The Dread's stormshield

[Bulweih]

Hyá brothers,

I seek your wisdom in the above mentioned case, meaning: how exactly does it work?

 

On a local forum there's this huge unfriendly getting RAW/RAI discussion going on about it and so I thought I'd stop by the Aett to see if  my brothers here don't already know all the answers as usual.

My own codex is still in the mail so please be so kind as to enlighten me a little, thanks and mjod all around.

[Kastor Krieg]

It's a melee weapon with the S User (6) AP2 profile, which alos gives 3++ invulnerable save to the attacks coming from the front angle (all frontal shots and all melee attacks - dreads are always hit on front armor in melee, unless immobilized).

[Grey Mage]

Dread takes a glancing or penetrating hit.

Player controlling the dread attempts save. If they succeed, they hit is discounted. If they fail, proceed as normal.

Much like vehicle cover saves.

[Bulweih]

Thank you both a lot.

 

So there's nothing RAW that makes that shield only work on I4 and then only in melee? Because that's what the folks get all feisty about, saying it's practically useless without a FAQ.

This seemed like so much BS to me but without the codex in hand it's hard to argument.

[temneb]

"A blizzard shield confers a 3+ invulnerable save against all hits that strike the dreadnoughts front armour facing"

 

No reliance on initiative or any other things.

[Kasper_Hawser]

In regards to the Blizzard shield, I believe they gave it AP2 so that in case the other arm gets blown off, the dreadnought can still use the shield to bash terminator heads even while blocking incominng fire.

 

Damn awesome if you think about it.

[BT_Cennar]

and i think it give +1 attack as its not a Stormshield so the rule of stormshild not adding +1 attack does not count in my understanding at least untl its FAQed

[Reichfaust]

and i think it give +1 attack as its not a Stormshield so the rule of stormshild not adding +1 attack does not count in my understanding at least untl its FAQed

 

Hmm I totally missed this, nice find BT_Cennar. Because the Shield has a profile, the Venerable Dread does indeed have two close combat weapons and gains +1 attack for it. Brilliant! :)

[tvih]

and i think it give +1 attack as its not a Stormshield so the rule of stormshild not adding +1 attack does not count in my understanding at least untl its FAQed

 

Yeah, you get the extra attack, it's obviously intended that way. Also it's not a storm shield per se, so storm shield limitations wouldn't apply anyway.

[climbingcog]

It's a melee weapon with the S User (6) AP2 profile, which alos gives 3++ invulnerable save to the attacks coming from the front angle (all frontal shots and all melee attacks - dreads are always hit on front armor in melee, unless immobilized).

 

Just to jump in with a quick question - on the immobilized issue...would it be worth taking extra armour for a Venerable Dreadnought with FGA and BS?

[Wispy]

Thank you both a lot.

 

So there's nothing RAW that makes that shield only work on I4 and then only in melee? Because that's what the folks get all feisty about, saying it's practically useless without a FAQ.

This seemed like so much BS to me but without the codex in hand it's hard to argument.

That's a pretty asinine interpretation. The wargear has a rule called shield that clearly states "A blizzard shield confers a 3+ invulnerable save to all hits that strike the Dreadnoughts front armor facing."

 

That's a very definitive statement. Now, are you getting struck on the front armor facing? Okay, good, make a save.

[MalachiOfRuss]

 

It's a melee weapon with the S User (6) AP2 profile, which alos gives 3++ invulnerable save to the attacks coming from the front angle (all frontal shots and all melee attacks - dreads are always hit on front armor in melee, unless immobilized).

 

Just to jump in with a quick question - on the immobilized issue...would it be worth taking extra armour for a Venerable Dreadnought with FGA and BS?

 

 

Not in my opinion.  EA doesn't help with Immobilized, and Venerable already lets you force a reroll if you suffer the Immobilized result.  EA only helps with 1 of the rolls on the damage chart.  I have never thought that EA was worth the points.  It was laughable at 15 points, and still not worth it at 10.

[Bulweih]

Thank you again for all the replies brothers and cousins, mjod and wolfwhiz barrels are that way. *points towards the barrels in the corner*

 

The main argument brought up against the blizzard shield working the way it does is the following:

 

Conferring to p.41 in the rb, more than one weapon, and thus the naysayers claim it only works in melee and at I4 at that.

 

Any truth in that?

[Wispy]

Thank you again for all the replies brothers and cousins, mjod and wolfwhiz barrels are that way. *points towards the barrels in the corner*

 

The main argument brought up against the blizzard shield working the way it does is the following:

 

Conferring to p.41 in the rb, more than one weapon, and thus the naysayers claim it only works in melee and at I4 at that.

 

Any truth in that?

 

Look at this way: The p.41 rule only comes into effect when you yourself are making attacks. When your front armor is getting hit - the activation effect of the shield rules -  its your opponents assault and shooting phase and your responsibility in those phases are nominating wounded and rolling saves. Nothing to do with the selection of weapons. 

[Bulweih]

My thoughts exactly brother, spot on.

[Wispy]

Oh, I see what your buddies are trying to say with the 'only works in I4 thing.' because the shield rule is attached to the weapon profile, they're trying to suggest that it won't work outside of close combat, and the only time you would sustain a hit and use the weapon at the same time would be at initiative 4.

 

This is bonkers. Lots of melee weapons have out-of-combat rules attached to them. Eldrad's staff w/ spirit link jumps to mind.

[skeletoro]

Not to mention the ward effect on a runic weapon.