I've been re-reading Chainmail lately, though mostly for flavor purposes, because I'm largely of the opinion that Dungeons & Dragons without the "alternative combat system" is a very different game than the one I'm interested in playing. Still, there are many interesting ideas to be gleaned from Chainmail, some of which I might add into my OD&D campaign.
One that I am not sure I will add but is worthy of comment nonetheless concerns magic weapons. When I was looking at a section entitled "General Line-Up," which divides creatures into the categories of "Law," "Neutral," and "Chaos," I noticed something peculiar. Under the heading for "Law," after such obvious entries as hobbits, dwarves, gnomes, heroes, super heroes, wizards, and ents, there's an entry for "magic weapons."
At first I thought this might be an allusion to the fact that some magic weapons, particularly swords, could be intelligent, an impression supported to a limited degree by a statement earlier in the rulebook about magic swords: "Because these weapons are almost entities in themselves, they accrue real advantage to the figure so armed." There's a mention of Elric in the rules and Stormbringer, though not named, is referenced as an example of a magic sword.
Interestingly, "magic weapons" are not listed under "Chaos" in the General Line-Up. I'm not really sure what to make of this, particularly since, as already noted, Stormbringer is alluded to in the rulebook. I suppose it's possible that it was a mere oversight, but I'm not wholly convinced by that, since Gygax establishes several examples of entries found in multiple columns in the General Line-Up. On the other hand, it was deliberate, how are we to interpret this, especially in light of a weapon like Stormbringer?
There are lots of little wrinkles like this in Chainmail. I'm sure individuals more knowledgeable than I can step forward and offer explanations of why magic weapons are presented in such a fashion and, if you do know, I'd be glad to hear your thoughts. But, on some level, I don't really care. I see this as an opportunity to try and puzzle out a solution of my own, no matter how untenable it might be from a purist perspective. That's why I like the LBBs as well: you can build entire worlds out of lacunae.