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.

HA, the chainsword cutlass makes perfect sense to me on terminators, also screw gw for the low chainaxe supply.
Warning, terrible paintjob ahead

Not Online!!! wrote:
HA, the chainsword cutlass makes perfect sense to me on terminators, also screw gw for the low chainaxe supply.
Warning, terrible paintjob ahead

Spoiler:

Seems to fit, I like the look of it quite a lot.

Yeah, it's really too bad they wasted a ton of sprue on trophy racks, where they could have put chain axes and lightning claws there.

 Togusa wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
HA, the chainsword cutlass makes perfect sense to me on terminators, also screw gw for the low chainaxe supply.
Warning, terrible paintjob ahead

Spoiler:

Seems to fit, I like the look of it quite a lot.

Yeah, it's really too bad they wasted a ton of sprue on trophy racks, where they could have put chain axes and lightning claws there.

I made it fit, altough i can't reccomend them for your sanity sake to be used in conjunction of bloodwarriors which you want to kitbash so much bloody cutting involved, altough i am kinda happy that i went ahead anyways with that idea of mine.



Whilest the curved grip effect looks great cutting a chainsword arm into 4 differing parts gets annoying over time

+1 Attack and Re-roll failed wounds in combat.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
+1 Attack and Re-roll failed wounds in combat.

Is that a smart idea?
Consider that khorne double fighting stratagem exist aswell as VotLW and or more where they came from?

You bring up a valid point. I live in the past and constantly forget about strategems.

Is strength 4 and sometimes 5 in close combat going to break the bank though when an army like Eldar has access to Doom with shooting?

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
You bring up a valid point. I live in the past and constantly forget about strategems.

Is strength 4 and sometimes 5 in close combat going to break the bank though when an army like Eldar has access to Doom with shooting?

Yes and no, VotLW exists as a matter of fact, also eldar can't recycle marine or cultist bodies, which is a wierd advantage.

Additionally VotLW does not change S but instead just adds +1 to wounds making T7 vehicles easily wounded for exemple.

Attacks with this weapon which result in a wound, roll a D6. On a 5+, add another damage to the wound.

 Galef wrote:
Not a bad change, but I don't really think it gives the chainsword either what it needs, nor does it make sense why it's getting D3 extra attack.
Plus, mechanically this change would be tedious. Imagine 20 CSM having to roll 20 D3s just to add up how many extra attacks the unit gets. No thanx.

What chainswords SHOULD be is AP-1. They are made to literally RIP into armour.
So make them S: User AP:-1 DMG: 1 "This weapon generates 1 extra attack each time you make an attack with it."

Simple, done.

-

Litteraly. Just a -1 ap makes the most sense.
I remember before 8th ed came out, WHC had an article where they said something like "now chainswords will finally do on the table what you always imagined them to do!" Then they proceed to tell us it gives the user an extra attack... GW needs to take a break. Whatever drugs theyre doing, the comedown really seems to get them all confused..
I mean, who the feth thought an extra attack was more appropriate than -1 ap?

If the issue is that chainswords have the same effect as combat knives, then why not just remove the +1 attack from combat knives? +1 attack adequately reflects the chainsword's horde shredding while keeping it at basic cc weapon strength levels (as in non-power weaponry). I've always found it weird that those knives grant an extra attack too.

shortymcnostrill wrote:
If the issue is that chainswords have the same effect as combat knives, then why not just remove the +1 attack from combat knives? +1 attack adequately reflects the chainsword's horde shredding while keeping it at basic cc weapon strength levels (as in non-power weaponry). I've always found it weird that those knives grant an extra attack too.

Because neither is used, mostly due to SM beeing terrible at CQC.
(personally i belive an SM body should have 2 attacks to make them generalists actually with the generalist option to do something in melee, on top of Combat knives or Chainswords. Additionally reequip the murderhobo CSM squads with the full shabang again Boltpistol, bolter and Chainsword, like they used to have......)

Several things could work just fine:

* +1Atk and reroll 1s to wound
* +1Atk and AP-1
* +2Atx
* Reroll failed wounds (noted this would trade the +1Atk to keep a bit of balance for a free weapon)
* +1Atk and Reroll failed wounds for 1-2ppm

That's just 5 simple solutions. But no, GW wants to be boring and make one of the most iconic 40K weapons act like it's just a knife.

-

 Galef wrote:
Several things could work just fine:

* +1Atk and reroll 1s to wound
* +1Atk and AP-1
* +2Atx
* Reroll failed wounds (noted this would trade the +1Atk to keep a bit of balance for a free weapon)
* +1Atk and Reroll failed wounds for 1-2ppm

That's just 5 simple solutions. But no, GW wants to be boring and make one of the most iconic 40K weapons act like it's just a knife.

-

Give the primaris statline chainswords unit wide and you have a unit. That's generalist but not Custodes.

The issue is re-roll failed wounds leads to odd situations where a chainsword wounds just 16% less than a powerfirst etc but with an additional attack.

Reroll 1's marines have in droves, so were back to +2 attacks or Ap-1 unfortunately AP-1 doubles the failed saves vrs Sv2+ but only only 25% vrs guardsmen, Very not fluffy for a chainsword.
The other option as +2 on top of 2 attacks might be overkill is give it 6's to hit/wound count as 2?

How about wound rolls of 6 cause an extra attack or +1 damage? Gives them a little extra compared to the combat knife without going too overboard, and we already have such effects in game.

 ikeulhu wrote:
How about wound rolls of 6 cause an extra attack or +1 damage? Gives them a little extra compared to the combat knife without going too overboard, and we already have such effects in game.

I like effects like this.
Since most Troops are single wound, I'd prefer the extra attack on a natural 6.

Not Online!!! wrote:

shortymcnostrill wrote:
If the issue is that chainswords have the same effect as combat knives, then why not just remove the +1 attack from combat knives? +1 attack adequately reflects the chainsword's horde shredding while keeping it at basic cc weapon strength levels (as in non-power weaponry). I've always found it weird that those knives grant an extra attack too.

Because neither is used, mostly due to SM beeing terrible at CQC.
(personally i belive an SM body should have 2 attacks to make them generalists actually with the generalist option to do something in melee, on top of Combat knives or Chainswords. Additionally reequip the murderhobo CSM squads with the full shabang again Boltpistol, bolter and Chainsword, like they used to have......)

Hey! I've been saying this for a long time too! If you're going to keep CC low on the ap list, and make it harder to do, let us double up on the attacks. CSM at 2 A +1 for chainsword would be epic!

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 ikeulhu wrote:
How about wound rolls of 6 cause an extra attack or +1 damage? Gives them a little extra compared to the combat knife without going too overboard, and we already have such effects in game.

I like effects like this.
Since most Troops are single wound, I'd prefer the extra attack on a natural 6.

I literally just said......nevermind.

Your method was adding another dice roll to the equation. Just using the wound roll instead makes it a quicker process.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Attacks with this weapon which result in a wound, roll a D6. On a 5+, add another damage to the wound.

This is what you said. That's absolutely nothing like the extra attack suggestion, and way more cumbersome than the extra damage.

For simplicity sake, we could give them the Tesla treatment:
+1Atk and any 6+ to hit counts as 2 hits instead of 1. Gives them more "hits" without more attacks.

The more I think about it, the cooler that concept feels for Chainswords. I can easily imagine the Chainsword "digging into" the opponent for those extra hits

-

That is simpler, but could get to be a bit much when combined with Chaos and DTTFE. That is why I think using the wound roll instead of the hit roll would be a better route.

And yes, fluff wise the justification for the extra attacks/hits is the chain digging into the wound and ripping it wider

Either way works for me.
each 6+ hit = 2 hits
or each 6+ to wound = 2 wounds

The extra wound statistically better and makes just about as much sense.

-

The 6+ to hit would be 2 hits and an extra attack that could potentially turn into another two hits with DTTFE. That "might" be too much. Maybe adding in that the extra attacks from DTTFE can not proc the two hits would keep it from being too much.

6+ Wound doing an extra attack or hit would alleviate that issue. Going with the 6+ Wound doing an extra wound makes it useless against chaff which tend to be the best targets for chainswords. With that in mind maybe having a 6+ wound do a mortal wound instead of +1 damage would be better, but I am a little leery giving the "sniper rifle" schtick to the chainsword (not to mention that mortal wounds may be a little too prevalent in the game already).

Most units that would benefit from this change needs base A2 to begin with.

why are we improving the las pistol of melee weapons? Are chaos players really hurting for melee potential? This can't be an attempt to make Sgts more effective.

I understand the weapon is iconic, but that doesn't mean it has to be the best weapon. It's a free autotake on the units that can, because that's it's purpose.

Chaos get all types of shenanigans to make their melee explosive and deadly. Is this for Vanguard marines?

An alternative option that avoids adding more rolls to the game but also still adds something versus chaff would be to give +1 to the wound roll on hit rolls of 6+. That keeps things quick and simple while providing a small buff to the iconic CC weapon of 40k. This again can be fluffed with the chain digging in to provide a better chance of penetrating a target's toughness.

 ikeulhu wrote:
An alternative option that avoids adding more rolls to the game but also still adds something versus chaff would be to give +1 to the wound roll on hit rolls of 6+. That keeps things quick and simple while providing a small buff to the iconic CC weapon of 40k. This again can be fluffed with the chain digging in to provide a better chance of penetrating a target's toughness.

You don't want to go down the route of handing out +1 to wound as the chart being so flat makes it a sizable buff it effectively turns T8+ into T5,6,7 the T5,6,7 into T4, T4 into T3 and doesn't affect T3 or less. Stack that with VOTLW and your into wounding T8+ on 4's.

For balance to favour a buff vrs infantry you want to include the to wound roll in the rule, but you also want to try and keep away from the everyone gets to reroll their to hit rolls aswell

When using this weapon when a natural 6 is rolled when making the too wound roll, an additional hit is cause these hits may NOT cause any additional hits to be produced.

Ice_can wrote:

 ikeulhu wrote:
An alternative option that avoids adding more rolls to the game but also still adds something versus chaff would be to give +1 to the wound roll on hit rolls of 6+. That keeps things quick and simple while providing a small buff to the iconic CC weapon of 40k. This again can be fluffed with the chain digging in to provide a better chance of penetrating a target's toughness.

You don't want to go down the route of handing out +1 to wound as the chart being so flat makes it a sizable buff it effectively turns T8+ into T5,6,7 the T5,6,7 into T4, T4 into T3 and doesn't affect T3 or less. Stack that with VOTLW and your into wounding T8+ on 4's.

For balance to favour a buff vrs infantry you want to include the to wound roll in the rule, but you also want to try and keep away from the everyone gets to reroll their to hit rolls aswell

When using this weapon when a natural 6 is rolled when making the too wound roll, an additional hit is cause these hits may NOT cause any additional hits to be produced.

An easy fix would be to only affect INFANTRY models.

I'm not so much a fan of 6s to hit giving +1 to wound as it "splits" your rolls up for fast rolling. I feel like +1Atk and +1 to wound INFANTRY units could be a good combo.

-

Ice_can wrote:
When using this weapon when a natural 6 is rolled when making the to wound roll, an additional hit is caused these hits may NOT cause any additional hits to be produced.

This is the option I like best so far. Avoids the potential issues with using to hit instead of to wound rolls, as well as avoiding the slow down and oddity of having to roll an attack after already starting to roll wounds.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
why are we improving the las pistol of melee weapons? Are chaos players really hurting for melee potential? This can't be an attempt to make Sgts more effective.

I understand the weapon is iconic, but that doesn't mean it has to be the best weapon. It's a free autotake on the units that can, because that's it's purpose.

Chaos get all types of shenanigans to make their melee explosive and deadly. Is this for Vanguard marines?

Yes, because your run off the mill Melee options (read troops) are lack luster for chaos.
Due to A not beeing good enough generalists (CSM) or B Too expensive (also CSM and nowadays Cultists aswell) and C the units that would be good enough for a melee based army too squishy on a points per durability level (Khorne Berzerkers) forcind you to D invest points into largely useless Rhinos.

Also it isn't really melee potential when you throw down a bunch of Lord discordants and Maulerfiends aswell as some DP's, the rest of the army still can't melee propperly. (Exception goes to the RC, which gain through the trait enough CP and advance +charge)