PDA

View Full Version : Chainswords - why are they so rubbish?



Odin
06-12-2011, 20:14
One thing that always annoyed me when 3rd edition was introduced, was the fact that Chainswords suddenly became just close combat weapons, no better than a knife or club. The stories are full of astartes captains armed with chainswords, and yet in game terms it's pretty much always going to be worth at least spending 15 points on a power sword. I know there needed to be some simplification so it scales up, but that's just too much for me.

Does anyone else think that something really ought to be done about it? They shouldn't be as good as power weapons obviously, but something inbetween (perhaps rending). Otherwise, why would anyone go to the effort of making a complex weapon like a chainsword (or chainaxe) when a length of lead piping is just as good?

Sqallum
06-12-2011, 20:15
Strength 5 in close combat :D Would help them eliminate orcs and eldar with ease, like they are meant to in the fluff! :p
Sqallum

orzing
06-12-2011, 20:22
reroll to wound 1 dice will be great;)

Theocracity
06-12-2011, 20:25
Chainswords are a terrible idea for actual combat. The only reason they make sense is for the same reason that Terminator proportions make sense - because it's kind of cool looking when you don't think too hard about it.

They're fine as generic CCWs.

Mr.selfdestruct
06-12-2011, 20:27
I agree completely-I realize the point of streamlining the game, but the chainsword is an integral part of the style of 40k! Don't chainblades give striking scorpions a strength boost? I can't remember exactly, but it seems like they do.

The bearded one
06-12-2011, 20:28
Why are chainswords a terrible idea for actual combat?

The fact they might get clogged with blood & gore?



Rending would suit a chainsword, wouldn't it? :)

Jo-Jo
06-12-2011, 20:30
Chainsaws typically can't cut flesh to well, forget metal plate armour.

Either way it works on the rule of cool, like allot in 40k. And I have no problem with it. Rending would make sense.

The bearded one
06-12-2011, 20:31
Chainsaws typically can't cut flesh to well

they.. they can't?

I still wouldn't want to get hit with one... :shifty:

Siebab
06-12-2011, 20:35
Chainswords - why are they so rubbish?

Game balance.

Konovalev
06-12-2011, 20:37
Just considering chainswords alone, I'd agree that rending would make sense on them. But then suddenly you've just boosted all marine armies with no counter-balance.

What about orks? They're supposed to be stronger than an average human yet they will tie an arm wrestling competition with a conscript unless they get a running start.

And Berserkers, you'd think a chain axe would be superior to a chainsword because there will be more weight behind the strike. So what of them?

Personally I think chain weapons should limit saves to 4+ like they used to. Extend this to chainswords, ork choppas/big choppas, chain axes etc.

Mr Zoat
06-12-2011, 20:41
So they are better against stronger armour than weak armour?

They work fine as close combat weapons. That bracket contains everything from knives to power mauls, which actually have force field generators in them.

Theocracity
06-12-2011, 20:41
they.. they can't?

I still wouldn't want to get hit with one... :shifty:

Think about the vectors of force involved in a chainsaw's operation.

Now imagine attempting to control those vectors of force with one hand, against a possibly armored target that is trying to avoid it, and also kill you.

You can argue "space marine strength" or "space-age materials" or such, but the simple fact is it doesn't make as much sense as a real melee weapon - as much sense as a real melee weapon could make on a sci-fi battlefield at least.

I have no problems with chainswords as a general mark of 40K, but I get leery when people try to pretend they should be better than a regular sword.

The bearded one
06-12-2011, 20:49
the simple fact is it doesn't make as much sense as a real melee weapon - as much sense as a real melee weapon could make on a sci-fi battlefield at least.

Do note that a regular sword will have a lot of trouble getting through some medieval chainmail with leather or padded armour underneath, let alone sci-fi armour or thick plate armour like space marines wear or Orks scavenge.

Dux
06-12-2011, 20:52
Why are chainswords a terrible idea for actual combat?

The fact they might get clogged with blood & gore?

They are to heavy and bulky for swordplay, especially if wielded onehanded. They are meant to hack and not to parry.

Another thing to think about:
A chainsword is able to cut tank armor, but why isn't it able to cut another chainsword?
The GW design wouldn't even allow to cut a tree. But if you are this accurate, all imperial tanks wouldn't be able to drive on uneven ground.



Rending would suit a chainsword, wouldn't it? :)

Imo chainswords are ok as they are. They could give a bonus, but then they should also give a penalty for beeing bulky.

Theocracity
06-12-2011, 20:52
Do note that a regular sword will have a lot of trouble getting through some chainmail with leather or padded armour underneath, let alone sci-fi armour or thick plate armour like space marines wear or Orks scavenge.

And a one-handed chainsword would go flying out of control as soon as it hit that armor. Or just break itself.

Rule of cool suspension of disbelief allows me to accept that they exist. I just get irked when people attempt to reason them into being superior.

Harwammer
06-12-2011, 20:57
I'm pretty sure in 2nd ed Marine with combat knife = S4, Marine with Chainsword = S4. Considering the Marine's combat knife doesn't even seem to count as a combat weapon anymore I'd say the chainsword is a bigger improvement now than it was in oldschool 40k.

drear
06-12-2011, 21:15
fluff wise, a chainsword seems to function the same as a chainsaw in real life. and they are not built to be swung to cause damage.

if you swing a chainsaw at a log, it will bounce back and dig into your shoulder. a chainsaw is designed for a slow cutting process...

anway, in game terms they seem fine as just combat weapons, they cut through armour etc most of the time, this is represented by the weilders strenght forcing those teeth into a squishy bit of the opponent. so a stronger model will cause a wound on a weaker model . their armour may or may not save it.

giving it a rending rule or str5 would make it abit to good if attcahed to combat orientated units which already excell at combat.

Rated_lexxx
06-12-2011, 21:30
chain swords are just as good as a axe(imho) fluff and rule wise.

If I get hit with a axe or chainsword I am done either way. The game isn't looking for if your dead, lost a limb or just have a gouge in your it just needs to know you are not fighting anymore

A chainsaw can cut metal any better then a axe so there about the same

Odin
06-12-2011, 21:54
Just considering chainswords alone, I'd agree that rending would make sense on them. But then suddenly you've just boosted all marine armies with no counter-balance.

What about orks? They're supposed to be stronger than an average human yet they will tie an arm wrestling competition with a conscript unless they get a running start.

And Berserkers, you'd think a chain axe would be superior to a chainsword because there will be more weight behind the strike. So what of them?

Personally I think chain weapons should limit saves to 4+ like they used to. Extend this to chainswords, ork choppas/big choppas, chain axes etc.

Well, it would obviously need to be linked to a change in codexes as well, you couldn't just give chain-weapons a boost. That's why I was so annoyed when it was done as part of a change of edition - makes it so hard to change back. That's why I mention it now - it's something I'd love to see with 6th edition.

Hell, I'd even be happy if they gave them a good rule and a bad rule, to balance out so the cost doesn't need changing. A 6 to hit does something nice, a 1 to hit does something nasty, for example.

From a "realism" (or what passes for realism in 40K) point of view, chain-weapons should probably be better at cutting flesh than they are at getting through armour. But I don't really mind, as long as they get something - they are one of the most iconic weapons in 40K, but they are sadly lacking rules-wise.

I'd be happy with chainaxes getting the same effect as chainswords - in the same way as I'm happy with axes having the same effect as swords. But chainswords having the same effect as normal swords is something that really bugs me.

Odin
06-12-2011, 21:56
I'm pretty sure in 2nd ed Marine with combat knife = S4, Marine with Chainsword = S4. Considering the Marine's combat knife doesn't even seem to count as a combat weapon anymore I'd say the chainsword is a bigger improvement now than it was in oldschool 40k.

A very good point! But at least they did have separate rules! And they did matter when wielded by someone of S3 or less. What GW needed to do was fix the rules, not just throw them away.

Theocracity
06-12-2011, 22:12
So chainswords should be better against unarmored targets... but chainfists are good at busting tank armor?

I think for rules simplicity and suspension of disbelief's sake that they're better left as regular CCWs. Making them special punishes people who don't take the models for them - how would you model Grey Hunters or Chaos Marines, who could have them or not depending on modeling purposes? Making them possibly-good possibly-bad just makes them more like Orks, and begs the question why the elite armies of man use weapons that hurt themselves 1/6 of the time (Edit: besides plasma guns I guess :P)

daveNYC
06-12-2011, 22:26
Has anyone here used a chainsaw? They're great when cutting through things, but lethal to the user when they hit something that they can't cut through. The chain will catch and the saw itself decides to take off. Usually right back at your head.

azimaith
06-12-2011, 22:43
And a one-handed chainsword would go flying out of control as soon as it hit that armor. Or just break itself.

Rule of cool suspension of disbelief allows me to accept that they exist. I just get irked when people attempt to reason them into being superior.
They are superior in background terms or no one would bother making a sword that required an engine and fuel to run over a normal one. That's all the reason you need for 40k stats to be superior.

In any case, if you wanted to make a chain saw sword that worked, you certainly could, but the truth of the matter is using any sword as a main weapon when guns are the norm is stupid. There's no problem with chainswords becoming part of an armory and gaining their own special rules.

Dog of destiny
06-12-2011, 22:44
[QUOTE=Odin;5954216]

Hell, I'd even be happy if they gave them a good rule and a bad rule, to balance out so the cost doesn't need changing. A 6 to hit does something nice, a 1 to hit does something nasty, for example.

Reminds me of the old 2nd Ed. cc rules with fumbles and critical hits. Ahh, the nostalgia. I quite like that idea, but it couldn't be too nasty - given the quantity of chainswords in an average imperial army. Its bad enough with plasma weapons exploding all over the place without space marine sergeants randomly chopping their own arms off. Bad stuff could be handing an additional attack over to the opponent (if they live long enough to use it), or an I reduction?

Helicon_One
06-12-2011, 22:55
Chainswords are a terror weapon - they make a loud intimidating sound and when they hit flesh they make alot of mess and splatter. If you run somebody through with 4 feet of sword they're in just as much trouble but chainswords are just another facet of 40K's grimdark OTT humour rather than a practical weapon of war.

Korraz
06-12-2011, 23:03
Because, at some point, the game designers thought that all those complicated weapon rules, movement values and S modifying the AS and so on make the heads of 40k players hurt and that the game needed to become a lot less complicated.

Nightshade1994
06-12-2011, 23:16
Personally, I think all chain weapons (swords, axes, glaives, etc) should get rending due to their very nature.

Regarding balance, compensation for all races should occur. Examples:
Orks - +1 strength (proportion wise, they just look beefier than anyone else)
Eldar (both flavors) - +1 initiative (lets face it, they are far faster and more nimble than everyone else, or should be)
Imperial Guard - nada, their baseline, they got numbers as the advantage
Necrons - a better armor save (come on, they're all living metal)
Tyranids - restore some of their older rending rules

I can however understand for the sake of simplicity and balance why they are considered as standard CCWs.

Vaktathi
06-12-2011, 23:21
There's too much stuff that comes with chainswords that would need too much readjusting for so little a quibble. I'd really rather not have to re-model my 30+ Chaos marines with Chainswords :p

Especially considering that, from any realistic perspective, a chain weapon really would be an awful weapon. Grinding it against armor would likely see chains snap right back upon their weilders and get blade teeth lodged in bone and the like, making them ineffective combat weapons. They'd be absolutely awful against metallic armor.

Rated_lexxx
06-12-2011, 23:23
Chainswords are a terror weapon - they make a loud intimidating sound and when they hit flesh they make alot of mess and splatter. If you run somebody through with 4 feet of sword they're in just as much trouble but chainswords are just another facet of 40K's grimdark OTT humour rather than a practical weapon of war.

actually it sounds like the perfect ork weapon

azimaith
06-12-2011, 23:26
There's too much stuff that comes with chainswords that would need too much readjusting for so little a quibble. I'd really rather not have to re-model my 30+ Chaos marines with Chainswords :p

Especially considering that, from any realistic perspective, a chain weapon really would be an awful weapon. Grinding it against armor would likely see chains snap right back upon their weilders and get blade teeth lodged in bone and the like, making them ineffective combat weapons. They'd be absolutely awful against metallic armor.

From any realistic perspective charging into gunfire to hit someone with your sword is a really awful idea. I'd prefer not to see that demonstrated in the game, same goes for the weapon physics.

Avatar_exADV
06-12-2011, 23:33
Honestly, isn't it something that's fueled by modeling? If you've got separate rules for chainswords, you need to make sure that chainswords are available on the sprue for a significant number of the troop models involved - plus something that's a CCW but not a chainsword, if you don't take them. With every non-power-weapon counting as a regular CCW, they can mix chainswords and choppas and axes and it's no big deal, you can just take what suits your own aesthetic sense.

Okuto
07-12-2011, 00:28
They seem to work fine in DH, RT and DW:p

But all in all it's for the sake of balance...

Odin
07-12-2011, 00:32
And a one-handed chainsword would go flying out of control as soon as it hit that armor. Or just break itself.

Rule of cool suspension of disbelief allows me to accept that they exist. I just get irked when people attempt to reason them into being superior.

If they weren't superior, the Imperium wouldn't go to the hassle of making them if a simple metal sword could do the same job.




Especially considering that, from any realistic perspective, a chain weapon really would be an awful weapon. Grinding it against armor would likely see chains snap right back upon their weilders and get blade teeth lodged in bone and the like, making them ineffective combat weapons. They'd be absolutely awful against metallic armor.

Lots of people arguing this... but it is utterly irrelevant. In the real world, a chainsaw is not a good weapon. In 40k it is a good weapon, unless you want to re-write every single one of thousands of references to chainswords written over the last 25 years and amend them to say "chainswords are useless but many troops use them anyway even though they're no better than a normal sword".

In the real world, trying to kill someone with the power of my mind would probably be a bit of a waste of time. Doesn't mean I think Librarians should be no better than a normal marine.

Vaktathi
07-12-2011, 00:38
If they weren't superior, the Imperium wouldn't go to the hassle of making them if a simple metal sword could do the same job.

This is the same Imperium that thinks guns need to be prayed to and soothed, that dooms billions to their deaths as a result of bureaucratic errors, and takes millenia to effect legal decisions that uproot millions over legal actors who have been dead for an age. :p

azimaith
07-12-2011, 00:54
Guns do need to be prayed to and soothed in 40k. A normal human being picking up a space marine bolter will result in the human typically being badly burned by it's machine spirit. Titan warmachines literally have angry machine spirits that can only be controlled by a bonded princeps. That's part of the background, it's not a matter of them being too stupid, the background is fantasy. As for the administratum, it's a requirement of the empire, and the best that can be done. Despite how often it's used as a plot point, the Administratum doesn't spend all of it's time making clerical errors.

Nocculum
07-12-2011, 01:01
I always thought a chainsword was activated after it penetrated the target?

You strike, either blunt or slashing force, and then trigger the mechanism to cause additional damage and tear open the wound - effectively, removing any hope of recovery.

Against heavier armour you could grind through it, but it's going to be a struggle; usually, anything with chainswords have grenades, so I can imagine they krak open the armour, then gouge out an entry or wound with their aforementioned chainsword.

Not that reality applies to a game set 38,000 years into the future of course :shifty:.

Minsc
07-12-2011, 01:06
Rending would suit a chainsword, wouldn't it?

More like: "Model's with Chainswords have the Rending Special rule in close combat. However, when the model inflicts it's first rending hit, it can no longer make any attacks in close combat." :p

ehlijen
07-12-2011, 01:35
The chainsword rules were left out to streamline the system. We don't need rules to differentiate a rifle butt from a knife from a fixed bayonet from a chainsword. In Inquisitor or Nercromunda or similar skirmish level games, sure. But at a battle level game like 40k, that kind of detail just adds clutter without really enhancing anything.

Orthodox
07-12-2011, 01:48
It wouldn't mean anything. A unit with dual combat weapons is used to charge light and medium infantry. If they get powerfists, they can now fight vehicles and nob squads. Power weapons allow them to be used against heavy infantry. What do chainswords allow a marine unit to do that it can't already?

These aren't weak eldar or swarming tyranids. None of the possible rules can make 200 points of assault marines won't change their behavior.

drukawski
07-12-2011, 02:52
Chainsaws typically can't cut flesh to well, forget metal plate armour.

This is just silly, modern chainsaw chaps are made of Kevlar and not simply leather because the Kevlar actually seizes the motor while leather does nothing at all to stop the blade (kind of like how the rest of your leg down to the bone doesn't slow the blade either).


They are too heavy and bulky for swordplay, especially if wielded onehanded. They are meant to hack and not to parry.

Another thing to think about:
A chainsword is able to cut tank armor, but why isn't it able to cut another chainsword?

I use a chainsaw one handed nearly every fall when its time to clear brush. Chainsaws are pretty easy to use this way as the direction of the chain pulls the saw down and into the material its cutting. What material the blade will cut is totally dependent on what material the chain is made of. Some types of chainsaws are purpose designed to cut marble, concrete, dirt, and just about anything else you could think of.


fluff wise, a chainsword seems to function the same as a chainsaw in real life. and they are not built to be swung to cause damage.

if you swing a chainsaw at a log, it will bounce back and dig into your shoulder. a chainsaw is designed for a slow cutting process...

The capabilities of the weapon would be dependent on its design as well as the materials used in its construction. In the context of 40k you would have to imagine that the sword is designed for combat. If the chainsaw was made of unobtanium, constantly laser sharpened on every rotation of the blade, powered by a nuclear reactor, weighed less than a pound, and wielded by a 16' tall genetically engineered superman I would imagine it could do whatever the heck the writers and game designers want it to do.

Regardless, its easy to justify chainsaws are non-rending-super-powered-crazy-go-nuts-close combat weapons if you simply imagine that the applicable combination of weight, torque, materials, and power source lead to a weapon with the profile GW has provided for us.

Arandmoor
07-12-2011, 03:31
I'd like to see CCWs follow shooting AP rules.

Right now, CC is extremely binary: Either you have a power weapon, or you don't. Some granularity would help curb how out of control CC can get.

TheGreatDalmuti
07-12-2011, 03:53
I think a rule that lets them ignore wooded terrain would be ok.

azimaith
07-12-2011, 03:57
That's a joke right?

Orthodox
07-12-2011, 04:09
This whole game is a joke. We should start a write-in campaign.

Chainswords - mtc for woods.

ehlijen
07-12-2011, 05:00
How? Surely the extra time spent being lumberjacky and ok would cancel any speed bonus?

agurus1
07-12-2011, 05:20
Maybe a unit armed with chainswords that remains unengaged in woods for one game turn can remove the woods from the table at the end of the turn! Lol

TheGreatDalmuti
07-12-2011, 05:34
Of cource it's a joke. But chainswords? Really? Chainswords 39000 years from now? And ok humans had all that technology degregation and stuff. Eldar have chainswords? They could move suns in the warp and made swords that buzzed?

Siebab
07-12-2011, 05:49
I think a rule that lets them ignore wooded terrain would be ok.

I'll give thumbs up for this one. GW needs to do this!

Cohinor
07-12-2011, 05:55
What i don't understand is that alot of you allways say chainsaws dont have cutting power. Now here in germany and i'm sure in other countries firefighters use special chainsaws to cut through iron, other alloys and concrete with special chainsaws made for that.

So it's not too farfetched that a terminator with a chainfist (that is actually surrounded by a force field) might cut trough plaststeel and tanks, given their strengh, servo motors and stabilizers behind their punch. So given that we all play a game in the far far far far future with special handwavium material and other things to play with, i'd say give the chainsword a bit of power back as it was.

cheers
Cohinor

azimaith
07-12-2011, 06:05
I'm pretty sure the saws they use are more similar to radial saws that use special blades to cut metal.

Grand Master Raziel
07-12-2011, 06:43
I agree completely-I realize the point of streamlining the game, but the chainsword is an integral part of the style of 40k! Don't chainblades give striking scorpions a strength boost? I can't remember exactly, but it seems like they do.

Yes. Striking Scorpions used to be just Strength 4 on their profile (3rd ed dex), but they got knocked down to Str 3 to rationalize their statline with other Eldar. They got the +1 Str chainblades as compensation.


Personally I think chain weapons should limit saves to 4+ like they used to. Extend this to chainswords, ork choppas/big choppas, chain axes etc.

Yeah, no thanks. I'm really quite pleased that they did away with that rule. I don't care to see it resurface.

Cohinor
07-12-2011, 07:31
I'm pretty sure the saws they use are more similar to radial saws that use special blades to cut metal.

Actually no, its a watercooled, diamond tipped chainsaw for concrete , and

this one for metal and other stuff to cut cars in half.

They normally just dont use those when there are still people in the car, cause of flying metal debris that might hurt them further.

Beppo1234
07-12-2011, 08:44
they are rubbish because of game scale simplification. That being said, they weren't exactly fantastic before the change either. I wouldn't mind if there were a 4th category of CCW, something between standard CCW and Power Weapon.

ehlijen
07-12-2011, 09:36
they are rubbish because of game scale simplification. That being said, they weren't exactly fantastic before the change either. I wouldn't mind if there were a 4th category of CCW, something between standard CCW and Power Weapon.

I disagree. The more 'inbetweens' we get, the more clutter we get in game mechanics that doesn't actually add to tactical depth.
Unless they actually did something different instead of just being half a power weapon, there is no reason to add them.

Tayrod
07-12-2011, 10:01
I think a rule that lets them ignore wooded terrain would be ok.

I lol'ed. (This is really all I have to say on the matter, but warseer wants me to lengten my post to ten charachters)

Erazmus_M_Wattle
07-12-2011, 10:26
I honestly don't know why they can't have the -1 armour save modifier back. Modifiers are only a problem if they go absolutely wild and make modifiers for everything. One or two wouldn't hurt.

destroyerlord
07-12-2011, 11:06
I think elijen's point is quite strong. Sure, chain weapons could have rules in the game, but if it doesn't add anything to game tactics, it just becomes rules-for-rules-sake. I.e. it clutters up the game with more things to remember without actually strengthening the system.
Would adding rending give assault marines a different purpose, or just make them slightly better than they already are at doing the same thing? If that is the case, what is the point? It just annoys people as Assaults Marines (and Chaos Marines, and scouts, and any number of other units) cost more points.

Having said that I do think it would be 'cool' if they did something special... GW would just have to be really careful about how it was implemented, and which units benefit.

Corvus Corone
07-12-2011, 11:23
The old heavy close combat weapons rule was totally, awfully wrong. It should never come back. I simply cannot believe that a weapon would bring no benefit against carapace armor or similar, be somehow super effective against power armor and similar, and totally super-duper effective against terminator armor and similar.

An ork choppa (which used to be an 'eavy weapon, in this case a large piece of metal on a stick) was normally effective against imperial guard or tau fire warriors. It was great against space marines, somehow cutting through their armor and rendering it less effective. It was awesome against terminators, making their tactical dreadnaught armor (the best personal protection ever devised by mankind) no more effective than simple body armor.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is nuts.

Armor modifiers? Sure, maybe.

But you know what? I think that chainswords should just be AP 5 in close combat. Why shouldn't close combat attacks have AP? We can handle it for shooting? And this would make chainswords excellent against light armor and simple flak vests, but yeild no special benefit against power armor or terminator armor - as you might expect from a chain blade.

Pyriel
07-12-2011, 12:02
....ugh.

listen, guys-40k is RULE OF COOL. theres no point arguing WHY a captain inside a razorback that has lascannon/plasmagun yells for the razorback to drive him closer to hit the enemy with his sword. thats just nuts. it is rule of cool, and just leave it there.

the true problem isnt chainswords. it is chainswords...and boltguns. and power armour being insignificant. these things cause tabletop 40k to have some "realistic" elements that totaly hurt the rule-of-cool idea of "ww1 in space" that 40k is all about(i.e. MSU mech lasplas instead of "footman rifleman spam")


sad to say, fellas, ruleschanges to a weapon or another isnt gonna change much; for fluffy 40k to come anywhere near competitive 40k, and them not be two different games like now, we need GW to have :actual heavy playtesting, a careful, proper and fluffy gameplan for each army, *direction* for each army and its niches , advantages/drawbacks and needs, iterative design,proper FAQ updates, and accepting feedback from the players.

but this wouldnt be GW. simply said. hence, fluffy 40k and competitive 40k are forever two completely different games. hence, fluffy chainsword sergeants/tacticals/assault squads forever suck compared to lasplas spam (either foot lasplas like prev editions, or mech lasplas like now). we'll just have to live with it.

Marzillius
07-12-2011, 12:13
I think the reason they made chainswords normal CCWs are because of Scorpion Chainswords. They give the wearer +1 Strenght. Eldar weapons are supposed to be superior to everyone elses (exept Necrons) so I fail to see the problem.

Wishing
07-12-2011, 13:02
Because, at some point, the game designers thought that all those complicated weapon rules, movement values and S modifying the AS and so on make the heads of 40k players hurt and that the game needed to become a lot less complicated.

Yep. They are a victim of poor CCW rules in 2nd ed (that even though a chainsword had its own rules, it made no difference in the hands of a marine), combined with the streamlining process from 2nd to 3rd ed (when the 2nd ed rules for them resulted in their rules being dropped entirely).

Since streamlining always gradually disappears as new rules are released, it would be really cool in the current environment if chainswords did something rather than being mechanistically the same as a dagger. But since they are used by the majority of armies in the game (all imperials, chaos, orks, eldar), giving chainswords real rules could only really be done as part of a huge revision of the whole game, in the style of the 2nd->3rd ed makeover.

prowla
07-12-2011, 13:23
listen, guys-40k is RULE OF COOL. theres no point arguing WHY a captain inside a razorback that has lascannon/plasmagun yells for the razorback to drive him closer to hit the enemy with his sword. thats just nuts. it is rule of cool, and just leave it there.


Oh, there is a point in that. Maybe he needs to take that position - someone has to assault, once in a while, right? - and while at it, have the pleasure of personally dealing the Emperor's vengeance with a sharp piece of steel in his hand? Marines are basically highly mobile psychotic assault specialists, anyway.

If you would have troops that have NO guns and only swords, then it would be just silly. But it's not that far fetched to have secondary close combat weapons, especially you're a big guy in a steel suit that makes you impervious to most hand guns and tasked with running special assault missions, often in close quarters. In WW2, most soldiers had some kind of knife or axe, because it once in a while came to CQB in trenches or in urban areas, and you wanted to have something to poke your enemy with from an arms length.

I think the chainsword function is pretty practical for pulling the damn thing lose, after you're plunged a 3' blade through someone. I don't think a marine has any problems with impaling someone with a sturdy piece of steel, but it can get annoying if you have 2-3 guys hanging from your sword if you don't have any time to remove the corpses :p And besides, when it comes to cutting flesh, butchers do use bandsaws for cutting meat, and hunters quarter moose in the forest for easier transportation with chainsaws.

LonelyPath
07-12-2011, 13:42
Chainsaws typically can't cut flesh to well

A guy I knew a while back would disagree wen one cut halfway through his hand by accident when he worked on the forestry commission :(

Vaktathi
07-12-2011, 13:43
In WW2, most soldiers had some kind of knife or axe, because it once in a while came to CQB in trenches or in urban areas, and you wanted to have something to poke your enemy with from an arms length. Most still do, but even back then 70 years ago they were almost very rarely used in combat however and are there more as a psychological/utility thing than as a combat weapon. The most popular close quarters weapon more often than not was a spade typically.:p

Odin
07-12-2011, 13:49
I'd like to see CCWs follow shooting AP rules.

Right now, CC is extremely binary: Either you have a power weapon, or you don't. Some granularity would help curb how out of control CC can get.

Yes. This.

Assault squads have been gradually coming down in price since 3rd edition because GW have been realising that actually they aren't very good, because they might as well be armed with sticks.

The background is full of stories of chainswords tearing through power armour.

DYoung
07-12-2011, 13:55
The most popular close quarters weapon more often than not was a spade typically.:p

Power spade, anyone?

Bigglesworth
07-12-2011, 14:25
Besides chainswords arnt just somthing bought from the garden centre or hardware store and painted in chapter colours ect, they would have advanced tooth design and in some instances ceramic teeth and be designed to cut through metal and armour. Any chainsaw experts/users have as much claim to say they know they wont work as a gun nut to say that a plasma gun is rubish.

And if you want chainswords to be better, then model your marines with only std swords and close combat weapons and give models with power weapons chainswords. Job done

Bookwrak
07-12-2011, 14:35
The background is full of stories of chainswords tearing through power armour.
In game terms, that's what you call a failed armor save.

Bunnahabhain
07-12-2011, 14:37
Most still do, but even back then 70 years ago they were almost very rarely used in combat however and are there more as a psychological/utility thing than as a combat weapon. The most popular close quarters weapon more often than not was a spade typically.:p

The number of my Guardsmen wielding spades or picks as CCWs has worried some of my opponents...



Getting rid of the power weapon system, and using AP in close combat as well would be the easiest solution here. No, it's not balanced, but it won't make the balance in 40k significantly worse...

Theocracity
07-12-2011, 15:12
In game terms, that's what you call a failed armor save.

This.

No need to make it even tougher for non-MEQ armies to fight in assault.

prowla
07-12-2011, 18:00
The most popular close quarters weapon more often than not was a spade typically.:p

A spade was in my mind, as well. The WW2 field spade is about the length of a medium-sized axe, reasonably sturdy, and with a thin metal blade that is quite easy to sharpen.. Nowadays they have fancy ones that fold into three pieces, that I imagine doesn't work quite as well.

It's true that utility tools get the place as most usual CQB weapons, as they usually are readily available. Finnish people traditionally have a sturdy woodcraft knife called puukko on them when they go to the woods, and this gained some fame in WW2 as a CQB weapon - there is absolutely nothing special about the knife to a soldier, but it just happened to be something that everyone carried on their belts.

Here's a russian version of the WW2-style spade. You could easily split someone's head with that, even without any practice. Maybe that was why it was so popular! http://www.rusmilitary.com/images/spade_inf.jpg

Odin
07-12-2011, 19:34
This.

No need to make it even tougher for non-MEQ armies to fight in assault.

It would make non-MEQ troops with chainswords BETTER at fighting in assaults against MEQs.

Odin
07-12-2011, 19:38
I think the reason they made chainswords normal CCWs are because of Scorpion Chainswords. They give the wearer +1 Strenght. Eldar weapons are supposed to be superior to everyone elses (exept Necrons) so I fail to see the problem.

... except they made Chainswords CCWs nearly 10 years before they made Scorpion chainswords grant +1 Strength... so that seems unlikely!

Theocracity
07-12-2011, 19:54
It would make non-MEQ troops with chainswords BETTER at fighting in assaults against MEQs.

Which non-MEQ armies make extensive use of chainswords?

I can only think of IG sergeants and a few bits for Orks.

By contrast, all of the various Space Marine and Chaos Marines use chainswords.

That 5+ or 6+ doesn't seem like much, but every bit helps.

The abstract rules we have already are fine for dealing with chainswords as generic CCWs. To try and add more just generates rules clutter, modeling confusion and army balance issues when it's not necessary, all in the service of a tiny detail based on flawed physics that's best left ignored as 'rule of cool.'

Mr Zoat
07-12-2011, 20:00
Yep. They are a victim of poor CCW rules in 2nd ed (that even though a chainsword had its own rules, it made no difference in the hands of a marine), combined with the streamlining process from 2nd to 3rd ed (when the 2nd ed rules for them resulted in their rules being dropped entirely).

Actually, it gave them a parry. You could make your opponent reroll one attack die. I don't think that you could implement something like that now.

Sgt John Keel
07-12-2011, 20:49
I'm not in favour of giving it additional rules, but if you must, how about ignoring Feel no Pain?

Siebab
07-12-2011, 21:04
I'm not in favour of giving it additional rules, but if you must, how about ignoring Feel no Pain?

Sure why not but it shouldn't be without a price increase. I'd say about 50points/chainweapon sounds about right.

Konovalev
07-12-2011, 21:06
Sure why not but it shouldn't be without a price increase. I'd say about 50points/chainweapon sounds about right.

Blood Angels player detected... lol

Siebab
07-12-2011, 21:07
Blood Angels player detected... lol

Blood Angels, Chaos Marines, Tyranids and Dark Eldar.

Arandmoor
07-12-2011, 21:17
Which non-MEQ armies make extensive use of chainswords?

I can only think of IG sergeants and a few bits for Orks.

By contrast, all of the various Space Marine and Chaos Marines use chainswords.

That 5+ or 6+ doesn't seem like much, but every bit helps.

The abstract rules we have already are fine for dealing with chainswords as generic CCWs. To try and add more just generates rules clutter, modeling confusion and army balance issues when it's not necessary, all in the service of a tiny detail based on flawed physics that's best left ignored as 'rule of cool.'

Not just Chainswords. CCWs in general.

I suggested stating out CCWs with, at a minimum, an AP value to give CC more granularity.

Your average power weapon would be at least AP3 if not AP2 or AP1. Normal CCWs could be AP6 or AP5 with options for two-handed CCWs hitting AP4. If chainswords and chainaxes were AP4 or AP5 it could differentiate them enough to make people happy as well as toning down the need for squads that pack wall-to-wall power weapons, or at least make dedicated assault troops mean something without giving them wall-to-wall power weapons.

If assault marines had AP4 CCWs, they would have more than the sharp sticks they have now without needing wall-to-wall power weapons or something equally retarded.

Vaktathi
07-12-2011, 21:33
Not just Chainswords. CCWs in general.

I suggested stating out CCWs with, at a minimum, an AP value to give CC more granularity.

Your average power weapon would be at least AP3 if not AP2 or AP1. Normal CCWs could be AP6 or AP5 with options for two-handed CCWs hitting AP4. If chainswords and chainaxes were AP4 or AP5 it could differentiate them enough to make people happy as well as toning down the need for squads that pack wall-to-wall power weapons, or at least make dedicated assault troops mean something without giving them wall-to-wall power weapons.

If assault marines had AP4 CCWs, they would have more than the sharp sticks they have now without needing wall-to-wall power weapons or something equally retarded.

Under a system like this however, we might as well just make armor saves 4+/3+/2+, as there'd be even less point to the already marginal save values of anything less than 4, even 4+sv's currently are of dubious value and almost universally overcosted (e.g. Dire Avengers, Grenadiers Vets doctrince, IG Stormtroopers, Henchmen Carapace upgrade, SM Scouts, Firewarriors, etc) and would further reinforce the 3+sv barrier currently in the game.

Theocracity
07-12-2011, 22:22
Not just Chainswords. CCWs in general.

I suggested stating out CCWs with, at a minimum, an AP value to give CC more granularity.

Your average power weapon would be at least AP3 if not AP2 or AP1. Normal CCWs could be AP6 or AP5 with options for two-handed CCWs hitting AP4. If chainswords and chainaxes were AP4 or AP5 it could differentiate them enough to make people happy as well as toning down the need for squads that pack wall-to-wall power weapons, or at least make dedicated assault troops mean something without giving them wall-to-wall power weapons.

If assault marines had AP4 CCWs, they would have more than the sharp sticks they have now without needing wall-to-wall power weapons or something equally retarded.

So your solution is to make all assault marines wield power weapon equivalents against anything except themselves, and make it so everyone else's expensive power weapons can't break Terminator armor?

I'm sure the Guard, Orks, Tyranid, Eldar and Necron will be fine with that.

Edit: re-reading I see I misinterpreted you a bit, apologies. I still don't agree about giving CCWs AP values; most non-MEQ armies have it rough in assault as it is, no need to make it worse on them. I like the idea that non-Astartes have a chance on the battlefield.

Odin
07-12-2011, 22:33
The abstract rules we have already are fine for dealing with chainswords as generic CCWs. To try and add more just generates rules clutter, modeling confusion and army balance issues when it's not necessary, all in the service of a tiny detail based on flawed physics that's best left ignored as 'rule of cool.'

Rules clutter? The oversimplification of 3rd edition is fortunately something GW seem to be moving away from slightly.

Are the rules for harlequin's kisses, scorpion chainswords, warscythes, razorflails, shardnets and choppas also "unnecessary rules clutter"? Or are they all part of the essential variety that brings the weapons of the 41st millenium to life?

As for your worry about non MEQ's having a chance, I think you're missing a big point here. Orks and Imperial Guard wouldn't worry too much about chainswords having rending. Neither would Eldar guardians, or the majority of Tyranid troops. The armies that have the most to fear from rending chainswords are the MEQs.

Theocracity
07-12-2011, 22:45
Rules clutter? The oversimplification of 3rd edition is fortunately something GW seem to be moving away from slightly.

Are the rules for harlequin's kisses, scorpion chainswords, warscythes, razorflails, shardnets and choppas also "unnecessary rules clutter"? Or are they all part of the essential variety that brings the weapons of the 41st millenium to life?

As for your worry about non MEQ's having a chance, I think you're missing a big point here. Orks and Imperial Guard wouldn't worry too much about chainswords having rending. Neither would Eldar guardians, or the majority of Tyranid troops. The armies that have the most to fear from rending chainswords are the MEQs.

Special CCWs that you pay points for and are limited per unit are one thing. But the distribution of chain weapons among different armies (including armies like Space Wolves who may or may not have them) and model kits (I don't want to use the one same chain arm for all my boyz just because I want choppas that rend) means that implementing it would cause a lot more trouble than it's worth (answering a question that is best left unasked).

That's only if you assume rending, too. I'm against any CCWs with AP values as a general rule.

Edit: Also, there's a balance between too much simplification and too much complexity. If I have to ask which bolter-wielding Grey Hunter has a chainsword and which has a CCW, it starts to bog down what is already a pretty cluttered assault phase.

Gorbad Ironclaw
07-12-2011, 23:24
Are the rules for harlequin's kisses, scorpion chainswords, warscythes, razorflails, shardnets and choppas also "unnecessary rules clutter"? Or are they all part of the essential variety that brings the weapons of the 41st millenium to life?

Choppas don't actually do anything any more (unless you mean the two handed variant that are rubbish and shouldn't be used when you could have a power klaw instead), and putting the str 4 on the Scorpions chainsword is a purely cosmetic effect.

I simply can't see a good way to add a rule to chainweapons without doing a big rewrite of the rules and if you end up making it an upgrade or something special probably also a recut of sprues so there are other options. It seems a lot of trouble just to be able to give a "random" weapon a special rule (If you want to argue it's an iconic weapon then to me at least that price would go to the bolter). Not to mention, what should it then do?

Rated_lexxx
07-12-2011, 23:31
Choppas don't actually do anything any more (unless you mean the two handed variant that are rubbish and shouldn't be used when you could have a power klaw instead), and putting the str 4 on the Scorpions chainsword is a purely cosmetic effect.

I simply can't see a good way to add a rule to chainweapons without doing a big rewrite of the rules and if you end up making it an upgrade or something special probably also a recut of sprues so there are other options. It seems a lot of trouble just to be able to give a "random" weapon a special rule (If you want to argue it's an iconic weapon then to me at least that price would go to the bolter). Not to mention, what should it then do?


Do you mean nobz in a boyz unit or nobz in a nob unit. You diffidently use BC in a nob unit

GrogDaTyrant
08-12-2011, 00:22
Do you mean nobz in a boyz unit or nobz in a nob unit. You diffidently use BC in a nob unit

They're rubbish in boy mobs, as it's effectively a waste of 5 points. But in Nob mobs the primary reason they will see use is for Wound Allocation and to give a +2 Str bonus to the model(s) with kombi-skorchas.

ehlijen
08-12-2011, 00:37
They're rubbish in boy mobs, as it's effectively a waste of 5 points. But in Nob mobs the primary reason they will see use is for Wound Allocation and to give a +2 Str bonus to the model(s) with kombi-skorchas.

Why specifically the combi skorcha models?

Rated_lexxx
08-12-2011, 00:46
They're rubbish in boy mobs, as it's effectively a waste of 5 points. But in Nob mobs the primary reason they will see use is for Wound Allocation and to give a +2 Str bonus to the model(s) with kombi-skorchas.

That is what I thought he meant, but just wondering if it was

GrogDaTyrant
08-12-2011, 01:04
Why specifically the combi skorcha models?

Well for starters, because the Kombi-Skorcha is the best kombi-weapon. Kombi-rokkits only exist to add an extra weapon to modify the wound-allocation groups with. It also helps that the Kombi-Skorcha is a heavy-flamer. Aside from that, both Kombi-weapons and the Shoota are not considered CCWs (like a pistol), and thus your Nob looses an attack for taking them (standard setup being choppa+slugga for 5 attacks on the charge).

Hence... if you're going to take a Big-Choppa, you might as well give it to the Nob(s) who are already loosing out on +1 attack for 2 CCWs.

Arandmoor
08-12-2011, 01:59
Edit: re-reading I see I misinterpreted you a bit, apologies. I still don't agree about giving CCWs AP values; most non-MEQ armies have it rough in assault as it is, no need to make it worse on them. I like the idea that non-Astartes have a chance on the battlefield.

I feel that the benefits gained from granulating CC would far outweigh the penalties seen by some armies over the short term once they were re-balanced.

Considering that most suggestions to make chainswords "not rubbish" do so by, effectively, buffing marines (who don't need buffs in the slightest) without letting anyone else benefit (barring one Eldar aspect) rubs me the wrong way. However, it doesn't mean I don't think that CC couldn't be improved.

Personally, I'd like to see a streamlining to the AP system that brought it more in-line with the armor modification system in fantasy, but less suck (at least...fantasy used armor modifiers last time I checked. I'm like an edition out of date though).

I'm a fan of granularity. The more shades of gray you've got to work with, the better.

ehlijen
08-12-2011, 04:06
Well for starters, because the Kombi-Skorcha is the best kombi-weapon. Kombi-rokkits only exist to add an extra weapon to modify the wound-allocation groups with. It also helps that the Kombi-Skorcha is a heavy-flamer. Aside from that, both Kombi-weapons and the Shoota are not considered CCWs (like a pistol), and thus your Nob looses an attack for taking them (standard setup being choppa+slugga for 5 attacks on the charge).

Hence... if you're going to take a Big-Choppa, you might as well give it to the Nob(s) who are already loosing out on +1 attack for 2 CCWs.

So basically no reason why specifically the combi skorcha? It doesn't work with the big choppa any better than other big gun nor does the choppa gain/not lose anything the Klaw wouldn't as well.

I was just wondering if I was missing something similar to the burna rules where skorchas actually help in CC. Nevermind me.

Gorbad Ironclaw
08-12-2011, 06:54
I'm a fan of granularity. The more shades of gray you've got to work with, the better.

It's all a question of scale though. I love details and lots of options, I just don't think 40k is presently being played at a scale where the game would actually benefit from it. There are too many models on the table for it to really go into detail with the specifics of each individuals models equipment. You can certainly do that, but it works much better if you then have fewer models on the board so as to not drag out the time it takes to play, etc.

That doesn't mean I don't think 40k could benefit from a rewritten system, because to my mind it most certainly could. Making the AP system more flexible and useful rather than completely on/off would be a good start.

Corvus Corone
08-12-2011, 11:07
Hang on wait.

Shooting has AP, because projectiles pierce armor.

Why not make CQC weapons have armor modifiers? So, a chainsword could be a -1 mod.

I like this.

LegioIgnatum
08-12-2011, 11:51
Because it is hard for little Timmy to rememberz all thoze numb3rz.
Numbers not be cool yo. Unlike lady gaga and justin bieber

Sami
08-12-2011, 12:07
Or give CCW weapons an Ap value against non-vehicles, so regular CCW weapons would be Ap-, Chainswords could be AP6 or AP5 to represent them slicing through crap armour but being stopped by thick plates, power weapons would cease to exist and just be AP2, etc.

Souleater
08-12-2011, 12:08
I'm pretty sure in 2nd ed Marine with combat knife = S4, Marine with Chainsword = S4. Considering the Marine's combat knife doesn't even seem to count as a combat weapon anymore I'd say the chainsword is a bigger improvement now than it was in oldschool 40k.

Exactly. I think Chainswords gave -1 Save mod but since Marines have S4 and so got that anyway...

Bunnahabhain
08-12-2011, 12:17
Why not ASM? As the system isn't designed with them in mind. It is designed around AP.

Also, it is a principal of good game design to always use the same mechanism to determine the same thing, in this case, hit/wound/armour to determine if stuff with wounds suffers wounds. Having two mechanisms is worse than having one, as it requires two sets of rules, and so has more potential interactions.

Aluinn
08-12-2011, 12:34
Imo chainswords are ok as they are. They could give a bonus, but then they should also give a penalty for beeing bulky.

Yeah, I think it would make sense and be quite fine in balance terms if they granted either Rending or +1 Strength, but didn't contribute an extra attack as a ccw. Of course, this would make them worse against most opponents except on the charge, but it's the most balanced way I can think of to give them a special effect (without either getting excessively complex or making changes that don't make any sense for what the weapon is supposed to be in fluff terms, anyway). Well, they could also cause -1 Initiative rather than not granting the extra attack with a pistol/ccw, but GW hates stat modifiers in 40K, so I wouldn't expect that to happen. Then again, they printed Ward's rules for Nemesis halberds and rad grenades, so you never know :).

Odin
08-12-2011, 13:17
Choppas don't actually do anything any more (unless you mean the two handed variant that are rubbish and shouldn't be used when you could have a power klaw instead), and putting the str 4 on the Scorpions chainsword is a purely cosmetic effect.

I simply can't see a good way to add a rule to chainweapons without doing a big rewrite of the rules and if you end up making it an upgrade or something special probably also a recut of sprues so there are other options. It seems a lot of trouble just to be able to give a "random" weapon a special rule (If you want to argue it's an iconic weapon then to me at least that price would go to the bolter). Not to mention, what should it then do?

I'd argue it's both the bolter and the chainsword that are the iconic weapons of 40K. And if a bolter was no better than a bow and arrow, I'd be just as annoyed!

Siebab
08-12-2011, 14:42
Or give CCW weapons an Ap value against non-vehicles, so regular CCW weapons would be Ap-, Chainswords could be AP6 or AP5 to represent them slicing through crap armour but being stopped by thick plates, power weapons would cease to exist and just be AP2, etc.

But the thing is that armor 5/6 is already ignored most of the time. Giving the CCW weapons AP value would be the same as removing these saves completely.

Theocracity
08-12-2011, 15:43
Because it is hard for little Timmy to rememberz all thoze numb3rz.
Numbers not be cool yo. Unlike lady gaga and justin bieber

Thanks for that insightful input. :rolleyes:

It's not a 'math is hard' issue, it's an efficiency issue. To bring in discussion from the 'Tournaments and Time Limits' thread, this game already takes a lot of time to play, and the logistics of tournaments make it difficult for certain armies to finish. Why add unnessecary complexity with chainswords just to bog things down even more? What does that add to the game, besides "why doesn't this physically unlikely weapon do slightly more?"


Why not ASM? As the system isn't designed with them in mind. It is designed around AP.

Also, it is a principal of good game design to always use the same mechanism to determine the same thing, in this case, hit/wound/armour to determine if stuff with wounds suffers wounds. Having two mechanisms is worse than having one, as it requires two sets of rules, and so has more potential interactions.

Agreed. I'm not against an armor modifier system in general, but it would have to be consistent and effect shooting as well. And I don't think that's going to happen.



But the thing is that armor 5/6 is already ignored most of the time. Giving the CCW weapons AP value would be the same as removing these saves completely.

Also, this. And those armies with 5/6 rarely field weapons that regularly break armor 3. I like the idea that the human-equivalent armies still have a chance against Space Marines.

Sappysid101
08-12-2011, 15:47
They're not rubbish, they're just surprisingly average.

- Sid

theunwantedbeing
08-12-2011, 15:56
When the game got overhauled it was dumbed down to account for it being aimed at kiddies who are dumb as a pile of bricks. As such, it got turned into a basic close combat weapon.

Maybe when the designers start aiming the rules at people with an IQ of above the average ten year old then we'll see the rules get a little more interesting.

They're having to create all sorts of special rules for everything new these days anyway because the dumbing down effect made everything boring and the same so hopefully we'll see better rules in the next edition :)

Rending would of course be nice.

Denny
08-12-2011, 16:01
Couldn't similar cases be made for most close combat weapons?

Orks use axes the size of guardsmen. Some have chain weapons even more lethal than those used by Marines.
Dark Eldar/Eldar blades are no doubt refined from exotic materials and perfectly balanced/sharpened.
Chainaxes wielded by Berserkers should be even more lethal than chainswords.
Flayed ones have somehow morphed blades from their own bodies that incorporate nanotechnology (Resurrection Protocols)

We could boost all these weapons . . . or just keep them the same and assume the benefits are cancelled out by the superior armour employed in the future?

Or we could nerf combat-knives I guess . . .

Theocracity
08-12-2011, 16:05
When the game got overhauled it was dumbed down to account for it being aimed at kiddies who are dumb as a pile of bricks. As such, it got turned into a basic close combat weapon.

Maybe when the designers start aiming the rules at people with an IQ of above the average ten year old then we'll see the rules get a little more interesting.

They're having to create all sorts of special rules for everything new these days anyway because the dumbing down effect made everything boring and the same so hopefully we'll see better rules in the next edition :)

Rending would of course be nice.

You want to give basic Space Marines rending weapons?

I usually consider the mindset of "I want all the toys" to be the purview of children.

Please don't ad hominem attack people who are arguing for efficient and balanced game design.

Oakwolf
08-12-2011, 16:11
fluff wise, a chainsword seems to function the same as a chainsaw in real life. and they are not built to be swung to cause damage.

if you swing a chainsaw at a log, it will bounce back and dig into your shoulder. a chainsaw is designed for a slow cutting process...



Depends on the chain you put on it :P

Normal wood-chipping chain is definitely not made to cut through soft materials, although it makes a horrible mess of it if it does. At full spin, you will go through an arm or a leg...if it's held stiff. It's not made to cut flexible material, nor to be swung.

Now if you put a forward bladed chain (think razor edged discs mounted on the chain), then it'll be quite extreme for cutting soft things (think super machette), but suck at hard stuff (it'll loose its edge as soon as it hits anything resistant.

But then add Sci-fi super adamantium into such concept and we're not far off

Marzillius
08-12-2011, 16:14
... except they made Chainswords CCWs nearly 10 years before they made Scorpion chainswords grant +1 Strength... so that seems unlikely!

Oh, what do you know.

Well, then Scorpion Chainswords were a response to Chainswords being normal CCWs.

shadekiller
08-12-2011, 16:30
I'm on the side that chainsword are in fact quite possible to build.

I'm not commenting the use of such a weapon but given time and ressources there isn't much a combined engineering team can't do, hell we even shipped huge ship in space and landed on the moon! Dont tell me a chainsowrd isn't feasible, it just takes time and carefull thinking to engineer it properly. I'm not gonna go intot the details of such a weapon but with the right chain size and a blade robust enough, it's quite feasible.

you may need http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ4J69EEpu4to wield it but... Feasible nonetheless!:D

theunwantedbeing
08-12-2011, 16:40
You want to give basic Space Marines rending weapons?
No, just giving chainswords rending would do.


I usually consider the mindset of "I want all the toys" to be the purview of children.
Don't forget Matt Ward rules!


Please don't ad hominem attack people who are arguing for efficient and balanced game design.
I apologise for my scathing attack on you and all who are craving efficient and balanced game design. I do not know what I was thinking and I will now fall upon my sword in an effort to seek forgiveness!

Also can you please explain what you mean by efficient game design?

Theocracity
08-12-2011, 16:50
Space Marines are the only faction that extensively uses chainswords. Any other faction has a very few instances of them.

Mat Ward is a shibboleth. Not going to engage on that.

By efficient game design I mean design choices that are consistent with an abstract large-scale war game. Adding granulated detail is fine for a squad level tactics game (which is what 40K used to be like), but it's grown larger in scale and abstraction. It doesn't need minor blips of detail like chainswords - an average model is just as dead by being bashed by a choppa as it is when chewed up by a chainsword.

Arandmoor
08-12-2011, 16:51
But the thing is that armor 5/6 is already ignored most of the time. Giving the CCW weapons AP value would be the same as removing these saves completely.

You'd have to make chainswords into a CCW upgrade rather than the default load-out. As it stands, your average space marine is just modeled with a chain sword. He doesn't actually have one because they mostly start with bolt pistols and bolt guns.

If this kind of change were implimented, chain swords would be bought like gun upgrades. The majority of your marines would stick with bolt pistols and, effectively, no CCW worth a damn, but you'd get two CCW upgrades, on top of whatever you give your sergeant, from a list of "Special" CCWs.

...we'd need some more CCWs though. Right now the list is kind of short...




By efficient game design I mean design choices that are consistent with an abstract large-scale war game. Adding granulated detail is fine for a squad level tactics game (which is what 40K used to be like), but it's grown larger in scale and abstraction. It doesn't need minor blips of detail like chainswords - an average model is just as dead by being bashed by a choppa as it is when chewed up by a chainsword.

There are room for more weapons. There's always room for more weapons.

Besides, in the case of my request for more granularity I'm seeking no more than what we put up with for shooting.

Unless you're saying that shooting is too complicated as it is...

By comparison, CC is downright braindead where complexity is concerned.

Theocracity
08-12-2011, 16:56
You'd have to make chainswords into a CCW upgrade rather than the default load-out. As it stands, your average space marine is just modeled with a chain sword. He doesn't actually have one because they mostly start with bolt pistols and bolt guns.

If this kind of change were implimented, chain swords would be bought like gun upgrades. The majority of your marines would stick with bolt pistols and, effectively, no CCW worth a damn, but you'd get two CCW upgrades, on top of whatever you give your sergeant, from a list of "Special" CCWs.

...we'd need some more CCWs though. Right now the list is kind of short...

Your last sentence illustrates my point. If you do it for one, you start having to do it for more factions. At some point it becomes a balance issue, a content development issue, and the overall effect of having special CCWs starts to blend together.

Why not just abstract them as generic CCWs, keep special CCWs different, and let armor saves determine how effective they are in combat?


There are room for more weapons. There's always room for more weapons.

Besides, in the case of my request for more granularity I'm seeking no more than what we put up with for shooting.

Unless you're saying that shooting is too complicated as it is...

By comparison, CC is downright braindead where complexity is concerned.

Shooting is pretty complicated (though it doesn't have initiative, base contact, etc to worry about). But this is a futuristic wargame; it makes sense that they make guns pretty important. The answer for that isn't necessarily "let's also make assault more complicated."

theunwantedbeing
08-12-2011, 17:01
It doesn't need minor blips of detail like chainswords - an average model is just as dead by being bashed by a choppa as it is when chewed up by a chainsword.

That would be what I call boring game design.

Would you agree that the chainfist upgrade of the powerfist is also pointless?
A similar issue with the thunderhammer, it's as near as makes no difference the same as a powerfist is so why have it?

Personally I'de like to see combat weapons gain AP values along with letting things like assault weapons and pistols be fired while in combat in lieu of the models normal set of attacks. More complex I know, but more interesting and ultimately generates more of a cool factor which is surely what the point of the game is?

GrogDaTyrant
08-12-2011, 17:01
So basically no reason why specifically the combi skorcha? It doesn't work with the big choppa any better than other big gun nor does the choppa gain/not lose anything the Klaw wouldn't as well.

I was just wondering if I was missing something similar to the burna rules where skorchas actually help in CC. Nevermind me.

No, there is no specific reason or special rule otherwise. But generally speaking, most all Kombi Weapons are Skorchas first, with standard Twin-Shootas and Kombi-Rokkits only used for additional Wound Allocation groupings. Hence, Kombi-Skorcha + Big Choppa is kind of the standard.

Bunnahabhain
08-12-2011, 17:07
Well, if you made chain-swords AP5, then it shouldn't need any re-pointing, as fairly much all the current users of them already have an AP5 pistol.

GrogDaTyrant
08-12-2011, 17:15
Well, if you made chain-swords AP5, then it shouldn't need any re-pointing, as fairly much all the current users of them already have an AP5 pistol.

I disagree. I would say you would actually need to re-point them by at least 1 point per model. While the models that have them have pistols, the armies that use 5+ or 6+ saves are costed such that they're expected to get their armor saves (as mediocre as it is) in close combat against all but power-weapon wounds. AP 5 in CC would suddenly give the units filled with chainweaponry what is effectively a "power-weapon against armies -X-, -Y-, and -Z-."

While you *could* just drop the point cost (yet again) on such 5+/6+ units, there comes a point where they're not worthwhile to field, even at 3 points an ork/guardsmen. Especially with 5e's current combat-resolution emphasizing survivability over lethality, and making no effort to represent being outnumbered 20:1.

Corvus Corone
08-12-2011, 17:37
Well, if you made chain-swords AP5, then it shouldn't need any re-pointing, as fairly much all the current users of them already have an AP5 pistol.

Try telling that to guard, tyranid and ork players.

Seriously.

Bunnahabhain
08-12-2011, 17:46
I disagree. I would say you would actually need to re-point them by at least 1 point per model.

Of course, you're right. My though process went- they've already got AP5, so giving them more AP5 doesn't matter, and skipped over the they don't currently get to use AP5 in combat bit...


Try telling that to guard, tyranid and ork players.
I am a Guard player. Just a somewhat tired one...

Corvus Corone
08-12-2011, 17:57
I am a Guard player. Just a somewhat tired one...

Oh okay. Hey guard player. You'll now take 50% more wounds in melee against dudes with chainswords, for no point increase. Sound good?

Shadowfane
08-12-2011, 18:13
The old heavy close combat weapons rule was totally, awfully wrong. It should never come back. I simply cannot believe that a weapon would bring no benefit against carapace armor or similar, be somehow super effective against power armor and similar, and totally super-duper effective against terminator armor and similar.

An ork choppa (which used to be an 'eavy weapon, in this case a large piece of metal on a stick) was normally effective against imperial guard or tau fire warriors. It was great against space marines, somehow cutting through their armor and rendering it less effective. It was awesome against terminators, making their tactical dreadnaught armor (the best personal protection ever devised by mankind) no more effective than simple body armor.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is nuts.

Armor modifiers? Sure, maybe.

But you know what? I think that chainswords should just be AP 5 in close combat. Why shouldn't close combat attacks have AP? We can handle it for shooting? And this would make chainswords excellent against light armor and simple flak vests, but yeild no special benefit against power armor or terminator armor - as you might expect from a chain blade.

Without meaning to derail the conversation, the rationale behind this rule (which first came in for one of the Ork codexs, if I remember rightly), was that opponents with lighter armour would be better able to dodge the blow, relying more on reflexes rather than their armour, which was why they got to keep their save, and there was less dodging and more taking the blow on the armour the better save you had....
Not that I'm saying it was a great rule, but there WAS some justification for doing it... :P

Theocracity
08-12-2011, 18:13
That would be what I call boring game design.

Would you agree that the chainfist upgrade of the powerfist is also pointless?
A similar issue with the thunderhammer, it's as near as makes no difference the same as a powerfist is so why have it?

Personally I'de like to see combat weapons gain AP values along with letting things like assault weapons and pistols be fired while in combat in lieu of the models normal set of attacks. More complex I know, but more interesting and ultimately generates more of a cool factor which is surely what the point of the game is?

I have no problem with special CCWs having weird rules, even rules that aren't that different from other special CCWs. That's because they're special CCWs that cost extra, or only come on specialized squads. Chainswords are not special; they're ubiquitous options for MEQ armies and sparse flavor options for a couple others.

I could be convinced about pistols getting more diverse rules, because the profile for them already exists for shooting and can be replicated. Plus, anything special like a plasma pistol is already limited and paid for. There was interesting notes of that in some of the 6th edition rumors, though I think it'd need to be hashed out a bit.

I can't really help your preference in game design though. Some games are more abstract and large scale, some are more crunchy and small scale. I suggest playing Necromunda, Inquisitor, or even Dark Heresy with models if you get more fun out of that style.

Cortez
08-12-2011, 18:19
I liked the old chain axe rules always 4+ save in combat. But they kinda need to nerf the storm shield rules.
I play marines and think they are too hard.
Peace.

Phaeron Setek
08-12-2011, 19:13
How about we make them all do STR-based armor save reduction, like in WHF? That would go over great!

Sakura
08-12-2011, 23:07
Chainswords are silly in real life, the way to make them work in fiction is to say theyre very heavy like a club and the teeth spin on trigger at really high speeds which makes everything soft and smushy when the weight of the sword hammers the blades through.

The other thing is that some multinational has the executive contract with the imperium that makes chainswords, they may not be very good but theyre well stocked and a chainsword is marginally better than a stick which they would be otherwise getting.

Adding +1 to someones armour save is a bit meh as they tear through flesh better anyway.
I would go with teh re roll the 1s option.

JManJump
09-12-2011, 08:14
Making a point here if chainswords were any better how would it stand for IG sargents?
they use a chainsword and it would have plenty of problems for a start wouldn't it be heavy? Most people have to hold a chainsaw with two hands mind you. and ways if I had to chose I would say that Rending would be good but not much more (if any) than that.

Harwammer
09-12-2011, 08:38
Or we could nerf combat-knives I guess . . .

Compared to chainswords combat knives shouldn't even be CCWs *looks at space marine tactical squads* ... oh wait that's they system we have in place now* ;)


Sorry for the facetiousness of my reply, Denny, but the point has been raised a couple of times already :p

* for that particular entry at least

Odin
09-12-2011, 19:20
Making a point here if chainswords were any better how would it stand for IG sargents?
they use a chainsword and it would have plenty of problems for a start wouldn't it be heavy? Most people have to hold a chainsaw with two hands mind you. and ways if I had to chose I would say that Rending would be good but not much more (if any) than that.

Well, I'm leaning towards the approach GW took with shotguns. With the DA codex they made their shotguns S4, then they did the same with the main Marine codex and so on.

Could do the same with chainswords - as each marine codex comes out, give them rending chainswords (with appropriate price adjustment). Orks don't need it - they have all manner of things that are basically just choppas, and the basic Ork rules cover it. Scorpions already have their own special chainswords.

Bit trickier deciding how to do it for IG. Could simply leave them as they are (I believe they still have S3 shotguns don't they?). Or could make it a cheap upgrade for sergeants and appropriate ICs.

Theocracity
09-12-2011, 19:47
Well, I'm leaning towards the approach GW took with shotguns. With the DA codex they made their shotguns S4, then they did the same with the main Marine codex and so on.

Could do the same with chainswords - as each marine codex comes out, give them rending chainswords (with appropriate price adjustment). Orks don't need it - they have all manner of things that are basically just choppas, and the basic Ork rules cover it. Scorpions already have their own special chainswords.

Bit trickier deciding how to do it for IG. Could simply leave them as they are (I believe they still have S3 shotguns don't they?). Or could make it a cheap upgrade for sergeants and appropriate ICs.

You're starting to apply wildly different standards across different armies. Orks use chain weapons too; why wouldn't they get rending? Even within one army things start to get messy; what if I want an assault squad but don't want to pay for chainswords? Now we need a whole new set of arms in the box.

In game design, complexity and fun can coexist. But sometimes you have to take a step back, look at things objectively and ask "is this adding more fun, or just making things more complicated?"

Odin
09-12-2011, 22:06
You're starting to apply wildly different standards across different armies. Orks use chain weapons too; why wouldn't they get rending? Even within one army things start to get messy; what if I want an assault squad but don't want to pay for chainswords? Now we need a whole new set of arms in the box.

In game design, complexity and fun can coexist. But sometimes you have to take a step back, look at things objectively and ask "is this adding more fun, or just making things more complicated?"

No issue here. Orks just have a variety of stuff, and have appropriate rules already.

Assault squads don't have to pay for chainswords, it's standard equipment.

theunwantedbeing
09-12-2011, 22:29
In game design, complexity and fun can coexist. But sometimes you have to take a step back, look at things objectively and ask "is this adding more fun, or just making things more complicated?"

Adding more fun! :D

Theocracity
09-12-2011, 22:42
Adding more fun! :D

For fans of assault marines, sure.

GW has an interest in providing for more than just fans of assault marines. Say, the Orks who stare at the chainswords in their boyz mobs and wonder why they don't get rending (in the currently discussed example).

Being objective means looking at more than just the particular aspect you're advocating.

Odin
09-12-2011, 22:53
For fans of assault marines, sure.

GW has an interest in providing for more than just fans of assault marines. Say, the Orks who stare at the chainswords in their boyz mobs and wonder why they don't get rending (in the currently discussed example).

Being objective means looking at more than just the particular aspect you're advocating.

Because they get furious charge instead... next!

Theocracity
10-12-2011, 02:23
Because they get furious charge instead... next!

They already have that. Getting the charge is the only thing that gives boyz S4, even. That's not really my point though - I'm not advocating for better rules for Boyz. I'm saying that if you start changing one aspect of balance it throws into question a lot of other factors.

For example, I think you're underestimating how good of a rule rending can be. 6's always wounding and counting as AP2 means that MCs, Terminators, and other tough units (even vehicles!) are vulnerable to basic infantry wielding chainswords. Is that an intended effect of this change? I don't think so.

(edited for some clarifications)

Buddha777
10-12-2011, 03:24
I always thought chainswords, with all their crazy 40k ridiculousness, could have been treated like the biting blade in warhammer fantasy and give the wielder a -1 armor save against enemies.

Kloud13
10-12-2011, 03:33
I remember reading one of the Ciaphas Cain novels, and during a fight with his chainsword, he flipped a switch that changed the swords setting from unarmoured to armoured targets. When he flipped the switch, different teeth flipped out on the chain itself. If I remember that right.

Chainsaw bayonets in "Gears of War" were a riot to use. I think of them everytime I roll for a chainsword wielding model.

The only time I really opt to take a chainsword, is I exchange the Bolter for the chainsword on my Devestator Sgt's. They rarely pull the trigger anyway as they can't shoot in order to give one of the hvy weapons BS 5. The chainsword just gives them an extra attack with their pistol just in case the Devestators get assaulted.

Odin
10-12-2011, 12:45
I always thought chainswords, with all their crazy 40k ridiculousness, could have been treated like the biting blade in warhammer fantasy and give the wielder a -1 armor save against enemies.

That would be the ideal solution I think. If only 40K players were still considered capable of coping with modifiers.

Rending next best option.



They already have that. Getting the charge is the only thing that gives boyz S4, even. That's not really my point though - I'm not advocating for better rules for Boyz. I'm saying that if you start changing one aspect of balance it throws into question a lot of other factors.

For example, I think you're underestimating how good of a rule rending can be. 6's always wounding and counting as AP2 means that MCs, Terminators, and other tough units (even vehicles!) are vulnerable to basic infantry wielding chainswords. Is that an intended effect of this change? I don't think so.

(edited for some clarifications)

I know they already have that - that was my point. Rather than having uniform well-manufactured chainswords on every model (like assault marines) they have a variety of brutal weaponry that is already covered by the furious charge special rule.

And yes, that would be the intention. At the moment, assault squads are very good against unarmored enemies, but pretty useless against MEQs. They need to be a bit better at that (with appropriate cost increase).

Theocracity
10-12-2011, 17:39
That would be the ideal solution I think. If only 40K players were still considered capable of coping with modifiers.

Rending next best option.




I know they already have that - that was my point. Rather than having uniform well-manufactured chainswords on every model (like assault marines) they have a variety of brutal weaponry that is already covered by the furious charge special rule.

And yes, that would be the intention. At the moment, assault squads are very good against unarmored enemies, but pretty useless against MEQs. They need to be a bit better at that (with appropriate cost increase).

But the problem isn't that it makes Assault Squads better at fighting MEQs - though it definitely does that. It also makes them primo units for mulching Trygons, Terminators, Dreadknights, and other units not usually known for being vulnerable to chainswords.

Also, if you increase the cost of these units proportional to the fact that they are now huge threats to those units, you're actually going to end up with the opposite of what you want - less of the iconic chainsword showing up in the game. Space Marines already have tools to fight those units, and players already tend to avoid expensive offensive options on units that lack good defense. The only reason people would pay for rending assault marines is if that's what they were using them for - and they could easily say "why am I paying even more for a unit with a 3+ when I could just use assault termies?"

Combat modifiers like -1 armor are one thing, but frankly you can't just give them to one army and claim balance. Other armies would need similar tools or they would get left behind. And at that point, all you've done is add more rules to return to a status quo. That's extra complication without adding anything useful to the game.

BrainFireBob
10-12-2011, 22:39
\And yes, that would be the intention. At the moment, assault squads are very good against unarmored enemies, but pretty useless against MEQs. They need to be a bit better at that (with appropriate cost increase).

Which shows that this isn't about the chainsword at all, this is about the Assault Marine not being a top-tier assault unit. And you can't have two different cost profiles vs. what you're fighting.

You're also limiting yourself- short-sightedly- to the existing rules-set. This is an irritation of mine.

If you want to make chainswords special again, without changing the cost too significantly, and want it to reflect the fluff, then give it a rule of its own. Don't just cop out and claim "accidentally" the best assault rule in the game.

For instance: On a 6 to wound, it does two wounds. Call it "nitro". Or, chainsword users can elect to take an attack at +1 strength but -2 initiative. Call it "Hitting the button". Makes it function theoretically as a powerfist-light.

That kind of thinking would, I think, be a more appropriate way to make the chainsword once again "Special" without just screwing over every army without default chainsword options.

sulla
11-12-2011, 06:32
Chainswords; All models with chainswords count as s4.

Boom, there's your special rule for chainswords... :P

Grand Master Raziel
11-12-2011, 07:01
Without meaning to derail the conversation, the rationale behind this rule (which first came in for one of the Ork codexs, if I remember rightly), was that opponents with lighter armour would be better able to dodge the blow, relying more on reflexes rather than their armour, which was why they got to keep their save, and there was less dodging and more taking the blow on the armour the better save you had....
Not that I'm saying it was a great rule, but there WAS some justification for doing it... :P

That's just stupid. The whole idea of power armor is that there are motors and servos supporting the weight of the armor for you. Thus, your reaction time isn't slowed by the weight of the armor. If anything, flak and carapace armor would be more encumbering to the wearer, not less. That's not even taking into account the superhuman strength of most power armor wearers - so they'd be even less likely to be slowed by armor, not more.