Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So i was building my iron clad and i came across something
you can give a iron clad a chain fist but the space marine codex says chain fists are just power fists that have a extra D6 pen
so my question do Ironclads strike at I1 because they have a power fist?

On page 73 of the BRB it gives the rules for Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons. No where in that rule does it state you strike at initiative 1.

Gurilla wrote:On page 73 of the BRB it gives the rules for Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons. No where in that rule does it state you strike at initiative 1.

but it is not a DCCW it is a chain fist as stated in the space marine codex

If you have an Ironclad and you replace the seismic hammer with a chainfist, you have a dreadnought with two different special close combat weapons, so it has to choose during close combat which one gets used. If the dread uses the chainfist, it will strike at I1 because it is using what is essentially a souped up powerfist. If the dreadnought uses the dreadnought close combat weapon, it will strike at its regular initiative (Note: and not get the chainfist bonus penetration).

Edit: In short, yes, it strikes at I1 IF it uses the chainfist.

In short, don't use it. It sucks so much that everytime I see the option in the Codex, my eyes are starting to bleed.
The only good thing about it is that it has 2D6 Armour Penetration. But it has already S 10 if it has normal DCCW.
So no point of using it.

nyyman wrote:In short, don't use it. It sucks so much that everytime I see the option in the Codex, my eyes are starting to bleed.
The only good thing about it is that it has 2D6 Armour Penetration. But it has already S 10 if it has normal DCCW.
So no point of using it.

Exactly...having the same amount of attacks against vehicles with 2d6 pen won't make a huge difference, and will make the Dread much less deadly to infantry in CC. Unless you're TRYING to create a purely anti-vehicle Dread???

Yes, it strikes at I1.

It's only use now you always hit Rear Armour is killing Land Raiders.

Gwar! wrote:Yes, it strikes at I1.

It's only use now you always hit Rear Armour is killing Land Raiders.

Or Monoliths

Oh, bother, I don't see any mention in the Dreadnought entry that say the Chainfist doesn't modify his initiative....

....I take back my previous statement.....

....and I am taking the Chainfist of my son's dreadnought....

....now where did I put that stupid hammer hand.?.?.?

Shas'O Dorian wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yes, it strikes at I1.

It's only use now you always hit Rear Armour is killing Land Raiders.

Or Monoliths

Except that, because of the Living Metal special rule, you only roll 1d6 + Strength for Armour Penetration, even with a Chainfist.

Also, the Chainfist is a terrible option. You become Initiative 1, lose an Attack, and lose the +1 to the vehicle damage table in exchange for 2d6 + 10 Armour Pen, instead of 1d6 + 10.

Battle Brother Loken wrote:So i was building my iron clad and i came across something
you can give a iron clad a chain fist but the space marine codex says chain fists are just power fists that have a extra D6 pen
so my question do Ironclads strike at I1 because they have a power fist?

* sighs *

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Battle Brother Loken wrote:So i was building my iron clad and i came across something
you can give a iron clad a chain fist but the space marine codex says chain fists are just power fists that have a extra D6 pen
so my question do Ironclads strike at I1 because they have a power fist?

* sighs *

That's what I thought too, but I decided to play nice

That's unlike you Gwar! you getting some action under that desk of yours right now, to go soft on all of us?

Sanctjud wrote:That's unlike you Gwar! you getting some action under that desk of your right now to go soft on all of us?

Nah, just happy that UPS delivered my new Computer Components 3 Days Early (Apparently the company upgraded me to 24 hour Shipping for free after messing up my previous order) and I get to "enjoy" overclocking it the Old School Way (aka Go to Bios, Tweek by some tiny amount, boot, run 6-24 Hours of stability tests, repeat )

I've always felt that the +1 damage table roll from the seismic hammer was way better than the bonus d6 anyways.

willydstyle wrote:I've always felt that the +1 damage table roll from the seismic hammer was way better than the bonus d6 anyways.

On a penetrating hit, the least you'll do is stun, and 1/3 of the time, the thing blows up...pretty awesome!

True, but against 90% of Vehicles, you are going to automatically penetrate (Rear AV 10), 9% you will pen on a 2+ (Rear Armour 11) and 1% will only pen on a 5+ (Land Raiders/'liths), so against 99.5% of vehicles, the Hammer is better than the Chainfist (Hammer > Fist against the Lith )

Gwar and other dude who sighed i am not using GW ugly Iron Clad i made my own

Battle Brother Loken wrote:Gwar and other dude who sighed i am not using GW ugly Iron Clad i made my own

interesting ... go on what's it going to look like?

We are not complaining about the looks, we are complaining that using a Chainfist is totally useless unless your opponent is Deathwing or Black Templars

Gwar! wrote:We are not complaining about the looks, we are complaining that using a Chainfist is totally useless unless your opponent is Deathwing or Black Templars

ahhh
see the only reason i entertained the idea of a Chain Fist is because my buddy rams his Leman Russ into my dreadnoughts alot and it sucks when i cant stop em first try

It's doesn't matter for Death or Glory... Tear that Russ a new one!

G

willydstyle wrote:I've always felt that the +1 damage table roll from the seismic hammer was way better than the bonus d6 anyways.

Yep, against everything except AV14 the hammer is better.

Just out of interest can any one find a reference that says that 1 is a fail. Other wise theres no way the chain fist could fail, to pen AV10-11 or at least glance AV12 ... I only ask as thunderwolves could have 4 attacks with a chain-fist. I do like the idea of say ok i've hit your Leman Russ X so lets move straight onto the damage table.

Tri wrote:Just out of interest can any one find a reference that says that 1 is a fail. Other wise theres no way the chain fist could fail, to pen AV10-11 or at least glance AV12 ... I only ask as thunderwolves could have 4 attacks with a chain-fist. I do like the idea of say ok i've hit your Leman Russ X so lets move straight onto the damage table.

No such reference. It is entirely possible to auto glance given enough str, and low enough AV. Railguns love rear armour!

Yup, S10 Vs AV10 = Autopen

I weep for my Raiders on a continual basis because of this.

Had this same discussion on another board, and here's what I had come up with. This is my interpretation of the rules and it has a relevant page reference for my argument (for lack of a better term):

On page 73 in the BRB under "Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons":

The section describes DCCWs as power weapons that double strength (max 10). So, no argument that a Seismic Hammer or regular DCCW strikes at regular initiative. Here's where it gets funny:

"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."

Though under the section for DCCWs, it doesn't say just DCCWs can allow a walker to gain extra attacks. It just says close combat weapons. For an Ironclad, it may take a chainfist. A chainfist is a power fist (described on page 42 of the BRB in the section marked "close combat weapons) with the additional property of armor penetration.

This is where things get a bit murky. Under close combat weapons it makes reference to wielding different special weapons and that you normally can't get the +1A for two weapons with a PF if you don't have another one. However, the walker rules do seem to allow walkers to be an exception to the rule.

The chainfist is indeed I1, there are no exceptions listed for power fists on walkers, as DCCWs are just power weapons. There is no contradictions in the rules as such. So, an Ironclad attacking with a chainfist will attack at I1 and can receive the +1A bonus for having an extra close combat weapon as detailed under the walker rules. At least, that's how it appears to me.

*edit: fixed a typo*

Zomro wrote:Had this same discussion on another board, and here's what I had come up with. This is my interpretation of the rules and it has a relevant page reference for my argument (for lack of a better term):

On page 73 in the BRB under "Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons":

The section describes DCCWs as power weapons that double strength (max 10). So, no argument that a Seismic Hammer or regular DCCW strikes at regular initiative. Here's where it gets funny:

"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."

Though under the section for DCCWs, it doesn't say just DCCWs can allow a walker to gain extra attacks. It just says close combat weapons. For an Ironclad, it may take a chainfist. A chainfist is a power fist (described on page 42 of the BRB in the section marked "close combat weapons) with the additional property of armor penetration.

This is where things get a bit murky. Under close combat weapons it makes reference to wielding different special weapons and that you normally can't get the +1A for two weapons with a PF if you don't have another one. However, the walker rules do seem to allow walkers to be an exception to the rule.

The chainfist is indeed I1, there are no exceptions listed for power fists on walkers, as DCCWs are just power weapons. There is no contradictions in the rules as such. So, an Ironclad attacking with a chainfist will attack at I1 and can receive the +1A bonus for having an extra close combat weapon as detailed under the walker rules. At least, that's how it appears to me.

*edit: fixed a typo*

he makes a very valid point

Interesting, I never realized that the chainfist on a Dread struck at I1, seems counter intuitive.

GOGO sketchy rules GW!