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.

Only benefit is they're free

 karlosovic 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.

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

Yeah, I suspect I'm misremembering on the regular marine front. I know my Chaos Marines had plain swords (as some of them still have the modelled) but I didn't run assault marines in my loyalist army back in 2nd ed.

I play Space Wolves, so they were *ALL* assault marines, to a degree

 karlosovic wrote:
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)

Ahh! Setting people on fire! Those were the days! I remember a game where one of my marine sergeants got set on fire like that. He kept making his armour save, but the flames just wouldn't go out. I recall we joked that it was because he wasn't wearing his helmet. I think I even had other squad members try to put him out, but he just kept burning. I miss that stuff. It really slowed the game down because we had to roll each turn to see where he randomly staggered to, but it was also the funniest bit. We were playing on the old Necromunda terrain, so every turn it was really exciting to see if he'd finally stumble over the edge of a walkway. I think eventually he did, but somehow made his armour save again. That was a great game! I also managed to kill a swooping hawk exarch by running him over with a rhino (the one and only time I recall overrun working).

But yeah, that was certainly the plus side of being able to use the weapons strength in CC. The chainsword was slightly awkward for marines. I guess it was still worth it for +1 attack and parry, But a power sword was only 3pts extra. I was pretty sad when they took power weapons away from assault marines.

 Smacks wrote:
I was pretty sad when they took power weapons away from assault marines.

Yeah tell me about it, all my old 2nd ed Space Wolf squads had melee weapons on every guy.
The sprue came with a chainsword, power sword, power axe, powerfist, plasma pistol, hand flamer, and I used to use all of them (per 5 men in a unit)

Then came 3rd ed and 3 out of every 5 guys had an illegal weapon equipped >.<


Stupid 3rd ed

Worst
Edition
Ever

Keep playing 2nd, then your wolves can have their cool weapons! I've just finished a Death Company for 2nd ed, each one armed differently- my favourite is one with a chain sword and a power sword: S5, save -3, two parries!

Yeah we do sometimes, but then a lot of the cool new units that have been released since then don't have entries for 2nd Ed.
I like 7th ed and this codex... it feels the closest to 2nd ed of all the newer editions.

It does sometimes feel like they're just slowly leading us back there. They completely gutted 2nd edition to make 3rd, which of course was...

Worst
Edition
Ever

Then it seems like every edition they give us a little bit back, like running and then overwatch. Maybe next edition they'll give us weapon damage back and fix the silly ID and EW rubbish.

I still hope and pray they'll give us back "to Hit" modifiers and save modifiers.

This current method of "AP" value is the most @#$%%@ mechanic ever (don't change my #$%ing words!)

It bewilders me how they reconcile the fact that an anti-tank missile has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on TDA, but an anti-tank laser COMPLETELY DESTROYS IT every single time.... even though there's only 1 point between them

And I hate that it's EITHER armour OR cover..... like using both together was never beneficial somehow?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TDA was a 3+ save on 2D6

That meant there was an appropriately subtle difference between a lascannon's -6 modifer (meaning you now need to roll a 9+ on 2D6), and the Krak missile's -5 modifier (meaning you needed to roll 8+ on 2D6.

None of this
nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, TOTAL ANNIHILATION!!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"OK see that guy over there that's hiding between all those tress 35 inches away from my guy? Well I can see 2/5ths of his head and the tip of his shoulder when I look over that tank and between that little gap in the ruins. It's True-Line-Of-Sight™ doncha know? Yes well I can hit him on a 3+,but as he's in the woods you can choose to take a 5+ cover save instead of your armour save if you like"

Seems legit

The only rule I can think of giving chainswords without requiring a point cost or being OP is to give them Shred.

Str: User AP: - and shred seems like a fair thing. A slight improvement over a normal CCW without being over the top. And it would give assault marines something special.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The only rule I can think of giving chainswords without requiring a point cost or being OP is to give them Shred.

Str: User AP: - and shred seems like a fair thing. A slight improvement over a normal CCW without being over the top. And it would give assault marines something special.

I dont think they could give them rerolls without adjusting the points cost. I wouldnt mind chainswords with shred but not for free . Chainswords are fine how they are though. You guys are forgetting that a guy with 1 base attack that gets an additional attack just doubled his close combat effectivity. Its getting 50% more cc effetivity when charging. If you put it that way a chainsword is a freaking good upgrade.

IF you see chainsword stats in FFG RPG books, it has Tearing (basically Shred) and Pen 2, which roughly translates to AP6 (each 2 points in Pen there ~ 1 armour point ignored in TT).

So, Chainsword = CCW with Shred and AP6. Not too strong, yet far closer to the fluff.

 Mywik wrote:

I dont think they could give them rerolls without adjusting the points cost.

Honestly, I don't see why not. It's not like it would turn Guardsman or Marine Sergeants into power-houses or anything, it would just give them a small boost.

 Mywik wrote:
. You guys are forgetting that a guy with 1 base attack that gets an additional attack just doubled his close combat effectivity.

Only if he has 2 CCWs. If he has a bolter and Chainsword, then the Chainsword does naff-all and a pistol is better in every way. Hell, if you have the option, 2 pistols are better than a pistol and CCW, because you can fire both and still get an extra attack.

There really should be *some* advantage to arming yourself with a chainsword instead of a pistol, and Shred seems reasonable.

 Mywik wrote:
If you put it that way a chainsword is a freaking good upgrade.

Yeah, if you ignore the fact that the pistol is free and better in every way, then the chainsword is indeed great.

 vipoid wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

I dont think they could give them rerolls without adjusting the points cost.

Honestly, I don't see why not. It's not like it would turn Guardsman or Marine Sergeants into power-houses or anything, it would just give them a small boost.

Jeah a small and unneeded boost. I dont see why one cant pay some points for that. Care to elaborate? Im not against it just dont see a reason for a cc buff without adjusting the points.

 vipoid wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
. You guys are forgetting that a guy with 1 base attack that gets an additional attack just doubled his close combat effectivity.

Only if he has 2 CCWs. If he has a bolter and Chainsword, then the Chainsword does naff-all and a pistol is better in every way. Hell, if you have the option, 2 pistols are better than a pistol and CCW, because you can fire both and still get an extra attack.

And where is the problem with that? A rifle hinders you more in cc than it helps you as opposed to a pistol. Why use fluffy reasons for the shred but throw them out the window at the next possible moment?

 vipoid wrote:
There really should be *some* advantage to arming yourself with a chainsword instead of a pistol, and Shred seems reasonable.

Please explain why a roring chainsword should be more deadly than a point blank headshot with a pistol. If thats how it rolls i want rending for the pistols!

 vipoid wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
If you put it that way a chainsword is a freaking good upgrade.

Yeah, if you ignore the fact that the pistol is free and better in every way, then the chainsword is indeed great.

The pistol may be better than the sword but the pistol alone isnt a good cc loadout. Not in the game and not when we consider "realism". If i had a pistol and a sword i wouldnt be more scared of someone with a pistol (regardless if he also wields a sword with it) than i would be of someone that only holds a sword. I really dont see the problem sry.

 Mywik wrote:

Jeah a small and unneeded boost. I dont see why one cant pay some points for that. Care to elaborate? Im not against it just dont see a reason for a cc buff without adjusting the points.

So, in that case, why aren't sergeants just given a CCW and charged extra if they want a pistol?

I mean, isn't a pistol a 'free boost' in that case?

 Mywik wrote:

And where is the problem with that? A rifle hinders you more in cc than it helps you as opposed to a pistol. Why use fluffy reasons for the shred but throw them out the window at the next possible moment?

Please don't resort to straw men.

I didn't say that there was anything wrong with this mechanic - just that your assumption of a chainsword always doing something is inherently flawed.

A model with a bolter and bolt pistol can still fire the pistol (e.g. if he wants to assault), whereas a model with a bolter and chainsword gets no advantage whatsoever.

 Mywik wrote:

Please explain why a roring chainsword should be more deadly than a point blank headshot with a pistol. If thats how it rolls i want rending for the pistols!

Except that the model obviously isn't firing the pistol in combat, otherwise he'd use it's strength and AP, rather than the AP of his other weapon.

Also, if you think the enemy will just stand still while you shoot him in the head, you're obviously not very familiar with combat in general.

 Mywik wrote:

The pistol may be better than the sword but the pistol alone isnt a good cc loadout. Not in the game and not when we consider "realism". If i had a pistol and a sword i wouldnt be more scared of someone with a pistol (regardless if he also wields a sword with it) than i would be of someone that only holds a sword. I really dont see the problem sry.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. One moment you're saying that a pistol will obviously be more dangerous in combat, and the next you're saying you'd be more afraid of someone with a sword than of someone with 2 pistols.

Also, in game terms, 2 pistols is infinitely better than 2 swords because the former gets you 2 shots and the latter gets you absolutely nothing.

 vipoid wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

Jeah a small and unneeded boost. I dont see why one cant pay some points for that. Care to elaborate? Im not against it just dont see a reason for a cc buff without adjusting the points.

So, in that case, why aren't sergeants just given a CCW and charged extra if they want a pistol?

I mean, isn't a pistol a 'free boost' in that case?

I just ask why a boost that has fluff reasons cant be reflected in points cost. Nothing more. If it was about fluff why care about a slight increase to make up for the boost? Perhaps because this isnt about fluff but balance?

 vipoid wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

And where is the problem with that? A rifle hinders you more in cc than it helps you as opposed to a pistol. Why use fluffy reasons for the shred but throw them out the window at the next possible moment?

Please don't resort to straw men.

I didn't say that there was anything wrong with this mechanic - just that your assumption of a chainsword always doing something is inherently flawed.

I never said that.

 vipoid wrote:
A model with a bolter and bolt pistol can still fire the pistol (e.g. if he wants to assault), whereas a model with a bolter and chainsword gets no advantage whatsoever.

 Mywik wrote:

Please explain why a roring chainsword should be more deadly than a point blank headshot with a pistol. If thats how it rolls i want rending for the pistols!

Except that the model obviously isn't firing the pistol in combat, otherwise he'd use it's strength and AP, rather than the AP of his other weapon.

Also, if you think the enemy will just stand still while you shoot him in the head, you're obviously not very familiar with combat in general.

So what are we now talking about? Why would you assume the other person has to standstill to be hit by a deadly pistol shot? I didnt say that thats for sure. The model is indeed firing the pistol ... go watch Equilibrium if you want to see how that could work. Why gw decided to nerf the weapon in cc is beyond me and i agree this could be changed along with a points increase.

 vipoid wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

The pistol may be better than the sword but the pistol alone isnt a good cc loadout. Not in the game and not when we consider "realism". If i had a pistol and a sword i wouldt be more scared of someone with a pistol (regardless if he also wields a sword with it) than i would be of someone that only holds a sword. I really dont see the problem sry.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. One moment you're saying that a pistol will obviously be more dangerous in combat, and the next you're saying you'd be more afraid of someone with a sword than of someone with 2 pistols.

Also, in game terms, 2 pistols is infinitely better than 2 swords because the former gets you 2 shots and the latter gets you absolutely nothing.

Jeah obvious typo.

Last comment:
This all boils down to one thing. You want a cc boost for fluff reasons which is perfectly fine to argue and i also agree with that. What you dont want to do is pay the appropriate points for it for whatever reason. I dont disagree with you at all. What i disagree with is a free unneeded boost.

 vipoid wrote:
Honestly, I don't see why not. It's not like it would turn Guardsman or Marine Sergeants into power-houses or anything, it would just give them a small boost.

But we also have Assault Marines. I would love it, but Shred might be a bit too much.
The bonus is that they go from 2 attacks on the charge to 3.
50% more wounds, which is sometimes better than Shred and sometimes worse.

Hell, if you have the option, 2 pistols are better than a pistol and CCW, because you can fire both and still get an extra attack.

And who has that option? I can only take a Bolt Pistol and perhaps a flamer/plasma/melta Pistol, which is better but it also costs a lot more.

Yeah, if you ignore the fact that the pistol is free and better in every way, then the chainsword is indeed great.

Let's look at the combinations:
Boltgun + Pistol: Rapid Fire and 0 additional attacks, can shoot a pistol and charge.
Boltgun + Chainsword: Rapid Fire and 0 additional attacks, cannot charge.
Bolt Pistol + Chainsword: Single shot and 1 additional attack.
The only combination that doesn't have any 'use' are Boltguns with Chainswords.
But the Chainsword itself is still good if you take it with a Pistol.

 Mywik wrote:

I just ask why a boost that has fluff reasons cant be reflected in points cost. Nothing more. If it was about fluff why care about a slight increase to make up for the boost? Perhaps because this isnt about fluff but balance?

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but for me this is about game balance rather than fluff.

I just think it's bad design to have one weapon that is outright better than another weapon with no cost difference. In this case, Chainswords and pistols both give you an extra attack (if you have another CCW), but pistols can also shoot.

 Mywik wrote:

This all boils down to one thing. You want a cc boost for fluff reasons which is perfectly fine to argue and i also agree with that.

As above, I'm talking about game balance rather than fluff.

Though as a side note, it does seem odd that GW basically squanders one of their more unique weapons by giving it no useful effect whatsoever.

 Mywik wrote:
What you dont want to do is pay the appropriate points for it for whatever reason. I dont disagree with you at all. What i disagree with is a free unneeded boost.

It's not exactly free because the model is exchanging a pistol shot for it.

And, considering most sergeants are either leading a shooting unit (in which case Shred is mostly cosmetic, and comes into play only when something has gone badly wrong), or leading an assault unit (in which case they'll probably want a Power Fist or somesuch), it hardly seems like the most effective boost.


Saying that, it would be nice to have the option of some cheap CC weapons (like the DE Venom Blade) - so that you could give a little boost/flavour to a shooty/support IC or sergeant, without shelling out a ton of points for a weapon that they'll probably never use anyway. But, that's probably a discussion for a different thread.

Jesus I can't believe a bit of fluff is turning into a heated arguement

 karlosovic wrote:
Jesus I can't believe a bit of fluff is turning into a heated arguement

You must be new around here. :p

 karlosovic wrote:
Jesus I can't believe a bit of fluff is turning into a heated arguement

Them's fighting words, bub.