Ironclad dreadnought chainfist

[garreth]

BRB 5th ed. page 73, under "Drednought close combat weapons"

 

"A Dreadnought close combat weapon is a power weapon and doubles walker's strength in close combat (up to a maximum of 10)"

 

Ironclad dreadnought can swap his seismic hammer for a Chainfist.

Chainfist description can be found in C:SM page 64, Terminatros section. It states that Chainfist is treated exactly like a powerfist.

 

So, Ironclad chainfist strikes at I 1?

Following RAI - it works like DCCW with 2d6 for armor penetration. Following RAW - like powerfist with 2d6 armor penetration =\

[Maligoare]

The DCCW has nothing to do with it, as it is a descriptor for a type of combat weapon, just like powerfist and force weapon are. If it says it is a chainfist, it uses the rules for a chainfist - effectively, you are swapping I4 for an extra D6 armour penetration. It will still be at S10 though, so it depends what you intend to go up against. Anything less than a LR or a superheavy, and it's probably not worth it.

[Roland Durendal]

And in fact with te rules for the Seismic Hammer giving +1 on the Damage Chart, the Chainfist really isn't needed. 3 Base attacks, 4 on the charge, odds are you'll get a couple of hits and will score at least a glance on AV 14.

[garreth]

There is no clarification for Aironclad Chainfist in codex. Terminators chainfist - is unique for them wargear as said in C:SM p. 97

 

...while equipment that is unique to the single model or unit (including wargear carried by named characters) is detailed in appropriate entry in the Forces section.

 

So, terminators chainfist is unique wargear of terminators, not aironclad.

[Maligoare]

So instead we are to assume that there are no rules for the Ironclad Chainfist? GW makes mistakes from time to time, and there are no alternate rules for a chainfist in the Marine codex. Pending GW amending the codex, we are stuck with the chainfist rules we are given with the Terminator entry.

[WarpSpawn]

There is no clarification for Aironclad Chainfist in codex. Terminators chainfist - is unique for them wargear as said in C:SM p. 97

 

...while equipment that is unique to the single model or unit (including wargear carried by named characters) is detailed in appropriate entry in the Forces section.

 

So, terminators chainfist is unique wargear of terminators, not aironclad.

 

Page 97 refers you to the terminators page for chainfist rules. This in no way means that the chainfist is unique to terminators.

 

The rules for locator beacons refers to the scout bikers page, yet drop pods can also have them. If Ironclad chainfists are different to terminator chainfists for this reason, are we also to assume that drop pod locator beacons are somehow different to scout biker beacons? I think not.

 

Infuriating as it may be, the book is packed with references to other pages. This in no way reflects who may actually use those items, or how they behave for a given unit.

 

I agree intent may be for an I4 DDCW, with an extra D6 armour pen, but am forced to admit that RAW does not support this in practice. Does make it seem a bit pointless tbh.

[nurglez]

totally, having used ironclads a few times in test games (what can i say, i love dreadnaughts), i would go with a seismic hammer over a chainfist anytime, even though before i did assume that a ironclad chainfist would strike at I4, i can see the arguements, though i do feel this is an oversight by GW and does need to be faqed.

[zedsdead]

dont you lose an attack as well ?

[nighthawks]

yes. again - seems to be an oversight BUT there's no exception given, so it works as described :)

[eyescrossed]

But if you have the chainfist, having I1 won't matter as you're carving through tanks that can't fight back (unless they're walkers) and with the DCCW and Chainfist combo, couldn't you just choose to use the DCCW against infantry so you attack faster?

[nighthawks]

less one attack (so A=2), yes