Perhaps reduce concussion to a -10 toughness check per 2 successes? Or a flat -X?

Blademaster certainly shouldn't be used to have another go at an attack that has been parried. You already rolled to hit, and hit. You've now declared a success, and you can't go back and tamper with dice after the foe has rolled defence. That's like going for a feint, waiting for the foe to make it, failing by 1 DoS, and then wanting to toss in a FP in order to win.

Argus Van Het said:

That solves one problem, yet creates insta-kill scenarios in other situations - say when fighting near a clifftop! It's also an ability that I'm pretty sure could see a lot of other abuse.

I don't have RoB to hand, but my take on MoB would be to make sure that *all* weapon traits are used. So if you want to use a powersword as an executioners axe, then you cannot parry and need two hands. That helps decrease the 'this powersword is a thunderhammer' problem a little by requiring two hands (assuming you houserule that thunderhammers need two hands to use in normal power armour), but it doesn't solve the basic issue, which is that the thunderhammer is broken and a munchkin magnet.

The knockdown effect is a problem, as is the stun. The huge damage isn't even the main problem. Without removing those two traits and removing the whole flavour of the thing, I'm beginning to think that un-modified Tou and Str checks might be the way to go. Opposed would be good, but that's extra dice rolling.

Brand said:

I was using the profiles of the Errata of Deathwatch. There, the Thunder Hammer has been updated to have a damage output of 2d10+5E, without doubling the Strength Bonus. Also, bolter weapons have been reduced to 1d10+N, where N tends to be a number between 10 and 14, and the penetration has been lowered to 4. On the bright side, Genestealer's claws have been downgraded in Pen, so they cannot gut like a fish a terminator per attack 80% of the times.

Argus Van Het said:

If you read earlier in the errata, the text for the TH says to add a Str modifier. Even the new weapon charts aren't perfect; the errata says to rename the "Hopper Mine" and call it the "Leaper Mine," but the tables at the end still list it as the Hopper Mine. I see the new weapon tables as being a lot of copy/paste work and still not perfect since there appear to be a few issues like that. Things may clear up a bit if we see another update to them.

I think the new Bolter weapons were nerfed a bit TOO much, and I'll likely keep the original RoF for them (barring perhaps the Heavy Bolter). It makes having the right ammo doubly important now.

Genestealers are a bit of a mess since there are so many forms of them. The CA version, basic FS ones, and the forms from TEP. Now we have new Tyranid weapon stats. I think each GM will just have to decide how deadly the Genestealer should be and run with it.

Ok, I found the paragraph you are talking about. So a Thunder Hammer is like a power fist, with +5 to damage and Concussive and less weight...
Yes, I cannot see any reason for taking any power weapon but this as the second with the master of blades....

On the bolter nerfing, I think FFG just nerfed too much ranged combat and buffed a little too much melee... But I understand why they reduced the bolter damage from 2d10 to 1d10 (the chainfist would go against this anyway). The weapon is, after all, Tearing, and they might have been told to reduce it to a max of 2 dice on any given roll. I don't understand the reduction on RoF or in penetration, however, and I think the only change I might keep would be the Heavy Bolter's RoF reduction, because, well, maybe at rank 7-8 a devastator can hit with 11 bullets, but until then a more "efficient" version could be used XD.

The TH IS superior to a Power Fist, this is warHAMMER after all!

The Problem is the low Req of the TH it should be Req 40 at least.

Kain McDogal said:

I'm with you on that, I still like the idea of it being a two hander for PA Marines, gives it a nice niche.

Kain McDogal said:

The problem is not about requisition, or even about fame. The main problem comes from a player being able to buy Master of Blades and apply it to, for example, power sword / thunder hammer, and be able to use a 20 requistion power sword with the profile of the Thunder Hammer. Or carrying two...

Now change the power sword for the Lightining Claws (because there is a Terminator version of them, after all...) and you have a player that cannot be disarmed and is carrying the equivalent to two thunder hammers if he wants. For 45 requisition.

Argus Van Het said:

A player CAN'T buy Master of Blades, it's a distinction and must be awarded by the GM but still paid for by the player. While Master of Arms seems to be a reasonable Distinction as long as the GM only chooses Tearing and Accurate, Master of Blades is a stupid Munchkin trick and any responsible GM shouldn't offer it. Why should a warhammer behave like a sword or vice versa? This would have nothing to do with fine swordmanship and could be only achieved by magic!

Kain McDogal said:

Heresy! Burn the witch! Could be a funny gaming moment

But I'll second the idea that the TH is two-handed for normal PAs.

Kain McDogal said:

The character takes hold of the sword with both hands, and delivers an enormous concussive blow using the flat of the blade.

It can easily be fluffed. It's the TH that's the problem, not the Distinction.

Siranui said:

I know reality and W40K are 2 different things, but ...come on.

For me, I went back to look at the first stats for the TH that I had seen - Brother-Sergeant Agamorr's TH in the "Shades of Twilight" module (the second mission in DH's Purge the Unclean). The biggest factor is that the TH there didn't have Concussive.

Purge the Unclean pg. 86

Astartes Thunderhammer (1d10 + 7 E, Pen 6, Shocking, Power Field, Unwieldy)

Bump the damage and Pen up a bit to be more in line with DW and I think it's much more balanced, even without the 2-hand requirement.

There is little wrong with wielding a TH in one hand, it all depends on how you hold it. For example, when wielding a rubber mallet to slam in a small nail or peg, you don't hold it at the end and swing away, you move your hand towards the head and bash it in. This method is also fine for wielding a TH, and so one handed wielding is acceptable.

To take a page from the TT, a Space Marine commander is allowed to wield 2 THs, and in fact, doesn't receive a bonus unless he does.

To believe power armour couldn't lift a TH implies it weighs something phenomanal. And while yes, it does to a degree, Space Marines and their armour are designed to do exactly this. Instances such as lifting Rhino tanks or ripping through armoured bulkheads using only their power-armoured hands is commonplace.

it really boils down to whether you, as a player, prefers to use a fist or a hammer. And your GM's input. As my groups GM, I don't care how much req and renown they all have, I certainly would not allow the team to each take two THs. If they decided to complain I would allow it then force them to fight hordes of enemies that are smart enough not to engage in melee, and would do so from extremely advantageous positions, such as in a raised killing ground.

So while yes it's powerful, from a Roleplaying perspective it is horrendously wrong on all levels. Especially since marines tend to form bonds with wargear, have their own personal favourites, take different kinds for a challenge ("I'm **** good with this bolter... Let's see if I can kill as many enemies using only a Krak missle launcher!") and other assorted reasons.

Arctophylax said:

So use the hammer one handed without any of the three feet of leverage of the haft and still do the same damage? Not on my watch

Also: Use a long-handled mallet instead of a hammer?! Get a hammer and use the right tool for the job, man. I ain't holding any nails in place for YOU!!

It all boils down if you prefer a Power Fist or a Power Fist with more damage and Concussive?

Oh, man, I really don't know...

Siranui said:

e.

So use the hammer one handed without any of the three feet of leverage of the haft and still do the same damage? Not on my watch

Also: Use a long-handled mallet instead of a hammer?! Get a hammer and use the right tool for the job, man. I ain't holding any nails in place for YOU!!

The only penalty for this should be the limited range, which really doesn't matter in melee! The power of the hammer comes from the nature of its power field - without that, it's just a lump of metal on the end of a stick! The energy field discharges when it strikes an object, however hard and wherever you're holding it from, with a loud bang and that is what provides the concussive force! Those couple of feet don't make too much of a difference to a Space Marine - he's going to kick your ass regardless of measurements!

So why does it give the Marine's SB as a damage bonus?

For me: Just no. The sheer ludicrousness of holding a sledgehammer 6 inches from the head and trying to use it as a weapon demands no other answer. Plus: I'm old school, where THs are a Termie weapon. And they're already broken beyond belief, even if they take two hands to hold. Why would I make it worse?

Because he's wielding a giant lump of metal, encased in a destructive energy field, and hurling it around with the power of a superhuman.

Honestly, I can't believe you consider anything ludicrious when you're living in a world where assassins can change their form, the Warp exists, the Tau are decended from Bovines and Tyranids exist.

They really aren't that broken at all. They're only hitting one target after all. Providing they hit in the first place. It's nice that a Space Marine can do so much damage, but against the likes of Genestealers amongst others, they're going to die fast when facing superior numbers.

You also can't be old school when it comes to 40k. A quick read of the Inquisition War novels for example will set you straight. The present is a result of past mistakes!

Arctophylax said:

I can live with all of that because it's far removed from my experience and completely outside of it. But, hammers? Hammers never change...

Using a hammer and hafted weapons are not outside of my experience, and grasping one just below the head and trying to use it as a weapon is just... dumb, really. It's a dumb way of trying to hit a nail, and it's a dumb way of trying to hit a person. You might was well use a 'power brick' to beat people with. 45,000 years of weapon development and marines are reduced to fighting like morons, in an utterly inefficient manner. You're welcome to have marines in power armour going Florentine with a pair of hammers held like that in your game universe, but it ain't happening in mine. The imagery is just too... pathetic, frankly.

Well, I guess as they're only hitting *one* hive tyrant / greater demon / Tau commander at a time and putting it on it's ass automatically, and stun-locking it every round, there's not really a problem, is there?

I can be as old school as I like when I'm deciding what elements to use in my game, and what is 'in' and what is 'out'. I'm not about to rush out and buy 15 years worth of GW products just to play catch-up!

You can't really be telling me when you go to belt in a small nail with a hammer you hold it right at the end of the handle? Not only does it make it harder to swing, but increases your chances of missing AND blatting your finger =P

I had a peek at the Marine Codex, and lo and behold, there's a picture of a Space Marine in power armour wielding two Thunder Hammer, near to the top, and they are actually smaller than your conventional hammer. Like mentioned before, it's the energy field, not the hammer itself, that's doing the damage. If a Space Marine drives an energised force at something with super human strength, that's where the bonuses are coming from.

Fighting like morons? I don't think you quite know much about fighting, do you? Holding the hammer nearer the top allows for faster movement, while relying on the sheer weight of the head to do the damage with little encouragement. It's very much like the old Norse way of fighting with axes. They didn't very well hold them at the bottom and swing for glory. The adapted to change combot situations. If they needed reach, they would hold lower down and swing broadly, while when you needed to get the job done up close and personal (and quickly) they held them towards the blade. Calling that pathetic is quite the insult, but anyone who knows the efficiency of such wielding is likely to scoff at the statement, challenge you to an honour duel and blat your brains out while wielding a hammer near the head =P

Not only that, but marines all have different fighting styles depending on personality and Chapter. Why, for instance the Storm Wardens wield Claymores! Hardly an efficient weapon, but I certainly wouldn't say that to a Space Marine wielding one for fear of him feeling his hate and striking me down with it!

And no, there isn't. The chances one of any of those listed things being entirely on their own is absurdly remote. Unless you walked into their private bedchambers / slumber pit / corner of hell then they will have a whole army ready to get in the way. If your players want to be douchebags and all decide to wield two hammers, that's obviously out of the spirit of the game, and space marine mentality, and so you should feel free to 'break' the game in your own way!

It's nice that they can square up to a Hive Tyrant, but when it is surrounded by bodyguards in both melee and ranged, then your marines should be so keen on running and charging it in melee. It's suicide in the fiction, suicide from a tactical assessment, and suicide in terms of dice rolling. They won't survive such dumb behaviour. Unless of course you're a bit nicer and only have two measly warriors defending the Tyrant while the rest of the nid horde runs about culling trees for biomass =D

You don't need to buy anything to 'play catch up' as most of it is in the rule books, and outside of that, readily available online for free from numerous sources, the Games Workshop website being one of them, and Lexicanum another.

Regardless, it doesn't appear that I'm going to convince you, and that's fine. I'm just putting all of this out here to counter, in the eyes of other potential readers, your biased personal distate for this game mechanic.

Arctophylax said:

I use the right size hammer in the first place, generally! I have four!

I'm really not going to rush to look at a codex just to see my 'classic' interpretation of the TH shat all over by some mini designer who decided that Florantine THs the size of a ball peen hammer would be uber. :o/ THs are big things with fairly long hafts used by terminators or guys in power armour with two hands in my campaign, especially given their ridiculous stats. My players feel the same way (even the ones that were eyeing THs want to wield them in two hands, with a long haft, because the other interpretation offends them and that way is FAR cooler), and I don't think that the opinion puts me in a vast minority, by a long chalk.

As to your Hive Tyrant example... Those Master-level foes need to be defeated, and if they're melee focused, then they will attempt to melee the party (especially a blood thirster!), so regardless of the number of minions present, an AM will either get charged by it, or will jet-pack in and floor it with a TH with one blow, and just have to sweat the small stuff. Although with the right squad mode, they can be using everyone else's parries against the bodyguards too, and laughing it off. Or of course just using stalwart defence and again laughing it off. And then the 'Master' level foe becomes just a stunned mass on the floor, where it can be stock-locked until dead. When there's a weapon in the game that effectively paralyses ANY foe with a fairly moot-able 'saving throw', it's a problem. I'm darned sure we'll be seeing some changes to it in the next errata. Relying on bodyguards to prevent the AM from hitting the largest threat on the field of battle and entirely removing it as a threat just isn't going to happen.

Digression on pet subject:

Hafted weapons have hafts for a reason: Leverage, for one. Now there are plenty of short-handled maces around, but when a weapon is designed with a long haft, it's used with a long haft most of the time, and for preference. Not just for leverage, but as part of the packaged weapon system, for extra reach, closing down angles of attack, blocking, sweeping, tripping, and even using to help administer holds and arm-bars in grapples. Yes: You move your hands up and down the shaft, but fighting constantly with 4 inches of reach and no additional leverage in a very energy inefficient manner? No thanks. If a marine wanted to do that, he'd use a power fist.

The old Norse way of fighting with axes? Erm... what old Norse way? There are no surviving documents detailing the way in which they were used, aside from anecdotal reference in Sagas. We can extrapolate possible techniques from the weapons themselves, armour, evidence of battlefield wounds (Norse, were keen on the vertical kill-stroke to the forehead, by the way...) and later sources (which are also pretty thin, so far as axes are concerned), but there is no way of telling for sure if modern interpretations are in the right ball-park. Indeed; all this talk of Dane axes further feeds my desire for THs to be long-hafted two-handed weapons in power armour, because Dane axes and pole axes are sophisticated and very cool hafted weapon systems which are great to fight with, and I want a taste of that in my 40k games, rather than Marines bludgeoning away and using every weapon in the most unsophisticated and incorrect manner imaginable!

And erm... if someone wanted to bash my brains out with a hammer like that, I'd happily stand three feet further back and use a bit of reach to get them first!

Oh we can't all afford lots of hammers! They all do the same thing... Depending on how I hold it! =D

They're not as 'bad' as Florentine, they still look exactly look like a TH but with a smaller haft so you can wield two of them! While yes I don't deny the longer hafts are there for the levarage, but things reach a terminal point where they simply can't do more damage (except exponentionally. Like those **** Railguns...). A marine is already superhuman, and I struggle to fathom that he can do significantly more damage with a bit of extra weight behind him.

Also, 'cool' is certainly a personal opinion. You saying you like them smashing things wielding them two handed is cool, but I would much prefer to stab you with a rapier before you can even lift the hammer =P To me, that swashbuckling is cool. In game terms, a rapier would very likely lose to the game mechanic, however in actuality it'd but the hammer wielding brute on the floor faster than you can say 'ole'. What I'm trying to say is that you can't be so subjective as to denounce the idea as being uncool or just daft. No, it doesn't fit in with your style, so that's fine. But it wouldn't exactly be fair to penalise one of your players who thinks differently when he has every right to do so.

I didn't say you were in a minority at all =P I simply said your opinions are biased. I'm playing devil's advocate here. But your outright condemning of them with generally personal remarks such as 'pathetic' can be an influential thing to some people. Note nowhere have I said that I am in favour of people only wielding them one handed, I merely suggested it was feasible and should not incur a penalty.

As for the example again, like I said, it would be nigh suicidal to fly in alone against a Tyrant. Aye he'll get a hit in there with a greater degree of accuracy than playing 'whack a nid', but will be promptly savaged to death by the large amount of creatures he has courteously put himself within melee range of. These enemies can do anything from Knock Down, Stun, Grapple... all of which will stop the marine from attacking again and allow the Tyrant a chance to recover. If he can't survive one marine bludgeoning him slowly to death then he deserves to die slowly. Something as simple as 'the warriors form a living shield between you and the tyrant, making another attack impossible' would most certainly be acceptable. Even a Hard or higher test to get away using a Jump Pack as the creatures drag the marine down. Or disarm him. The GM is God and responsible for everything, and you should let your players know that. It's not being a ****** or breaking the game, it's making it realistic. I constantly reinforce that my players can do anything and everything they like - but I will make appropriate conseqeuences. Burning Fate won't save them if I deem them to have done something utterly stupid. Such as landing amidst a Hive Tyrant's guards solo.

Squad mode is good yes, but things can damage it. The rules provide some examples, but you should still feel free to excercise GM powers to include more.

Also, spending all their Req on weapons (30 is still pretty hefty...) means they are geared more up for combat and not other roles, which unless you just make combat games will likely impede their progress and opportunity to achieve side goals and / or other awesome stuff

My base point is that it's simply not good enough to counter an over-powered weapon -or indeed any rule- with situational fluff. It's the weapon/rule that's the problem. And it's unfair of a GM to start artificially throwing walls in front of players just because their weapon is overpowered. If those walls are already there: Fine. But to artificially have to keep a player out of action because the rules are ill-thought or ill-tested is just poor, to my mind.

GMs should not have to desperately manage situations in order to downplay the effect of broken rules. And the Thunderhammer is Brokey-broke-broke, of the McBroke tribe, heralding from the distant Brokegreaterdemon'sback Mountain.

30Req is 'pretty hefty' for a decent melee weapon like the lightning claw or a barrage plasma gun. It's not pretty hefty for a weapon that is far better than both of those similarly-priced examples and is basically an insta-win in any one-on-one combat.

And your points about me wanting a brutish two-handed weapon is pretty much the opposite of what I was saying. You were suggesting inelegant use of the hammer as a short, blunt instrument, whereas I prefer the visuals of a long-handed hammer used as a complex, fast, fairly elegant multi-role weapon system, in a similar manner to how a pole axe or Dane axe is actually used by a skilled fighter. No real weapon is designed to be slow to lift or move, because then the person using it would be dead.

See: This is not a slow weapon. This is bad-ass. This is why thunderhammers should be used in two hands: