Power Weapons Are All Wrong

[The Unseen]

The wannabe historical weapon nerd in me hates the current way power weapons are set up, because their basically backwards.

 

Maces, Hammers, and Polearms are what you bring vs a heavily armored person, and swords are heinous when used vs unarmored or lightly armored enemies, but have real trouble when fighting people wearing thick plate or similar armor.

 

Head over to 40k, and it's the exact opposite, power mauls, which represent any kind of blunt weapon, apparently do a lot of damage (represented by high str), but have the worse pen. Swords have the best pen, but the lowest strength. Axes are somewhere in the middle, which they got right at least.

 

This bother anyone else?

 

(please note, this is only half serious, yes I understand it's only a game, it's just something funny I'm pointing out)

[Closet Skeleton]

I noticed it certainly.

 

6th/7th ed's weapon profiles made more sense in that a maul did more wounds against AP2 than a sword would but 8th ed's strength and AP mechanics ruined that. Apart from the unyieldy axe nonsense. 2nd ed gave swords a parry mechanic which is the more logical rule. 2nd ed's parry wouldn't work in 8th ed due to high to hit chances and the custodes parry mechanic in 7th was terrible so I can see why the didn't add one into 8th ed. I suppose 're-roll one saving throw per phase' might have been an okay 8th ed parry mechanic.

 

There are anti-armour swords but they're anti-armour compared to other swords not compared to weapons on the whole. Armoured fighting is often heavy on wrestling and axes and maces are not good in a wrestle so sometimes the best weapon to take on an armoured opponent is actually a dagger.

 

Most 40k armour isn't full body armour which is the kind of armour swords are useless against. If you're stabbing around the plates then the extra precision on a sword could make a sword the superior anti-armour weapon, but that wouldn't make power swords vs tanks make sense and Eldar and Space Marines have full body armour and are common enough on the table top.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Closet Skeleton

[Atrus]

Well maces did have the fluffy concussive rule last edition but that was bloat and got scrapped with the simplification of 8th.

 

The high penetration and lack of strength on power swords i think is more to represent the wielder finding the weak points in the armour and striking with more finesse. Maces and mauls being heavier and broarder have the higher strength and lower penetration due to the armour absorbing the blow over a larger area or the wielder just having a tougher time getting into those weak points with such a weapon.

As you said, axes are about right.

 

I think this ia the mentality behind them anyways.

[Ranulf]

Power weapons have an energy field.

 

A medieval hammer works against plate because the concussive force doesn't pierce (it may buckle) the armour but it shatters the bones/organs/soft tissue beneath. If the armour is angled or sloped, it's harder to land a solid blow and thus much of the force of the blow is lost.

 

A crossbow bolt/bodkin arrow/bullet pierces plate because all of the kinetic energy is focussed into a very small area at the tip of the weapon. 

 

+Insert loose sci-fi segway here and the theoretical physics surrounding energy fields+

 

A power maul/hammer has a wide, blunt energy field - lots of damage on impact but may only buckle armour rather than break it.

 

A power sword focuses the energy field (when thrusting) into the point of the tip leading to better penetration of armour, with the point beating the edge. 

 

That's my take anyway.

[KhorneHunter57x]

I won't lie - it bugs me a little bit.

And this is (part of) why I take a lot of Thunder Hammers.

[Sete]

If you have problem with a sword Vs an armoured person... You need a bigger sword. :D

[Ranulf]

If you have problem with a sword Vs an armoured person... You need a bigger sword.

 

Or a Guardian Spear eh Sete? ;)

[Brother Captain Ed]

Let's not forget: a power sword is effectively a magic sword. It slices armor because of spacemagicscience that says it can. A power maul doesn't because spacemagicscience says it doesn't.

 

I am all for healthy doses if realism to help the suspension of disbelief go down, but criticising the pseudo-magical science macguffin for not acting like a regular not magic tool seems strange.

[Claws and Effect]

The penetration aspect actually makes sense. It's actually the power field that is the weapon, so it stands to reason that a power field that is focused in a smaller area would penetrate armor better.

[Feral_80]

It does not make any sense to compare power weapons to real weapons. You should read their name again and put more emphasis on the first word. As has been said, it's the *power* (field) that does the job, much more than the *weapon* itself.

 

You could as well wield a power plunger or a power fork, and you'd still have some decent chance to pierce armour. That has nothing to do with the fact that using a normal plunger or fork against somebody wearing armour would probably lead to poor results.

 

 

For a moment, my internal alarm detected the vague possibility that this thread might lead to a discussion about how cool/uncool katanas - and possibly power katanas - are. God I hope that was a false alarm.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Feral_80

[Laughingman]

Laughingmans theory: Its science fantasy, with semi-magical disruption fields... This is the same universe where a common weapon is a weaponized chainsaw (which is ludicrously impractical, imagine trying to parry a blow with a moving chain, while the chain is moving toward your hand). 

[Guest]

Thunder hammers store their energy for when it hits a target, the power isn't going straight causing the armor to be sheared but the energy ripples throughout the target. Hence why it's not armor penetrating.

 

Swords energy form is shaped to be able to cut through the armor of a target but is not spread out thus causing less damage.

 

 

The physical form is a means to carry the energy weapon not used as a means to attack. It looks like a sword but it's an armor scalpel, it looks like a hammer but it's just a massive energy wave.

[Firepower]

Sure, they don't act like real weapons, but they clean themselves.  Well, that's not quite accurate.  They clean themselves with lightning!  Have you any idea how hard it is to clean heretic gibblets out of a jammed chainsword?

 

Neither do I. The blood stays on the blade. 

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Sure, they don't act like real weapons, but they clean themselves.  Well, that's not quite accurate.  They clean themselves with lightning!  Have you any idea how hard it is to clean heretic gibblets out of a jammed chainsword?

 

Neither do I. The blood stays on the blade. 

 

I love you Black Templars.  You may be overzealous at times, but you're always good for a laugh.

[Guest]

Sure, they don't act like real weapons, but they clean themselves.  Well, that's not quite accurate.  They clean themselves with lightning!  Have you any idea how hard it is to clean heretic gibblets out of a jammed chainsword?

 

Neither do I. The blood stays on the blade. :verymad:

Just clean it off with some Tyranids blood. The slight acidity will remove the heretic blood. Be sure to wipe it away quickly afterwards or keep it wet or the Tyranids blood will eat the blade. Don't recommend Ork blood, mushroom will grow on the blade.

[Closet Skeleton]

The penetration aspect actually makes sense. It's actually the power field that is the weapon, so it stands to reason that a power field that is focused in a smaller area would penetrate armor better.

 

Does it though?

 

Power fields are pretty arbitrary as SF concepts go.

 

Power Mauls are supposed to be non-lethal weapons favoured by Arbites. They aren't just a mace version of a power sword. If the power field was what mattered axes and mauls would be the same because the underlying shape of the weapon should be irrelevant.

[Tyriks]

The weapon itself is irrelevant. That doesn't mean a maul and an axe have the same field, though.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

 

 

The penetration aspect actually makes sense. It's actually the power field that is the weapon, so it stands to reason that a power field that is focused in a smaller area would penetrate armor better.

Does it though?

 

Power fields are pretty arbitrary as SF concepts go.

 

Power Mauls are supposed to be non-lethal weapons favoured by Arbites. They aren't just a mace version of a power sword. If the power field was what mattered axes and mauls would be the same because the underlying shape of the weapon should be irrelevant.

Nonono, *shock mauls* are non lethal weapons favored by Arbites.

[Claws and Effect]

 

 

The penetration aspect actually makes sense. It's actually the power field that is the weapon, so it stands to reason that a power field that is focused in a smaller area would penetrate armor better.

Does it though?

 

Power fields are pretty arbitrary as SF concepts go.

 

Power Mauls are supposed to be non-lethal weapons favoured by Arbites. They aren't just a mace version of a power sword. If the power field was what mattered axes and mauls would be the same because the underlying shape of the weapon should be irrelevant.

I would assume that with an axe the power field would be focused on the edge, while with a maul it's a little more spread out.

[chapter master 454]

The Power Field on power weapons primary focus is on distorting the structure of armour struck by it. In a sense it softens the material if made of harder materials. Due to the nature of their generation in standard imperium weapons, this has a side effect of cauterizing wounds they create and thus would have reduced bleeding from strikes delivered but more open to infection.

 

While in design, a sword should have some sort of 'variable' to it that allows certain methods of fighting (Murder Stroke, Half Swording and even...if you are in the know: "Ending them rightly"!). Axes and Maces are far simpler to use and make but in general are far more useful. Swords in some form should have a unique rule regarding defense of parrying, maybe something like "You can re-roll failed armour saves in the fighting phase however you use your WS instead of your save value. This can only occur up to the number of the models attack halved (rounding up)". That way, units with swords have a serious durability buff however it may be needed to only add this to certain swords or units, maybe only for power swords. From there, Axes and Maces could then just have enhanced stats but lack the defense of swords.

 

Though that could again be bloating of rules but there needs to be a balance.

 

What is the balance between simple but deep rules and bloated rules that emulate depth. I think there is room for 40k in this form to expand, possibly optional expansions into certain aspects of the rules or maybe updates I suppose. "Sword and Fire Update, additional rules for Shooting and Fighting Phases" "Advanced tactic: Maneuvers" and maybe various others. I know some may decry the idea but some decry the 'simple' aspect of 40k. I personally like it as is but would love to see more added in an almost module like concept that allows players to further customise how they play: Want it basic? Cool. Want it Advanced with each phase a careful decision? Here ya go!

Not sure, a rather bold statement really but hey, the difference between Bravery and Stupidity is if you succeeded! (after all...we are SPESH MAREHNS!) 

[Lord_Caerolion]

As others have said, I think it's definitely because of the power fields, but let's also not forget the fact that we're dealing with advanced armour here too. Basically, the power fields of the mauls/hammers mean that, like actual hammers/mauls, it's not so much going to pierce the armour as pulp the flesh behind it. However, 40k armour is advanced enough that power armour, etc, is largely going to resist the impact, so if you get through, it's going to cause serious damage. Maybe we could see Mauls getting an increase to Damage on a Wound roll of 6+, or something? Power swords, on the other hand, have the field focused around the blade edge, allowing for greater penetration against armour, but still not doing much more once it gets inside.

 

Then you've got the power fists, which, while a blunt weapon like the mauls, are apparently designed for gripping and crushing, rather than just punching, so you're pulping whatever you grab thanks to those servo-strengthened fingers, as well as buckling and crushing the armour too.

[jeffersonian000]

In 40k, a Lightsaber is a Power Sword.

 

That said, yes, GW has no idea how weapons work in real life, and definitely not the physics of energy transfer. Hammers should defeat armor, especially given the explosion energy transfer described for the Thunder Hammer.

 

SJ

[Closet Skeleton]

Nonono, *shock mauls* are non lethal weapons favored by Arbites.

 

 

I understand why you would think that, since it would make sense.

 

But in the 2nd ed Wargear book which is sadly the last time all the 40k weapons were given proper descriptions;

 

 

Power Maul

This weapon is used by the Adeptus Arbites Judges - the dreaded Arbitrators of Imperial Justice... The depth of the field can be adjusted to bash a hole through a wall or merely administer an irresistible knock-out blow to subdue a victim.

 

Genestealer Neophytes get power mauls and have other weapons taken from Arbites like Webbers but there's no official fluff on where they get their mauls from since their codex just referenced the 7th ed rulebook which had no fluff on specific power weapon types.

 

Shock Mauls are from Inquisitor which didn't have Power Mauls, but those are clearly not the same thing as a power maul and are not given enough description to see if Arbites use them.

 

 

Shock Weapons.

Charged with electrical energy these cause severe burns on impact and can disrupt

the nervous system.

 

 

Dark Heresy copied Inquisitor in having shock mauls and no power mauls and added text about Arbites and Enforcers using shock mauls but while its no surprise if Fantasy Flight stuff makes more sense than GW stuff, licensed material isn't mainline canon to me. Arbites having Shock Mauls doesn't contradict them also having power mauls and both having nonlethal settings.

 

I have no idea about Necromunda so maybe shock mauls are enforcer equipment in that.

 

Skitari have arc mauls but those are actually more lethal than a power maul according to the 7th ed skitari book.

 

 

The arc maul is at first glance a bludgeoning weapon designed to crush and pulp its

targets. However, when activated, it becomes a rod of lightning like unto those wielded

by the gods of Old Earth. Those struck by an arc maul often convulse themselves to

death as the riotous energies playing across them take their toll.

 

The 2nd ed Chaos Codex mentions Power Maces and described them as the ancestors of Crozius Arcanum and Thunder Hammers but those got rolled into Power Mauls.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Closet Skeleton

[Brother Lunkhead]

The wannabe historical weapon nerd in me hates the current way power weapons are set up, because their basically backwards.

 

Maces, Hammers, and Polearms are what you bring vs a heavily armored person, and swords are heinous when used vs unarmored or lightly armored enemies, but have real trouble when fighting people wearing thick plate or similar armor.

 

Head over to 40k, and it's the exact opposite, power mauls, which represent any kind of blunt weapon, apparently do a lot of damage (represented by high str), but have the worse pen. Swords have the best pen, but the lowest strength. Axes are somewhere in the middle, which they got right at least.

 

This bother anyone else?

 

(please note, this is only half serious, yes I understand it's only a game, it's just something funny I'm pointing out)

 

 

Let's not forget: a power sword is effectively a magic sword. It slices armor because of spacemagicscience that says it can. A power maul doesn't because spacemagicscience says it doesn't.

 

I am all for healthy doses if realism to help the suspension of disbelief go down, but criticising the pseudo-magical science macguffin for not acting like a regular not magic tool seems strange.

 

You both have great points on this. I'm afraid we will never ever see anything close to realistic dynamics from the Rules Magi at GW. It's probably just as well though. If we did then your IG or SoB players would have to have armies ten times the size of SM armies.... not very conducive to sales or enjoyment by fans of those weak humans (just kidding), xeno lovers (still just kidding) or heretics (kidding...sort of). We'd have better luck seeing more realistic weapons balance in the fluff and fiction.

 

I really don't have much (or anything) of value to add, but this is a fun read.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Brother Lunkhead

[Claws and Effect]

I always imagined that how you used a power sword depended largely on your opponent.

 

Light armor or no armor? Slash away, my friend.

 

Heavy armor? A thrust would serve you better.

 

Lightning claws are much the same. Many fluff descriptions have them making a right mess of lightly armored foes, but stabbing works better against armor.