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.

If you swap an Ironclad Dreadnought's seismic hammer for a chainfist, does he keep a meltagun in the chainfist, or does he lose the weapon?

The chainfist does not specify that it has a built in melta, only the hammer does.

Also in the entry it states replace the seismic hammer not replace seismic hammer and meltagun. Notice when you trade the powerfist for the hurricane bolter is says you replace both.

The Siesmic hammer has an In-built Melta.

That is to say that the Melta is part of the hammer.

For what it's worth, the ForgeWorld Chainfist comes with a Meltagun.

I know that model kids =/= rules, but it is something to consider.

 d-usa wrote:
For what it's worth, the ForgeWorld Chainfist comes with a Meltagun.

I know that model kids =/= rules, but it is something to consider.

True, but the GW models chainfist does not.

The melta-gun is "built-in" .. if you lose the hammer you must certainly lose anything that is built in to it as well. The chainfist does not have any built-in melta/flamer listed, therefore it must not have one going strictly by what is listed in the wargear.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The Siesmic hammer has an In-built Melta.

That is to say that the Melta is part of the hammer.

So does the powerfist, and the option right before the chainfist says to trade both.

The GW kit can have the meltagun on the chainfist.
The rules treat the 'built in' weapons as separate weapons for all other purposes, including replacing the power fist and built in for another weapon. I see no reason to believe the hammer can not be swapped out leaving the meltagun in place.

Yet another example of GWS's sloppy rules writing. I think all of the following rules have a solid argument for them.

If you want to play RAW strict, then the Chainfist does not include a Melta.

I know that most people do not like RAI because well, you never really can know what the designers intended unless they say so in WD or in some other way. In this case, however, I think the intent is clear: the Ironclad model was designed released for 5th edition, it clearly has a mounting point to which a Meltagun or Heavy Flamer gets mounted despite the omission of any rules that allows it, the Chainfist part in question is not used on any other model, and the presence as noted of a Forge World Chainfist for the same model with the same rules with a Meltagun... It seems clear to me that the lack of covering the Meltagun onto the Chainfist is an omission, not a design decision - 2 different studios otherwise put quite a bit of design work into a part with no legal build under the codex they were released under. RAI, imo, the Meltagun or Heavy Flamer go with the Chainfist if you chose to make that swap.

I would play it as the above interpretation RAI, the ranged weapon of the hammer transfers to the chainfist.

Aside from being describe as a "built in" weapon there is nothing in the RAW to suggest its a package deal. To the contrary all the options, every single one of them, address the primary and the built in weapon as two separate weapons. We know from past experience that being described as a set does not make things a single weapon. For example we know that a Razorback with a "Lascannon and twin-linked plasma gun" will either loose the plasma gun or the lascannon, but never both, to a single weapon destroyed result.

RAW you do not have permission to remove the meta gun portion of the set just because you replaced the hammer portion of the set.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Aside from being describe as a "built in" weapon there is nothing in the RAW to suggest its a package deal. To the contrary all the options, every single one of them, address the primary and the built in weapon as two separate weapons.

If the Dreadnought suffers a weapon destroyed result on the Seismic Hammer, does he still have the Meltagun?

 Ouze wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Aside from being describe as a "built in" weapon there is nothing in the RAW to suggest its a package deal. To the contrary all the options, every single one of them, address the primary and the built in weapon as two separate weapons.

If the Dreadnought suffers a weapon destroyed result on the Seismic Hammer, does he still have the Meltagun?

Space Marine dreads have been losing their "built in" stormbolters to destroyed dreadnought power fist effects for years. I'll be curious to see if this has actually changed.

The lascannon and Twinlinked plasmagun are 2 distinct weapons; they are in no way built-in.

I always assumed that the "built in" bit meant that they were destroyed together. Just pull the whole arm off and put it back in the case.

The wording on the arm and gun for upgrades has always been vague. From a modeling standpoint, the chain fist has a mount for the underslung weapon. From a balance POV, The hammer and fist are a straight swap in my eyes. They each work better in certain circumstances. If you loose the gun from the chain fist, it becomes much worse then the hammer.

HIWPI (and what I believe RAI is) is to keep the gun and options for the chain fist. RAW I think can be argued both ways. When I take my Ironclad to tournaments, I just stick with the hammer, so not to open up this can of worms. But I would not call someone out for doing it themselves.

Curious... are there any rules for what built-in means?

Is built-in a defined 40k term?

I would submit that if it is not defined, you don't lose it on the swap as nothing says you lose it.

Nope, no rules for what 'built in' means. Another important side of the RAW argument is that the book only has an armory entry on pages 120-122 for a "Seiemsic Hammer" and a separate entry for a "Meltagun" and neither informs us that that the two weapons are stuck together in some way. RAW we need to be told that 'built in' makes them one weapon not unlike how 'combi' makes the second profile part of the 1st weapon.

I don't know if a weapon destroyed result is intended to remove the built in weapon as well, but without any additional instruction in the RAW we have to continue to treat the two profiles as separate weapons because that is how the book has treated them entirely so far.

The Weapon Destroyed damage tells you that any co-axial/built-in weapons are destroyed when the "main" weapon is