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.

Its best to give examples in the rules to support your view that it would strike at the models regular Int. As of now, none has been provided in support for this.

The rules are to me clear in that its Int 1 as thats what the rules for a Chainfist say with no kind of exception given in this case.

No one argues that DCCW strike's at Int 1 because they rules do not say they do, like they specifically do for Chain/Power Fists and Thunder Hammers.

Clarifications made in the INAT are often listed as "Clarifications" because the RAW isnt always totally clear to the majority of people who read said rule. And RAW, for that matter, on some issues can hold "true" for different sides of the same argument. If you can provide rules citations for why you feel it should be at the models Int rather then Int 1, it would make this a better discussion.

This was a question that actually came up at A-con last year and I ruled it as Int 1. While not speaking for anyone but myself, I dont personally see any one else who Judges at that event ruling differently then I did.

It's not obscuring the discussion to point out that a DCCW works the same as a power fist, in fact it helps to shed more light on this subject. The dreadnaught chainfist works exactly the same as a DCCW and also rolls 2d6 for armor penetration, barring the debate on which step of inititiave should be applied. I'm not going to bring up the subject of background but it's there and should not necessarily be ignored... We can craft arguments in either direction in that regard. I don't understand why people say the DCCW is not the same as a power fist other than it is not classified in text as a power fist. Consider the case of a monstrous creature, they ignore armor saves but are not described in text as a power weapon; for all intensive purposes I can think of the monstrous creature works in close combat exactly as if it were armed with a power weapon... While it's not exactly the same thing from a background point of view they work the same.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:It's not obscuring the discussion to point out that a DCCW works the same as a power fist, in fact it helps to shed more light on this subject. The dreadnaught chainfist works exactly the same as a DCCW and also rolls 2d6 for armor penetration, barring the debate on which step of inititiave should be applied. I'm not going to bring up the subject of background but it's there and should not necessarily be ignored... We can craft arguments in either direction in that regard. I don't understand why people say the DCCW is not the same as a power fist other than it is not classified in text as a power fist. Consider the case of a monstrous creature, they ignore armor saves but are not described in text as a power weapon; for all intensive purposes I can think of the monstrous creature works in close combat exactly as if it were armed with a power weapon... While it's not exactly the same thing from a background point of view they work the same.

G

So what you're saying is that if two things have one common quality, we must assume that they are completely identical (sorry, "from a background point of view")?

A chainfist is simply not a Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon. Neither is a power fist. Power fists (and therefore chainfists) strike at I1, and DCCW do not. They are different weapons.

As another example consider the LRR storm cannon. Basically it's a larger flamer but people still say it's not.

G

Mostly because a LRR's template weapon is -not- a flame weapon. All instances referring to Flamers as a category (Vulkan, Avatar, etc...) do not mention it.

DCCW is -not- a powerfist. An Inquisitor's Hammerhand psychic ability is -not- a powerfist. Just because something has similar rules, does not make them the same (hell, some units/weapons have the -same name- and still function differently!)

Also, referring to the INAT is good as a point of reference (our group and FLGS use the INAT pretty regularly), but RAW is the main thrust of this forum. RAW, a chainfist strikes at I1.

Green Blow Fly wrote:It's not obscuring the discussion to point out that a DCCW works the same as a power fist, in fact it helps to shed more light on this subject. The dreadnaught chainfist works exactly the same as a DCCW and also rolls 2d6 for armor penetration, barring the debate on which step of inititiave should be applied. I'm not going to bring up the subject of background but it's there and should not necessarily be ignored... We can craft arguments in either direction in that regard. I don't understand why people say the DCCW is not the same as a power fist other than it is not classified in text as a power fist. Consider the case of a monstrous creature, they ignore armor saves but are not described in text as a power weapon; for all intensive purposes I can think of the monstrous creature works in close combat exactly as if it were armed with a power weapon... While it's not exactly the same thing from a background point of view they work the same.

G

It shares *some* qualities with a powerfist, but it also has the added benefit of providing additional attacks for each one - very unlike a powerfist.

The chainfist strikes at I1, please provide ANY rules that state otherwise - if you are going by fluff only then fair enough, but you wont convince anyone. fluff arguments are INCREDIBLY bad given the current state of backgrounds.

(Also: "intents and purposes", not "intensive purposes")

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.

What's INAT? Anyway I think you are right on what the actual rules are but under strict RaW it is certainly I1 for the chainfist.

Have a look at the second sticky in the 40k YMDC subforum

Actually the entry for the storm cannon states it is a larger version of the flamer carried by Space Marines.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Actually the entry for the storm cannon states it is a larger version of the flamer carried by Space Marines.

G

Where does it say that?

I don't see how any of this "background" or "fluff" is relevant. Rules don't necessarily = fluff and vice versa.

A chainfist strikes at I1. Does it say in the rules/chainfist/dreadnought entry that when mounted on a dreadnought it ignores this rule? No...then strike at I1.

If there are any rules that would invalidate this argument please post them.

However...someone must have a very good reason for putting a chainfist on the dread in the first place.

simple : if two units have the same initiative they fight in the same turn.

i.e; if you score one wound on his terminator, (you rolled first) then you should also take x. number of hits from his terminator.

It's on page 36 in paragraph two. it says "if two units have the same I value, they will make their attacks similtaneously."

Also, the only DCCW is the basic DCCW, that will never change.

I think you may have misunderstood Captain Solon. Read the whole thread to understand the topic.

I think this is a random discussion, I've read the whole thread. I'm writing my view.

This is a rules discussion (hence it's in YMDC). The issue is whether a chainfist strikes at I1 when on a dread, or at I4 like a DCCW.

So striking simultaneously really has nothing to do with the topic.

I'd have to say the chainfist strikes at initiative 1. Why tale a chainfist on the Ironclad? I can think of two reasons.

1) Modeling wise the seismic hammer looks to big and cumbersome on the model while the chainfist is more understated.

2) A chainfist will get through a Land Raider or Monolith more easily than a seismic hammer.

DarthDiggler wrote:I'd have to say the chainfist strikes at initiative 1. Why tale a chainfist on the Ironclad? I can think of two reasons.

1) Modeling wise the seismic hammer looks to big and cumbersome on the model while the chainfist is more understated.

2) A chainfist will get through a Land Raider or Monolith more easily than a seismic hammer.

Fail. The monoliths laughs at you for picking the weapon that doesn't get a bonus against it.

Actually, a Seismic Hammer is slightly better at getting through AV14.

Chance to Pen * Destroy Chance + Chance to Glance * Destroy Chance = Probability of destroyed AV14 per attack

Hammer: 2/3*1/2 + 1/6*1/6 = 0.361
Chainfist: 30/36*1/3 + 3/36*0 = 0.278

Against a Monolith, the Seismic Hammer is vastly superior, as the Chainfist loses its bonus verus Living Metal. There is no reason to ever take a Chainfist.

Exactly and I am waiting to see if anyone will say the hammer goes at I1.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Exactly and I am waiting to see if anyone will say the hammer goes at I1.

G

? why would it? ... If it said it was a thunder hammer that got +1 on the damage table yes but its just a hammer.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Actually, a Seismic Hammer is slightly better at getting through AV14.

Chance to Pen * Destroy Chance + Chance to Glance * Destroy Chance = Probability of destroyed AV14 per attack

Hammer: 2/3*1/2 + 1/6*1/6 = 0.361
Chainfist: 30/36*1/3 + 3/36*0 = 0.278

Against a Monolith, the Seismic Hammer is vastly superior, as the Chainfist loses its bonus verus Living Metal. There is no reason to ever take a Chainfist.

Your math is wrong - the hammer has a 1/3 of getting a pen (5 or 6) making it's total 0.194 The chainfist is better against AV14 but worse against everything else and makes you strike at I1.

Your math is wrong - the hammer has a 1/3 of getting a pen (5 or 6) making it's total 0.194 The chainfist is better against AV14 but worse against everything else and makes you strike at I1.

Thats a valid point.

Why has this thread made it so long?
The rules state its a chainfist, flick up the rules for such weapon and apply them.
Just because its on a dread does not mean it is any different.

JD21290 wrote:Why has this thread made it so long?
The rules state its a chainfist, flick up the rules for such weapon and apply them.
Just because its on a dread does not mean it is any different.

Because people keep thinking Dreadnought CCWs are Power Fists.

True i guess, then maybe they should read the rules before posting?
Also, welcome back

This is one of those cases where I really dont give a rip about RAW unless the rules specifically stated an Ironclad armed with a chainfist strikes at I1 and by that I mean the entry for this unit in the SM codex would have to literally say so.

To me this is a topic that makes a lot of people just shake their head.

G

Cheers.

By RAW, Ironclad chainfists strike at initiative 1 and don't get an extra attack. The chainfist "upgrade" also makes you lose your meltagun, though the model does not appear to support this. However, this makes chainfists completely worthless on Ironclads, so I would probably play that Ironclad chainfists strike at standard initiative and retain the meltagun, so as to preserve the chainfist as a viable option. If you plan on playing people you don't know, though, I think the best solution is just to stick with the seismic hammer.

what makes you say the *Free* chainfist upgrade gets rid of the melta gun? it says the Dred may replace the hammer with a chainfist for free, nothing about losing the melta gun and yes the model definitly dosn't support your theory.

the hammer is better if you plan on assaulting infantry AND vehicles.

i take the chainfist with a melta-gun because they pair nicely. melta the LR and then assault it. on my hammers i take the flamer.

Grey Templar wrote:what makes you say the *Free* chainfist upgrade gets rid of the melta gun? it says the Dred may replace the hammer with a chainfist for free, nothing about losing the melta gun and yes the model definitly dosn't support your theory.

the hammer is better if you plan on assaulting infantry AND vehicles.

i take the chainfist with a melta-gun because they pair nicely. melta the LR and then assault it. on my hammers i take the flamer.

hammer with built in melta gun ... remove the hammer and you remove the melta gun. Nothing says the chain fist comes with a melta gun.