Ironclads: Why did they bother with the chainfist? - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20
  1. #1
    Tyranid Warrior Fanatic Phalanx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,668
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    146 (x7)

    Ironclads: Why did they bother with the chainfist?

    I was looking at the ironclad and before I had considered the chainfist arm a viable alternative-> you lose the +1 armour pen, but you will nearly always pen everything in CC. And then I looked closer and realised why it was such a bad option. It uses the same chainfist as terminators.

    The ramifications of this aren't immediately obvious. First, its a powerfist, not a dreadnaught CCW. That means when you use it the ironclad strikes at I1. Second, the ironclad will have a dread CCW and a chainfist. That means it has 2 special CCWs and therefore cannot get the extra attack for having 2 CCWs.

    Is it worth losing an attack and the +1 damage for 2d6 armour pen? Not really. Feel free to disagree.

    40K armies: Tyranids (2001), Space Wolves (2008), Sisters of Battle (2011)
    Current Rep: 1337

  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Senior Member Duo_Sonata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    29
    Posts
    325
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    30 (x1)

    Hmm never really thought about chainfist upgrade like that but then again I don't plan of using an Ironclad. Against vehicles without a WS the chainfists I1 wouldn't matter since they don't strike back but most vehicles without a WS have back armour 10 so you know that your going to get a penetration result anyways with the hammer so why lose that +1 damage result. The chainfist is a rather useless upgrade thats only good against something like a land raider, and due to the lower initiative even a Killa Kan has a higher chance of winning in a duel.
    Warhammer 40k: Blood Angels, Imperial Guard, Grey Knights, Space Lizards (wolves), Kroot, Witch Hunters, Dark Eldar
    Warhammer: Lizardmen, Empire, Vampire Counts, Brettonians, High Elves, Skaven

  4. #3
    Junior Member jammer397's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Holy Terra
    Posts
    1,053
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    26 (x3)

    um if i remember correct the dreadnought doesnt suffer the loss of I like regular men do.
    I am an Indestructible master of War.

  5. #4
    Tyranid Warrior Fanatic Phalanx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,668
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    146 (x7)

    I believe thats a special rule of the DreadCCW that it doesn't affect the I, though I'll have to double check that.
    40K armies: Tyranids (2001), Space Wolves (2008), Sisters of Battle (2011)
    Current Rep: 1337

  6. #5
    3 Getrudes Frank Fugger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Liverpool
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,710
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    235 (x6)

    Even if it wasn't a normal Chainfist (i.e it struck at Initiative and benefitted from the bonus attack) it'd still be a silly thing to have. At S10 penetrating armour isn't a big deal, so the 2D6 just aren't that big an advantage; the problem is making those attacks that do penetrate count, and +1 to rolls on the damage table does that.

    Also the Seismic Hammer has a built-in meltagun and the Chainfist arguably doesn't.

  7. #6
    404: Title not found Acarna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Leeds/Knoydart, UK
    Age
    24
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    194 (x7)

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Fugger View Post
    Even if it wasn't a normal Chainfist (i.e it struck at Initiative and benefitted from the bonus attack) it'd still be a silly thing to have. At S10 penetrating armour isn't a big deal, so the 2D6 just aren't that big an advantage; the problem is making those attacks that do penetrate count, and +1 to rolls on the damage table does that.
    I agree, you're going to be hitting against the rear armour of most things you're attacking and being as that is AV10 in most cases you're going to be scoring instant penetrating hits regardless of whether or not you have the chainfist. Against one of the only things with high Rear Armour value, the Monolith, the extra dice is negated anyway because of the Monolith's special rule. The only time I can think of where it might be better to have an extra dice over the +1 to the Damage Table roll is if you're fighting a Land Raider, and even then the damage bonus would be almost as good.

    ~ DiW

  8. #7
    The Future realitycheque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bedford, UK
    Age
    37
    Posts
    4,848
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    403 (x8)

    I've never really thought about it... but you're right. At least it's a free swap, so if you're up against someone you know loves LR I guess you might go for it?

    Has anyone actually ever taken it?
    My Deathwatch Campaign
    Furious Angels: (SM) W22, D1, L9 (BA) W15, D0, L3 | Sentinels of Saphery (HE) W3, D0, L0

  9. #8
    3 Getrudes Frank Fugger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Liverpool
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,710
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    235 (x6)

    Against AV14 S10+1D6 really isn't that bad. Especially not considering you get 4 attacks on the charge AND a meltagun. You might also consider they put it in there for fights against Soulgrinders or Defilers and the like, which seems nonsensical to me since either of those things is likely to mangle your Ironclad regardless of it's armour piercing ability.

  10. #9
    Senior Member Chirality's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Age
    41
    Posts
    825
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    256 (x4)

    For me I think the Seismic hammer with the built in meltagun is too good to pass up.
    Last edited by Chirality; July 3rd, 2009 at 20:59.
    "Into the fires of battle, unto the anvil of war!"
    -This space for rent-
    Salamander project log

  11. #10
    Tyranid Warrior Fanatic Phalanx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,668
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    146 (x7)

    You can argue that you'd keep the meltagun either way because it doesn't say that you lose the meltagun.

    I'd say that losing the extra attack and striking at I1 are the biggest problems.
    40K armies: Tyranids (2001), Space Wolves (2008), Sisters of Battle (2011)
    Current Rep: 1337

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts