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.

Great weapons, but functionally still not great. So, let's change it!

Chainsword: S: User AP:- DMG: 1 "This weapon generates D3 extra attacks each time you make an attack with it." Change points to 1 ppm.

Now, this is something that is going to be great on Marines (Heretical or otherwise) for a basic CC weapon. Imagine the carnage 20 CSM could unleash wielding these as they make their charges across the board.

Not a bad change, but I don't really think it gives the chainsword either what it needs, nor does it make sense why it's getting D3 extra attack.
Plus, mechanically this change would be tedious. Imagine 20 CSM having to roll 20 D3s just to add up how many extra attacks the unit gets. No thanx.

What chainswords SHOULD be is AP-1. They are made to literally RIP into armour.
So make them S: User AP:-1 DMG: 1 "This weapon generates 1 extra attack each time you make an attack with it."

Simple, done.

-

 Galef wrote:
Not a bad change, but I don't really think it gives the chainsword either what it needs, nor does it make sense why it's getting D3 extra attack.
Plus, mechanically this change would be tedious. Imagine 20 CSM having to roll 20 D3s just to add up how many extra attacks the unit gets. No thanx.

What chainswords SHOULD be is AP-1. They are made to literally RIP into armour.
So make them S: User AP:-1 DMG: 1 "This weapon generates 1 extra attack each time you make an attack with it."

Simple, done.

-

AP-1 would be fine. But remember, 8th edition is about weight of dice and most stat lines have only one base attack. doubling it to two in a squad of ten might as well be 10, because the low strength is enough to punish you against tougher targets.
Question.

20D3 is too much, but 10D6 hand flamers deepstriking 3' that automatically hit is fine?

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Not a bad change, but I don't really think it gives the chainsword either what it needs, nor does it make sense why it's getting D3 extra attack.
Plus, mechanically this change would be tedious. Imagine 20 CSM having to roll 20 D3s just to add up how many extra attacks the unit gets. No thanx.

What chainswords SHOULD be is AP-1. They are made to literally RIP into armour.
So make them S: User AP:-1 DMG: 1 "This weapon generates 1 extra attack each time you make an attack with it."

Simple, done.

-

AP-1 would be fine. But remember, 8th edition is about weight of dice and most stat lines have only one base attack. doubling it to two in a squad of ten might as well be 10, because the low strength is enough to punish you against tougher targets.
Question.

20D3 is too much, but 10D6 hand flamers deepstriking 3' that automatically hit is fine?

There is literally no-one on this forum who thinks that 40k is a perfect ruleset without any balance issues (except perhaps BCB... ) so quoting an overpowered unit isn't justification for making more of them. Also, deepstrike range is 9" so not sure how someone's pulling a 3" deepstrike range (unless someone is actually claiming a 3-foot hand flamer range?)

Rolling 10D6 for 10 flamers is normal to do. Rolling 1D3 for every attack made by a model (so if a unit has 2 or 3 attacks each, and have chainswords, you're rolling 20-30D3 for 10 models, before you even get around to the attacks!) is just tiresome.

Plus, a chainsword might be a powerful looking weapon, but it is still a fairly basic CCW in the scheme of 40k. In the past, it was just a CCW, stylised for spehs mehreens. marines having up to 4 attacks each as standard is a bit OP to my eyes. Much prefer the -1AP and +1A approach, especially for streamlining.

as for low strength punishing you for fighting tougher targets - don't punch tanks! why did you think that would work? troops in CC is meant to kill other troops, not monsters and tanks.

GSC have a 3" Deep Strike strat.

But, let me put it this way:

10d6 Handflamer shots is 10 dice, plus 35 wound rolls, plus 6-12 (assuming a T4+ target) save rolls. Total of 51-57 dice rolls.

20d3 Chainsword attacks is 20 dice, plus 50 hit rolls, plus 34 wound rolls, plus 11-17 save rolls. (Assuming a T4+ target and 1 attack base on the models.) Total of 115-121 dice rolls, or just about DOUBLE the number of rolls.

AP-1 gives chainswords something extra, in addition to the additional attack, to set them apart from basic melee weapons (seriously why the heck is a combat knife just as effective as a friggin' one-handed chainsaw?)

It's far less complicated to implement, and has roughly the same statistically outcome as giving them an average of +2 attacks.
Which, for the record, I'd also be cool with giving Chainswords +2 attacks flat instead of the OP's suggested D3. It have the same effect without the unneeded rolling step.
But I'd still rather see them as-is with AP-1

-

I don't mind the current iteration of Chain swords, but I do like the idea of increasing something about them. They are a free attack, it's not like it costs anything.

That being said, I would be in favor of "sweeping attacks" given to melee infantry. Maybe a weapon keyword?

This model can make 1 sweeping attack with this weapon, and roll hits against every model in base contact.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
They are a free attack, it's not like it costs anything.

They do cost something in most cases, actually. Just not points. They often cost you your Bolter, or more importantly, the Special weapon you need the bolter to swap for.
Sure you can swap your Bolt pistol instead, but it's still inconvenient for what amounts to a combat knife.
I want Chainswords at AP-1 to make the relevant as they are such an iconic addition to the unit.

-

If I remember correctly, they did differentiate a bit more in Necormunda between a standard weapon and a chainsword.
They already have the extra attack so i am unsure what more can be given without a major points increase.
Plus we would have to explain what got added to the "chain", micro plasma cutters!!!

 Galef wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
They are a free attack, it's not like it costs anything.

They do cost something in most cases, actually. Just not points. They often cost you your Bolter, or more importantly, the Special weapon you need the bolter to swap for.
Sure you can swap your Bolt pistol instead, but it's still inconvenient for what amounts to a combat knife.
I want Chainswords at AP-1 to make the relevant as they are such an iconic addition to the unit.

-

-1 AP is a good suggestion. One I can get behind.

 Talizvar wrote:
Plus we would have to explain what got added to the "chain", micro plasma cutters!!!

Not really sure why we'd have to "add" anything to the fluff. Even tried cutting small trees with a machete (basically the Marine's combat knife)? It's no where near as easy as with a chainsaw.
The rotating blades should give the weapon more CUTTING power, hence why I am an advocate of AP-1.
I'd also keep it "free" since: A) Marines are already over-costed and B) even "free" there's fewer situations in which you want marines in combat over sitting back an shooting.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Plus we would have to explain what got added to the "chain", micro plasma cutters!!!

Not really sure why we'd have to "add" anything to the fluff. Even tried cutting small trees with a machete (basically the Marine's combat knife)? It's no where near as easy as with a chainsaw.
The rotating blades should give the weapon more CUTTING power, hence why I am an advocate of AP-1.
I'd also keep it "free" since: A) Marines are already over-costed and B) even "free" there's fewer situations in which you want marines in combat over sitting back an shooting.

-

We already know that Chainswords use adamantine teeth, easily capable of cutting through most materials. AP-1 actually fits, and you could bump Chain Axes up to 2 DMG to compensate.

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Plus we would have to explain what got added to the "chain", micro plasma cutters!!!

Not really sure why we'd have to "add" anything to the fluff. Even tried cutting small trees with a machete (basically the Marine's combat knife)? It's no where near as easy as with a chainsaw.
The rotating blades should give the weapon more CUTTING power, hence why I am an advocate of AP-1.
I'd also keep it "free" since: A) Marines are already over-costed and B) even "free" there's fewer situations in which you want marines in combat over sitting back an shooting.

-

We already know that Chainswords use adamantine teeth, easily capable of cutting through most materials. AP-1 actually fits, and you could bump Chain Axes up to 2 DMG to compensate.

Chainaxes are already S+1. I'd hesitate to make them D2, since that's a much more powerful boost, in many cases, than an extra point of AP.

Maybe S+2, AP-1... No, that's a maul.
S+1, AP-2... No, that's an axe.

 Galef wrote:
What chainswords SHOULD be is AP-1. They are made to literally RIP into armour.

...no, they're not?

Chainswords are intended for use against lightly armoured targets, where they'll rip through flesh and inflict grievous crippling injuries. Against heavy armour they need to aim for the soft joints or they'll just lose teeth and get blunted to relatively little effect. This is stated in the setting material, and should also be obvious to anyone who's ever handled a chainsaw and considers the idea of swinging it at a person vs swinging it at a car. The former will be horrifying. The latter will probably kill you when a tooth catches on shrapnel and the whole chain flies apart in your face.

In fact, the whole distinguishing point of the chainaxe is that it was designed to concentrate force in the heavy, reinforced head, giving the ability to penetrate armour much better than the lighter chainsword.

Thing is, we start adding AP to base level melee weapons, they start becoming more powerful than bullets. Anyone want to show how a bolter shell is worse at penetrating armor than a sword? Because it's not.

Base level weapons should have base level profiles. We change the chainsword, we change it for all imperium races. You're telling me that a IG sgt can swing a sword with more force than he can shoot with a gun?

Chainswords are fine.

RevlidRas wrote:

 Galef wrote:
What chainswords SHOULD be is AP-1. They are made to literally RIP into armour.

...no, they're not?

Chainswords are intended for use against lightly armoured targets, where they'll rip through flesh and inflict grievous crippling injuries. Against heavy armour they need to aim for the soft joints or they'll just lose teeth and get blunted to relatively little effect. This is stated in the setting material, and should also be obvious to anyone who's ever handled a chainsaw and considers the idea of swinging it at a person vs swinging it at a car. The former will be horrifying. The latter will probably kill you when a tooth catches on shrapnel and the whole chain flies apart in your face.

In fact, the whole distinguishing point of the chainaxe is that it was designed to concentrate force in the heavy, reinforced head, giving the ability to penetrate armour much better than the lighter chainsword.

Sorry, I meant light armour. Chainsword in the fluff have always been great as hacking though lightly armoured chaff to "rip through the flesh and inflict grievous crippling injuries". Orks, Guard, etc, Things with only a 5+ or 6+ armour save. AP-1 would cut an Guards armour in half (but literally and statistically).
One 6+ save is equivalent to two 5+, roughly 1-n-6 chance.

AP -1 would also represent those time when the Chainsword does make contract with the softer joints of more heavily armoured opponents.
All I'm saying is that +1atk & AP-1 just "feels" more appropriate than giving Chainswords +D3 atx, or even flat +2 atx.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Thing is, we start adding AP to base level melee weapons, they start becoming more powerful than bullets. Anyone want to show how a bolter shell is worse at penetrating armor than a sword? Because it's not.

Base level weapons should have base level profiles. We change the chainsword, we change it for all imperium races. You're telling me that a IG sgt can swing a sword with more force than he can shoot with a gun?

It makes perfect sense because a chainsword has to get up close, which isn't as effective as a bullet, but at the same time, when up close, the wielder has better...."aim" and can thus more easily target vulnerable spots that may be harder to get with bullets.

But the main reason I want the change is because, from a fluff/manufacturing perspective, why would you spend the time and resources making a complicated mechanical weapon if it offers literally NO advantages over a simple, much easier to craft and maintain, big knife?

-

Fluff arguments have no bearing in a game which a green plant man thing can stab a 7' godbeast man with a rusty piece of metal almost as hard as a 600ton tank can hit him as full speed.

Oh, and he hits harder depending on which paint color he chose for his armor.

Right, game-wise Chainsword are indeed fine. A "free" extra attack is nothing to complain about.
But why bother modeling them as chainswords when jus giving them a combat knife does the same thing? That's my point. Chainswords are cool, they should DO something cool (read, this does not mean OP or remotely competitive, just cool)

AP-2, or +2atk, or +1S, SOMETHING in addition to +1atk to make them "feel" as cool as they are.

-

 Galef wrote:
Sorry, I meant light armour. Chainsword in the fluff have always been great as hacking though lightly armoured chaff to "rip through the flesh and inflict grievous crippling injuries". Orks, Guard, etc, Things with only a 5+ or 6+ armour save. AP-1 would cut an Guards armour in half (but literally and statistically).
One 6+ save is equivalent to two 5+, roughly 1-n-6 chance.

Unfortunately, this runs into 8e's counterintuitive AP system. Against those Orks Boyz, giving AP-1 to 120 chainsword wounds means you're going to from 100 wounds to 120: +20% wounds. Against those Militarum Infantry, giving AP-1 to 120 chainsword wounds means you're going from 80 wounds to 100: +25% wounds. And against those Terminators, giving AP-1 to 120 chainsword wounds means you're going from 20 wounds to 40: +100% wounds.

If you want a weapon that's specifically good against light armour, you need a rule like "you must reroll saving throws of 6 against wounds inflicted by this weapon", which takes Orks from 100 to 117 wounds (+17%) but moves Terminators from 20 to 23 wounds (+17%). Or "subtract 1 from saving throws of 6 against wounds inflicted by this weapon", which doesn't affect anything BUT 6+ saves.

Alternatively, if it's a weapon that isn't specifically good against armour... don't have it interact with armour. Just give it reroll 1s to wound or something.

Or if the problem is that chainswords are just combat knives, reduce combat knives to regular melee weapons and be done with it.

The game generally needs higher A stat across the board, where units who needs to feel more frail in melee represented by 1 A.

In theory, shooting attacks should be low in number of dices rolled in exchange for lethality, and melee should be about throwing a bucket of dice in exchange for less lethality (to represent the hack-and-slash action that is melee.

 Galef wrote:
Right, game-wise Chainsword are indeed fine. A "free" extra attack is nothing to complain about.
But why bother modeling them as chainswords when jus giving them a combat knife does the same thing? That's my point. Chainswords are cool, they should DO something cool (read, this does not mean OP or remotely competitive, just cool)

AP-2, or +2atk, or +1S, SOMETHING in addition to +1atk to make them "feel" as cool as they are.

-

Yesterday, I pit 20 Chainsword/bolt pistol Chaos Marines against my friends unit of Genestealers. I killed 4. Guess what he did when he got to attack?

They literally have no armor, a chainsword should be insurmountable to them.

RevlidRas wrote:

If you want a weapon that's specifically good against light armour, you need a rule like "you must reroll saving throws of 6 against wounds inflicted by this weapon", which takes Orks from 100 to 117 wounds (+17%) but moves Terminators from 20 to 23 wounds (+17%). Or "subtract 1 from saving throws of 6 against wounds inflicted by this weapon", which doesn't affect anything BUT 6+ saves.

Alternatively, if it's a weapon that isn't specifically good against armour... don't have it interact with armour. Just give it reroll 1s to wound or something.

Or if the problem is that chainswords are just combat knives, reduce combat knives to regular melee weapons and be done with it.

All fair points. I'd be cool with "Reroll 1s to Wound" or +2 atx. In general, I like the OP's premises, but d3s needs to not be so prevalent. +2 attack as the one and only ability chainswords have would be far more palatable the +d3 atx. +2Atx is more reliable and doesn't require an extra rolling step.
And I guess the extra, extra attack over the combat knife represents the chainsword "grinding" away at the enemy.

-

What about this:

Against troops, this weapon becomes S5 AP0 D1, and grants an extra attack?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What about this:

Against troops, this weapon becomes S5 AP0 D1, and grants an extra attack?

Seems a bit too restricted /niche?

I believe the weapon itself is absolutely fine, and so universal among armies it doesn't need any changes. a +1 attack weapon for cheap is great and to make a new profile would be very awkward.

Dedicated Combat units I think need higher amount of attacks, the chainsword is too universal across armies to change at a base level.

 skchsan wrote:
The game generally needs higher A stat across the board, where units who needs to feel more frail in melee represented by 1 A.

In theory, shooting attacks should be low in number of dices rolled in exchange for lethality, and melee should be about throwing a bucket of dice in exchange for less lethality (to represent the hack-and-slash action that is melee.

I wouldn't change shooting but love the extra attacks idea

I dunno if it would help the ones who really need it?

Generic SMs need something to make them more tactical. I loved and continue to love the idea of how they used them in DoW1, sort of like how DW Vets are now.

But it doesn't matter. GW is phasing out the old SM stuff like tacticals, chain swords, bolters, flamers, choice....etc. Now you get whats in the box, and that's it.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I dunno if it would help the ones who really need it?

Generic SMs need something to make them more tactical. I loved and continue to love the idea of how they used them in DoW1, sort of like how DW Vets are now.

But it doesn't matter. GW is phasing out the old SM stuff like tacticals, chain swords, bolters, flamers, choice....etc. Now you get whats in the box, and that's it.

It might not, but CSM ceartainly finds this relevant as we have loads of chainswords in our basic kit which as you know is less than a month old at this point.

 Togusa wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I dunno if it would help the ones who really need it?

Generic SMs need something to make them more tactical. I loved and continue to love the idea of how they used them in DoW1, sort of like how DW Vets are now.

But it doesn't matter. GW is phasing out the old SM stuff like tacticals, chain swords, bolters, flamers, choice....etc. Now you get whats in the box, and that's it.

It might not, but CSM ceartainly finds this relevant as we have loads of chainswords in our basic kit which as you know is less than a month old at this point.

Ayy, also just to add to that, the chainswords in there are great.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I dunno if it would help the ones who really need it?

Generic SMs need something to make them more tactical. I loved and continue to love the idea of how they used them in DoW1, sort of like how DW Vets are now.

But it doesn't matter. GW is phasing out the old SM stuff like tacticals, chain swords, bolters, flamers, choice....etc. Now you get whats in the box, and that's it.

It might not, but CSM ceartainly finds this relevant as we have loads of chainswords in our basic kit which as you know is less than a month old at this point.

Ayy, also just to add to that, the chainswords in there are great.

they are, my favorite bits from the new kit, next to the bolter with the long ammo belt.