PDA

View Full Version : Pistol whipped or Chainsword in the face, sir?



lomo
12-09-2006, 00:38
Now I can't say I have ever been pistol whipped, or had a chainsword shoved in my face but I'm pretty sure I know which one would hurt more...

My point...something must be done about the homogenous CC weapon system that exists at the moment. At the moment someone armed with a chainsword will do the same damage as someone armed with some dry grass...this surely seems like madness......Opinions.

Also bring back being able to shoot pistols in CC, now that was fun...though it would make Plasma pistols too good i suppose...

Bregalad
12-09-2006, 00:41
It is not current GW strategy to make combat rules more complex and detailed, as 70-100 pages of rules are more than enough for teen players. But go ahead, if you find veterans that accept your house rules.

damz451
12-09-2006, 00:42
i'd always imagined that the soldiers shot with their pistols in cc, the intro to dawn of war has a good example of that.

Da Reddaneks
12-09-2006, 00:43
i'd always imagined that the soldiers shot with their pistols in cc, the intro to dawn of war has a good example of that.
ditto. i dont really see a problem here at all.

Kegluneq
12-09-2006, 00:45
Rules wise, I think CC incorporates all sorts of funky things like shooting pistols already - the unaltered strength being indicative of the decreased liklihood the shot will hit in a toe to toe encounter (more easily deflected, harder to bring to bear and so on). Chainswords definitely need a boost, I must admit - always wounding on a six would be quite snazzy.

Edit: Have you seen the size of bolt/plasma pistols? Being whipped with one of those would smart a bit ;)

Death Whisper
12-09-2006, 00:46
Aside from a host of other issues with comparing table-top to video gaming the fact that you can shoot before you fight in close combat is the actual 1 shot with pistols that you can fire before you charge.

Ozendorph
12-09-2006, 00:53
I have to admit I was a bit bummed when they made the change to the current system, but there are two critical benefits here:

1. Expediency

2. Variety

Remember back in 2nd Edition when you could go to a dozen tournaments and not see a single model carrying a power axe (because they didn't give you a parry)? I don't want to go back to a system where every model has the same equipment to maximize their CC ability. Having broader catagories like "Close Combat Weapon" and "Power Weapon" let people get more creative with their models without necessarily having to go through a half-hour of "counts-as" explanations before each game.

jimmysnz
12-09-2006, 00:58
Sadly most games-workshop systems are getting more simplistic. Even in the new edition of Warhammer fantasy shooting a pistol in close combat is now gone!
House rules are the way to go, or there are plenty of rules on the net you could use. Personally I would like chain swords to be an armor save modifier, say -1 to your armor save, or perhaps on a roll of 6 to wound no armor save is allowed.

Chainsworded Codpiece
12-09-2006, 01:29
House rules are the way to go, or there are plenty of rules on the net you could use. Personally I would like chain swords to be an armor save modifier, say -1 to your armor save, or perhaps on a roll of 6 to wound no armor save is allowed.


Agreed. I like the comments so far concerning chainswords. My nom de forum has nothing to do with it:)

Also, I was thinking back to RT days. At the back of the "Age of the Imperium" section, there's a splash-page with a group of assault Marines barging through a bulkhead. The bulkhead has been neatly "can-opener'd" by the soon-to-be-blasted pointman...he cut through the bulkhead with...you guessed it, a chainsword.

Maybe, if they don't add anything to CC against other troops, they can provide an extra die (or just some arbitrary extra number) to armor penetration against vehicles and, um, walls and stuff.

But yeah, rah rah to house rules, and Gxd bless yer for wanting more complexity:)

PS-There was a mini version of that sui-cyco Marine. He had wires through his skull into his occipital lobes, and wore a goofy "Cyclops"-style visor.

I believe his name was Brother Nesmith. No foolin'.

lomo
12-09-2006, 02:23
I have to admit I was a bit bummed when they made the change to the current system, but there are two critical benefits here:

1. Expediency

2. Variety



I hate the argument about 4th edition being quicker, i mean if wanted a quick game i would play hungry hippos.

Zzarchov
12-09-2006, 02:58
making chainswords heavy close combat weapons (and thus available to most armies, I know, I say this as an ork too) would be a nice start.

Dais
12-09-2006, 03:07
the problem with making chainswords better than other CC weapons is it dosent have an additional cost or a selection of units that can use it. IG with warrior weapons wounding on 6 or giving terminators a 4+ save when converted black templar command ssquads dont is bad. you want good chainswords? use them as power weapons and combat knives as ccw.

Nehcrum
12-09-2006, 04:40
Agreed. I like the comments so far concerning chainswords. My nom de forum has nothing to do with it:)

Also, I was thinking back to RT days. At the back of the "Age of the Imperium" section, there's a splash-page with a group of assault Marines barging through a bulkhead. The bulkhead has been neatly "can-opener'd" by the soon-to-be-blasted pointman...he cut through the bulkhead with...you guessed it, a chainsword.

Maybe, if they don't add anything to CC against other troops, they can provide an extra die (or just some arbitrary extra number) to armor penetration against vehicles and, um, walls and stuff.

But yeah, rah rah to house rules, and Gxd bless yer for wanting more complexity:)

PS-There was a mini version of that sui-cyco Marine. He had wires through his skull into his occipital lobes, and wore a goofy "Cyclops"-style visor.

I believe his name was Brother Nesmith. No foolin'.
One way of fixing those weapons would be to give all specialized close combat weapons a small bonus. +1S in CC for example. Then lump in all specialized CCWs here, chainswords as well other bladed CCWs (somehow, I don't picture spacefaring races using just a plain sword, but they are either chainswords, monofilament blades, electrically charged or something like that).

This would be in comparison to troops not having specialized CCWs but using generic self-defense weapons, knives, bayonets, riflebutts....
That would give assault marines a +1S in CC, but not tac marines, and not regular imperial guardsmen (but warrior weapons should).

Problem with this is that you have to balance it, and you need to rewrite every codex to point out which units have specialized CCWs and which don't.


Overall, I think it's just assumed that everyone has some sort of specialized CCW....chainswords are nothing special, since everyone has that, or something like that (or they use their ranged weapon to parry with in CC, and instead of stabbing with the bayonet, they pull the trigger when the weapon is pointing in the right direction).

GrimZAG
12-09-2006, 05:24
I believe that GW design used the chain-sword because it is the futuristic equivilent of a normal sword, it just looks "spacy", i have to say a squad of space marines with chainswords definitely looks cooler than if they only had normal looking swords.

xibo
12-09-2006, 07:03
yet IMHO are both cooler and better than chainswords, because you can fight better [agile] with a sword since its much lighter. And can you imagine how to parry a flourish of a chainsword without damaging it?

btw: i found a Strength modifier of +1 for 'real' CC weapons [chain-,power- or normal swords, naginatas] on a hit dice of 6 for additional +1P for each modified Attack count of a model, and allways +1S and -1 armour modifier instead of "clamp to 4+" for khornate chainaxes, uge- and normal choppaz, ... for +(S-2)P*(A)P [boyz pay less than berserkers] was quite ballanced.
We use to play like that at the club... but obviously its more complex to calculate model's pricing ( and therefore will never come to 40k vanilla ruleset ).

Bookwrak
12-09-2006, 08:22
I hate the argument about 4th edition being quicker, i mean if wanted a quick game i would play hungry hippos.

You do know that a few copies of 40K 2nd Edition survived the fires of the great GW purge, don't you? Go play that.

leonmallett
12-09-2006, 08:34
I favour the idea of making them like Choppas/heavy cc weapons as suggested earlier. But then with new codices in print, that ain't going to happen until 5th ed at the earliest.

chickenuggets
12-09-2006, 08:45
Personally I would like chain swords to be an armor save modifier, say -1 to your armor save, or perhaps on a roll of 6 to wound no armor save is allowed.

hell no, this would give them pretty much same footing with rending cc wpns. things like the orks and their choppas would have to be re-pointed because of it. a choppa is better than a ccw but no where as good as a 'chainsword"

RampagingRavener
12-09-2006, 08:53
Shouldn't this be in Rules Development?

Look, I like 40k as it is. I don't want ASM, move stats, special CC abilities for chainswords, shooting pistols in combat, or any of that nonsense. All I want is 4th edition as it is, but with a limited degree of Psychology (Fear/Terror) and a system for randomly generating a scenario using Cards.

If you want a 'logical' explanation for why the pistol gives you an extra attack, at such close range you can use it to distract your opponent by taking shots at their extremities, thereby allowing you to get in a couple of extra chops with your sword.

lomo
12-09-2006, 09:23
You do know that a few copies of 40K 2nd Edition survived the fires of the great GW purge, don't you? Go play that.

I have a copy of 2nd edition that I bought 10 years ago, has served me well, unfortunatly all good things must come to an end. Though some times I Lament for the new generation of 40K player you would never know of the "good ols days"

I must move with the times and adapt, I enjoy not only playing 40K but the social side of meeting new people (albeit mostly socially inept nerds), so why would I not want to play the game that 90% of 40k gamers play...that would just be stupid.

My point however, I think that GW has taken it too far and dumbed down the rules and homogenized (sp?) the armies so much that large elements of skill and common sense have been lost...and thats kinda sad.

Epicenter
12-09-2006, 11:30
I frankly don't see anything wrong with the chainsword being turned into a generic close combat weapon. Given the d6 spread of the game, it just means that the chainsword makes a different, but not a large enough difference from other CCWs to make a huge difference -averaged out, it's the same. Sure, I'm a Guard player and I do miss the all-important +1S that it gave my weedy Guardsmen, but oh well.

If you want to add more complexity to the game, why don't we get rid of this idiotic "Weapons Strength vs. Toughness to wound, unaffected by armor" stuff and replace it with something more reasonable. The thought that your shot hits some T2 frailing then bounces off his Terminator armor is much more silly to me than chainswords not giving any bonus.

Wolflord Havoc
12-09-2006, 12:04
Pistol Whipped?

Using a Pistol weapon in HTH involves unloading a Revolver/Pistol/Autopistol/Boltpistol/Plasma Pistol (enter weapon here) into someone at point blank range. Not beating them over the head with it. AKA Close Quarters Battle.

As opposed to trying to hit them with a Chainsword.

Close combat is not just hack and slash and clubbing - its also switching that weapon over to autofire and hosing down an opponent with a hail of shots @ very close range.

lomo
12-09-2006, 12:19
Forget I mentioned this, the point is obviously lost on most of you.

Assault phase? Can I have the bucket of dice please. Cheers