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.

 koooaei wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
40k is fantasy in space. In real life, it's hard to get soldiers to get into melee range of tanks. Hell, even if you get them there all you have to do is fire the main gun and the guys near it will be killed from the blast force. In addition, nothing is stopping the tank from just driving over/away from the attackers.

There were plenty of WW2 examples of tanks getting wrecked in 'mellee' with a set of grenades.

And the 5th and 6th Edition (not read 7th) BRB's said that the attackers are looking for weak spots to attack, hence the rear armour value being used. Someone could happily shove a couple of frags down a chimera's hatch and kill everyone inside.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
there is quite a big dissonance between the fluff and the crunch here.

Welcome to Warhammer 40000.

Enjoy your stay.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
And remember: eviscerators are much much more efficient than power weapons are killing vehicles.

Ehm... the Eviscerator is a two-handed chainsword wrapped in a powerfield. It *is* a powerweapon.

I assumed he meant 'other power weapons', since the chainfist is also a power weapon and is basically a TDA-mount for an eviscerator.

Indeed, but the "better at tearing tanks apart" on the Eviscerator is because it's honking huge and has a much bigger power-field than a one-handed sword or hammer, and has the force of mass behind its swing forcing the power-field to "bite" deeper... plus the adamantium teeth of the blade itself to chew through the molecularly-destabilized armor plate.

i dont see the fists or anythign as "denting the hull" so much as,

reaching in through the hull like its made of paper, and ripping out huge power fist sized gobs of internal "know whots" from the delicate insides of the machine.

only thing that doesnt make sense to me is how,

chainsaws are horrible against armour when on a sword or axe,

but the best against armour when in circular saw form...

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
there is quite a big dissonance between the fluff and the crunch here.

Welcome to Warhammer 40000.
Enjoy your stay.

I think you meant “Welcome to Ashiraya's Warhammer 40k head-cannon” .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
there is quite a big dissonance between the fluff and the crunch here.

Welcome to Warhammer 40000.
Enjoy your stay.

I think you meant “Welcome to Ashiraya's Warhammer 40k head-cannon” .

Talking more in general. The overwhelming majority of BL and codex fluff is heavily disconnected from the rules, in various entertaining ways.

Oh, almost forgot. Mandatory passive-aggressive orkmoticon: ''

 Ashiraya wrote:
Talking more in general. The overwhelming majority of BL and codex fluff is heavily disconnected from the rules, in various entertaining ways.

Rarely that much. Here the eviscerator is presented as extremely, massively better at destroying vehicles than power swords. No contest. It is basically the most powerful melee weapon in the Imperium's armory to deal with vehicle. Comparing the two is like comparing hotshot lasgun and melta. I cannot give you a precise citation saying that a melta is a better weapon to destroy a tank than a hotshot lasgun, but I do not need to, it is made painfully obvious by the rules.

Also, even in general, your biggest problem with the crunch is that it does not fit your personal interpretation of the power scale, but 40 000's fluff is sufficiently vague and self-contradictory that other people, me included, have a different idea of the power scale that is much closer to the crunch.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Oh, almost forgot. Mandatory passive-aggressive orkmoticon: ''

Sorry you took it that way. But you were pretty sarcastic yourself.

Rarely that much. Here the eviscerator is presented as extremely, massively better at destroying vehicles than power swords. No contest. It is basically the most powerful melee weapon in the Imperium's armory to deal with vehicle. Comparing the two is like comparing hotshot lasgun and melta. I cannot give you a precise citation saying that a melta is a better weapon to destroy a tank than a hotshot lasgun, but I do not need to, it is made painfully obvious by the rules.

Outside of Dreadnought CCW, the Eviscerator *is* the nastiest hand-to-hand weapon the Imperium produces, at the absolute worst tied with a power-fist or a chain-fist for the top spot.... but you can always put the Eviscerator down and use a hand to do something, whereas the various fists are much clumsier.

A melta is the best weapon for melting through absolutely anything that needs to be melted from range... but it's just not as intimidating to the viewer like a two-meter long chainsword wrapped in a crackling field of blue lightning.

 Psienesis wrote:
Outside of Dreadnought CCW

Just like “The feet of a Titan”, dreadnought weapons do not count, for obvious reasons .

 Psienesis wrote:
A melta is the best weapon for melting through absolutely anything that needs to be melted from range...

That is arguable. Lascannon for instance can be better under certain circumstances. Like, obviously, if you cannot get close to the thing that needs to be melted.

 Psienesis wrote:
a two-meter long chainsword wrapped in a crackling field of blue lightning.

But are eviscerators like that? I never heard of a crackling field of blue lightning, and no model had a 2-meter long eviscerator afaik. In Inquisitor, the game which introduced them, they were just slightly bigger chainsword, with the same reach and slightly higher damage (1D10 vs 1d10+2). They are explicitly listed in the chain weapons table and not in the power weapon table. Furthermore they were introduced as the weapon for some fanatic Redemptionist that likely would not have an expensive or high-tech weapon at his disposal. They were then made the ritual weapons of a suicide unit. You do not give technological marvels to a suicide unit. All of this goes toward the “crude, huge chainsword with no subtlety whatsoever”.
And then GW introduced in 6th edition the “Big chainsword” weapon (or whatever it is called in English) which rules are about equivalent to what the Eviscerator from Inquisitor was. Confusing stuff. I though back then that this was made to equip the repentia with a weapon that made sense given their fluff, and allowed to play them as a cheap throwaway martyrs that will be sent to die but no, they kept the eviscerators that made them some kind of stupid glass cannon. I mean, the eviscerators make them so expensive, and they are so fragile, that you need to protect them at all cost until they are ready to strike, which is as unfluffy as can be.
So anyway, what eviscerators are is actually not very well defined or clear. Which is not surprising, given only Sisters and Priests uses them, and we all know how much attention GW wants to give to Sisters.
If anyone has details from the more recent RPG, please enlighten us.

Lexicanum wrote:An Eviscerator is a form of obscenely oversized chainsword, that is so abnormally large that it can only ever be wielded in combat effectively with both hands. It can deal horrible wounds to living beings and even break walls or damage vehicles' armour.

Warhammer 40K Wiki wrote:An Eviscerator is an obscenely large double-handed Chain Weapon that is favoured by Ecclesiarchy zealots, Witch-Hunters, and the Sister Repentia of the Adepta Sororitas. This Chain Weapon is fitted with a crude version of the disruption field generator more commonly found on Power Weapons. Although very unwieldy and tiring to use, the Eviscerator is fully capable of bisecting an armoured man or tearing open the most blasphemously corrupted mutant in a single stroke of its gargantuan blade. It can slice through walls and even damage vehicles. Since it must be wielded with both hands it cannot be used in combination with another close combat weapon.

ETA: When I am not at work, I'll quote the FFG description of the Eviscerator, which might be the most-recent related publication.

Lexicanicum does not mention a disruption field generator, and I would be very interested in the source from Wikia.
But yeah, the rules make it clear that the eviscerator went from just a very big chainsaw to… something else . The question is, what are they exactly? If they are so much better than “big chainsaw” just because they are even bigger, and yet perfectly usable by unaugmented men and women, then there is something very wrong here.
[edit]Will be quite interested by that description, thanks [/edit]
[edit2]I forgot I had access to FFG's Blood of Martyr. Well, the description is very similar to the one from Wikia, so now the disruption field generator thing is official. I wonder when the retcon was introduced.{/edit]

I believe the disruption field was mentioned in Codex: Witch Hunters, actually. Sadly, my copy is sealed away in the shed for the moment, so I can't reference it directly, and the 6th edition codex only references the rulebook.. which doesn't say anything about them specifically.

Codex: Witch-Hunters wrote: This is a grotesquely large two-handed chainsword. It must be wielded in both hands and so cannot be used in combination with another close combat weapon. It is treated in all other respects as a power fist that rolls 2d6 for Armour Penetration.

The quote from WH40K Wiki I posted earlier is repeated verbatim in Blood of Martyrs.

I remember the WD Sisters of Battle Codex listed it as a 2-handed Powerfist that rolled 2D6 for Armour.

Chainfist is a Powerfist with 2D6 Armour penetration that can gain another attack if you have another Power/Chainfist.


In 6th/7th Ed, there are 2 profiles...

Eviscerator
Str x2, AP 2, Armourbane, 2 Handed

Chainfist
Str x2, AP2, Armourbane, Specialist Weapon

 Deadshot wrote:
I remember the WD Sisters of Battle Codex listed it as a 2-handed Powerfist that rolled 2D6 for Armour.

Chainfist is a Powerfist with 2D6 Armour penetration that can gain another attack if you have another Power/Chainfist.


In 6th/7th Ed, there are 2 profiles...

Eviscerator
Str x2, AP 2, Armourbane, 2 Handed

Chainfist
Str x2, AP2, Armourbane, Specialist Weapon

Long story short: Chainfist>Eviscerator.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
I remember the WD Sisters of Battle Codex listed it as a 2-handed Powerfist that rolled 2D6 for Armour.

Chainfist is a Powerfist with 2D6 Armour penetration that can gain another attack if you have another Power/Chainfist.


In 6th/7th Ed, there are 2 profiles...

Eviscerator
Str x2, AP 2, Armourbane, 2 Handed

Chainfist
Str x2, AP2, Armourbane, Specialist Weapon

Long story short: Chainfist>Eviscerator.

But only just. The profiles are very similar, the only difference being the potential for Chainfist to get another attack through a second PF/CF or Specialist Weapon dependent on Edition.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

Long story short: Chainfist>Eviscerator.

Except for the fact that there's something less obvious.

Chainfists require Terminator Armour to wield.

Therefore, only the most powerful Inquisitors and some Astartes chapters can bring them to battle, whereas anyone from a relatively industrial world can lay their hands on an Eviscerator.

If you factor in availability (outside the current lack of a frateris militia option), eviscerator wins back out over chainfist.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

Long story short: Chainfist>Eviscerator.

Except for the fact that there's something less obvious.

Chainfists require Terminator Armour to wield.

Therefore, only the most powerful Inquisitors and some Astartes chapters can bring them to battle, whereas anyone from a relatively industrial world can lay their hands on an Eviscerator.

If you factor in availability (outside the current lack of a frateris militia option), eviscerator wins back out over chainfist.

I don't see why you can wield a Power Fist normally but not a Chainfist, the added weight of half a chainsword won't make that much of a difference when you're lugging around a giant metal fist.

Because you need one hand to scratch your arse with.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

Long story short: Chainfist>Eviscerator.

Except for the fact that there's something less obvious.

Chainfists require Terminator Armour to wield.

Therefore, only the most powerful Inquisitors and some Astartes chapters can bring them to battle, whereas anyone from a relatively industrial world can lay their hands on an Eviscerator.

If you factor in availability (outside the current lack of a frateris militia option), eviscerator wins back out over chainfist.

I don't see why you can wield a Power Fist normally but not a Chainfist, the added weight of half a chainsword won't make that much of a difference when you're lugging around a giant metal fist.

Likely the force needed to carve through a Tank would shatter bones otherwise.

 Otto Weston wrote:


I'm really not seeing these AT melee weapons and how they're applied. I mean, if these power weapons were SOOOo good at penetrating armour, why not just have a power cannon shell? Why not have power bolter rounds? Instead of having hard to apply AT melee weapons.

Also, because it appears power weapons don't insta-gib other power weapons; referencing duels with power weaponry where the weapons just deflect/bounce off of each other in sparks. Why not have power tank armour then to protect against the power weapons?

Power fields are supposed to be incredibly rare and expensive. Blasting them out of a cannon like spent lead seems like a rather wasteful way to wage war. Similarly covering an entire tank in them seems to be uber expensive.

 Exergy wrote:

 Otto Weston wrote:


I'm really not seeing these AT melee weapons and how they're applied. I mean, if these power weapons were SOOOo good at penetrating armour, why not just have a power cannon shell? Why not have power bolter rounds? Instead of having hard to apply AT melee weapons.

Also, because it appears power weapons don't insta-gib other power weapons; referencing duels with power weaponry where the weapons just deflect/bounce off of each other in sparks. Why not have power tank armour then to protect against the power weapons?

Power fields are supposed to be incredibly rare and expensive. Blasting them out of a cannon like spent lead seems like a rather wasteful way to wage war. Similarly covering an entire tank in them seems to be uber expensive.

Step 1: Cover front of landspeeder in powerfields
Step 2: Fly/hover/drive at enemy
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit

Step 3 is: "Don't take a hit to the side armor"

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Exergy wrote:

 Otto Weston wrote:


I'm really not seeing these AT melee weapons and how they're applied. I mean, if these power weapons were SOOOo good at penetrating armour, why not just have a power cannon shell? Why not have power bolter rounds? Instead of having hard to apply AT melee weapons.

Also, because it appears power weapons don't insta-gib other power weapons; referencing duels with power weaponry where the weapons just deflect/bounce off of each other in sparks. Why not have power tank armour then to protect against the power weapons?

Power fields are supposed to be incredibly rare and expensive. Blasting them out of a cannon like spent lead seems like a rather wasteful way to wage war. Similarly covering an entire tank in them seems to be uber expensive.

Step 1: Cover front of landspeeder in powerfields
Step 2: Fly/hover/drive at enemy
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit

Isn't that what the DE raider upgrade "Shock Prow" is

Don't forget that some of the melee weapons the Imperium uses are actually survivors from the DAoT, while more complex machines (such as heavy tanks) from the period exist only in fragmentary blueprint form.

This means of course that it's entirely possible that the tanks of the DAoT had systems to deal with power-field systems, such as energy screens of their own.

This theory is supported by the Horus Heresy fluff, in which some of the tanks (the ones with "sufficiently rapid-cycling thermic reactors") have access to Flare Shields, which are weaker versions of void shields.