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.

Serious question, why do swords consist of 90% of Space Marine melee weapons? Each chapter has its own culture and preferred combat tactics, yet everybody is using swords for some reason.

Axes, halberds, spears, mace, gauntlets, and claws are considered "specialist weapons" and are only available in limited numbers, often coming in the form of power weapons that require points. This is despite the fact they are very popular in history and, at times and within some armies, were used more than swords. For example, there is no option to equip entire Assault Squads or Bladeguard Veterans with axe, spear, or mace weapon types. And despite being Space Vikings, you can't kit out Space Wolves younglings (Blood Claws) with chainaxes like Khorne Berserkers. Modern armies use mostly knives, but Space Marines are more like medieval/classical heroes.

I feel like Space Marines would be infinitely cooler if GW actually allowed you to customize their weapons more, especially their melee weapons.

Here are some examples of weapons that Space Marines would certainly use in battle if the game didn't focus so much on making them Space Romans despite the multicultural they really are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katar_%28dagger%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk%27s_spade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_sword

Doesn't matter if some weapons are already fantastical and romanticized rather than historical. Warhammer 40k is already fantasy in space.

Throwing projectiles like knives, daggers, chakrams, boomerangs, and shurikens are also cool to see. Just give me something other than just swords and guns all the time.

bibotot wrote:
Serious question, why do swords consist of 90% of Space Marine melee weapons? Each chapter has its own culture and preferred combat tactics, yet everybody is using swords for some reason.

Axes, halberds, spears, mace, gauntlets, and claws are considered "specialist weapons" and are only available in limited numbers, often coming in the form of power weapons that require points. This is despite the fact they are very popular in history and, at times and within some armies, were used more than swords. For example, there is no option to equip entire Assault Squads or Bladeguard Veterans with axe, spear, or mace weapon types. And despite being Space Vikings, you can't kit out Space Wolves younglings (Blood Claws) with chainaxes like Khorne Berserkers. Modern armies use mostly knives, but Space Marines are more like medieval/classical heroes.

I feel like Space Marines would be infinitely cooler if GW actually allowed you to customize their weapons more, especially their melee weapons.

Here are some examples of weapons that Space Marines would certainly use in battle if the game didn't focus so much on making them Space Romans despite the multicultural they really are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katar_%28dagger%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk%27s_spade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_sword

Doesn't matter if some weapons are already fantastical and romanticized rather than historical. Warhammer 40k is already fantasy in space.

Throwing projectiles like knives, daggers, chakrams, boomerangs, and shurikens are also cool to see. Just give me something other than just swords and guns all the time.

Way back in second edition the Close Combat sprue for Marines used to be all sorts of hammers, maces, swords, mauls, fists and so on. But Swords were the preferred choice because of a rule called Parry. 6's were double good, and 1's were double plus ungood. Parry let you force your opponent to reroll one of their fight dice. With that said you still see some Marines with Axes (Some Wolves, and Blood Angels Sanuinary Guard leap to mind first) the Dark Angels Deathwing Knights have maces and only recently got swords as an alternative option. And they're making the swords more unique - scimitar, gladius, and so on instead of just normal long swords. But to directly answer your question I'd guess its a combination of a pre-existing preference for swords because of Parry creating a preference way back when and the ability to provide multiple somewhat historical cultural looks on swords that can't be done as easily/well with hammers and maces.

Regarding polearms specifically- I think these are uncommon because Marines prefer to have a firearm or storm shield in the other hand. So two-handed melee weapons are rare as they prevent this. The only obvious example is the Deathwing Champion, and arguably relic blades (most models of these have been greatswords though). For most Marine officers, the melee weapon is still somewhat a sidearm and swords are very convenient for this (which is why they were favoured sidearms throughout much of history).

That said, axes and maces were much more common on older models, and some loyalist chapters do use chainaxes in the lore (like the Flesh Tearers and Carcharodons). The White Scars and similar sucessors also favour power lances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some examples of the variety of melee weapons on older kits and models (behind spoiler tags)

So essentially swords predominate, axes are common particularly among elite units, maces appear occasionally (particularly for Dark Angels), and other weapons like polearms are rare (except for by the Grey Knights).

Simply put? A sword is flexible weapon.

Cut, thrust, parry, block, and more depending on the type of blade, hilt etc.

They’re also, traditionally, a weapon of the nobility. Not least because they took more, and typically better, steel to make.

Axes had some utility, as the other side could be a bludgeoning weapon. But they were pretty straight forward to make.

Translate that into 40K? And it’s the prestige. Effective use of a sword takes training and discipline. Pretty much anyone can swing a sword, that’s true. But getting the balance right, and knowing your forms and stances etc takes time to master. So if you see someone on the field carrying a sword? Chances are they very much know how to use it.

We also need only glance at history to see how different swords were used by different cultures requiring different skills. You couldn’t for instance give a Samurai a Napoleonic Cavalry Sabre and get the same results as them wielding a Katana. So not all swords are equal in terms of what one can reasonably do with them in combat.

They are easier to design

In 3rd through 5th all basic power weapons were the same. It didn't matter what you put on the model. The only ones that were called out specifically were lightning claws, force weapons, and power fists.

In 6th they suddenly decided to differentiate the basic power weapons into swords, axes, mauls, and glaives. Axes increased strength, but dropped the user's initiative to 1 which is the same as fights last now. This made them undesirable in the extreme since if you were going to accept that penalty then you might as well go with the powerfist. Dante spent the edition on the shelf since he was unusable striking last.

Glaives got a bonus on the charge but were weaker otherwise. Mauls stopped penetrating power or terminator armor like other power weapons in exchange for higher strength.

The net result of these changes was that most players ditched all the weapons other than swords. I think it's possible that that legacy has informed kit design since.

IMO Space Wolves can be equipped with just about anything; especially since GW homogenized a lot of the gear at the start of 10th.

I have a few Blood Claws and a Wolf Lord equipped with chain axes (obviously with the spikey embellishments filed off). They're just for looks and count as either Astartes Chainswords or in the Lords case either a Relic Weapon or Frost Weapon.

A few of my Blood Claws and an Assault Intercessor also have basic Axes replacing Chainswords; for me it's all for fluff.

As an aside, Halberds are one of the 4 choices the Grey Knights can be equipped with; again homogenized into "Nemesis Force Weapons" though...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Simply put? A sword is flexible weapon.

Cut, thrust, parry, block, and more depending on the type of blade, hilt etc.

They’re also, traditionally, a weapon of the nobility. Not least because they took more, and typically better, steel to make.

Axes had some utility, as the other side could be a bludgeoning weapon. But they were pretty straight forward to make.

Translate that into 40K? And it’s the prestige. Effective use of a sword takes training and discipline. Pretty much anyone can swing a sword, that’s true. But getting the balance right, and knowing your forms and stances etc takes time to master. So if you see someone on the field carrying a sword? Chances are they very much know how to use it.

We also need only glance at history to see how different swords were used by different cultures requiring different skills. You couldn’t for instance give a Samurai a Napoleonic Cavalry Sabre and get the same results as them wielding a Katana. So not all swords are equal in terms of what one can reasonably do with them in combat.

My internal pedant is cringing at this simplification I'm afraid.

Historically, swords are the mark of a professional soldier, because they have no other utility. Spears and axes can be used for non-military purposes, for example. You could add the same description to other weapon types though. Pikes are pretty much military focussed (as you probably don't really need to keep a boar 7m away from you), as are probably most polearms. Swords are also a convenient size and shape to carry as a secondary weapon. Primary weapons for soldiers of all types and ranks would be pole arms, spears, maces, etc.

I would use the designation of professional soldier rather than nobility, unless Roman legionaries were rather higher station than I think they were. If you want a true weapon of the nobility, its the lance. Now that also has the caveat that a lance is technically just a spear that is held by someone with rank. As another example, the Wikipedia page on viking weapons is inconsistent as it starts off with saying that swords were high-status weapons mostly for the nobility, but then goes on to say that basically an individual only needed to do one decent raid and would then be able to afford a decent sword.

All hand weapons can thrust, parry, block, etc. Axes in combat are particularly interesting because their cutting edge extends in front of the haft. this means that they can strike over the top of shields, and requires straight weapons like swords to block them further out. they can also do all sorts of nasty hooking moves that can really mess the targets joints up. Even more interesting is when you get to bastard swords and two-handers, there are common examples with sharp cross-guards so you could hold the thing by the blade and use it like an axe to get those precise advantages.

If you see someone on the field carrying a sword, maybe they had just nicked it off a corpse and were on the way to sell it.

Effective use of any weapon takes training and discipline. Swords are not some kind of magic weapon only to be know of by the ancients. They are chunks of sharp-ish metal in a handy form factor.

In the context of 40k, I think the other posters have covered the main points. Over time there have been a wide range of possible hand weapons, and the rules have provided more or less detail and crunch between different types. Part of the lean toward swords is that fact that Ultramarines are the poster boys for the faction, and as they are based on a Romanesque organisation, swords come out on top. Similarly for Dark Angels, swords are an important part of that chapters iconography.

White scars are often shown with lances, especially on bikes. Space Wolves definitely have more axes shown, but they are a much smaller part of the whole art resource. Power mauls are more of an arbites kind of thing, but there might be a greater preponderance to maces in Black Templar art.

On the practical end of things, spears are just really long and thin and can make models unwieldy. They are also harder to make robustly at model scale.

Sorry, lecture over, but MDG needed stopped before he went too far

 Flinty wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Simply put? A sword is flexible weapon.

Cut, thrust, parry, block, and more depending on the type of blade, hilt etc.

They’re also, traditionally, a weapon of the nobility. Not least because they took more, and typically better, steel to make.

Axes had some utility, as the other side could be a bludgeoning weapon. But they were pretty straight forward to make.

Translate that into 40K? And it’s the prestige. Effective use of a sword takes training and discipline. Pretty much anyone can swing a sword, that’s true. But getting the balance right, and knowing your forms and stances etc takes time to master. So if you see someone on the field carrying a sword? Chances are they very much know how to use it.

We also need only glance at history to see how different swords were used by different cultures requiring different skills. You couldn’t for instance give a Samurai a Napoleonic Cavalry Sabre and get the same results as them wielding a Katana. So not all swords are equal in terms of what one can reasonably do with them in combat.

My internal pedant is cringing at this simplification I'm afraid.

Historically, swords are the mark of a professional soldier, because they have no other utility. Spears and axes can be used for non-military purposes, for example. You could add the same description to other weapon types though. Pikes are pretty much military focussed (as you probably don't really need to keep a boar 7m away from you), as are probably most polearms. Swords are also a convenient size and shape to carry as a secondary weapon. Primary weapons for soldiers of all types and ranks would be pole arms, spears, maces, etc.

I would use the designation of professional soldier rather than nobility, unless Roman legionaries were rather higher station than I think they were. If you want a true weapon of the nobility, its the lance. Now that also has the caveat that a lance is technically just a spear that is held by someone with rank. As another example, the Wikipedia page on viking weapons is inconsistent as it starts off with saying that swords were high-status weapons mostly for the nobility, but then goes on to say that basically an individual only needed to do one decent raid and would then be able to afford a decent sword.

All hand weapons can thrust, parry, block, etc. Axes in combat are particularly interesting because their cutting edge extends in front of the haft. this means that they can strike over the top of shields, and requires straight weapons like swords to block them further out. they can also do all sorts of nasty hooking moves that can really mess the targets joints up. Even more interesting is when you get to bastard swords and two-handers, there are common examples with sharp cross-guards so you could hold the thing by the blade and use it like an axe to get those precise advantages.

If you see someone on the field carrying a sword, maybe they had just nicked it off a corpse and were on the way to sell it.

Effective use of any weapon takes training and discipline. Swords are not some kind of magic weapon only to be know of by the ancients. They are chunks of sharp-ish metal in a handy form factor.

In the context of 40k, I think the other posters have covered the main points. Over time there have been a wide range of possible hand weapons, and the rules have provided more or less detail and crunch between different types. Part of the lean toward swords is that fact that Ultramarines are the poster boys for the faction, and as they are based on a Romanesque organisation, swords come out on top. Similarly for Dark Angels, swords are an important part of that chapters iconography.

White scars are often shown with lances, especially on bikes. Space Wolves definitely have more axes shown, but they are a much smaller part of the whole art resource. Power mauls are more of an arbites kind of thing, but there might be a greater preponderance to maces in Black Templar art.

On the practical end of things, spears are just really long and thin and can make models unwieldy. They are also harder to make robustly at model scale.

Sorry, lecture over, but MDG needed stopped before he went too far

Agree with the majority of this. I'd add that maces are sidearms more so than even swords, they were typically only used by cavalry as a back up weapon (also by some Christian priests for religious reasons). Two-handed warhammers and mauls were primary weapons but less popular than poleaxes (not that there is a huge difference).

There is also the edge case of greatswords, which are effectively a type of polearm and are primary weapons. Relatively rare compared to contemporary polearms though.

Whilst weapons can be used for hunting or chopping, a lot of them are bad at it. A military spear would be much riskier for hunting boar than a boar spear, for example. Likewise, military axes are generally poor axe tools, they are not usually built heavily enough to sustain heavy use on wood etc. Aside from ranged weaponry for hunting, I think the vast majority of weaponry would have been recognised as tools for fighting humans, and other tools used for other purposes unless no alternative was available.

Re. rarity of swords in the "Dark Ages"- this looks to have changed as industry spooled up and metalworking improved. It is likely that swords were restricted to the wealthy or lucky (spoils of war) in the 7th century, but by the 11th century at the end of the Viking age swords (and mail for that matter) were much more common. Whilst talking about this era, I also think it is quite the simplification to state that swords were the hardest to produce when we have examples of complex design in other weapons too. Dane axes, for example, have a very precise construction where the heads are overall surprisingly light and the flats of the heads are very thin with a reinforced edge. The edge is frequently a different, harder grade of steel welded on. That would not be easy to forge. Dane axes are much more a weapon reserved for elite soldiery at this time than swords, because they required armour to use effectively due to the lack of a shield. A sword and shield combination didn't require armour to be effective in the 11th century, although armour undoubtedly improved combat effectiveness.

Interestingly, the majority of Space Marines (other than Chaplains) wielding maces have been Dark Angels, they are the only model range to have multiple examples- more than axes in their case. I think this is to tie into their monastic vibe. Axes are common outside the Space Wolves in older models, but only for officers, veterans and honour guard. I think it is notable that every Chapter Master bodyguard squad released features multiple axes in a prominence similar to swords (Ultramarines honour guard, Red Scorpions honour guard, Sanguinary guard). I can't think of any Black Templars with maces, although axes have been present in the old upgrade sprue and on a LE Marshal model.

 Haighus wrote:

Agree with the majority of this. I'd add that maces are sidearms more so than even swords, they were typically only used by cavalry as a back up weapon (also by some Christian priests for religious reasons). Two-handed warhammers and mauls were primary weapons but less popular than poleaxes (not that there is a huge difference).

There is also the edge case of greatswords, which are effectively a type of polearm and are primary weapons. Relatively rare compared to contemporary polearms though.

Whilst weapons can be used for hunting or chopping, a lot of them are bad at it. A military spear would be much riskier for hunting boar than a boar spear, for example. Likewise, military axes are generally poor axe tools, they are not usually built heavily enough to sustain heavy use on wood etc. Aside from ranged weaponry for hunting, I think the vast majority of weaponry would have been recognised as tools for fighting humans, and other tools used for other purposes unless no alternative was available.

Re. rarity of swords in the "Dark Ages"- this looks to have changed as industry spooled up and metalworking improved. It is likely that swords were restricted to the wealthy or lucky (spoils of war) in the 7th century, but by the 11th century at the end of the Viking age swords (and mail for that matter) were much more common. Whilst talking about this era, I also think it is quite the simplification to state that swords were the hardest to produce when we have examples of complex design in other weapons too. Dane axes, for example, have a very precise construction where the heads are overall surprisingly light and the flats of the heads are very thin with a reinforced edge. The edge is frequently a different, harder grade of steel welded on. That would not be easy to forge. Dane axes are much more a weapon reserved for elite soldiery at this time than swords, because they required armour to use effectively due to the lack of a shield. A sword and shield combination didn't require armour to be effective in the 11th century, although armour undoubtedly improved combat effectiveness.

Interestingly, the majority of Space Marines (other than Chaplains) wielding maces have been Dark Angels, they are the only model range to have multiple examples- more than axes in their case. I think this is to tie into their monastic vibe. Axes are common outside the Space Wolves in older models, but only for officers, veterans and honour guard. I think it is notable that every Chapter Master bodyguard squad released features multiple axes in a prominence similar to swords (Ultramarines honour guard, Red Scorpions honour guard, Sanguinary guard). I can't think of any Black Templars with maces, although axes have been present in the old upgrade sprue and on a LE Marshal model.

I still think the primary reason(s) were 2nd Edition leftovers, and the ease with with swords can be visually themed. In the rules, a sword is a sword wether its the short Gladius in the Ultramarines Upgrade sprue, or the big honkin things carried around by the new Deathwing Knights, the curved blade of Jetek Suberai of Kill Team Cassius, the double sided Space Wolf Chainsword, the sickle swords of the KHENETAI OCCULT BLADE CABAL, and so on.

At the same time, a mace is a mace. There's not a lot of historical/cultural visual difference. And most factions, especially Space Marine Factions are loosely based on some historical culture/society. But you did make me think of something else: There is at least one Black Templar with a mace. And the reason he has it is also probably the same reason the monastic Dark Angel Knights have them. His name is Grimaldus, and its his Crozius (Religious thing remember?) It also explains the Halberd you'd see on the Deathwing Company Champion (they're trying to evoke images of the "knights" who guard the doors in King Arthur and similar movies. So Swords were popular when they were a clear winner on rules, stayed popular because of that and easier visual themes plus they probably didn't want to blur the Crozius with power maces and mauls. Even in Chaos Marines you're unlikely to see a lot of maces. You likely see more axes than swords of course.

Looking through the GW site, I see a fair bit of axes and a few maces in normal Chaos Space Marines, a lot of scythes (obviously) and a few swords in Deathguard - a lot of swords in Thousand Sons but (Mage Blade Fantasy trope), and a bazillion axes in World Eaters (again Executioner headsman primarch big chain axe trope).

I also see Omnissian Power Axes, a Terminator Libby with a Force Axe, powerfists and Wolverine ripoffs, thunder hammers, a Primaris Chaplain who looks like he has more of a rod than a mace. a lot of combat knives, a couple named Thunderhammers with unique looks even beyond chapter flavor, a named Omnissian Power Axe, and that one spear.

Edit to Add: Also the Ravenwing Black Knights are also given a spiked hammer that should make you remember at least a couple King Arthur/Conan movies.

I was under the impression that it was common to see a variety of melee weapons among marines and that the kits just had to make the call on which/how many plastic bits they were going to include.

In the novels, we seem to get a healthy variety of swords, axes, spears, hammers, and occassionally maces. Plus claws and fists. And any time an author opts to be vague about the exact style of sword, polearm, etc., I invite myself to mentally substitute a cool specific version.

Oops, forgot to clarify that I wasn't including Chaplains with their mace of office.

I disagree that there isn't a lot of variety in mace designs, but I think a lot of them look pretty goofy to modern eyes:

(Incidentally, you can buy this period-accurate replica).

So we tend to see various adaptations of flanged maces or very stylised maces like the Crozius in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I was under the impression that it was common to see a variety of melee weapons among marines and that the kits just had to make the call on which/how many plastic bits they were going to include.

For Primaris, swords seem to be way more dominant than they were for Firstborn.

 Haighus wrote:

For Primaris, swords seem to be way more dominant than they were for Firstborn.

Well, primaris are designed to suck all the flavor out of marines. They are the tofu warriors, bland and inoffensive.

 Haighus wrote:

For Primaris, swords seem to be way more dominant than they were for Firstborn.

Primaris went an entire edition without even really having swords.

 Arschbombe wrote:


In 6th they suddenly decided to differentiate the basic power weapons into swords, axes, mauls, and glaives. Axes increased strength, but dropped the user's initiative to 1 which is the same as fights last now. This made them undesirable in the extreme since if you were going to accept that penalty then you might as well go with the powerfist.

Still one of my least favourite rule changes in any edition.

 Arschbombe wrote:
In 3rd through 5th all basic power weapons were the same. It didn't matter what you put on the model. The only ones that were called out specifically were lightning claws, force weapons, and power fists.

In 6th they suddenly decided to differentiate the basic power weapons into swords, axes, mauls, and glaives. Axes increased strength, but dropped the user's initiative to 1 which is the same as fights last now. This made them undesirable in the extreme since if you were going to accept that penalty then you might as well go with the powerfist. Dante spent the edition on the shelf since he was unusable striking last.

Meant to clarify this. Power axes were the only ones to retain AP2 though- power swords were AP3. So a power axe was essentially a budget power fist and had a use case for taking on 2+ saves that power swords and mauls couldn't handle. Dante specifically was shafted though, he was I6 with an I1 melee weapon...

I agree it wasn't a good change though, very arbitrary too.

To me, Power Fists will always be the quintissential Marine CC weapon upgrade. It's got no historical basis, and it was the common Sergeant and Captain weapon of Rogue Trader and the beakies. It's so Marine-y, that the leader of the "vanilla" Marines, the Maineiest of them all, had TWO Powerfists

 Haighus wrote:
Oops, forgot to clarify that I wasn't including Chaplains with their mace of office.

I disagree that there isn't a lot of variety in mace designs, but I think a lot of them look pretty goofy to modern eyes:

(Incidentally, you can buy this period-accurate replica).

So we tend to see various adaptations of flanged maces or very stylised maces like the Crozius in 40k.

Is that mace one used by a Teutonic Knight? A Saracen that sacked Jerusalem? The Mongol Hordes? A Roman Centurion? Can I make up reasons to convince someone any or all of those are true? Maces look like maces. They can be flanged, spiked, fancy or whatever, but they're all fairly similar.

Pardon the image sizes below, I don't have a collection to pull from just Google:
(Generic Mace Collection photo from Wikipedia)

(White Scars)Scimitar
(Generic) Arming Sword:
Thousand Sons) Khopesh
Swords are much more visually diverse when you're trying to co-opt historical societies into futuristic ones. Its pretty hard to make a White Scars Mace different from an Imperial Fists Mace without going kitschy on Lightning Bolts or Closed Fist raised details that would be a little too on-the-nose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:
In 3rd through 5th all basic power weapons were the same. It didn't matter what you put on the model. The only ones that were called out specifically were lightning claws, force weapons, and power fists.

In 6th they suddenly decided to differentiate the basic power weapons into swords, axes, mauls, and glaives. Axes increased strength, but dropped the user's initiative to 1 which is the same as fights last now. This made them undesirable in the extreme since if you were going to accept that penalty then you might as well go with the powerfist. Dante spent the edition on the shelf since he was unusable striking last.

Meant to clarify this. Power axes were the only ones to retain AP2 though- power swords were AP3. So a power axe was essentially a budget power fist and had a use case for taking on 2+ saves that power swords and mauls couldn't handle. Dante specifically was shafted though, he was I6 with an I1 melee weapon...

I agree it wasn't a good change though, very arbitrary too.

Blood Angels do tend to get screwed a lot. One Edition they didn't even get a codex outside of White Dwarf if I remember right. Calgar with his two fists had an MC Powersword sometimes, and I think his Fists were superfists and fought at initiative another time...

Breton wrote:

Blood Angels do tend to get screwed a lot. One Edition they didn't even get a codex outside of White Dwarf if I remember right.

That was 4th. It was actually a pretty good book. It was good enough to get me to start the army. The only glaring problem I remember was that Librarians were LD9 for some reason, making them a bad choice. The only edition where BA didn't get a codex was 6th, but that was probably due to the edition not being around very long.

Breton wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Oops, forgot to clarify that I wasn't including Chaplains with their mace of office.

I disagree that there isn't a lot of variety in mace designs, but I think a lot of them look pretty goofy to modern eyes:

(Incidentally, you can buy this period-accurate replica).

So we tend to see various adaptations of flanged maces or very stylised maces like the Crozius in 40k.

Is that mace one used by a Teutonic Knight? A Saracen that sacked Jerusalem? The Mongol Hordes? A Roman Centurion? Can I make up reasons to convince someone any or all of those are true? Maces look like maces. They can be flanged, spiked, fancy or whatever, but they're all fairly similar.

Spoiler:

Pardon the image sizes below, I don't have a collection to pull from just Google:
(Generic Mace Collection photo from Wikipedia)

(White Scars)Scimitar

(Generic) Arming Sword:

Thousand Sons) Khopesh

(Ultramarines) Gladius


Swords are much more visually diverse when you're trying to co-opt historical societies into futuristic ones. Its pretty hard to make a White Scars Mace different from an Imperial Fists Mace without going kitschy on Lightning Bolts or Closed Fist raised details that would be a little too on-the-nose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:
In 3rd through 5th all basic power weapons were the same. It didn't matter what you put on the model. The only ones that were called out specifically were lightning claws, force weapons, and power fists.

In 6th they suddenly decided to differentiate the basic power weapons into swords, axes, mauls, and glaives. Axes increased strength, but dropped the user's initiative to 1 which is the same as fights last now. This made them undesirable in the extreme since if you were going to accept that penalty then you might as well go with the powerfist. Dante spent the edition on the shelf since he was unusable striking last.

Meant to clarify this. Power axes were the only ones to retain AP2 though- power swords were AP3. So a power axe was essentially a budget power fist and had a use case for taking on 2+ saves that power swords and mauls couldn't handle. Dante specifically was shafted though, he was I6 with an I1 melee weapon...

I agree it wasn't a good change though, very arbitrary too.

Blood Angels do tend to get screwed a lot. One Edition they didn't even get a codex outside of White Dwarf if I remember right. Calgar with his two fists had an MC Powersword sometimes, and I think his Fists were superfists and fought at initiative another time..

.

Thanks for not putting those gigantic pics in a spoiler & thus making the rest of the thread almost unreadable on mobile devises.

ccs wrote:

Thanks for not putting those gigantic pics in a spoiler & thus making the rest of the thread almost unreadable on mobile devises.

Not at all and thank you for so politely suggesting a workaround for the future that hadn't occurred to me, as evident by the apology for the giant pics.

Breton wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Oops, forgot to clarify that I wasn't including Chaplains with their mace of office.

I disagree that there isn't a lot of variety in mace designs, but I think a lot of them look pretty goofy to modern eyes:

(Incidentally, you can buy this period-accurate replica).

So we tend to see various adaptations of flanged maces or very stylised maces like the Crozius in 40k.

Is that mace one used by a Teutonic Knight? A Saracen that sacked Jerusalem? The Mongol Hordes? A Roman Centurion? Can I make up reasons to convince someone any or all of those are true? Maces look like maces. They can be flanged, spiked, fancy or whatever, but they're all fairly similar.

Pardon the image sizes below, I don't have a collection to pull from just Google:
(Generic Mace Collection photo from Wikipedia)

Spoiler:

(White Scars)Scimitar

Spoiler:

(Generic) Arming Sword:

Spoiler:

Thousand Sons) Khopesh

Spoiler:

(Ultramarines) Gladius[spoiler]

Swords are much more visually diverse when you're trying to co-opt historical societies into futuristic ones. Its pretty hard to make a White Scars Mace different from an Imperial Fists Mace without going kitschy on Lightning Bolts or Closed Fist raised details that would be a little too on-the-nose.

I think we are getting into outright subjectivity now, but I also think you haven't really captured the spread of maces there. Plus, there are definitely more than one distinct style in those Indo-Persian maces of the same region and era. Having said that, I do think there is more variation in swords overall, but maces are not as far behind as you suggest. The mace above is ~12-14th century based on a Swedish mace, so teutonic knight is reasonable.

From the same era as a khopesh:


Japanese mace (kanabo):


Spiked European maces:


11th century European maces (most on the Bayeux tapestry look like simple clubs):


There are also flails, which are closely related:


Mongols used a variety of maces, given their culture spanned Eurasia at one point. However, that includes these curved maces:


Finally, people make weird maces:

This one is probably ceremonial but a lot of 40k weapon designs are not very practical either.

Memnoch wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:


In 6th they suddenly decided to differentiate the basic power weapons into swords, axes, mauls, and glaives. Axes increased strength, but dropped the user's initiative to 1 which is the same as fights last now. This made them undesirable in the extreme since if you were going to accept that penalty then you might as well go with the powerfist.

Still one of my least favourite rule changes in any edition.

I’m pretty sure it was like this in second edition power mayo’s being the worst power weapon and power fists being the best unless you include lighting claws but they were terminators only. Infact maybe only space wolf terminators had them….

Force weapons were divided out aswell, I think the force hammer was best.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Simply put? A sword is flexible weapon.

Cut, thrust, parry, block, and more depending on the type of blade, hilt etc.

They’re also, traditionally, a weapon of the nobility. Not least because they took more, and typically better, steel to make.

If it was utlity then every marine would be running with a spear, pole hammer or pole ax. With the last two being the choice for the "nobility" esthethics. In general marines should be happy that they can get hammers, fists, chainfists and swords. And don't just get reduced a "power weapon". Because GW is 100% willing to do that to an army. Would it be great if GW gave SW some sort of frost weapon options and BA "blood/vampire" blades? Sure, but with how fast GW is updating marines from regular to primaris, it is an operation that will take 4-6 editions.

And if one ignores the access to players Horus Heresy has all the cool looking marine stuff one wants. Real Knight DA, Boarding shield phalanx dudes, legion specific and in character units. And mind blowing thing is that most of the legion specific stuff is not a trap or bad option, it actualy does see play. Unless of course you are a tank guy, then RIP HH expiriance.

Karol wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Simply put? A sword is flexible weapon.

Cut, thrust, parry, block, and more depending on the type of blade, hilt etc.

They’re also, traditionally, a weapon of the nobility. Not least because they took more, and typically better, steel to make.

If it was utlity then every marine would be running with a spear, pole hammer or pole ax. With the last two being the choice for the "nobility" esthethics.

The big difference vs medieval knights is that Marines almost exclusively carry pistols or longarms with their melee weapon, with the noticeable exception of storm shields (in many ways analogous to targetiers/rondeleros using a bullet-resistant shield along with plate armour for extra durability). Their weapon loadout is more akin to mid-to-late 19th century officers in which the primary weapon is the revolver and the secondary weapon is the melee weapon.

It is reasonable to switch this up the other way, and have a two-handed melee weapon with a pistol sidearm, and Marines did have rules for that option when they could take relic blades, but in general they seem to favour a balance between ready pistol and ready melee weapon, or longarm (say a combi-melta) with melee sidearm.

Aha, and that is a problem because ? In my part of the world nobilty was fastooned with bows, light crossbows, ax pistols , ax guns, pistol clubs (normaly carried as a pair). Having mounted knights armed with ranged weapons and melee weapons is something we did since the 13th year war (which was mid XVth century). If we could run a dude with a bow, lance, two club pistols(or a blunderbuss), two swords and a saber, Marines can exist armed with a pole weapon and a gun. My GK are the epitome of paladin knight estetic and each one can carry a glaive and a gun.

Ah and it didn't requier just knights, but the Russians, hungarians, us and the rest of the balkans had one of their basic mounted infantry be units of dudes armed with guns and bardiche. Along side pistols side arms and grenades.

Karol wrote:
Aha, and that is a problem because ? In my part of the world nobilty was fastooned with bows, light crossbows, ax pistols , ax guns, pistol clubs (normaly carried as a pair). Having mounted knights armed with ranged weapons and melee weapons is something we did since the 13th year war (which was mid XVth century). If we could run a dude with a bow, lance, two club pistols(or a blunderbuss), two swords and a saber, Marines can exist armed with a pole weapon and a gun. My GK are the epitome of paladin knight estetic and each one can carry a glaive and a gun.

Ah and it didn't requier just knights, but the Russians, hungarians, us and the rest of the balkans had one of their basic mounted infantry be units of dudes armed with guns and bardiche. Along side pistols side arms and grenades.

It can be done, obviously. But note most of those are mounted and don't have to carry all that themselves, which is one of the biggest advantages of a horse. In addition, wheellock pistols are very different to bolt pistols, you cannot rely on them beyond a single shot per weapon unless you can disengage after each volley in the manner of 16th century cuirassiers/reiters. We simply haven't had soldiery fighting with effective plate armour and repeating firearms in the way Marines can. So pistols in the 16th century are almost exclusively a back-up weapon, whereas bolt pistols are useful for much longer within an engagement and can reload quicker once the magazine is expended. Keeping a bolt pistol in hand obviously prevents effective use of a two-handed weapon like a poleaxe, so may as well stick to a single-handed weapon that can be wielded effectively at the same time. A Marine could carry a polearm too... but that weight might be better spent on more ammunition, grenades etc.

Also, it is rare to see late medieval and early modern infantry carry two large weapons- knights on foot were not typically carrying arquebus with their polearm. Other infantry were split into pikeman/halberdiers and gunners/archers for a reason too.

As I said, Marines could go two-handed weapon and back-up gun at some points, but this is clearly not a favoured combination over the versatility of repeating firearms as primary weapons. All of these weapon combinations are a choice with advantages and costs. Marines typically choose repeating pistol and single-handed melee weapon, an option simply not available historically with obvious advantages.

 Haighus wrote:

Somewhat subjectivity, but mostly recognizability. Most of those Maces still look pretty much the same. A ball on top of a stick. One of them looks like a 2nd Ed Power Ace that lost it's axehead - which is also they don't do many flails. They did one, three headed so they had three chain bits, and melded it to itself to reduce breakage - a one headed flail is going to be a stick with a couple links of chain on it pretty soon - though the conversions of people fixing it with jeweler's chain might be pretty cool. The curved mace has some potential - but again that's fairly white scars limited like the Horseman's Pick is somewhat stuck on the Ravenwing Bikers.

As you point out Swords have more varied looks. Beyond that they have more recognizable varied looks. Most kids won't know what a khopesh is. But they'll see it fit into the Thousand Sons asthetic. I'm surprised GW missed out on minting a bunch of Kukris when the Short Sword of the Ykesha was all the rage in Everquest, but they've still got time. You can even see the same thought process in the models themselves. The UM upgrade sprue has a tiny little Gladius. The other one has the paired Gladius/Longsword of the original Chapter Champion. The generic unit of swordsmen - Captain with Jump Pack, Bladeguard Veterans, have what's probably an arming sword.