Maybe something like ap4-5/maybe rending?, I mean come on, they are CHAIN-SWORDS that spin at 10000rpm, they're significant enough in the novels (and Space Marine game too) so why can't they have abit of stopping power on tabletop?


I know 6th Ed. apparently CCW are ap6 but that isn't quite good enough for the good ol' tried & tested chainsword.


Thoughts?

AP 4 or AP 5 and Rending on a 6, I agree. In the fluff Chainswords are brutal instruments of death, but the hands of a 5th Ed Guardsman it is only a vanilla ST3 CC weapon? As in a Guardsman could hit someone with a ripping tearing chainsaw and expect the same effective result as punching with a bare fist?



Looking forward to 5th Ed taking it's place in history alongside Windows Vista and the Yugo.

Exactly! It's just silly, it needs to be FEARED

It needs to make opposing players think twice before running their infantry into a group of TEN CHAINSWORD WIELDING SPACE MARINES.

Let's be honest if it happened in one of the novels the enemy would simply be cut to shreds in seconds!

I agree with Ap4, they need to be priced differently to a knife. Still standard issue for marines, but a squad based upgrade for those guardsmen that take ccws.

For the record, chainswords in dark heresy have penetration 2, roughly equivalent to cutting through light flakweave-- flak armor still provides some protection against it. Even Astartes chainswords only have pen 4 and that's because of monomolecular edged teeth (an upgrade that can apply to non-Astartes chainswords, as well), which is the same as bolt weapons and only enough to get through Flak Armor, carapace still provides some protection against it.

I'd say AP5 at the most given this.

Orlanth wrote:I agree with Ap4, they need to be priced differently to a knife. Still standard issue for marines, but a squad based upgrade for those guardsmen that take ccws.

Only if you increase the price of Marines to account for it.

If you give crude-edge chain-swords AP5 or AP6, how would you classify mono-molecular edged swords? What about weapons which are more suited for combat and less suited for parades?
(Then again, advanced melee weapons are laughable in an environment where 9mm bullets were obsoleted some millennia ago)

Monomolecular swords would be equal to one jump in AP for the weapon (so if standard weapons are AP6, then monomolecular would be AP5). The primary advantage of a chainsword in dark heresy is "Tearing", IE it rolls two dice and picks the highest for damage-- so basically equivalent to rerolling to-wound for tabletop.

Indeed they can do more damage than power weapons because of this.

That said, bolters are pretty over the top in Deathwatch as well...

I'm just trying to picture it fluff-wise, a bloke who's 7ft tall with a huge ripping chainsword repeatedly hacking you with it. I'm not sure anything short of what necrons have for skin would stand a chance against one, just saying haha

Ethancol wrote:I'm just trying to picture it fluff-wise, a bloke who's 7ft tall with a huge ripping chainsword repeatedly hacking you with it. I'm not sure anything short of what necrons have for skin would stand a chance against one, just saying haha

A commissar with a power sword, parrying the chainsword and breaking it with the power field before chopping the marine's head off with the riposte.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andilus Greatsword wrote:That said, bolters are pretty over the top in Deathwatch as well...

Bolters in deathwatch got retconned to be weaker. The old version are the overpowered movie marines, while the new, weaker versions are accurate-to-fluff marines.

Melissia wrote:

Ethancol wrote:I'm just trying to picture it fluff-wise, a bloke who's 7ft tall with a huge ripping chainsword repeatedly hacking you with it. I'm not sure anything short of what necrons have for skin would stand a chance against one, just saying haha

A commissar with a power sword, parrying the chainsword and breaking it with the power field before chopping the marine's head off with the riposte.

BRUTE STRENGTH WHICH CAN CRRRRRUSH WALLS VS. Man who likes trenchcoats and carries a friendly-fire pistol.



WHO WINS?


YOU DECIDE!

This may surprise you, but most commissars are excellent duelists. It's a popular hobby amongst people who carry swords and pistols in 40k, but for commissars, it's also an extension of their combat training, which is excellent, on par with Astartes even.

Chainswords are, honestly, a ludicrous idea for a weapon. Particularly since in at least some fluff, they're supposedly gas-powered. . .

But leaving that aside, you could justify giving chainswords Rending if you wanted to increase the cost of every unit equipped with them by 3-4 points per model. I wouldn't say they should get an AP value, though; chewing through a solid plate of metal or ceramic is actually going to be something a chain-weapon is USUALLY bad at; most strikes would just skate off the surface. It's when the teeth manage to catch a projection or the edge of a plate that they'll dig in and (assuming the teeth are harder than the armor) chew through it.

I actually think a re-roll on a failed to-wound roll of 1 or something would be better. Because the main benefit of a chainsword is that it does more damage to biological targets as its wounds are far more vicious.

Melissia wrote:I actually think a re-roll on a failed to-wound roll of 1 or something would be better. Because the main benefit of a chainsword is that it does more damage to biological targets as its wounds are far more vicious.

I agree with the reroll on a failed to wound roll of 1. I feel that a chainsword, if it hits, is going to to some damage, and for it to do the measly damage equivalent to a 1 (which is autofail) doesn't really tie in with the lore. So at least giving a reroll will give it that much more oomph - especially with assault marines

How many points are you willing to pay for this upgrade?

How much do tyranids pay for their reroll to wound on a failed roll of 1?

To hit? ~2 ppm on average. To wound? They don't have it. They have poisoned, which is ~1-5ppm

chrisrawr wrote:To hit? ~2 ppm on average. To wound? They don't have it. They have poisoned, which is ~1-5ppm

I think it should be higher for marines tho. Since your only putting it on a limited number of models (and ones which are likely better at CC) than tyranids, who are more of a swarm army, so the cost should be lessened for them compared to a marine army.

I think reroll to-wound rolls would be fine, while making it only get the bonus to extra attacks if wielded in pairs. Kind of like the non-power weapon version of a lightning claw, so it makes sense rules wise. (Deep cuts from rumored 6th ed)

So basicly, you have the option to either use it as a regular ccw, in which you would get a bonus with say a pistol, OR you can use it like a lightning claw, granting rerolls to wounds, but it becomes 'coarse' to borrow from the rumored 6th ed, where like powerfists and lightning claws you need 2 for a bonus attack.

This way you can try to add chainsword rules into the game without too much impact on point values. I would also have this apply to 'Astartes' chainswords. Normal guardsmen, who dont get chainswords paired with a pistol, would only benefit from this rule. Perhaps for guardsmen, make the free chainswords get an upgrade to 'Astartes' chainswords for a point cost.

The average guardsman has a CCW, not a chainsword.

The average guardsman has a CCW, not a chainsword.

ah, good! I assumed the ccw was the chainsword, but I do know what they say about assumptions.

Guardsman CCW are usually just regular combat knives.

I'd say chainswords get reroll wounds on a 1, paying ~3ppm would be OK for that, I'd say.

Let's look at what we're paying for, here

On your average 10-man assault squad, you've got 9 chainswords and a power fist, for about 250 points.

Against MEQ on the charge, you get 27 attacks, 13.5 hits, 6.75 wounds, and 2.25 failed saves. Rerolling 1's gets you 8.75 wounds, which is 2.916r failed saves.

I am not willing to pay anything for this upgrade because it is A) something that fits, and B) of almost negligible benefit because the units that make the most use of chainswords will be tac marines and assault marines, one of which is just housing for heavy weapons and the other of which is just housing for power fists.

Although I'm still skeptical of the "leak", I wouldn't mind the idea of chainswords and chainaxes getting some extra kick... Especially because lots of my boys models have chainswords. Of course, they'd actually have to write something into the ork codex, but I'd totally go for a "Choppa Gang".

Honestly, I don't think a minor benefit should be restricted ONLY to chainswords. There are plenty of weapons that have just as much justification for some kind of AP benefit; in particular, like TheHarlequin, I'm thinking of the chainaxes that Berzerkers use and the chain-edged choppas that are common on Ork models. Giving a benefit, even a small one, of this kind ONLY to Space Marines seems. . . unnecessary. It isn't like Space Marines in all their many incarnations don't get enough love already.

Here's what I would propose; create a category of Heavy (or perhaps Piercing) Close-Combat Weapons, or something similar, which have the Rending USR. Let Assault Squads, most MEQ Elite units and certain other close-combat units (Berzerkers, Ork Boyz and Nobz, perhaps Hellions, other such units) purchase them for +3-5 points per model. If you want Assault Squads/Berzerkers/other units usually armed with chain-weapons to have them basic, bump the cost up a little; 20 or 21 ppm for Assault Squads, 24 ppm for Berzerkers. That's fluffy and a definite power boost, as well.

chrisrawr wrote:
I am not willing to pay anything for this upgrade

Then you can't have it and it's a bad rule.

No arbitrary power increases without cost increases.

DarknessEternal wrote:

chrisrawr wrote:
I am not willing to pay anything for this upgrade

Then you can't have it and it's a bad rule.

No arbitrary power increases without cost increases.

This would be fine except for the fact that you're implying the game is perfectly balanced.

Edit: Rather, if the game was perfectly balanced, your statement would be easy to agree with. It isn't, and this change is a step in the right direction - making infantry, especially units such as tactical marines, more effective overall is a good step away from avspam.

The leaked 6th edition rule set gives all CCWs an Ap of 6. That will be perfectly fine for Chainswords.

Looks like we can soon make a tiny little list of upgrades here. Although I'd like to add that the highly sophisticated monomolecular edged chainswords which the Striking Scorpions use add 1 point of strength.

27 attacks, 13.5 hits, 6.75 wounds, and 2.25 failed saves. Rerolling 1's gets you 8.75 wounds, which is 2.916r failed saves.

If you instead reroll all wounds in place of losing the +1 attack bonus for 2 ccw (make chainswords like non-power weapon lightning claws) you get 18 attacks, 9 hits, 4.5 wounds followed by 2.25 wounds for a total of 6.75 wounds.

8 beserkers with chain axe goes from 32 attacks on the charge, 21.3 hits, 14.22 wounds normal to 24 attacks on the charge, 16 hits, 14.22 wounds with reroll to wounds.

Thus, by making chainweapons reroll wounds and taking away the bonus attack unless you wield 2 ccw chain weapons, the chainsword becomes both more damaging than a normal ccw, and also balanced for the 2 units that get them versus MEQ stats, meaning no point cost need be applied.

chrisrawr wrote:
Edit: Rather, if the game was perfectly balanced, your statement would be easy to agree with. It isn't, and this change is a step in the right direction - making infantry, especially units such as tactical marines, more effective overall is a good step away from avspam.

People who play against Tactical Marines with a non-Marine army rarely feel Tactical Marines deserve to be better in assault for no cost increase.

Tactical Marines can't get Chainswords. They only got Bolters and Bolt Pistols.

DarknessEternal wrote:

chrisrawr wrote:
Edit: Rather, if the game was perfectly balanced, your statement would be easy to agree with. It isn't, and this change is a step in the right direction - making infantry, especially units such as tactical marines, more effective overall is a good step away from avspam.

People who play against Tactical Marines with a non-Marine army rarely feel Tactical Marines deserve to be better in assault for no cost increase.

I always wish my opponent's tac squad would finish with my firewarriors so I can get back to shooting them. Maybe our gaming experiences are too different for us to have a reconciliatory opinion on this, but marines generally suck in CC.

chrisrawr wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

chrisrawr wrote:
Edit: Rather, if the game was perfectly balanced, your statement would be easy to agree with. It isn't, and this change is a step in the right direction - making infantry, especially units such as tactical marines, more effective overall is a good step away from avspam.

People who play against Tactical Marines with a non-Marine army rarely feel Tactical Marines deserve to be better in assault for no cost increase.

I always wish my opponent's tac squad would finish with my firewarriors so I can get back to shooting them. Maybe our gaming experiences are too different for us to have a reconciliatory opinion on this, but marines generally suck in CC.

If your opponant has charged you with his tactical squad, that's probably his fault.

Joey wrote:

chrisrawr wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

chrisrawr wrote:
Edit: Rather, if the game was perfectly balanced, your statement would be easy to agree with. It isn't, and this change is a step in the right direction - making infantry, especially units such as tactical marines, more effective overall is a good step away from avspam.

People who play against Tactical Marines with a non-Marine army rarely feel Tactical Marines deserve to be better in assault for no cost increase.

I always wish my opponent's tac squad would finish with my firewarriors so I can get back to shooting them. Maybe our gaming experiences are too different for us to have a reconciliatory opinion on this, but marines generally suck in CC.

If your opponant has charged you with his tactical squad, that's probably his fault.

10 Marines can do a fair amount of damage when they charge. 9 bolt pistols and a flamer followed by 21 Str4 attacks can take a sizable chunk out of a mob of ork boyz(and its ALWAYS preferable to the orks getting the charge)

CCW configures a AP 5 weapon during cc. All CC attacks are made at normal str but ignores armor from 5+

Grey Templar wrote:
10 Marines can do a fair amount of damage when they charge. 9 bolt pistols and a flamer followed by 21 Str4 attacks can take a sizable chunk out of a mob of ork boyz(and its ALWAYS preferable to the orks getting the charge)

Exactly. If you want them to be better in assault, you're going to have to pay for it; they're already sometimes good at it.

Certainly good at it compared to non-MEQ units.

Re-rolling failed wounds is good... that's how my group and I play them.

Ethancol wrote:I'm just trying to picture it fluff-wise, a bloke who's 7ft tall with a huge ripping chainsword repeatedly hacking you with it. I'm not sure anything short of what necrons have for skin would stand a chance against one, just saying haha

But currently just as effective as using a stick, or bare hands...

Byte wrote:

Ethancol wrote:I'm just trying to picture it fluff-wise, a bloke who's 7ft tall with a huge ripping chainsword repeatedly hacking you with it. I'm not sure anything short of what necrons have for skin would stand a chance against one, just saying haha

But currently just as effective as using a stick, or bare hands...

Chain weapon isn't a magical super-sharp edge in most cases, and requires you to grind it against the target. I'd imagine it is a great deal more effective as a weapon against tanks and Necrons, while only offering a greater repertoire against flesh. Hacking against flesh with a chain sword would be similar to a club - possibly a blunt axe. A sharp axe or a pick would probably do more damage.

But if you want to look at it that way, soft pinky humie hands are as likely to damage an unarmoured human as a pulsating, monomolecular, edge that's wreathing in arcane, psychic energy (i.e. a Force Weapon).

Chainswords are just one of those weapons which are ridiculous. Similar to Cloud's sword. Awesomeness super good looking, etc etc, but would be extremely impractical in reality.

Impractical in reality given our current technology yes. Not necessarily given sci-fi technology.

They aren't known for penetrating armor however. They're known for doing massive damage when they hit flesh.

Grind flesh, certainly, but the ideas being flung around here makes no sense what so ever. AP4 and rending at the same time?
The +1S that Striking Scorpions have is decent. Re-rolling to wound as well. AP or rending, less so. (Rending is such a horrible name for what the ability does)

Yes, Piercing would be a better name, but you can blame GW for that.

My suggestion was re-rolling to-wound rolls of 1


For the people complaining about tac marines being too weak (with the boring, predictable inevitability of the heat death of the universe), you realize taht on purchasing these weapons they'd gain a CCW and a pistol, thus an extra attack? That's part fo the reason the chainsword purchase would be so expensive for them.

I would say re rolling 1s would be a good idea, always felt Chainswords needed a boost. That or +1 strength, but str5 assault marines would be pretty nasty. in either case, you would need a points rise for models with chainswords.

Rending doesn't make so much sense, as that generally is better for removing armour rather wounding (I.e. Generally removing a model's armour save occurs more than needing the rending's auto wound on a 6 to wound.)

I think since chainswords are classified as a CCW. They are fine as is. Because if we start changing it, you need to re classify all weapons. Like assualt marines are armed with a bolt pistol and ccw right? So now you need to raise the price to reflect the increase in power. Dont care if they barely do anything against meq, they will do better against geq.

Yeah, marines struggle in combat atm vs guardsmen and fire warriors...

I'd quite like to go back to having armour pen in CC also related to Strength - hopefully in 6th Ed

so Power weapons ignore but

Strength 4 = AP 6
Strength 5 = AP 5
Strength 6 = AP 4
Strength 7 = AP 3
Strength 8 = AP2
Strength 9+ = AP1

Mr Morden wrote:I'd quite like to go back to having armour pen in CC also related to Strength - hopefully in 6th Ed

so Power weapons ignore but

Strength 4 = AP 6
Strength 5 = AP 5
Strength 6 = AP 4
Strength 7 = AP 3
Strength 8 = AP2
Strength 9+ = AP1

This sounds.... silly at best. IT might work in fantasy but this isn't fantasy, this is sci-fi. Sci-fi armor is better than fantasy armor

This would also penalize horde armies a lot too.

Melissia wrote:

This would also penalize horde armies a lot too.

It would. Quoted for truth. I'm personally not looking forward to getting no saves in CC with my boys in 6th edition. Means the only thing my dirty tee shirt will be worth is stopping lasguns and shotgun shells

2nd edition had them at -1 to armor save and str 4(with parry of course, sword). Standard CCW was str (user), with no armor save adjustment, no parry.

So a guardman was swinging at str 4 making MEQ save at 4+.

A marine was swing at str 4 as well, but did benefit from -1 to armor and parry, vice using a combat knife(user str of 4) with no parry and no armor save adjustment.

So yes, I think chainswords need to be differentiated from swinging a bar stool.

They do need more OOOMPH.

Chainswords are melee weapons. Melee weapons do not have an AP rating. Dude.

ChrisChan wrote:Chainswords are melee weapons. Melee weapons do not have an AP rating. Dude.

In 2nd edition they had a -1 to opponents armor save, dude. As described in the first line of my post. Read the whole post next time , dude.

Melissia wrote:

Mr Morden wrote:I'd quite like to go back to having armour pen in CC also related to Strength - hopefully in 6th Ed

so Power weapons ignore but

Strength 4 = AP 6
Strength 5 = AP 5
Strength 6 = AP 4
Strength 7 = AP 3
Strength 8 = AP2
Strength 9+ = AP1

This sounds.... silly at best. IT might work in fantasy but this isn't fantasy, this is sci-fi. Sci-fi armor is better than fantasy armor

This would also penalize horde armies a lot too.

Not sure it would penalise hordes that much - but you could be right .......

Strength 4+ is incredably strong and IIRC essentially the Strength stat represents bascially double that of the level below - so I would be quite happy for an enraged Ork Warboss to be able to ignore basic flak armour- for instance. Still its not something that could just be slotted into the present system with ease.

re silliness - well this is a game where:

If you have WS 10 you still need to roll 3+ on a D6 to hit something with WS1
Almost every faction is careless of the lives of its followers (Guard, Orks, Tryanids) but you can't fire into combat
etc

Mr Morden wrote: I would be quite happy for an enraged Ork Warboss to be able to ignore basic flak armour- for instance.

Then make a rule for the ork warboss.

How about tiered power weapons, i.e.:
Powerfist AP1
Power Sword AP2
Don't know about AP3
Chainaxe AP4
Chainsword AP5
Combat Knife AP6
Pistol/ Blunt Object AP-

Alpha Legionaire wrote:How about tiered power weapons, i.e.:
Powerfist AP1
Power Sword AP2
Don't know about AP3
Chainaxe AP4
Chainsword AP5
Combat Knife AP6
Pistol/ Blunt Object AP-

Chainaxes are no better against armor than chainswords in the lore. The chainaxe does more damage but also is far less useful defensively (IE no parrying).

Alpha Legionaire wrote:How about tiered power weapons, i.e.:
Chainsword AP5

How 'bout "no"?

Putting Guardsmen into assault has been a good strategy for awhile now because they're actually able to take their 5+ saves there like they can't with shooting.

We are basically stuck with the current system unless both the main rules change AND the appropriate codices get rewritten accordingly.


Chainswords could become their own seperate weapon type like LCs, PFs, and THs, but any changes here would result in an imbalance. Assault Marines would become insanely good, it would be ok for Vanilla marines because they arn't great now, but for Blood Angels it would be a massive boost. It would also help Black Templars out.

It might work with a simple redefining of Chainswords as their own weapon, but it could rock the boat so to speak till the codices all got updated to match.

Hey,

I still like the now ancient ability to Parry if you were suign a sword

As others have said - its not going to happen in 5th ed - roll on 6th Ed with my wish list included:

Pre-measuring
Being able to hit things on better than 3+ if you are more than twice WS
Maybe firing into combat
Forge world being compeletly official
Armour and Invulnerable saves both being able to be taken

and other bits and pieces

Chainswords should hav levels of damage: depending on the strength of the wielder.

Str3: Rending
Str4: Ap 4 and Rending
Str5: Ap4 and rending and for every kill in the last CQC phase you get an additional attack( maximum of 3 )

Que assault marines becoming the most broken things ever. "Why yes my BA marines can glance your Landraider in CC"

A re-roll to wound or penetrate armour (and a slight points increase) is good enough.

I don't think an AP bonus is really warranted, as chain weapons are designed primarily to tear through flesh and bone. They aren't precision weapons.

Chainfists provide an additional D6 against vehicles though, so make of that what you will...

A chainsaw weapon, as I think I pointed out earlier, is exactly what you DON'T want if you're trying to go through a hard substance like metal; if the teeth hit a smooth, metallic surface, they're going to skip off, and the result will be that your heavy, very dangerous weapon will be yanked away in a not-entirely predictable direction, HARD. Why it is that chainfists give an AP bonus and power fists don't, I couldn't guess; it really ought to be the other way around. Maybe the idea is that the energy field makes a small hole, which the chainsaw blade can then grip onto and tear wider?

But back on-topic; Rending could make sense. The high-rpm teeth could be highly effective SOMETIMES, if they hit a jagged edge or decoration or something and create a notch in the armor that way for the blade to dig into. A simple re-roll to wound, though, would be more logical; assuming you do get past the armor, a chainsaw edge will indeed have an easy time going through flesh or bone.

Some math; 10 Assault Marines charging T4 opponents score 15 hits, 7.5 wounds at current. With a re-roll they would score 15 hits, 11.25 wounds. Against T3 they score 10 wounds at current, with a re-roll they'd score 13.33.

The overall result would be to make Assault Marines significantly more effective anti-horde (Orks, IG) and slightly more effective against MEQ (on average, they'd get 4 kills instead of 3 charging). Make chain-weapons a 3 ppm upgrade and I think it'd be balanced; Tac squads could take them without replacing anything (making them the same price as Assault Marines are now, with the higher killing power but no jump-packs) and Assault Marines would have them as a basic weapon, and be 21 points per model.

BeRzErKeR wrote:A chainsaw weapon, as I think I pointed out earlier, is exactly what you DON'T want if you're trying to go through a hard substance like metal; if the teeth hit a smooth, metallic surface, they're going to skip off, and the result will be that your heavy, very dangerous weapon will be yanked away in a not-entirely predictable direction, HARD.

You are not an expert on how 40k physics work.

A simple fact like space travel being accomplished via magic should tell you it's different than ours.

DarknessEternal wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:A chainsaw weapon, as I think I pointed out earlier, is exactly what you DON'T want if you're trying to go through a hard substance like metal; if the teeth hit a smooth, metallic surface, they're going to skip off, and the result will be that your heavy, very dangerous weapon will be yanked away in a not-entirely predictable direction, HARD.

You are not an expert on how 40k physics work.

A simple fact like space travel being accomplished via magic should tell you it's different than ours.

If we're going to refer to physics at all, I'm afraid we only have ours to refer to. I am no more (and no less) of an expert on how things work in 40k than anyone else alive.

Furthermore, I'm proposing a rule, not an alteration to physics. I gave an explanation for (one of several) reasons why I think this particular rule is more suitable than some others. If you don't like it, ignore it. No-one will stop you. If you merely feel that you need to point out that a universe in which daemons occasionally come out of FTL drives and eat people is clearly not the same as the universe we live in. . . that's just a little pointless, don't you think? I mean, just the fact that I'm talking about chainsaw-swords in the FIRST place should let you know that I already know that; in the real world there would be no way to make this a viable weapons system.

So my point, basically, is that posting "Nuh-uh, you don't know that" in this context, about a tangential aside which is not related to the issue under discussion, and without even pretending to consider what's being talked about, is both colossally stupid and quite irritating to the people who are actually contributing to the conversation.

I think that a parry save type thing would be good. make it like a 6+ FNP to represent PW cutting through it or something....

BeRzErKeR wrote:A chainsaw weapon, as I think I pointed out earlier, is exactly what you DON'T want if you're trying to go through a hard substance like metal; if the teeth hit a smooth, metallic surface, they're going to skip off, and the result will be that your heavy, very dangerous weapon will be yanked away in a not-entirely predictable direction, HARD. Why it is that chainfists give an AP bonus and power fists don't, I couldn't guess; it really ought to be the other way around. Maybe the idea is that the energy field makes a small hole, which the chainsaw blade can then grip onto and tear wider?

its the energy field which lets the teeth do what they do instead of skipping off. The Fist can also make a hole so they can get a foothold and begin shredding.

[quote=Grey Templar Vanilla marines [...] arn't great now

Melissia wrote:[quote=Grey Templar Vanilla marines [...] arn't great now

People keep saying this ,but no matterh ow many times they say it, it's still wrong...

Assault Marines are, in all honesty, quite a weak assault unit.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Assault Marines are, in all honesty, quite a weak assault unit.

Seriously, THAT is the position you're taking?

That's so far detached from reality that I am at a loss for words.

Melissia wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Assault Marines are, in all honesty, quite a weak assault unit.

Seriously, THAT is the position you're taking?

That's so far detached from reality that I am at a loss for words.

Ummm, are we playing the same game Melissa?

In a game where there are Assault Terminators, GKs, Wytches, BA assault marines, Genestealers and the like, Vanilla Assault Marines are kinda lackluster.

They arn't horrible, but they arn't worth taking over things like Landspeeders except in the most strange of circumstances(like Tailoring to fight Tau)

Melissia wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Assault Marines are, in all honesty, quite a weak assault unit.

Seriously, THAT is the position you're taking?

That's so far detached from reality that I am at a loss for words.

Uh. . .

Yes. I play Orks. I get a better assault unit than Assault Marines for two-thirds of the price, and mine can shoot too.

CSM get a unit that's just as good AND can take a metal box for 3 ppm less, or they can pay 3ppm more for a Fearless unit with more attacks and Furious Charge.

Nids get a better assault unit for free from a Tervigon.

Do I need to go on? Assault Marines are, at best, second-tier. For vanilla marines, they're simply not worth taking. Now, for Blood Angels it's a bit of a different story, but we aren't discussing Blood Angels, or at least I'm not.

Grey Templar wrote:In a game where there are Assault Terminators, GKs, Wytches, BA assault marines, Genestealers and the like, Vanilla Assault Marines are kinda lackluster.

Terminators: Far more expensive and less mobile than assault marines..

Grey Knights: Less mobile than assault marines, less variety of support units, no combat tactics.

Wyches: Far, FAR less durable, especially outside of melee. Less mobile, don't hit as hard, no combat tactics, no ranged firepower before the charge.

BA Assault marines: Must roll red thirst, no combat tactics.

Genestealers: Far less durable, less mobile, no ranged firepower before the charge. When upgraded they are more expensive, as well. They are fearless, with no combat tactics.

I can hear the response already: "oh woe is me, my codex sucks so hard, I have no options to win, oh noes!"

Codex: SM has got a number of decent options. It isn't one of the strongest codexes, but it's still perfectly playable. It's just that Assault Marines are not one of those options.

Everything that I would say has already been said save one thing. It doesn't matter how it would work in real life, effectiveness in Warhammer 40k seems to be based on how cool it is.

Melissia wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:In a game where there are Assault Terminators, GKs, Wytches, BA assault marines, Genestealers and the like, Vanilla Assault Marines are kinda lackluster.

Terminators: Far more expensive and less mobile than assault marines. No, really? I guess the fact they kill more per point and are infinitly more durable doesn't count then?

Grey Knights: (1)Less mobile than assault marines, (2)less variety of support units, (3)no combat tactics. (1) Interceptors are just as mobile, and mobility isn't everything. (2) So? Low variety means nothing in terms of effectivness. GKs have the tools to do anything, except they rely on Psycannons instead of Lascannons and Missiles to deal with armor. (3) Again, So what? GKs don't need Combat Tactics.

Wyches: Far, FAR less durable, especially outside of melee. Less mobile, don't hit as hard, no combat tactics, no ranged firepower before the charge. Less mobile? Ever heard of Raiders? 21-26" charge range seems damn mobile to me(12" move, 2" disembark, D6" fleet, 6" assault) And lets be honest, Bolt Pistols and Flamers arn't a whole lot(Vanilla Marines can't take Meltaguns)

BA Assault marines: Must roll red thirst, no combat tactics. Red Thirst is about even, I automatically get Furious Charge and become Fearless 1/6 of the time. And again, Combat Tactics isn't a huge deal. Plus these guys can get FnP which makes them as durable as Terminators against most attacks

Genestealers: Far less durable, less mobile, no ranged firepower before the charge. When upgraded they are more expensive, as well. They are fearless, with no combat tactics. Expense means nothing if they are more effective on a point per point basis.

I can hear the response already: "oh woe is me, my codex sucks so hard, I have no options to win, oh noes!" I never said Vanilla Marines suck, they don't, I said Vanilla Assault Marines are a sub-optimal choice within the Codex. You can have bad choices in a codex that is supremely awsome, like IG. They have tons and tons of lame units, the good ones make up for it though.

You seriously over-value combat tactics. It's good when used right, but all it really does is save your hide when you are losing. The real CC unit won't ever be in a situation where it would need to use Combat Tactics.

Byte wrote:

ChrisChan wrote:Chainswords are melee weapons. Melee weapons do not have an AP rating. Dude.

In 2nd edition they had a -1 to opponents armor save, dude. As described in the first line of my post. Read the whole post next time , dude.

Dude, be cool! If GW get wind that folk are speaking wistfully of 2nd Edition we will all be drowning in stupid Relic Cards and Wargear tables before you know it.

Besides, everyone and his mother has a chainsword nowadays, so giving them a BRB convention in the same way as Lightning Claws or Witchblades would need to take into account things like 4pt Warrior Acolytes in the Grey Knights Codex, who get Chainswords as part of their standard wargear and can be joined by nutty Inquisitors with psychic powers that increase their Strength and grenades that decrease your Toughness and Initiative, or Grey Hunters who also get chainswords as standard. 30 base attacks from MEQs that gimp your armour save, for 15pts per model? Yes please!

The whole idea kinda smacks of someone who wants to make MEQs better at close combat. That's not what MEQs are for; and even if it was, if you're going to start putting AP values on melee attacks why not just ask GW to allow Bolt Pistols to be fired in CC? That would be easier to account for than having Chainswords work like Berzerker axes.

Hmm I wouldn't mind changes to the chainsword, but that would require an update or at least a mention of every codex to distinguish between simple close combat weapons and chainswords for every unit and might be a problem for people who mixed them up. But other then that, yeah why not.

Edit: Also, that would strengthen Imperial armies (as in Space Marines, Sisters, etc) even further and might be unbalanced for armies that do not have chainswords and thus remain unchanged while many already strong armies get an upgrade.

I think it might be good if a chainsword gave a reroll of failed 'to wound' rolls of one, and a pair could reroll all failed to wound.

A simple re-roll would be more in line with LCs.

ChrisChan wrote:

Byte wrote:

ChrisChan wrote:Chainswords are melee weapons. Melee weapons do not have an AP rating. Dude.

In 2nd edition they had a -1 to opponents armor save, dude. As described in the first line of my post. Read the whole post next time , dude.

Dude, be cool! If GW get wind that folk are speaking wistfully of 2nd Edition we will all be drowning in stupid Relic Cards and Wargear tables before you know it.

Besides, everyone and his mother has a chainsword nowadays, so giving them a BRB convention in the same way as Lightning Claws or Witchblades would need to take into account things like 4pt Warrior Acolytes in the Grey Knights Codex, who get Chainswords as part of their standard wargear and can be joined by nutty Inquisitors with psychic powers that increase their Strength and grenades that decrease your Toughness and Initiative, or Grey Hunters who also get chainswords as standard. 30 base attacks from MEQs that gimp your armour save, for 15pts per model? Yes please!

The whole idea kinda smacks of someone who wants to make MEQs better at close combat. That's not what MEQs are for; and even if it was, if you're going to start putting AP values on melee attacks why not just ask GW to allow Bolt Pistols to be fired in CC? That would be easier to account for than having Chainswords work like Berzerker axes.

Its not my idea, GW's rules in second edition. BTW Pistols were able to fire in CC in second...

Grey Templar wrote:the fact they kill more per point and are infinitly more durable doesn't count then?

They give up mobility for it. Or are you going to argue that assault marines should be more mobile than terminaters while being just as killy?

Grey Templar wrote:(1) Interceptors are just as mobile

And more expensive.

Grey Templar wrote:(2) So? Low variety means nothing in terms of effectivness.

*looks at Guard codex versus Witch Hunters codex* You are hilariously wrong.

Grey Templar wrote:(3) Again, So what? GKs don't need Combat Tactics.

It's still an advantage over them.

Grey Templar wrote:Less mobile?

Yes.

Grey Templar wrote: Ever heard of Raiders?

Yeah, I blew one up with a bolter.

Grey Templar wrote:Red Thirst is about even, I automatically get Furious Charge and become Fearless

Why the hell would you want an assault unit to become fearless?

Grey Templar wrote:[color=red]Expense means nothing if they are more effective on a point per point basis.

They don't for what they do.

Grey Templar wrote:I never said Vanilla Marines suck

Actually yeah, you did. That's the entire tone of your post. That you are unable to make use of combat tactics doesn't bother my argument.

There's no niche in marines that chainswords fill.
If you want tactical squads to be better in CC, give them bolt pistols.
If you want assault marines to be more powerful in CC, you're mad.
Maybe as an assault weapon for guard sargents. I think it's weird how dog trooper sargents are given PW so readily. Maybe +5 points for S4 Rending Close Combat weapon.

Rending does not make sense for chainswords. They are not exceptionally good at penetrating armor.

wow this topic has gone a tad off topic ( lulz at my awsome sense of humour )

Anyhow, my problem has always been the following, that a knife/stick/insert random sharp pointy stabby cutty thing here is treated no different from a chainsword. God damn that thing has a miniature car engine attached to it....

I liked many of the ideas here. but not the rending bit, or the ap bit. Its chain sword, made for eating threw flesh and inflicting grievous wounds, and as such methinks that should be reflected in game even if only a tad.

Something not as game changing as rending ( F*** krack grenades i have a chainsaw ? ) or ap ( would make some units waaay to OP for the ppm )

I like the re-roll idea, but for wounding ( i dont see how shwirling an chainsword makes you hit people any better ....).
Not something OP like re roll all failed wounds or blablabla, something more along the lines "once per assault phase can re roll to wound if you roll a 1".
That would mark the difference between stick and chainsword ...

Alot of the things proposed here would mean we would have to srly modify the actual codices for each army.... i mean ap 4 ? Rending ? meh

HI mayfist.
For the sake of simplicity.
Allowing the chainsword to re roll wounding rolls of 1 .

Would this be enough to make the Chainsword slighlty better -but not over powered.
(I like your idea alot,BTW.)

why thank you Lanrak, sorry if the idea was lost in my unorganized mess of a post

mayfist wrote:
I like the re-roll idea, but for wounding ( i dont see how shwirling an chainsword makes you hit people any better ....).
Not something OP like re roll all failed wounds or blablabla, something more along the lines "once per assault phase can re roll to wound if you roll a 1".
That would mark the difference between stick and chainsword ...

And the point has been made: how much are you willing to pay for that substantial increase in power?

Mabe a 1 or 2ppm , not more. Or nothing actualy... its a minor buff

Well, allowing it to re-roll all wounds would basically make it a light LC.

Which is fluffy and thematic.

Re-rolling all 1s would be a nice addition without actuallly changing the power balance. meaning no point recosting would be needed.

But unlike LC they only work once per assault phase on a single wound.... otherwise it would be OP for the non existent cost of the chainswords.... no ?

Grey Templar wrote:Re-rolling all 1s would be a nice addition without actuallly changing the power balance. meaning no point recosting would be needed.

You are objectively wrong. Please see the rest of the thread.

Why not just increase the cost of models with chainswords? Or add them as an additional upgrade?

Remember that most units modelled with chainswords technically have a CCW, not a chainsword specifically.

That isn't easy to do because it would require EVERY codex with Chainswords in it to be rewritten.

Why would you need to rewrite codices? Just use it as a house rule.

mayfist wrote:nothing actualy... its a minor buff

Then you don't get it.

Marines don't need to be made more powerful, despite the inferiority complex that practically requires most marine players to whine "everything in our codex sucks!"...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I_am_a_Spoon wrote:Why would you need to rewrite codices? Just use it as a house rule.

Because it effects the points value of a lot of units, and it penalizes some units because their codex doesn't have the option.

Orks, for example, are depicted using chain weapons but they don't have any option for it.

Then of course there's the ones that ARE said to have a chain weapon like berserkers.