Dreadnought Chainfist....a powerfist?!

[thade]

I had been under the assumption this entire time that my Ironclad Dread's Chainfist worked like a DCCW with 2d6 armor pen (meaning it's 2x strength and Init 4). But now I went looking (out of curiousity) in my codex and found that the Chainfist doesn't appear under the Dreadnought entry or in the Vehicle armory...and the standard armory entry refers you to the Terminator page.

 

The terminator page states that a chainfist is treated exactly like a Powerfist with 2d6 armor pen....which means that the Dread will still get 2x strength but go at Init 1. That's a bummer! I mean, it's not a HUGE deal since he's front armor 13, but...? I'm posting here to see if I'm confused/mistaken, or if in fact an Ironclad with a Chainfist goes on I1.

 

Cheers.

[JamesI]

By RAW, nothing states the Ironclad Chainfist fights at Initiative. By RAW it fights at Init 1.

 

No idea if that is RAI, or a stupid glitch.

[thade]

That's where I'm sitting as well. I mean, it's not a HUGE deal. (Armor 13 dreadnought will still be a tarpit to behold.) But if I he goes in against Meganobz or something, Init 1 vs 4 is a really crucial tiebreaker between the weapons.

[bystrom]

Not to mention the fact that you don't get the +1 for having two close combat weapons (as you need another power fist for that)

[thade]

Not to mention the fact that you don't get the +1 for having two close combat weapons (as you need another power fist for that)

 

Whaaat?! That is a strong point you make. Two different special weapons in an assault. Walkers have exceptions for firing (all of their weapons) but...nothing for assaults.

 

That chainfist looks worse and worse. But it looks very cool on the model.

[Thantoes]

I have yet to get into a situation where the chainfist out performed a seismic hammer. The +1 to the damage table is wicked and S10 generally gets the job done. I also would rather roll at I4 myself.

[thade]

I have yet to get into a situation where the chainfist out performed a seismic hammer. The +1 to the damage table is wicked and S10 generally gets the job done. I also would rather roll at I4 myself.

 

The only thing I can think of is using the chainfist vs a Monolith or a LR; that guaranteed pen, esp against a monolith which is otherwise proof against 2d6, might be very nice.

 

I just can't for the life of me justify the I1 and loss of attack RAI; at Str 10 both the hammer and the chainfist are very likely to pen almost any vehicle on the board. And the hammer gets a +1 on the table. Why are they not perfectly swappable? Very very weird. I wonder if it was intentional or an oversight.

 

EDIT: nm, I have just been reminded that the monolith does in fact negate the extra d6 to pen with a chainfist.

[Legatus]

There is no loss of attack. Walkers get +1 Attack for every close combat weapon beyond the first, irrespective of what kind of close combat weapon that may be.

 

The Chaonfist is merley a "fluffy" upgrade that has a higher chance of penetrating a Land Raider but is not all that usefull against anything else.

[thade]

The DCCW rule on p73; I see. So it stands to reason that he won't lose an additional attack. Since it's a CF and not a DCCW though, I fear he's still going at Init 1 =( Still, better than nothing; nice find Leg.

[Legatus]

Against Land Raiders the Initiative wont matter, and against other models he can just strike with his DCCW instead. The extra armour penetration would not affect them anyways. Only against other Walkers the extra penetration would be better than the regular DCCW, but perhaps 10+D6 are enough for them.

[thade]

Brilliant!!!

 

Thanks =)

[thade]

This all presumes of course that the DCCW rule takes precedence over the PF rule (the former in the vehicle chapter, the latter in the Assault chapter, which is geared towards infantry). I think what confused me was "Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon" being in capital letters...it's just describing a close-combat weapon on a walker/vehicle.

[Magua]

I was actually just looking over this while going through the codex with a fine toothed comb.

 

The dreadnought CCW is a powerfist (x2 S, ignores armor save) that strikes at initiative, as per the BRB.

The chainfist says it is a powerfist, except it does S+2d6 AP.

 

RAI is pretty clear -- the dreadnought chainfist strikes at I order, for the same reason the dreadnought close combat weapon strikes at I order.

 

RAW seems clear enough (to me, at least) using the same argument -- dreadnought powerfists strike at I order. The chainfist is a powerfist. The chainfist strikes at I order....but, there's another discussion elsethread about whether or not the daemons in Codex: Chaos Daemons count as daemons, so what do I know?

[thade]

I don't mean to instantiate threadomancy, but a friend of mine found this thread:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=154463

 

In which this very topic was discussed and they resolved that you lose one bonus attack; they do not take into account however the DCCW rule in full (p73 brb) which we have attempted to address here. Let me summarize my points this far:

 

- If at the start of combat you select to use the DCCW you get a bonus attack for having an additional close combat weapon (per the DCCW rule on p73) and thus get 3 attacks at str10, 1d6 armor pen, init 4.

- If at the start of combat you select the chainfist, we're in a bit of a mire. Does the chainfist count as a dreadnought close combat weapon (as it is a close combat weapon on a dreadnought?) or does it work like a powerfist on a terminator (which makes little sense, as a normal power fist on a dreadnought does not). If it counts as a dccw (lower case on purpose) then it gets an extra attack from the other dccw and goes on initiative 4. If it counts as a chainfist per the assault chapter rules (for infantry) it's only 2 attacks at i1.

 

All of the rules on p73 are exceptions for the assault rules with regards to Walker/Vehicles, so I'm confident that the DCCW overrules the standard CCW rules from the Assault Chapter; so I think, given that, both RAI and RAW agree: Dreadnought Chainfist Close Combat Weapons strike on initiative and get a bonus attack.

 

whew.

[Legatus]

The Initiative can be questioned, as the Codex describes the weapon in question working like a powerfist. The number of Attacks cannot really be questioned, because the walker rules describe a different process for gaining bonus attacks than the regular close combat rules do.

 

Regular rules: Two weapons can be used to gain a single +1 bonus attack, depending on the specific weapon combination used.

 

Walker rules: Any close combat weapon after the first one adds anothe +1 bonus attack.

 

Walkers are not limited to a single +1 bonus for having two weapons, and neither is the bonus dependant on the particular weapon type.

[Frosty the Pyro]

Chainfist ALWAYS strike at I 1. There is no getting around that. However the box on pg 73 says walkers gain a bonus attack for each additional CCW, not each aditional DCCW. and a chainfist IS a CCW, even if it is NOT a DCCW. The walker specific rules for bonus attacks overides the standard rules for bonus attacks on pg 42. As evidenced by the fact that ironclad attacks are listed as 2(3) due to having a DCCW and a seismic hammer, two distinctly different special CCWs. Which by the rules on pg 42 would not be able to be combined for a "two one handed weapon" bonus attack. So as we can see, walkers do not, nor ever gain a "two one handed weapon" bonus attack, but instead gain "additional CCW" bonus attacks.

[thade]

I guess RAW I can't disagree with you, Frosty. But RAI that chainfist is a ccw on a dreadnought; makes little sense for it to go last. RAW wins though.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

So why don't you use the Chainfist against Tanks and Bastions

whilst using the DCCW against Meganobs, etc.?

 

That way you are 2d6 penetration when it is safe to do so and i4 when it is necessary....

[thade]

That is the plan. I just really wanted to ensure all of his attacks were not I1 and that he had 3 attacks in both cases. That's what this board is for. =)

[Grey Mage]

I guess RAW I can't disagree with you, Frosty. But RAI that chainfist is a ccw on a dreadnought; makes little sense for it to go last. RAW wins though.

Nah, RAI it would be a DCCW that gave 2d6 armor penetration, RAW its a Chainfist....

 

After all- a DCCW is just a PF that strikes at initiative. For further reference see the C:SM painting section.

[thade]

I guess RAW I can't disagree with you, Frosty. But RAI that chainfist is a ccw on a dreadnought; makes little sense for it to go last. RAW wins though.

Nah, RAI it would be a DCCW that gave 2d6 armor penetration, RAW its a Chainfist....

 

After all- a DCCW is just a PF that strikes at initiative. For further reference see the C:SM painting section.

 

I know!!!! They call them all "power fists" there!! Couldn't they just hire like one guy to go through and find inconsistencies for them to hammer out? ;) His job would be easy, he'd only need to spend an hour or so a day on these boards for clues of what to look at.

 

If a dread's power fist goes at initiative, a dread's chainfist should go at initiative. Sorry, I'm not disputing what we've resolved here...just commiserating now.

[Frosty the Pyro]

DCCW are never called powerfists. They are called power weapons that double strength.

[thade]

Frosty: check your SM Codex. In particular, the pretty pictures section in the middle with all the dreadnought variants on it. The word "powerfist" is used all over it describing the CCWs that the dreads have. Those are "Rules as Written" as they are written in the codex. GW wasn't ever really one to have a consistent way of juxtaposing its rules throughout books.

 

So possibly the term "DCCW" isn't in fact a proper noun bearing it's own special rules; instead possibly it refers to "dreadnought close combat weapons" as in "any close combat weapon wielded by a dreadnought". So, powerfists on Dreadnoughts are dccws, which overrides the "Strikes on I1" rule from the for-infantry assault chapter. I would assert that, if this is true, then chainfists on Dreadnoughts are dccws, which overrides the "Strikes on I1" rule from the for-infantry chapter.

 

This is again cloudy.

[Grey Mage]

Theyre not rules- but they do perhaps give a clue as to what was going on when the codex was written.

 

DCCW is in fact a hyphenated noun, and does have its own special rules. Nothing cloud about that Im afraid.

 

Why? Because the talk of Powerfists in the painting section isnt in the unit entry, nor are there any rules anywhere in the book that change what a powerfist is- so just be happy we dont use the Powerfist, or else all dreads would strike at I 1 all the time.

[Frosty the Pyro]

Frosty: check your SM Codex. In particular, the pretty pictures section in the middle with all the dreadnought variants on it. The word "powerfist" is used all over it describing the CCWs that the dreads have. Those are "Rules as Written" as they are written in the codex. GW wasn't ever really one to have a consistent way of juxtaposing its rules throughout books.

 

So possibly the term "DCCW" isn't in fact a proper noun bearing it's own special rules; instead possibly it refers to "dreadnought close combat weapons" as in "any close combat weapon wielded by a dreadnought". So, powerfists on Dreadnoughts are dccws, which overrides the "Strikes on I1" rule from the for-infantry assault chapter. I would assert that, if this is true, then chainfists on Dreadnoughts are dccws, which overrides the "Strikes on I1" rule from the for-infantry chapter.

 

This is again cloudy.

the pretty pictures section doesn matter, those are not rules at all, much less rules as written. What maters is pg 65 (unit entry) and page 137 (army entry). If they were rules then dreads would have powerfists and strick at I1 regardless.