Dreadnought cc attacks

[Bolt Slinger]

So what's the verdict on the number of close combat attacks a Dreadnought receives?

The rulebook is quite straight forward imho, although there seem to be some other opinions about how to calculate the number of attacks.

The rulebook states: A model makes an number of attacks (A) as stated on their profile, and adds the bonus attacks.

Bonus attacks are +1 charge bonus, +1 for 2 cc weapons, Other bonuses.

So for example a base Leviathan has 5 attacks, than adds +1 attack for carrying 2 cc weapons, for a total of 6 attacks.

Now if you swap out a cc weapon for the Leviathan, it states that it reduces its attack characteristic to 4 attacks in their profile, he now gets a total of 4 attacks and no bunuses.

Is this correct? Or am I missing something here?

[Cleon]

Personally I don't think it's clear either way and would benefit from an FAQ to clarify.

My assumption is it's left over wording from when the 2 close combat weapons rule didn't apply to vehicles and they don't need both sets of words.

[Bolt Slinger]

2 hours ago, Cleon said:

Personally I don't think it's clear either way and would benefit from an FAQ to clarify.

My assumption is it's left over wording from when the 2 close combat weapons rule didn't apply to vehicles and they don't need both sets of words.

Thats probably true, but then how do we fix it? Waiting for an official FAQ could take a while.

Should we just forget about the extra text they added to the Dreadnoughts altogether? (The text from the Contemptor saying it gains an extra atrack when you swap its gun for a cc weapon, and the text from the Leviathan, saying you lose an attack when you swap its cc weapon for a gun)

Or do we disregard the bonus attacks a Dreadnought gets for having 2cc weapons?

Either way seems fine, except you lose one attack going with the latter

[Slips]

We already have other examples of profiles already taking statline modifiers into account and increasing their base stat (such as the White Scars).

So, since all baseline Leviathans come with 2 CCW, they saw fit to just add the extra attack into the profile and made a note that you lose it when you swap to a gun since, heyo, no 2CCW anymore. With the opposite example being shown with Contemptors who, baseline, have a fist and gun and would gain +1A for having 2CCW if you were to swap the gun to a fist or chainfist.

Edited August 12, 2022 by Slips

[Misterduch]

A leviathan with 1 CCW gets 5 attacks on the charge ( loosing the baked in attack from having 2 CCW )

It's weird how they decided to bake it in, because they could have left it at 4 attacks stock and poeple would figure it out easily enough that it gets 6 attacks on the charge with double fist setup.

Like, Despoilers, assault marines and characters don't have the extra attack baked into their profile despite all starting with a pistol and CCW except for terminators. So I find the leviathan to be a weird inconsitency

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by Misterduch

[Gorgoff]

On 8/12/2022 at 9:39 PM, Misterduch said:

A leviathan with 1 CCW gets 5 attacks on the charge ( loosing the baked in attack from having 2 CCW )

It's weird how they decided to bake it in, because they could have left it at 4 attacks stock and poeple would figure it out easily enough that it gets 6 attacks on the charge with double fist setup.

Like, Despoilers, assault marines and characters don't have the extra attack baked into their profile despite all starting with a pistol and CCW except for terminators. So I find the leviathan to be a weird inconsitency

 

Oh that's for sure. It was this way in last edition though. The difference was that they wrote it the other way around which made way more sense and helped people to understand it who generally struggle with these sort of things. So kt says "the Bonus attack for two ccw is already baked in the profile".

[ShadowCore67]

I think what makes it confusing is every other legion unit that starts with two CC weapons doesn't incorporate the extra attack into their base profile (destroyers, outriders, etc). Leviathan seems to be the only profile they did this with. They should have just kept it uniform throughout to avoid confusion.

 

EDIT: Although going back to read the annotation. It doesn't mention anything about the two CC weapons rule. It simply states to reduce the attacks characteristics by 1 if you replace either of the melee weapons with a ranged one. It may be intentional that a cc leviathan is supposed to have 6 attacks vs. 4 for a ranged one.

Edited August 14, 2022 by ShadowCore67

[Spagunk]

I've always played it as the Attack characteristic is what you get for dreadnoughts rather than include the +1 for two close combat weapons. It made the most sense that this hasn't changed going away from being a vehicle. However no where can I find anything that states how this works for dreads so I am probably playing it wrong.

Just based on everything, RAW dreads get +1 attack for two ccw and lose both 1 attack and the +1 attack when charging while they are only equipped with a single fist/claw/noodly appendage etc.

Edited August 14, 2022 by Spagunk

[SkimaskMohawk]

On 8/12/2022 at 8:33 AM, AK-47 said:

So what's the verdict on the number of close combat attacks a Dreadnought receives?

The rulebook is quite straight forward imho, although there seem to be some other opinions about how to calculate the number of attacks.

The rulebook states: A model makes an number of attacks (A) as stated on their profile, and adds the bonus attacks.

Bonus attacks are +1 charge bonus, +1 for 2 cc weapons, Other bonuses.

So for example a base Leviathan has 5 attacks, than adds +1 attack for carrying 2 cc weapons, for a total of 6 attacks.

Now if you swap out a cc weapon for the Leviathan, it states that it reduces its attack characteristic to 4 attacks in their profile, he now gets a total of 4 attacks and no bunuses.

Is this correct? Or am I missing something here?

RAW yes, that's how it works (and the contemptor has a similar situation where its weapon options bake an extra attack in for taking two melee weapons).

RAI it just seems like a classic "helpful reminder" that isn't formatted properly. The various dreads are probably meant to have 5 and 4 attacks respectively.

1 hour ago, Spagunk said:

RAW dreads get +1 attack for two ccw and lose both 1 attack and the +1 attack when charging while they are only equipped with a single fist/claw/noodly appendage etc.

I don't think that's quite how it works. The leviathan entry tells you to reduce the characteristic to 4, not set. You then follow the rules on page 184 where it tells you a model makes a number of attacks as indicated by the characteristic, plus a number of bonus attacks. 

[Spagunk]

1 hour ago, Spagunk said:

I've always played it as the Attack characteristic is what you get for dreadnoughts rather than include the +1 for two close combat weapons. It made the most sense that this hasn't changed going away from being a vehicle. However no where can I find anything that states how this works for dreads so I am probably playing it wrong.

Just based on everything, RAW dreads get +1 attack for two ccw and lose both 1 attack and the +1 attack when charging while they are only equipped with a single fist/claw/noodly appendage etc.

And having said this, I noticed that incaendius (BA unique dreads) don't have the "add an attack" verbiage nor is the base Attack characteristic reflecting having two close combat weapons. IDK what this ultimately means for this discussion but it feels like GW is trying to do something specific for leviathans and contemptors.

[Gorgoff]

9 hours ago, Spagunk said:

And having said this, I noticed that incaendius (BA unique dreads) don't have the "add an attack" verbiage nor is the base Attack characteristic reflecting having two close combat weapons. IDK what this ultimately means for this discussion but it feels like GW is trying to do something specific for leviathans and contemptors.

I think GW :cuss:ed up, that's all, because they underestimated how crazy some people crave to find a loophole to get more oomph. 

If something has two ccw it gets +1A. That's it. 

And yeah, I know how wonky it is written, but if the intention was to give them two extra attacks they have to write it specifically down just like Lighning Claw rules. 

Otherwise it is just wishful thinking here. 

[Valkyrion]

I don't think its particularly helpful that asking a question about a poorly worded rule is compared unfavourably to crazy people trying to find loopholes.

The Leviathan has 5 attacks. If it has two close combat weapons then it has 6 attacks. If it has one close combat weapon and a gun it has 4 attacks. If it has two guns and no close combat weapons it has 4 attacks. It couldn't really be much clearer.

I think the fact that its worded differently to other situations is because it's deliberate, because its actually a very big change to how the model will work on the tabletop. You're much more inclined to go with 2CCW if it has 6 attacks than 5, because otherwise having 4 attacks and a big gun is just better.  This is a 300 point model that can't do anything beyond 12" if it has two melee weapons - the trade off has to be worth it. 

It may well be FAQ'd later and prove me utterly wrong, but as it stands it's pretty clear and, to me at least, pretty fair. 

[Stitch5000]

Leviathans lose an additional attack when not equipped with 2 CC weapons... 

[Xenith]

It's just an extra penalty for the levi for swapping out the CCW. If it was still 85% as effective on the charge when swapping out the CCW for a ranged weapon, it would make a dual melee levi a poor option. 

They could just as well have given it 4A base and said "a leviathan with 2 melee weapons gets +1Attack in addition to the 1+ for two melee weapons"

In 40k they previously added a bunch of special rules/bonuses like +1WS &+1A for dual melee knights to bring them in line with dual purpose knights. 

[Valkyrion]

41 minutes ago, Stitch5000 said:

Leviathans lose an additional attack when not equipped with 2 CC weapons... 

They don't, they reduce their attacks characteristic to 4 which isn't the same thing. 
 

 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

So I understand it as two CCW base attacks 5, then +1 for 2 CCW weapons, for 6 attacks. Honestly though, a Levi dread's damage out put isn't drastically changing with 1 attack. You're still looking at massive amounts of strength with Brutal (3) or almost assured pens on av 14 either way.

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by Dont-Be-Haten

[Spagunk]

11 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

I think GW :cuss:ed up, that's all, because they underestimated how crazy some people crave to find a loophole to get more oomph. 

If something has two ccw it gets +1A. That's it. 

And yeah, I know how wonky it is written, but if the intention was to give them two extra attacks they have to write it specifically down just like Lighning Claw rules. 

Otherwise it is just wishful thinking here. 

It was a legitimate inquiry, not me trying to chase a loop hole. Chill dude; it's a discussion which means we all provide feedback, viewpoints and see if maybe collectively we can make sense of something. 

I honestly don't know what to make of this because it is obvious a cut and paste job from HH 1.0. Our goal as players is to figure out how it fits into the current rule set. We have NO idea if they intended this to stack or not. However I would be convinced either way at this point since it appears not all dreads are created equally if you consider rules as written (Incaendius vs. normal dreads, for example).

Did GW screw up being consistent with rules writing? Most likely since they have a history of doing so. However unless we get a pointed comment, an FAQ or something to clarify then RAW players could argue one way or another when in the heat of a game. So just ask your opponent until we get some proof. We here don't need to start calling each other "Crazy" or trying to say we're trying to cheat people. It's a social game and these issue can be handled socially without the need to assert intention or anything. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by Spagunk

[Gorgoff]

On 8/15/2022 at 5:34 PM, Spagunk said:

It was a legitimate inquiry, not me trying to chase a loop hole. Chill dude; it's a discussion which means we all provide feedback, viewpoints and see if maybe collectively we can make sense of something. 

I honestly don't know what to make of this because it is obvious a cut and paste job from HH 1.0. Our goal as players is to figure out how it fits into the current rule set. We have NO idea if they intended this to stack or not. However I would be convinced either way at this point since it appears not all dreads are created equally if you consider rules as written (Incaendius vs. normal dreads, for example).

Did GW screw up being consistent with rules writing? Most likely since they have a history of doing so. However unless we get a pointed comment, an FAQ or something to clarify then RAW players could argue one way or another when in the heat of a game. So just ask your opponent until we get some proof. We here don't need to start calling each other "Crazy" or trying to say we're trying to cheat people. It's a social game and these issue can be handled socially without the need to assert intention or anything. 

If something looks too good to be true I go for the safe Route and take the lesser bonkers explaination. 

It doesn't explicitly says so in the rules that Dreadnougths get +2 Attacks if they have 2 ccw like they did with lightning claws so I don't assume they do. Until an Errata comes along which says otherwise.

[Spagunk]

I mean sure, the safe route is always best.

My point is why even write that bit of text at all on the dread entry? Why mention you subtract an attack from the leviathan if lacking 2 CCW covers that automatically? If you add a melee weapon to a unit, like say a chainsword on a tactical marine, it never has to state "You get an additional attack": You just go based on the core rules which state a model with 2 melee weapons get an additional attack. The confusion is that since dreads are now no longer vehicles they don't NEED to put the text in there that they get an additional attack: You just do because they follow the rules for any other model with 2 melee weapons.

My assumption is they just copied and pasted the unit from HH1.0 but that too is an assumption. Many of us here who have played for years are going to pretty much run it like you say: It's just the normal +1 for having 2CCW. But for new players, they're not necessarily going to pick that up in the same way. In that hypothetical scenario, I could be convinced based on how everything is worded to see that point since it's currently ambiguous as it is written.

[Stitch5000]

On 8/15/2022 at 10:29 AM, Valkyrion said:

They don't, they reduce their attacks characteristic to 4 which isn't the same thing. 
 

 

Yes... This is correct...

Standard Leviathan - 5 Attacks on the profile, is equipped with two CC weapons, so gets 6 Attacks. 7 on the charge, plus 3 HoW.

Leviathan that swaps one or more CC weapons with a listed ranged weapon is reduced to 4 Attacks on the profile, gains no bonus for two CC weapons. Maximum 5 on the charge, plus 3 HoW. 

[Spagunk]

28 minutes ago, Stitch5000 said:

Yes... This is correct...

Standard Leviathan - 5 Attacks on the profile, is equipped with two CC weapons, so gets 6 Attacks. 7 on the charge, plus 3 HoW.

Leviathan that swaps one or more CC weapons with a listed ranged weapon is reduced to 4 Attacks on the profile, gains no bonus for two CC weapons. Maximum 5 on the charge, plus 3 HoW. 

RAW, I would agree with this as I can see the point in favor of this interpretation.

[Valkyrion]

I think it's also RAI. 

[Sgt John Keel]

On the other hand, is it reasonable that the Contemptor has five attacks with dual CCWs, but the Incaendus only has four?

[SkimaskMohawk]

1 hour ago, Sgt John Keel said:

On the other hand, is it reasonable that the Contemptor has five attacks with dual CCWs, but the Incaendus only has four?

Probably not RAI, seeing as the osiron and mahra gal are also in the same boat without that special +1 attack clause.

With the amount of editorial mistakes and sloppiness that the community has unearthed, it's very hard to make a call for RAI until a faq sets the direction. There's just such a lack of tight editorial control, as the suprise armiger unit type proves.

 

[TheNineteenth]

On 8/14/2022 at 9:10 AM, ShadowCore67 said:

I think what makes it confusing is every other legion unit that starts with two CC weapons doesn't incorporate the extra attack into their base profile (destroyers, outriders, etc). Leviathan seems to be the only profile they did this with. They should have just kept it uniform throughout to avoid confusion.

 

EDIT: Although going back to read the annotation. It doesn't mention anything about the two CC weapons rule. It simply states to reduce the attacks characteristics by 1 if you replace either of the melee weapons with a ranged one. It may be intentional that a cc leviathan is supposed to have 6 attacks vs. 4 for a ranged one.

Totally an editing problem. The bias towards presenting complete, equipped units requiring no initial math ('cause 8th and 9th players can't math?) has really made a hash of things.