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.

Newish player still but wanted to ask some of the players of previous editions if the Chainswords ever had special rules beyond what they are now?

Not with the current mechanics AFAIK, but back in 2nd edition the game was quite different, and every weapon had it's own profile, with save modifiers and armor penetration roll modifiers and such. I don't recall what profile chainswords had though.

The chainsword in 2nd Ed was Strength 4 so it provided a boost to Guardsman who were equipped with one.

Without checking the old books, I believe power swords were S5 and power axes were S5 or S6 if it was used two-handed (but you then lost the +1 attack for two weapons).

 Vash108 wrote:
Newish player still but wanted to ask some of the players of previous editions if the Chainswords ever had special rules beyond what they are now?

Also all swords allowed a special defense called a parry. It allowed you to make your opponent re-roll 1 of his close combat die.

Don't forget also in 2nd you could\would use the sword to parry and then hit him in the head with your powerfist.

They still kind of do.

Its just S- AP-

 welshhoppo wrote:
They still kind of do.

Its just S- AP-

*S as user AP -

Chainsword are such a joke they should do something special

A ridiculous "super marines" ruleset that came out in White Dwarf as a joke once gave them rending and re-roll failed wounds in close combat.

 dementedwombat wrote:
A ridiculous "super marines" ruleset that came out in White Dwarf as a joke once gave them rending and re-roll failed wounds in close combat.

Movie-marines basically gave you an army of hive-tyrants wielding assault cannons as their basic weapon.

It's worth a laugh but the rules are super-outdated.

 Kain wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
A ridiculous "super marines" ruleset that came out in White Dwarf as a joke once gave them rending and re-roll failed wounds in close combat.

Movie-marines basically gave you an army of hive-tyrants wielding assault cannons as their basic weapon.

It's worth a laugh but the rules are super-outdated.

[tangent story alert. Feel free to skip this post]

I remember those rules well. A couple editions ago we were playing a 3 way space-hulk style game using the 40k rules (lots of very cramped corridors) where we all moved around little scraps of paper with numbers written on them until they got LOS of another scrap of paper, when we revealed what units were under them. We didn't even know what lists our opponents were bringing. 2 squads of fire warriors (most of my army except a broadside and my commander battlesuit/crisis bodyguard that somehow got wedged inside the hulk) opened a door and came face to face with all 10 movie marines. That did not end well...

That was the same game that my broadside looked around a corner and the Tyranid player said "make a leadership test on 3d6". I had never seen the doom before. That one did end well for me though. I managed not to take any wounds, then on my next turn I fired my railgun at the doom and it failed its save. We all basically assumed the pilot shoved the gun into its mouth and pulled the trigger.

That was a great game. We need to try "40k space hulk" again someday.

 dementedwombat wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
A ridiculous "super marines" ruleset that came out in White Dwarf as a joke once gave them rending and re-roll failed wounds in close combat.

Movie-marines basically gave you an army of hive-tyrants wielding assault cannons as their basic weapon.

It's worth a laugh but the rules are super-outdated.

[tangent story alert. Feel free to skip this post]

I remember those rules well. A couple editions ago we were playing a 3 way space-hulk style game using the 40k rules (lots of very cramped corridors) where we all moved around little scraps of paper with numbers written on them until they got LOS of another scrap of paper, when we revealed what units were under them. We didn't even know what lists our opponents were bringing. 2 squads of fire warriors (most of my army except a broadside and my commander battlesuit/crisis bodyguard that somehow got wedged inside the hulk) opened a door and came face to face with all 10 movie marines. That did not end well...

That was the same game that my broadside looked around a corner and the Tyranid player said "make a leadership test on 3d6". I had never seen the doom before. That one did end well for me though. I managed not to take any wounds, then on my next turn I fired my railgun at the doom and it failed its save. We all basically assumed the pilot shoved the gun into its mouth and pulled the trigger.

That was a great game. We need to try "40k space hulk" again someday.

That sounds epic and we've got to try that some time.

osirisx69 wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
Newish player still but wanted to ask some of the players of previous editions if the Chainswords ever had special rules beyond what they are now?

Also all swords allowed a special defense called a parry. It allowed you to make your opponent re-roll 1 of his close combat die.

Don't forget also in 2nd you could\would use the sword to parry and then hit him in the head with your powerfist.

There were a lot of armies in my area at that time where minis were modeled with two swords just to take advantage of that rule.