Ironclad Melta

[Legatus]

That is why I base my interpretation not on the assumed intent, but on a basic application of statement logic.

 

If there is no DCCW, where is the stormbolter that is built into the DCCW? Imagine you moved your Laser/missile launcher dread and fired those weapons at an enemy unit. After those two shots, you declare to your enemy that you now fire the stormbolter the dreanought has built into it's dreadnought close combat weapon. The quizzical looks you would rceive are completely warranted.

 

A Dreadnought without a dreadnought close combat weapon has no stormbolter that is built into it's close combat weapon. The stormbolter is, by the way it is listed under the dreadnought's equipment, dependant on the dreadnought close combat weapon it is built into as a prerequisite.

[Steelmage99]

Logic? Realism?

 

Any rules argument that start with "Imagine that...." autofail. The rules are clear and understandable.

The reality of 40K is defined by the rules. The only justification needed is right there in the rules.

Yes, an Ironclad loses the stormbolter when upgrading to hurricane bolter because the rules says so.

No, a Dreadnought does not lose the stormbolter when upgrading to missile launcher because the rules doesn't say so.

 

Nothig happens in this game without a rule telling us to do it. Thus the stormbolter remain.

[Legatus]

Logic? Realism?

I am not telling you to apply logic the "situation" the rules are representing and then interpreting the rules so that they match the logical situation. I am telling you to interprete the rule statements in a logical manner. Like you would in math, or physics, or programming. Or game rules, ideally.

 

X has Y

 

Y includes Z

 

Remove Y from X => X has neither Y nor Z

 

Any rules argument that start with "Imagine that...." autofail.

Examples and analogies can help to understand a rule. But sometimes they don't. You want the dreadnought to have a stormbolter that is built into a dreadnought close combat weapon without there being a dreadnought close combat weapon. That is not a correct interpretation of rule statements, as it makes no logical sense as a statement.

[Isiah]

Well by RAW the OPs question has been answered. Seems to me any discussion from this point onwards isn't contributing to the original query and is merely arguing about rules/intention/manifestation of logic v RAW. At the end of the day you can argue this till the cows come home, but it isn't what the OR is about.

 

For those still pondering the weighty issue of the "built-in" stormbolter – come to whatever practical arrangements you like during gameplay if it makes it work "logically" for you and providing everyone is in agreement.

 

I'm loath to close this because something interesting might be added by someone but if it just goes around in circles it'll be put out of it's misery you can be sure of that.

 

Cheers

I

[Thantoes]

So lets see if I have gotten this all right. We keep the melta if we change the seismic hammer for a chainfist because the rules would seem to do so by not specifing the removal of the melta with the weapon swap while doing so with other weapons and entries.

 

Also,in the BRB p73, in the box dealing with DCCW, it seems to imply that any CCW attached to a dreadnought becomes (by the simple virtue that its attached to dread) a DCCW.

 

If the above is true and that any CCW weapon attached to dread is a DCCW then having the chainfist would still confer the +1 attack. I do think that you would be striking at I1 if using the chainfist but since you would only use it against vehicles that shouldnt be an issue as you still get you normal attacks at I4.

 

Thats what I have gotten from this thread when taking all the issues and rules raised and is how I am going to go forward. The issue of the storm bolter is, to be frank, not one I am interested in and dont care about. If my opponent wants to use his S4 SB with his S8 missiles and S9 lascannon then he can go right ahead. I think the rules on that one can go either way.

 

I will in due course be putting up images of my Ironclad in the hall of honour. ATM its still in the basecoat stage so will be a little while.

 

*edit - grammer*

[Legatus]

The issue of the storm bolter is, to be frank, not one I am interested in and dont care about. If my opponent wants to use his S4 SB with his S8 missiles and S9 lascannon then he can go right ahead. I think the rules on that one can go either way.

The issue of the stormbolter is exactly the same issue as the melta. Rules don't say the built in weapon is removed, but rules say weapon is built into that particular close combat weapon.

 

So lets see if I have gotten this all right. We keep the melta if we change the seismic hammer for a chainfist

No, you did not get this alright.

 

because the rules would seem to do so by not specifing the removal of the melta with the weapon swap while doing so with other weapons and entries.

The rules don't need to point out that you lose the Melta in order for you to lose the Melta. The rules still make the built in weapon dependant on the weapon it is built into as a prerequisite.

 

An Ironclad Dreadnought has a Seismic Hammer. The Seismic Hammer has a Melta built into it. If the Dreadnought does not have the Seismic Hammer, then it also does not have a Melta built into that Seismic Hammer. You cannot conclude from the rules that an Ironclad Dreadnought without a Seismic Hammer would have a Meltagun that was built into it's Seismic Hammer.

 

THis is how RAW works, in case the whole "the rules don't say the Melta is lost" is still an issue for you:

 

Rule says Ironclad has a Seismic Hammer.

 

Rule says the Seismic Hammer comes with a Melta.

 

-> Take away the Seismic Hammer.

 

The rules do not say that you lose the Melta, but the rules that gave you the melta in the first place are now not in effect. The rules don't say you get a Melta anymore.

[Isiah]

THis is how RAW works, in case the whole "the rules don't say the Melta is lost" is still an issue for you:

 

Rule says Ironclad has a Seismic Hammer.

 

Rule says the Seismic Hammer comes with a Melta.

 

-> Take away the Seismic Hammer.

 

The rules do not say that you lose the Melta, but the rules that gave you the melta in the first place are now not in effect. The rules don't say you get a Melta anymore.

 

Actually the rules just say replace the siesmic hammer with a chainfist. Why on earth is the meltagun replaced as well?? We are not told it needs to, that is just extended suposition based on the "built-in" statement. While your logic is understandable there Legatus (and in fact is probably how most gamers would play it anyway) sadly that is not how RAW works in this case regards swapping weapons.

 

The wording as I see it is like this:

 

Seismic hammer option

= Seismic hammer primary element + [secondary weapon element] of either a meltagun or a heavy flamer.

 

Swapped chainfist option

= Swap seismic hammer primary element with chainfist element primary element + [secondary weapon] of either meltagun or a heavy flamer.

 

In both cases you end up with a main weapon (seismic hammer or chainfist) with a secondary weapon. Weapons are still "built-in" in that they are still on the one arm.

 

All we are doing is swapping the various elements around – each primary item indivdually to the other without effecting the secondary items. That would seem to be the loadouts available as dictated to the weapon options rules. This might not be right or logical but it is RAW.

[Legatus]

Actually the rules just say replace the siesmic hammer with a chainfist. Why on earth is the meltagun replaced as well??

Because the meltagun is built into the seismic hammer.

 

The rules do not say that you keep the melta that was built into the seismic hammer, or that only the "hammer" is replaced.

 

The Seismic Hammer has a melta built into it. The chainfist does not, as far as the rules are concerned, because they don't say so. That means if the dreadnought has a seismic hammer, it has a melta. If he has a chainfist, it doesn't. The seismic hammer includes a meltagun, the chainfist doesn't. The meltagun is not an additional weapon the dreadnought has built into one of it's other weapons. It is built into the seismic hammer specifically. Unless the rules say that you keep the built in weapon from the weapon you are replacing, you don't.

[eyescrossed]

I'll give an example of why it wouldn't be replaced.

 

Co-axial weapons in apocalypse - they specifically say they're built into the main weapon and will be destroyed or replaced if the main weapon is.

 

"Built in" Meltagun - doesn't say it will be replaced if the Hammer is.

 

The only thing that's making you think they'll get replaced is the "Built in" part of it, but as there's no rule concerning built in weapons outside of Apocalypse, and concluding the arguments the other people have presented, you don't lose it.

[jeffersonian000]

I concur. My read on it is that swapping the siesmic hammer for a chainfist is equivalant to swapping the melta for a heavy flamer: both retain their "built in" status as both retain a DCCW and a secondary "range" weapon.

 

SJ

[Legatus]

I'll give an example of why it wouldn't be replaced.

 

Co-axial weapons in apocalypse - they specifically say they're built into the main weapon and will be destroyed or replaced if the main weapon is.

Specifically pointing out that a built in weapon is lost if the weapon it is built into is replaced is good, and clearer, but not strictly neccessary for the built in weapon to be lost.

 

"Built in" Meltagun - doesn't say it will be replaced if the Hammer is.

It says it is built into the hammer though, which amounts to the same in the end.

 

The only thing that's making you think they'll get replaced is the "Built in" part of it

Indeed.

 

but as there's no rule concerning built in weapons outside of Apocalypse, and concluding the arguments the other people have presented, you don't lose it.

There is a very important rule concerning built in weapons you are ignoring. That being that the weapn is described in the Dreadnoughts equipment list as being built into the seismic hammer.

 

My read on it is that swapping the siesmic hammer for a chainfist is equivalant to swapping the melta for a heavy flamer

It is more like swapping a dreadnought close combat weapon with a missile launcher, in which case the stormbolter built into the dreadnought close combat weapon is lost as well.

 

 

Player: "I am firing the stormbolter of my dreadnought now." *rolls dice*

 

Opponent: *looks at lasercannon/missile launcher dreadnought* "Wait! How does your dreadnought have a stormbolter?"

 

Player: "It has one built into it's dreadnought close combat weapon. It says so right here in his wargear list."

 

Opponent: *looks at lasercannon/missile launcher dreadnought again* "Your dreadnought doesn't have a dreadnought close combat weapon."

 

Player: "No, I replaced it with a missile launcher. I am allowed to do that, see..."

 

Opponent: "...so, you are now firing your dreadnought's stormbolter, which is built into it's dreadnought close combat weapon, which you replaced with a missile launcher?"

 

Player: "Yes."

 

Opponent: *rolls his eyes*

[jeffersonian000]

It is more like swapping a dreadnought close combat weapon with a missile launcher, in which case the stormbolter built into the dreadnought close combat weapon is lost as well.

 

How? The Dread is still left with a close combat weapon, be it a hammer or a fist. If you swap out the CCW for ranged weapon, then yes, I would agree with you on it. However, you are not losing the arm, you're just changing whats at the end of that arm. In the case of swapping for missile launcher, you are replacing the entire arm with something else.

 

SJ

[Legatus]

That is a distinction you are making. The rules don't tell you to replace the whole arm in one case but not in the other (going by memory here). Someone might build a missile launcher that is attached to the end of the "fist" arm, similar to Tau Broadsie missile systems. I think I remember a dreadnought conversion (could have been Codex SW 2nd or 3rd Edition) where the powerfist was converted into a round missile pod.

[Lord Marius]

I agree with Legatus' argument on this - it is the seismic hammer that has a built-in meltagun, not the dreadnought. If there is no seismic hammer, there is no meltagun.

 

Additionally, the chainfist is not a dreadnought close combat weapon, as it has its own rules, and thus it cannot have a built-in weapon, per the built-in weapons/DCCW box in the walkers section.

[jeffersonian000]

Actually, you're making an assumption. I too go by the rules as written, and see no reason why the stormbolter gets replaced when the DCCW is replaced by a missile launcher in the Dreadnought entry. I'm just arguing that it makes sense for the meltagun to be available on both the hammer arm and the chainfist arm, as seems to be supported by the rules entry for the Ironclad.

 

SJ

[Lord Marius]

Hence why I pointed out that the chainfist isn't a DCCW. If it was, then there would be room for interpretation and the melta could quite feasibly be carried over to the new weapon.

As it stands, the melta can't be built-in to the chainfist, so it actually doesn't make sense to keep it. For the same reason, it makes no sense to keep the DCCW's storm bolter on a standard dread, as there is nothing remaining for it to be built into.

[Steelmage99]

As it stands, the melta can't be built-in to the chainfist, so it actually doesn't make sense to keep it.

 

Thats a fun little rule you made up there.

[Lord Marius]

Care to back up that insult with something constructive, steelmage?

 

The box on DDCWs is the only reference that I can find towards this in the main rulebook. Unless you have references that point to chainfists and missile launchers being able to have meltaguns attached to them, then you're just being unnecessary.

[angronn]

I think that RAW works either way on this, because GW muddied the waters by specifying that the built-in weapon was lost in one case for the Ironclad (and not the chainfist case), and yet didn't specify in the normal Dread case (although we have previously assumed it worked that way).

 

The very fact that the rules specify a certain thing in one case and not the other HEAVILY implies that it is not the case where unspecified. That unfortunately goes against our previous assumptions and understanding. Hence the dilemma.

 

Arguments about whether or not the Chainfist is replacing the primary part of the DCCW-analogue are only attempts to understand the logic behind this inconsistency, rather than adding rules out of the blue or being illogical.

 

 

The only way I can see to answer this strictly by RAW and with clarity would be to rule that separate units and their options have no bearing on each other. Thus the way in which the Dread options are described have no relevance to the way in which the Ironclad options are described. This would allow the reading that you remove the in-built weapon when told to, and do not do so when not told to, without giving rise to analogical inconsistency. Hence the chainfist would keep the meltagun.

[Thantoes]

angronn, that is a very good way to have put it. Its clear and descriptive though I fear that its an opinion that wont be shared.

 

As you say, the RAW are contradictory so both sides of the argument have valid points. That being said, I side with you because A: thats the way the rules seem to work to me and B: I want my melta :D

[angronn]

I'd play against chainfist with melta, but it's always worth clarifying with opponents before the match. Last thing you want is an argument cropping up when you unleash the meltagun...!

[Lord Marius]

Now, I don't want to cause offence, so forgive me if this post sounds a little bit condescending. I'm writing it in simple terms so that I can hopefully express my point fully, as I'm liable to get sidetracked otherwise.

 

I'm pretty sure that the movement rules don't include the line 'models that have moved in the movement phase count as having moved in the movement phase' (or the equivalent). I'm also sure that the general consensus would be that that line is completely pointless, as we all know that if you moved, you count as moving.

 

I see the issue of the built-in weapons in a similar way. To me, a weapon that is built-in to anything (whether a weapon, wargear or the unit itself) would not be present if whatever it was built into was not there. I consider that to be something that goes without saying, much like the movement example. I understand that other people will have a different opinion on this, but this is how I see it.

 

Again, I apologise if anyone takes this negatively. My intent was to explain why I'm taking the 'no melta' stance. If anyone gets anything positive out of this, that's good too ;)

 

 

EDIT: In light of the above couple of posts, I think it's worth mentioning that spirit-of-the-game-wise (so, for friendly games), I'd slap a melta on the chainfist, but wouldn't be happy about keeping the storm bolter on the missile launcher, as those are the setups that I feel are sensible and that fit with the background.

[angronn]

I can see what you're saying, Lord Marius, but you don't address what (at least for me) is the crux of the matter here, which is that the rules CLEARLY state that the in-built weapon is lost in one case, but are SILENT in a similar case. Why would two differently written rules lead to the same outcome? Those arguing that "in-built = lost with original weapon" need to address that point before claiming that their viewpoint is self-evident.

[Steelmage99]

Care to back up that insult with something constructive, steelmage?

 

The box on DDCWs is the only reference that I can find towards this in the main rulebook. Unless you have references that point to chainfists and missile launchers being able to have meltaguns attached to them, then you're just being unnecessary.

 

Are you insulted by that? well, ok. A bit thinskinned I think.

 

So as not to offend your sensibilities, I can say something else instead.

 

 

As it stands, the melta can't be built-in to the chainfist, so it actually doesn't make sense to keep it.

 

 

That is a rule not present in the rulebook. You just made that up. The "fact" that the melta cannot be built-in to the chainfist, is not a fact at all. It is just a statement made by you with no basis in the rules.

On what basis do you make such a statement? Any rule to back that up?

 

 

All better now?

[Lord Marius]

Well said angronn.

I'm prepared to concede that I can't win this one. I'm not saying that you're right, because I think I am, but I know I can't prove it sufficiently.

I enjoyed the debate, though, and at least I can say I tried <_<

 

 

EDIT: Steelmage, is throwing dice at my opponent expressly disallowed by the rules? Is it a valid tactic?

To disallow something in 40K is as simple as stating that there is nothing in the rules to say that you can do it. If we play the game based on what the rules do not say that we cannot do, there's no point in having the rules, surely?