Chainswords

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:53 pm

Annoyingly enough, in the 40K wargame, despite having come up with a perfectly workable mechanic for chainswords (the Ork Choppa effect) some time ago, they insist on
a) not applying that mechanic to chainswords, and
b) continuing to say in the statblocks that people are armed with 'chainswords,' when they are not mechanically distinguished from the generic 'close-combat weapon.'

I recognize that this annoys me more than is warranted.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:56 am

Judging__Eagle at [unixtime wrote:1194986677[/unixtime]]Didn't we already talk about quoting the worst comic in the world?

Which would that be?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:12 am

sigma: The Doom comic.

angel: what is that rule? Also, there's a /tg/ meme of "I'm sick of this 'counts as a close combat weapon' bullshit." They go on to talk about the painstaking process of making them at stuff. It's basically a copypasta of the katana-bastard sword thing.

Maybe some rule that sets them apart would be a lot better.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:46 am

Ork Choppas reduce armor saves to a maximum of 4+.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:18 am

Not anymore ;_;

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:08 am

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1194883360[/unixtime]]
I think there are some techinal problems with the former as well. Chain saws are bulky, but the bulk comes into use. Remember that with all that pulling, the weapon is also trying to pull away from you. A lot of the work of a chain saw is done by the weight of that saw helping you to keep pressure on the material you are in effect tearing apart. Puting that in a one handed weapon would probably make is very difficult to maintain contact between the blade and the victim ... er surface.

You actually don't apply much pressure with a chainsaw;just enough to keep the chain in contact with the surface of what you're cutting.

Basically if you want it to be used as a weapon you have to ignore most of the real world mechanics related to them

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:57 am

Cielingcat at [unixtime wrote:1195013929[/unixtime]]Not anymore ;_;

Did that get repealed in 4th? I didn't think they'd had a new Codex out yet.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:24 am

The new codex has been leaked. Choppas are now normal CC weapons.

However, the codex is, overall, fucking awesome.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:32 am

Even running chains in opposing directions (say one going up the blade and the other going down) wouldn't help much, as while in an ideal situation the two sets of tearing would create opposite equal and opposite pulls on the weapon, in reality an individual attack might land cleanly with one, both or neither of the chains getting a firm hold, causing the blade as a whole to get pulled in an essentially random direction.

Remember: the chain is an abrasive cutting surface, but it is also essentially a track like that found on a tank. If the chain moves towards you along the cutting surface the saw will be pulled away from your body with shocking force. If the chain moves away from your body, the blade will get pushed into your body with perhaps even more comical results.

-Username17

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:37 pm

ckafrica at [unixtime wrote:1195016905[/unixtime]]You actually don't apply much pressure with a chainsaw;just enough to keep the chain in contact with the surface of what you're cutting.

Correct, but the action of the chainsaw causes the chainsaw to be forced forward and slightly up away from the cutting surface. This effect occurs on most saws but as the action is slower it's barely noticable and the weight of the saw tends to counter the force. When I am saying you need to apply pressure it is mostly to counter balance the forces made by the chain saw.

Dr_Jesus_DDS · Post by **Dr_Jesus_DDS** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:02 pm

Well, if you designed the chain sword a bit differently from the artist depictions you could gain at least some of the effects of the swinging motion of a sword, along with several other interesting effects.

That is to say, if you changed the track design so that the chain was suspended freely on one side with a gap of at least a couple inches between the free blade and the opposite side of the track, then the impact energy of you swinging the sword into the flesh (or whatever) would be focused onto the chainblade completely rather than being stopped by excess guards or other bits on the sword.

The design would look somewhat similar to a hacksaw or a string instrument bow.

And if you had some sort of dynamic tensioning system you could essentially just press the entire assembly onto the target with an inconsistent pressure while the dynamic tensioners maintain a constant and ideal pressure. As long as you kept it within a certain distance of the target surface its effects would be consistent. In fact, this really wouldn't even be difficult to do, I could probably get a chainsaw and modify it to work like this in an afternoon in my garage using only scavenged parts.

Additionally, the cradling effect the design would cause would tend to trap the target object, limiting their meaningful movement options to get away from the flesh-rending mechanical horror you're wielding. Your blade would no longer be a straight edge but a molded curve along whatever surfaced it is applied to and thus moving the target surface up or down the blade would likely serve only to worsen the damage. Your only option really is to pull perpendicularly away from the blade, in which case the blade will automatically tension and "follow" the target surface for a certain distance.

Dr_Jesus_DDS · Post by **Dr_Jesus_DDS** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:11 pm

On a side note, this design would likely be a bit flimsier than usual (though whatever applied phlebotinum material you choose to construct it from would negate this disadvantage), but it would also be a lot more open and easier to repair.

Really you could just forget chains and have some sort of highly abrasive (diamond studded or whatever) cable or wire, which would increase reliability and repairability and simplify the entire design signficantly by removing the hundreds of rotating joints, links, and blades of the chain. At that point it has almost become an elegant and nearly feasible weapon. And we can't have either of those in 40k, much less in the hands of space marines.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:13 pm

"Elegant and feasible" is for Eldar. Space Marines are GRIM AND DARK.

Also fuck you, enter key.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:32 pm

Space Marines are also manly. They kill people just with sheer testosterone.

Which is probably why they can't be fielded alongside Sisters of Battle*. They get into a contest to see who has the most testicles.

I need more chainswords. Because I want a unit of 20 Sisters Repentia, and think the standard models suck, so have been converting Daemonettes. But this requires giving them chainswords.

*Not sure on this one. The rules in the book say neither can be used as allies to the other. They then go ahead and show the two being fielded together. But the guy in the store said they can, so either they can, and I just need to figure out what chapter to paint them as once assembled, or I just bought an expensive box of conversion parts.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:47 pm

Women with testicles made out of daemonettes? Slaanesh approves.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:51 pm

I justified my actions with:
A. If I add an Inquisitor, then they can do whatever the fuck they want, and
B. Any Chaos models used to make Imperial units are Chaos models that can't be fielded by Chaos.

And yet this still goes according to Tzeench's plan. Damn him.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:12 am

I wanna do a Chaos SoB army one day. Sisters Repentia would be fielded as Khorne Berserkers, naturally.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:43 am

Naturally. They have the right attitude when it comes to violence: Yes

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:18 am

how the hell did this conversation go back to talking about playing with little men, when THIS:

Dr_Jesus_DDS at [unixtime wrote:1195311775[/unixtime]]In fact, this really wouldn't even be difficult to do, I could probably get a chainsaw and modify it to work like this in an afternoon in my garage using only scavenged parts.

was uttered?

Dr. Jesus, if you could do that, and give us pics(else it didn't happen...) and a fucking video of you attacking a tree with this monstrousity, (and possibly instructions for building our own...) I will praise you as the fucking messiah!

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:41 am

Instructions on how *might* be against the CoC. It's possible that someone could consider that close enough to instructing potential terrorists on how to make deadly weapons. Stupid, I know, but you have to be crazy careful with the Internet.

And I was talking about playing with little women, not little men *pokes tongue out*

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:17 am

Koumei at [unixtime wrote:1195357302[/unixtime]]Instructions on how *might* be against the CoC. It's possible that someone could consider that close enough to instructing potential terrorists on how to make deadly weapons. Stupid, I know, but you have to be crazy careful with the Internet.

And I was talking about playing with little women, not little men *pokes tongue out*

meh... maybe an email? eh, whatever... and yes, I realise that, but then we're talking about emily dickenson novels and getting even more off topic...

that is who wrote little women, right?

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:26 am

...

Even if you don't know it off hand, it takes fuck-all effort to type Little Women into Google. But no, it isn't.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:45 am

yes and the small amount of effort it take to type into google should show how little I care about it...

apparently it's Louisa May Alcott... never fucking heard of her.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:14 am

And now instead of the chainsaw... this thing!

[counturl=118]From the most boring show in the universe[/counturl]

Edit: Watch the video, of course, but it is worth noting that in the "how it works" tab it notes that regular chainsaws cause over FORTY THOUSAND injuries in the US each year...

Coincidence? I THINK NOT.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:02 am

"This warhammer cost me 40K!"
-one of the guys in Warcraft 3

Anyhow, I was intending on celebrating when my NaNo, set in the GRIM AND DARK future of 40K, reached 40,000 words. It just seems appropriate. Never mind that I'll still have 10K to go.

That thing looks kind of weird. It might very well be safer and more useful, but it doesn't look proper. Besides, it's just plain weak to use a tool that doesn't have good odds of doing you a significant injury.

Heck, orks are currently using an axe in place of every single invention known to man. From grappling hooks to combs to thermometers to antidepressants. And THAT is something I can appreciate.

The Gaming Den

Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords

Re: Chainswords