# Improving Chainsword Rules?



## morfangdakka (Dec 31, 2006)

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?​


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

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).

Midnight


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

+1 S would work nicely.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

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

Midnight


----------



## the-ad-man (Jan 22, 2010)

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


----------



## Snozz (Nov 16, 2010)

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.


----------



## Master WootWoot (Oct 17, 2010)

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


----------



## VanitusMalus (Jun 27, 2009)

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


----------



## the Autarch (Aug 23, 2009)

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


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

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


----------



## Master WootWoot (Oct 17, 2010)

Force enemy to re-roll armour saves if you want to?


----------



## the-ad-man (Jan 22, 2010)

far too powerful, think of an assault squad charging a termie squad, forcing them to re-roll armoursaves is like them taking twice the amount of saves, more or less


----------



## CursedUNTILLDEATH (Apr 25, 2010)

I say either Rending or give them AP5 (or 4), as a guardsmens flak jacket is not going to save you from a fucking chainsaw coming down on your head. Re-roll ones isnt to bad either, so i think any of those could work.


----------



## Deus Mortis (Jun 20, 2009)

Here's an idea, might be no good.

What if chain-weapons made your opponent take armour saves at -1 against attacks made with the chain-weapon. So +2 become +3, +3 become +4, etc. Thus representing that the chain-part of the weapon being able to chew through armour. 

Yes? No? Maybe?


----------



## Snozz (Nov 16, 2010)

I like that too, I'm sure there was a Chain Weapon in the Chaos Codex (probably the old one) where the maximum possible save against it was 4+. Obviously that's a bit overpowered, but I like the idea of modifying armour saves.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

+1 to S. That's about it. That or rending.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Having -1 to an armour save isn't very representative of the chainsword.

A chainsword wouldn't do very much damage to terminator armour, but something like flak armour it would carve through with ease.

Making the best possible save against a chainsword a 4+ is even worse again. Why would a chainsword carve through terminator armour, yet gives no bonuses against flak armour?

The best and most realistic option by FAR would be to make a chainsword AP5. The ability to cut through weak armour with ease, but serve no bonuses against thick metal armour that would just trash the chainsword before it even scratched the paint of the armour.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

:goodpost:

Think about Rending for 1pt, or even 3pts. Now you have a unit of 12 Khorne Berzerkers with 4 Str 5 Rending attacks each for only 288pts. Damn!

Midnight


----------



## comrade (Jun 30, 2008)

how about instead of doing 2-3 attacks,

A model instead may transfer any amount of attacks into +1 S instead

For Example: Charging model with chainsword and pistol has 3 attacks, he may instead make 1 attack at +2 Strength,


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

comrade said:


> how about instead of doing 2-3 attacks,
> 
> A model instead may transfer any amount of attacks into +1 S instead
> 
> For Example: Charging model with chainsword and pistol has 3 attacks, he may instead make 1 attack at +2 Strength,


:goodpost: I'd love this. My BCs could unleash 15 S7 attacks on the charge, which I'd like, but it would make them far too powerful. I think rending might be the best option, because having a chainsword as effective as a stick with a with a nail in the end in game terms just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Ascendant (Dec 11, 2008)

Re-rolls on 1s to wound sounds good. Rending would be really powerful once you got whole squads fielding them...


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

I'd go with either Rending or +1 S, probably for 3 points per, although I'm leaning more towards rending as, a nice solid hit with a chainsaw is a giant FUCK YOUSSSSS


----------



## Deathscythe4722 (Jul 18, 2010)

Rending is far FAR too powerful. Remember we're trying to keep it LESS powerful than a Power Sword.

+1S, re-roll 1s, and AP5 are all valid and logical options.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

You seem to be forgetting, a Chainsword would in fact be WORSE than a regular sword


----------



## comrade (Jun 30, 2008)

Khorne's Fist said:


> :goodpost: I'd love this. My BCs could unleash 15 S7 attacks on the charge, which I'd like, but it would make them far too powerful. I think rending might be the best option, because having a chainsword as effective as a stick with a with a nail in the end in game terms just doesn't make sense.


Not really...... the enemy gets an armor save, but thanks for the props anyways k:

Rending would be awesome, but we would have to pay like 2-3 points to be equipped with a chainsword then at least.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

2 points. Nice number and is easier to fit in than a 3 and is reasonable enough of a cost when you look at the big picture.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Rending would be excellent, although they could only be used on Sarges, or Assault Squads. 

Good thread and excellent example of a really blatant discrepancy between fluff and rules.

Good job OP.

BTW Lesser Daemons of Slaanesh already include Rending as standard and they aren't overpowered. So with the right points cost there wouldn't be a problem with such a unit as essentially it would be a one-dimensional CC only unit.


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

Winterous said:


> You seem to be forgetting, a Chainsword would in fact be WORSE than a regular sword


 Why? It's a sword + A chainsaw.

Just do what KoC suggested, I was thinking that myself - but then 'Nid and Ork players would complain, pretty much means they face an army of power-weapons for 2 pts a sword.

Which is crazy.


----------



## Abomination (Jul 6, 2008)

They should get something. I mean they are chainswords for heavens sake. I like the idea of re-rolling 1's. That seems like a solid way to go. Are you listening GW?


----------



## DarKKKKK (Feb 22, 2008)

Re-Rolling 1s to Wound or AP5. Probably best to go with the Re-Roll.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

ROT said:


> Why? It's a sword + A chainsaw.


Why?
There's been long discussions on this topic.
A Chainsaw versus any decent kind of armour would be completely useless.
First of all, the teeth would catch in the mesh-y materials, breaking the saw.
Second, when cutting through anything more than paper thin, the edges of the Chainsword would collide, physically stopping you from cutting any deeper.

A Chainsaw is fucking amazing against flesh, but any decent quality armour has an easy time stopping it dead.


That said, punching a tank with a fist-mounted chainsaw is pretty badass.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Frankly, the best option is bringing save modifiers back to 40K.

An additional -1 save mod (what it was back in 2nd ed) is perfect. Its not much use against terminators, BUT its better than a combat knife or the butt of a lasgun. And while a terminator would still save on a 3+ a guards man would also be basically out of luck.

AP value is the worst thing inflicted in 40K in GW's effort to streamline it going into 3rd ed.

And the (late?) 3rd edition rules of heavy close combat weapons penalized terminators more than guard or orks.


----------



## ShadowMatt (Sep 9, 2008)

Winterous said:


> Why?
> There's been long discussions on this topic.
> A Chainsaw versus any decent kind of armour would be completely useless.
> First of all, the teeth would catch in the mesh-y materials, breaking the saw.
> ...


Keep in mind that a chainsword is not your run of the mill chainsaw, but probably 100 times sharper/stronger/more kick-ass. Also, while it may not carve through terminator armour, it is ideal for slicing through the weaker joints, pneumatic cables and other weak points. 
They are such an iconic weapon in 40k lore I just can't understand why the trusty chainsword has been neglected all these years.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

ShadowMatt said:


> Keep in mind that a chainsword is not your run of the mill chainsaw, but probably 100 times sharper/stronger/more kick-ass. Also, while it may not carve through terminator armour, it is ideal for slicing through the weaker joints, pneumatic cables and other weak points.
> They are such an iconic weapon in 40k lore I just can't understand why the trusty chainsword has been neglected all these years.


True enough I guess, they do BOUNCE off anything with decent toughness...
Anyway, they made it this way for simplicity's sake, and frankly I think it's better this way; no more having to look up exactly what things do, because it's all pretty damn simple.


----------

