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.

I wanted to give some of my bike squad chainswords for aesthetic reasons (looks cool).

According to the army lists they don't technically have chainswords as an option. But since chainswords don't actually make any difference in game unless used in conjunction with another close combat weapon (pistol for example). Then is it okay for my models to have them? Providing they don't have another CCW, or we assume they need at least one hand to steer the bike.

To my mind this would just be a purely aesthetic change, no different to adding a flag or horns.

So is it allowed? Would even strict WYSIWYG players or Tournament organisers really be able to take issue with this?

As long as it isnt confusing you are unlikely to come across a problem. So dont model BP+Chainsword, for example.

I wouldn't have a problem with it, but its more of change than simply adding horns or flags because horns and flags don't do anything. if i were to model space marine scouts with a boltgun and combat blade because i think it looks cool it causes the same sort of problem, my opponent would have to ask, "what do those scouts have?" So do i think its going to cause problems, no because assumably your a good player who tells their opponent, "hey i modeled on these chainswords for fun, they actually have..." but can it cause problems at a strict WYSIWYG tourney maybe...

No problem at all. Pretty much all infantry models in the game are presumed to have some sort of CCW - it's not an 'additional' CCW by any means.

SmackCakes wrote:I wanted to give some of my bike squad chainswords for aesthetic reasons (looks cool).

According to the army lists they don't technically have chainswords as an option. But since chainswords don't actually make any difference in game unless used in conjunction with another close combat weapon (pistol for example). Then is it okay for my models to have them? Providing they don't have another CCW, or we assume they need at least one hand to steer the bike.

To my mind this would just be a purely aesthetic change, no different to adding a flag or horns.

So is it allowed? Would even strict WYSIWYG players or Tournament organisers really be able to take issue with this?

Rules as written, no, you cannot. They do not have a chainsword as an option, so you cannot have one.

It DOES create confusion, because your opponent might assume they have the bonus attack, when they don't.

Furthermore, you can have as many weapons as you are allowed on a bike, you don't need "one hand free" and haven't needed to for many, many years.

That being said, I would not be happy with it, because of the potential confusion. The best thing to do would be, imo, to pin the arms so you can swap them out. Small bit of steel wire and a 2mm magnet and BAM, 5 models for the price of 1 (and a fre ¢)!

Gwar! wrote:Rules as written, no, you cannot. They do not have a chainsword as an option, so you cannot have one.

Today we have learned that chainswords on bikers confuse Gwar.
Assault Marines don't have a chainsword as an option either. What army actually has a chainsword as an option these days anyway?

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Rules as written, no, you cannot. They do not have a chainsword as an option, so you cannot have one.

Today we have learned that chainswords on bikers confuse Gwar.
Assault Marines don't have a chainsword as an option either. What army actually has a chainsword as an option these days anyway?

Assault Marines come with them as standard, so they are allowed to have one.

Bikers do not, thus it can cause confusion.

They don't confuse me, you could use pennies for all I really care (as long as you buy me a beer), I know all the rules so well I can play 40k acoustically! </SouthParkJoke>

Arctik_Firangi wrote: What army actually has a chainsword as an option these days anyway?

Eldar...

Wouldnt have any problem with it since i know they dont actually have then and wont gain an extra attack.


Gwar is indeed correct, the BA assault marines entry says they do have chainswords.
BA tac squad Srg. can swap his bolter for on too.

Bah!

I have a Space Marine controlling a Rhino's pintle-mounted Storm Bolter. He has a close combat weapon in one hand, raised in the air, but I'm always sure to advise my opponent that the Rhino does not get an additional attack.

Gwar! wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Rules as written, no, you cannot. They do not have a chainsword as an option, so you cannot have one.

Today we have learned that chainswords on bikers confuse Gwar.
Assault Marines don't have a chainsword as an option either. What army actually has a chainsword as an option these days anyway?

Assault Marines come with them as standard, so they are allowed to have one.

Bikers do not, thus it can cause confusion.

They don't confuse me, you could use pennies for all I really care (as long as you buy me a beer), I know all the rules so well I can play 40k acoustically! </SouthParkJoke>

But can you play John the fisherman?

Lol it would not bother me but i do know people that would get pissy. If youre gonna play in a tourny setting just ask the head judge before hand. If he says yes there isnt much your opponent can do. (take his ball and go home i guess)

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Chainswords don't exist.

Yes they do. Page 56 Blood Angels, Page 97 Codex SPESS MAHRINES and page 57 Codex Space Wolves.

And a Rhino doesn't have an attacks value, so can never get a bonus to something it doesn't have at all.

I can only find 'Scorpion Chainsword' in the Eldar book. :(

Please don't pick apart my jokes. It makes both of us look awkward.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As long as it isnt confusing you are unlikely to come across a problem. So dont model BP+Chainsword, for example.

That might be an issue... Obviously if I gave a chainsword to a marine with a special weapon, then it could never be interpreted as an additional close combat weapon, because the rules say 'replace bolt pistol'. So I would see that as being perfectly legal.

However special weapon marines aren't really the ones I was hoping to give chainswords to, as they already have something interesting and unique, and it seems a shame to display a special weapon as holstered or shoulder slung.

Ideally I wanted to give chainswords to some of the less interesting guys who are assumed to carry bolt pistols. Obviously I would not want to loose the bolt pistols because they are useful. But I would never count them as an additional CCW because it would be assumed anyone holding a chainsword would have to holster their bolt pistol first (and vise-versa).

This is kind of awkward within the rules, as I don't believe there is any rule preventing bikers from using 2 CCW. Which means the chainswords would have to be either...

1. 'Count as' not chainswords.
2. Not an additional CCW.
3. Double handed weapon.

Number 1 isn't ideal. While I don't mind clearing stuff with my opponent, I would rather the models were at least arguably tournament legal.

Number 2 is close to what I want, but I'm unclear on whether a model is allowed to be equipped with two CCW, but still 'choose' never to use one as an additional weapon in combat. (which in my case I would have to choose because it's not allowed in the first place)

Number 3. This is kind of perfect because it means the chainsword can never count as an additional close combat weapon, so doesn't exist within the rules, that way I can have it and still fire my bolt pistol. But it does cause problems with WYSIWYG because the chainsword isn't actually a double handed weapon... And if I argued that it was because the user was on a bike then that would cause problems for characters on bikes who are allowed two CCWs.

Ehhh, most times I'm alright with some "Counts As," but in this case it's iffy.

I would be okay with it, but if they were my bikers, I would not expect people to let it slide.

It's simply inconsistent. If your bikers with chainswords Count As bikers with bolt pistols, does everything in your army with a chainsword count as having a bolt pistol instead? That's the issue.

It's not super confusing, and I'd be alright with it, but don't expect it to fly with everyone you meet.

Gwar! wrote:Rules as written, no, you cannot. They do not have a chainsword as an option, so you cannot have one.

I disagree with this. Tac squads and Scout squads come with knives, yet the codex says nothing about knives. Similarly chaos marines have spikes and horns.

All I can see from RAW is that bikes are not allowed a chainsword bolt pistol combination for the purposes of +1 attack. It doesn't say anywhere that they can't carry a blade or knife or chainsword or horns, for aesthetic purposes.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:It's simply inconsistent. If your bikers with chainswords Count As bikers with bolt pistols, does everything in your army with a chainsword count as having a bolt pistol instead? That's the issue.

The thing is the bikers with chainswords wouldn't count as bikers with bolt pistols, they would count as bikers with chainswords and bolt pistols. but they wouldn't count as having an extra attack for an additional CCW because they only have one free hand.

This means the chainsword actually has zero effect. So it is really just an aesthetic choice, which shouldn't interfere with the rules.

EDIT: before I get too deep into this, could anyone with the BA codex says if bike squads are automatically equipped with bolt pistols, or can they take bolt guns? I left my BA codex at my friends house, so I'm working from the vanilla codex right now, and that just says 'bolt pistols', but the BA one might be different?

Except your "æsthetic" choice is causing confusion and a breach of the rules.

"Knives" and "Horns" are ok because they do not have rules associated with them, so cannot be confused with a real CCW. Chainswords do.

Gwar! wrote:"Knives" and "Horns" are ok because they do not have rules associated with them, so cannot be confused with a real CCW. Chainswords do.

Where is that in the rules? my rules say:

Normal close combat weapons: Weapons like chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades, bayonets, etc... do not confer any particular bonus to the model using them.

Chain swords are grouped along with knifves and rifle butts, and presumably broken bottles, pipes and other stuff that has no impact on the game.

SmackCakes wrote:presumably

Bam. There's your mistake, right there.

It specifically lists "chainswords" as a type of close combat weapon. It does not list horns, broken bottles, skulls, fists, feet, frying pans, small children, severed limbs, or any other mundane object that may be used as a weapon.

RAW, chainswords are CCWs, all that extra stuff that in the real would could "presumably" be called a weapon is not.

SaintHazard wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:presumably

Bam. There's your mistake, right there.

It specifically lists "chainswords" as a type of close combat weapon. It does not list horns, broken bottles, skulls, fists, feet, frying pans, or any other mundane object that may be used as a weapon.

RAW, chainswords are CCWs, all that extra stuff that in the real would could "presumably" be called a weapon is not.

It does list combat blades as a CCW. and scouts and tac squads come with combat blades and knives. it also list rifle butts as a close combat weapon...

Don't worry about it. I've got several chainswords scattered about my bike army, and I've never heard a single complaint. Also, the only players that could possibly be confused would be players with little rules/codex knowlegde, and they are likely to be confused about a lot of stuff, and will probably not be in a position to complain.

SmackCakes wrote:[The thing is the bikers with chainswords wouldn't count as bikers with bolt pistols, they would count as bikers with chainswords and bolt pistols. but they wouldn't count as having an extra attack for an additional CCW because they only have one free hand.

This is where I see the problem. That is not in the rules, and could very well be mistaken by your opponent--even if it is just a momentary thing, it could result in a game changing decision.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Illumini wrote:Also, the only players that could possibly be confused would be players with little rules/codex knowlegde

Or people who know that models with a pistol and CCW get extra attacks, technically.

Knife ≠ Combat Blade ≠ Broken bottle.

The fact of the matter is, giving BA Bikers Chainswords is not allowed by the Rules as Written. You are more than welcome to do it anyway though, just don't be annoyed if people call you out on it.

So if I limit chainswords to bikers without a pistol I should be okay?

Illumini wrote:Also, the only players that could possibly be confused would be players with little rules/codex knowlegde, and they are likely to be confused about a lot of stuff, and will probably not be in a position to complain.

And that somehow makes it ok?

Yes. They will be confused by a lot of rules, this one is the simplest to resolve. One simple sentence: "No, my bikers are not equipped with 2xccw" is enough.

Seriously, RAW has it's place, but that place is not limiting a player that wishes to scatter a couple of ccw's through his bikesquads.

If he had asked if it would be ok to put a pistol and a ccw on most of his bikers, I would agree that it could cause confusion, but this is just silly.

I think Gwar! is pointing out that you basically said that circumventing the rules is okay as long as the opposing player lacks the knowledge or savvy to call you out on it.

May not have been what you meant, but that's what I got out of that comment as well.

Gwar! wrote:The fact of the matter is, giving BA Bikers Chainswords is not allowed by the Rules as Written. You are more than welcome to do it anyway though, just don't be annoyed if people call you out on it.

I disagree with this. Be very annoyed at people that call you out on it. That sounds like a "bully-player", stand up to them, tell them that it's a game and that you will not tolerate such behaviour

Disclaimer: Someone asking you if the weapons have an effect is not included in the above. Players that say that you are cheating because of this are

Gwar! wrote:Knife ≠ Combat Blade ≠ Broken bottle.

Yet apparently in 40k they are all equal in having no effect.

Saint Hazard wrote:It specifically lists "chainswords" as a type of close combat weapon. It does not list horns, broken bottles, skulls, fists, feet, frying pans, small children, severed limbs, or any other mundane object that may be used as a weapon.

So you're saying that my Space Marine bikers definitely CAN have broken bottles and frying pans? (that might not be so bad).

What? Chainswords just count as CCWs, so model them however you want? A knife is technically no different than a chainsword,so....