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.

I had a minor rules debate during my last game.

I was fielding an Ironclad Dreadnought with a chainfist, and I assaulted an opposing space marine with a powerfist. Anyway, my opponent and I were discussing the Initiative. My position is that a chainfist is a chainfist is a chainfist, and that it'll go on initiative 1 regardless of who wields it. But he insisted that it still counts as a a Dreadnought CCW, and thus would have a higher initiative. I did appreciate him trying to give me this advantage, but I'd rather play fair than win. So he calls over the FLGS's rules master, (Just the guy who's memorized the BRB and I guess took position in the hierarchy as the go to rules dispute resolver) but he can't figure it out either. I ended up insisting that we both just go at initiative one, but I figured I'd post this here just to get opinions/see if we missed something in the RAW.

It is not a DCCW, it is a chainfist.

It goes at I1

nosferatu is right, It's listed only as a chainfist not a specialised DCCW like the Seismic Hammer, It goes at I1 same as all chainfists.

Hmmm that is a interesting question. Don't dreadnaught come with a Powerfist which is specified as a DCCW? which would explain why that isn't I1...

But if theres nothing to say otherwise, its a chainfist, so it goes at I1 afaik

No, they dont

A DCCW is classified as a power ewapon that doubles the users strength -NOT a powerfist

Doesn't make any sense at all, since a DCCW is no doubt heavier than a chainfist, but yeah, I1 would be right technically, but I would tell you use it as the walkers I value

It all depends I raised a similar question. It doe snot state that the Chainfist is a DCCW anywhere. The DCCW is a special type of weapon that follows it's own rules the Seismic hammer is not a DCCW even though it is treated as such (as a thunder hammer is treated as a powerfist).

It certainly is not I4 it is I1, the only question is whether or not the ironclad gets the +1A for having it (assuming it also has a DCCW).

That would be no, as it is not an additional DCCW.

except if you read, the dreadnaught does not need to be equipped with 2 DCCW's to gain the extra attack, it only states close combat weapons when talking about the bonus attack, so yes with a chainfist as even if it is NOT a dccw, its still a ccw.

Incidentally if you had the chain fist and DCCW ... why didn't he hit you with the DCCW? It would have struck at I4
(dam spell check)

Oh. Other weapon is the Hurricane Bolter.

So, I think the majority here is agreeing with me, that chainfists always go at I1, even on Ironclads.

Im not sure really. Fluffwise a dread could lift a chainfist no problem so could go at normal intiative. However a DCCW is basically a powerfist, but no I1. If you were to change this to a chainfist i think it would follow the normal chainfist rules.

My take on it the ironclad strikes at I4.

G

I would let you hit at I4 as well.

Well...if we are talking about a RAW environment... in some tourneys I'd say, no.

In one-off games (ie friendly), it would make sense for it to strike at I4, and I'd go with that. (But making sense + 40K are not always found in the same sentance).

But seriously... str 10 + 2D6... someone has had bad experiences with poor armor penetration.
I much rather have +1 on the damage chart.

GBF- check your rules. The DCCW strikes at I, a chainfist is a powerfist variant that strikes at I1. Probably an oversight, but RAW, it is what it is.

I would have no problem with an opponent striking at I4 in a friendly game.

Fluffwise, it shouldn't make a difference for a Dread what it is equipped with. But, RAW, chainfists are Init 1, regardless. Nothing in the Dread rules overrides this so even a Dread with a chainfist strikes at init 1 with it.

Except fluff has absolutely nothing to do with the rules, chainfists strike at I1, regardless of what theyre carried by. And why would anyone take a chainfist? argh theyre so terrible compared to a seismic hammer ...

Had the same problem.

decided that the dred could use either the DCCW and gain an extra attack(from 2 weapons) or use the CF and also gain extra attacks and go at I1.

Personally i think the rules for ICdreds and chainfists will get fixed in the next codex or Eratta hopefully. until someone pointed it out to me i had no idea, and my opponents never had a problem with it going at I4

Look at the INAT FAQ, they do not use RAW for most of the rules they change. Please do not use RAW to constantly justify something like this. It is a loophole at best.

G

Look if we're going to have a argument on the fluff then the reason the chain fist strikes at I1 is that it has many more steps to use it.

DCCW requires the dread form a fist and the punch the enemy.

The chain fist require that you grap the enemy and start to saw him up. dread must open its fist reach out grab the struggling victim and start sawing.Mussels, tendon and fabric take a little time to cut through as they get jammed in the machinery.

Incorrect. Per all previous fluff, a DCCW either latches on to a large target and spins to rend off chunks, or it simply crushes smaller targets through shear mass. Also per fluff, it takes times to cut a target with a chainfist, hence its initiative 1 in the current rule set (something also stated under power fists that was lost new rule sets yet still exists as I1).

SJ

irrelevant, fluff doesnt mean anything to the game mechanics.

chainfists strike at I1, but do grant a bonus attack if paired with another close combat weapon.

Only a fool would let someone talk them into striking at I1 with their Ironclad.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Only a fool would let someone talk them into striking at I1 with their Ironclad.

G

Despite them being the rules as written and, for all we know, as intended?

Green only a fool would take a I1 chain fist

As a chainfist they strike at I1 just like all chain fists.
Maybe it would be a good enough reason not to take them?

Tri was right with his last post.

Just look at the INAT FAQ as a reference, many of the clarifications are not derived by strictly following RAW. There is no reason why a mighty Ironclad would strike at I1 other than if he had been glanced or penned by a thunderhammer. I am assuming anyone that takes an Ironclad would pay the points for assault launchers so charging into cover should not be an issue. To me this is nothing more than a rules loophole. The DCCW is a power fist for all intensive purposes since it doubles the base strength up to S10 (capped due to S10 being the upper limit). Same thing with an orky power klaw. I don't see anyone trying to argue that dreadnaughts have to strike at I1 because they are for all intensive purposes armed with the equivalent of a power fist.

G

So the INAT house rules stuff? How does that change RAW, silly as it may be? See YMDC Tenet #4.

It's not a "loophole" anymore than cover saves are- it's simply what the rules say. I can also take Mark of the Wulfen on a Space Wolf HQ and lose attacks half the time. Not all options are good or tactically sound.

Arguing similarities between DCCW and a PFist is obfuscation. If the dread had a PFist option it would be relevant, but it doesn't.

And most people wouldn't have a problem with a house rule or allowing it in a friendly game, I think. But it is helpful to know what the rules actually say. The whole RAW v. How you play thing.

Green Blow Fly wrote: The DCCW is a power fist for all intensive purposes since it doubles the base strength up to S10 (capped due to S10 being the upper limit). Same thing with an orky power klaw.

Being similar in function to a power fist doesn't make it a power fist. A power klaw is a power fist because in the ork codex it says it IS a power fist. DCCWs are pretty clearly defined as... not power fists. Flip to page 73 of your main rulebook and quote where it says that a DCCW is a power fist if you disagree.

I don't see anyone trying to argue that dreadnaughts have to strike at I1 because they are for all intensive purposes armed with the equivalent of a power fist.

Because they're not usually armed with power fists, they're armed with DCCWs. The fact that they're almost identical in function doesn't matter, they're not the same thing. Period.

Do dreads have an exception to the "strike at initiative 1" rule? No. You take a chainfist, you strike at I1.