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.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Titans had Structure Points(the OG version where you had to do 3 "wounds" per SP) and a separate Super Heavy damage table in 3rd.

Yah but still quite killable. Especially if we're talking souped up Captains/Lords.

I guess I don't recall the FW titan rules, but I remember the Vehicle Design Rules where you could build Superheavies.

But also, not sure where you're going with this. Powerfists were pretty capable weapons against vehicles, do you disagree?

 vict0988 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Powerfists vs. vehicles actually worries me a little about 10th. They always were a credible threat to tanks, but if they are staying at S8 and tanks are getting tougher, I don’t see that going forward.

Don't worry, the new Demolationisters will be S14 and can break open tanks.

Dudes. We literally have chainfists.

As for the TL uproar. A TL LC is stronger than a LC. That the sum of all other weapons is stronger than the turret seems pretty irrelevant.

Well, it's great that after 5+ editions GW decided that power fists are not anti-tank weapons anymore, because we all have phones.

Spoiler:

Powerfists have been a credible threat to tanks because weapons were so lethal that specific anti-tank options, like chainfists, were basically useless.

ERJAK wrote:

Powerfists have been a credible threat to tanks because weapons were so lethal that specific anti-tank options, like chainfists, were basically useless.

That extra D6 AV penetration on Chainfists was baller.

 vict0988 wrote:
Well, it's great that after 5+ editions GW decided that power fists are not anti-tank weapons anymore, because we all have phones.

Spoiler:

In 7th a PF glanced rhino front armor on a 3 and penned on a 4 and you had 2 attacks. Against a Leman Russ it was 5 and 6. The pinnacle of anti-tank, I tell you.

Like you literally had armorbane on chainfists back then and you made the assumption that PF was the quintessential anti-tank?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

I can actually see your points of view - hell you've even explained the much-maligned Macharius problem - other than I don't buy the idea of a Predator Annihilator's main turret guns being less effective than its defensive sponsons. I just cannot see how they'd design the tank that way.

Remember they powered up the turret version compared to the sponson guns in the Chaos codex. You think that won't carry over to loyalists?

[Purely theoretical example:
Predator turret lascannons [Heavy, Twinlinked] S10 -2 Ap, Damage d6+2
Predator sponson lascannon [Heavy] S9 -2 Ap Damage d6.
/purely theoretical example]

Lets save the panic knee-jerk reactions for something definitely revealed.

 Insectum7 wrote:


But also, not sure where you're going with this.

That the game and the fluff don't often coincide such that the game is a good representation of battle in universe and that there isn't as much history of the game fitting the story as you propose.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Powerfists vs. vehicles actually worries me a little about 10th. They always were a credible threat to tanks, but if they are staying at S8 and tanks are getting tougher, I don’t see that going forward.

Don't worry, the new Demolationisters will be S14 and can break open tanks.

Dudes. We literally have chainfists.

As for the TL uproar. A TL LC is stronger than a LC. That the sum of all other weapons is stronger than the turret seems pretty irrelevant.

Well, it's great that after 5+ editions GW decided that power fists are not anti-tank weapons anymore, because we all have phones.

That depends on what you think an Anti-Tank weapon is and should do.

For starters, I'm pretty sure that Chainfist and Metla-Bombs were Anti-Tank weapons (Double Strength and 2d6 for Armor Penetration) while Power Fist (Sx2) were merely decent against light tanks if you were S4 (not so much for Strength 3 models).

Next we compare the damage caused by the various weapons of the known Terminator Squad (assuming no change to the Wound Table) against Tanks with 3+ Save:

Terminator with Power weapon: 0.59 Wounds against a T6-9, 0.29 Against a T10+

Terminator with Power Fist: 1.77 Wounds vs T6-7, 1.33 Wounds vs T8, 0.89 W vs T9+

Terminator with Chainfist: 1.33 Wounds vs T6-7, 1.33 Wounds vs T8+

So you can see a Power Fist is between 150% and 300% more effective than Power Weapon against Tanks. The Chain Fist is between 225% and 450% as effective as a Power Weapon against Tanks. The Chain Fist is less effective than a Power Fist against below S8 due to the higher accuracy of the Fist, but is equal at S8 and 150% as effective starting at Strength 9.

So i think a Power Fist is perfectly decent light vehicle AT and much better than a Power Weapon against any vehicle. The Chainfist is better than a Power Fist against tanks but otherwise a bit worst. Pretty much matches up with the rules back in the day if you don't want Chainfist to be flat out better than Power Fist.

Has WarCom showing us anything yet to make us believe a twin-linked weapon will have fewer shots than two singles of the same type? The Annihilator's turret gun might well get 2 attacks in its profile.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


But also, not sure where you're going with this.

That the game and the fluff don't often coincide such that the game is a good representation of battle in universe and that there isn't as much history of the game fitting the story as you propose.

Well I call BS on that. But also with the caveats of "which fluff" and "what are you asserting with it". But also, as shown, a Powerfist has been pretty consistent in its representation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:




In 7th a PF glanced rhino front armor on a 3 and penned on a 4 and you had 2 attacks. Against a Leman Russ it was 5 and 6. The pinnacle of anti-tank, I tell you.

Like you literally had armorbane on chainfists back then and you made the assumption that PF was the quintessential anti-tank?

Nobody said "pinnacle". We just said, "good at anti-tank". Something can be good at the same time that other things are better.

Snugiraffe wrote:
Has WarCom showing us anything yet to make us believe a twin-linked weapon will have fewer shots than two singles of the same type? The Annihilator's turret gun might well get 2 attacks in its profile.

Yes. How about:

Warhammer Community wrote:Melee weapons can also have abilities, including a blast from the past – Twin-linked is back! This classic rule is now found on ranged and melee weapons alike, and confers a re-roll to wound. In recent editions, many weapons that used to be twin-linked were instead treated like two guns taped together, which had a serious impact on balance. This change makes them more reliable, rather than twice as killy.

Spoiler:

Notice the loss of half the attacks between a pair of Auto Boltstorm Guantlets and the new rules? The melee profile did get a glow-up since it didn't provide any benefit in 9th.

I also like how they just called it Power Fist to avoid needing a melee profile for both Auto Boltstorm Gauntlets and Flamestorm Gauntlets on the Aggressor Datasheet. Also eliminates that annoying (Shooting) and (Melee) tags on the weapon profiles.

Huh. I just realized that the Aggressors hit on a 4+ with their Fists, while Terminators hit on a 3+.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Huh. I just realized that the Aggressors hit on a 4+ with their Fists, while Terminators hit on a 3+.

That checks out because Aggressors are lame and Terminators are dope AF.

Snugiraffe wrote:
Has WarCom showing us anything yet to make us believe a twin-linked weapon will have fewer shots than two singles of the same type? The Annihilator's turret gun might well get 2 attacks in its profile.

Yes?? Right now the aggressors can have 2 autostorm gauntlets. Each one gets 3 shots. so 6 shots.
Coming soon? Those Aggressors will haveTwin-Linked autostorm gauntlets will be getting 3 shots total, but re-rolling wound rolls.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/weapons-rules-are-fun-and-flexible-in-the-new-warhammer-40000/

Maybe a Predators turrets gun will be different, but I wouldn't count on it.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


But also, not sure where you're going with this.

That the game and the fluff don't often coincide such that the game is a good representation of battle in universe and that there isn't as much history of the game fitting the story as you propose.

Chaos lord with chainfist was capable of taking down warhound in game. Same as story.

What's your problem with those? That the chaos lord doesn't one shot it at 99% reliably? Where in story it said that's how likely it was?

It's not even particularly noteworthy for story to point out if it is such a easy feat...So it actually made game and lore fit BETTER than if lord was eating warhounds for lunch.

You keep providing evidence AGAINST your claim Thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Snugiraffe wrote:
Has WarCom showing us anything yet to make us believe a twin-linked weapon will have fewer shots than two singles of the same type? The Annihilator's turret gun might well get 2 attacks in its profile.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/weapons-rules-are-fun-and-flexible-in-the-new-warhammer-40000/

Yes.

 Insectum7 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Powerfists have been a credible threat to tanks because weapons were so lethal that specific anti-tank options, like chainfists, were basically useless.

That extra D6 AV penetration on Chainfists was baller.

It was great when you needed it. most tanks had 10 rear armor, which is what you were hitting in CC most of the time. So a marine with a S8 fist did a pretty good job crunching it.

Paying 5 points to upgrade to a chainfist was like a meltabomb. Waste of points most games. But when you needed it? Best points you ever spent. So when fighting walkers where you needed to get past the tougher front armor, or AV 14 bricks like land raiders or monoliths, you just got to carve those open. 8+2d6 got the job done.

I always included one chainfist in my tactical terminator squads. Almost no place else you could take them.

ccs wrote:

Snugiraffe wrote:
Has WarCom showing us anything yet to make us believe a twin-linked weapon will have fewer shots than two singles of the same type? The Annihilator's turret gun might well get 2 attacks in its profile.

Yes?? Right now the aggressors can have 2 autostorm gauntlets. Each one gets 3 shots. so 6 shots.
Coming soon? Those Aggressors will haveTwin-Linked autostorm gauntlets will be getting 3 shots total, but re-rolling wound rolls.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/weapons-rules-are-fun-and-flexible-in-the-new-warhammer-40000/

Maybe a Predators turrets gun will be different, but I wouldn't count on it.

Looks like, my vendetta will have 3 las cannon shots probably hitting things on 3s or 4s, wounding on 3s or 4s (rerolling) with d6 damage each. I believe it will be better to have lots of different weapons rather than a single weapon platform on the damage front. Not looking good for my vendetta....

 Insectum7 wrote:
Nobody said "pinnacle". We just said, "good at anti-tank". Something can be good at the same time that other things are better.

Sure and so far it's demonstrably good. You're just expecting 9th edition lethality.

When a MM wounds a rhino on a 4 the window is clearly shifted for all but the best AT.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Nobody said "pinnacle". We just said, "good at anti-tank". Something can be good at the same time that other things are better.

Sure and so far it's demonstrably good. You're just expecting 9th edition lethality.

When a MM wounds a rhino on a 4 the window is clearly shifted for all but the best AT.

My point is merely that the Powerfist has always been reasonable anti-tank. It still exists in that role, which means it's been relatively consistent. What it can't do is kill a vehicle in one hit, which was a distinct possibility in the past.

Dat Multimelta tho . . . 2 shots and D6+2 Damage. It may wound on a 4+, but daaaamn. Curious to see how its stats get shifted with 10th.

There is a chance the MM loses the double shot and gains TL instead.

Don't forget in 3rd and 4th (pre-Apocalypse), there was a "Chain Reaction" damage effect, that essentially was a SP loss and another roll on the damage chart, which could itself be "Chain Reaction..."

It was absolutely possible to one-shot a Superheavy in 3rd and 4th with a single penetrating hit, be it a powerfist or otherwise. There was also a chance the tank/vehicle crew would pass their Damage Control check and keep the thing held together, too.

Big things worked almost like warships, where you had damage control crews trying to battle flames.and other damage that were spreading.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You're just expecting 9th edition lethality.

No, he's expecting a reasonable effect from a Power Fist, a weapon that was decent - not excellent - at damaging vehicles.

It has nothing to do with "9th Ed Lethality". Power Fists have been a good way of damaging vehicles since 2nd Ed.

I'm also a bit underwhelmed by the powerfists. I'm onboard with the idea to reduce lethality in the game overall, and although I don't expect a powerfist to be the best thing against tanks it does seem weaker than I feel it should be.

A squad of 3 Aggressors in melee against a rhino with their twin-linked powerfists can only expect to score 1 -2 wounds against the rhino, in comparison to the 5-6 wounds in 9th edition. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to reliable destroy it, but less than 2 wounds seems a bit on the low side.

Aash wrote:
I'm also a bit underwhelmed by the powerfists. I'm onboard with the idea to reduce lethality in the game overall, and although I don't expect a powerfist to be the best thing against tanks it does seem weaker than I feel it should be.

A squad of 3 Aggressors in melee against a rhino with their twin-linked powerfists can only expect to score 1 -2 wounds against the rhino, in comparison to the 5-6 wounds in 9th edition. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to reliable destroy it, but less than 2 wounds seems a bit on the low side.

9 * .5 * .555 * .666 * 2 = 3.3

1-2 wounds is instances of damage, not total damage dealt.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You're just expecting 9th edition lethality.

No, he's expecting a reasonable effect from a Power Fist, a weapon that was decent - not excellent - at damaging vehicles.

It has nothing to do with "9th Ed Lethality". Power Fists have been a good way of damaging vehicles since 2nd Ed.

Great. Define what exactly that is supposed to be.

How much damage should the PF to a rhino, lrbt, and land raider?

Aash wrote:
I'm also a bit underwhelmed by the powerfists. I'm onboard with the idea to reduce lethality in the game overall, and although I don't expect a powerfist to be the best thing against tanks it does seem weaker than I feel it should be.

A squad of 3 Aggressors in melee against a rhino with their twin-linked powerfists can only expect to score 1 -2 wounds against the rhino, in comparison to the 5-6 wounds in 9th edition. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to reliable destroy it, but less than 2 wounds seems a bit on the low side.

We've seen the equipment card for Agressors' Boltgauntlets, but not the actual unit card for Aggressors themselves- they may very well have a unit ability that interacts with their weapons.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You're just expecting 9th edition lethality.

No, he's expecting a reasonable effect from a Power Fist, a weapon that was decent - not excellent - at damaging vehicles.

It has nothing to do with "9th Ed Lethality". Power Fists have been a good way of damaging vehicles since 2nd Ed.

Looks like they're doing a scale recalibration like they've done with various vehicle weapons in the past.

ie, titans used to equip lascannons and autocannons. The predator turret used to be an autocannon identical to a guard infantry one, now it's its own thing.

2nd ed dreadnoughts used to equip a powerfist which was identical to a guardsman's powerfist (S8 SM-5 D1 AP D6+D20+8) giving it the same chance of penetrating as a guard colonel with powerfist (3 auto hit attacks each), which ironically was far worse at killing a carnifex than a tank. The dread had a special tear attack it could make, but that only applied to the penetration table after penetration. It was funny to see a sergeant with powerfist blow up a vehicle with one hit , but need to punch a carnifex and have it fail its 8+ on 2D6 save 10 times because it only did 1 pt of damage per hit. And it being T8 meant only 1/2 all PF hits actually wounded it in the first place. So that's a lot of punches.

so it seems to me that they're re calibrating weapon scales so that a squad of terminator powerfists will destroy a tank, but one by itself won't. But I imagine a dreadnought's powerfist will be more powerful, or have more attacks/damage to make it better by itself.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Aash wrote:
I'm also a bit underwhelmed by the powerfists. I'm onboard with the idea to reduce lethality in the game overall, and although I don't expect a powerfist to be the best thing against tanks it does seem weaker than I feel it should be.

A squad of 3 Aggressors in melee against a rhino with their twin-linked powerfists can only expect to score 1 -2 wounds against the rhino, in comparison to the 5-6 wounds in 9th edition. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to reliable destroy it, but less than 2 wounds seems a bit on the low side.

9 * .5 * .555 * .666 * 2 = 3.3

Ahhh. I forgot the powerfists were D2. That isn't as bad as I initially thought.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You're just expecting 9th edition lethality.

It has nothing to do with "9th Ed Lethality". Power Fists have been a good way of damaging vehicles since 2nd Ed.

Great. Define what exactly that is supposed to be.

How much damage should the PF to a rhino, lrbt, and land raider?

It’s important to bear in mind that, back when lrbt had 14 front facing armor, melee attacks stuck back armor. So while powerfists weren’t the ultimate in AT, they would routinely rip apart apart any vehicle that wasn’t a 14-all-around brick or actively fighting back (like dreadnoughts do). There’s even an argument for them being designed specifically to do that, especially back in 3rd and 4th when they shared the same ap value (by flatly bypassing saves) as quicker power weapons.

Coming at it from that context, it seems like fists will have taken a substantial hit in lethality not just from the insane damage meta of 8th and 9th, but from all previous editions of 40k.

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You're just expecting 9th edition lethality.

It has nothing to do with "9th Ed Lethality". Power Fists have been a good way of damaging vehicles since 2nd Ed.

Great. Define what exactly that is supposed to be.

How much damage should the PF to a rhino, lrbt, and land raider?

It’s important to bear in mind that, back when lrbt had 14 front facing armor, melee attacks stuck back armor. So while powerfists weren’t the ultimate in AT, they would routinely rip apart apart any vehicle that wasn’t a 14-all-around brick or actively fighting back (like dreadnoughts do). There’s even an argument for them being designed specifically to do that, especially back in 3rd and 4th when they shared the same ap value (by flatly bypassing saves) as quicker power weapons.

Coming at it from that context, it seems like fists will have taken a substantial hit in lethality not just from the insane damage meta of 8th and 9th, but from all previous editions of 40k.

In 2-5 ed, 1 pf attack could kill a land raider.

The lethality of a pf has dropped substantially BEFORE 10th, ever since they gave vehicles structure points and then Wounds.

The 10th ed pf is in the same lethality range as an 8-9 ed pf, more like a 6-7 Ed pf and nothing like 2-5 Ed pf.

I find it weird that this is the issue people are obsessing over. The difference between an 8th Ed index pf with 1d3 damage -3ap and the 10th ed 2d -3ap is pretty minor.