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.

Can my Tactical Squad Space Marines take Chainswords, or are they reserved for the Sergeant and Assault Squad members?

Thanks in advance

Chainswords are not listed in the wargear or options for a standard Tactical Marine.

Space Marines using the Carcharodons Chapter Tactics (from Forgeworld) can take a close combat weapon (i.e. a chainsword). It is also an option for Space Wolves Grey Hunters.

Grey Hunters are as much Tacticals as Crusader Squads, though.

So the answer is- Kind of. Sort Of. Depending on which chapter your space marine "tactical" squad is from. Some special chapters allow it, but it's not common.

Chainswords are NOT Close Combat Weapons.

There exists two different profiles in the book, one for Chain-swords and one for Close Combat Weapons. Most people ignore this because the profiles are so similar, they would be identical if it wasn't for the different name given to them, so it doesn't actually impact the game what-so-ever. Still, a Rule specifically calling out "Close Combat Weapons" do not apply to chain-swords and models can only officially equip a Chain-sword if the datasheet allows them to do so. There is nothing allowing us to state 'they are so similar, so of course you can take a Chain-sword instead of a Close Combat Weapon...' the specific name matters as far as the Rules are concerned.

Now, I said officially for a reason as the concept of "What you See is What you Get" goes in and out of style with Game Workshop. Some editions had it set in stone that you must model the Model as close to the war-gear load-out as possible, and this would make it illegal to model a Chain-sword on a Model lacking permission to wield one. Other Editions have left it up to 'the most important rule,' your opponents consent, to determine what can and can not be modelled on the Model. Unless I am mistaken, I am going off memory here and it has been a while, the current Edition lacks any of these 'What You See Is What You Get' requirements so nothing forbids us from making the models look as bad-arse as they should look.

Thus, nothing prevents us from using a Chainsword to represent a Close Combat Weapon... I recommend doing so, those things look a lot better then a belt knife or a billy-club.

JinxDragon wrote:
There exists two different profiles in the book, one for Chain-swords and one for Close Combat Weapons.

Interesting, I honestly hadn't paid enough attention to it to notice before, and looking back it's the same in the 6th ed. DA codex. They could have had totally different profiles and I'd have been none the wiser. I wonder why they've done that...

Black Templar Crusader Squads.

Chainswords for anyone who has a hand.

Page 41 does say this though:
Many weapons (*) don't confer any Strength bonuses, AP values or special rules. These weapons are simply referred to as 'close combat weapon' in the model's wargear and have the following profile.

So a Chainsword is infact considered a close combat weapon in rule terms too.

Roknar wrote:
Page 41 does say this though:
Many weapons (*) don't confer any Strength bonuses, AP values or special rules. These weapons are simply referred to as 'close combat weapon' in the model's wargear and have the following profile.

So a Chainsword is infact considered a close combat weapon in rule terms too.

Well it may or may not be. If you got back several editions, I think 4th? They were the same thing, and GW may or may not be assuming we still think they are/should be/etc This could be the difference between facial tissue and Kleenex.

Edit to add: I think the history we'd be looking for is that 4th Ed era, where CCW's used as the "other" 2nd CCW was defaulted to CCW with no special rules when it wasn't the CCW the model was attacking with.

Well, it doesn't stop the chainsword from being a CCW, while a CCW is not a chainsword.

As in, if there were rules affecting chain swords, that wouldn't extend to all CCWs. But some buff to CCWs would affect chainswords too.

Doubt any of this would ever matter though.

Roknar,
The bracketed section, which you shortened to *, states thus:
(combat knives, maces, axes and other improvised or primitive weapons)

That greatly changes the context of the Rule you quoted, as it limits 'many weapons' to five specific categories and allow for objects to exist outside of this definition of 'many weapons' being put forth by the quoted Rule. This is very important as we would end up with 'a broken Rule situation,' simply by referring to a Chainsword as anything other then a Close Combat Weapon within the Rules themselves, if you are correct. As the Authors clearly have presented something called a Chainsword, violating your interpretation of the quoted Rule as it isn't called a Close Combat Weapon, we have a bit of a problem.

Given that the weapon in question, literally a chainsaw for a sword, does not meet any of the categories put forth... how is it bound by the quoted Rule?

I suppose not. But do any of those actually exist in game terms? To me that bracket is just a fluff addition that isn't actually part of the rule.
Otherwise a model with a CCW would be limited to those categories. Not that anybody would care but yea.

So no lances, no swords no staff weapons, etc.

Chaos cultists are modeled with maces, and I think axes. Space Marine kits often have combat knives in them. 30K and some older 40K space marines have a chainsword style bayonet/axe head mounted under the barrel. Those would all fall under this CCW definition..

A normal sword would not however as they are neither knives nor ar the improvised or primitive (?). Older csm came with swords, dunno about now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though I suppose the presence of a chainsword profile is a stronger argument in comparison.

Guys, simple question.

In the wargear the tac squad has boltgun, pistol, frag and krak grenades. No CCW. Nor does it give the option to take them as an option. So it is limited to sarge and assault squad. And since you are a Crimson Fists player, there's no free CCW from any chapter tactics.

But if you're a Crimson Fist player, you don't need CCW, you can shoot them before they get into combat!

Stay frosty fellow Crimson.

I don't think they exist in game, and definitely not listed under Wargear in such a format, that is why the Rule itself seems odd to me... all it does is informing us what to use to model these weapons, which is completely irrelevant!

If the Datasheets had wargear as simple as 'a mundane Axe' or 'primitive weapons' it would make sense to have a Rule informing us that these weapons all use the 'Close Combat Weapon' profile. Yet the datasheets in question list Close Combat Weapons as Close Combat Weapons, and even the quoted Rule itself states that we will find 'combat knives' listed as Close Combat Weapons on the datasheet, so it makes no sense. All I can assume is yet another example of a Hack-and-Paste job, taken from an Edition where there was such things as 'impromptu weapons' within Codex's, or from a period when 'What You See Is What You Get' was enshrined in Rules and they lacked a plastic bit called a 'Close Combat Weapon'.

At least 'What You See is What You Get' is not strong in this edition, so nothing preventing us from modelling Chainswords as Close Combat Weapons.... or glaives, we need more glaives!
Or chaining two of them together into some sort of chain-sword-nucks! Oooh, how about chain glaives?!

XD XD

I dunno, the rule just makes no sense as per usual. In order to be a combat knife in the first place, the codex entry would have to list it as a combat knife in the wargear, only to immediately replace the name with close combat weapon which then no longer makes it a combat knife, since it is now a close combat weapon Oo.

JinxDragon wrote:
I don't think they exist in game, and definitely not listed under Wargear in such a format, that is why the Rule itself seems odd to me... all it does is informing us what to use to model these weapons, which is completely irrelevant!

If the Datasheets had wargear as simple as 'a mundane Axe' or 'primitive weapons' it would make sense to have a Rule informing us that these weapons all use the 'Close Combat Weapon' profile. Yet the datasheets in question list Close Combat Weapons as Close Combat Weapons, and even the quoted Rule itself states that we will find 'combat knives' listed as Close Combat Weapons on the datasheet, so it makes no sense. All I can assume is yet another example of a Hack-and-Paste job, taken from an Edition where there was such things as 'impromptu weapons' within Codex's, or from a period when 'What You See Is What You Get' was enshrined in Rules and they lacked a plastic bit called a 'Close Combat Weapon'.

At least 'What You See is What You Get' is not strong in this edition, so nothing preventing us from modelling Chainswords as Close Combat Weapons.... or glaives, we need more glaives!
Or chaining two of them together into some sort of chain-sword-nucks! Oooh, how about chain glaives?!

Just because a simple "ccw" doesn't exist for marines doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I play ig(astra Militarum), my guardsmen all have "ccw" as stock. Sgt models do come with a chainsword, but the rest are bayonets and entrenching tools.

We remember you Kel, the voice of the guard on this site!

My point was that the Datasheets do not contain a piece of War-gear called 'Bayonet' or 'entrenching tools,' but are always defined as Close Combat Weapons. This makes a Rule telling us how to define if X is a Close Combat Weapon or not, one that literally states 'it is on the Datasheet as Close Combat Weapons' at that, quite useless. It's only purpose seems to be to inform us that the plastic bits that look like knives or clubs can be used to represent Close Combat Weapons in a 'What you See is What you Get' scenario. The lack of any 'What You See is What You Get' Rule within this edition in this book makes the whole thing a non-issue, as the only requirement for a model to meet the definition of Model is if it has Citadel parts.