Voss wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote: I know i would personally love to be able to take ANY power weapon i like visually, which is why i think the rumored "Accursed weapons" is a much better approach.

In a vacuum, I agree with you. As long as its consistent within the system. As it stands in 9th edition, that isn't the case.

What's worse, from what the rumors have said, it isn't even consistent within the codex itself. Some units get accursed weapons, other units get the whole pile of profiles. That's the worst of both worlds.

----
Now, if they FAQed melee weapons as a whole for everybody, it'd be far less of an issue to me. Though it would help if they did it right this time and not what they did with Imperial Ranged Weapons only, and left everybody else flailing.

That's what i'm advocating for : every single faction in the game could have their weapons consolidated into :

Basic CCW
Power CCW
Heavy CCW

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Voss wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote: I know i would personally love to be able to take ANY power weapon i like visually, which is why i think the rumored "Accursed weapons" is a much better approach.

In a vacuum, I agree with you. As long as its consistent within the system. As it stands in 9th edition, that isn't the case.

What's worse, from what the rumors have said, it isn't even consistent within the codex itself. Some units get accursed weapons, other units get the whole pile of profiles. That's the worst of both worlds.

----
Now, if they FAQed melee weapons as a whole for everybody, it'd be far less of an issue to me. Though it would help if they did it right this time and not what they did with Imperial Ranged Weapons only, and left everybody else flailing.

That's what i'm advocating for : every single faction in the game could have their weapons consolidated into :

Basic CCW
Power CCW
Heavy CCW

My first thought was "I'm not sure I want that much consolidation" then I remembered that WHFB 6th is great, and most weapons are almost identical.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Voss wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote: I know i would personally love to be able to take ANY power weapon i like visually, which is why i think the rumored "Accursed weapons" is a much better approach.

In a vacuum, I agree with you. As long as its consistent within the system. As it stands in 9th edition, that isn't the case.

What's worse, from what the rumors have said, it isn't even consistent within the codex itself. Some units get accursed weapons, other units get the whole pile of profiles. That's the worst of both worlds.

----
Now, if they FAQed melee weapons as a whole for everybody, it'd be far less of an issue to me. Though it would help if they did it right this time and not what they did with Imperial Ranged Weapons only, and left everybody else flailing.

That's what i'm advocating for : every single faction in the game could have their weapons consolidated into :

Basic CCW
Power CCW
Heavy CCW

Relating to this, I've been a little frustrated with how GW reworked melee weapons for Tyranids, because in a lot of ways it highlights how they've moved away from having distinct, clearly-defined weapon roles.

In 5th Ed, you had Scything Talons for extra attacks, Rending Claws for defeating armor and cracking open tanks, Boneswords for ignoring armor and inflicting Instant Death (but expensive), and Bonesword+Lash Whip for ignoring armor and making enemies strike last. Fairly clearly delineated roles and each had utility and purpose, and the one that was significantly the best (Boneswords) was also costly.

In 9th Ed, Scything Talons give you extra attacks, but so do Boneswords, and the difference in S, AP, and Dam means Boneswords are straight up better in virtually all scenarios, often by a big margin. Rending Claws are totally worthless. Lash Whips still have some use (get to fight even if the model is killed), but otherwise nearly identical to Boneswords. And they all cost the same.

The problem is that, counterintuitively, the addition of specific S modifiers and AP values to melee weapons has made the weapons feel more similar, rather than more different. You can take the weapon that gives you extra attacks to help kill chaff, but the weapon that gets an extra point or two of S and AP is also better at killing chaff, so the difference isn't so clear. Trading off S for AP doesn't make for a huge difference because both stats help against virtually all targets, so it's usually a wash.

Compare power weapons across the editions. When all a power weapon did was ignore armor, the utility was obvious: You get a lot of mileage when fighting Terminators or Marines, and next to no benefit when fighting Gaunts. The role was clearly defined; you take power swords to defeat armor. Now, though, most power weapons give you some AP and some S, so they're just flat-out better against everything, but not as big an improvement against heavily-armored stuff as they used to be.

Then you throw in how there are multiple power weapons that incrementally trade different amounts of S for AP, and statistically they come out nearly equivalent against everything (so what's the point?), except that there's usually a single winning option and taking the others is strictly suboptimal.

How about power fists? Used to be that you got the same armor-ignoring ability as power weapons, but also doubled your strength in exchange for striking last. You could deliver a big wallop, but only if you survived that long, so you couldn't make suicide attacks. Now it's just a S boost and a to-hit modifier, so you can math out exactly how the typical damage compares, and decide whether the increase in damage is worth the points.

Instead of weapons having different roles, it's just flat upgrades. Power fists do more damage than power weapons which do more damage than CCWs. When the differentiation is this bland to begin with, there really is zero need to subdivide those categories further into nitpicky rearrangements of stats.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:


My first thought was "I'm not sure I want that much consolidation" then I remembered that WHFB 6th is great, and most weapons are almost identical.

thats basically what we already have anyway (with a few other weapons that could warrant unique profiles) but most of the time, a power mace/axe/sword is mostly the same

I think GW have learned (not unreasonably) that given the issues of getting across the table, navigating screening units and successfully making a charge, a functional melee unit has to blend everything.

So for your "100 point package" - there isn't really a difference whether you have mass (40 or something) S4 AP-, a smaller number of S5 AP-3 2 damage attacks, or a smaller again number of S8+ AP-3 3+ damage attacks. The rough outturn in damage for everything but the last unit into say chaff, has to be about the same - and so you can blend whatever you get into.

Otherwise you have a unit which still has to navigate all those above issues - but will also, by design, bounce off about 2/3rds of the things in the game. Which unsurprisingly makes the unit suck.

 catbarf wrote:

Relating to this, I've been a little frustrated with how GW reworked melee weapons for Tyranids, because in a lot of ways it highlights how they've moved away from having distinct, clearly-defined weapon roles.

In 5th Ed, you had Scything Talons for extra attacks, Rending Claws for defeating armor and cracking open tanks, Boneswords for ignoring armor and inflicting Instant Death (but expensive), and Bonesword+Lash Whip for ignoring armor and making enemies strike last. Fairly clearly delineated roles and each had utility and purpose, and the one that was significantly the best (Boneswords) was also costly.

In 9th Ed, Scything Talons give you extra attacks, but so do Boneswords, and the difference in S, AP, and Dam means Boneswords are straight up better in virtually all scenarios, often by a big margin. Rending Claws are totally worthless. Lash Whips still have some use (get to fight even if the model is killed), but otherwise nearly identical to Boneswords. And they all cost the same.

The problem is that, counterintuitively, the addition of specific S modifiers and AP values to melee weapons has made the weapons feel more similar, rather than more different. You can take the weapon that gives you extra attacks to help kill chaff, but the weapon that gets an extra point or two of S and AP is also better at killing chaff, so the difference isn't so clear. Trading off S for AP doesn't make for a huge difference because both stats help against virtually all targets, so it's usually a wash.

Compare power weapons across the editions. When all a power weapon did was ignore armor, the utility was obvious: You get a lot of mileage when fighting Terminators or Marines, and next to no benefit when fighting Gaunts. The role was clearly defined; you take power swords to defeat armor. Now, though, most power weapons give you some AP and some S, so they're just flat-out better against everything, but not as big an improvement against heavily-armored stuff as they used to be.

Then you throw in how there are multiple power weapons that incrementally trade different amounts of S for AP, and statistically they come out nearly equivalent against everything (so what's the point?), except that there's usually a single winning option and taking the others is strictly suboptimal.

How about power fists? Used to be that you got the same armor-ignoring ability as power weapons, but also doubled your strength in exchange for striking last. You could deliver a big wallop, but only if you survived that long, so you couldn't make suicide attacks. Now it's just a S boost and a to-hit modifier, so you can math out exactly how the typical damage compares, and decide whether the increase in damage is worth the points.

Instead of weapons having different roles, it's just flat upgrades. Power fists do more damage than power weapons which do more damage than CCWs. When the differentiation is this bland to begin with, there really is zero need to subdivide those categories further into nitpicky rearrangements of stats.

This is an excellent post and really helps define the issues with the current system. I'd like to add a couple of points if I may:

Firstly, just on the point of 5th edition, I think it's worth elaborating on the fact that there were very clear trade-offs with regard to the different weapons.
- Scything Talons tended to be secondary weapons (usually taken in conjunction with other melee weapons). I believe a single pair let you reroll 1s to hit and two pairs let you reroll all missed hits. Especially given their cheap cost, the latter could be very useful on Monstrous Creatures (as they ignored armour saves and got extra penetration dice against vehicles by default).
- Rending Claws were weaker against armour saves but allowed relatively low-strength units like Warriors to threaten many vehicles. This wasn't always necessary but could make a huge difference against units like Walkers, which could otherwise tie up a unit of Warriors or such with no fear whatsoever. Plus they were a cheaper option than either of the Bonesword choices (not a huge deal for Primes but it mattered if you were trying to outfit an entire Warrior unit).
- Twin Boneswords were power weapons that caused wounded enemies to make a Ld test on 3d6 or die. These were obviously better against characters and monsters with good armour saves. However, in taking them you lost the ability to rend vehicles and also had to rely on striking in initiative order. This was important as many Tyranids had middling initiative values and very few had noteworthy defences (almost nothing had an invulnerable save, for example). This was especially important as most of the units you might want to cause instant-death to had the same or better initiative as Primes and Warriors.
- Lastly, Lash Whip and Bonesword was also a power weapon and made enemies strike at I1. It had the same instant-death mechanic as the twin boneswords above, except that the unit only needed to make a Ld test on 2d6. So now you'd almost certainly get to strike first but in return it was far less likely that the instant-death effect would actually go off.

Anyway, I know you already covered some of this but I did just want to emphasise again the depths of choice you had to consider - including factors like initiative and vehicle armour-penetration, neither of which currently exist.


The second point I wanted to make relates to the cost of weapons and wargear. I think there's a notable issue with how wargear is costed at the moment, both on units and on characters. With units, more and more wargear seems to either be baked into the cost of the unit or else just priced identically. Tyranid Warriors, for example, no longer have to pay extra for any of their melee weapons - despite the fact that there are fewer (if any) trade-offs for just taking boneswords. While points aren't the only issue here, I do think they're making an already bad situation worse by costing mathematically-superior weapons at near-dentical prices to their less effective counterparts.

When it comes to characters, I think there are a few factors at play. For one (and I mention this partially because of the WHFB comparisons), we have long since dropped the idea of limiting wargear selection by price. It was once the case that characters could only have a certain amount of the available wargear (usually 100pts worth). This forced people to make choices about what they wanted a given character to focus on and what he'd sacrifice in return. For example, a character might have a very dangerous weapon but would then be left with little to spend on protection (or other bells and whistles).

What's more, so much wargear has been removed (or moved to stratagems/relics/warlord traits) and so much baked into the cost of units that many characters have little to spend their points on beyond weapons. Even when the 100pts wargear limit was dropped, it used to be the case that you had to watch how much you were spending on your characters as the costs could add up fast. As an example, a 5th edition Archon was about 60pts base but could easily get up to 150+pts (a 150% increase on his base cost) when you started adding weapons, defences and other tech to him. In particular, already-expensive weapons often encouraged you to spend even more points. A Power Fist might incline you towards giving a character extra protection (to make sure he got to swing), a Huskblade might incline you towards purchasing items like the Soul Trap and/or Combat Drugs, etc.

Now, though, there tend to be few such decisions to be made. To return to the Archon, even taking all the most expensive options available only pushes his cost from 70pts to 95pts (a mere 35% increase).

The point I'm trying to get at is that cost is no longer a useful way to balance weapons. There are no competing options and even the expensive gear makes so little difference in the overall cost of a model that there's really no reason to not just take the best gear available every time.

 vipoid wrote:
The second point I wanted to make relates to the cost of weapons and wargear. I think there's a notable issue with how wargear is costed at the moment, both on units and on characters. With units, more and more wargear seems to either be baked into the cost of the unit or else just priced identically. Tyranid Warriors, for example, no longer have to pay extra for any of their melee weapons - despite the fact that there are fewer (if any) trade-offs for just taking boneswords. While points aren't the only issue here, I do think they're making an already bad situation worse by costing mathematically-superior weapons at near-dentical prices to their less effective counterparts.

Yeah, that's a good point. The current melee weapon implementation means going from a chainsword to a power sword to a power fist is just a series of flat upgrades that are ostensibly balanced by cost, but it also often produces a situation where either it's worth it to just take the best option because the cost delta isn't great, or it's never worth it to take the best weapon because it costs too much, or your decision of what weapon to take is entirely dependent on how likely you are to get to use it rather than what role you want to perform.

In the case of Warriors, you could probably improve the balance a lot by giving Boneswords a per-model cost- but I still don't think it would be particularly interesting, since the choice would still be purely cost/benefit. Plan to get into melee? Take Boneswords. Don't plan to get into melee? Take something else. But at least that's a step above there being no real option because Boneswords are simply the best at no extra cost.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


That's what i'm advocating for : every single faction in the game could have their weapons consolidated into :

Basic CCW
Power CCW
Heavy CCW

weapon flexibility in squads is part of the nature of GK squads, and we don't even have access to basic ccw. So we would be limited to power and heavy ccw. No idea how it would work for NDKs who have fists, swords and hammers too.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


That's what i'm advocating for : every single faction in the game could have their weapons consolidated into :

Basic CCW
Power CCW
Heavy CCW

weapon flexibility in squads is part of the nature of GK squads, and we don't even have access to basic ccw. So we would be limited to power and heavy ccw. No idea how it would work for NDKs who have fists, swords and hammers too.

Genuinely curious : How often do competitive lists mix and match force weapons?

NDKs would have :
Fist and Hammer : heavy CCW
Sword : Power CCW

Dudeface wrote:

I agree but inevitably someone will wade in with a comment about how it's because gw can't balance anything rather than just accepting it's impossible to not have a "best" weapon in the power weapon realm.

I think for any given meta, there's probably going to be a "best" weapon. But for any given game, it could be widely different (i.e. you play against Harlequins and you should have brought power axes, even though power swords are more broadly useful)

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I agree but inevitably someone will wade in with a comment about how it's because gw can't balance anything rather than just accepting it's impossible to not have a "best" weapon in the power weapon realm.

I think for any given meta, there's probably going to be a "best" weapon. But for any given game, it could be widely different (i.e. you play against Harlequins and you should have brought power axes, even though power swords are more broadly useful)

That's largely true alongside the stats of the bearer, like when guard officers only ever took a maul if anything because the strength breakpoint made the difference.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Genuinely curious : How often do competitive lists mix and match force weapons?

NDKs would have :
Fist and Hammer : heavy CCW
Sword : Power CCW

A lot depends on the unit and which brotherhood you play. And stuff like nemezis force staffs, also a weapon we have, have their own stratagems.in form of zone of warding. It also depends if or how many of the units run hammerhand. Generally stuff like halabard+staff or sword+hammer or just swords on strikes combos are often played. Only falchions are the bad option, but GW wrote their rules like that. And they were the only sensible option in prior edition, so the change was good for the company.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Genuinely curious : How often do competitive lists mix and match force weapons?

NDKs would have :
Fist and Hammer : heavy CCW
Sword : Power CCW

A lot depends on the unit and which brotherhood you play. And stuff like nemezis force staffs, also a weapon we have, have their own stratagems.in form of zone of warding. It also depends if or how many of the units run hammerhand. Generally stuff like halabard+staff or sword+hammer or just swords on strikes combos are often played. Only falchions are the bad option, but GW wrote their rules like that. And they were the only sensible option in prior edition, so the change was good for the company.

It's not hard to cut off a hand at the wrist and you'd possess the bits from when they were built the first time. It doesn't get them many more sales if any.

Dudeface wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I agree but inevitably someone will wade in with a comment about how it's because gw can't balance anything rather than just accepting it's impossible to not have a "best" weapon in the power weapon realm.

I think for any given meta, there's probably going to be a "best" weapon. But for any given game, it could be widely different (i.e. you play against Harlequins and you should have brought power axes, even though power swords are more broadly useful)

That's largely true alongside the stats of the bearer, like when guard officers only ever took a maul if anything because the strength breakpoint made the difference.

Nah, it was either the maul or the axe. Axe was favored since at the normal I3 they'd likely strike last against any actual threat. Might as well go in with AP2 after all.

Dudeface 805087 11369809 wrote:

It's not hard to cut off a hand at the wrist and you'd possess the bits from when they were built the first time. It doesn't get them many more sales if any.

If you still have them. And it lowers the chance someone starting GK will get their army on the 2ed hand market, because all of those models are going to be coming with falchions. On top of that you have to paint the new weapons. It is not something that will stop everyone from playing or buying GK. But it does move people to buying stuff like the patrol box or regular boxs at the store.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
That's what i'm advocating for : every single faction in the game could have their weapons consolidated into :

Basic CCW
Power CCW
Heavy CCW

Given all the models GW has produced over time, that is a little tight on the weapon options. You need to cover:

Default CCW - Unarmed

Basic CCW - Chainsword or other one-handed melee weapon

Heavy CCW - Most 2-Handed CCWs that are not power weapons

Power Weapon - all the various 1-handed power weapons

Heavy Power Weapon - The 2-handed power weapons along with things like Powerfist and Thunderhammers

And those are just the Infantry (and Infantry like) weapons. Monsters and Vehicles can use their own rules, but those can be bespoke rules along as some resemblance of balance is provided on the datasheet and points cost.

I find consolidation of melee weapons pretty easy.
1. Basic ass CC weapon
2. Chainsword
3. Bladed Power Weapon (where Swords would go)
4. Heavy Power Weapon (where Axes AND Mauls can go)
5. Power Fist

This, presumably, is for Imperial/SM factions.

Given the existence of stuff like Witchblades, Agonisers etc., I imagine Xeno factions would have more unusual weapon selections.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Let's imagine these dudes got the same treatment as BL/PM

Looking at this picture now after 10 years it strikes me that the Dark Vengeance set may have been the start of this trend discussed in this thread. The models are all monopose and their wargear is all unique. The 6th edition rules provided for a difference between the power maul and power axe pictured here probably solely due to this kit. I remember thinking these models were cool, but I never made the connection that these models drove the rules that were such a hassle for players who built models when the choice of power axe or power sword was purely a cosmetic decision.

 catbarf wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
The second point I wanted to make relates to the cost of weapons and wargear. I think there's a notable issue with how wargear is costed at the moment, both on units and on characters. With units, more and more wargear seems to either be baked into the cost of the unit or else just priced identically. Tyranid Warriors, for example, no longer have to pay extra for any of their melee weapons - despite the fact that there are fewer (if any) trade-offs for just taking boneswords. While points aren't the only issue here, I do think they're making an already bad situation worse by costing mathematically-superior weapons at near-dentical prices to their less effective counterparts.

Yeah, that's a good point. The current melee weapon implementation means going from a chainsword to a power sword to a power fist is just a series of flat upgrades that are ostensibly balanced by cost, but it also often produces a situation where either it's worth it to just take the best option because the cost delta isn't great, or it's never worth it to take the best weapon because it costs too much, or your decision of what weapon to take is entirely dependent on how likely you are to get to use it rather than what role you want to perform.

In the case of Warriors, you could probably improve the balance a lot by giving Boneswords a per-model cost- but I still don't think it would be particularly interesting, since the choice would still be purely cost/benefit. Plan to get into melee? Take Boneswords. Don't plan to get into melee? Take something else. But at least that's a step above there being no real option because Boneswords are simply the best at no extra cost.

I'm not really sure I'm following the logic and perhaps I've missed part of the argument jumping in the middle.

On the old hammer front a power sword was better than a chainsword - the armor system was all or nothing. If your unit produced a low volume of attacks then you go power swords otherwise they'll suck. Similarly a power fist was the next step up, but limited in availability ( mostly ). It was a "flat upgrade" as long as you had enough chumps to take hits before the fist could swing. It made you swing last, which is synonymous with -1 to hit. It also had instant death available which, again pairs with the new D2.

Now when you pick weapons your decision pivots around what you expect to fight.

Are you fighting lots of transhuman? -1D? Chaff? You may be better suited to use scytals to side step the wounding, -1D, and body count.

As it stands scytals need an AP bump or boneswords could do with a really small point cost. Regardless the differentiation in roles is visible and the opponents can have an impact on how the weapons function on the table.

Earlier you painted the old tyranid weapons in a very positive light, but a lash whip and bonesword was clearly superior to two boneswords. And with WS5 there was little reason to take two pairs of scytals to hit better when you could make them swing at I1. If I remember right you could take rending claws plus LW&BS and literally cover all the bases.

 catbarf wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Voss wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote: I know i would personally love to be able to take ANY power weapon i like visually, which is why i think the rumored "Accursed weapons" is a much better approach.

In a vacuum, I agree with you. As long as its consistent within the system. As it stands in 9th edition, that isn't the case.

What's worse, from what the rumors have said, it isn't even consistent within the codex itself. Some units get accursed weapons, other units get the whole pile of profiles. That's the worst of both worlds.

----
Now, if they FAQed melee weapons as a whole for everybody, it'd be far less of an issue to me. Though it would help if they did it right this time and not what they did with Imperial Ranged Weapons only, and left everybody else flailing.

That's what i'm advocating for : every single faction in the game could have their weapons consolidated into :

Basic CCW
Power CCW
Heavy CCW

Relating to this, I've been a little frustrated with how GW reworked melee weapons for Tyranids, because in a lot of ways it highlights how they've moved away from having distinct, clearly-defined weapon roles.

In 5th Ed, you had Scything Talons for extra attacks, Rending Claws for defeating armor and cracking open tanks, Boneswords for ignoring armor and inflicting Instant Death (but expensive), and Bonesword+Lash Whip for ignoring armor and making enemies strike last. Fairly clearly delineated roles and each had utility and purpose, and the one that was significantly the best (Boneswords) was also costly.

In 9th Ed, Scything Talons give you extra attacks, but so do Boneswords, and the difference in S, AP, and Dam means Boneswords are straight up better in virtually all scenarios, often by a big margin. Rending Claws are totally worthless. Lash Whips still have some use (get to fight even if the model is killed), but otherwise nearly identical to Boneswords. And they all cost the same.

The problem is that, counterintuitively, the addition of specific S modifiers and AP values to melee weapons has made the weapons feel more similar, rather than more different. You can take the weapon that gives you extra attacks to help kill chaff, but the weapon that gets an extra point or two of S and AP is also better at killing chaff, so the difference isn't so clear. Trading off S for AP doesn't make for a huge difference because both stats help against virtually all targets, so it's usually a wash.

Compare power weapons across the editions. When all a power weapon did was ignore armor, the utility was obvious: You get a lot of mileage when fighting Terminators or Marines, and next to no benefit when fighting Gaunts. The role was clearly defined; you take power swords to defeat armor. Now, though, most power weapons give you some AP and some S, so they're just flat-out better against everything, but not as big an improvement against heavily-armored stuff as they used to be.

Then you throw in how there are multiple power weapons that incrementally trade different amounts of S for AP, and statistically they come out nearly equivalent against everything (so what's the point?), except that there's usually a single winning option and taking the others is strictly suboptimal.

How about power fists? Used to be that you got the same armor-ignoring ability as power weapons, but also doubled your strength in exchange for striking last. You could deliver a big wallop, but only if you survived that long, so you couldn't make suicide attacks. Now it's just a S boost and a to-hit modifier, so you can math out exactly how the typical damage compares, and decide whether the increase in damage is worth the points.

Instead of weapons having different roles, it's just flat upgrades. Power fists do more damage than power weapons which do more damage than CCWs. When the differentiation is this bland to begin with, there really is zero need to subdivide those categories further into nitpicky rearrangements of stats.

You actually just didn't take power weapons at all. Characters would take Thunderhammers, Powerfists, or Lightning claws based on cost and what interacts better with special rules. Much the same as it is today.

Most of what you're describing either died with 5th or never happened.

 vipoid wrote:
This, presumably, is for Imperial/SM factions.

Given the existence of stuff like Witchblades, Agonisers etc., I imagine Xeno factions would have more unusual weapon selections.

I did forget about Lightning Claws, but I consider HQ equipment to be a whole different thing. For example I'd straight up remove Power Weapons as an option for Captains and Relic Blade can encompass their super cool weapon they've been fighting with for years. After all, the basic Power Weapon does nothing except get replaced for relics.

Daedalus81 wrote:On the old hammer front a power sword was better than a chainsword - the armor system was all or nothing. If your unit produced a low volume of attacks then you go power swords otherwise they'll suck. Similarly a power fist was the next step up, but limited in availability ( mostly ). It was a "flat upgrade" as long as you had enough chumps to take hits before the fist could swing. It made you swing last, which is synonymous with -1 to hit. It also had instant death available which, again pairs with the new D2.

I think you're missing the nuance.

Yes, a power sword was a flat upgrade over a chainsword, but the degree to which it was an upgrade depended heavily on the target. If you took a power sword to kill chaff, you were wasting points; if you took it to fight MEQs or TEQs, you'd get your points back easily. It was an upgrade, but one with a specific role. In the current implementation, all the power weapons that give you bonus S as well as bonus AP are better against chaff than the old implementation, but worse against MEQs and TEQs (whose armor is no longer simply ignored). So you take the power axe or power maul because it's statistically optimal, and then you're just better against everything.

With power fists, that 'as long as you can take hits before the fist could swing' is a significant drawback that changed how you used the unit. It is absolutely not synonymous with -1 to hit; all -1 to hit does is change your statistical damage output. Hitting last meant that a unit of Boyz could drag down a Command Squad or Combat Squad before the fist ever gets a chance to swing, or a Carnifex could eat your character if he didn't bring enough backup. There's no drawback now, you just do more damage.

Daedalus81 wrote:Now when you pick weapons your decision pivots around what you expect to fight.

Are you fighting lots of transhuman? -1D? Chaff? You may be better suited to use scytals to side step the wounding, -1D, and body count.

And this is my point: It doesn't actually work that way.

Marines with Transhuman: A Warrior with one pair of ScyTals average 0.55 wounds. One pair of Boneswords average 1.33. Extra AP and D2 is way better than an extra attack, it's not even close.

Death Guard with their innate -1D: ScyTals average 0.55 wounds. Boneswords average 0.89 wounds. Slimmer margin, but the extra S and AP is more useful.

How about Guard, those are pretty chaffy, right? ScyTals average 1.85 kills. Boneswords average 2.22 kills. The Boneswords are better.

Cultists? I mean it doesn't get much more chaff than T3/6+. ScyTals averages 2.22 kills. Boneswords still average 2.22. The extra S of the Boneswords offsets the extra attack with the ScyTals even against a target where the AP and D2 don't matter. This is the only comparison where ScyTals can pull ahead if you assume two pairs rather than one... Then winning by a measly 17%.

There's no specialization here- bonus attacks help against everything, but so does bonus S and bonus AP, so Boneswords are far better in any case where the D2 matters and somewhat better or on par where it doesn't. I mean, granted, that's not dissimilar to the old situation with upgrading from a chainsword to a power sword ('on par' to 'way better' depending on target), but at least you had to pay for that and it wasn't rendering other options (poor Rending Claws) redundant as well.

The most target-specific characteristic of melee weapons is their Damage stat, but everything else is just different flavors of 'kills everything better'. Shuffling those stats around doesn't meaningfully distinguish melee weapons, so there's really no mechanical need for the multitude of melee weapon profiles that currently exist.

A lot of people responded to my last post here, generally all roughly saying the same sort of thing. Took catbarf (unsurprisingly) to really hit the nail on the head though with this:

 catbarf wrote:
Shuffling those stats around doesn't meaningfully distinguish melee weapons, so there's really no mechanical need for the multitude of melee weapon profiles that currently exist.

And herein lies where I seem to differ to most of you.

You're absolutely correct that there is no need for the multitude of melee weapons given the way their rules work - as much as I may want the variety, I cannot in good faith argue that they should exist based upon how their rules are written - but where most of you see this as a reason to consolidate and simplify (or downright kneecap in Herzog's case - you sure you ain't Jervis in disguise?), I prefer the opposite: They should create that need.

I want these weapons to have a reason to exist outside of shuffling stats. I dislike the way they've done Tyranid Warriors because they've made a bunch of unequal weapons equal in points, and this is terrible game design (they just did the same thing for Guard Infantry squads). This is why Power Level, despite one particular Dakkanaut's insistence to the opposite, is an inadequate system compared to points*, because it creates zero distinction between base options and the best options. You lose nothing by taking the best options, so why bother with anything else?

The set up for power weapons is, generally, the same right now. With few exceptions, they generally all cost the same, and shuffle the Strength, AP and Damage around a bit, and given that they all cost the same and there is no specific points-based advantage or disadvantage to any of them, you just either take the one that is generally the most effective in most circumstances, or just the one you like.

I started in 2nd Edition, where a Power Axe was different to a Power Sword. We then moved into 3rd when suddenly everything was a "Power Weapon", except for Fists, Thunder Hammers and Chainfists (and Lightning Claws). I felt this was going too far in the opposite way. It was removing too much of what made differing load outs interesting. But what we have now with power swords/axes/mauls, is a bunch of weapon distinctions without any real difference.

But people pointed out what the various Tyranid bio-weapons were meant to do, and how they fulfilled different roles. I would want that to be the goal, not reducing everything to bland generic "Accursed Weapon" because we're too lazy to come up with a meaningful alternative.


*No, this does not mean that points are perfect, or that points solve every problem, so please don't start that.

 vipoid wrote:


What we see currently is stuff like Harlequin weapons (which, in terms of fluff, have some of the most unusual and esoteric effects in the game) being consolidated into a single profile, whilst SMs still have 20 different varieties of power weapons and 50 different varieties of bolters.

I think it's fair to question whether the current consolidation is really happening in the most necessary places.

Harlequins' weapons were all very samey, and the kit doesn't cover every possible combination, so consolidation is a really good thing for them.

I was mostly talking about consolidation for a single kit rather than a whole faction, which would also be good but not relevant to the thread which is about kit restrictions. Bolters variants for example don't matter there, kits don't come with multiple kinds of bolters.

But to me there's no point to differentiate Power Sword, Agoniser, Razorflails, Hydra Gauntlets and Shardnet/Impaler in a wyches kit. They're all already samey and I'd merge all of those weapons into a single profile, something like S+1, AP-2, D1. Pairs, aka all three options for regular wyches, would then grant an extra attack.

 Blackie wrote:
Harlequins' weapons were all very samey, and the kit doesn't cover every possible combination, so consolidation is a really good thing for them.

This is the defeatist attitude I dislike when it comes to options vs consolidation.

"They weren't very unique, so let's make 'em the same."

Why not go the opposite route and make 'em unique?

And I flatly reject "the kit didn't have enough for every combination" being a valid reason to remove something from the game.

 Blackie wrote:
But to me there's no point to differentiate Power Sword, Agoniser, Razorflails, Hydra Gauntlets and Shardnet/Impaler in a wyches kit. They're all already samey and I'd merge all of those weapons into a single profile, something like S+1, AP-2, D1. Pairs, aka all three options for regular wyches, would then grant an extra attack.

Why? Why not make them unique?

40k is zoomed in enough where you can differentiate between different weapons in squads. If we're going to consolidate melee weapons, then why not special weapons? Why not heavy weapons?

I don't think Tyranids need 15 different types of Scything Talons like the do right now, but just having one is equally as bad.

Imo less is more is a thing and its absolutely not defeatist.

Making all the things 'unique' is fine in theory but there are only so many practical levers to pull - very swiftly you get the boltnoun phenomenon or the necromunda big melee thing phenomenon where everything is different for the sake of being different and there is little de jure or valid difference between any of it - its really just bloat masquerading as variety.

And lets remember. Ttgs are very limited systems. Whild gw are notorious for this, you aee the exact same thing in every game by every company. There will always be a 'best' option. All that variety is false variety - essentislly just useless text on a page. Less is more because its easier to distinguish and separate a smaller number of 'things' into useful and distinct categories. Fewer 'words', more 'real' variety.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Harlequins' weapons were all very samey, and the kit doesn't cover every possible combination, so consolidation is a really good thing for them.

This is the defeatist attitude I dislike when it comes to options vs consolidation.

"They weren't very unique, so let's make 'em the same."

Why not go the opposite route and make 'em unique?

And I flatly reject "the kit didn't have enough for every combination" being a valid reason to remove something from the game.

 Blackie wrote:
But to me there's no point to differentiate Power Sword, Agoniser, Razorflails, Hydra Gauntlets and Shardnet/Impaler in a wyches kit. They're all already samey and I'd merge all of those weapons into a single profile, something like S+1, AP-2, D1. Pairs, aka all three options for regular wyches, would then grant an extra attack.

Why? Why not make them unique?

40k is zoomed in enough where you can differentiate between different weapons in squads. If we're going to consolidate melee weapons, then why not special weapons? Why not heavy weapons?

I don't think Tyranids need 15 different types of Scything Talons like the do right now, but just having one is equally as bad.

Making them unique could be a solution of course. But you need to make them really unique. In the examples I made, about wych and harlequins melee weapons, all those weapons have been designed for the same role, to be anti elite. They're basically all equivalents for SM power weapons. That's why I advocate for a consolidation. They were/are already the same weapons basically, and having slightly different profiles only slows down the game or put the weapons with the worst averages into oblivion.

Special weapons such as plasma, melta, flamer, etc... do serve different purpose instead and they need to stay unique. So do splinter cannons, blasters and dark lances for example, although I think blasters could appreciate being a bit more unique compared to lances.

 Blackie wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


What we see currently is stuff like Harlequin weapons (which, in terms of fluff, have some of the most unusual and esoteric effects in the game) being consolidated into a single profile, whilst SMs still have 20 different varieties of power weapons and 50 different varieties of bolters.

I think it's fair to question whether the current consolidation is really happening in the most necessary places.

Harlequins' weapons were all very samey, and the kit doesn't cover every possible combination, so consolidation is a really good thing for them.

Nah dude, they were not samey, I said this a page ago (and many other times on dakka but nobody cares about Harlequins except for considering them Le OP Menace). In 8th, yeah they were bland as hell. But in 7th:

Harlequin's Kiss: One attack at S6 AP2, and 6s to wound have Instant Death
Harlequin's Caress: 6s to hit autowound/glance at AP2
Harlequin's Embrace: d3 Hammer of Wrath attacks at S6

Differentiated, unique, and interesting. Don't forget it!