Stupid questions regarding dreadnoughts

[jimbo1701]

Hi all,

 

None of the people at my gaming club use dreads that often but recently when I used one a few questions came up.

 

1. If a dreadnought is immobilised, does a CC attack against it still attack the front armour? (checked the BRB and the answer seems to be yes, yet several of us for some reason thought you struck rear armour after immobilisation)

 

2. If a dread starts off as S6 (10) and A2, should you replace the DCCW with a ML is it reduced to S6 (Yes I gather) and 1A?? Similarly, should it's DCCW be destroyed is it reduced to 1A or is the -1A only limited to additional DCCWs? (i.e. furioso)

 

3. Does an ironclad dreadnought which replaces its seismic hammer with a chainfist then only strike at I1? As DCCWs are essentially PFs for dreads it would make sense that you still strike at normal initiative but the rules suggest otherwise from what I can see.

 

4. How many weapons is a dreadnought with DCCWs actually armed with. In the case of a furioso, is it armed with 4 weapons (2 DCCW, MG, SB) or 2 arms each with 2 weapons on? Point of contention was the use of a MkIV FW dread with the secondary weapons being hull mounted rather than underslung.

 

Thanks for any help guys.

[nighthawks]

I'll try some:

 

1. don't recall. I think it's based on facing once the model is immobilized.

 

2. the dred has a base # of attacks like any infantry model ADDING 2 DCCW can raise this, but emoving them leaves a minimum of the statline characteristic (C:SM is 2)

 

3. the rules DO suggest otherwise. and it's a point of contention. see this thread for this and a lot of other answers.

 

4. each DCCW counts as 1 CCW, effectively - so a furioso with 2 DCCW has +1A. the ranged weapons have no effect on the assault attacks.

[Legatus]

1. If a dreadnought is immobilised, does a CC attack against it still attack the front armour?

Yes, as per page 73 of the rulebook.

 

2. If a dread starts off as S6 (10) and A2, should you replace the DCCW with a ML is it reduced to S6 (Yes I gather) and 1A?? Similarly, should it's DCCW be destroyed is it reduced to 1A or is the -1A only limited to additional DCCWs? (i.e. furioso)

According to the rules for dreadnought close combat weapons on page 73, every additional close combat weapon over the first will grant the dreadnought an aditional attack, which is lost if that additional close combat weapon is destroyed. If a Dreadnought only has one close combat weapon, and replaces or loses it, he will not lose an attack.

 

Chaos Dreadnoughts have their own rules in Codex Chaos Space Marines. They have 3 attacks over teh 2 attacks of loyalist Dreadnoughts, but if they lose their close combat weapon their number of attacks will be reduced to 2.

 

3. Does an ironclad dreadnought which replaces its seismic hammer with a chainfist then only strike at I1?

Strictly by the rules, yes. A Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon is a powerweapon that doubles the walker's strength. It has no penalty on the walker's initiative. Unless the Ironclad Chainfist was described as "a DCCW that rolls 2D6+Strength for armour penetration" as opposed to "a Chainfist", it will come with the usual Initiative 1 penalty.

 

4. How many weapons is a dreadnought with DCCWs actually armed with. In the case of a furioso, is it armed with 4 weapons (2 DCCW, MG, SB) or 2 arms each with 2 weapons on?

As the Codex Blood Angels describes, the Meltagun and the Stormbolter are each built into one of the Furioso's Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons. And according to the rules for Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons on page 73 of the rulebook, built in weapons are lost as well if the Dreadnough Close Combat Weapon is destroyed. Those are the rules, and the Forgeworld models where the special weapon is attached to the torso are not adequate in this respect.

[jimbo1701]

Cheers guys. Darn it, my dread sucumbed to a hive tyrant due to the it being immobilised and us assuming that meant you hit the rear armour. ALso, we reduced the A profile by 1 as it had a ML arm. Doh, never mind. Thanks again

[Frosty the Pyro]

Dont feal bad jimbo, the hive tyrant would have still annilated that dread even if you had played it strait, the tyrant would have gotten its armor saves, it still gets 2d6 vs your armor. Also imobalised (and/or stunned) walkers get -1 attacks (min 1) so you would have been at one attack anyway. Just file it under a "now you know."

 

so yeah you would have goten to use front armor (av 12) but you still would have only had 1 str 6 ws4 attack, against a minimum of 3 str 5 monstrous attacks at ws 5 and sv 3+

[jimbo1701]

Only thing being it was the last turn and the tyrant only managed to get one pentrating hit (rolled 11 on what we were assuming was rear armour 10) and we ended up drawing on kill points. Had ol dready survived it would have been a win. Like you say, put it down to experience and not make the same mistake in future. Cheers.

[yergerjo]

3. Does an ironclad dreadnought which replaces its seismic hammer with a chainfist then only strike at I1?

Strictly by the rules, yes. A Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon is a powerweapon that doubles the walker's strength. It has no penalty on the walker's initiative. Unless the Ironclad Chainfist was described as "a DCCW that rolls 2D6+Strength for armour penetration" as opposed to "a Chainfist", it will come with the usual Initiative 1 penalty.

 

Mind you also this is similar to a chaplain with a powerfist, in that if the dread wishes to use the chainfist (vs vehicle) then yes it strikes at I1, but being that is has another DCCW he can instead strike at normal initiative without the chainfist, but the player must choose which weapon he is using. Also when swapping for the Chainfist, the Ironclad's attacks are only 2 since the Chainfist is not a DCCW.

 

A Chaplain may use either special weapon, but must decide at the start of the assault which he will use, does not gain an extra attack for 2 CCW and strikes at the Init of the weapon.

[Legatus]

The "DCCW" rules don't specifically require a Dreadnought close combat weapon for teh additional attacks. Actually, going back and re-reading that segment, it could even be interpreted as so that any kind of close combat weapon on a Dreadnought is then a "Dreadnought close combat weapon". The terms "close combat weapon" and "dreadnought close combat weapon" seem to be used interchangeably in that paragraph.

[Fausto2071]

a quick question: if the ironclad replaces the seismic hammer for a chainfist does it lose the melta?

[Legatus]

A quick question maybe, but I am afraid there is not a quick answer. B)

 

My take: The seismic hammer has a melta built into it. If there is no seismic hammer, there is no melta.

[Fausto2071]

mmkay, thanks for the link and the reply

[Scott-S6]

A quick question maybe, but I am afraid there is not a quick answer. :)

 

My take: The seismic hammer has a melta built into it. If there is no seismic hammer, there is no melta.

While that's what the rules suggest, the CAD pics of the model show the melta built into the forearm and only the hand changes for the hammer/fist swap.

 

I think that this is a case of it being so obvious when you can see the model that they didn't make the rule as clear as they might have.

[nighthawks]

there's already a thread about the chainfist / hammer melta on the ironclad.

 

unless we have new info, please do not rehash it here...