Baal Strike Force and Unwieldy weapons

[Bukimimaru]

It doesnt help that the BSF USR and the best of our Sanguinary powers all bump up initative.

Makes taking axes even more redundant when the best parts of our codex is rendered moot by the unweildy rule.

 

That being said, rule of cool has dictaded that my Librarian always has a force axe.

[Canadian_F_H]

The only real advantage with the Axe is the +1 attack from a cheap bolt pistol... The s bonus and ap would be useful, improving odds to kill meq and teq vs a power sword reasonably to astronomically respectively.

 

I don't think a power Axe should be unwieldy tho. Perhaps just half initiative instead of automatically going to I 1 would have been a little better...

 

Still strike last against everything except power fisters.

[Indefragable]

The only real advantage with the Axe is the +1 attack from a cheap bolt pistol... The s bonus and ap would be useful, improving odds to kill meq and teq vs a power sword reasonably to astronomically respectively.

 

I don't think a power Axe should be unwieldy tho. Perhaps just half initiative instead of automatically going to I 1 would have been a little better...

 

Still strike last against everything except power fisters.

Exactly. That seems to be the consensus.

[vahouth]

Unwieldy for axes is the most out of place rule IMO. I would only consider unwieldy, any two handed weapon that is not used with both hands, but in conjunction with another weapon eg. a bolt pistol.

Now that makes sense to me.

[Karhedron]

Axes are also cheaper than fists if you are just looking for a source of AP2. I think it is mostly a balance thing. AP2 at initiative is rare on Infantry apart from characters.

[Jolemai]

Unwieldy for axes is the most out of place rule IMO. I would only consider unwieldy, any two handed weapon that is not used with both hands, but in conjunction with another weapon eg. a bolt pistol.

Now that makes sense to me.

 

... which it is.

 

A sword and maul go at initiative to represent the stabbing/thrusting and clobbering (respectively) that the weapon can do. An axe really only has one motion; to be raised above the head and brought down to "chop" at an opponent. INT 1 represents this, just like INT 1 represents a power fist crushing an opponent (contrary to popular belief, they generally aren't used to punch) and/or the time taken to squeeze the life out of an opponent.

[Indefragable]

 

 

Unwieldy for axes is the most out of place rule IMO. I would only consider unwieldy, any two handed weapon that is not used with both hands, but in conjunction with another weapon eg. a bolt pistol.

Now that makes sense to me.

... which it is.

 

A sword and maul go at initiative to represent the stabbing/thrusting and clobbering (respectively) that the weapon can do. An axe really only has one motion; to be raised above the head and brought down to "chop" at an opponent. INT 1 represents this, just like INT 1 represents a power fist crushing an opponent (contrary to popular belief, they generally aren't used to punch) and/or the time taken to squeeze the life out of an opponent.

Not to nerd out but there is s difference between a hand-axe/hatchet and a battle-axe. A battle axe would make sense at I1, but then it should also have the 2H rule (why aren't ALL 2H weapons +1 Strength?) A hand axe can be swung pretty much the same as a gladius or club.

 

In any case, in regards to the point you are making...it only makes Axes even less useful. Other than to save a few points, why would you ever want to take a S5 (S6 w/ Furious Charge)I1 weapon over a S8 (S9 w/ FC) I1 weapon?

[Bukimimaru]

If I could change the rule for axes I would suggest hitting at int on the charge, then hitting at I1 in subsiquent rounds.

I get that axes should be big and cumbersome, but if your running in to combat as you swing then it shouldnt be penalised.

[vahouth]

 

Unwieldy for axes is the most out of place rule IMO. I would only consider unwieldy, any two handed weapon that is not used with both hands, but in conjunction with another weapon eg. a bolt pistol.

Now that makes sense to me.

 

 

... which it is.

 

A sword and maul go at initiative to represent the stabbing/thrusting and clobbering (respectively) that the weapon can do. An axe really only has one motion; to be raised above the head and brought down to "chop" at an opponent. INT 1 represents this, just like INT 1 represents a power fist crushing an opponent (contrary to popular belief, they generally aren't used to punch) and/or the time taken to squeeze the life out of an opponent.

I disagree. If anything, the axe is as unwieldy as a mace since they both are top heavy and have the same movement range.

That's not my point though, as not all axes are two handed. Those that are, could still strike at initiative if the model is using it with both hands. Otherwise, they could have +1 attack for using it with a pistol, but at lower initiative. And certainly not initiative 1.

[Sans Mercy]

I think a different USR with an initiative penalty, say -1 or 2, would have been reasonable.

[Karhedron]

Back in 2nd edition there were different stats for axes allowing them to be wielded one-handed to two-handed.

[Lysere]

Kroot rifles have better ap than chainswords in melee and kroot are no stronger than a marine.

[vahouth]

Also a battle axe is for a space marine just a hatchet. Just saying... :P

[Morticon]

And thank you everyone who weighed in and pointed out the specific wording that puts this topic for rest.

 

You have greatly helped out a Noob.

 

Thanks

 

-Indy

 

thats what the forum's there for :D 

[Quixus]

Yep, its too bad. Even spells can't be used to change the I value of unwieldy specialist weapons...and I hate that axes are I1. (of course I also hate that chainswords are not rending, that marines are not all base 2A, that drop pods are not assault vehicles, or that lascannons are not S10).

The weirdest thing is that one large mass at the end of a pole (power axe) is unwieldy while two others (chain axe, power maul) are not. On top of that most power axe heads actually look lighter than the chainaxe heads.

Agreed, I've always believed chainswords should have either a. rending or b. AP of at least 5. It's silly that with AP values on weapons (since 6th edition?), GW hasn't done anything to recognize the difference between a combat knife naked fist and a GIANT CHAINSAW CLAYMORE. I mean, just a bit, right?

FTFY. I totally agree. Any close combat weapon should be an upgrade to not having a weapon. That's why they are used IRL.

[shandwen]

Yep, its too bad. Even spells can't be used to change the I value of unwieldy specialist weapons...and I hate that axes are I1. (of course I also hate that chainswords are not rending, that marines are not all base 2A, that drop pods are not assault vehicles, or that lascannons are not S10).

But drop pods are assault vehicles. Too bad that rule means nothin

[Xenith]

Yep, its too bad. Even spells can't be used to change the I value of unwieldy specialist weapons...and I hate that axes are I1. (of course I also hate that chainswords are not rending, that marines are not all base 2A, that drop pods are not assault vehicles, or that lascannons are not S10).

The weirdest thing is that one large mass at the end of a pole (power axe) is unwieldy while two others (chain axe, power maul) are not. On top of that most power axe heads actually look lighter than the chainaxe heads.

Agreed, I've always believed chainswords should have either a. rending or b. AP of at least 5. It's silly that with AP values on weapons (since 6th edition?), GW hasn't done anything to recognize the difference between a combat knife naked fist and a GIANT CHAINSAW CLAYMORE. I mean, just a bit, right?

FTFY. I totally agree. Any close combat weapon should be an upgrade to not having a weapon. That's why they are used IRL.

I think a models base stats assume the use of an appropriate combat weapon.

Other games such as mordheim and inquisitor give pretty big penalties for unarmed combat.

[Quixus]

I think a models base stats assume the use of an appropriate combat weapon.

Not quite, the rules tell us that a model without a close combat weapon is to be treated as if it had one, essentially making a single CCW irrelevant:

If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.

[Indefragable]

 

I think a models base stats assume the use of an appropriate combat weapon.

Not quite, the rules tell us that a model without a close combat weapon is to be treated as if it had one, essentially making a single CCW irrelevant:

If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.

http://g3ar.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/cartman-lame.jpg

[Canadian_F_H]

 

I think a models base stats assume the use of an appropriate combat weapon.

Not quite, the rules tell us that a model without a close combat weapon is to be treated as if it had one, essentially making a single CCW irrelevant:

If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.

Is a pistol really considered as having the melee type? Or counting as an additional ccw... Cuts the way that reads to me is that all space marines have a ccw as well as their pistol...

 

Then again my last outing with 40k was third edition where it says every body has a ccw, and space marines didn't have pistols automatically...

[Quixus]

Is a pistol really considered as having the melee type? Or counting as an additional ccw... Cuts the way that reads to me is that all space marines have a ccw as well as their pistol...

No, marines equipped with a bolt pistol and a bolt gun do not get an extra attack.

Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons. A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase.

Thus armed marines count as having one and only one CCW.

[Canadian_F_H]

 

Is a pistol really considered as having the melee type? Or counting as an additional ccw... Cuts the way that reads to me is that all space marines have a ccw as well as their pistol...

No, marines equipped with a bolt pistol and a bolt gun do not get an extra attack.

Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons. A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase.

Thus armed marines count as having one and only one CCW.

I understand that that is the case, I'm just applying my old 3rd edition logic...

 

This edition is weird...

[Indefragable]

The pistols as extra attack thing is weird, but it makes sense from a design point of view to speed up the game: imagine if in the Assault phase you had to roll for a Power Sword, then an Inferno Pistol and the stats that would apply. You can argue the pistol, regardless of type, is basically a distraction for the person receiving the Assault, thus making the Power Sword/Chainsword/whatever ore effective.

 

I know in one previous edition they made a big deal about the Astartes Combat Knife, kind of like how they made (still make?) a big deal about the Catachan Rambo knives.

 

I get why they would try to keep things simple but it does seem to unnecessarily nerf CQC.

 

EDIT: typos.

[Vel'Cona]

Is True Grit still a thing? I'm not a SW or GK so I'm out of the loop

[Quixus]

Nope, but some SWs can have a bolt gun, a bolt pistol and a CCW.