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.

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.