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 a Space Marine Dreadnought sufferst a Weapon Destroyed result and the opponent chooses the close combat weapon to be destroyed, does it also lose the heavy flamer/storm bolter that's attached to it's arm?

Nope. Different weapon.

Cool, Thanks

I believe this is incorrect. The codex entry for the Dreadnought states that the close combat weapon has a "built in" stormbolter or heavy flamer. It goes on to state that if you replace the CCW arm (for a missile launcher), you lose the subsidiary weapon as well.

It appears to me that if the CCW goes, the SB or HF goes as well.

Agreed Mannahnin, thats how I play it when I run a dreadnought.

This issue came up before with my Furioso dread, with which both arms have this particular issue. At first I thought they were four individual weapons systems as Skyth does, but realized after reading the codex that this was incorrect.

The 'built in' part is they key. If you have a gun built into your arm, and you lose your arm, you lose the gun as well. Thats the simplest and most easily understood analogy I can come up with.

Hope that helps you out Logan. Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

If you look at the model, it's easy enough to just mess up the DCCW without damaging the stormbolter/flamer.

The weapon destroyed result has you destroy a single weapon, not multiple weapons.

Posted By skyth on 12/03/2006 12:30 PM
If you look at the model, it's easy enough to just mess up the DCCW without damaging the stormbolter/flamer.

If you look at the Chaos Dreadnought model, the combi-bolter isn't even on the arm at all... but the rules say it is.

Models don't always match rules.

Having said that, it doesn't actually state that they are one  weapon, just that the Storm Bolter is built in (or in the Chaos version, that the arm incorporates a combi bolter)... I've always played them as seperate weapons for Weapon Destroyed, although I have a vague recollection of GW ruling the other way at some point in time (probably a previous edition)

they did in 3rd edition say the bolter is in built with the close combat wqeapon/.

It does state that the weapon is built-in to the arm, however the roll says "weapon destroyed" not "weapon removed" Meaning, there is nothing in the destruction of the CCW that automatically means the H-Flamer or Strom Bolter is also destroyed.

Sinjin, you might want to read the actual rule, rather than just the summary page:

Rulebook, page 67:
"Armament Destroyed
One of the vehicle's weapons is ripped off by the force of the attack..."

Notice the word 'One'...

Which is exactly where the argument comes from. The 'Armament Destroyed' result says to remove one weapon... but if another weapon is built into that weapon, it can't very well remain behind afterwards.

That's like saying 'I'll leave my window where it is, but remove the rest of the house...'

From a purely RAW perspective, the rules do say to remove one weapon, so one weapon it should be. Although you could as easily argue that a weapon with another weapon built in would count as one weapon anyway...

Then, of course, you can take a look at the model for the Chaos Dreadnought, wth a combi weapon that, according to the rules is built into the close combat weapon, is in fact built into the body of the dreadnought. Models don't equal rules, though...

I have to go with it being one weapon not both. If you want to go by RAW, it notes that ONE weapon is lost, not one weapon and all weapons attached to it, it would be like saying that a predator with a pintle storm bolter loses it when the TL lascannons are shot off because it is mounted on top.

From a fluff POV, the entire arm does not have to be lost for the Dread CCW to be useless, the claw could just break off the arm.

It reminds me of the days of Mechwarrior 2 where I would put all the guns in the chest and all the heat sinks and ammo in the legs and arms, respectively.

Posted By happypants on 12/04/2006 6:23 PM
 it would be like saying that a predator with a pintle storm bolter loses it when the TL lascannons are shot off because it is mounted on top. 

Not the same thing at all. The pintle-mounted SB is mounted on the turret, not built into the lascannons.

The Dreadnought SB is built into the DCCW, not into the arm. Check the Dreadnought entry.

Posted By happypants
From a fluff POV, the entire arm does not have to be lost for the Dread CCW to be useless, the claw could just break off the arm.

Fluff's nice, so far as it goes... but the rules state that the weapon is torn off. If the weapon is torn off, then surely anything built into that weapon is also gone.

If I throw my coffee mug out the window (Oh, the horror...) then whatever is in the coffee mug goes too.

The gun isn't "in" the DCCW, it's on the arm that the DCCW is on. Also, it's not "torn-off"; it's "weapon destroyed", not "major structural destruction, resulting in the removal of a limb".

You could just as easily say that the hydraulic lines powering the DCCW were severed or some such. If the RAW says one weapon, what're we fussing about?

Posted By lord_sutekh on 12/04/2006 8:39 PM
The gun isn't "in" the DCCW, it's on the arm that the DCCW is on.

Codex: Space Marines, page 32:
"The Dreadnought's left arm is equipped with a Dreadnought close combat weapon that has a built-in storm bolter"

So the gun is "in" the DCCW.

Posted By lord_sutekh
Also, it's not "torn-off"; it's "weapon destroyed", not "major structural destruction, resulting in the removal of a limb".

Already covered that one...
Rulebook, page 67:
"Armament Destroyed
One of the vehicle's weapons is ripped off by the force of the attack..."

Until it's FAQed accordingly, a stormbolter is a different weapon from a DCCW, and it will continue to be played that way.  All I've heard so far is, in essence, intent arguments as to why two separate items, with different stats and even affecting different phases of the game, are somehow one and the same.  Find some rule that somehow changes the in-game fact that they are two different weapons, and you might go somewhere.

Sutekh: I somehow suffer from the misconception that you won't even read Insaniak's posts, since he quoted both rules in question already twice, so it would be your turn to explain why they wouldn't match the case.

Though I can see that the rules in this case sound somewhat like fluff with all this 'ripped off' and the like (nooooo, don't rip off my dread's arm, pleaaaaase! :-)), so why not add a new twist to the discussion?

I think we may all very much agree that per the rules one weapon is 'in' the other (Space Marines, p 32), so there is a vague 'connection' of the two of them, while on the other hand it is rather clear that they still remain two (2) distinct weapons with complementary usage (argument against 'ripping the arm off').
Why not take the most simple analogy at hand, the only other item in the game system I can think of atm that offers compareable features?
Combi-weapons (e.g. Combi-Flamer)!
Space Marines, page 23: 'Combi-Weapons: This is a bolter joined together with another weapon [...] Note that you may not choose to fire both weapons at once'
Throughout the paragraph these are said to be two seperate weapons, and I'd suggest that the way they are joined is at most as 'hard' as with a weapon wich is 'in' another weapon.

So it all comes down to: If you roll a weapon destroyed result on my rhino (disregard the original bolter), would you let me keep the melta-component of my bolter/melta while destroying the bolter-part, or would you insist of them beeing both gone for good?
I'd really, really wonder...

If I can have my melta, you might have your built-in-weapon, otherwise not I guess.

Not even touching the intend-argument here (though even intend-wise I'd say the CCW with built-in-bolter had to be destroyed as one pice, since intend-wise it's rather clear that dreads are meant to suck real bad. If they shouldn't, they'd cost around the same, have T8, a 3+ save, 3 wounds and would be called Phantom Lords!! ;-))

On a similare note as the combi question, a "hurricane bolter consists of three twin- linked bolters", would I be able to remove one of the twin linked bolters or would I have to remove the whole system.

For now, I guess I'll be playing it like I've always been playing it: lose the arm, lose the Heavy Flamer/Storm Bolter.

Thanks guys.

I agree that if you lose the arm, you lose the storm bolter.

"Built in" is the key phrase here, indicating that the CCW and bolter form a single entity, despite offering two purposes. If the rule description in the dreadnought entry said the arm was equipped with "a dreadnought close combat weapon AND a storm bolter" then sure, the rule specifies that they are independent entries. However in this case the rule clearly defines the rig as a single entry, so if you lose the CCW, the storm bolter should go too.

As Khorne said, think of the Dreadnought CCW arm in terms of a Combi-plasma gun. You can't destroy the gun and still shoot the plasma; they aren't separate weapons but the same item, the same mechanism, just stuck together.

i will disagree with that. You could think that the "computer" controling the arm was damaged and will only let the sb/hf fire.. or the power cell for the arm was hit and there is only enough power to shoot .ie not having enough power to power the power fist at the end of the arm.

Rulebook, page 67:
"Armament Destroyed
One of the vehicle's weapons is ripped off by the force of the attack..."

Posted By insaniak on 12/05/2006 8:57 PM
Rulebook, page 67:
"Armament Destroyed
One of the vehicle's weapons is ripped off by the force of the attack..."

This is not a useful argument. 

It establishes the requirement to physically remove destroyed weapons (meaning that I either need to play with people who don't mind me using markers to demonstrate destroyed weapons, or that I need to improve my modeling skills and buy a LOT more magnets) but does not determine that the storm bolter and DCCW are a single weapon. 

The DCCW and storm bolter are purchased as a unit; and sometimes appear as a single weapon and other times do not, depending on the model.  Neither of those is sufficient to link the storm bolter and DCCW as a single weapon.  Nor is model appearance and construction a basis to evaluate rules. 

RAW the storm bolter and DCCW must be separate weapons.

>The DCCW and storm bolter are purchased as a unit;

So, by that logic then combi-weapons (which are separate weapons- you can only fire 1 during the shooting phase- purchased together) can be removed 1 component at a time? (IE I blast Bob's rhino with pintle combi-flamer; he can then remove the bolter OR the flamer.)

I have only really seen it played as the player removes the army to show the weapon was destroyed. I personally would go with the DCCW includes the storm bolter because it says so.

Trying to say they are two separate weapons for removal purposes sounds more like rules lawyering. Heck while we are at it lets go for this one: Since the rhino obviously has a driver, do I get an additional marine when the rhino blows up?

Posted By the_trooper on 12/06/2006 8:34 AM

Trying to say they are two separate weapons for removal purposes sounds more like rules lawyering. Heck while we are at it lets go for this one: Since the rhino obviously has a driver, do I get an additional marine when the rhino blows up?

I do not own a single dread (and don't plan on getting any and have a regular opponent who almost always fields one) but am having such a hard time wrapping my head around how one would figure that they are one weapon. You can change what the weapon is (flamer/SB), just because it is attached to the CCW it does not make it one in the same.

I have never had this problem come up because I always choose the Assault Cannon to come off but I would never ask my opponent to loose the flamer/sb with the CCW

No, it says in the rules the driver and crew are killed.

Every time.

Without fail.

Guess they don't have seat belts/air bags in the 41st century.