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.

loota boy wrote:I think we went over the pointlessness of chain weapons a few pages ago. There are so many other things that are utterly stupid in 40k. Like Titans and any sort of big walking robot thing. The concept is ridiculous. But it still exists, doesn't it? That's because this is 40million years in the future, with space orks and robot skeletons. It's not supposed to be realistic at all! The chainsword is a purely "rule of cool" scenario, and this is a thread discussing introducing rending to chainswords, due to the "rule of cool."

40k =/= to 40 million, protip, the k means thousand moron. Seriously, it's on the cover of the damned rulebook.

As for the thread, yes breaking game balance is cool... Wait... No it isn't.

Do you seriously think that in 38,000 years, we won't develop a better chainsaw? Because if you do, you embody every little thing that is horrible about science fiction fans.

Umm, that pair of sentences doesn't make very much sense. Could you rephrase that using the part of your brain that can produce viable typing?

Norade wrote:

loota boy wrote:I think we went over the pointlessness of chain weapons a few pages ago. There are so many other things that are utterly stupid in 40k. Like Titans and any sort of big walking robot thing. The concept is ridiculous. But it still exists, doesn't it? That's because this is 40million years in the future, with space orks and robot skeletons. It's not supposed to be realistic at all! The chainsword is a purely "rule of cool" scenario, and this is a thread discussing introducing rending to chainswords, due to the "rule of cool."

40k =/= to 40 million, protip, the k means thousand moron. Seriously, it's on the cover of the damned rulebook.

As for the thread, yes breaking game balance is cool... Wait... No it isn't.

Do you seriously think that in 38,000 years, we won't develop a better chainsaw? Because if you do, you embody every little thing that is horrible about science fiction fans.

Umm, that pair of sentences doesn't make very much sense. Could you rephrase that using the part of your brain that can produce viable typing?

If you think that 38,000 years of progress won't improve a chainsaw one bit, you're stupid. That's as simple as it's going to get. Did you understand that?

I don't mean to come off as rude, but there's really no nice way to say it.

Q: What if 'chain' weapons had rending?

A: SM would become HORRIBLY overpowered.

'Nuff said

Norade wrote:

loota boy wrote:I think we went over the pointlessness of chain weapons a few pages ago. There are so many other things that are utterly stupid in 40k. Like Titans and any sort of big walking robot thing. The concept is ridiculous. But it still exists, doesn't it? That's because this is 40million years in the future, with space orks and robot skeletons. It's not supposed to be realistic at all! The chainsword is a purely "rule of cool" scenario, and this is a thread discussing introducing rending to chainswords, due to the "rule of cool."

40k =/= to 40 million, protip, the k means thousand moron. Seriously, it's on the cover of the damned rulebook.

As for the thread, yes breaking game balance is cool... Wait... No it isn't.

Do you seriously think that in 38,000 years, we won't develop a better chainsaw? Because if you do, you embody every little thing that is horrible about science fiction fans.

Umm, that pair of sentences doesn't make very much sense. Could you rephrase that using the part of your brain that can produce viable typing?

Yeah your cool. You can be rude to people anomyously on the internet. You know, a guy can make a few mistakes. And anyway, his post made plenty of sence. And I wasn't at all rude in my post either. You really don't have a reason to be acting like you are. We understand that you don't like the idea. That's fine. I personally don't care for it either, it requires a large amount of overhaul and a bunch of price increases on almost every codex. But you don't see me calling people names over the internet.

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:

Norade wrote:

loota boy wrote:I think we went over the pointlessness of chain weapons a few pages ago. There are so many other things that are utterly stupid in 40k. Like Titans and any sort of big walking robot thing. The concept is ridiculous. But it still exists, doesn't it? That's because this is 40million years in the future, with space orks and robot skeletons. It's not supposed to be realistic at all! The chainsword is a purely "rule of cool" scenario, and this is a thread discussing introducing rending to chainswords, due to the "rule of cool."

40k =/= to 40 million, protip, the k means thousand moron. Seriously, it's on the cover of the damned rulebook.

As for the thread, yes breaking game balance is cool... Wait... No it isn't.

Do you seriously think that in 38,000 years, we won't develop a better chainsaw? Because if you do, you embody every little thing that is horrible about science fiction fans.

Umm, that pair of sentences doesn't make very much sense. Could you rephrase that using the part of your brain that can produce viable typing?

If you think that 38,000 years of progress won't improve a chainsaw one bit, you're stupid. That's as simple as it's going to get. Did you understand that?

I don't mean to come off as rude, but there's really no nice way to say it.

They can improve chainsaws as much as they damned well please, it won't change the fact that they don't make good weapons. There is a reason that they're used as terror weapons in real life/film and that's because aside from being loud and scary they suck as weapons. They don't do anything that a normal blade doesn't, and frankly a chainsaw with teeth and a chain is going to bind against any armor made of even roughly equal materials. Like is said, try cutting even soft thin metal from the middle with a chainsaw, you'll see the rotating blades push it away making cutting harder. Try putting some metal sheets on a punching bag and cutting that, and I bet you don't get too far and that's a soft punching bag and thin metal to go along with your not military grade chainsaw.

Yeah your cool. You can be rude to people anomyously on the internet. You know, a guy can make a few mistakes. And anyway, his post made plenty of sence. And I wasn't at all rude in my post either. You really don't have a reason to be acting like you are. We understand that you don't like the idea. That's fine. I personally don't care for it either, it requires a large amount of overhaul and a bunch of price increases on almost every codex. But you don't see me calling people names over the internet.

Oh look a thin skinned bitch who doesn't like getting called names in text. As for his post it makes about as much 'sence' as your typing given the awkward double negative. However I don't have to think that the chainsaw will improve as a military weapon in 38,000 years anyway seeing as it hasn't improved as a military weapon in the years since it was developed for its real job of cutting wood quickly. Not to mention that other weapons would get that R&D money so that they had guns effective enough that melee wasn't seen as the go to option when you're outnumbered.

Norade wrote:

Augustus wrote:wow a page arguing about a fictitious weapons, ok sure. I didn't intend this thread to be in the fluff section, but now, I think it qualifies.

Thread was worthless anyway, just do a search and see how often the idea gets shot down by everybody...

The worthless parts of this thread are your opinions and hostility. Also, you are arguing about made up chainsaws and acting as an authority on weapons, that's actually pretty funny.

Augustus wrote:

Norade wrote:

Augustus wrote:wow a page arguing about a fictitious weapons, ok sure. I didn't intend this thread to be in the fluff section, but now, I think it qualifies.

Thread was worthless anyway, just do a search and see how often the idea gets shot down by everybody...

The worthless parts of this thread are your opinions and hostility. Also, you are arguing about made up chainsaws and acting as an authority on weapons, that's actually pretty funny.

Meh, it's no less worthless than making yet another chainswords should have rending thread. Besides, nobody has a counter to my arguments besides 'itz the futurez and chinsaz werk differntz'.

Which is a perfectly valid argument, equally as valid as CHAINSAWZZ ARE STOOPIIIDD!!!!

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:Which is a perfectly valid argument, equally as valid as CHAINSAWZZ ARE STOOPIIIDD!!!!

Can you prove that in any reasonable future that chainsaws would be a decent weapon? I thought not, I can prove that a modern chainsaw makes a terrible weapon.

Norade wrote:
Can you prove that in any reasonable future that chainsaws would be a decent weapon? I thought not, I can prove that a modern chainsaw makes a terrible weapon.

We are talking about chainswords in 40K FLUFF, so if the chainsword is capable of bisecting an ork boy in the fluff, and if the game will not be imbalanced after the interpretation of this, then why not make the game reflect the fluff?

The Zoat wrote:

Norade wrote:
Can you prove that in any reasonable future that chainsaws would be a decent weapon? I thought not, I can prove that a modern chainsaw makes a terrible weapon.

We are talking about chainswords in 40K FLUFF, so if the chainsword is capable of bisecting an ork boy in the fluff, and if the game will not be imbalanced after the interpretation of this, then why not make the game reflect the fluff?

Because it would unbalance the game especially for armies that have loads of chainswords versus those that don't. Or are you too dim to notice that?

Oh come on!
Your basing your arguments on MODERN DAY chainsaws.
Were talking about Something 38,000 years into the future.
Otherwise known as Sci-fi.
And to stop armies being overpowered, read the beginning of the thread, where you got a basic CCW and upgraded it to a chainsword.

Its supposed to be designed as a CCW. Therefore it works as a CCW. THEY WOULDN'T USE IT IF IT DIDN'T WORK!! A specialised edge, material, engine, shape, size etc., all designed to cause PAIN. Thats all.

I really hope a Moderator shows up and stops people like you, who post about how a chainsword wouldn't actually work, from posting in this thread (if that is even possible). This was a thread asking if giving chainswords/axes etc. a boost, such as rending or re-rolls, and how that would benefit the game, fit the fluff more or help balance certain units.





Oh, and why penal legionaries have rending, look to Lelith Hesperax. That's what insanity/prison/training does to you.

<text redacted --Janthkin>

Honestly you've just ignored my post completely.
Modern military forces don't use them because they suck. Current day chainsaws ARE useless in combat (unless you want to scare the gak out of someone). BUT THESE AREN"T CURRENT DAY CHAINSAWS!!!! They don't use them because of weight and their uselessness against anything but bare flesh. But chainswords have been designed to avoid all the problems of using a chainsaw in combat. They are DESIGNED to rip through armour, flesh etc.

"Oh, also, you're too much of a bitch to debate properly so you hope the mods might do something. They can, and possibly will, ban me for calling you a pussy ass bitch, but they won't make me leave the thread because you don't like what I have to say. " What? How do you know that I don't debate "properly"? I'm only hoping that the Mods could help because you are contributing nothing to the thread, nor answering the question asked by the OP.

I must agree with you on the last point however. And no, in fact I do not like chainswords. Nor am i crying to the Mods. I personally think they are a stupid idea, as I would personally much prefer a silent blade. But they look cool, and little kids like them. So therefore GW uses them. More kids = more sales (unfortunately).

If you want to continue arguing this then stop using modern day chainsaws as an example. The only similarity is that they work on the same principle.

Comparing modernday chainsaws to 40ks chain swords .
Is like comparing a modernday laser pointer to 40k lascannon.

Modern day tools work on similar priciples to 40k weapons, but the effects have no bearing on the in game effcts of 40k weapons...

Lanrak wrote:Comparing modernday chainsaws to 40ks chain swords .
Is like comparing a modernday laser pointer to 40k lascannon.

Modern day tools work on similar priciples to 40k weapons, but the effects have no bearing on the in game effcts of 40k weapons...

Finally, someone who gets it!

Sabet wrote:Honestly you've just ignored my post completely.
Modern military forces don't use them because they suck. Current day chainsaws ARE useless in combat (unless you want to scare the gak out of someone). BUT THESE AREN"T CURRENT DAY CHAINSAWS!!!! They don't use them because of weight and their uselessness against anything but bare flesh. But chainswords have been designed to avoid all the problems of using a chainsaw in combat. They are DESIGNED to rip through armour, flesh etc.

Exactly what design changes can you point out for a chaisword over a normal chainsaw? The blades and chains are stronger, but so is the armor they will often face so that's a wash. They might have stronger engines with lower revs, but we don't have any proof of that and all the scenes of them in cut scenes show them spinning pretty fast so that doesn't seem to be it either. They're a terror weapon, but not much of one.

Things they lack over modern chainsaws are that they have a wide blade that has a case around it that should actually keep them limited to shallow wounds with anything like real physics. They're noisy, heavy, and can run out of power and thus become a fancy club which is fine in the woods against trees, but not on the battlefield.

I cut the rest, because frankly I don't care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:Comparing modernday chainsaws to 40ks chain swords .
Is like comparing a modernday laser pointer to 40k lascannon.

Modern day tools work on similar priciples to 40k weapons, but the effects have no bearing on the in game effcts of 40k weapons...

No, it would be like comparing military lasers to lasguns. They both work, but one is still in its infancy as a weapon, though likely to see deployment in the coming decades, and the other is a tried and true weapon which has been refined down to a personal weapons scale.

Chainsaws will never become a real military weapon. Full stop.

No, they don't have a wide blade. They have a mono-molecular blade. And we do have proof of a better engine. I know somewhere it says they are powered by a nuclear reactor. So they won't run out of power anytime soon. They've already lasted a few dozen millennia.

If you don't care, then why are you even posting on this thread?

Sabet wrote:No, they don't have a wide blade. They have a mono-molecular blade. And we do have proof of a better engine. I know somewhere it says they are powered by a nuclear reactor. So they won't run out of power anytime soon. They've already lasted a few dozen millennia.

If you don't care, then why are you even posting on this thread?

Looking at the art and models the blades aren't anything close. Not to mention the fact that these blades would chip and dull swiftly against the armor and other weapons which they would strike by virtue of those materials being of equal hardness and toughness to the blade itself. Not to mention that we see a fairly wide outer casing around the blade itself which would hamper cutting. While they doubtless have a high amount of running time, they can still break down for any number of reasons.

I didn't care about the rest of the post, not the topic in general.

Norade wrote:

Augustus wrote:wow a page arguing about a fictitious weapons, ok sure. I didn't intend this thread to be in the fluff section, but now, I think it qualifies.

Thread was worthless anyway, just do a search and see how often the idea gets shot down by everybody...

People liked my suggestion


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norade wrote:Looking at the art and models the blades aren't anything close.

But they aren't necessarily so in the lore given that they can bisect Orks.

We could all go back to 2nd edition where a chainsword was a chainsword and a rock was a rock?

They're fat in the art because they're fat in the models. They don't want people buying their stuff for the great art on the cover, then rage-quitting 40K (or rather, being so dissapoint that they don't even start), they want them to get what they see. (Or at least they used to. Now they just use the models themselves on the covers) The models are like that because they're Heroic Scale, and a paper-thin blade on a metal or plastic miniature won't last long. Do you think actual knives and swords are also 3/4 as thick as they are wide? Fluff-wise (what the models represent, not what they are) they're probably about a quarter to an eight of an inch thick, with monomolecular blades and unbreakable chains, and the equivalent of a modern Diesel truck engine powering them.

And the blades aren't like modern-day chainsaw blades. They aren't little chisels, like modern chainsaws, because chisels are designed to be good at cutting wood and moving the scrap out of the way. The teeth on a chainsword are shaped like Canine teeth or predatory claws, or T-rex fangs, they've been designed to be the best shape for cutting through flesh and bone. So instead of a single 'tooth' (a knife or sword) biting into the armour or fleshy bits (that is, either being absorbed by the armour save, or doing a wound) you have 200 'teeth' biting into the flesh whenever they hit. They're not cutting through the armour when you deal an unsaved wound, you're cutting into the exposed head of the sergeant or the bare gut of an Ork Boy. Rending would just be those lucky hits where, if you only had a straight blade, you may have nicked skin, but with a pulling, slicing, shredding chain-blade, you're actually severing an artery.

ANOTHER PERSON WHO GETS IT!

If the goal is to fix Berzerkers, then allow them to purchase "Chain Axes" (rending close combat weapons).

You run into the same issue here that people are having in the Heiavy Bolter thread: you want to fix one unit (Astartes-carried Heavy Bolters for Tac and Dev squads), but the proposed changes would throw the game balance completely out of whack (especially for IG, an army that can take Heavy Bolters in slowed numbers).


From a realism standpoint, "Chain" weapons are completely idiotic. There are a few hurdles you need to cross: 1) the rarity of hand to hand combat in modern conflicts that would even necessitate carrying a dedicated close combat weapon, 2) a giant electric turkey knife would be a far better use of electricity if your goal was to break things and kill people, as at least you can stab with it, and 3) chains in general are not conducive to hacking things to death. You have to rev it up and then apply pressure, that's how it works. Watch what happens when someone slips with a chainsaw into something designed to STOP chainsaws. Anything that works in this fashion is highly susceptible to binding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilcLXpdJK0&NR=1

If you want to bust armored targets, you need leverage. Something like a Thunder Hammer would be fairly devastating. Chainswords, not so much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-iZ5S7L4HM

These little weenies can put a hammer through a car door, so it's safe to say that a space marine could do a number on somebody with something like that.

Norade wrote:<text redacted --Janthkin>

You automatically lose the debate for Ad Hominem attacks.

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:You automatically lose the debate for Ad Hominem attacks.

Is that against me or him?

Probably him.

Him, of course.

Anyway, I'd say that a few things in the Space Marine Codex would need changing in this case.

Captain and Chapter Master: Unchanged
Tactical and Devastator Squads: Unchanged
Assault Squad: Start with Combat Blades. Add "Each Model may be given a chainsword for +3 Points"
Vanguard Vets: Unchanged
Sternguard Vets: Unchanged
Terminators: Chainfists are Rending

That's it, near as I can tell.

chainfists don't need rending. if either of the dice rolls a 6 you've penetrated any armour value

Zip Napalm wrote:We could all go back to 2nd edition where a chainsword was a chainsword and a rock was a rock?

I know what you mean! I remember then when each CC weapon had a statline just like all the guns. Once upon a time CC weapons had strength and armor mods just like missile weapons.

Thats really cool, but thats also a complete rewrite, unless it was a unique entry for berzerkers only... So

Berzerkers Chaos codex


Any Berzerker can exchange their bolt pistol and or CCW for a chainaxe:
Chainaxe 5 points
S5 Rending

TA da!