# Power Weapons



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

I've always wondered about the effect a powered blade would have as it passes through flesh. 
To cut through armour, there seems that there is some sort of energy field surrounding the blade/cutting edge. This makes the blade act as if its edge is monomolecular (I wonder if the HH-era Medusan blades actually had such a design?). However, once this energy gets the blade through the outer, crunchy shell, the energy field (which must be strong to negate PA) is going to be dumping that energy into something a lot more gooey. So, what happens?
Well, most of the Human body is water, so shouldn't this boil in the area around the wound, causing catastrophic and explosive expansion; essentially, a steam explosion? So, wherever a PW-wielding warrior fights, they should be surrounded by clouds of blood-steam, the bodies of their foes literally bursting apart when pierced?
Or, is the popular view that the blade merely(!) passes through the foe, meeting no resistance, with all the effort of fanning air. Either way, using a Powered blade must lead to a fighting style that is bodily energy efficient, with the power field doing most of the killing-work and giving the wielder a greatly expanded fight stamina.
Thoughts?

GFP


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

The codices and the like mention that the weapons are "sheathed in the lethal haze of a disruptive energy field."

What exactly they're disrupting is a good question. The most obvious answer, to me, at least, would be their physical bonds (the strong nuclear force holding atoms together). They're literally tearing them apart on the atomic level. There'd be some serious problems for the user as you'd be showered in neutrons each time it disrupted matter.


----------



## Brother Subtle (May 24, 2009)

Sounds very lightsabre to me.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

They all work in different ways.

Eisenhorns power sword is literally a light sabre (only exists as a hilt)

Most power swords are a blade that emits energy and its the blade that does the killing 'assisted' by the power, others are simply a guide for the shape of the energy.

Either way you can't say 'this is how power weapons work' because they all do it in different ways.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Maidel said:


> They all work in different ways.
> 
> Eisenhorns power sword is literally a light sabre (only exists as a hilt)
> 
> ...


Their form may be different, but that doesn't mean the basic principle of how they function (IE cut things) is different.

A musket and a modern rifle are completely different machines, yet they rely on the same principle of a chemically propelled object slamming into another object at relatively high speeds.

I do not believe it was stated that Eisenhorn's weapon functioned differently than other power swords. If I recall correctly, it just said it was an excellent weapon from a bygone age. Different form, maybe even different capabilities, but do their basic means of function differ? I do not believe it was stated so.


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

But what happens when that energy is dumped into a bag of blood-water? I mean, it's not like it's going to be papercut-thin, is it? The wound is so narrow that it even keeps the blood in for a while, although lethal? Does the affected flesh just fly apart, or would it look like it was dissolving? I imagine there would be a lot of heat in whatever process is involved, at least when the weapon hits the target and the power field does its work; before that, I can see the blade 'running cold' so to speak.
Also, would there be time to register pain, or would the capacity to do so be utterly destroyed in the wounded area? Personally, I reckon even a small cut would cause a blood-steam explosion (although quite small and limited) that leaves a ragged, bloody wound (that still bleeds through a catastrophically compromised venous system) and causes a wide area of numbness (through the local nervous system being wrecked). So, any survivor mightn't even feel the injury and could even keep moving, but would be bleeding copiously and causing further damage to the wounded area as they move. Ouch!

GFP


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

My understanding was that the blade itself does the cutting, so the wound would look like a standard one (though perhaps with some minor burning). The disruptive field seems to not so much cut as weaken (disrupt if you will) the armour/flesh, thereby making it easier for the blade itself to cut. In this respect I think its possible that the exact strength of the disruptive field is dependent on the thickness/density of the material its cutting (with an upper limit dependent on the quality of the weapon) allowing it to slice through power armour without creating a massive explosion when it hits flesh. This would also explain, to me at least, why most power weapons are depicted as inactive or only semi-active during periods when they are not directly in use (power fields are often described as crackling or flaring, both of which suggest a lack of consistence to the activation). This in turn would help reduce power usage, you wouldn't have to draw full power all the time its on, just when you really need it. Obviously, this is just my interpretation and view of the fluff, I haven't seen any fluff which directly states how they function (though I have seen fluff on the wounds and they all seem pretty standard, certainly no ragged blood-steam explosions wounds).


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

hailene said:


> Their form may be different, but that doesn't mean the basic principle of how they function (IE cut things) is different.
> 
> A musket and a modern rifle are completely different machines, yet they rely on the same principle of a chemically propelled object slamming into another object at relatively high speeds.
> 
> I do not believe it was stated that Eisenhorn's weapon functioned differently than other power swords. If I recall correctly, it just said it was an excellent weapon from a bygone age. Different form, maybe even different capabilities, but do their basic means of function differ? I do not believe it was stated so.


Your memory is very good, it's almost exactly what the book says.

My point was more of an extrapolation, so bear with me.

A power sword, axe, fist and lightning claws are all implied to be of the same 'family' of weapons, as opposed to chainswords, axes, fists and evisorators. However the weapon themselves influences how the 'power' element works.
For example, if it was purely the 'power' element that did the damage, then all the weapons would function nearly identically and thus the lightening claws would be the strongest weapon as they are 4 blades each. However this isn't the case, the axe allows for stronger hits, the power fist aids in crushing and punching.

Therefore the weapons effect is a combination of the weapons blade itself, and the disruption effect generated by the 'power' element. But, eisenhorns weapon doesn't have a blade of any sort, it's just energy, thus the effects of the weapon have to differ from those of a power sword that also has a physical blade.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Maidel said:


> For example, if it was purely the 'power' element that did the damage, then all the weapons would function nearly identically and thus the lightening claws would be the strongest weapon as they are 4 blades each. However this isn't the case, the axe allows for stronger hits, the power fist aids in crushing and punching.


Well, apparently the different power weapons have different strengths of power field. From the Deathwatch Core Rulebook:

"A power fist generates an energy field so violently disruptive that the weapon inside is of little consequence...Keeping these superior energy fields charged requires heavy cables linked to the armour's power system."

Different weapons, different power systems, different strengths. Rifle bullets to pistol bullets to tank shells. Same idea, right?

You still have yet to make it clear that their basic function is different. Does one disrupt matter's atomic bonds, does one vaporize material, does one cut through matter by some other means?

That's what I'm talking about. And to my knowledge, it has not been stated _how_ they function is different.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Apologies for applying logic to 40k, but if you follow that train of thought through, then you come to the conclusion that each weapon can be reduced to a rod of the same size, and the effects are purely based on how much of that 'disruption' power you run through it. Clearly that's not the case and thus there has to be some relevance to the physical structure inside the field.

Bare with me and I'll find something to back that up.


----------



## Word Bearer 81007 (Aug 5, 2012)

I would say that the basic principle of the power weapons's energy field would weaken the bond that is on the molecular level of the opposed object being cut through. hence so weapons that have different properties (i.e. an axe applying more cutting force than a sword by shear weight) would also vary with how well it works. 

the idea that the energy field it self does all the cutting would be very lightsabre like cool but i see way to many accidents happening when activation studs are bumped. plus why would you fashion the field into different weapons when a stick with a field approach would be the easiest weapon to handle. Hence the thought that the field just effects molecular bond and the weapon it self does all the heavy work.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Well here's my first example. Space wolf codex, frost blades. They are physical blades, some are energised, some aren't, but they are power weapons and thus they cannot work the same as other power weapons.


----------



## Word Bearer 81007 (Aug 5, 2012)

Maidel said:


> Well here's my first example. Space wolf codex, frost blades. They are physical blades, some are energised, some aren't, but they are power weapons and thus they cannot work the same as other power weapons.


I don't have a space puppy codex available, how does the book describe the weapon in general. I find that if we are talking about specific weapons that are from different codex's you may find that some of them will have the same principle as a "power weapon" without actually being a power weapon. 

trying to lump all weapons treated as power weapons into the power weapon working variable is just insane


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Word Bearer 81007 said:


> I don't have a space puppy codex available, how does the book describe the weapon in general. I find that if we are talking about specific weapons that are from different codex's you may find that some of them will have the same principle as a "power weapon" without actually being a power weapon.
> 
> trying to lump all weapons treated as power weapons into the power weapon working variable is just insane


It described some as 'energised' and some as not energised. The point you just made is pretty much the point I've been trying to make all along, the op asks what effect a 'powered' blade would have, and my response (although with rereading not as well said as I would ave liked) basically says 'what sort of powered blade, they are all different.'


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Word Bearer 81007 said:


> I don't have a space puppy codex available, how does the book describe the weapon in general. I find that if we are talking about specific weapons that are from different codex's you may find that some of them will have the same principle as a "power weapon" without actually being a power weapon.
> 
> trying to lump all weapons treated as power weapons into the power weapon working variable is just insane





Maidel said:


> It described some as 'energised' and some as not energised. The point you just made is pretty much the point I've been trying to make all along, the op asks what effect a 'powered' blade would have, and my response (although with rereading not as well said as I would ave liked) basically says 'what sort of powered blade, they are all different.'


Here's the whole entry:

"Amongst the most prized weapons of the entire Chapter, each frost blade and frost axe is crafted by a master Iron Priest. Many frost blades use the diamond-sharp fangs of the Ice Kraken for their chainsaw blades. Frost axes are somtimes made from energised diamond, giving them the apperance of blades, forged from purest ice. Regardless of what they look like, all frost blades or frost axes are power weapons that add +1 to the user's strength."

It _sounds_ like they're "power weapons" in games term (at the time, they ignore armor saves, now AP3). There's not enough to say either way.

But back to what I was trying to say...

Maidel, you still have yet to really prove that different power weapons...damage things differently. Their forms, shapes, and capabilities may and do vary, but HOW they damage material is not explicitly stated to be different from one another.

The same deal as a musket ball and modern rifle bullet function the same, but have completely different characteristics.


----------



## ThoseKrazyKasrkin (Aug 2, 2011)

hailene said:


> Here's the whole entry:
> 
> "Amongst the most prized weapons of the entire Chapter, each frost blade and frost axe is crafted by a master Iron Priest. Many frost blades use the diamond-sharp fangs of the Ice Kraken for their chainsaw blades. Frost axes are somtimes made from energised diamond, giving them the apperance of blades, forged from purest ice. Regardless of what they look like, all frost blades or frost axes are power weapons that add +1 to the user's strength."
> 
> ...


How can you prove what is not known?
You keep asking how but as its not stated anywhere to my knowledge we cant tell you.

Plus this is 40k, there could be a multitude of different power weapons or similar devices.

I prefer to think of weapons in 40k as a group of similar weapons. eg, power weapons. Weapons that ignore armour. Could include lightsabres for all i care.
Lascannons, beam firing anti-armour weapons. particle beam, laser beam whatever. you cant tell me the lascannon a space marine carries is the same as a land raiders.

what i mean is, due to this being 40k, most reasonable answers could be correct.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

ThoseKrazyKasrkin said:


> How can you prove what is not known?
> You keep asking how but as its not stated anywhere to my knowledge we cant tell you.


Thank you. That's the answer I have been fishing for.

We don't know. He says that we do know, but we simply do not.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

hailene said:


> Thank you. That's the answer I have been fishing for.
> 
> We don't know. He says that we do know, but we simply do not.


Actually, I don't think I have said that. I said they all work in different ways, no where have I said how they work.

I should amend my previous statement. It should say 'they all APPEAR to work in different ways.'

I even clarified it before to say I was extrapolating. Not really sure where you are going with this one.


----------



## Word Bearer 81007 (Aug 5, 2012)

why do i feel like this is one of those conversations that is similar to the one's had with girlfriends/wives were it doesn't have anything to do with being right but entirely with the idea of getting people to admit they don't know and are wrong. I hate those conversations, they suck.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Power Weapons are, essentially, a chain of plasma cutters stacked on top of each other and powered by a lawn mower engine.

I should probably start doing my research outside of Heresy...

Midnight


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Giant Fossil Penguin said:


> I've always wondered about the effect a powered blade would have as it passes through flesh.
> To cut through armour, there seems that there is some sort of energy field surrounding the blade/cutting edge. This makes the blade act as if its edge is monomolecular (I wonder if the HH-era Medusan blades actually had such a design?). However, once this energy gets the blade through the outer, crunchy shell, the energy field (which must be strong to negate PA) is going to be dumping that energy into something a lot more gooey. So, what happens?
> Well, most of the Human body is water, so shouldn't this boil in the area around the wound, causing catastrophic and explosive expansion; essentially, a steam explosion? So, wherever a PW-wielding warrior fights, they should be surrounded by clouds of blood-steam, the bodies of their foes literally bursting apart when pierced?
> Or, is the popular view that the blade merely(!) passes through the foe, meeting no resistance, with all the effort of fanning air. Either way, using a Powered blade must lead to a fighting style that is bodily energy efficient, with the power field doing most of the killing-work and giving the wielder a greatly expanded fight stamina.
> ...


Ever seen an electroscalpel? Same principle. I'm guessing that a power weapon functions by exciting the particles getting whacked by the sharp bit thereby allowing the said sharp bit to pass through the meaty bits easier than if the sharp bit wasn't encased in an energy field. It would be similar to the difference between cutting through cold butter with a hot blade and cutting through cold butter with a cold blade; makes it easier, but you still need the knife to do it. 

As far as the whole 40k light saber goes, if it is similar to a light saber, its really just an ionized plasma stick which would probably have a temperature of around 100 million degrees Fahrenheit. When you have that sort of heat, you have more of an atomizing effect rather than the traditional cutting method. 

Also, to answer the steam question, no. You would need a pressurized container for that, and if it functions similar to an electroscalpel you wouldn't have heat propagating through the system fast enough to cause your target to "poof," so to speak. However, you would have a nice burnt fat smell and a nicely cauterized hole. 

As far as the light saber thing goes with respect to the steam question, technically everyone within an uncomfortably large area would be instantly incinerated the moment the blade activates, but that is where space magic comes in.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Maidel said:


> Actually, I don't think I have said that*. I said they all work in different ways*, no where have I said how they work.


We really don't know they work in different ways. I'll dig up a quote from you...



Maidel said:


> . But, eisenhorns weapon doesn't have a blade of any sort, it's just energy, *thus the effects of the weapon have to differ* from those of a power sword that also has a physical blade.


Okay, minus not having a blade, how does Eisenhorn's PS differ from any other PS? In terms of functionality? 

Do they cut things differently? Do their power sources differ? Is there some other limiting factor that affects one or another?

We simply do not know.

Does not having a blade have any real affect on the effectiveness of an ignited power weapon? I don't know. Are blades just there for cosmetic or back up purposes (in case your battery runs out you still have a weapon).

If so, that has no _direct_ relation to its power weapon nature. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

I'll pitch a more specific question that someone else can hopefully answer: Do we know that the specific characteristics that make a power weapon a power weapon differ amongst power weapons?

I am going to put my own 2 cents and say no. Why? Because we do not know how power weapons function to begin with. How are we supposed to differentiate between them if we do not know how one of them functions to compare to another?

And, again, to make my own position more clear I will restate it: We don't know if power weapons function differently. They very well might. We don't have the evidence to say one way or another.

Saying that "yes, they do!" or "no they don't!" is making conclusions on unexplored territory.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Ok, clearly me stating in that post I was extrapolating wasnt actually clear enough.


So, lets get down to no extrapolation, just pure facts. There are numerous different representations as to how power weapons work, all are very different descriptions:

*Power Axe*

Rogue trader page 79 - the cutting edge vibrates at a high frequency enabling the power axe to cut straight through any surface.

Wargear second edition book p 10 - when the weapon strikes this energy is discharged over the victim rending the target appart with lightening like power.


*Lightening Claws*

Wargear second edition book p9 - when the curved blades rake across armour or flesh they discharge crackling energy like small lightening strikes over the target tearing it apart.



*Power fist *

Wargear second edition book p 10 - surrounded by an energy field which disrupts the surface of solid matter allowing the fist to punch through walls and armour.

*Power Sword*

Wargear second edition book p 11 - The blade of a powersword is surrounded by a hazy blue energy field which disrupts any solid matter it touches. As a blow is struck the whole length of the blade shivers with a cracking discharge of energy which envelops the target and tears it appart.


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

I've watched an electroscalpel work, first hand. As it cut, the blade does the work, but the electrical current causes the blade to be hot, so cauterising any blood vessels it cuts through. All along the line of the incision, there are charred pieces of tissue, albeit small and unproblematic. So, this shows that this surgical 'power blade' does something other than cut.
The point I'm trying to get at, is that the power field is never going to be able to affect just those molecules it physically touches/passes through. The amount of power needed to disrupt the molecular structure of PA is going to be massively more than that required for flesh; the speed of a blade-strike will be such that there could be no hope of reducing the blade's power and then strengthening it at each armour/flesh junction. So, the blade hits the flesh and dumps lots of energy into it. Flesh being flesh, this must surely be heat energy(non-descript 'energy' doesn't exist, it is always defineable what form that energy takes: kinetic, gravitational potential, heat...etc)
Therefore, we have a relatively small area of flesh having a lot of heat dumped into it.
Even saying that a power weapon disrupts the forces in the atomic nucleus, that will still only happen with the application of energy, or, somehow syphoning energy out of the nuclei. This would mean the srrounding area will either heat up, or cool down.
I suppose what I'm trying to get at is, how powerful do we reckon such weapons are? It's an unanswerable question, I know. Imagine someone wielding a high voltage mains electricity cable as a sword- that's how I see a power weapon's field.

GFP

p.s. I don't think anyone is going to be right or wrong in this, specially with the information we have. Maybe I'm just trying to throw a new image out there, and see if anyone agrees with my vision and its justification. Can't blame a Penguin for trying!


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Giant Fossil Penguin said:


> I've watched an electroscalpel work, first hand. As it cut, the blade does the work, but the electrical current causes the blade to be hot, so cauterising any blood vessels it cuts through. All along the line of the incision, there are charred pieces of tissue, albeit small and unproblematic. So, this shows that this surgical 'power blade' does something other than cut.
> The point I'm trying to get at, is that the power field is never going to be able to affect just those molecules it physically touches/passes through. The amount of power needed to disrupt the molecular structure of PA is going to be massively more than that required for flesh; the speed of a blade-strike will be such that there could be no hope of reducing the blade's power and then strengthening it at each armour/flesh junction. So, the blade hits the flesh and dumps lots of energy into it. Flesh being flesh, this must surely be heat energy(non-descript 'energy' doesn't exist, it is always defineable what form that energy takes: kinetic, gravitational potential, heat...etc)
> Therefore, we have a relatively small area of flesh having a lot of heat dumped into it.
> Even saying that a power weapon disrupts the forces in the atomic nucleus, that will still only happen with the application of energy, or, somehow siphoning energy out of the nuclei. This would mean the surrounding area will either heat up, or cool down.
> ...


Lowering the energy of the system wouldn't "disrupt" it. If anything it would make it more stable.

IMO, disruption should simply be read as shorthand for molecular excitement. The only way I see a power weapon working is with a charged field which heats the blade or the molecules around it. It's the only way I could get it to work, though that doesn't really mean much I suppose.


----------



## Svartmetall (Jun 16, 2008)

All very interesting. One thing occurs to me about the nature of power weapons - if the power field that envelops a weapon simply enhances the weapon's cutting ability, then how does that work with blunt power weapons such as powerfists or power mauls? It would seem to function more in the manner of something that amplifies the inherent qualities of the weapon it envelops, otherwise (for example) a power maul wouldn't necessarily be more Concussive than a power axe, if it's the power field that's doing _all_ the work. 

The most logical conclusion is that there's what amounts to a synergistic effect between the field and the weapon, which suggests that the power field is more a case of negatively affecting the target than enhancing the weapon itself - a sort of 'softening-up' field, for want of a better description. The power field on a powersword, for example, doesn't cut through the target at all - it simply makes it _far_ easier for the physical sword to do so. The problem with this is that it has to be projected outside of - or at least away from - the surface/material of the weapon itself, or the weapon would also be affected. Something like a directed, localised quantum effect that disrupts molecular bonds would make sense more than (say) a heat-type effect, as any form of heating would take at least some measurable time to affect the target whereas powerblades are typically described as instantly cutting through things.

The 'softening up' idea does, however, at least explain why the weapon itself is still used rather than just a lightsabre-like projected energy field that does all the damage; you still need the actual physical weapon to impact the affected target for damage to be done, and this would also explain why the damage consequently delivered into the target is shaped by the nature of the physical weapon, and not the power field itself (which would be why, for example, a chainfist is so much better at penetrating armour than a powerfist even though both have their strength doubled by the weapon's bulk - the actual chainblade component of the chainfist goes through the softened-up armour far better than the static, blunt powerfist). 

Meh...it's late and I'm probably explaning myself badly, but this makes as much sense to me as anything else I can think up to explain the workings of the various power weapons out there...


_____


----------



## MEQinc (Dec 12, 2010)

Svartmetall said:


> how does that work with blunt power weapons such as powerfists or power mauls?


I don't think powerfist should be considered to operate on the same principles as power weapons. Powerfists appear to be more bludgeoning weapons, like Thunder hammers, were as every example of a power weapon is a cutting tool. I'd wager then that Powerfists work on the same principle as Thunder Hammers which, IIRC, have a fluctuating concussive field providing the extra oomph. In this case the Powerfists energy field would perhaps be a more permanent version of the field. So basically I'm looking at it as a force-field used in reverse. Power mauls are a much trickier subject, as they used to be simply power weapons but are now somewhere between a power weapon and a Thunder hammer. So perhaps a lesser version of the concussive field is used. Or perhaps the standard power weapon field also serves to soften up a target slightly. This wouldn't be seen with conventional power weapons as they'd just glide straight through the effected area and then blood loss and shock would numb the surroundings, but perhaps a more blunt weapon would be able to take advantage of this weakness to deal greater damage. A hot knife slides through butter easily and you don't really notice that the butters been heated up around the cut (slightly) but if you warm the butter up and hit it, it'll make quite a mess.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Svartmetall said:


> Something like a directed, localised quantum effect that disrupts molecular bonds would make sense more than (say) a heat-type effect


Before I go any further, could you please explain what you mean by this?


----------



## Brother Subtle (May 24, 2009)

That awkward moment when one uses physics and current technological advancements to explain concepts from a fictional universe.


----------



## Giant Fossil Penguin (Apr 11, 2009)

I think the difference between a Power Fist and a Power Maul, is that the fist has all sortf os servos that exaggerate the user's strength, the power field being something of an extra; imagine a non-powered Fist grabbing a target and how being unwieldy, the target might twist away before the extra strength tells- a powered fist is able to tear the armour and get a grip, then the servos do their thang.
A Power Maul is user-strength, but on impact, the power field maybe exaccerbating the strike with the concussive force travelling through the armour, or, allowing it to 'dig-in' to any armour and move it out of the way to get to the flesh below.
When it comes to removing energy from a system causing it to break down, I was following on from somebody mentioning disrupting one of the Nuclear Forces. If you could somehow reduce the, say, the Strong Nuclear Force (or interrupt it, or change its range of action) then the weapon would destabilise the nuclei of the atoms it affected causing them to fly apart (although it would be the Protons and Neutrons seperating rather than a nuclear explosion- imagine the: a nuclear sword!).

GFP


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

That seems horribly inefficient. It would be much easier and require much less energy to simply overcome the intermolecular forces.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Maidel said:


> So, lets get down to no extrapolation, just pure facts. There are numerous different representations as to how power weapons work, all are very different descriptions:


You generally need to establish some foundation before attempting to extrapolate. I can say that the Emperor created 20 Primarchs, but, hey, maybe during the GC he made another 20. After all, if he made 20, he could make 20 more, right?

I'd need to demonstrate some proof that he was 1. Still capable of producing more Primarchs and 2. Had the inclination or need to produce more.

Making up stuff and saying "Well, I'm extrapolating" (or at least not stating what you are extrapolating from) gets the discussion no where.

As to your sources...

They're very old. I'm perusing through them now, and interestingly enough, the power sword and power axe seem to be very similar in operation (that is, enveloping the target and tearing it apart) while power mauls and power fists seem to operate the same way ("disrupting surface matter").

I can not find anything that contradicts what is said in the Wargear manual, so I assume it still stands.

Rather than "extrapolating" all day, a piece of solid evidence is all you needed to provide.



Giant Fossil Penguin said:


> I think the difference between a Power Fist and a Power Maul, is...


From the second edition Wargear manual, it seems that both power fist and power mauls function similarly. Both "disrupt the surface of solid matter". Whatever the heck that's supposed to mean.

The difference in power seems to originate from their power source. Additional heavy cables directly link the power fist to the armor's power source. A power maul simply uses its own power source.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

hailene said:


> Rather than "extrapolating" all day, a piece of solid evidence is all you needed to provide.
> .


Erm..

hello? Anybody home?

_Power Axe

Rogue trader page 79 - the cutting edge vibrates at a high frequency enabling the power axe to cut straight through any surface_

How old the source is is completely irrelevant. All this clearly shows is that 40K has portrayed the way that power weapons work as different, although now they all appear to have a similar description under the current rules.


EDIT - and my 'extrapolation' wasn't baseless or 'making stuff up' it was looking at how the weapons work in game and showing that the form of the weapons have to have a relevance, otherwise they would all use exactly the same rules. Or, if they are based on how much energy they put into the target, all power weapon types would have the same rules and certain ones of all types would have a different profile because they are higher powered.

None of that is the case, all the weapons have their own set of rules linked to what sort of weapon they are, thus it is hardly making stuff up to say that obviously the form of the weapon has an impact on the function of the weapon.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Maidel said:


> Erm..
> How old the source is is completely irrelevant. All this clearly shows is that 40K has portrayed the way that power weapons work as different, although now they all appear to have a similar description under the current rules.


Someone didn't read my whole post, did they?

And the age of the source does matter. I was thinking about it a bit more, and in all the cases I have seen power weapons used in books, there's no real mention of the electricity pulsing over a target. It's just a plain cut.

Someone wouldn't be off-base to disregard those entries since their descriptions are no longer consistent with how the fluff portrays them.



Maidel said:


> EDIT - and my 'extrapolation' wasn't baseless or 'making stuff up'


Up to two posts ago, you offered no proof. If you read my post carefully I actually congratulated you on bringing something to the table besides "extrapolations".



Maidel said:


> Or, if they are based on how much energy they put into the target, all power weapon types would have the same rules and certain ones of all types would have a different profile because they are higher powered.
> 
> None of that is the case, all the weapons have their own set of rules linked to what sort of weapon they are, thus it is hardly making stuff up to say that obviously the form of the weapon has an impact on the function of the weapon.


This portion of your post makes absolutely no sense.

A power fist is described as actually running off the power source of power armor--certainly much more power than a battery in a power sword. That's why it hits so much harder.

Lightning claws are extremely powerful, too. Their gloves are exceptionally large and the "extra bulk contains mechanisms that power four individual power blades."

Each weapon is different and the harder hitting weapons seem to have a higher power requirement than the lesser ones. A coincidence?



Maidel said:


> None of that is the case, all the weapons have their own set of rules linked to what sort of weapon they are, thus it is hardly making stuff up to say that obviously the form of the weapon has an impact on the function of the weapon.


Of course each weapon is going to have their own rules. Their powers differ.

Does that mean their function differs? No. It's like taking a gun and adding more or less powder to its charge. Assuming the gun itself can handle it, adding more powder will increase the speed of the projectile. The projectile will hit harder.

Does the _function_ change? Not at all. It's the same old thing--a speeding object hitting another object. 

Will the results differ? Greatly.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

hailene said:


> Someone didn't read my whole post, did they?


I did... Just seems it wasnt made clear what parts refered to what parts of mine and seemed like it meant something else.



> And the age of the source does matter. I was thinking about it a bit more, and in all the cases I have seen power weapons used in books, there's no real mention of the electricity pulsing over a target. It's just a plain cut.
> 
> Someone wouldn't be off-base to disregard those entries since their descriptions are no longer consistent with how the fluff portrays them.


I disagree. My point all along has been that power weapons are displayed in different ways throughout the fluff. There are numerous instances of things being cast out of the background, only to be reincluded later on. I was talking to someone the other day who said they hated that the betrayal lists had jet bikes in them, only for me to point out that marine armies always had jet bikes in them, but they were left out after the first edition of 40K. Same goes for jokerao and other things from Rogue trader.

So just because the source is old and isnt currently 'in vogue' at the moment, really doesnt invalidate it at all.




> Up to two posts ago, you offered no proof. If you read my post carefully I actually congratulated you on bringing something to the table besides "extrapolations".


Ive read and re-read it, sorry, Im lost as to where you said that. Although I have just noticed a past tense which slightly makes it ambiguous. 





> This portion of your post makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> A power fist is described as actually running off the power source of power armor--certainly much more power than a battery in a power sword. That's why it hits so much harder.
> 
> ...


The thing is that it does matter, and it does make a difference. Ill try and explain again.

If the ONLY thing thats important is how the device is powered then we would have powerswords as powerful as a powerfist.

Why/how - because someone would produce as powersword that runs off the power of the suit in the same way as a power fist. Terminator sergeants would be armed with 'powerfist' powered powerswords.

Consider a lightening claw. In appearance its the same as a powerfist, but with talons. Its built in in the same fashion, it actually looks identical. However it doesnt function the same, the background in the second edition wargear book actually explains a completely different method of function for a lightning claw to a powerfist.

Thats my point, the weapons have been explained to work differently in the past, even if the current fluff describes them as working similarly, their past description still holds true in their rules which are all different (even more so in 6th edition).


----------



## Svartmetall (Jun 16, 2008)

Well, I'm sure I've seen at least two different explanations of how meltaguns are supposed to work, so...

(Always preferred the 'microwave gun' one myself, makes a lot more sense for its effect)


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Maidel said:


> I disagree. My point all along has been that power weapons are displayed in different ways throughout the fluff. T
> So just because the source is old and isnt currently 'in vogue' at the moment, really doesnt invalidate it at all.


At the current moment, the fluff has taken a different route than the 2nd edition descprition. The canon is a fluid thing, so at the moment I would say it is "incorrect". Perhaps it will be revisited one day in a novel or codex. Until then, I disregard it.

Just like other things in the past--like how the Loyalist Primarchs that survived the scouring died of old age after living 1500 years (so midway through M33). Something that was true in the past that has been contradicted and forgotten.



Maidel said:


> Ive read and re-read it, sorry, Im lost as to where you said that. Although I have just noticed a past tense which slightly makes it ambiguous.


That would be it. The forum was acting a bit frisky last night, so my original post was deleted. It was more congratulatory at first, but the point of it was still made. You needed to bring proof (which you eventually did) rather than simply saying you're extrapolating. Up until that point, you hadn't even really explained satisfactorily from what you were extrapolating from, anyway (Eisenhorn's weapon being different doesn't necessarily mean that it functions differently).



Maidel said:


> If the ONLY thing thats important is how the device is powered then we would have powerswords as powerful as a powerfist.
> 
> Why/how - because someone would produce as powersword that runs off the power of the suit in the same way as a power fist. Terminator sergeants would be armed with 'powerfist' powered powerswords.


Explained in the material. It's not simply the power source, but the additional power cables needed to power it make it extremely bulky. This makes it okay for dedicated attacking weapons (like power fists and lightning claws) but power swords are decidedly more effective on the defense.

"[Power swords are] elegant but effective, they allow the user greater attack options and defensive responses than many other varities of power weapon."

They also do not require specific style to use, unlike lightning claws:

"This efficient design makes [power swords] popular with officers regardless of whether they specialise in close combat or not."

Lastly, having those enormous gauntlets leave you pigeonholed into close combat. From the lightning claw entry in the Deathwatch rulebook:

"...a willingness to sacrifice easy access to ranged weaponry is nesscary to utlise [lightning claws] to their full effect. For these reasons, lightning claws are usually seen in the hands of senior assault specialists."

Theoretically, you could have a super powered power sword, but it would lose out the point of a power sword in the first place: the fact it doesn't require special training, its defensive capabilities, and the freedom to switch from melee to ranged.



Maidel said:


> Thats my point, the weapons have been explained to work differently in the past, even if the current fluff describes them as working similarly, their past description still holds true in their rules which are all different (even more so in 6th edition).


That doesn't make sense. That's the opposite of how retcons work.

And the weapons ARE different. I am not saying that.

I am saying how they function may not differ.

The Wright's brother's plane functions the same as a F-22 fighter, but they have vastly different characteristics.

A las gun and a las cannon function the same, but have vastly different characteristics.

A melta gun and an auto gun rely on very different functions in order to do their work.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

I think power weapons are less a case of "9mm pistol works the same as .22 rifle" and more of a "HEAT round works differently from a APFSDS round".

Both a HEAT and an APFSDS round result in the same thing- A destroyed tank- but they function very differently. A HEAT round uses pressure to force molten metal through the tank's armor. An APFSDS round uses high kinetic energy coupled with high mass and low impact surface area to drive the round through the tank's armor. Both will destroy the tank, but they do so by different means.

Also, to be clear because this subject is irking me, muskets and M16s do not kill people the same way. The only time they use the same technique to kill people (Metal object + velocity + flesh) is if you hit them in the brain. A 5.56 round shatters when it enters the body and the shrapnel causes severe organ trauma in the torso or limb mutilation in a limb. A musket shot can do this but more often death is caused by lead poisoning which can be cured by removal of the shot if done quickly or by amputation otherwise. In many ways a musket ball is more deadly but for different reasons and only if not medically treated. A 5.56 to the arm or leg is rarely lethal but if it hits the torso it is basically a guaranteed kill. So even in your examples the weapons do not function the same way.

I always assumed it was some kind of energy that reduced the resistance of matter, making metal ahead of the blade as pliable as the flesh beneath though anything is possible. It should be noted that a heat field strong enough to melt its way through the armor would not necessarily cause a person to boil and explode. It would more likely result instant cauterization, scorching, and carbonizing of the wound, as any other heat-based wound would. Having an accident with a blowtorch or arc welder (Both of which are devices that use heat to cut metal) doesn't make you explode into a fountain of red steam. It just incinerates the flesh instantly.

Either way, we do know one thing, and that is that power weapons tend to kill whatever they hit anyway. Is the means of the model's death really significant in terms of gameplay? And if you want to know for fluff reasons, why not just make a plausible reason up if one doesn't already exist?


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Iron Angel said:


> I think power weapons are less a case of "9mm pistol works the same as .22 rifle" and more of a "HEAT round works differently from a APFSDS round".


So I'll ask you the same question: besides extremely old (and evidently no longer referenced) source, do you have anything to back up this belief?

The Deatchwatch rulebook simply states that all power weapons use disruptive fields.

Interestingly enough, the chainfist is describes both its and power fists' powerfields as "matter-cleaving".


----------



## ThoseKrazyKasrkin (Aug 2, 2011)

hailene said:


> So I'll ask you the same question: besides extremely old (and evidently no longer referenced) source, do you have anything to back up this belief?
> 
> The Deatchwatch rulebook simply states that all power weapons use disruptive fields.
> 
> Interestingly enough, the chainfist is describes both its and power fists' powerfields as "matter-cleaving".


Yeah the old primarch stuff was retconned but were those explainations?
The other more modern sources offer an alternative explaination, unless your saying that in a universe like 40k ALL power weapons work the same. I guess eldar power weapons work the same way as the imperiums?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

IA are you suggesting that the 49,000 men who died at Waterloo died of lead poisoning ?

The HEAT v APFSDS analogy is a good one tho'.

To be honest we are talking about fictional weapons here, they can have what ever effect comes into your head.


----------



## Biellann (Sep 6, 2010)

ThoseKrazyKasrkin said:


> I guess eldar power weapons work the same way as the imperiums?


Eldar Power weapons are described in the current codex as _"Shimmering fields dance along the keen edges of their swords, glaives and knives"_ which is close to the descriptions of the weapons mentioned earlier.



Svartmetall said:


> All very interesting. One thing occurs to me about the nature of power weapons - if the power field that envelops a weapon simply enhances the weapon's cutting ability, then how does that work with blunt power weapons such as powerfists or power mauls? It would seem to function more in the manner of something that amplifies the inherent qualities of the weapon it envelops, otherwise (for example) a power maul wouldn't necessarily be more Concussive than a power axe, if it's the power field that's doing _all_ the work.


I'll have to dig up a quote, but I believe the RPG books have a good explanation on how power mauls work, and how it is concussive.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

ThoseKrazyKasrkin said:


> Yeah the old primarch stuff was retconned but were those explainations?
> The other more modern sources offer an alternative explaination, unless your saying that in a universe like 40k ALL power weapons work the same. I guess eldar power weapons work the same way as the imperiums?


That's pretty much my point, thanks.

A retcon is where something says that A died at date X and a later source that says he didn't. It produces a different continuity as the two events cannot exist along side each other.

While all the current fluff describes how power weapons work using the same disruptive energy, no where does it preclude other forms also existing. Having power weapons that work a different way, like as described in my other posts can sit along side the new fluff without either being contradictory and thus it's not a retcon.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Maidel said:


> While all the current fluff describes how power weapons work using the same disruptive energy, no where does it preclude other forms also existing. Having power weapons that work a different way, like as described in my other posts can sit along side the new fluff without either being contradictory and thus it's not a retcon.


Well, if you want to take the road of "everything in the last 15+ years have not described power weapons in such a way, but it still _might_ be true", then there's nothing I can do about it.

So do we still have hell-guns wandering around, too?


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

hailene said:


> Well, if you want to take the road of "everything in the last 15+ years have not described power weapons in such a way, but it still _might_ be true", then there's nothing I can do about it.
> 
> So do we still have hell-guns wandering around, too?


Well last time I checked they couldn't exactly wander around...

But why on earth not? The imperium is a massive place, there is no way every storm trooper is armed exactly the same. One codex described one variant, the later ones a different version with a different name.

Graviton guns, conversion beamers etc all ceased to exist for 3+ versions of the game, but it didn't invalidate them and then they were reincluded.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Maidel said:


> Well last time I checked they couldn't exactly wander around...
> 
> But why on earth not? The imperium is a massive place, there is no way every storm trooper is armed exactly the same. One codex described one variant, the later ones a different version with a different name.
> 
> Graviton guns, conversion beamers etc all ceased to exist for 3+ versions of the game, but it didn't invalidate them and then they were reincluded.


I see. Well, I've written all I'd like on this particular line of discussion. I see nothing further I can add.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

hailene said:


> I see. Well, I've written all I'd like on this particular line of discussion. I see nothing further I can add.


Ok...

I'm confused, you demanded evidence for my statements, which was provided.

You dismissed that evidence as being too old and therefore declared it retconned unilaterally.

You then asked a related, but not connected question and when answered declared that you weren't playing anymore.

I'm frankly baffled.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Maidel said:


> But why on earth not? The imperium is a massive place, there is no way every storm trooper is armed exactly the same. One codex described one variant, the later ones a different version with a different name.


This is valid for the same reasons as Sniper Rifles - in the Uplifting Primer it details that a sniper may be equipped with a variety of different rifles, depending on where you are, what's available, and what you need for the missions (presumably needle rifles are quieter but with lower stopping power than the long-las).

Midnight


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Maidel said:


> Ok...
> 
> I'm confused, you demanded evidence for my statements, which was provided.
> 
> You dismissed that evidence as being too old and therefore declared it retconned unilaterally.


Absolutely right up to this point.



Maidel said:


> Ok...
> You then asked a related, but not connected question and when answered declared that you weren't playing anymore.
> 
> I'm frankly baffled.


Not so right here. I am not "playing anymore" because there's a fundamental difference in our interpretation of canon.

You think that so long as nothing directly contradicts it (like absolutely X can not exist because of Y) then it is still valid. That's fine. I disagree, I prefer using a bit more common sense and go "Hrm, okay, so, many more recent sources contradict a previous older one that is no longer referenced in recent and upcoming fluff. Clearly the authors and lore people want to take it a different direction."

There's no way to reconcile the differences.

It's like if my eyes viewed the color spectrum differently than yours and we had to decide what color a ball was and you said it was blue while I insist it was red. Well, to you it very well might be blue, but to me it might look red.

We'd get no where arguing who is "right". It's a matter of interpretation.

So rather than arguing in circles, I figured it would have been better to end it there. It is the wiser decision of the two.



MidnightSun said:


> This is valid for the same reasons as Sniper Rifles - in the Uplifting Primer it details that a sniper may be equipped with a variety of different rifles, depending on where you are, what's available, and what you need for the missions (presumably needle rifles are quieter but with lower stopping power than the long-las).
> 
> Midnight


Little bit different since we have sources all over the place that still reference solid shot sniper rifles, needle-rifles, and las rifles.

Unlike hell-guns which have gone the way of the doodoo in the last few years. At least to my knowledge and fluff reading.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Hellguns are still mentioned in several BL publications. There's no reason to assume they're gone just because the current IG codex calls them something else.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

> You think that so long as nothing directly contradicts it (like absolutely X can not exist because of Y) then it is still valid. That's fine. I disagree, I prefer using a bit more common sense and go "Hrm, okay, so, many more recent sources contradict a previous older one that is no longer referenced in recent and upcoming fluff. Clearly the authors and lore people want to take it a different direction."
> 
> There's no way to reconcile the differences.


I don't think they are completely poles appart at all. I've already said that the current writing takes it in a different direction than the old fluff, I just view the end result in a different way.

Currently the imperium uses power weapons which all work in the same unified way. But we have older sources tat gave alternative methods of operation, so why not accept them as unusual weapons that are rarely seen, rather than dismissing them entirely?

Just a thought.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Maidel said:


> Currently the imperium uses power weapons which all work in the same unified way. But we have older sources tat gave alternative methods of operation, so why not accept them as unusual weapons that are rarely seen, rather than dismissing them entirely?
> 
> Just a thought.


In the real world it's 20 years old. In terms of in-universe time it ought to be current.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

hailene said:


> In the real world it's 20 years old. In terms of in-universe time it ought to be current.


There's two mistakes with that statement.

1) an object can be old AND current, like abbadons lightning claw.

2) most of the stuff in the rogue trader rule book is being retrospectively placed in the Horus Hersey period (jet bikes, rhino appearance, graviton guns, etcetc).


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Maidel said:


> 1) an object can be old AND current, like abbadons lightning claw.


I think I was unclear.

The Wargear codex probably covers 40k. That is, up to as far as the setting has gone, M.41. 

It's not as if it's covering the Horus Heresy weapons and the modern weapons we see in BL books are different.

Heck, the Wargear codex's descriptions don't match even the Horus Heresy depictions of the weapons. Even that doesn't work.

I mean, you could say that SOME weapons work as they do in the Wargear codex. Just that we never seem to see them, for some odd reason.

Maybe the hundreds of examples we draw from codices and BL books (out of millions, if not billions of power weapons out there) are the oddities and the Wargear's ones are the norm.

Take whatever interpretation you want.


----------

