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.

I just had a random thought "what if close combat weapon's were a little better or more flexible in their benefits?" Because they're pretty un-remarkable, so i was thinking what kind of bonus could they get that wouldn't over power them.

I came up with: Close combat weapons give the model +1 attack in close combat without being combined with a second weapon. Therefore, a model with a 2-handed weapon (such as a boltgun) and a close combat weapon would still gain +1 attack in close combat.

Other specialized weapons like power weapons, power fists, etc, would still require a second one handed weapon to gain +1 attack

The distinction from other specialist CCWs makes sense, but it does mean every model in the game has +1 attack as standard, because they all are expected to have a single CCW.

Not that that's hard to fix, you just remove the comments about needing a ccw to make attacks in melee, and so the standard guardsman has an attack that's not a CCW, just a butt stroke or fist.

So long as you can make the CCW distinct from generic punching I think it could work.

I've never actually played 3rd edition despite having books for it and getting interested in the hobby around that time. But isn't giving +1 attacks to most melee units in the game a pretty significant boost to their lethality?

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I've never actually played 3rd edition despite having books for it and getting interested in the hobby around that time. But isn't giving +1 attacks to most melee units in the game a pretty significant boost to their lethality?

Yes. +50%.

Though if the bonus doesn't stack with a second weapon then AFAIK the only units who benefit are characters/sergeants, chaos marines(as they didn't get their bolter/pistol/ccw until 4th), Space Wolves, and Death Company.

Regular marines, guard, sisters, tau, eldar and dark eldar, crons, orks, and nids don't carry basic weapon/ccw combos in 3rd.

Another way to look at it could be that only ccws grant the +1A for being combined with another ccw.

The special close combat attacks don't. So power weapons and power fists use base A and only get bonuses for charging.

Volume of attacks over armour penetration.

 Hellebore wrote:
The distinction from other specialist CCWs makes sense, but it does mean every model in the game has +1 attack as standard, because they all are expected to have a single CCW.

Not that that's hard to fix, you just remove the comments about needing a ccw to make attacks in melee, and so the standard guardsman has an attack that's not a CCW, just a butt stroke or fist.

So long as you can make the CCW distinct from generic punching I think it could work.

Very few units actually have a close combat weapon, actually, in 3rd edition. The majority of which also have a pistol anyways so they would have gotten +1 attack anyways. For example, generic space marines have bolters and no other weapons, generic imperial guardsmen have lasguns and no other weapon, generic orks have either a shoota, or a slugga and choppa. Units that I can find that have the close combat weapon will also have a pistol. This specific rule/option would mainly apply to sergeants, other unit characters, and independent characters.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I've never actually played 3rd edition despite having books for it and getting interested in the hobby around that time. But isn't giving +1 attacks to most melee units in the game a pretty significant boost to their lethality?

My intention of this is that, units with a 2 handed weapon, say a boltgun, that also have a close combat weapon, gain +1 attack just for having the close combat weapon. Units that have a pistol and close combat weapon would still only gain +1 attack and not +2 attacks. And as stated above, units in 3rd edition are not assumed to have close combat weapons to begin with, and very few actually do unless they already have a pistol.

EDIT: Although I have thought about pistol & combat weapon giving +2 attacks as well. This would make the basic combat units more effective to be sure, +2 attacks instead of +1. But given my experience with 3rd edition, it seemed like power weapon units or lightning claw units/models dominated combat because of allowing no armor saves, giving one extra attack to a basic model that still allows armor saves seems not quite as over-powered as the rest of the combat weapons already are in the game.

EDIT: I can also think of some biker squads, where the rider has either a pistol or a close combat weapon, so that is a case where it could be useful as well.

Mostly aiming to understand rather than to criticize here:

Very few units actually have a close combat weapon, actually, in 3rd edition.

My intention of this is that, units with a 2 handed weapon, say a boltgun, that also have a close combat weapon, gain +1 attack just for having the close combat weapon. Units that have a pistol and close combat weapon would still only gain +1 attack and not +2 attacks. And as stated above, units in 3rd edition are not assumed to have close combat weapons to begin with, and very few actually do unless they already have a pistol.

EDIT: Although I have thought about pistol & combat weapon giving +2 attacks as well. This would make the basic combat units more effective to be sure, +2 attacks instead of +1. But given my experience with 3rd edition, it seemed like power weapon units or lightning claw units/models dominated combat because of allowing no armor saves, giving one extra attack to a basic model that still allows armor saves seems not quite as over-powered as the rest of the combat weapons already are in the game.

So my grasp of how many units this would actually impact is shaky, but it sounds like the answer is, "not a lot of units." And it sounds like we're mostly talking about units with Strength 4 or worse meaning these extra attacks would generally be wounding on 3s at best.

So it sounds like the problem you're trying to address here is that you feel like power weapons have too much of an advantage over ccws, and your proposed solution is to give +1 Attacks to models with ccws. My concerns then are:

1. Is this actually a problem in the first place. Power weapons being stronger than ccws baseline is what I'd expect, and that difference in performance should be reflected in the cost of the power weapon. A ccw sergeant being worse in melee than a power sword sergeant seems like a feature, not a bug.

2. Is +1 attack actually going to solve the problem? We're talking about an attack that probably has either a 1/3rd or 1/2 chance of missing, and then a 1/3rd or better chance of failing to wound, and then the target gets their armor save. It seems unlikely to me that +1 Attacks is *exactly* the amount of extra lethality needed to solve the perceived problem of power weapons being too much better than non-power weapons.

3. Based on your answer to number 2, do you feel that the game experience would be improved enough to warrant adding an extra step of negotiation with potential opponents? Especially given that, I assume, this change primarily buffs your army. It sounds like your dark eldar (for example) opponents are basically just being asked to please let you have some free bonus attacks.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Mostly aiming to understand rather than to criticize here:

Very few units actually have a close combat weapon, actually, in 3rd edition.

My intention of this is that, units with a 2 handed weapon, say a boltgun, that also have a close combat weapon, gain +1 attack just for having the close combat weapon. Units that have a pistol and close combat weapon would still only gain +1 attack and not +2 attacks. And as stated above, units in 3rd edition are not assumed to have close combat weapons to begin with, and very few actually do unless they already have a pistol.

EDIT: Although I have thought about pistol & combat weapon giving +2 attacks as well. This would make the basic combat units more effective to be sure, +2 attacks instead of +1. But given my experience with 3rd edition, it seemed like power weapon units or lightning claw units/models dominated combat because of allowing no armor saves, giving one extra attack to a basic model that still allows armor saves seems not quite as over-powered as the rest of the combat weapons already are in the game.

So my grasp of how many units this would actually impact is shaky, but it sounds like the answer is, "not a lot of units." And it sounds like we're mostly talking about units with Strength 4 or worse meaning these extra attacks would generally be wounding on 3s at best.

So it sounds like the problem you're trying to address here is that you feel like power weapons have too much of an advantage over ccws, and your proposed solution is to give +1 Attacks to models with ccws. My concerns then are:

1. Is this actually a problem in the first place. Power weapons being stronger than ccws baseline is what I'd expect, and that difference in performance should be reflected in the cost of the power weapon. A ccw sergeant being worse in melee than a power sword sergeant seems like a feature, not a bug.

2. Is +1 attack actually going to solve the problem? We're talking about an attack that probably has either a 1/3rd or 1/2 chance of missing, and then a 1/3rd or better chance of failing to wound, and then the target gets their armor save. It seems unlikely to me that +1 Attacks is *exactly* the amount of extra lethality needed to solve the perceived problem of power weapons being too much better than non-power weapons.

3. Based on your answer to number 2, do you feel that the game experience would be improved enough to warrant adding an extra step of negotiation with potential opponents? Especially given that, I assume, this change primarily buffs your army. It sounds like your dark eldar (for example) opponents are basically just being asked to please let you have some free bonus attacks.

Let me explain what I think the problem in general is. The close combat weapon itself gives no in-game benefit at all. Its not that its worse than other items when compared to them, its that it literally gives no in game benefit.

There are units where the squad members have a pistol and close combat weapon, but lets talk about characters like sergeant and independent character/heroes who get to choose equipment.

There is no in-game mechanical difference between an imperial guard sergeant with a bolt pistol and combat weapon, vs one with a bolt pistol and laspistol. They would both cost the same number of points, they both get the same shooting ability, and they'd both get +1 attack in combat for having two one-handed weapons. Going a step further, an imperial guard sergeant with plasma pistol and laspistol vs an imperial guard sergeant with plasma pistol and combat weapon, we have the same dilema, no difference in points, but if you, for some reason, didn't want to risk the "gets hot" roll you can shoot the laspistol instead.

The combat weapon literally serves no purpose that the basic 1 point pistol can not also fill in for, especially since units/models that do not have combat weapons can still fight like normal.

Secondly, there are two broad categories of "characters" or models that we could recognize in the game, those with one 2-handed weapon and one 1-handed weapon, and those with two 1-handed weapons. Those with two 1-handed weapons will generally always get +1 attack unless they have a single lightning claw. And those with one 2-handed weapon and one 1-handed weapon will either have a decent shooting weapon and a combat weapon, or an odd-weird combat weapon that uses 2 hands and a pistol.

So then I look at the use-case of models with a shooting weapon that is 2-handed, and the option of having one 1-handed weapon, why would a model like that ever just stick to a combat weapon as that 1-handed weapon when you could pay for a power weapon, power fist, or something else? You could argue that even choosing a pistol of some kind would be more useful than a regular combat weapon.

its with thinking about those scenarios in mind that I was thinking that the basic close combat weapon could use some benefit to make it a choice that you might actually consider.

There were iirc 4 or 5 specific rules governing melee weapons in 3rd before they started expanding the rules.

+1a
Ignore saves
Limit saves to 4+
X2s
Strike last

Most of the time they were nested, so each weapon got the previous mechanic plus the next one.

To diagram it out:

Ccw +1a when combined with 2nd ccw
Choppa = ccw + saves limited to 4+
Power weapon = ccw + ignores saves
Power fist = ccw + power weapon + X2s + strike last.


There were a couple of special rules that cropped up here and there - thunder hammers were power fists that made targets strike last if wounded and not killed and applied shaken results to vehicles. Lightning claws were reroll wounds. Chainfists rolled 2d6 penetration.

Witchblades and singing spears wounded on a 2+ regardless of toughness. Poison wounded on a 4+ ignoring toughness

Tyranids introduced rending claws that auto wounded and ignored armour on a 6 to hit.

There some +s Lances as well.


Ccw was the base weapon on which all others built out, until they decided that everyone needed a ccw as standard on later editions.

BanjoJohn wrote:

Let me explain what I think the problem in general is. The close combat weapon itself gives no in-game benefit at all. Its not that its worse than other items when compared to them, its that it literally gives no in game benefit.

There are units where the squad members have a pistol and close combat weapon, but lets talk about characters like sergeant and independent character/heroes who get to choose equipment.

There is no in-game mechanical difference between an imperial guard sergeant with a bolt pistol and combat weapon, vs one with a bolt pistol and laspistol. They would both cost the same number of points, they both get the same shooting ability, and they'd both get +1 attack in combat for having two one-handed weapons. Going a step further, an imperial guard sergeant with plasma pistol and laspistol vs an imperial guard sergeant with plasma pistol and combat weapon, we have the same dilema, no difference in points, but if you, for some reason, didn't want to risk the "gets hot" roll you can shoot the laspistol instead.

The combat weapon literally serves no purpose that the basic 1 point pistol can not also fill in for, especially since units/models that do not have combat weapons can still fight like normal.

I guess that, from the outside looking in, this just doesn't strike me as an actual problem; just GW formatting their options in an odd way. It sounds like the ccw is the cheap/free option, and then you're making the choice of either taking a better gun or a worse gun that combos with the ccw to provide +1 Attacks. Whereas a hypothetical unit with just the pistol and no ccw wouldn't get the +1 Attacks.

So then I look at the use-case of models with a shooting weapon that is 2-handed, and the option of having one 1-handed weapon, why would a model like that ever just stick to a combat weapon as that 1-handed weapon when you could pay for a power weapon, power fist, or something else?

Because you have to pay for it. And little splurges like that can potentially add up if you're doing it for every sergeant in your army. The points cost is the trade-off.

its with thinking about those scenarios in mind that I was thinking that the basic close combat weapon could use some benefit to make it a choice that you might actually consider.

Sounds like the "benefit" is that if you stick to cheap sergeants, you have that many more points free to spend on other stuff.

Like, letting 1 in 5 of your tactical marine stick to a bolter instead of swapping it for a plasma/melta/flamer is technically an option, but no one expects the bolter to be equally as good as those guns, right?

So then I look at the use-case of models with a shooting weapon that is 2-handed, and the option of having one 1-handed weapon, why would a model like that ever just stick to a combat weapon as that 1-handed weapon when you could pay for a power weapon, power fist, or something else?

Because you have to pay for it. And little splurges like that can potentially add up if you're doing it for every sergeant in your army. The points cost is the trade-off.

But it would be cheaper still to just have the 2-handed weapon and no 1-handed weapon, literally 1 point cheaper

Like, letting 1 in 5 of your tactical marine stick to a bolter instead of swapping it for a plasma/melta/flamer is technically an option, but no one expects the bolter to be equally as good as those guns, right?

No, but is getting +1 attack equally as good as making sure the attacks you do get will allow for no armor save? I never said anything should be equally good, just that the "close combat weapon" gives zero benefit compared to having a pistol.

Then isn't the obvious fix to charge 0 points for the ccw if it has zero benefits? It sounds like the ccw is basically just something you're supposed to take if you're already taking a pistol or another melee weapon. I assume at the opportunity cost of taking a two-handed weapon or a different weapon in its place.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Then isn't the obvious fix to charge 0 points for the ccw if it has zero benefits? It sounds like the ccw is basically just something you're supposed to take if you're already taking a pistol or another melee weapon. I assume at the opportunity cost of taking a two-handed weapon or a different weapon in its place.

Put another way, a model that only has a pistol and no other weapons can shoot, and can fight in combat like normal, no penalties or bonuses.
A model that only has a single 2-handed shooting weapon can shoot, and can fight in close combat like normal, no penalties or bonuses.
A model that only has a close combat weapon and no other weapons can not shoot, and still fights in combat the same as the model that only has a pistol or that only has a single 2-handed weapon, there are no bonuses or penalties.

You could reduce ccw to zero points, but its 1 point in every codex armory that has them as an option. But the way my brain works is that I don't nessisarily think that this is the way to go. Literally every other weapon choice in the game allows the model to do something that it wasn't able to do.
You could make CCW zero points, but it still serves zero purpose unless it is combined with another weapon, so my mind goes towards making the weapon give a benefit that the model wouldn't have otherwise.

And yeah I'm ignoring all other editions of 40k because I'm just honing in on 3rd edition, so I don't care how other editions handle it, i'm trying to "fix it" within the context of 3rd edition.

Giving +1 attack is one idea I have, it might not be the best idea to "fix" the ccw, but it also doesn't break the game because its not that powerful of a benefit, at least in my opinion.

BanjoJohn wrote:
Giving +1 attack is one idea I have, it might not be the best idea to "fix" the ccw, but it also doesn't break the game because its not that powerful of a benefit, at least in my opinion.

In the context of the edition it's quite a boost, albeit only really when applied to squads.

3e Space Wolves and Grey Knights had something called 'true grit' allowing them to gain an extra attack while using a basic weapon (specifically only a bolter/storm bolter), and only when they hadn't charged.

4e Chaos had the player-named 'ubergrit', pistols, bolters, and chainswords with the full benefits of all three. It may not seem like much but it did double the combat ability of the base squad for free, rather than the 30-45pt cost of upgrading to a power weapon veteran.

----

As for what constitutes a 1pt close combat bonus in 3rd edition terms? Consider the rules on page 66 where models only get special and bonus attacks when base to base - perhaps models with dedicated close combat weapons could qualify for the extra attack while wihin 2" rather than just B2B.

A.T. wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
Giving +1 attack is one idea I have, it might not be the best idea to "fix" the ccw, but it also doesn't break the game because its not that powerful of a benefit, at least in my opinion.

In the context of the edition it's quite a boost, albeit only really when applied to squads.

3e Space Wolves and Grey Knights had something called 'true grit' allowing them to gain an extra attack while using a basic weapon (specifically only a bolter/storm bolter), and only when they hadn't charged.

4e Chaos had the player-named 'ubergrit', pistols, bolters, and chainswords with the full benefits of all three. It may not seem like much but it did double the combat ability of the base squad for free, rather than the 30-45pt cost of upgrading to a power weapon veteran.

----

As for what constitutes a 1pt close combat bonus in 3rd edition terms? Consider the rules on page 66 where models only get special and bonus attacks when base to base - perhaps models with dedicated close combat weapons could qualify for the extra attack while wihin 2" rather than just B2B.

Yup, I just finished space wolfs in my battle bible, I'm familiar with true grit, basically a bolter gets to be a bolt pistol when combined with another 1-handed weapon to get +1 attack, but not when charging. And grey hunters and some others had "counter charge" so they basically got to pile into the combat if they got charged so they didn't miss out on their attacks.

Getting your full attacks or special attacks within 2" isn't unprecedented, the "leap" rule of gaunts lets them assault 12" and get their full number of attacks within 2" and not just base to base contact. It's certainly worth considering.

So I think the problem really is that there isn't a small enough bonus to you can give that won't skew the game, because of the number of armies that have CCW carrying units.

If you are ONLY looking to give sergeants this ability, you can say that any character (squad leaders were considered a type of character back then) gets +1A if they carry a CCW, and +1A for 2CCW.


That gives you your sergeant flavour without skewing the armies mentioned above - and it also is relatively even implementation all armies as they all have characters.

It gives a tiny boost to ICs who decide not to go with power weapons - a marine captain with terminator honours and ccw/bp would get 7 attacks on the charge. But they're the weakest attacks they can make so...



If you feel it needs to be all models, I'm not sure you can without the skew.

A.T. wrote:
3e Space Wolves and Grey Knights had something called 'true grit' allowing them to gain an extra attack while using a basic weapon (specifically only a bolter/storm bolter), and only when they hadn't charged.

4e Chaos had the player-named 'ubergrit', pistols, bolters, and chainswords with the full benefits of all three. It may not seem like much but it did double the combat ability of the base squad for free, rather than the 30-45pt cost of upgrading to a power weapon veteran.

Thanks for reminding me of that dumpster-fire codex. Apparently the Grey Knights and Space Wolves were too stupid to realize that they could just go to the pawn shop and buy a used laspistol and that would outperform their signature ability. Only real badasses like "The Betrayers of Pain" could come up with that clever tactic.

If you're looking for further reaching rules, you can potentially just make a CCW give +1A by itself or with a pistol so the only advantage of a pistol is getting to shoot as well.

Just by default taking a CCW gives you +1A, but you can't stack additional attacks from other weapons.

That's a pretty good idea.

 Orkeosaurus wrote:
Thanks for reminding me of that dumpster-fire codex. Apparently the Grey Knights and Space Wolves were too stupid to realize that they could just go to the pawn shop and buy a used laspistol and that would outperform their signature ability.

Models were generally limited to carrying two weapons back in 3rd and 4th.

4e CSM, and to a lesser extent 4e Dark Angels, chose to ignore that convention and it was hit and miss from then onwards

A.T. wrote:
Models were generally limited to carrying two weapons back in 3rd and 4th.

4e CSM, and to a lesser extent 4e Dark Angels, chose to ignore that convention and it was hit and miss from then onwards

There's a fundamental difference in design philosophy there. You ask "why can't a space marine just use a bolter, a chainsword, and a pistol and get all the benefits?"

"Because he only has two hands."

"Because the datasheet says the bolter gets replaced."