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.

Hey,

I still like the now ancient ability to Parry if you were suign a sword

As others have said - its not going to happen in 5th ed - roll on 6th Ed with my wish list included:

Pre-measuring
Being able to hit things on better than 3+ if you are more than twice WS
Maybe firing into combat
Forge world being compeletly official
Armour and Invulnerable saves both being able to be taken

and other bits and pieces

Chainswords should hav levels of damage: depending on the strength of the wielder.

Str3: Rending
Str4: Ap 4 and Rending
Str5: Ap4 and rending and for every kill in the last CQC phase you get an additional attack( maximum of 3 )

Que assault marines becoming the most broken things ever. "Why yes my BA marines can glance your Landraider in CC"

A re-roll to wound or penetrate armour (and a slight points increase) is good enough.

I don't think an AP bonus is really warranted, as chain weapons are designed primarily to tear through flesh and bone. They aren't precision weapons.

Chainfists provide an additional D6 against vehicles though, so make of that what you will...

A chainsaw weapon, as I think I pointed out earlier, is exactly what you DON'T want if you're trying to go through a hard substance like metal; if the teeth hit a smooth, metallic surface, they're going to skip off, and the result will be that your heavy, very dangerous weapon will be yanked away in a not-entirely predictable direction, HARD. Why it is that chainfists give an AP bonus and power fists don't, I couldn't guess; it really ought to be the other way around. Maybe the idea is that the energy field makes a small hole, which the chainsaw blade can then grip onto and tear wider?

But back on-topic; Rending could make sense. The high-rpm teeth could be highly effective SOMETIMES, if they hit a jagged edge or decoration or something and create a notch in the armor that way for the blade to dig into. A simple re-roll to wound, though, would be more logical; assuming you do get past the armor, a chainsaw edge will indeed have an easy time going through flesh or bone.

Some math; 10 Assault Marines charging T4 opponents score 15 hits, 7.5 wounds at current. With a re-roll they would score 15 hits, 11.25 wounds. Against T3 they score 10 wounds at current, with a re-roll they'd score 13.33.

The overall result would be to make Assault Marines significantly more effective anti-horde (Orks, IG) and slightly more effective against MEQ (on average, they'd get 4 kills instead of 3 charging). Make chain-weapons a 3 ppm upgrade and I think it'd be balanced; Tac squads could take them without replacing anything (making them the same price as Assault Marines are now, with the higher killing power but no jump-packs) and Assault Marines would have them as a basic weapon, and be 21 points per model.

BeRzErKeR wrote:A chainsaw weapon, as I think I pointed out earlier, is exactly what you DON'T want if you're trying to go through a hard substance like metal; if the teeth hit a smooth, metallic surface, they're going to skip off, and the result will be that your heavy, very dangerous weapon will be yanked away in a not-entirely predictable direction, HARD.

You are not an expert on how 40k physics work.

A simple fact like space travel being accomplished via magic should tell you it's different than ours.

DarknessEternal wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:A chainsaw weapon, as I think I pointed out earlier, is exactly what you DON'T want if you're trying to go through a hard substance like metal; if the teeth hit a smooth, metallic surface, they're going to skip off, and the result will be that your heavy, very dangerous weapon will be yanked away in a not-entirely predictable direction, HARD.

You are not an expert on how 40k physics work.

A simple fact like space travel being accomplished via magic should tell you it's different than ours.

If we're going to refer to physics at all, I'm afraid we only have ours to refer to. I am no more (and no less) of an expert on how things work in 40k than anyone else alive.

Furthermore, I'm proposing a rule, not an alteration to physics. I gave an explanation for (one of several) reasons why I think this particular rule is more suitable than some others. If you don't like it, ignore it. No-one will stop you. If you merely feel that you need to point out that a universe in which daemons occasionally come out of FTL drives and eat people is clearly not the same as the universe we live in. . . that's just a little pointless, don't you think? I mean, just the fact that I'm talking about chainsaw-swords in the FIRST place should let you know that I already know that; in the real world there would be no way to make this a viable weapons system.

So my point, basically, is that posting "Nuh-uh, you don't know that" in this context, about a tangential aside which is not related to the issue under discussion, and without even pretending to consider what's being talked about, is both colossally stupid and quite irritating to the people who are actually contributing to the conversation.

I think that a parry save type thing would be good. make it like a 6+ FNP to represent PW cutting through it or something....

BeRzErKeR wrote:A chainsaw weapon, as I think I pointed out earlier, is exactly what you DON'T want if you're trying to go through a hard substance like metal; if the teeth hit a smooth, metallic surface, they're going to skip off, and the result will be that your heavy, very dangerous weapon will be yanked away in a not-entirely predictable direction, HARD. Why it is that chainfists give an AP bonus and power fists don't, I couldn't guess; it really ought to be the other way around. Maybe the idea is that the energy field makes a small hole, which the chainsaw blade can then grip onto and tear wider?

its the energy field which lets the teeth do what they do instead of skipping off. The Fist can also make a hole so they can get a foothold and begin shredding.

[quote=Grey Templar Vanilla marines [...] arn't great now

Melissia wrote:[quote=Grey Templar Vanilla marines [...] arn't great now

People keep saying this ,but no matterh ow many times they say it, it's still wrong...

Assault Marines are, in all honesty, quite a weak assault unit.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Assault Marines are, in all honesty, quite a weak assault unit.

Seriously, THAT is the position you're taking?

That's so far detached from reality that I am at a loss for words.

Melissia wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Assault Marines are, in all honesty, quite a weak assault unit.

Seriously, THAT is the position you're taking?

That's so far detached from reality that I am at a loss for words.

Ummm, are we playing the same game Melissa?

In a game where there are Assault Terminators, GKs, Wytches, BA assault marines, Genestealers and the like, Vanilla Assault Marines are kinda lackluster.

They arn't horrible, but they arn't worth taking over things like Landspeeders except in the most strange of circumstances(like Tailoring to fight Tau)

Melissia wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Assault Marines are, in all honesty, quite a weak assault unit.

Seriously, THAT is the position you're taking?

That's so far detached from reality that I am at a loss for words.

Uh. . .

Yes. I play Orks. I get a better assault unit than Assault Marines for two-thirds of the price, and mine can shoot too.

CSM get a unit that's just as good AND can take a metal box for 3 ppm less, or they can pay 3ppm more for a Fearless unit with more attacks and Furious Charge.

Nids get a better assault unit for free from a Tervigon.

Do I need to go on? Assault Marines are, at best, second-tier. For vanilla marines, they're simply not worth taking. Now, for Blood Angels it's a bit of a different story, but we aren't discussing Blood Angels, or at least I'm not.

Grey Templar wrote:In a game where there are Assault Terminators, GKs, Wytches, BA assault marines, Genestealers and the like, Vanilla Assault Marines are kinda lackluster.

Terminators: Far more expensive and less mobile than assault marines..

Grey Knights: Less mobile than assault marines, less variety of support units, no combat tactics.

Wyches: Far, FAR less durable, especially outside of melee. Less mobile, don't hit as hard, no combat tactics, no ranged firepower before the charge.

BA Assault marines: Must roll red thirst, no combat tactics.

Genestealers: Far less durable, less mobile, no ranged firepower before the charge. When upgraded they are more expensive, as well. They are fearless, with no combat tactics.

I can hear the response already: "oh woe is me, my codex sucks so hard, I have no options to win, oh noes!"

Codex: SM has got a number of decent options. It isn't one of the strongest codexes, but it's still perfectly playable. It's just that Assault Marines are not one of those options.

Everything that I would say has already been said save one thing. It doesn't matter how it would work in real life, effectiveness in Warhammer 40k seems to be based on how cool it is.

Melissia wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:In a game where there are Assault Terminators, GKs, Wytches, BA assault marines, Genestealers and the like, Vanilla Assault Marines are kinda lackluster.

Terminators: Far more expensive and less mobile than assault marines. No, really? I guess the fact they kill more per point and are infinitly more durable doesn't count then?

Grey Knights: (1)Less mobile than assault marines, (2)less variety of support units, (3)no combat tactics. (1) Interceptors are just as mobile, and mobility isn't everything. (2) So? Low variety means nothing in terms of effectivness. GKs have the tools to do anything, except they rely on Psycannons instead of Lascannons and Missiles to deal with armor. (3) Again, So what? GKs don't need Combat Tactics.

Wyches: Far, FAR less durable, especially outside of melee. Less mobile, don't hit as hard, no combat tactics, no ranged firepower before the charge. Less mobile? Ever heard of Raiders? 21-26" charge range seems damn mobile to me(12" move, 2" disembark, D6" fleet, 6" assault) And lets be honest, Bolt Pistols and Flamers arn't a whole lot(Vanilla Marines can't take Meltaguns)

BA Assault marines: Must roll red thirst, no combat tactics. Red Thirst is about even, I automatically get Furious Charge and become Fearless 1/6 of the time. And again, Combat Tactics isn't a huge deal. Plus these guys can get FnP which makes them as durable as Terminators against most attacks

Genestealers: Far less durable, less mobile, no ranged firepower before the charge. When upgraded they are more expensive, as well. They are fearless, with no combat tactics. Expense means nothing if they are more effective on a point per point basis.

I can hear the response already: "oh woe is me, my codex sucks so hard, I have no options to win, oh noes!" I never said Vanilla Marines suck, they don't, I said Vanilla Assault Marines are a sub-optimal choice within the Codex. You can have bad choices in a codex that is supremely awsome, like IG. They have tons and tons of lame units, the good ones make up for it though.

You seriously over-value combat tactics. It's good when used right, but all it really does is save your hide when you are losing. The real CC unit won't ever be in a situation where it would need to use Combat Tactics.

Byte wrote:

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.

Dude, be cool! If GW get wind that folk are speaking wistfully of 2nd Edition we will all be drowning in stupid Relic Cards and Wargear tables before you know it.

Besides, everyone and his mother has a chainsword nowadays, so giving them a BRB convention in the same way as Lightning Claws or Witchblades would need to take into account things like 4pt Warrior Acolytes in the Grey Knights Codex, who get Chainswords as part of their standard wargear and can be joined by nutty Inquisitors with psychic powers that increase their Strength and grenades that decrease your Toughness and Initiative, or Grey Hunters who also get chainswords as standard. 30 base attacks from MEQs that gimp your armour save, for 15pts per model? Yes please!

The whole idea kinda smacks of someone who wants to make MEQs better at close combat. That's not what MEQs are for; and even if it was, if you're going to start putting AP values on melee attacks why not just ask GW to allow Bolt Pistols to be fired in CC? That would be easier to account for than having Chainswords work like Berzerker axes.

Hmm I wouldn't mind changes to the chainsword, but that would require an update or at least a mention of every codex to distinguish between simple close combat weapons and chainswords for every unit and might be a problem for people who mixed them up. But other then that, yeah why not.

Edit: Also, that would strengthen Imperial armies (as in Space Marines, Sisters, etc) even further and might be unbalanced for armies that do not have chainswords and thus remain unchanged while many already strong armies get an upgrade.

I think it might be good if a chainsword gave a reroll of failed 'to wound' rolls of one, and a pair could reroll all failed to wound.

A simple re-roll would be more in line with LCs.

ChrisChan wrote:

Byte wrote:

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.

Dude, be cool! If GW get wind that folk are speaking wistfully of 2nd Edition we will all be drowning in stupid Relic Cards and Wargear tables before you know it.

Besides, everyone and his mother has a chainsword nowadays, so giving them a BRB convention in the same way as Lightning Claws or Witchblades would need to take into account things like 4pt Warrior Acolytes in the Grey Knights Codex, who get Chainswords as part of their standard wargear and can be joined by nutty Inquisitors with psychic powers that increase their Strength and grenades that decrease your Toughness and Initiative, or Grey Hunters who also get chainswords as standard. 30 base attacks from MEQs that gimp your armour save, for 15pts per model? Yes please!

The whole idea kinda smacks of someone who wants to make MEQs better at close combat. That's not what MEQs are for; and even if it was, if you're going to start putting AP values on melee attacks why not just ask GW to allow Bolt Pistols to be fired in CC? That would be easier to account for than having Chainswords work like Berzerker axes.

Its not my idea, GW's rules in second edition. BTW Pistols were able to fire in CC in second...

Grey Templar wrote:the fact they kill more per point and are infinitly more durable doesn't count then?

They give up mobility for it. Or are you going to argue that assault marines should be more mobile than terminaters while being just as killy?

Grey Templar wrote:(1) Interceptors are just as mobile

And more expensive.

Grey Templar wrote:(2) So? Low variety means nothing in terms of effectivness.

*looks at Guard codex versus Witch Hunters codex* You are hilariously wrong.

Grey Templar wrote:(3) Again, So what? GKs don't need Combat Tactics.

It's still an advantage over them.

Grey Templar wrote:Less mobile?

Yes.

Grey Templar wrote: Ever heard of Raiders?

Yeah, I blew one up with a bolter.

Grey Templar wrote:Red Thirst is about even, I automatically get Furious Charge and become Fearless

Why the hell would you want an assault unit to become fearless?

Grey Templar wrote:[color=red]Expense means nothing if they are more effective on a point per point basis.

They don't for what they do.

Grey Templar wrote:I never said Vanilla Marines suck

Actually yeah, you did. That's the entire tone of your post. That you are unable to make use of combat tactics doesn't bother my argument.

There's no niche in marines that chainswords fill.
If you want tactical squads to be better in CC, give them bolt pistols.
If you want assault marines to be more powerful in CC, you're mad.
Maybe as an assault weapon for guard sargents. I think it's weird how dog trooper sargents are given PW so readily. Maybe +5 points for S4 Rending Close Combat weapon.

Rending does not make sense for chainswords. They are not exceptionally good at penetrating armor.

wow this topic has gone a tad off topic ( lulz at my awsome sense of humour )

Anyhow, my problem has always been the following, that a knife/stick/insert random sharp pointy stabby cutty thing here is treated no different from a chainsword. God damn that thing has a miniature car engine attached to it....

I liked many of the ideas here. but not the rending bit, or the ap bit. Its chain sword, made for eating threw flesh and inflicting grievous wounds, and as such methinks that should be reflected in game even if only a tad.

Something not as game changing as rending ( F*** krack grenades i have a chainsaw ? ) or ap ( would make some units waaay to OP for the ppm )

I like the re-roll idea, but for wounding ( i dont see how shwirling an chainsword makes you hit people any better ....).
Not something OP like re roll all failed wounds or blablabla, something more along the lines "once per assault phase can re roll to wound if you roll a 1".
That would mark the difference between stick and chainsword ...

Alot of the things proposed here would mean we would have to srly modify the actual codices for each army.... i mean ap 4 ? Rending ? meh

HI mayfist.
For the sake of simplicity.
Allowing the chainsword to re roll wounding rolls of 1 .

Would this be enough to make the Chainsword slighlty better -but not over powered.
(I like your idea alot,BTW.)

why thank you Lanrak, sorry if the idea was lost in my unorganized mess of a post