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.

Seriously, am I missing something here? If every model, whether it is modeled as such or not, has a Close Combat Weapon(apparently smacking the enemy with the butt of a gun or delivering a haymaker), what the heck is the point of the Chainsword if it has the same exact stats as a CCW? Why would you even model something with one besides "looks cool"? Heck, in some cases, you give up a much more utilitarian weapon to use one. Why would you trade a Bolter or Bolt Pistol for a Chainsword when you already have a CCW that does the exact same thing? If the rule was that you can just take a chainsword for free without having to trade something, I could understand. They look cool and all, and I could see wanting to have your SM or whatnot have a kick-butt chainsaw butter knife, but why should it come at the expense of a Bolt Pistol or Bolter?

Seriously, I have half a mind to rip every chainsword off my Crimson Fists and gluing a holstered Bolt Pistol to their hips.

Because punching something and carving it with a chainsaw is equally damaging.

Or not.

In most cases where you get the option to exchange for a chainsword, you do so to have 2 CCWs (or a chainsword and a pistol), gaining you an extra attack.

Of the top of my head, I can't think of any instance where this isn't the case actually.

DrunkPhilisoph wrote:
In most cases where you get the option to exchange for a chainsword, you do so to have 2 CCWs (or a chainsword and a pistol), gaining you an extra attack.

Of the top of my head, I can't think of any instance where this isn't the case actually.

So...my Space Marine Sergeants with a Combi-weapon in one hand and a Chainsword in the other traded their Bolt Pistol for...bupkiss? Excuse me while I punch Past-Me in the face.

Your sergeants should have traded their stock bolter for the combi-weapon as you have no benefit from having 2 bolters.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Your sergeants should have traded their stock bolter for the combi-weapon as you have no benefit from having 2 bolters.

Here is how I understand it though. The Sergeant can trade their Bolter or Bolt Pistol for a Chainsword. They can also trade their Melee or Bolt Pistol for a Ranged Weapon. So they would have traded a Bolter for a Chainsword and a Bolt Pistol for a Combi Weapon. So...did I do that right? It seems like I screwed up somehow.

*sigh* Chainswords don't just get made for marines.. I imagine stiriking scorpions rather like the +1 str they give

ConanMan wrote:
*sigh* Chainswords don't just get made for marines.. I imagine stiriking scorpions rather like the +1 str they give

Well that is crap. Assault Marines should get a bonus for using a Chainsword as well.

I have a tendency to model anything wielding a chainsword as using the chainsword in one hand, and whatever other weapon they are using in the other hand, whether it is a Flamer (normally held in two hands, but my Assault Marines have a Flamer in one hand, Chainsword in the other), Combi Bolter, or regular old bolter (like the Dev Squad Sergeant is depicted as doing on the Dev Squad box). Is that kosher? Especially since Chainswords are superfluous in the first place.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
So they would have traded a Bolter for a Chainsword and a Bolt Pistol for a Combi Weapon.

That would be pointless, yes. A regular close combat weapon is less useful than a pistol, and a chainsword is just a regular close combat weapon.

For what it's worth, even back when chainswords had special rules, there was no point in marines taking them, as they received the exact same benefits from taking a regular sword for (IIRC) 1 point less.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Why would you even model something with one besides "looks cool"?

Because this is a hobbyist game where modeling things for rule-of-cool is like half the point.

Tallarn lasguns are different in the fluff from Cadian lasguns, which in turn are different from Vostroyan lasguns, Catachan lasguns etc. The fluff states that they all have markedly different specs, some having stronger shots, some having better accuracy, or larger clip sizes. So how come my tallarn lasgun doesn't have special stats to show that in-game? Why should I bother giving my Guardsmen Catachan lasguns beyond rule-of-cool?

 insaniak wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
So they would have traded a Bolter for a Chainsword and a Bolt Pistol for a Combi Weapon.

That would be pointless, yes. A regular close combat weapon is less useful than a pistol, and a chainsword is just a regular close combat weapon.

*Sigh* Where's my Stephen Colbert gif? Well, looks like a bunch of Marines might be getting remodeled with their Chainswords ripped off(just my two Tactical Squad Sergeants with Combi-Bolters in one hand, Chainswords in the other). Maybe I can replace the Chainsword arm with an open palm hand and put a grenade in there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Why would you even model something with one besides "looks cool"?

Because this is a hobbyist game where modeling things for rule-of-cool is like half the point.

Tallarn lasguns are different in the fluff from Cadian lasguns, which in turn are different from Vostroyan lasguns, Catachan lasguns etc. The fluff states that they all have markedly different specs, some having stronger shots, some having better accuracy, or larger clip sizes. So how come my tallarn lasgun doesn't have special stats to show that in-game? Why should I bother giving my Guardsmen Catachan lasguns beyond rule-of-cool?

Yeah, but in some cases, it isn't just rule of cool. You actively make your model crappier in play for the sake of rule of cool. If there is no benefit to replacing an item with a chainsword, it should just read "Sergeant or Veteran Sergeant may replace their Close Combat Weapon with a Chainsword - Free". If it literally has no benefit, it shouldn't come with a cost, which, in the case of SM, is either a bolter or bolt pistol.

EDIT: The more I think about it, all of my Tactical Squads are equipped to be shooty anyway. Chapter Tactics (SoT) makes them benefit more from just mowing down enemies from range. So what the Sergeant has in his other hand really isn't all that relevant. Sure, he misses out on an extra close combat attack, but if I let someone get into close combat with them, I probably screwed up somewhere along the way in the first place.

Because having a Pistol and CCW gives +1 attack? IIRC the rules state that if you hae no specified CCW (including Pistols) you count as having a single regular CCW. Meaning that having a Bolter and BP counts as having a single CCW (the Pistol). Having just a Bolter counts as single CCW.

If you replace the BP with a Chainsword you have now a specified CCW and only 1, so no +1 attack.

If you replace the Bolter with a Chainsword, you now have a specified CCW and Pistol. 2 CCW = +1 attack.

*WARNING! Completely Not Serious TFG Post coming up*

I think I figured out a way around this. The rulebook says that you can replace your BP OR your Melee Weapon for a Combi-Weapon. Your assumed CCW is a Melee Weapon. Couldn't you replace your assumed CCW with a Combi-Weapon? And then you replace your Bolter with a Chainsword. Which leads you to have a Combi-Bolter, BP, AND a Chainsword!

...pretty sure that doesn't work.

On the bright side, I managed to not frak up my Command Squad by trading their Chainswords for Combi-Plasmas (that I kitbashed together myself, BTW!), which lets them keep their BPs, and they still will have an assumed CCW, which makes them pretty capable in most phases of combat. I don't know if it quite works that way, but it seems like it could. Probably could chalk this one up to my gross misunderstanding of the rules.

You don't get the free melee weapon if you have a specific melee weapon - a Marine has a bolt pistol, which counts as his melee weapon, meaning he doesn't get a free one.

Out of interest, if Chainswords were given an effect, what do you think it should be?

Shred.

They're not that great against heavy armour, but unprotected flesh? Go straight through it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shred.

They're not that great against heavy armour, but unprotected flesh? Go straight through it.

Furyou Miko wrote:You don't get the free melee weapon if you have a specific melee weapon - a Marine has a bolt pistol, which counts as his melee weapon, meaning he doesn't get a free one.

But...I had it all figured out! I knew there was something I wasn't factoring in. Oh well, the Sarges still look pretty awesome with a combi-bolter in one hand and a Chainsword in the other. Putting a grenade in the other hand could be cool too though. They are already painted, so I don't think I am going to bother ripping them apart, though. Live and learn, I guess.

vipoid wrote:Out of interest, if Chainswords were given an effect, what do you think it should be?

Honestly, I would make the +1 Str like the Striking Scorpions get Standard. You aren't going to punch through armor very well, but the Str +1 would accommodate the idea that the blade do add some sort of an increase over a plain old combat knife. If you gave it some sort of AP, it wouldn't fit the fluff of them chopping through unarmored flesh well (otherwise it wouldn't make sense for that statement to be there). Problem is, the chainsaw blades ripping through light armor (AP) makes more sense than Str +1 in context. The chainsaw blade isn't making you stronger somehow, it is just cutting a little better.

EDIT: SHRED! That makes perfect sense!

Casva - why don't you just put a bolt pistol on the model and explain to your opponent that the chainsword is just for 'cool effect' and has no game effect?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Casva - why don't you just put a bolt pistol on the model and explain to your opponent that the chainsword is just for 'cool effect' and has no game effect?

I guess I could do that. It is kinda bending the rules, which I am not a huge fan of (hence why I prefaced the exploit above as being TFG behavior). Of course, I modeled all of my Rhino/Razorbacks with a Storm Bolter on them, and when they are Razorbacks, the Storm Bolters are just non-functional. Since the Chainsword offers absolutely no benefit, I find it hard to believe there is anyone out there that would throw a fit over the Sarges having a bolt pistol on their hip. Honestly, the way I intend to play them, they really won't end up in CC much anyway. I intend to do my damnedest to keep them out of it.

It's not bending the rules - the chainsword is cosmetic, it has no ingame effect, therefore no rules are bent. 40k is only WYSIWYG when it comes to power and force weapons as far as the rules are concerned - you'll note how Imperial and Eldar meltaguns look completely different.

 insaniak wrote:
For what it's worth, even back when chainswords had special rules, there was no point in marines taking them, as they received the exact same benefits from taking a regular sword for (IIRC) 1 point less.

Yeah that used to really bug me in 2nd edition when chainswords had str 4, even if your charchter had str 5. So hitting with the butt of your pistol was actually more effective. At least you did get a parry back then.

EDIT: I remember this guy. He looked cool, but his wargear combination was really badly thought out...

 Furyou Miko wrote:
It's not bending the rules - the chainsword is cosmetic, it has no ingame effect, therefore no rules are bent. 40k is only WYSIWYG when it comes to power and force weapons as far as the rules are concerned - you'll note how Imperial and Eldar meltaguns look completely different.

I suppose that is the case. Especially since I could have modelled them with a combat knife and it would have functionally been the same thing, except they would still get to keep their BP.

I think I am going to House Rule Chainswords as having Shred, though. For the cost of a BP or bolter, you get a neat little choppy. Basically, for the price of +1 attack, you get to reroll failed wounds. Not a bad trade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
For what it's worth, even back when chainswords had special rules, there was no point in marines taking them, as they received the exact same benefits from taking a regular sword for (IIRC) 1 point less.

Yeah that used to really bug me in 2nd edition when chainswords had str 4, even if your charchter had str 5. So hitting with the butt of your pistol was actually more effective. At least you did get a parry back then.

EDIT: I remember this guy. He looked cool, but his wargear combination was really badly thought out...

Spoiler:

Chainsword, Storm Bolter (I think), and Bolt Pistol on the hip. *Punches numbers* One too many weapons. Kinda like the Dev Squad Sergeant with the technically illegal weapon combination on the box (he has a Chainsword which can only be traded for a Bolter, and a Bolter, which he would have had to trade for his Chainsword).

Further proof that GW doesn't know their own rules.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Chainsword, Storm Bolter (I think), and Bolt Pistol on the hip. *Punches numbers* One too many weapons. Kinda like the Dev Squad Sergeant with the technically illegal weapon combination on the box (he has a Chainsword which can only be traded for a Bolter, and a Bolter, which he would have had to trade for his Chainsword).

Further proof that GW doesn't know their own rules.

There was no two-weapon limit in second edition, so it was legal at the time (he's holding a bolt pistol btw).

The Devastator Sergeant's loadout was legal under the previous codex, the issue is that the marketing boys haven't thought to check if it's still legal.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Shred.

They're not that great against heavy armour, but unprotected flesh? Go straight through it.

That's a great idea.

 vipoid wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Shred.

They're not that great against heavy armour, but unprotected flesh? Go straight through it.

That's a great idea.

Quick, everyone spam GW asking them to errata it!

 Smacks wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
For what it's worth, even back when chainswords had special rules, there was no point in marines taking them, as they received the exact same benefits from taking a regular sword for (IIRC) 1 point less.

Yeah that used to really bug me in 2nd edition when chainswords had str 4, even if your charchter had str 5. So hitting with the butt of your pistol was actually more effective. At least you did get a parry back then.

EDIT: I remember this guy. He looked cool, but his wargear combination was really badly thought out...

Spoiler:

This would be a 2nd ed model. He would gain +1 strength and +1 initiative for having a bionic arm. In close combat you strike using your own strength or the weapon's, whichever is higher. So he'd be strength 5, save -2, parry. Not too shabby...

insaniak wrote:For what it's worth, even back when chainswords had special rules, there was no point in marines taking them, as they received the exact same benefits from taking a regular sword for (IIRC) 1 point less.

Marines didn't have access to a plain regular sword, they were forced to pay for the 2pt chainsword if they wanted +1 CCW and parry

Smacks wrote:Yeah that used to really bug me in 2nd edition when chainswords had str 4, even if your charchter had str 5. So hitting with the butt of your pistol was actually more effective.

If you used a pistol in close combat, it used the stats of the pistol, not strength=user. Kinda handy if you had a plasma pistol (S6) or hand flamer (S4, -2 save, chance to set target on fire)

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Seriously, am I missing something here? If every model, whether it is modeled as such or not, has a Close Combat Weapon(apparently smacking the enemy with the butt of a gun or delivering a haymaker), what the heck is the point of the Chainsword if it has the same exact stats as a CCW? Why would you even model something with one besides "looks cool"? Heck, in some cases, you give up a much more utilitarian weapon to use one. Why would you trade a Bolter or Bolt Pistol for a Chainsword when you already have a CCW that does the exact same thing? If the rule was that you can just take a chainsword for free without having to trade something, I could understand. They look cool and all, and I could see wanting to have your SM or whatnot have a kick-butt chainsaw butter knife, but why should it come at the expense of a Bolt Pistol or Bolter?

Seriously, I have half a mind to rip every chainsword off my Crimson Fists and gluing a holstered Bolt Pistol to their hips.

from a rules case the only minis where you have a choice of swapping a pistol for a chainsword is on bikers, and thats to allow you to replace CCWs with Power weapons IIRC

You all have missed the greatest benefit of the chainsword. It looks cool, particularly when you paint blood spatter on it.

You only have a "free" CCW if you do not otherwise have a CCW.

Otherwise any model with an explicitly stated CCW would gain +1A because of having 2 CCWs.

The rule should say "If a model does not have any melee weapons they are assumed to have a single CCW"

There is no point to having just a chainsword. The reason the sergeants options say that is so you could drop your bolter to get a CCW to add to your bolt pistol. So either a pistol/bolter or pistol/chainsword.