Improving (all) Marines

[Quixus]

Yes but that's the point, heavier weapons are better at punching through that armour

Then why is the power sword AP -3 and the power axe AP -2? Axes tend to be heavier than swords and the weight is farther away from the hilt/grip.

[Iron_Within]

I need to ask and this is a genuine question and you wilfully misinterpreting my words? 

 

Swords, Axes and Mauls are differing strengths and AP as a design decision. The game isn't meant to be truly realistic (as how do you realistically represent magical swords powered by lightning and chainsaw swords vs axes with entrapped Daemons anyway?) it's supposed to be cinematic. If you're asking my opinion why an Axe cannot punch through armour as well as a sword because it's because in cinematic warfare an axe gets less "solid" blows to draw blood but when it does it makes more of a mess, there are thousands of films/novels etc. where a character has cuts from swords and is not dead. But ultimately it's a design decision for game balance, Swords have better AP than Axes and Axes have better than Mauls.

 

When I was talking about "Heavy" are was talking about ranged weaponry, so a Lascannon to a lasgun - one should punch through armour a lot better than the other. 

[Quixus]

I need to ask and this is a genuine question and you wilfully misinterpreting my words? 

 

Swords, Axes and Mauls are differing strengths and AP as a design decision. The game isn't meant to be truly realistic (as how do you realistically represent magical swords powered by lightning and chainsaw swords vs axes with entrapped Daemons anyway?) it's supposed to be cinematic. If you're asking my opinion why an Axe cannot punch through armour as well as a sword because it's because in cinematic warfare an axe gets less "solid" blows to draw blood but when it does it makes more of a mess, there are thousands of films/novels etc. where a character has cuts from swords and is not dead. But ultimately it's a design decision for game balance, Swords have better AP than Axes and Axes have better than Mauls.

It was a genuine question because I do not understand that design decision. Historically maces and warhammers were used against the heaviest armours, if axes were used in combat they had some armour defeating capabilities and swords were least effective against armour. While the effectiveness of blunt weapons was not entirely due to penetration, GW turns this pretty much around. Sure we cannot guess what fantasy armour and weapons are supposed to do but so obviously differing from real weapons is weird.

 

When I was talking about "Heavy" are was talking about ranged weaponry, so a Lascannon to a lasgun - one should punch through armour a lot better than the other.

I was thinking of heavy in terms of mass. I guess I misunderstood you.

[Iron_Within]

I don't know why either why GW went that direction, my likely guess is simplicity - Space Marines are really the basic entry army so have simpler weaponry in terms of understanding them is my thoughts. Dunno though. It seems like a logical decision though. 

 

Again though, applying historical context and accuracy to 40k is a fast track to madness. Likely how the first chaos gods were created, a single being determined to make sense of it first determined by hope, the began to rage at it all then fell into deep despair..... The last was the Eldar though, no getting away from them :P

[Beta galactosidase]

Having native rerolls on most of the baseline units in the army is something I’m not at all interested in.