Iron Clad and Rules Lwayers

[Bung]

Yesterday i met a Rules Lawyer with an intersting point regarding to the Iron Clad Dread and the option to replace the hamer with the chainfist.
For all, im german so we use the german rules set and codex.

The problem is if u get the Iron Clad the chainfist, the chainfist is not stated as a dreadnaught close combat weapon.
Now here ist the rules lawyer, after it isnt stated as a dccw it works like a normal chainfist stadet in codex SM so the Iron Clad strikes with Initive 1 and loses one of his attacks, cause the rulebook states that only dccw get a bonus attack for the dread.

For myself it doesnt make any sense why why this chainfist shouldnt be a dccw but there are such who striktly go after rules as written.

Someone got the same problem and a solution without hitting those rules lawyers with a bat directly between the eyes or some text passages that may help?

[wittdooley]

Sweet Christmas... don't play with that guy. It's fairly obvious that a chainfist is a CCW. Heaven forbid common sense prevail on an issue such as this.

[N0rdicNinja]

I'd give it to yah, but just to forewarn yah, a lot of people on this forum are RAW only and would probably pull the same.

[Aldramelech]

Ok. Page 103 Space Marine Dex (Vehicle/Dread weapons) makes no mention of chain fists at all.
Page 65 Space Marine Codex (Dreadnoughts) makes no mention either.
Page 73 the main rules. Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons Walkers are often armed with huge close combat weapons - hammers, wrecking balls, claws etc. Now you could argue that chain fist DCCW's are part of the etc, which is RAI as far as I can tell. However the only rules that apply to chain fists are the ones on page 64 of the SM codex (Terminators).

So its the old RAW vs RAI again I'm afraid.

For what its worth I agree with Wittdooley on this.

[Old_Paladin]

That rules lawyer is partialy right.
A chainfist isn't a DCCW; why? Because each have seperate weapon entries in the rule book.

DCCW: doubles the walkers strength and is a powerweapon.
-if you look up the powerweapon rules: they ignore armour saves (and fight at init.)
Chainfist: is a powerfist, that rolls 2d6+S for armour pen.
-look up the powerfist, you also have to use those rules: strikes at init 1.
The rulebook says that a chainfist IS a powerfist; you arn't going to be able to find any rules that say otherwise.


The dreadnought shouldn't lose an attack though, it still has a type of close combat weapon (the arm wasn't replaced with a ranged weapon or destroyed); the dread isn't forced to try and step on people with its foot.

[MarshalAdamar]

Does the Iron clad rule specify that you REPLACE the DNCCW with a chain fist? OR that you add a chain fist to the DNCCW.

I guess if you wanted to rules lawyer yourself if it doesn't say that the chain fist replaces the dnccw then it’s in addition to not instead of.

[Bung]

In german dex it says it replaces the things hammer with a chainfist, but the hammer is stated as dccw.

Problem is the Box on Page 73 it stats that a Dreadnaught gets only another Attack if armes with dccw.
After the Iron Clad is not armed with a secound dccw he loses one attack.

My Problem is if u use that chanfist with Ini 4 u dont get a Bonus, the second dice for armourpenetration only affects Land Raider, after all close combat with vehicles the Dread hits rear armor which is 10 with some exceptions (Land Raider, some Russ variants).

The only real bunos is u can really wreak some Dreads with lower initative aka Ork Dreads and Björn of the Space Wolves.

Sure after rules as written those ppl are correct but that just make me feel to bring Mr Bat to some games.

[Old_Paladin]

I don't see why people are confussed.
Each weapon has totally seperate weapon entries.

Each is different, and that means you have to make a choice. Do you want to attack quicker and use the DCCW/seismic hammer; or do you want to attack slower and cleave through heavy armour (like dreads, raiders and buildings).


In regards to the number of attacks: in the english rulebook pg. 73; it talks about the rules of a DCCW, that the Bonus of a DCCW is lost (with mounted weapons) when it's destroyed, but gains attacks for each close combat weapon (at this point it stops using the term dreadnought weapon). The chainfist is still a close combat weapon and thus grants attacks for a dreadnought.

[DarkLink]

I don't see why people are confussed.
Each weapon has totally seperate weapon entries.

Each is different, and that means you have to make a choice. Do you want to attack quicker and use the DCCW/seismic hammer; or do you want to attack slower and cleave through heavy armour (like dreads, raiders and buildings).


In regards to the number of attacks: in the english rulebook pg. 73; it talks about the rules of a DCCW, that the Bonus of a DCCW is lost (with mounted weapons) when it's destroyed, but gains attacks for each close combat weapon (at this point it stops using the term dreadnought weapon). The chainfist is still a close combat weapon and thus grants attacks for a dreadnought.

I'd have to agree with this, by RAW. You still get +1 A, but only strike at I 1. Technically. But just like how I don't use PotMS after using smoke (there was a thread about this not too long ago), I'd be willing to let my opponent hit at I4.

[mstingray]

i think it just means it is a dreadnought close combat weapon with the extra D6 penetration roll, because surely a huge dreadnought would have enough power to swing one around. Thats how I would treat it (and I'm usually RAW)

[Dingareth]

Well, mstingray you may think that, but there is nothing in the rules that say that! The only thing we have to go off of is that the Chainfist follows all rules for the Chainfist- doubles strength, strikes at I1, and requires a second one to gain an extra attack.

Since a DCCW is a Power Weapon, and not a Power/Chainfist, you neither strike at Initiative or gain an Extra Attack for having 2 CCWs.

Does that suck? Yes
Is it a poor choice? Yes
Was it intentional? Probably not
Do we have to live with it? Yes

[Sam]

Well, mstingray you may think that, but there is nothing in the rules that say that! The only thing we have to go off of is that the Chainfist follows all rules for the Chainfist- doubles strength, strikes at I1, and requires a second one to gain an extra attack.

Since a DCCW is a Power Weapon, and not a Power/Chainfist, you neither strike at Initiative or gain an Extra Attack for having 2 CCWs.

Does that suck? Yes
Is it a poor choice? Yes
Was it intentional? Probably not
Do we have to live with it? Yes

Actually, you would able to choose whether you wanted to use the DCCW or the Chainfist, as you now have multiple Special CCWs, so you would not get the extra attack but you can choose to either go at I4 or have an extra d6 for armor penetration at I1.

[Dingareth]

True, yes. But all in all, I'd say it's not worth losing the Hammer over.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

I'd have to agree with this, by RAW. You still get +1 A, but only strike at I 1. Technically. But just like how I don't use PotMS after using smoke (there was a thread about this not too long ago), I'd be willing to let my opponent hit at I4. This is correct. Worth noting, however, is that the initiative issue is often irrelevant.

The Dread's other hand, which you can opt to use in CC per any normal multiple special CCW scenario's rules (i.e. pick one and make all your attacks like that), is still a DCCW str10 no-armor I4 weapon.

For this reason I have never had to even care about the chainfist thing. I would only use it when attacking a vehicle, against which initiative doesn't mean anything.

[DarkLink]

Well, mstingray you may think that, but there is nothing in the rules that say that! The only thing we have to go off of is that the Chainfist follows all rules for the Chainfist- doubles strength, strikes at I1, and requires a second one to gain an extra attack.

Since a DCCW is a Power Weapon, and not a Power/Chainfist, you neither strike at Initiative or gain an Extra Attack for having 2 CCWs.

Does that suck? Yes
Is it a poor choice? Yes
Was it intentional? Probably not
Do we have to live with it? Yes

As someone pointed out above, Dreadnought don't follow the normal CC weapon rules. They don't have to have identical weapons to gain +1 A, as the rule stated that Dreadnoughts gain +1 A for each additional CCW, not for each additional DCCW. There's a difference. Dreadnoughts definitely get the +1 A.

Here's the rule:
BRB pg73: "If a walker is armed with two or more close combat weapons*, it gains one bonus attack for each additional weapon over the first. If one of its additional weapons is destroyed, one bonus attack is lost."

*emphasis mine

Dreadnoughts unquestionably get the +1 A. The rules very clearly state that they do.


However, there is nothing that overrides the Chainfist Initiative reduction, at least that I know of. However, here's where this gets interesting:

Walker rules don't deal with different CC weapon types. Now, from the rules above, walkers always get +1A if they have more than one CCW of any type, so no matter what you get the bonus attack.

You could, however, argue that the Dreadnought still picks between special weapons the same way infantry do. It doesn't matter for the number of attacks, as mentioned in the rule above, as Dreadnoughts always get the bonus attack for multiple CCWs.

But, by the normal ccw rules, you could argue that you get to pick between the DCCW and the Chainfist. Meaning you always get your full number of attacks (as I've reiterated repeatedly), but can choose to either strike at I4 and Str 10, OR you can strike at I 1, Str 10 and get a bonus D6 on the penetration roll.

How's that for weird implications.

[Aldramelech]

(Points at GW authors of the rules) "Forgive them Lord, for they no not what they do!" lol

[Bung]

DarkLink

Thanks for ur quote from the englisch Rulebook, but the german is diferent there.

There it clearly says dreadnaught close combat weapon instead of close combat weapon.

One word difference :(

[DarkLink]

DarkLink

Thanks for ur quote from the englisch Rulebook, but the german is diferent there.

There it clearly says dreadnaught close combat weapon instead of close combat weapon.

One word difference :(

Hmmm. Well, english is the original version... that is kinda funny, though.

[Bung]

There are more than this one i could quote.
Sometimes it seems there are some correstions in the translations or the translated wording brings complete other intentiosn to some rules.
Thats a problem when u have to work with more than one set of rules in different languages cause here are some gamers ordering their rules, dexes only in englisch and other players just buy the german rules while there is no more some timeshift when the dexes or sold.
(a few years ago it could take a week or longer to get a translated rulesset after the english versions where puplished)
Second problem the most ordering the rules in english are no native speakers, so there most time wrong translations or indications by them.
All happend in my experience.

After all i really considering a place for Mr Bat in my armycase for rules arguments.

[redrio]

If you come up against a rules lawyer, it only matters if you've swapped out the other DCCW for the hurricane bolter. If you have a DCCW and the Chainfist, you get the bonus attack for having 2 CCWs as mentioned by Bung earlier, and you can choose whether to strike at I4 and only get S+1D6 pen, or I1 and S+2D6 pen.

I'd let you get the I4 and 2D6 pen personally as dreds are HUGE and the chainfist is easier to maneuver than his grabby hand. I mean it's more like a big sword really, must be the equivalent of 2 metres long. I'd say he'd be quicker on the draw with that over a fist any day, if it was real....