Dreadnought with mixed Ini weapons

[Dezartfox]

It's a chain fist, it's a different weapon to the DCCW, you don;t get +1 attack. Just because it's another weapon doesn't give it +1 attack or I'm going to have +1 attack when I have a gun too :D

 

Chain fists strike a In1, the dread either chooses to attack with it's chain fist or its DCCW, there's only ONE event where'll you'll want to use your chainfist against anything with an Initiative value and that's against another dreadnought :tu:

[Legatus]

This is the relevant passage from the rulebook rules for Walkers for everyone who does not have access to the rules currently:

 

"If a walker is armed with two or more close combat weapons, it gains one bonus attack for each additional weapon over the first. If one of its additional weapons is destroyed, one bonus attack is lost."

 

DCCW + Chainfist = +1 Attack

[Thantoes]

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.

 

Its odd but I looked at that paragraph again and I didnt see where it stated "This only applies to a basic dreadnought with a single DCCW" My eyes must not be what they used to be. Either that or you are making an assumption which we both know to be a huge No-No when it comes to RAW. Also, the paragraph specifically mentions 2 different weapon systems, a CCW AND a DCCW. Since its been pretty much been decided that a CCW and a DCCW are in fact 2 different things means that your statement that it only refers to basic dreads with a single DCCW carries no wait.

 

I would go so far as to say that the paragraph perfectly describes a dread with a chainfist (CCW) and a normal DCCW.

 

"If the walker suffers a weapon destroyed result and the player chooses the close combat weapon" <----I choose that you loose the CCW (chainfist) which is my right as per rules.

 

"the walker loses the bonuses confered by the Dreadnought close combat weapon" Since I removed the CCW that only leaves you with the DCCW specifically mentioned in this line. What is the bonus conferred? Its doubling of the strength of the dread.

 

Now understand, I would never ever enforce this and anyone who even tried to do so to me would get a smack across the noggin with the BRB. I am using this as an example of just how badly written the the section is. It really could be interpreted both ways.

 

I would allow my opponent the extra attack because of ambiguity. Personally however I play it safe and take the seige hammer because honestly, the only time you would ever need a chainfist is if you are hunting LR's (which you have melta for) or bunker busting (again - you have melta) The plus 1 on the damage chart is, I feel, far more useful than an extra D6 strength.

 

On the OP, sadly, since the chainfist is only a CCW and not a DCCW and since it specifically states that a chainfist is a powerfist, you strike at I1.

[ChaosPhoenix]

After reading the discussion, I think my question wasn't as stupid as I feared. As RAW goes (I can only judge RAW of the german codex) I would say, the Dread gets an additional attack for the chainfist, but at Ini 1. So 3 attacks at Ini 4 or 1. As far as house rules go, I would allow the chainfist to strike at Ini 4.

 

I think powerfists, chainfists and thunderhammers strike at Ini 1, because they're huge, heavy and slow weapons. A regular Marine has trouble lifting it as fast as a sword. A Dreadnought is strong and those weapons are like his hands. He shouldn't have trouble lifting it, if he can fight with a DCCW at Ini 4. The extra armorpenetration of the chainfist comes from it's saw and not from a much heavier weight or anything.

Maybe it's a stupid comparison, but a Hive Tyrant has Ini 5 and 2d6 penetration because it's a monstrous creature, although it's strength is lower. I can live with giving a Dreadnought, which is somehow monstrous the same penetration at a lower initiative.

[Legatus]

Its odd but I looked at that paragraph again and I didnt see where it stated "This only applies to a basic dreadnought with a single DCCW" My eyes must not be what they used to be.

Context is king.

 

First Paragraph:

"Walkers are often armed with huge close combat weapons (...)"

 

Second Paragraph:

"If the walker suffers a weapon destroyed result and the player chooses the close combat weapon (...)"

 

Third paragraph:

"If a walker is armed with two or more (...)"

 

Note the singular in the second paragraph. The player does not chose a close combat weapon of the walker, but the close combat weapon. Note also that the third paragraph then goes on to adress how multiple close combat weapons work out.

 

Also, the paragraph specifically mentions 2 different weapon systems, a CCW AND a DCCW. Since its been pretty much been decided that a CCW and a DCCW are in fact 2 different things means that your statement that it only refers to basic dreads with a single DCCW carries no wait.

A DCCW is a type of CCW. A dreadnought with a DCCW and a Chainfist is armed with two CCWs. A regular Dreadnought is armed with only a single CCW, which usually is a DCCW. If the dread is armed only with a single Powerfist (his DCCW), then the second paragraph applies when the opponent chooses the dreads single CCW (his DCCW) to be destroyed.

[ChaosPhoenix]

And about the initiative-question?

[Frosty the Pyro]

And about the initiative-question?

If you use the chainfist you are at I1, that is clear in the rules, using anything else is a houserule

 

It is arguable weather you get 3 or 2 attacks but the stronger argument goes for 3.

[ChaosPhoenix]

And about the initiative-question?

If you use the chainfist you are at I1, that is clear in the rules, using anything else is a houserule

 

It is arguable weather you get 3 or 2 attacks but the stronger argument goes for 3.

 

I agree with you RAW-wise based on the german rules.

[DevianID]

While the rule quoted does indeed say that you get +1 attack for each ccw after the first, the rule does not say that the other restrictions for regular models are removed.

 

Example, infantry model has 3 ccw. Model gets +1 attack, as regular models have a restriction that only lets them claim +1 attack for multiple weapons.

 

Example, walker has 3 ccw. Model gets +2 attacks, as the SPECIFIC rule for dreads over rides the GENERIC rule that models only can claim +1 attack for multiple weapons.

 

Now, a chainfist is a special ccw. A DCCW is a special ccw. Models armed with 2 special ccw must choose one of the 2 weapons to use, and NEVER get the +1 attack bonus. Thus, by RAW, an ironclad only gets 2 attacks when armed with a chainfist.

 

However, a Seismic hammer is a special ccw, and a DCCW is a different special ccw. Thus a REGULAR ironclad also is armed with 2 special ccw, and thus should not get the bonus attack by RAW.

 

What does this mean? It means GW forgot how the BRB works when writing the ironclad dread, as they clearly intended the dread to get a bonus attack via its profile, despite breaking the rules. Thus, IMHO, you should play the chainfist as init 4 with 3 attacks, since GW rules = fail.

[Grey Mage]

Except a Dreadnaught CCW is not listed as a special weapon anywhere.

 

It may work that way for a chainfist... Im not convinced, but Ill watch this thread.

[Frosty the Pyro]

Except a Dreadnaught CCW is not listed as a special weapon anywhere.

 

It may work that way for a chainfist... Im not convinced, but Ill watch this thread.

The definition of special weapon is any weapon used in assult that is not specificly a "normal CCW." DCCW fall under this definition.

 

 

 

However, a Seismic hammer is a special ccw, and a DCCW is a different special ccw. Thus a REGULAR ironclad also is armed with 2 special ccw, and thus should not get the bonus attack by RAW.

 

Not quite, a seismic hammer "is treated like a dreadnaught close combat weapon" This is what esentialy allows it to oporate like a second DCCW providing the extra attack.

 

This is the same reason chainfists dont get +1A for a pistol of chainsword becuase they ARE powerfists (please note that there is no specific rule that says chainfists dont get an extra attack except in a pair, the rule specifies lightning claws, power fists, and thunderhamers). Presumably a chainfist and a powerfist would provide +1A. Chainfists ARE powerfists. Sueismic hammers ARE DCCW. At least thats how I see it, GW will never win an award for consitency.

[Legatus]

While the rule quoted does indeed say that you get +1 attack for each ccw after the first, the rule does not say that the other restrictions for regular models are removed.

In a way it does exactly that. The rule simply refers to "close combat weapons" without any kind of specification, so it adresses all weapons that can be used in close combat. How close combat weapons work for walkers is a refinement of the basic rules how they generally work for models, so this statement is overruling the basic close combat weapon rules where they disagree.

 

- Basic CCW rules cannot grant more than +1 Attack for being armed with two weapons

 

- Basic CCW rules do not allow Special CCWs to be mixed with other special CCWs for that +1 bonus attack

 

- Basic CCW rules do not allow Powerfists, Thunderhammers and Lightningclaws to be mixed with anything else for the +1 bonus

 

All those rules do not apply for Walkers, as they have their own rules where they get +1 Attack for any kind of CCW over the first one.

[DevianID]

Basic CCW rules cannot grant more than +1 Attack for being armed with two weapons

- Basic CCW rules do not allow Special CCWs to be mixed with other special CCWs for that +1 bonus attack

- Basic CCW rules do not allow Powerfists, Thunderhammers and Lightningclaws to be mixed with anything else for the +1 bonus

All those rules do not apply for Walkers, as they have their own rules where they get +1 Attack for any kind of CCW over the first one.

 

I disagree that all those rules do not apply to walkers. The first would apply to walkers, except walkers explicitly get +1 attack for more than 2 ccw. It does not say that walkers ignore the special weapon restriction, or the powerfist restriction in regards to the Chainfist. Specific overrides general only in the first rule above, thus the specific rule that you may get an additional +1 attack for more than 2 weapons overrides the general cap on 2 ccw only.

 

To further prove the point,

The rule simply refers to "close combat weapons" without any kind of specification, so it adresses all weapons that can be used in close combat

As you state, IN GENERAL the rule refers to 'close combat weapon' but SPECIFIC close combat weapon rules still apply. Just like there is a rule saying an infantry model armed with 2 ccw get a bonus attack, that general rule is over ridden by the specific examples of 2 different special weapons, a two-handed weapon, a storm shield, a relic blade, unpaired THs/PFs/LCs, Dark Eldar Witch weapons, ect.

[Legatus]

"If a Walker is armed with two or more close combat weapons, it gains one bonus attack for each additional weapon over the first."

 

When dealing with walkers, the specific walker rules have to be satisfied over the basic close combat rules. A walker gains one bonus attack for each additional close combat weapon of not further specified type, so a Walker with a DCCW and a Chainfist meets the criterium for the bonus attack granted by it's rules.

 

Furthermore, since walkers are usually armed with a DCCW first, which is a special close combat weapon, ANY close combat weapon they could get that was not also a DCCW would then not grant a bonus attack, rendering the above line from the walker rules essentially false, or at least incorrect in the use of the term "close combat weapon". A not further specified "close combat weapon" would never grant a bonus attack, only DCCWs would, and so should have been referred to in the rule. But Walkers do not follow the basic weapon rules. A walker could be armed with a DCCW, two CCWs and a Thunderhammer, and would get +3 attacks through that. The combination of weapons does not matter. The walker rules grant the bonus attack regardles of the weapon type.

[Brother_Dan'l]

Rant on-

Is it just me or is this thread "How many Dreadnoughts can dance on the head of a pin?". What the devil is the difference? One attack at initiative? Puhleeeze.

 

If you really feel that because a group of semi-literate bozos wrote a rule that used two differently defined words synonymously you should ignore something as plain as the nose on your face that's your prerogative. It's a close combat weapon on a freakin' Dreadnought people. That makes it a -drum roll please- Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon. You are trading a +1 on the damage table for a better chance of rolling on the table. And while I'm sure someone has the time to waste on the exact math-hammer of it all I really don't see the point.

 

I enjoy a good rules argument as much as the next B&Cer, but only when there is a darned conclusion. Someone missed a reference or FAQ and suddenly sees the light. But this round and round where all we hear is "It's blue." (RAW+RAI) followed by "No dagnabit it's Blue." (RAI+RAW) makes me fear for our hobby. And my sanity.

-Rant off

[DerekLee688]

I know arguments based upon fluff and commonsense don't hold water concerning a GW game, but I see a DCCW as a Powerfist(they do the same thing) and a Chain fist IS a power fist. Why can't they be swung the same? If a dread can move and shoot heavy weapons when infantry can't, swing power fists at reg Initative like infantry can't , why can't it swing a chain fist like a infantry can't?

[River Black]

For those of you who are arguing that a chainfist count as a DCCW then I would expect that you treat all hotshot las guns in the new guard codex as regular las guns and give them the extra shot with First rank fire and second rank fire... RIGHT?

[nighthawks]

the argument has to do with the chainfist used by a WALKER is treated the same as one used by infantry. the rules for the latter are clear, but the rules for the walker make no distinction. for that reason, I subscribe to the belief that any CCW (fist or otherwise) mounted to a walker is used at initiative, not reduced unless it clearly says so in the walker BRB or codex rules. in this case (chainfist on an ironclad) it does not. this is based on the BRB text reviewed very well by Legatus in post 39, above.

 

as for the hotshot lasgun example, it is not a valid comparison to this issue. it is a weapon that has clear definitions, just as a strom bolter is not a "bolter" (nor is a heavy bolter a "bolter", etc...). we all know how a chainfist works, and what rules to use, but a walker is a different animal than infantry, and just as shooting rules for a vehicle are different from those for infantry, assault rules for a walker logically may be different as well.

[Legatus]

While I am quite certain that the intention is that walkers can use "power fist" type weapons at initiative speed (a standard DCCW is usually a "power fist" after all), the rules currently unforunately do not describe it that way. In 3rd Edition, a close combat weapon doubled the walker's strength and allowed him to ignore armour saves. It was specifically described as "basically being a power fist", but that the walker could still strike at initiative speed. In 4th Edition, that elaboration was dropped, and in 5th it is simple described as a "power weapon" that doubles the strength. If a walker would now be armed with a power fist, he would strike at Initiative 1.