Bayonet vs Chain bayonet vs CCW

[RoadRunna]

Question: if you take either the bayonet or chain bayonet option on your tactical squad you get a buff to wounding but you forgo the extra attack due to the bolter now being two handed.  Is it worth dropping the extra attack (CCW+pistol) to gain the damage buff?

I see many tac squads getting the bayonet upgrade but not sure is worth the few extra points?

 

[Brother_Angelus]

Tactical squads don't have a CCW. The only way to get the additional attack is paying for a chainsword.

[jaxom]

9 minutes ago, Brother_Angelus said:

Tactical squads don't have a CCW. The only way to get the additional attack is paying for a chainsword.

There's been some debate about this because of the close combat weapon rule on p. 176 of the core rules. Any model without a Melee-type weapon listed in its equipment has a Close Combat Weapon. Pistols, when used in Melee, count as a Close Combat Weapon (which has the Melee type). So the debate is whether a marine's bolt pistol counts towards the requirement of having a Melee-type weapon (because it uses a weapon profile with Melee in combat) or not (because its actual type is Pistol). If the bolt pistol doesn't count, then marines also have a Close Combat Weapon, which would pair with the bolt pistol to give +1A. The perk of chainsword would be Shred. The B&C thread on it basically devolved into "wait for the FAQ" because the written rules could go either way.

[Brother_Angelus]

32 minutes ago, jaxom said:

There's been some debate about this because of the close combat weapon rule on p. 176 of the core rules. Any model without a Melee-type weapon listed in its equipment has a Close Combat Weapon. Pistols, when used in Melee, count as a Close Combat Weapon (which has the Melee type). So the debate is whether a marine's bolt pistol counts towards the requirement of having a Melee-type weapon (because it uses a weapon profile with Melee in combat) or not (because its actual type is Pistol). If the bolt pistol doesn't count, then marines also have a Close Combat Weapon, which would pair with the bolt pistol to give +1A. The perk of chainsword would be Shred. The B&C thread on it basically devolved into "wait for the FAQ" because the written rules could go either way.

I fall entirely on the side that a pistol counting as a combat weapon means the unit has a Melee weapon already and doesn't automatically get a free CCW.

Otherwise the value proposition of bayonets is dumb, roll twice as many attacks or pay for +1S? Statistically you get more wounds against most targets without the 'upgrade' than with it.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Brother_Angelus

[Tyriks]

That's also more in line with how the game has always worked in this area.

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, Brother_Angelus said:

I fall entirely on the side that a pistol counting as a combat weapon means the unit has a Melee weapon already and doesn't automatically get a free CCW.

Otherwise the value proposition of bayonets is dumb, roll twice as many attacks or pay for +1S? Statistically you get more wounds against most targets without the 'upgrade' than with it.

 

2 hours ago, Nemesor Tyriks said:

That's also more in line with how the game has always worked in this area.

Personally, I agree for similar reasons of precedent. Yet, the other view has traction, or this topic wouldn’t have been posted.
S5 from bayonets would let them wound T8 creatures when normally a S4 couldn’t regardless of the number of attacks.

[Brofist]

The basic combat weapon not counting towards extra attacks has always been like this. There's a wave of new players coming in and going through the same cycle :)

To answer your question, each upgrade gives you a marginal increase in combat performance, even if you lose attacks. The order is roughly like this:
Bayonet < Chain Bayonet < Chainsword < Chain axe < Heavy chainsword

This is why chainswords cost so many points compared to the regular bayonet- when you math them out, they give you nearly triple the combat output against MEQ (amongst other balance reasons). Only note here is that higher strength works better against higher T models, so you may want a chain bayonet against thallax or something. I haven't done that math, but if you're tailoring for that sort of thing you probably already know what you're doing.

[The Scorpion]

The chainbayonet looks rad. It screams Gears of War.

As long as they aren't terribly inneficient, I'll be taking the combi-chainsword every time.

[Gorgoff]

I on the other hand think that the chain bajonett looks stupid and way to flimsy attached to the boltgun. As of it would brake off the moment it is used. I would fear that the model brakes off from transport as well.

The bajonett looks decent though. Maybe on something like Vlka Fenryka units with counter attack?

Regarding the +1A discussions. Their whole argument is that the rules say you can use a pistol as a ccw but don't have to and therefore get one for free. What they don't understand is if you really don't use the pp as a ccw to get a ccw for free guess what? No +1A. 

21 hours ago, Brofist said:

The basic combat weapon not counting towards extra attacks has always been like this. There's a wave of new players coming in and going through the same cycle :)
 

I love our new players, I really do, but man it shows when someone comes from 40k. 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

On 8/3/2022 at 8:38 PM, RoadRunna said:

Question: if you take either the bayonet or chain bayonet option on your tactical squad you get a buff to wounding but you forgo the extra attack due to the bolter now being two handed.  Is it worth dropping the extra attack (CCW+pistol) to gain the damage buff?

I see many tac squads getting the bayonet upgrade but not sure is worth the few extra points?

 

As has already been stated you pay for extra attacks with the chainsword upgrade.

It ultimately comes down to what you want to do. Prolonged combat both of the bayonets are superior due to their low points costs. Chain bayonets win out since they are S5 with shred.

Despoilers are best used for ccw + pistols.

[Canadian_F_H]

On 8/4/2022 at 1:25 PM, The Scorpion said:

The chainbayonet looks rad. It screams Gears of War.

40k/30k has had chain bayonets way before gears of War, like, over a decade even. Until now tho, they were just cool looking bits, not a wargear with rules.

On 8/4/2022 at 12:01 AM, jaxom said:

Personally, I agree for similar reasons of precedent. Yet, the other view has traction, or this topic wouldn’t have been posted.

Things like this have only ever had traction because people wanted it.  Any time a unit in the past had a CCW and pistol, it was always outright stated.  I will be shocked if GW even responds to this issue, let alone if they rule in favor of models without an explicit CCW getting a bonus attack for its explicit pistol. 

Note:

Spoiler

that I've also wanted marines to have a basic CCW and pistol since 3rd edition, and wanted chainswords to be better than a CCW since then too.  So im not arguing that I am against it, so much as i am saying it's 99% not going to happen.

 

Edited August 9, 2022 by Canadian_F_H
Auto-incorrect

[Chronotonic]

I was of the train of thought...and it might be my age showing...

The pistol and fist was your basic attack...IE you have one attack...its from the gun and fist.

Adding a chainsword gives you an extra attack IE pistol/fist and Chainsword stacking

...That being said

I would rather my 10 man squad have 21 attacks and reroll to wound at strenght 4

then 11 attacks strenght 5...

[Dont-Be-Haten]

If you want to pay 45-50 points instead of 18-20 then for 10 tacticals to get an extra attack in close combat then yes, you want the additional attacks. However for just a base 100 points you get the pistols and chainswords as stock without bolters.

[Brofist]

Yeah the design theme is: do you want your tacticals to be better in combat? Then you're going to pay for this vs specializing

[Xenith]

On 8/4/2022 at 2:38 AM, RoadRunna said:

I see many tac squads getting the bayonet upgrade but not sure is worth the few extra points?

Depends if you want your tac squads to do the lifting. I think alone, unsupported, it's maybe a waste - you can get another few tac marines for the cost of equipping a unit. If you have a character buffing a unit, that might work. I ran into an IF praetor with the +1WS to the unit, all armed with bayonets recently - hitting them on 5's, then them hitting back on 3's, wounding on 3's was decent. 

I think against marines, Shred is still super useful - for 1ppm you go from wounding 2/3 of the time to wounding 8/9 of the time. 6 vs 8 wounds from 9 hits, from 18 attacks. Might be an extra dead marine? Though the points are probably better spent on arty armour or a claw for the serge first. 

Writing all that down, I don't think they're worth it. Maybe for sucking up the last few spare points in a list? Maybe if your strategy relies on 20 man heart of the legion untis with apocs.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

So my first two tactical squads I assembled and painted I went with chain bayonets. My thought was with raven guard having infiltrator, I'm probably going to see combat, and S5 shred gives a built in defense against other troops for missions. Because I can overwatch with bolters or I can hold the line and in prolonged combat chain bayonets 3 out of 3 times have beaten basic bolters. Of the battles I've see it's much the same. Even cheap bayonets usually win out over basic bolters simply because you get more of your wounds through.

Personally want to flesh out my third options with at least 1 despoiler squad to be even more aggressive. Especially when I can also give my infiltrators a scout move and crusader when I take Corax.

I've also seen a couple videos where players, advocate for despoilers as objective holders in their own deployment because they would rather have the extra attacks against drop pods or outflanking units, since they are cheaper and have more melee attacks.

But I wouldn't give tactical marines chain swords. If I were to give a troop choice that upgrade, it would be flamer or volkite charger support squads.

Edited August 12, 2022 by Dont-Be-Haten