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.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Got a reference for that? I'm not aware of any rule regarding WYSIWYG or even having equipment shown at all beyond some specific examples (of which a Chainsword is not one)..

Indeed. A more accurate response would have been that If you subscribe to WYSIWYG, then a chainsword instead of a CCW would be technically (but not practically) against the rules...

Page 41

Many weapons (combat knives, maces, axes and other improvised or primitive weapons) don't confer any Strength bonuses, AP values or special rules. These weapons are referred to as 'close combat weapon' in the model's wargear.

Put spikes on it and call your chainsword an 'improvised weapon' I'd be cool with that...don't chaos chainswords come with spikes and blades anyway?

Some play WYSIWYG almost religiously.

And even they wouldn't have a problem with chainswords = CCW.

Also, GW sells chaos space marines with chainswords, bolters and bolt pistols, so even they see them as interchangeable.

And noone ever anywhere would penalize a chaos marine player for using chainswords on their marines.

Thought I would through my two cents in here, being a chaos space marine and IG player who started in 4th edition:

So it seems this is starting to be a comment occurence in 7e, which saw the overhaul of "Unique wargear" and specific rules for a wide variety of power and melee weapons which were previously grouped into larger classifications.

I think its worth noting that a model with a bolt pistol and a CCW has a different loadout then one with a bolt pistol and chainsword, however game-wise they have the exact same profile so tactically one is no different from the other but the two are 2 different weapons.

Its simaler to a something I have recently discovered with my Chaos Renegades, one of their unique rules is mixed weapons, as a result of scavaged wargear squads can have mixed numbers of lasguns, autoguns, shotguns, or bolt pistols and CCW's, while this makes sense for the most part, it is wierd how it also mentiones lasguns as being different then autoguns, however like the CCW vs. chainsword debate they share the exact same profile, purpose, and use and only differ by name and appearance. Yet my army rules specifically remind me to make sure all my models are WYSIWYG when it comes to these, even when it comes to what guys are euipped with an autogun, vs a lasgun, when in the game tactically the two have zero differences and it doesnt really matter how many of my renegade militiamen have autoguns in a squad vs lasguns, just which ones have pistols and ccws, or shotguns.

I don't believe this is a real thread...

Look at who made it and it all makes sense.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't believe this is a real thread...

What's not to believe?

I'm in the process of constructing a CSM army and am trying to determine what I should put on the models.

Of course Chainswords are Close Combat weapons. They are in the CCW section of the BRB. They also have the exact same profile as a basic "close combat weapon". They is no practical reason a Chainsword cannot represent a basic CCW.

Now if we turn our attention to the Eldar Codex, we can see that a Striking Scorion chainsword is indeed different, as it has User Str +1 and AP6.

Rarely, ALL chainswords should have AP5. That just makes sense.

If you disagree with a user don't come into a thread and make nothing posts to state that. If you think a thread doesn't have value then tag the OP and it'll get looked at, but don't come in and post spammy little snide comments. Thanks

Why? It doesn't add much really as things with Sv5+ die anyway so it just bloats rules. The reason Scorpions are different is because being a S3 assault unit is bad.

pm713 wrote:
Why? It doesn't add much really as things with Sv5+ die anyway so it just bloats rules. The reason Scorpions are different is because being a S3 assault unit is bad.

AP5 would give it flavor. Not ever rules change has to make something AWESOME. Sometimes a rule or ability should exist because it "feels" right.

 Galef wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Why? It doesn't add much really as things with Sv5+ die anyway so it just bloats rules. The reason Scorpions are different is because being a S3 assault unit is bad.

AP5 would give it flavor. Not ever rules change has to make something AWESOME. Sometimes a rule or ability should exist because it "feels" right.

I definitely agree, its not really much of a rule change that matters much but it makes since being its a min-chainsaw in the shape of a sword it could easily cut through flak armor and other 5+ armours. However this would mean that GW would have to make it cost slightly extra and would mean WYSIWYG would have to be applied to chainswords.

Im fine with this though, I think its worth it.

 Galef wrote:
Of course Chainswords are Close Combat weapons. They are in the CCW section of the BRB.

No, they're not. 'Close Combat Weapons' and 'Chainswords' are both different Melee weapons that just happen to share identical profiles. There is no 'Close Combat Weapon section' in the rulebook.


That's where the technicality comes in... They're not technically interchangeable, because they have separate entries. If they were ranged weapons, that would matter for rolling to wound... as even though they have the same stats, they would have to roll to wound separately. In melee, though, that doesn't matter... they have the same S and AP, so roll to wound together anyway.

It will only matter if a rule comes along that refers specifically to 'Close Combat Weapons' or 'Chainswords'.

 insaniak wrote:
There is no 'Close Combat Weapon section' in the rulebook.

It depends on how broad the word "section" is used. There is a portion of the rulebook called "Close Combat Weapon" which is at the same level as "Pistol Weapons" and "Heavy Weapons".

And if one is willing the fact that their actual profiles match outside of the name, it could be alluded to that the Chainsword is a Close Combat Weapon. However, a Chainsword does not call this relationship in and of itself.

insaniak wrote:No, they're not. 'Close Combat Weapons' and 'Chainswords' are both different Melee weapons that just happen to share identical profiles. There is no 'Close Combat Weapon section' in the rulebook.


That's where the technicality comes in... They're not technically interchangeable, because they have separate entries. If they were ranged weapons, that would matter for rolling to wound... as even though they have the same stats, they would have to roll to wound separately. In melee, though, that doesn't matter... they have the same S and AP, so roll to wound together anyway.

It will only matter if a rule comes along that refers specifically to 'Close Combat Weapons' or 'Chainswords'.

This is what where the rubber hits the road, imho:

If I were to show up at a tournament with chainswords on chaos space marines, would the TO have me disqualified?

 Traditio wrote:
If I were to show up at a tournament with chainswords on chaos space marines, would the TO have me disqualified?

This would depend on how strict the TOs are about WYSIWYG, but in general: I would say that you'd be fine.

Can't believe this is even a question... the Chaos Marine Kit comes with Chainswords. Glue them on your Chaos Marines. They now have a melee weapon modelled, which for all intents and purposes is the 'Close Combat Weapon' option in the codex. Play the game, and watch as no-one even thinks to question it.

The only complaint you might ever get is if you didn't physically model the melee weapon, but paid for the upgrade anyway (ie you want to model them holding Boltguns but also have the extra CCW for melee). In that case as long as you clearly note it in your Army List then it shouldn't be an issue. I'd expect you to at least have the common courtesy of not showing up with a 3 identical looking squads, but all having different loadouts of CCW's though. And even then there's enough little combat knives in the kit that you can glue on to represent the CCW anyway.

 Traditio wrote:

insaniak wrote:No, they're not. 'Close Combat Weapons' and 'Chainswords' are both different Melee weapons that just happen to share identical profiles. There is no 'Close Combat Weapon section' in the rulebook.


That's where the technicality comes in... They're not technically interchangeable, because they have separate entries. If they were ranged weapons, that would matter for rolling to wound... as even though they have the same stats, they would have to roll to wound separately. In melee, though, that doesn't matter... they have the same S and AP, so roll to wound together anyway.

It will only matter if a rule comes along that refers specifically to 'Close Combat Weapons' or 'Chainswords'.

This is what where the rubber hits the road, imho:

If I were to show up at a tournament with chainswords on chaos space marines, would the TO have me disqualified?

Yeah nobody is going to sick the TO on you for having chainswords. As people have stated in this thread GW still sells box's of CSM with chainswords in them, and even makea since fluffwise for many csm legions to have them.


Those following a more puritanical viewpoint of the rules might say that you need to make sure you and your army list specificy that any chainswords are just being used as CCW weapons on your models (as us CSM players theoretically can't actually take chainsword's by name on out models tactically)

But I say it doesn't even matter cause no rule specifically referring to, changing, or effecting just specifically chainswords or CCW's and unless GW decides to randomly make one the specification between them doesn't matter.

 Caesar3594 wrote:


Yeah nobody is going to sick the TO on you for having chainswords. As people have stated in this thread GW still sells box's of CSM with chainswords in them, and even makea since fluffwise for many csm legions to have them.


Those following a more puritanical viewpoint of the rules might say that you need to make sure you and your army list specificy that any chainswords are just being used as CCW weapons on your models (as us CSM players theoretically can't actually take chainsword's by name on out models tactically)

But I say it doesn't even matter cause no rule specifically referring to, changing, or effecting just specifically chainswords or CCW's and unless GW decides to randomly make one the specification between them doesn't matter.

Actually you'd be surprised how desperate some players get. I made some of my extra Wulfen using a mixture of spare Wulfen parts and spare terminator parts. One opponent actually tried to get a leg up by calling the TO over because one of my 'frost claws' was actually a Terminator Wolf Claw. Either the TO was familiar with this guy and had had enough of him or was not interested in WYSIWYG. Looked at the model, bumped up my score for mods, showed it to my opponent and kept walking.

Sorry, thank you for that bit of clarification.

Some donkey-caves might try to call you on something stupid like your guys having chainsword's, but if they did try to sick the TO on you he would almost most assuredly just give the opennent a weird look and keep walking. You can be blamed for uses pieces sold and packaged in GW kits, whether your model "has escactly that melee weapon alot"

Plus, the general ruling consensus when it comes to CSM, is that if your converson at least looks good and near what it's supposed to be, an youve clearly put time and effort into the model, and it has pretty much the weapons or load out that your and your list/codex say the model have, then no one really has any basis to complain

 Galef wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Why? It doesn't add much really as things with Sv5+ die anyway so it just bloats rules. The reason Scorpions are different is because being a S3 assault unit is bad.

AP5 would give it flavor. Not ever rules change has to make something AWESOME. Sometimes a rule or ability should exist because it "feels" right.

It doesn't feel right though. At least not to me.

Theres also the counts-as argument. Pretty sure the chainsword counts-as CCW is pretty legit and noone would say you are 'proxying' CCW marines using chainsword marines.

I feel like chainswords should have some really useless AP value. AP6 or something. Just to set it apart from a combat knife. It's so silly. But yeah, my CSMs always have bolt pistol and knife/chainsword.

Just say your chainswords are out of gas/batteries so they have the bludgeon the enemy to death instead of sawing them down

While technically it can be argued that a lead pipe and a chainsword are different weapon types RAW, the practical side of it is that they both have the exact same stat line and function. I am not sure why anybody would care if they are modeled with chainswords "instead" of CCWs, what good it would do to make a big deal about it, and what the person making the complaint has to gain from being picky about it. I mean RAW you could model a CCW as a wet noodle, a nerf bat, or even a giant rubber marital aid (perfect for slaanesh cultists and marines). Seems silly to nit pick over the bits GW provided for their models not being RAW when you can make some really silly weapons and be more correct with the RAW for CCWs.

A human head is CCW according to the rules. I'm sure now one would even notice it if you modelled anything with a chain sword that has access to a CCW.

OP the only issue you might have kitting out your CSMs with chainswords, is a remodellinbg problem -if in a future edition, chainswords were revised to be better than regular cc weapons. Which they should be imo. AP5 wold be fitting or even +1 strength.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
OP the only issue you might have kitting out your CSMs with chainswords, is a remodellinbg problem -if in a future edition, chainswords were revised to be better than regular cc weapons. Which they should be imo. AP5 wold be fitting or even +1 strength.

That's the issue we just recently went through with power/force weapons. Like the last time, we deal with it when it occurs, not before it occurs.

SJ

 thegreatchimp wrote:
OP the only issue you might have kitting out your CSMs with chainswords, is a remodellinbg problem -if in a future edition, chainswords were revised to be better than regular cc weapons. Which they should be imo. AP5 wold be fitting or even +1 strength.

And if they plan on those changes, hopefully they are in place by the time their next codex is written to properly address them, or they errata those changes across the board with Marine/Sisters.

 Nevelon wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Chainswords are psychic weapons, because you have to suspend your disbelief and really really want them to work.

SJ

There are far worse things then the chainsword in the 40k universe that need a rain check from reality. They are, fundamentally, chainsaws. Which obey the laws of physics and don’t need any handwavium to function.

Now are they a practical weapon? You got me here. On anything but the softest of targets they are going to choke, clog, jam, slip, and are in general going to be more of a threat to the wielder then the target. Now some of that might be hand waved away with a little sci-fi super science. Probably not enough to make them functional on a battlefield in anything other then a hyper specialized role.
But the rule-of-cool forgives many, many things. And weaponized chainsaws are awesome!

That depends what type of engine is running them. I have seen personally a motor bike chain snap a wrench in half with out slowing down in the slightest.

So I always figured the chain sword and axe where run by a strong engine which we could not lift but a super human could and the blades where far stronger then the normal pounded down metal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:
OP the only issue you might have kitting out your CSMs with chainswords, is a remodellinbg problem -if in a future edition, chainswords were revised to be better than regular cc weapons. Which they should be imo. AP5 wold be fitting or even +1 strength.

And if they plan on those changes, hopefully they are in place by the time their next codex is written to properly address them, or they errata those changes across the board with Marine/Sisters.

But the chaos space marine spru has them on it. I may be wrong but I am pretty sure in order to equip your 10 man squad with all cc and bolters you needed to use atleast 6 of them. But I also never bought any chaos since....2002 ish I think.

It would be the same as them saying space marine bolters are different then the bolters that come in the spru. The ones that come on the spru are now called super bolters you will need to start cutting arms off.

But hell they scrapped 20+ years of models on squares on a whim so it can happen.

OgreChubbs wrote:


But hell they scrapped 20+ years of models on squares on a whim so it can happen.

IIRC the rules for Age of Sigmar say you can play with any base you choose. Distances measured from the model. They did this to keep their long-standing players happy, which was fairly considerate of them I think.