The Gaming Den

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:16 pm**

well, It's old idea, going back to Warhammer and Rifts, at least... and I seem to recall hearing explanations of why they aren't feasible... but I can't remember what those explanations are... so why aren't they feasible and what could be done to make them so? chains of arbitrarium?

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:34 pm**

Presumably you don't actually want to make or use them for real?

In that case, they are perfectly feasible.

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:40 pm**

No, no no Prak.

They have to be given ridiculous sources, such as Kharne's axe. On which
"..the blades on its chain were crafted from the teeth of Mica-Dragons..."

Really, a vibro-weapon is more feasible and will cut really well. Plus, they actually exist in the factory-processed food industry.

They cut through nearly anything, and never get as dirty. So they don't have to get cleaned anywhere as often as normal knives.

Which means longer production runs between time-consuming knife cleaning.

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:46 pm**

The chain and the sword operate on similar but non-cumulative principals. The chain saw moves really fast at the point of the chain, and the cutting surface moves up or down the length of the "blade". When you "swing" a sword the cutting surface moves in the direction you swing - roughly perpendicular to the direction of the cutting surface of the chain.

But basically it's because the chain is moving so incredibly fast that the difference in power between you swinging it fast and you swinging it slow is nonexistant. You don't really get anything from the "sword" aspect.

There's lots of reasons why chainsaws aren't used in combat, mostly having to do with the inherent unreliability of lots of moving parts in a melee weapon.

-Username17

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:53 pm**

Judging__Eagle at [unixtime wrote:1194817232[/unixtime]]No, no no Prak.

They have to be given ridiculous sources, such as Kharne's axe. On which
"..the blades on its chain were crafted from the teeth of Mica-Dragons..."

Really, a vibro-weapon is more feasible and will cut really well. Plus, they actually exist in the factory-processed food industry.

They cut through nearly anything, and never get as dirty. So they don't have to get cleaned anywhere as often as normal knives.

Which means longer production runs between time-consuming knife cleaning.

yes but do they look anywhere near as cool as chainswords?

so frank, is there any real reason why chainswords can't be in a game? I mean, I'm all for realism, but I like chainswords, as do many other people, most of whom won't admit that the concept is really stupid, I mean, increadibly fucking dumb, but I still like 'em.

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:37 pm**

I once again trot out Spycraft 2.0, which has weapon entries for both the "chainsaw, light," which uses the edged weapon proficiency, and the "chainsaw, heavy," which uses the exotic edged weapon proficiency.

And, yes, if you wanted to, you could dual-wield light chainsaws. Which would be totally stupid awesome.

The error ranges, however, on both weapons (light and heave, not both lights--duh) are huge, however, making them an unsurprising tad dangerous.

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:53 pm**

Bazooka that fires chainsaws which, in turn, explode, anyone?

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:01 pm**

Calibron at [unixtime wrote:1194821595[/unixtime]]Bazooka that fires chainsaws which, in turn, explode, anyone?

But the bazookas, the chainsaws, and most importantly the explosions, must all be on fire. Otherwise, why even bother.

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:26 am**

Psh, that totally goes without saying.

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:59 am**

Building on what Frank said, swords do damage from impact, and have a blade that is designed to cut on impacts.
Chainsaws cut by constant pressure (best applied with both hands).

That being said, a chainsaw is hideously damaging to bare flesh, and if you could miniaturize the power source and working mechanisms to be functional as a weapon, it would be a good thing. But the operator would be suicidal not to wear armor capable of deflecting his own weapon.

Also, it would be much harder to maintain in the field than a regular blade (or a vibro-blade) because of both its moving parts and how much more difficult maintain the edge.

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:41 am**

so really what prevents chainswords from widespread use are 1) the difficulty to maintain(valid, but glossed over entirely for all weapons, except in the most excruciateingly nuanced systems); 2) the power-source size(doesn't even fucking matter when people have trotted out handheld steam engines, and you have magic on your side); and 3) the fact that they'd be weilded differently from normal swords...

so...
1) a chart that basically says you chainsword blows up every so often unless you say your character takes some downtime to clean it.
2) they're magic, or gnomecraft, or some other arbitrary thing that says "Get the hell out of my way physics"
3)Exotic weapon proficiency needed.

this is, of course, for D&D, although, really you only have to change the third item to match your system.... In d20 you have Exotic Weapon Proficiency(Chainsword)(or possibly the new feat Stupidly Awesome Weapon Proficiency[Chainsword]), in Godlike your character would have ranks in Chainsword(and likely Scare the Fuck out of Nazis), in Besm, again, ranks in Chainsword. In WW, you have a GM high on Pot...

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:01 am**

Well one big problem with chainsaws is they are only designed to cut through soft matter. Anything with much armor at all, say anything made out of metal, will just destroy the chain without hurting anything. good against treants and unarmed peasants, bad against any real opponent.

But if you don't care about realism I used to use an expandable pole chainsaw at a job that I definitely used in a game.

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:21 am**

So, you'd need a Dune-like setting, but instead of 'shields,' people wear a kind of ablative reactive-gel armor, which can stop bullets and lasers, but which the chainsword chews through to the vulnerable flesh beneath. The 'swords' are more like short-swords or knives because the combat style is like knights grappling.

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:02 pm**

Prak_Anima at [unixtime wrote:1194815786[/unixtime]]well, It's old idea, going back to Warhammer and Rifts, at least... and I seem to recall hearing explanations of why they aren't feasible... but I can't remember what those explanations are... so why aren't they feasible and what could be done to make them so? chains of arbitrarium?

I'd be interesting into hearing any attempt to make the feasable. Then I realized I'm totally confused ... whose chain sword are we talking about ... the Warhammer 40K type which is really a dum variation of a chainsaw or the "I've got these swords at the end of a chain" stupidity of D&D.

The latter makes no sense. A sword requires the combination of force and torque from the fulcrum point of the sword. You can get that in small levels, which is why the whip can be an effective weapon (and can also be supersonic at times) but it's not enough to cause a sword of any type to be effective aong the axis of its blade.

The former is just misnamed. There is a reason why a chainsaw is called a saw. A saw is not a slashing weapon, but a biting weapon; the teeth of the saw grip and pull as opposed to a slashing weapon or an hacking weapon which attempts to apply a narrow linear force to tear.

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.

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:53 pm**

Chainswords are awesome. Say otherwise, and you contradict the Space Marines. I'm not hanging around when you do that.

In other news, I bought the Codex: Witch Hunters today, as research material for my NaNo (25K, yay!) It's pretty awesome. But needs more chainswords.

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:40 pm**

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1194883360[/unixtime]]
Prak_Anima at [unixtime wrote:1194815786[/unixtime]]well, It's old idea, going back to Warhammer and Rifts, at least... and I seem to recall hearing explanations of why they aren't feasible... but I can't remember what those explanations are... so why aren't they feasible and what could be done to make them so? chains of arbitrarium?

I'd be interesting into hearing any attempt to make the feasable. Then I realized I'm totally confused ... whose chain sword are we talking about ... the Warhammer 40K type which is really a dum variation of a chainsaw or the "I've got these swords at the end of a chain" stupidity of D&D.

The latter makes no sense. A sword requires the combination of force and torque from the fulcrum point of the sword. You can get that in small levels, which is why the whip can be an effective weapon (and can also be supersonic at times) but it's not enough to cause a sword of any type to be effective aong the axis of its blade.

The former is just misnamed. There is a reason why a chainsaw is called a saw. A saw is not a slashing weapon, but a biting weapon; the teeth of the saw grip and pull as opposed to a slashing weapon or an hacking weapon which attempts to apply a narrow linear force to tear.

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.

I was talking about modified chainsaws... the only funky D&D whip I've ever used was the nagaika, because whip daggers are amazingly stupid.

There's no reason to make chainswords one-handed weapons, they'd likely work better as 2-handed.

as to slashing/biting, technically, a sword isn't a slashing weapon either, as the object of swinging a sword around is to bludgeon a person to death with a sharp object, and chainsaws technically do slash in that the cutting surface moves away from(and constantly towards) the target.

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:49 pm**

angelfromanotherpin at [unixtime wrote:1194837714[/unixtime]]So, you'd need a Dune-like setting, but instead of 'shields,' people wear a kind of ablative reactive-gel armor, which can stop bullets and lasers, but which the chainsword chews through to the vulnerable flesh beneath. The 'swords' are more like short-swords or knives because the combat style is like knights grappling.

Great idea.

And actually a lot more believable and plausible than Holtzman Personal Sheilding.

The reason that 'normal' knives and vibroknives wouldn't work is that the gel is incredibely sticky, so that knives can't penetrate it.

Instead people have to try and rip into each others gel-armour.

Make it either green-blue or red or pink, depending on the the type of colour that lasers have in your game.

Objects that are the same colour as a laser aimed at them will act almost like a mirror.

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:12 pm**

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.

40k solves that by having the people who wield chain-swords also be capable of punching a hole in a tank. Or be Eldar Striking Scorpions, but they train for literally thousands of years in fighting.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:02 am**

Hmm.... that may be why Imps use Power Swords or normal melee weapons, and almost none of them ever use a chain sword.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:14 am**

Cielingcat at [unixtime wrote:1194905543[/unixtime]]
40k solves that by having the people who wield chain-swords also be capable of punching a hole in a tank. Or be Eldar Striking Scorpions, but they train for literally thousands of years in fighting.

Wow, you'd think Warhammer material was originally written by English prepubescent boys. Oh, wait...

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:23 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.

Well, a couple factors.

Chainsaws can't parry for shit and a longsword kills you just as easily as a chainsaw might.

Second, chainsaws generally require at least a second or two of contact to really chew through something. This is rather difficult if your opponent is moving.

Also, Chainsaws might get jammed or the chain could simply snap off, something that easily might happen in the middle of a melee if someone tries to block your chainsword with his longsword.

Chainsaws are really only effective if you're facing something big, slow and tough. They'd be nice against Frankenstein, or a big dumb giant, but really not great against anything with a measure of agility.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:15 pm**

Hmm, that all makes sense now.

Chainfists were only designed to cut bulkheads, or tanks.

Powefists are for actual combat.

That would be an interesting distinguishable feature that I'd like to see in a game.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:04 pm**

Didn't Frank help design a game about anti-Imperium "Cultists" a short while ago?

Ah! Yes he did. Scroll a few posts down: http://bb.bbboy.net/thegamingden-viewth ... hread=1094

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:58 pm**

That is heresy. Please report to your nearest dispenser of Imperial justice.

And I know everyone gets the "In fantasy, you don't have to follow the rules" thing, but because it's 40K, chainswords are more effective. Because it's a sword (often wielded by a 9' tall genetically and mechanically augmented monster that sort of qualifies as "human") and a chainsaw. In the same way that a hammer is more effective if it's also a laser.

Rip and tear!

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:44 pm**

Didn't we already talk about quoting the worst comic in the world?

The Gaming Den

Chainswords

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