Dreadnought with mixed Ini weapons

[ChaosPhoenix]

Hi,

 

just two short questions:

 

An Ironclad Dreadnought armed with a Dread-CCW and a Chainfist has still 3 attacks, right?

It can either make 3 attacks at Ini 4 with the CCW or Ini 1 with the Chainfist, right?

 

 

I can't find a real answer to this questions, it's just what I assume. I could answer it for infantry models but the Walker beats me. Could you point me into the right direction?

[Annatar Giftbringer]

Well, I'm not 100 % sure on this, but I'd say no, an Ironclad with DCCW and chainfist does not have three attacks, since they are two separate weapon classes. So I'd guess you can choose use the chainfist for two attacks att I1 or the DCCW for two attacks at regular initiative.

 

The Seismic hammer on the other hands clearly states that it counts as a DCCW, and thus the number of attacks is stated as 2(3). So if you choose to have DCCW and hammer you'd get three attacks, with (I presume) the Hammer's bonuses on all three.

[Crazy Eight]

A dreadnought attacks at I4 which ever weapon it uses and it gets 3 attacks +1 if it charges if i have read the rules correctly

[ChaosPhoenix]

Well, I'm not 100 % sure on this, but I'd say no, an Ironclad with DCCW and chainfist does not have three attacks, since they are two separate weapon classes. So I'd guess you can choose use the chainfist for two attacks att I1 or the DCCW for two attacks at regular initiative.

 

The Seismic hammer on the other hands clearly states that it counts as a DCCW, and thus the number of attacks is stated as 2(3). So if you choose to have DCCW and hammer you'd get three attacks, with (I presume) the Hammer's bonuses on all three.

 

I think you're right. Reading the SM codex on page 64 for chainfists and page 65 for cybots (german codex). It states the Seismic Hammer is treated as a Dreadnought CCW and the Chainfist is treated as a Powerfist. Now reading page 73 of the core rulebook for Walkers and Dreadnought CCWs it states a Dreadnought gets an additional attack for every Dreadnought CCW.

 

It could be a wording mistake, it could be intended. But I've got no reason to choose a chainfist now.

 

A dreadnought attacks at I4 which ever weapon it uses and it gets 3 attacks +1 if it charges if i have read the rules correctly

 

See above. I want to agree with you, but I can't atm.

[igotsmeakabob!!]

I believe that the Chainfist is the bunker-buster. Sometimes Str 10 just isn't enough against AV14, sometimes you need that extra d6 on penetration rolls. That you might not get an extra attack out of it, though...

[Annatar Giftbringer]

Well, I'm not 100 % sure on this, but I'd say no, an Ironclad with DCCW and chainfist does not have three attacks, since they are two separate weapon classes. So I'd guess you can choose use the chainfist for two attacks att I1 or the DCCW for two attacks at regular initiative.

 

The Seismic hammer on the other hands clearly states that it counts as a DCCW, and thus the number of attacks is stated as 2(3). So if you choose to have DCCW and hammer you'd get three attacks, with (I presume) the Hammer's bonuses on all three.

 

I think you're right. Reading the SM codex on page 64 for chainfists and page 65 for cybots (german codex). It states the Seismic Hammer is treated as a Dreadnought CCW and the Chainfist is treated as a Powerfist. Now reading page 73 of the core rulebook for Walkers and Dreadnought CCWs it states a Dreadnought gets an additional attack for every Dreadnought CCW.

 

It could be a wording mistake, it could be intended. But I've got no reason to choose a chainfist now.

 

A dreadnought attacks at I4 which ever weapon it uses and it gets 3 attacks +1 if it charges if i have read the rules correctly

 

See above. I want to agree with you, but I can't atm.

 

There is one reason that I can see for taking it, and that's if you take a Hurricane Bolter on the right arm. Since the Chainfist doesn't give extra attacks but does add bonus damage against vehicles it could be a good match for the Bolter array. The left arm can use Seismic Hammer or Chainfist, and a hammer without DCCW means that you miss one attack.

[chapter master 454]

I think both seismic and chainfist are both DCCWs and I would have to say we need to apply a bit of logic here: a dreadnought is an extremely powerful thing, far more than a person so while a chainfist is heavy for a person to sue a dreadnought wouldn't have a problem with it so I would assume it counts not only as a DCCW it also strikes at I4. Thats my personal view.

 

Then again might just be one of GWs ways of being able to watch the B&C get caught up in it. Bet they put all those mistakes in on purpose and have a list of them and tick them off as we get to them.

 

GW guy1: 'They've gone through vulkans obscure rules about flamers, masterful piece bob, and they have got through vanguards pricing about 8 times. What are they on now'

 

GW guy2 (bob); 'Oh ho, they've hit the chainfists on Ironclads. That should get some 'rules are intended' and 'rules as written' arguements going'

 

GW guy1: 'That should be fun just like the arguements over the gunner techmarines on thunderfires and chronus kill points. Shame none will match the amount of rage caused by our FAQ for marines!'

[Legatus]

Now reading page 73 of the core rulebook for Walkers and Dreadnought CCWs it states a Dreadnought gets an additional attack for every Dreadnought CCW.

I don't know what the german rules for DCCWs say, but in the english rulebook a Walker gains an additional attack for each extra "close combat weapon" it is armed with. The extra weapon is not specified to have to be a "dreadnought" close combat weapon. Since the rules for a model having two different special close combat weapons (or a powerfist as one of the weapons) is a more basic rule and the Walker rules are a refinement of those basic rules I would say the walker rules take precedent and no matter what kind of close combat weapon a walker is armed with, it will get additional attacks for extra weapons, no matter what kind of weapon they may be.

 

A dreadnought attacks at I4 which ever weapon it uses and it gets 3 attacks +1 if it charges if i have read the rules correctly

Currently, following RAW, that is not the case. Dreadnoughts attack in initiative sequence because the DCCW is a "powerweapon" that doubles the strength, NOT a powerfist. There are no rules in place that state that walkers allways strike at initative, so when a walker was equipped with a weapon that would make a model attack at initiative 1 he would be penalized just like any other model.

I don't think that is the intention, but that is currently what the rules amount to.

 

 

So to answer the original question, yes, an Ironclad Dreadnought with DCCW and Chainfist would still have 3 attacks, and he could decide to either make the attacks with the DCCW at Initiative 4 or use the Chainfist with Initiative 1. Since the Chainfist will probably be used in combat against vehicles the lowered Initiative will rarely matter, but you have to watch out when fighting other dreads, and will have to rely on the weaker 10+d6 instead of getting the full 10+2d6 from the chainfist.

[Grey Mage]

Anyone else note that in the painting section of the book DCCWs are refered to as powerfists?

[Arikel]

Problem with the chain fist is there is no entry in the vehicle section for it. In fact the only entry for chainfists is in the terminator entry. If you look at what a dccw actually does statwise, it is a power fist (doubles the user's strength and is a power weapon). It seems that the rules for a dreadnought chainfist were never included in the sm codex. IMO I would rule that it works like a DCCW with the extra armour pen of a chainfist when attached to a dreadnought(and not a termie)

[Legatus]

Anyone else note that in the painting section of the book DCCWs are refered to as powerfists?

Well, as far as fluff is concerned, that's what they are. But in the game they use different rules from powerfists on infantry.

[GreatEscape_13]

Then again might just be one of GWs ways of being able to watch the B&C get caught up in it. Bet they put all those mistakes in on purpose and have a list of them and tick them off as we get to them.

 

Haha, indeed. Though the crueler trick was played on Ork players, who still have to bang their heads against the wall to decide whether a Deff Rolla can be used against vehicles or not thanks to a GW heading flub.

 

Cheers.

[chapter master 454]

Then again might just be one of GWs ways of being able to watch the B&C get caught up in it. Bet they put all those mistakes in on purpose and have a list of them and tick them off as we get to them.

 

Haha, indeed. Though the crueler trick was played on Ork players, who still have to bang their heads against the wall to decide whether a Deff Rolla can be used against vehicles or not thanks to a GW heading flub.

 

Cheers.

 

I do indeed know that one. I do have orks and used to play them, got bored of having to get to melee to do damage. With marines I can chose what to do (bash 'em or blast 'em (all)).

 

Anyway thats off topic. I still feel that chainfists attack at I4.

[Annatar Giftbringer]

I think I have re-think my first answer above after the following reasoning:

 

A Dreadnought close-combat Weapon is just like an ordinary Power Fist - except it doesn't strike at Initiative 1. Thus a Dreadnought Chainfist could be assumed to be to a Dread Fist what a regular Chainfist is to a power fist, i e it adds an additional d6 when attacking AV targets.

 

Also, isn't every close-combat weapon on a Dreadnought per default a Dreafnought Close-combat Weapon, since it is mounted on a Dred? Which would support adding an additional attack to the Chainfist/DCCW combo.

 

Two things still bug me about this reasoning though...

1) The Seismic Hammer is specifically mentioned to count as a DCCW with additional bonuses, whereas nothing like that is said for the Dread Chainfist.

2) The Chainfist (at least the Terminator variant) counts as a Power Fist with additional bonuses against AV targets, and PFs only grant extra attacks if they are used in pairs.

 

However, if the rules say that every additional close combat weapon gives a walker an additional attack (I don't have my rulebook at hand, but it was mentioned in the thread) then it should still get the extra attack, leaving only the Initiative question...

 

I talked to a regular gaming buddy of mine, and he supported the 'extra attack, init 4' idea, even though his only experience of the Ironclad is going to be on the receiving end.

[ChaosPhoenix]

The two things which bug you, are the same for me. I really "feel" like it should strike at Ini 4. If a Dreadnought can lift a Seismic Hammer, it can lift a stupid Chainfist at the same speed. Another thing which bugs me, is the wording in the german core rulebook. It specifically states "The Dreadnought gets an additional attack for every Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon." Not a close combat weapon on a Dreadnought or whatever. I can't give you the "feel" for german language, but the wording is very exact and feels very intended. But then again, it could be a translation error from the english codex :)

[Brother Amarel]

For me the idea of GW assuming that we'd all automatically 'get' that a Chainfist is just a DCCW with extra D6 vs AV (exactly as per PF to CF) is about right. The Seismic Hammer is mentioned specifically as a DCCW because it doesn't exist elsewhere and so doesn't have a frame of reference.

 

Certainly anyway using a Dread Chainfist against me wouldn't be prevented from using it as a DCCW+D6vsAV.

[Frosty the Pyro]

The two things which bug you, are the same for me. I really "feel" like it should strike at Ini 4. If a Dreadnought can lift a Seismic Hammer, it can lift a stupid Chainfist at the same speed. Another thing which bugs me, is the wording in the german core rulebook. It specifically states "The Dreadnought gets an additional attack for every Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon." Not a close combat weapon on a Dreadnought or whatever. I can't give you the "feel" for german language, but the wording is very exact and feels very intended. But then again, it could be a translation error from the english codex :)

 

The english version says it gets an extra attack for each close combat weapon (beyond the first) not for each DCCW (and while I have no faith in GW you have to work with what you got, and the english version is likely the highest authority as its is obviosly free of translation error, chocked full of writing errors though). A chainfist is a powerfist, with aditinional armor pen. Powerfists say they only get an extra attack from another powerfist (DCCW are not power fists in the same way guass flayers are not boltguns, similar stats do not mean the same). However Walkers bonus attacks work differently, it says so in the DCCW section of the main rulebook, they can get benifits for more than 2 weapons, if a regular infantry man has 3 cc weapons he still only gets +1 attack, a walker gets +2, because walkers have special rules in that case. Arguing that the walker close combat attack bonus rules supercedes the powerfists attack bonus rules is legititamate. On the other hand there is absolutly NOTHING that would imply the chainfist hits at anything but I 1. The DCCW is a special weapon though, so it may be arguable that you can chose to make the attacks with the DCCW (I4) or the chainfist (I1 and extra armor pen), though doing so weakens argument as the line that lets chose also says you never get bonus attacks.

 

 

TL:DR

 

there is a argument for 3 attacks with chainfist + DCCW, but still a little hazy

Chainfist strikes at I1. period, no arguments. (Well there are arguments, but they hold as much water as botguns being blast weapons aka fluff != rules)

It can also be argued that you can chose to attack at I4 without the pen bonus or at I1 with the pen bonus, but this strengthens the argument of only getting 2 attacks.

 

 

 

 

On a side note, math hammer wise 2 hits with the chainfist are equal to 3 with the hammer at destroying a vehicle vs AC 14 (the diference was .1% in the hamers favor) however the chainfist is more likely to at get an imbolized/weapond destoryed (52% vs 42%)

[Grey Mage]

Anyone else note that in the painting section of the book DCCWs are refered to as powerfists?

Well, as far as fluff is concerned, that's what they are. But in the game they use different rules from powerfists on infantry.

Im just pointing it out to show that the people who put this codex together may have used the term interchangably, through ignorance of the rules or simply as a slip-up.

[Arikel]

Note that the current space marine codex has no rules for a vehicle mounted chainfist, in fact the only mention of a vehicle mounted chainfist is in the iron clad dreadnoughts optional addons. Really this means there are no rules at all for the device. In the spirit of walkers rules, the best assumption is that it is a dccw with an extra d6 of armour penetration.

[Frosty the Pyro]

Note that the current space marine codex has no rules for a vehicle mounted chainfist, in fact the only mention of a vehicle mounted chainfist is in the iron clad dreadnoughts optional addons. Really this means there are no rules at all for the device. In the spirit of walkers rules, the best assumption is that it is a dccw with an extra d6 of armour penetration.

 

 

Walkers fight with infantry rules in CC except where noted otherwise. Vehicle mounted doesnt mater because its Walker mounted, which is the same as infantry. Their is no asumtion, it is a chainfist. Chainfists are powerfists with an extra d6 of armor pen. Powerfist are power weapons that double str (max 10) and strike and initive 1. Their is no argueing that much. The only wiggle room comes from the section on Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons when it talks about walkers geting an aditional attack for each CCW it has (beyond the first). This can be argued on equal athority to the line in the assult section of the book where it says powerfist do not provide extra attacks unless you have a pair of powerfists.

[Grey Mage]

Why should their be a seperate set of rules just because its vehicle mounted?

 

In C:Eldar, theres one profile for a shuriken catapult and one for a brightlance.... both are found on vehicles and infantry models... theres never been any confusion about this.

 

Theres also no entry in the vehicle section of C:SM for a Lascannon.... shouldnt we assume its identical in all ways to a infantry mounted lascannon?

[Thantoes]

This was gone over in quite a bit of detail in this thread:

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...=160311&hl=

 

And I have also done some checking, every single race that has walkers with CCW it explicitly states that they are armed with a "Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon".

 

By RAW the chainfist is NOT a DCCW and such the dread does not benifit from the extra attack. RAI is another story and I believe it should give the extra attack but till its FAQ'd...

[Legatus]

With plasma weapons there do is a difference between infantry and vehicle mounted. :o

 

Dreadnoughts should be able to strike with the chainfist at initiative, no question about it from a fluff or intent point of view, but the rules as they stand currently do not play out that way.

 

 

Edit:

By RAW the chainfist is NOT a DCCW and such the dread does not benifit from the extra attack.

By RAW it is not an additional DCCW that grants a walker extra attacks, but an additional CCW, so the Chainfist grants him the +1 attack just like the Seismic Hammer does.

[Thantoes]

With plasma weapons there do is a difference between infantry and vehicle mounted. <_<

 

Dreadnoughts should be able to strike with the chainfist at initiative, no question about it from a fluff or intent point of view, but the rules as they stand currently do not play out that way.

 

 

Edit:

By RAW the chainfist is NOT a DCCW and such the dread does not benifit from the extra attack.

By RAW it is not an additional DCCW that grants a walker extra attacks, but an additional CCW, so the Chainfist grants him the +1 attack just like the Seismic Hammer does.

 

I wish I could agree with this as it would make my life easier. I also wish that the box on pg 73 of the BRB dealing with DCCW was not so badly written. In it we have references to CCW as well as DCCW. The middle paragraph is the one that I use to confirm that you need an actual DCCW. It states "If the walker suffers a weapon destroyed result and the player chooses the close combat weapon, the walker loses the bonuses confered by the Dreadnought close combat weapon..."

 

This implies to me that the additional close combat weapons have to be DCCW and since a chainfist is not a power weapon it cannot be considered as a DCCW. A seismic hammer on the other hand is called a DCCW in its entry. One could also look at that middle paragraph and say that if your dread was armed with a DCCW as well as a chainfist as a CCW, if you loose the chainfist you would also loose the bonus confered by the DCCW (i.e. the double strength) and you would be hitting at strength 6, which makes no sense at all.

 

Again, I wish that the writers of the BRB could make up thier mind and use consistent terminology throughout any given entry.

[Legatus]

One could also look at that middle paragraph and say that if your dread was armed with a DCCW as well as a chainfist as a CCW, if you loose the chainfist you would also loose the bonus confered by the DCCW (i.e. the double strength) and you would be hitting at strength 6, which makes no sense at all.

No it doesn't, since the middle paragraph discusses the basic situation where the walker only has a single CCW and that happens to get destroyed. In sich a case obviously the CC bonuses are lost. The last paragraph then explains that the walker could have more CCWs.