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, Just posting to make sure I am not going utterly monkeypoo bananas...

The Ironclad has the option to replace its Seismic Hammer (A Special DCCW) with a Chainfist. The Rules for chainfists are found in the Terminator Entry, which state: "A chainfist is treated exactly as a power fist, but rolls 2D6 for its armour penetration value."

Now, because it is a Power Fist, does this mean that the Ironclad will be at I1 if it uses it? I ask because DCCW don't say they are power Fists but rather are "power weapons that double the users strength" which is why they Strike at I4.

I think that by the rules, yes an Ironclad will Strike at I1 if using a Chainfist. Just want to get you guys thoughts on this.

Yes, the Ironclad will strike at Initiative 1 if armed with a Chainfist.

It's also worth noting that it will lose the bonus attack for two close combat weapons, as it's not wielding two Power Fists.

That's a tough call... since, for all intents and purposes a DCCW is just a power fist that hits on it's initiative.

It would stand to reason, fluff wise, that it would have no bearing on the initiative, given that it's mounted on a platform that's designed to swing around massive instruments of overkill doom.


Edit: 'cause I can't type.

MinMax wrote:Yes, the Ironclad will strike at Initiative 1 if armed with a Chainfist.

It's also worth noting that it will lose the bonus attack for two close combat weapons, as it's not wielding two Power Fists.

That second part is wrong. The rules for walkers state :"If a walker is armed with two or more close combat weapons, it gains one bonus attack for each additional weapon over the first."

It doesn't specify "normal" or "special" close combat Weapons, so it would gain a bonus attack because it has 2 Close Combat Weapons of any kind. Don't forget that the Rules for Power Fists are written for infantry and the special rules for Walkers and such override them. See This post by Yakface

Dronze wrote:
It would stand to reason, fluff wise, that it would have no bearing on the initiative, given that it's mounted on a platform that's designed to swing around massive instruments of overkill doom.

but then maybe it takes longer to cut with the chain blade than it would take to simply punch something.

Dronze wrote:That's a tough call... since, for all intents and purposes a DCCW is just a power fist that hits on it's initiative.

It's not though, its a Power Weapon that Doubles the strength, not a Power Fist.

And I Just wanna point out this is a Moot Point since if you are using the chainfist to carve up infantry rather than tanks your doing it wrong

Dronze wrote:That's a tough call... since, for all intents and purposes a DCCW is just a power fist that hits on it's initiative.

It would stand to reason, fluff wise, that it would have no bearing on the initiative, given that it's mounted on a platform that's designed to swing around massive instruments of overkill doom.


Edit: 'cause I can't type.

Fluff-wise it makes sense, true. But you can't argue fluff for rules. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way.

I imagine this is something that simply never came up while writing or playtesting, there's no real reason to take the chain fist unless you are fighting land raiders pretty much, and Initiative isn't a big deal in that case.

Personally, I think the more specific rules for walkers take priority over the broader rules for using more than one close combat weapon, meaning that despite the chain fist being a power fist and the DCCW being a power weapon, the dreadnought would still be entitled to an extra attack.

But since nothing over-rides the rules which state when using two special close combat weapons you choose which one's effect to use, I would say the Ironclad may still strike at Initiative in melee and give up the 2d6 penetration by opting to use the normal DCCW (assuming they didn't take the hurricane bolter)

New member here.

Forgive me if this has been posted somewhere else, and I didn't see it in the official FAQ's or Erratas.

When the Ironclad replaces the Seismic Hammer with a Chainfist it gives up the ability to take the built-in weapon?

My logic and common sense say it does as it doesn't specifically mention the chainfist retaining the under slung weapon but some in my gaming group insist that the meltagun somehow magically reattaches itself to the chainfist..

Fateweaver wrote:New member here.

Forgive me if this has been posted somewhere else, and I didn't see it in the official FAQ's or Erratas.

When the Ironclad replaces the Seismic Hammer with a Chainfist it gives up the ability to take the built-in weapon?

My logic and common sense say it does as it doesn't specifically mention the chainfist retaining the under slung weapon but some in my gaming group insist that the meltagun somehow magically reattaches itself to the chainfist..

It's ambiguous. The Army list says you replace the Seismic Hammer, but nothing about the Inbuilt Weapon. Until GW pulls their thumb out, expect arguments either way.

I don't see it as ambiguous at all...

My house has a built-in kitchen. If I sell my house, I no longer have my kitchen, because, you know, it's built into the house, and I no longer have the house...

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/built-in

Ian Sturrock wrote:I don't see it as ambiguous at all...

My house has a built-in kitchen. If I sell my house, I no longer have my kitchen, because, you know, it's built into the house, and I no longer have the house...

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/built-in

Yeeeeeeeeah... you do know GW love to mind-raep people by ignoring English? While I agree you lose the Built In Weapon, there is a reading that says you don't, so it is ambiguous until they decide to FAQ it.

That's what I try to use for argument.

If I own a DVD player with built in VCR and I replace it with a Blu-ray player I lose the ability to watch VHS tapes as I no longer have the VCR.

I'll keep trying to press home my point. Ty for replies.

Gwar! wrote:So, Just posting to make sure I am not going utterly monkeypoo bananas...

The Ironclad has the option to replace its Seismic Hammer (A Special DCCW) with a Chainfist. The Rules for chainfists are found in the Terminator Entry, which state: "A chainfist is treated exactly as a power fist, but rolls 2D6 for its armour penetration value."

Now, because it is a Power Fist, does this mean that the Ironclad will be at I1 if it uses it? I ask because DCCW don't say they are power Fists but rather are "power weapons that double the users strength" which is why they Strike at I4.

I think that by the rules, yes an Ironclad will Strike at I1 if using a Chainfist. Just want to get you guys thoughts on this.

has anyone considered the "chaplin with crosarius and powerfist options"
the rules state you can elect to use one or the other NOT BOTH

ok
mr dread has 2 CCW one is I1 the other is I4
now just like the afore mentioned chaplin HE GETS TO CHOOSE WHAT HE SLAPS YOU WITH
so if he is facing infintry he uses the DCCW (I4)
if he is smeging some tanky thing he uses the chain fist which against a tinny box I1 dont matter diddly

this just struck me !!!!
anyone agree

feel free

p.s.

he looses the whole arm with the inbuilt wepon attached
he will find it hard to flame you when its in the armoury back home!!!

Oh yeah, we all know that What's even better is that they still get a bonus attack because they rules call for any kind of weapons above the first.

The only problem is that the Chainfist doesn't get the +1 to damage.

Regarding the discussion of losing the built in weapons, have you considered the difference in wording between:

"Replace Dreadnought close combat weapon and storm bolter with a hurricane bolter"

and

"Replace seismic hammer with a chainfist"

To me it seems very clear what the intent of the rule is and I think it matches up with the way it is written. You only exchange thing X for thing Y and other weapons systems which may or may not be related to thing X remain intact.

Yup, that was my Aforementioned counter argument. I Personally think it's just bad wording however

Ian Sturrock wrote:I don't see it as ambiguous at all...

My house has a built-in kitchen. If I sell my house, I no longer have my kitchen, because, you know, it's built into the house, and I no longer have the house...

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/built-in

Yes, but if you remodel your house, your kitchen remains intact

Fateweaver wrote:That's what I try to use for argument.

If I own a DVD player with built in VCR and I replace it with a Blu-ray player I lose the ability to watch VHS tapes as I no longer have the VCR.

I'll keep trying to press home my point. Ty for replies.

Better would be....You have a DVD burner and a Vid card on your computer, it is possible to replace the burner without touching the VC(underslung weapon), but if you wanted a completely different computer you would lose both.(Hurricane Bolters)

I really don't see what the issue is. If you replace the hammer with a chain fist and you are attacking a vehicle, who cares if you go last or not. Initiative has no value when attacking a vehicle without a CCW.

If your attacking infantry, then you just use the DCCW and go at I4. In both cases you still have +1 attack for having two CCW.

The only time this would be an issue is if your attacking another walker type that also has DCCW. Then you can still use the DCCW and hit at I4 at S10 or if your feeling lucky, let the other guy swing first and hope your still alive at I1 to swing your chain fist.

Jayden63 wrote:The only time this would be an issue is if your attacking another walker type that also has DCCW. Then you can still use the DCCW and hit at I4 at S10 or if your feeling lucky, let the other guy swing first and hope your still alive at I1 to swing your chain fist.

Or if you go for Hurricane Bolter + Chainfist, in which case you will always strike at I1.

Gwar! wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:The only time this would be an issue is if your attacking another walker type that also has DCCW. Then you can still use the DCCW and hit at I4 at S10 or if your feeling lucky, let the other guy swing first and hope your still alive at I1 to swing your chain fist.

Or if you go for Hurricane Bolter + Chainfist, in which case you will always strike at I1.

Ok, or that too.

Just a note, I sent this off to the rules service last time it came up, the reply I got was yes the chainfist strikes at I1, no the dreadnought does not get an extra attack for pairing a chainfist with a DCCW.

I tend to disagree with the second part, and feel the more specific rules for walkers override the general rules for anyone with a power fist, since the rule is listed in the DCCW box, I wonder what would happen if your walker had a chainfist and thunder hammer for example though, would you really be entitled to refer to rules in the DCCW box when not equipped with one?

Drunkspleen wrote:Just a note, I sent this off to the rules service...

Well, there is your problem right there tbh.

Meh, seems simple to me

any underslung weapon is lost when upgraded to a chainfist, allways strikes at I1 as a result (and as rules for chainfist state)

The hammer is replaced with a chainfist. Therefore, the melta/flamer is retained.

DCCW with built in storm bolter is replaced with hurricane bolters - storm bolter is lost. It's perfectly clear.

It's even clearer when you look at the model and see that the chainfist has the auxiliary weapon on it.