You don't think that a weapon, the slowest one that there is, and one that is capable of putting holes in fortifications and tanks, when wound up and struck square shouldn't kill a mere Tactical Astartes? Also if Power Fist and Power Axe both kill in two heavy hits, why would anyone take a Power Fist?
Devil's Advocate here: if the fist had additional properties that specialized it against vehicles (stun, extra damage, etc.) that could be enough of a reason. There would be some versatility, but you're clearly more focused on hunting a specific type of enemy just like the tactical's meltagun.
Oh I know. I also have several answers to my question (I believe my own statement to be false). Trying to get him to think through what he is trying to get across. He is looking at the problem from a very very limited perspective.
If you think a review of the power n speed of the weapon based on what faction uses it, and balancing trought the speed and power aswell as their defenses trough toughness and healthpoints its a trivial question ok then. Do you think now the melee is good as it is, with instant kills ,fast spamming attack, dodging for nothing, with the powerfist having the same melee speed as the knife , ok, lets have this great system. Because all are powerfull weapons, lets one shot insta-kill all. This will add a lot of fun when you die and you cannot even say from wich side have came the hit. Powerfist Iniciative 1 Dont try to knock down a fortress door with that .
It was not an insult. Yes, you are looking at it from a very limited perspective: Firstly, you are attempting to straight convert a Table Top game into an Action game, this simply does not work. In that same tabletop game, a Plasma Gun by itself is worth two entire Tacticals with Boltguns. It isn't possible to make a fun game where a weapon is three times more effective than the others, so comparing straight stats isn't a smart idea. Using their scale as a guideline to create the Action game versions is good yes. Secondly, as I pointed out, you are comparing things on a very scalar level rather than absolute. First you did not include the thoughts that Ranged combat would interfere with Melee, then you created a very stepped scale for proposed damage amounts (I realize you were likely rounding up/down, but I am giving you credit for this, there is no evidence) rather than a dynamic one. For example: I would certainly be ok if the Powerfist Heavy Strike did not one-shot on a power attack as long as it almost killed an ungeared target and allowed a follow up Quick Strike or DBash/Riposte to finish off even a geared target. (So maximum two strikes even through armor & toughness, not counting Elites+ or Vehicles) Thus allowing it to remain effective even against infantry no matter what, and be slightly more damaging per hit than a Power Axe that may have a less efficient absolute damage (Maybe it needs two full Heavy Strikes to kill, or 1 Heavy and 2 fast/riposte, etc.) Lastly, you are guilty of treating one turn in the TableTop as one single turn based action instead of the simulation that it is. It can be reasonably argued that one round in the tabletop is roughly 20-40 seconds, with multiple motions, strikes, shots, etc. occuring in that time frame. Initiative, Strength, Toughness, Number of Attacks, etc. are all simply effective numbers to use in the simulation for it to work and play out effectively, rather than to be taken as exact data. After all, it doesn't make sense that Orks suddenly swing 50% faster when they run at their enemy first, or that a Space Marine can swing 100% faster when they become Veterans. Number of Attacks has always been in my mind the average number of EFFECTIVE attacks, rather than a Speed stat. Initiative is certainly speed, but again, doesn't mean that it is an EXACT speed value (for similar reasons as number of attacks above), rather it is an estimation of how quickly on average an effective strike will land. There is no need to fly off the handle like this: No I do not think that is trivial, but it isn't as easy as you just specced it to be. Why should Eldar have more Hit Points than Astartes? Why do ALL Eldar have to have less strength than Astartes? In the Lore Scorpions are supposed to be just as strong and even fighting matches. Why do Orks get so much Strength, Toughness and Hit Points? Won't they be unstoppable tanks then? No I do not think the Melee is good as is, which is why I have been posting in threads like this one to fix it. And obviously you are just angry.
I only tried to point that this kind of instant kill melee isnt fun. That was only an example about factions atributes that could be tuned to add some balance. Factions differences are missing. So using those atributtes could add lore realism to the game. Put the order as they meant to be, im not an expert in eldar and chaos. It was just an example...
Firstly, you are attempting to straight convert a Table Top game into an Action game. --That is what Eternal Crusade is about.- Secondly, as I pointed out, you are comparing things on a very scalar level rather than absolute. First you did not include the thoughts that Ranged combat would interfere with Melee. --Because this is the melee thread, i was talking about instant kills, an 2 secs melee fights but later it have become a complete guide for balancing games...the example you ve made its pretty much the same that i was thinking(maybe without the faction mods) tuning down a bit all damge in progression, to last, longer, because if one player can delete you with several weapons, can you imagine 50 vs 50 battles? Initiative, Strength, Toughness, Number of Attacks, etc. are all simply effective numbers to use in the simulation for it to work and play out effectively, rather than to be taken as exact data. --So do you want to have no diferences in the stats of an human vs boyz vs eldar at all? Bacuse they have different hit boxes, different speed run, and even eldar toughness is a real difference now. factions have their pros n contras, they can be implemented in the general balance. Like orks having more toughness and life and less armour, or inmmune to poison. Being brutal Or Eldar running faste,r reloading, faster better pool of stamina, weak toughness. Being fast. Human: Normal mode on. And obviously you are just angry ---yeah, sarcasm isnt my best. i have bad sense of humour in the mornings. But is going better with this reggae music and some choppa moves
@No_1 It's not a 1:1 conversion from the table top. The devs in the past have stated while they look to the table top for some influence, they're not really going 100% by the rules. It makes sense since some things won't translate well from a turn-based traditional game into a real-time TPS. But that's a different topic for a different thread. As for the speed of melee combat, the mechanics have been slowing it down. What people seem to overlook is that this is a team-based game. Melee is not 1-on-1 duels, nor is it squad melee vs squad melee (normally but I suppose it could be). Slowing the pacing of melee down usually ends up with friendly or enemy reinforcements coming to finish off the fight, and that isn't a very satisfying melee experience if you ask me. It's also a bit worrying that so many players are just right-click spamming now, even with chainswords. I don't think the melee rules are being properly conveyed in the game. It is not going to bode well once the fist/mace/axe light attacks are stopped by the d.bash.
It isn't squad vs squad melee at all, because there's no way to make a squad stick together. I think perhaps that's a bit of a problem, but isn't a 'melee combat rule' problem in any case. With #22, are combat knives supposed to be able to parry everything? It's getting ridiculous! Personally I don't think knives should parry anything besides other knives perhaps, but make up for it with ridiculous speed. As for melee combat personally I think part of the problem is TTK is generally too quick as it is. A (Chaos) Space Marine dies in under 2 seconds. I can't guess as to what is a 'reasonable' TTK, other than some playing around with the values and sort it from there into what 'feels' right (perhaps obviously, I'm referring to the basic loadouts like bolters etc, and not things like fusion guns). I believe that in general Space Marines should feel like 'walking tanks', which would imply to me some added survivability. Orks might be weaker, but perhaps you could counter-balance this by factional differences in respawn timers? Or advancement rankings? I dunno.
