Improving Chainsword Rules? - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
General 40k This is the place to talk about everything related to Warhammer 40k.

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 34 (permalink) Old 12-04-10, 02:52 PM Thread Starter
Spored to be Wild
morfangdakka's Avatar
morfangdakka's Flag is: USA
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,376
Reputation: 30
Default Improving Chainsword Rules?

Despite being one of the more widely-known symbols of Warhammer 40k, the humble and ubiquitous one-handed Chainsword is treated no differently from a generic one-handed Combat Blade in the rules for 40k.

Can anyone think of a small boost one could provide towards making one-handed Chainswords more effective? Right now Chainswords and generic Combat Blades are interchangeable in the rules since neither is any different mechanics-wise than the other.

The requirements for proposed rule changes are here:

1. It must apply only to one-handed Chainswords or Chainaxes. Biting Blades, Eviscerators, Chainfists, or other melee weapons with chains already have special rules and bonuses applied to them.

2. The proposed changes must justifiably cost less than or equal to, and perform less than or equal to, paying the points for a Power Weapon. Otherwise, then there would be no point in getting a Power Weapon since it would effectively be a downgrade from a Chainsword.

3. The proposed changes must also perform commensurately with their point cost. That means something like Rending is out since it would arguably cost more than a Power Weapon.

I'll get the ball rolling with this: could allowing Chainswords to reroll 1s on the To-Wound roll give them more utility than generic combat blades, and yet less of boost than getting a Power Weapon would?

Red Orc
"Ahh, isn't Morfang sweet, like a great big 350-pound (that's 25 stone, UK users!) ball of cuddly death...?"

God, gives children to people so that death won't seem so disappointing.
morfangdakka is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 34 (permalink) Old 12-04-10, 03:07 PM
MidnightSun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Sheoth
Posts: 6,741
Reputation: 83

I like the changes (better than my idea of Rending), but to Eviscerators don't need any extra rules. They already count as Power Fists (I don't know why).


Creator of Utilitarian Ultramarines Memes - join the XIII on Facebook (no XVII allowed).
MidnightSun is offline  
post #3 of 34 (permalink) Old 12-04-10, 03:11 PM
Senior Member
Vrykolas2k's Avatar
Vrykolas2k's Flag is: USA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 924
Reputation: 1

+1 S would work nicely.

Vae victus.

"Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your damned BOOK!"

Light a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Light a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Vrykolas2k is offline  
post #4 of 34 (permalink) Old 12-04-10, 03:30 PM
MidnightSun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Sheoth
Posts: 6,741
Reputation: 83

Yeah, to represent the Chainsword eating through people/armour. I like it, +rep!


Creator of Utilitarian Ultramarines Memes - join the XIII on Facebook (no XVII allowed).
MidnightSun is offline  
post #5 of 34 (permalink) Old 12-04-10, 03:33 PM
Senior Member
the-ad-man's Avatar
the-ad-man's Flag is: United Kingdom
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: stafford, england
Posts: 1,740
Reputation: 1

i rekon rending is perfect fir a chainsword, cost 1pt naturally

since the the chain-blade grinds and strikes the enemy so many times its likely to tear off chunks of armour and such
the-ad-man is offline  
post #6 of 34 (permalink) Old 12-04-10, 03:37 PM
Snozz's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 79
Reputation: 1

I like the idea of rerolling 1's on the to wound roll. And if you had 2 you could reroll 1's and 2's? Or maybe any failed rolls. Basically like Scything Talons only for the to would roll. It would actually give a model wielding 2 of them an advantage in combat, and make for some awesome models, but would remove their ranged ability. Well with regards to Assault Marines anyway.
Snozz is offline  
post #7 of 34 (permalink) Old 12-04-10, 03:53 PM
Senior Member
Master WootWoot's Avatar
Master WootWoot's Flag is: Norway
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Norway
Posts: 742
Reputation: 1

d3+3 AP? So it might have AP 4-6?

Visit my Sons of Iron log!

Originally Posted by bitsandkits
Those bloody bits websites are a pain in the ass!! maybe they could sell the same bit to multiple people and they can share it on a rotational basis, like a time share, so that terminator cyclone missile launcher you can have the first week in april, two weeks in august and random rolling weekend in December.
Master WootWoot is offline  
post #8 of 34 (permalink) Old 12-04-10, 04:03 PM
Senior Member
VanitusMalus's Avatar
VanitusMalus's Flag is: Australia
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 795
Reputation: 1

In second edition chainswords/chainaxes had additional rules allowing them the ability to chew through armour, even that of vehicles. When I saw the 3rd edition rules for the first time I was sorely dissappointed that chain weaponry lost its uniqueness. I do believe a chainsword should have some additional rule to say a blade.

I like morfangs idea
VanitusMalus is offline  
post #9 of 34 (permalink) Old 12-04-10, 04:08 PM
Senior Member
the Autarch's Avatar
the Autarch's Flag is: Ireland
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 381
Reputation: 1

scorpion chainswords for eldar already give the +1 S....never got why all chainswords didnt do that so thats where my vote's going because even though rending makes sense it would cost more points wise i think
the Autarch is offline  
post #10 of 34 (permalink) Old 12-04-10, 04:14 PM
I am Alpharius.
Doelago's Avatar
Doelago's Flag is: Finland
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,375
Reputation: 10

Re-roll all ones to wound is how I would improve them...

[Flerden] 9:05 pm: Why the hell can't he just go offline if he goes to watc tv?
[dark angel] 9:06 pm: It is Doelago, we will never know
Doelago is offline  

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > General 40k

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome