Ironclad Melta

[Legatus]

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.

We (anti-melta) only have to show that both rules would arrive at the same outcome, mainly because the one rule merely contains additional redundant information, and the outcome would still be the same without the added part. And even though you would prefer not to compare rules of different units, since the regular Dread and Venerable Dread's rules are also lacking the specific pointer, but would lead to the same outcome, we can also see that the rule phrase that does not specifically mentions the built in weapon still leads to it's removal.

Setting the "built in" description aside, I am also not convinced that the intent for stormbolter is to be kept when the DCCW is exchanged for a missile launcher. Previous and current (i.e. Chaos) codices were pointing out that they were lost, and the model has it attached to the fist specifically.

 

As Lord Marius put it:

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.

That is how a wargear item that has an added weapon attached to it via parenthesis can be interpreted, indeed should be interpreted, as I have tried to demonstrate on a few occasions above. How can your dreadnought have a stormbolter that is built into it's close combat weapon if it does not have a close combat weapon? That statement would make no sense, and it would require additional specification if a built in weapon was supposed to be transfered over and then built into a different weapon system.

Basically, the rules don't state that you lose the melta. But if the Dreadnought does not have a Seismic hammer, then the rules don't tell you that you get one in the first place.

 

Dreadnoughts without the close combat weapon would lose the stormbolter, just as an Ironclad Dreadnought without the seismic hammer would lose the meltagun. The rules work out that way without looking at the Ironclads DCCW to Hurricane Bolter option. And here it indeed seems odd that the rule is phrased differently, but that would not really change how the other rules are to be interpreted. The Hurricane Bolter option points out what you should already be aware of: that the stormbolter that was built into the dreadnought close combat weapon you are now replacing with the hurricane bolter is lost as well.

[Steelmage99]

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?

 

I am most certainly NOT going down that "the-rules-doesn't-say-I-can't-do-it-road". Doing that is a hanging offense in my book. ;)

You said; "meltas cannot be built-in in a chainfist" is if it where an actual rule. I just called you on it and asked you to quote that rule. :(

I totally agree with you. In order for us to do anything (including losing a melta), we have to have a rule telling us to do it. Especially when the entry right above the chainfist one, clearly state that the SB is lost when upgrading to Hurricane Bolter.

[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.

We (anti-melta) only have to show that both rules would arrive at the same outcome, mainly because the one rule merely contains additional redundant information, and the outcome would still be the same without the added part. And even though you would prefer not to compare rules of different units, since the regular Dread and Venerable Dread's rules are also lacking the specific pointer, but would lead to the same outcome, we can also see that the rule phrase that does not specifically mentions the built in weapon still leads to it's removal.

Setting the "built in" description aside, I am also not convinced that the intent for stormbolter is to be kept when the DCCW is exchanged for a missile launcher. Previous and current (i.e. Chaos) codices were pointing out that they were lost, and the model has it attached to the fist specifically.

 

As Lord Marius put it:

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.

That is how a wargear item that has an added weapon attached to it via parenthesis can be interpreted, indeed should be interpreted, as I have tried to demonstrate on a few occasions above. How can your dreadnought have a stormbolter that is built into it's close combat weapon if it does not have a close combat weapon? That statement would make no sense, and it would require additional specification if a built in weapon was supposed to be transfered over and then built into a different weapon system.

Basically, the rules don't state that you lose the melta. But if the Dreadnought does not have a Seismic hammer, then the rules don't tell you that you get one in the first place.

 

I would absolutely agree with all this, but if the rules SPECIFICALLY state something in one case and not the other, one must assume they do so for a reason. You seem to be saying "yes, they are phrased differently, but mean the same thing", but surely if you are using RAW you must accept nuances as well as out-and-out statements. In this case, Isiah's previous statements about primary/secondary weapons would make sense of the statement. Without the addition of ...and stormbolter..." regarding the DCCW, I would wholly support the loss of the meltagun. As it is, the argument just seems to conveniently ignore part of the RAW in order to remain consistent.

 

Incidentally, I assume that the Ironclad would go down to its basic 2 attacks if it replaces the Seismic Hammer (given that the Hammer is a DCCW and the chainfist is not)?

[Lord Marius]

You said; "meltas cannot be built-in in a chainfist" is if it where an actual rule. I just called you on it and asked you to quote that rule. :)

Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear on my reasoning (posts as intended vs posts as written?).

I based my reasoning for the chainfist not being able to have the melta built into it (if it carries over...) on it not being a DCCW. As DCCWs are the only armament that has built-in anything, I took it for granted that the chainfist couldn't.

 

 

angronn, the rules are hazy (again :) ) on losing the attack, as I see it. They state that a walker receives an extra attack for a close combat weapon (of any kind), but this is in the dreadnought close combat weapons box. Could be read towards any CCW or DCCWs exclusively, depending on the importance of the box's title. I'm erring towards losing the attack, as powerfists are explicitly exempt from the normal +A for two CCWs.

[Steelmage99]

I based my reasoning for the chainfist not being able to have the melta built into it (if it carries over...) on it not being a DCCW. As DCCWs are the only armament that has built-in anything, I took it for granted that the chainfist couldn't.

Aaah, now I see where you are going. I don't agree with you, but I see your reasoning.

[angronn]

angronn, the rules are hazy (again :) ) on losing the attack, as I see it. They state that a walker receives an extra attack for a close combat weapon (of any kind), but this is in the dreadnought close combat weapons box. Could be read towards any CCW or DCCWs exclusively, depending on the importance of the box's title. I'm erring towards losing the attack, as powerfists are explicitly exempt from the normal +A for two CCWs.

 

This agrees with my thinking, re: the title of the box-out vs. the loose term "close combat weapons". I'm not convinced that the chainfist is worth it, especially considering you can't use the +1 damage table modifier if using the 2D6 penetration.

[Legatus]

I would absolutely agree with all this, but if the rules SPECIFICALLY state something in one case and not the other, one must assume they do so for a reason. You seem to be saying "yes, they are phrased differently, but mean the same thing", but surely if you are using RAW you must accept nuances as well as out-and-out statements.

Ideally, the same rule gets phrased in the same way every time, for consistency. But that is not allways the case, as we know from other examples. Usually, rules may be phrased differently accross different Codices. For some standards it specifically states that they only work for friendly units, or units of your own army. But in th ecurrent Codex Space Marines they work for every Space Marine unit, which would include enemy Space Marine units as well. Are Space Marine banners supposed to work differently than other armie's banners? Another prominent example would be from WHFB, where the Dark Elf "Manbane" rules are pretty similar to how dwarf "Slayers" work, yet they left out an important little part from the slayer rule which made a lot of players wonder how exactly the Manbane worked.

But there sometimes are examples in one single Codex as well. Weapons of models are described in different ways. Some weapons are introduced as "working like this" or "having the following profile", but for others it says they "can fired with the following profile", which then led some people to argue that the weapon (I think it was Telions Stalker pattern boltgun) could be optionally fired with that profile, or could still be used as a regular boltgun.

Bottom line, similar rules are not allways phrased in exactly the same way. Usually accross Codices, but sometimes in the same Codex as well.

 

And while you point toward the difference in wording for the Hurricane option and the Chainfist option, I point towards the regular dreads and their missile launcher option, or I just look at the Chainfist (or missile launcher) wording independently from the Hurricane option and come to the conclusion that it would produce the same result, even if it is phrased differently.

 

In this case, Isiah's previous statements about primary/secondary weapons would make sense of the statement.

And in the process to explain it he constructs a whole new system of how weapons work together that is not explained in the rules. All rules dealing with built in weapons explain that a built in weapon is lost as well if the main weapon is destroyed. And as I have recently learned, for apocalypse they even explain that such weapons are also lost if the main weapon is replaced by a different weapon. In the basic game rules, that part was usually described in the options for replacement weapons, untill it got dropped in the current Codex Space Marines.

[jeffersonian000]

Where does it say that a Chainfist is not a DCCW? A Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon is an over-sized power weapon that doubles Strength up to 10. A Dreadnought Chainfist is a DCCW with special rules. A Siesmic Hammer is a DCCW with, again, more special rules. Last I checked, all of those are Close Combat Weapons mounted to a Dreadnought (BRB, pg 73).

 

SJ

[Lord Marius]

There's nowhere that actually states that the chainfist is not a DCCW.

The ironclad's seige hammer, however, specifically states that it is a DCCW, whereas the chainfist does not. In addition, the rule for the ironclad chainfist specifically says that it follows the rules for the terminator chainfist (a powerfist with 2D6 penetration).

 

The question I have now is: How is a DCCW defined. Does it need a special rule, like Gets Hot! or Independent Character, or is it a DCCW purely by virtue of being mounted on a walker?

 

EDIT: If it turns out to be the latter, a large amount of the basis for my argument will be cut away, so it'd be interesting to find out.

[Legatus]

I don't have my books with me, and will not be able to access them for a while, but does it state somewhere that only DCCWs can have weapons built into them?

[jeffersonian000]

The only reference I find is on the same page in the BRB, which advises that if a CCW on Dread is selected as a weapon that is destroyed, any built in weapons are destroyed with it.

 

SJ

[Thantoes]

The question I have now is: How is a DCCW defined. Does it need a special rule, like Gets Hot! or Independent Character, or is it a DCCW purely by virtue of being mounted on a walker?

 

This is quite a hazy issue as the box in question is in the section of the BRB dealing with all walkers, not just SM dreadnoughts. Now I dont have the codex's so others need to check this but are other races walkers armed with weapons called DCCW. By this I mean do Ork or Eldar walkers have entries in thier wargear sections that specifically state "this is armed with a dreadnought close combat weapon"

 

Again bear in mind I dont have the codexes with me so I dont really know what they are armed with but I hope that I am getting my intent across.

 

My opinion is that CCW's attached to dreads become DCCW by virtue of being mounted on a dread or kan or wraithlord etc. I support this with the 3rd paragraph of that box that talks of each "close combat weapon" confering the +1 attack, not each "dreadnough close combat weapon". (Sorry I am at work so dont have my codex with me so cant quote direct). I feel that a better heading for the box should have been "Walker Close Combat Weapons" which would have solved alot of issues.

 

*edit* I have just had a look at the ork and eldar codex and it does actually say Dreadnought close combat weapon. This is making me re-evaluate what I was saying in the last paragraph...

[Thantoes]

Sorry to double post but since its been a few days I think I can get away with it.

 

Right, since the one of the major issues with the CCW and melta (and by the same token the H/Flamer) seems to be its built-inness would I be correct in saying that you would measure all shots and templates from the end of the CCW regardless of where you actually modelled the melta/flamer.

 

I ask since I am using a FW MkIV dread as my Ironclad base and the weapons will be torso mounted. However the arms stick a decent ways more forward than the torso. If I measure from the end of the arm I can get almost an extra inch of range as opposed to measuring from the torso mounted hull.

 

I guess what I am saying is WYSIWYG used purely to represent specific wargear or is it used as actual firing points etc?

[Steelmage99]

Well, when measuring range from a vehicle-mounted weapon, don't you measure from the mounting-point? To prevent the I-convert-a-longer-barrel-on-the-weapon-to-gain-range-but-my-opponent-must-still-measure-to-my-hull-to-hit-me-kinda-thing?

[Lord Marius]

The walker rules say to measure range from the weapon and line of sight from the mounting point, as normal for vehicles.

As forgeworld isn't technically GW standard, it probably falls under the same 'opponents permission' category as if you'd converted the weapons yourself.

 

Even though it is built-in, the rules say to measure from the weapon. Once again, logic as we know it must be suspended apparently...

[Thantoes]

Even though it is built-in, the rules say to measure from the weapon. Once again, logic as we know it must be suspended apparently...

 

While I understand the fact that its measures from the weapon itself in most cases, its also true that the majority of cases do not actually tell you where the weapon is placed on the vehicle. Just that its armed with "xxx" or "xxx in a sponsoon" Not "armed with xxx in a turret that is placed on the centerline point of the upmost armour plate next to the cooling vents"

 

However this is what is getting me. Since the basis of much of the previous debate on the melta/flamer was that it was part of the arm itself, is it not true to say that the rules then place an actual definite location for the weapon and if that us true, could we not the infer that the physical piece of metal/plastic/resin is just a representation of the weapon that is built into the arm and as such its physical placement has no bearing at all on the area where the rules say it must be. i.e. rules say weapon is built into arm, so the weapon is in the arm even if you modelled it strapped to his banner facing backwards.

 

Hope people can follow my train of thought here.

[Lord Marius]

I get it now. Even though the model has a weapon modelled in a particular way, it won't affect how it works for purposes of the rules. Just like glueing sponsons in place (or even upside down) won't affect their arc of fire, the actual placement of the flamer/melta won't affect the measuring distance, as the rules state that they are built into the arm, so that is where distance and LoS are measured from.

 

I'm sure there'll be people whose opinions differ and I'd like to see what they base their views on, particularly with regard to any WYSIWYG vs RAW issues.

[Thantoes]

I have finished the dread that has caused all this ruckus and he can be found at http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=161901

[jimbo1701]

Sorry to drag this thread up but I have something which may (or may not) contribute to the debate. I took this at GD08 and it shows what look like CADs of the ironclad. Don't know if this is the finished thing or not (hopefully we'll find out later this year) but the images clearly show a chainfist option with heavy flamer mounted beneath, suggesting that the left arm does indeed come with MG/fl options regardless of whether it is a SH or CF. I'm guessing they wouldn't have bothered to model it that way if that's not what the codex designers had intended.

 

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t286/jimbo1701/GDUK-Ironclad.jpg

[angronn]

*facepalm*

 

Why didn't I think to find that picture BEFORE getting into big debate mode...?!

[Steelmage99]

Hehe. Typical!

[Legatus]

Yes, that could potentially be an indication that the Ironclad is supposed to keep the built in meltagun. On the other hand, that is a concept, and you can consult your Codex Space Marines page 119 for two examples of the current regular Dreadnought model with missile launcher option. Analogue to the Ironclad's Chainfist option, the missile launcher option does not mention that the stormbolter built into the DCCW is lost if the DCCW is replaced by the missile launcher. And since there is no stormbolter to be found on those two Dreadnoughts with missile launcher I am still confident that even though the rules are not specifically pointing out that the built in weapon is lost if the DCCW/Seiamic Hammer is replaced, by nature of the "built in" mechanic they automatically are lost anyway.

 

If the Ironclad model actually gets released with a meltagun/heavy flamer attached to the Chainfist, then that will be sufficient for me personally as a sign that the intention really is that the Ironclad keeps the built in weapon. One could still point towards such modelling blunders as the metal CSM Terminator Lord, Chaplain Cassius or the Forgeworld Dreads, but I think if GW actually releases the Ironclad with that weapon option, they would clarify if asked that he is supposed to have it.

[nighthawks]

P119 of C:SM also refers to the DCCW as a "power fist". so if a DCCW and a PF are interchangeable terms, then the chainfist could be as well, without an I1 penalty. simply conjecture based on rough proof, but still - interesting...

[Grey Mage]

You lose the siesmic hammer. Precident- When you lose the DCCW of a dreadnaught in exchange for a ML you also lose the (built in) stormbolter.

 

By RAW this isnt true. C:SM pg137 Entry for Dreadnought and venerable dreadnought: "Replace Dreadnought close combat weapon with - twin-linked autocannon or missile launcher"

 

No mention is made of the storm bolter. The entry for the Ironclad dreadnought specifically mentions that you loose the storm bolter "Replace Dreadnough close combat weapon and storm bolter with a hurricane bolter"

 

I think people just assume that you loose the SB as its generally modelled onto the arm.

 

*edit: spelling*

Its "Built in" thus the weapons are integral to each other. You cant have the one without the other... they are the same weapon. I dont have a problem with the idea that a chainfist on a dreadnaught is also a DCCW, but the weapons are part of each other. If you lose one, you will lose the other.

[Steelmage99]

You lose the siesmic hammer. Precident- When you lose the DCCW of a dreadnaught in exchange for a ML you also lose the (built in) stormbolter.

 

By RAW this isnt true. C:SM pg137 Entry for Dreadnought and venerable dreadnought: "Replace Dreadnought close combat weapon with - twin-linked autocannon or missile launcher"

 

No mention is made of the storm bolter. The entry for the Ironclad dreadnought specifically mentions that you loose the storm bolter "Replace Dreadnough close combat weapon and storm bolter with a hurricane bolter"

 

I think people just assume that you loose the SB as its generally modelled onto the arm.

 

*edit: spelling*

Its "Built in" thus the weapons are integral to each other. You cant have the one without the other... they are the same weapon. I dont have a problem with the idea that a chainfist on a dreadnaught is also a DCCW, but the weapons are part of each other. If you lose one, you will lose the other.

 

Could you please refer to that "Built in" rule you talk about. I can't seem to find it in the rulebook.