>>44390755>Swords are statistically weaker than the other optionsMaybe give power swords the Parry rule from 2E (or WHFB) - force their opponent to re-roll one of their attack dice.
>Real life maces are the most effective out of axes and swords for penetrating armour - personal or structural - while swords are the least.Depends if they were designed to do that or not. Only flanged maces, as a rule, were for armor penetration, generally maces were designed to damage through, rather than penetrate armor. Swords (sabres really) in turn became good enough at puncturing armor that armor was essentially invalidated, at least in duels - armor was only to stop ballistic weapons on battlefields by the end of its usefulness (which high-tortion weapons like the crossbow and arbalest largely invalidated once they were being used en masse by trained soldiers, even before firearms were efficient enough).
>Power Spears are terrible. They don't fill a niche, nor do they offer a bonus for charged units like real life spears intuitively do.Agreed mostly, but Power Spears are, in the designer's heads, really Lances, not spears at all - strictly offensive weapons with negligible defensive value. They'd be better as AP2/3 in the general case rather than 3/4. But better than that, I'd say +1I on the first round and a consistent profile, which gives them a realistic offensive and defensive application. Of course only Eldar use them generally, and what do they need with +1I?
>Occam's Razor suggest giving a bonus to chainswords.Yeah how about giving them Parry too... just like 2nd edition again!
But then Chainaxes become even more shit than they already are - though it might justify giving them Rending which is the commonly-proposed fix.
