Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

lixulana wrote:because a chain sword is big and hard to move around and has to cut through armor

a knife is small and fast and goes in between the plates where there is no armor.

either way a strike to a major artery makes you the same amount of dead, the difference is the knife just makes a smaller hole.

This is the 41st millenium, armour doesn't have holes in it

MasterSlowPoke wrote:The Chainsword is really more of a club, anyway.

How exactly does a Chainswor mimic a club?

Zefig wrote:Now consider that a chainsword is equal to bopping someone with the butt of a lasgun.

Now THAT makes me mad!!!

Achilles wrote:Simple answer; Because the thing that is actually dangerous is the guy holding it.

A thousand pound eight foot tall genetically perfect killing machine could stab you with a pencil for similar effect.

That was my favorite part of Inquisitor - a Space Marine was more dangerous hitting you with his bolter than shooting it at you.

Do you imagine an entire Space Marines Assault Squad armed with pencils?!? That would be Awesome!!!

Asherian Command wrote:I am having to put all combat knives and combat gear on all my Wanderers and I thought chainswords look awesome. Then I remembered they don't do anything. Rather take a knife mates.

You've got this backwards, bud! BECAUSE they don't do anything, that gives you the freedom to model them on so your doodz look awesome.

zefig wrote:Now consider that a chainsword is equal to bopping someone with the butt of a lasgun.

You're running afoul of the abstraction, here. They're only equal for the purposes of the simplified rules we use for ease and speed of play. Do you also think that every non-Veteran Imperial Guardsman is actually exactly as good a shot as every other Imperial Guardsmen, just because in game terms they're all BS3?

Both the question and the answer is extremely simple.

"How can chainswords and combat knifes be equal?"

The answer is quite simply;

Because the rules tell us they are.


Forget the real world. This is Warhammer 40K. Real life physics have no meaning.

The reality of 40k is dictated by the rules, not real life.

Mannahnin wrote:

zefig wrote:Now consider that a chainsword is equal to bopping someone with the butt of a lasgun.

You're running afoul of the abstraction, here. They're only equal for the purposes of the simplified rules we use for ease and speed of play. Do you also think that every non-Veteran Imperial Guardsman is actually exactly as good a shot as every other Imperial Guardsmen, just because in game terms they're all BS3?

If I could draw your attentions to p.33 of the BRB, first page of "the assault phase" In the bottom right you will clearly see how the chainsword came to be as good as the lasgun butt.

Mannahnin wrote:

zefig wrote:Now consider that a chainsword is equal to bopping someone with the butt of a lasgun.

You're running afoul of the abstraction, here. They're only equal for the purposes of the simplified rules we use for ease and speed of play.

Congratulations! You managed to figure out what my post was all about!

Unless there's a specific rule that makes his weapon better at killing people (augmenting strength, slicing through armor, eating your soul, etc) you're going to be just as out of the action regardless of whether a space marine drop kicks you, chops your arm off with his chain sword, runs you through with a giant bowie knife, or crushes your skull in his fist.

Acidwraine wrote:

If I could draw your attentions to p.33 of the BRB, first page of "the assault phase" In the bottom right you will clearly see how the chainsword came to be as good as the lasgun butt.

That is an awesome picture.

The size and weight of the weapon could be argued as a hinderance against many foes. If you had a chainsaw and your foe had a Rapier, odds are the rapier would win. One swing of the chainsaw and you would be run through with the light, nimble metal blade. There are many instances where a smaller and more nimble weapon will beat out a large heavy one. A shooting example would be a machine pistol and a machine gun in city fighing. The MP is easier to weild and track a target with. Similarly in WW2 Sherman tanks with inferior but shorter barrel main gun made use of the forest which inhibited the ability of the longer and more powerful Tiger and Panther tanks 88mm main gun from traversing. just my .02$.

sennacherib wrote:The size and weight of the weapon could be argued as a hinderance against many foes. If you had a chainsaw and your foe had a Rapier, odds are the rapier would win. One swing of the chainsaw and you would be run through with the light, nimble metal blade. There are many instances where a smaller and more nimble weapon will beat out a large heavy one. A shooting example would be a machine pistol and a machine gun in city fighing. The MP is easier to weild and track a target with. Similarly in WW2 Sherman tanks with inferior but shorter barrel main gun made use of the forest which inhibited the ability of the longer and more powerful Tiger and Panther tanks 88mm main gun from traversing. just my .02$.

Dude, a Chainsword IS a rapier for a Space Marine, the combat blade is like a weird pecil-like....thing

@waasssddddComparing a chainsword to a rapier is just wrong, for one stabbing with a chainsword wouldnt really work.

I was reading "The Founding" by Dan Abnett and he describes the art of fighting with a Chainsword vs Chainsword is chainging the direction of the blades rotation, to make your opponents blade bounce off, so you can get the slash at them. (Not entirely important, i thought you guys might be nterested

sennacherib wrote:The size and weight of the weapon could be argued as a hinderance against many foes. If you had a chainsaw and your foe had a Rapier, odds are the rapier would win. One swing of the chainsaw and you would be run through with the light, nimble metal blade. There are many instances where a smaller and more nimble weapon will beat out a large heavy one. A shooting example would be a machine pistol and a machine gun in city fighing. The MP is easier to weild and track a target with. Similarly in WW2 Sherman tanks with inferior but shorter barrel main gun made use of the forest which inhibited the ability of the longer and more powerful Tiger and Panther tanks 88mm main gun from traversing. just my .02$.

your two cents are worthles..... WORTHLESS!!! You failed to take inflation into account!

Tekeino wrote:@waasssddddComparing a chainsword to a rapier is just wrong, for one stabbing with a chainsword wouldnt really work.

I was reading "The Founding" by Dan Abnett and he describes the art of fighting with a Chainsword vs Chainsword is chainging the direction of the blades rotation, to make your opponents blade bounce off, so you can get the slash at them. (Not entirely important, i thought you guys might be nterested

I think I remember that, but i also read other chainblade fights too. In each instance the chain-blades were'nt spinnning during the sword-fighting until the weapon struck flesh because horrible things would happen to the blade if running teeth met running teeth.

Hasn't this moved beyond You Make The Call and is firmly in 40k Background-land?