Compiled GK Rules Questions [Archive] - BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum

View Full Version : Compiled GK Rules Questions

DarkLink

03-26-2011, 03:43 PM

So, the Codex isn’t even out, but over on Bolter and Chainsword they’ve already compiled a sizeable list of questions for a FAQ/Errata. I’m finishing spring break with nothing better to do, so I went through and answered as many as I could, since it’ll be useful to know all the details of my new codex. If anyone catches anything that I missed, bring it up.

Some of the questions are vague, and do need and answer from GW. Others do have an answer, even if it might not be obvious. And some of the questions were so obvious it left me questioning the source’s reading comprehension and understanding of the rules :p.

Anyway, here it is:

Wargear

Do a pair of Nemesis Falcions give +1A (from thier special rule), or +2A (from thier rule plus using two 1 handed CCWs) in total?

+2A total. It’s a pair of CCW that separately grant +1A. There’s no reason to think that the +1A somehow denies the second +1A for having 2CCW.

Think of them as a pair of Lightning Claws except instead of granting rerolls to wounds they grant a second bonus attack.

And, no, Falchions don’t let you reroll anything. They just grant bonus attacks. Some people still seem to think that they're actually lightning claws. That is not in the codex.

How do Nemesis Doomfists work for the Nemesis DreadKnight? Not being a Walker, do these double the NDK Strength?

Dreadknights are not walkers. DCCWs double the strength of walkers, and only walkers. For a Dreadknight, Doomfists only count as power weapons. They do not double strength according to RAW.

Do Servo Skulls reduce the scatter distance for Orbital Strike Relay blasts that land within 12" of them?

Probably not, since the OSR "always scatters".

5: Do the effects of Servo Skulls stack? If a blast lands within 12" of two of them, or a Unit DS's within 12" of two (or more), is the Scatter reduced by additional 1d6's?

You “roll one d6 less”, but the chriteron for doing so is “being within 12” of a servo skull”. It doesn’t matter how many there are, it only matters if there are any at all. So no, you only ever reduce scatter by 1d6 total.

6: If an enemy unit deep strikes onto a servo skull is it a mishap or does the servo skull retreat? What about friendly units?

Servo Skulls do not prevent an enemy unit from deepstriking near them, so they would be able to move near the skull and cause it to retreat.

Additionally, servo skulls are just counters, not units, so they’re not really there. No one would mishap from landing on one, and the skull would run away if it was an enemy unit that just landed.

7: Can you Master Craft a Grenade? What about an Orbital Strike Relay? Silly, I know, but it says it's treated as a weapon. And listed with the rest of the Weapons.

/shrug/
Maybe?

9: Does the Orbital Strike Relay weapon of a GKGM or Techmarine attached to a unit contiaining at least 1 Jokaero Weaponsmith bebefit from thier 'Inconceivable Customisation'? Can your Orbital Strike gain the Rending property from this ability?

Yes and yes. (jwolf)

10: Is the Orbital Strike weapon a Barrage weapon?

Yes. (jwolf)

11: Personal Teleported description says that the unit can make a 30" movement in any direction instead of making a normal movement. Well, if an IC is attached we know that the normal movement allowed would be 6", instead of 12" (Limited to the slowest speed in the unit). But the special rule says nothing about not working with attached ICs (as, on the contrary, other rules do, like Heroic Intervention or Descent of Angels). Thus, it seems legal to attach an IC and make a 30" movement, instead of accomplishing a 6" normal one. Is this correct?

Unclear. The Shunt move requires the unit to have personal teleporters, but does not specify if everyone has to have them. It is likely that GW will rule that everyone has to have them. Otherwise, it is perfectly legal for an attached IC to hitch a ride, as the rule simply says “…the unit may make a 30” move…”

12: Can a unit with a Nul Rod cast psychic powers providing they don't affect their own unit? eg Smite

Yes, the unit can still case psychic powers all they want. They just can’t be affected by any of them.

If an Ordo Malleus Inquisitor has a Nemisis Daemon Hammer and a Force Weapon does it get the +1 attack for 2 CCWs? Are Nemisis Daemon Hammers, force weapons or thunder hammers (or both) for working out whether they get an aditional close combat attack?

Daemonhammers are Thunderhammers, which are a different type of special weapon than Force Weapons. So no bonus attacks.

15: If an Inquisitor is armed with a Daemonblade but is not a psyker what is the effect of an 11-12 on the chart? If a model is armed with a Daemonblade and a special weapon (eg force weapon) do they still have to use the special weapon in close combat?

The Inquisitor has no psychic powers, but the Daemonblade becomes a Force Weapon and the Inquisitor is now one Psychic Mastery level higher than he was. So it seems he gets a force weapon, and he can use it.

16: If a stubbon unit is assaulted by (or assaults) a unit with psychotroke grenades is their leadership modified by the 'They're Horrible' result? How does this interact with Ork Mob rule? Does the psychotroke grenades' 'The world is spinning' override Eldar Banshee masks? If 2 units, both with Psychotroke grenades assualt a single unit do the results stack.

17: Is the Initiative test for the brain mines taken on unmodified Initiative or do we factor in modifiers like FC, Psykout Grenades etc?

Depends on the modifier.

18: Since there are wargear items that modify leadership, is the leadership used for the psychic hood unmodified? This may have to be done on a codex by codex basis.

Codex by Codex basis.

19: Are Pintle mounted Storm Bolters with Psycannon Bolts, main or defensive weapons? Their strength makes them main, but the rules list them as 'an additional defensive weapon'.

They start out as “an additional defensive weapon”, but when you give them psycannon bolts they become main weapons.

Units

1: Do Henchmen made Troops by Inquisitor Coteaz's 'Lord of Formosa' rule take up a FoC slot? Or do they retain the Elite versions property of not taking a FoC slot?

Lots of argument here, so I won’t bother adding anything that’s already been covered.

2: What initiative step is the hyperstone maze performed at? At what point do you count the number of wounds the model has, so if attacks are made simultanously and cause wounds do they count? How many wounds do we count for combat res?

She can use the hyperstone maze at any point in time. She just can’t make any CC attacks that round. That’s the only restriction. Wounds are counted when the opponent has to roll, which is immediately after she uses the hyperstone maze.

Why did they say “round”, though? The game is organized into phases, player turns and game turns. Round is not standard nomenclature. WTF GW? Why bother spending a page in the BRB defining the "Turn", when you don't even bother to use the phrase? I wish Privateer Press wrote GW's rules for them, they'd never let something as stupid as this get through...

3: If units that arrive in a transport that used the deepstrike rule count as deepstriking can Coteaz's "I've been expecting you" be used to target the unit and can he target the unit and the transport or must he choose?

By RAW, he can target both, as both have deepstruck within range of Coteaz. GW might go with the "pick one or the other" ruling, same as from the old mystic rules.

4: What happens to the Jokaero 'Inconceivable Customisation' ability when you have 6 or more Jokaero in the unit? When you have 6 Jokaero in a unit you are guaranteed to roll the 6+ option, when you roll again you have no other choice but to continually take the 6+ option which makes you roll again and you're stuck in a loop. If you ignore the bonus, then you can risk getting option 1 which is nothing happens, which is one of the reasons to take more than one so you don't get that option. What do you do then?

Stuck in a loop.

5: More 'Inconceivable Customisation' Questions. The improvement only happens at the deployment, does it affect the whole unit of henchmen or does it also affect ICs attached during deployment? Do those bonuses go away if the IC leaves the henchmen unit or do they stay? Does another IC joining the henchmen unit later on get these bonuses? Would it be able to modify a Daemon Hosts attacks? Would it be able to modify Psychic Barrage?

Technically the whole unit benefits, and there's nothing that would cause you to lose it...

6: If you have multiple Grand Masters (including Mordrak and Draigo) in your army, can you use multiple 'The Grand Strategies'? Or are you limited on only one, regardless of how many Grand Masters you have?

You can use multiples. Each GM grants rules to d3 units.

7: As the Dark Eldar Cruicible of Malediction forces a Leadership test, are Grey Kngiht vechiles effected by this? If they are and they fail, are they removed from play? If the vehicle is also a Transport, what happens to any embarked units? Are they also removed from play?

Removed from play, it seems. Same with the unit inside, presumably.

Real dick move on behalf of the DE player. Not really broken, it’s just not fun for the GK player.

9: For the dreadknight's heavy incinerator do we measure the range from the gun on the model as suggested by the codex or the base as is normal with monstrous creatures?

The codex says 12” of the weapon, so measure 12” from the weapon.

10: The techmarine can take digital weapons, do the servo arms benefit from them?

Yes. Digital weapons allow you to reroll one to wound roll per turn made by that model. There is no restriction on what weapons caused that reroll.

11: If an enemy unit chooses to target, in the shooting phase, a culexus assassin, but fails their leadership test can they do any of the following; Run? Assault the assassin the following assault phase? Fire different weapons/weapon profiles than the ones they would have shot the assassin with? Split their fire differently (eg long fangs)? Use smoke launchers?

Once you decide to try and shoot, you cannot Run of use smoke launchers. You also have to declare your targets all at once, so if the long fangs shot 1 guy at the assassin and 4 at something else, only the guy shooting the assassin can change targets.

The power only protects the assassin from being targeted by shoot, so as long as the unit does not shoot something else he can still be assaulted.

12: Is FNP considered a save for the purposes of Valaria's Rune's of destiny?

FNP isn’t technically a save, so probably not.

13: If Valeria rolls a double 1,2, or 3 with her 2 bonus attacks are they disgarded because she wouldn't have counted as hitting herself due to the WS chart? Do any wounds she causes on herself count towards combat res and if so to who's side?

Yes, they would miss.

Any wounds caused against her would count against her side in CC, as combat resolution is determined by wounds lost on each side.

14: Can the Calladius Assassin be deployed normally or must it use the Polymorphine?

If the assassin is placed in Reserves, it must use Polymorphine. The assassin does not need to be placed in reserves as far as I can see, so you could deploy normally.

15: Polymorphine: it states it can be used against any enemy "unit", which by RAW included vehicles. Which Arc would the hit go against? As the Callidus is placed after the hits are resolved, you can't use that as a basis.

Whatever arc you want?

16: Polymorphine: If the wounds from Polymorphine wipe out a unit, is the Callidus automatically killed since she cannot be placed within 3" of anyone? Or would she suffer a deep strike mishap, potentially coming back again next round on another unit? What happens if there are no enemy units on the board when she comes out of reserve?

Don’t target a unit that could be completely killed.
I would say within 3" of where the unit was is correct. (jwolf)

17: If the brotherhood champion is in close combat with a unit of monstrous creatures and chooses the Rapier Strike stance can he only kill 1 model from the unit or are wounds allocated as normal? Can he use this ability to snipe out monstrous creatures out of units?

He can only hit one model: “…must direct his attacks at a single IC/MC in base contact…”

18: Does the hammer of righteousness ability affect both shooting and close combat attacks?

Uh, I couldn't find any 'hammer of righteousness'...

19: Can the grand master's grand strategy affect assassins, Crowe, and Mordrak (if he doesn't take any ghost knights), who are listed as characters but not Independent ones? What about allies?

Technically, yes they can affect them. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this errata’d.

21: If an IC is joined to a unit with the brotherhood banner and the banner activates the force weapons, does the IC have to activate his? At what Initiative step is this performed, the IC may have a higher or lower Initiative? What happens if the IC has run out of powers he can cast for that turn?

The banner itself doesn’t activate force weapons. It allows you to automatically pass the psychic test if you choose to activate your force weapons. You choose to activate force weapons as normal, you just don’t need to take a psychic test to do so, IC included.

22: Is Mordrak considered to be the justicar in his unit of ghost knights or is it always randomly determined? If so can he cast a different psychic power to his unit?

Justicars are upgrade characters, Mordrak is effectively an upgrade character, so yes, he is a Justicar.

23: If Justicar Thawn is taken, can he use psychic powers separate to his unit? He's mastery level 2, but both psychic powers he has are normally squad based ones.

Justicar Thawn is the unit’s Justicar, so he can’t cast separately. He can, however, allow the unit to use two powers per turn.

Psychic Powers

1: Do squads deep striking by being targetted by 'The Summoning' scatter? If so, are they effected by Teleport Homers, as they aren't explicitly listed as DSing by means of Teleoprtation?

When you place a unit using deepstrike rules, you scatter. And it doesn’t say they’re Teleporting, so Teleport homers don’t really help.

2: Can you cast the summoning on units that are falling back? Can you cast it on your own unit?

Yes, and kinda yes. If you target your own unit, however, the Librarian is picked up but can’t be placed again, because he’s no longer on the board for you to place him within 6” of himself. So don’t do it.
I would say within 6" of where the Librarian was; this is only useful when falling back, I would think. Odd one, for sure. (jwolf)

3: It is written that The Summoning power has to be used at the beginning of the Librarian's Movement phase. Does it refer to the Librarian movement, and consequently it is usable immediately after a Deep Strike deployment of the Librarian, or to the Librarian player movement phase, and consequently it is not usable in the turn in which the Librarian arrives through Deep Strike?

No. The Librarian is not on the board at the beginning of the movement phase. Eldar players already suffer from this, as a lot of their powers are used at the beginning of the turn.

4: For the psychic power Dark Excommunication, what exactly qualifies as "Daemonic Gifts"?

I would say anything that a Daemon has to purchase. If it’s in the statline, the Daemon still gets it, but if the Daemon had to spend points on that upgrade, it doesn’t.
Reading the battle report in White Dwarf, this is any special ability of the Daemon. (jwolf)

5: Astral Aim: The wording states that the enemy unit "has a 4+ cover save that cannot be modified". If I used an incinerator (within range), would the incinerator template effect still ignore the cover save (does "ignoring" a cover save count as "modifying" it)?

If you use an Incinerator, the model get a 4+ cover save. And he can take that save all he wants. Cover saves just don’t do anything against templates, as templates ignore cover.

6: Astral Aim allows a Purgation squad to ignore LoS. Can a Purgation Squad embarked on a vehicle use Astral Aim to shoot more wepaons than would be allowed by any Fire Points?

Probably not.

7: Can we stack psychic powers like the 'strength of titan' meaning our units could possibly receive a +3S & +3D6 for vehicle penetration?

Might of Titan only explicitly stacks with Hammerhand, implying that psychic powers don’t otherwise stack.

8: Does the shrouding psychic power affect vehicles and/or monstrous creatures? Currently vehicles need to be obscured to get a cover save which the power doesn't state, and it doesn't appear to override the 50% rule for MCs.

Yes. Vehicles are units, and Monstrous Creatures are units, and so they get a cover save/stealth. Any ork player could have told you this.

9: I assume the psker's Psychic Barrage cannot go above strength 10 or below ap1. But if you have additional psykers in the unit are they forced to contribute to the attack? Also if more than 1 psyker is in the unit can any additional models fire their laspistols or are they all considered to be firing a weapon? Which psyker is used to measure to see if a psychic hood is in range? If the unit is in a rhino/chimera is the number of psykers contributing limited to fire points?

Can't go above str 10/ap1. All psykers contribute, none can fire any other weapons since they're using a psychic power, and if any are in range of a psychic hood then they can be blocked.

On the bright side since it's only one actual 'shot', you only need one fireport to use the power.

10: What initiative value do you use for the warp rift psychic power, is it the majority or the best?

I would allocate the tests like wounds, then use each model’s Initiative. Unlike phil kelly, at least mat ward was smart enough to word this power so that you can't pick out enemy models.

11: If a psyker has mastery level 2 or more can they cast the same power more than once per turn, assuming they aren’t shooting attacks, if the first casting was unsuccessful?

Yes. Half the other armies in the game with psykers could tell you this.

Definitions

The following things need official definitions of what they are.
1: Psykers
2: Daemons
3: Daemonic Gifts
4: Open Terrain (for the sanctuary power)
5: Plasma weaponry (for the siphon)

Yeah, good luck getting GW to ever bother to run a tight ship. You want precise and well-defined rules, go play Warmachine.

Answered Questions

For reference, these aren’t my answers

1: Does a Vindicare Shieldbreaker round remove all Invulnerable Saves granted by wargear, or one per shot? For example a Space Marine Captain with both an Iron Halo and a Storm Shield.

It removes both ‘the model loses all invulnerable saves granted by items of wargear’.

2: Can you define what a character is for the purposes of the Hyperstone maze? Could it for example affect Bjorn the Fell Handed or Mephiston?

Page 47 of the rulebook defines a character as any model with the IC special rule or squad sergeants.

3: Can units embarks in Transports be summoned with 'The Summoning'?

From the Rulebook FAQ:
Q: Can Psychic powers be used on a unit embarked on a transport? (p50)
A: For simplicity’s sake, the answer has to be a firm No, unless the psyker himself is in the unit being transported

4: Does Mordrak's squad and Mordrak each count as a kill point?

No, Mordrak would be worth an additional kill point if he was an IC and his unit was a retinue. However because he lacks the IC special rule he is merely treated as an upgrade character for his unit. If you think of him more like the warlock for an eldar guardians unit, except instead of having an option of buying the warlock (Mordrak) to go with the guardians (ghosts) it works in reverse, you buy him first then his unit is the optional part. (Sorry about using the Eldar as an example, but I was struggling to find anything power armoured to use)

5: How does Quickening Initiative bonus work with tyranid Lash whips? How does Nemesis Force Halberds Initiative bonus work with tyranid Lash whips?

From the Tyranid FAQ:
Q:If a model with Lash Whips is attacking a model with an Initiative-boosting rule/piece of wargear (e.g. Furious Charge, an Eldar Banshee Mask, etc.), which order are the Initiatives modified?
A: The Lash Whips will reduce an enemy model’s initiative to 1 before any other modifiers are applied. So, a model with Furious Charge that assaults a Tyranid with Lash Whips will strike at Initiative 2

bonedale

03-26-2011, 10:09 PM

Is the rule different for Null Rods now? I thought they killed all psy effects in a squad, good or bad.

Also, finally someone posted the fact Falchions don't get rerolls.

Thanks for the Q&A

DarkLink

03-27-2011, 01:03 AM

The null rod is now a power weapon that also inflicts instant death against psykers. The bearer and his unit are immune to the affects of both friendly and enemy psychic powers.

So you could still cast, say, hammerhand, you just wouldn't get any bonuses from it.

I'm tempted to take an Inquisitor with a null rod with a unit of paladins so I can flip off Rune Priests. I've played two games so far, both against our SW player (who takes hardcore tournament lists). I won both games, but in the first one his Rune Priests killed a Grand Master and all 6 Paladins with JotWW, and in the second game Njal killed Driago. Unfortunately, null rods and servo skulls are about the only good thing about Ordos hereticus Inquisitors.

Otherwise, though, the sheer firepower the paladins soaked up more than makes up for their losses. Aside from JotWW, he caused about 2 wounds total in the first game, and I lost 2 paladins and took 2-3 more wounds total. As long as you can avoid Fire Dragons and Dark Lance spam, Paladins are very, very, very, very hard to kill.

gcsmith

03-27-2011, 02:29 AM

I like how you post how crucible of malediction is a dick move on behalf of the DE player, I thought the idea of pyschic vehilces is more of a dick move,

Lol how can using a codex to its maximum be considered a dick move?

Gir

03-27-2011, 02:34 AM

Dreadknights are not walkers. DCCWs double the strength of walkers, and only walkers. For a Dreadknight, Doomfists only count as power weapons. They do not double strength according to RAW.

There is no rule that says that.

1: Psykers
2: Daemons
3: Daemonic Gifts
4: Open Terrain (for the sanctuary power)
5: Plasma weaponry (for the siphon)

1. Anything with the "psyker" special rule.
2. Everything from the Daemons codex, Avatar of Khaine, Greater and lesser daemons, Possessed marines and Daemon princes. (I'm sure one armies FAQ's has this list)
3. Anything taken from "Daemonic gifts" section of the Chaos Daemons codex.
4. No idea, need to know what the power does.
5. Anything with "Plasma" in the name, Eldar Starcannon.

Bean

03-27-2011, 07:44 AM

For what it's worth, the squad with 6+ Jokaero Weaponsmiths doesn't get stuck in a loop when you resolve the "inconceivable customization" rule: the 6 result specifically says to discard duplicate results, including further rolls of six. You roll it once, get a six automatically, roll it twice more, get two more automatic sixes, discard both (since they're duplicates, at this point) and that's it. You get nothing, the game goes on.

Lemt

03-27-2011, 07:49 AM

There is no rule that says that.

Page 73 of the rulebook. It says that a DCCW is a power weapon that doubles the walker's strength in melee. So I guess RAW he's right.

16: If a stubbon unit is assaulted by (or assaults) a unit with psychotroke grenades is their leadership modified by the 'They're Horrible' result? How does this interact with Ork Mob rule? Does the psychotroke grenades' 'The world is spinning' override Eldar Banshee masks? If 2 units, both with Psychotroke grenades assualt a single unit do the results stack.

Banshee Masks specify they ignore grenades and cover, so you can't mess up their initiative with grenades.

Gir

03-27-2011, 09:05 AM

Page 73 of the rulebook. It says that a DCCW is a power weapon that doubles the walker's strength in melee. So I guess RAW he's right.

If you interprate it as a rule instead of choice of words, something's that's not a walker can't have DCCW.

DarkLink

03-27-2011, 12:06 PM

Tynskel

03-27-2011, 01:47 PM

There is no rule that says that.

1. Anything with the "psyker" special rule.
2. Everything from the Daemons codex, Avatar of Khaine, Greater and lesser daemons, Possessed marines and Daemon princes. (I'm sure one armies FAQ's has this list)
3. Anything taken from "Daemonic gifts" section of the Chaos Daemons codex.
4. No idea, need to know what the power does.
5. Anything with "Plasma" in the name, Eldar Starcannon.

you forgot daemon weapons.

Tynskel

03-27-2011, 01:48 PM

What is str x for the exitus pistol/rifle? I am guessing it is wound on a 4+, but they don't say that.

Lemt

03-27-2011, 02:53 PM

What is str x for the exitus pistol/rifle? I am guessing it is wound on a 4+, but they don't say that.

They have the Sniper weapon type, so 4+.

Tynskel

03-27-2011, 03:06 PM

oh yeah, forgot that the sniper always wounds on a 4+ as well as rend.

That gun is a titan killer: 4d6 + Rending + AP1

Lemt

03-27-2011, 03:11 PM

oh yeah, forgot that the sniper always wounds on a 4+ as well as rend.

That gun is a titan killer: 4d6 + Rending + AP1

And shot at BS8.

...

Sorry, I can't help myself. :p

Tynskel

03-27-2011, 03:21 PM

I have mixed feelings with the Assassins. I feel like they have been nerfed to all héll, but at the same time, I like a lot of the changes.

I feel most sorry for the callidus: Loss word in your ear, ignoring invulnerable saves, and assaulting the turn she comes in. Well, I guess d6 Str4 AP2 hits isn't bad. Although, Instant Death is a nice addition. One confusing thing, though: Neural Shredder is AP1 but cannot harm vehicles... ?

Gir

03-27-2011, 04:47 PM

Unfortunately, no, there's nothing that restricts anything from taking a DCCW if it's in their options. The BRB just says:

A DCCW is a power weapon that doubles the walker's strength to a maximum of 10.

I'd expect this to be FAQ'd, since it seems like it's another case of sloppy rules on GW's part, but by RAW only walkers double strength.

If it was meant to restrict it to just walkers, the rule would read something like: If the DCCW is used by a walker, it's strength is doubled to a maximum of 10. What has acutally happened is the writer has not expected anything other then walkers having DCCW, so he used "walkers" instead of "models" or "units". The language in the rule is a dead giveaway of this.

But if that isn't enough evidence for you:

particularly when it's equipped with a Daemon Hammer or Doomfists. With a strength of 10 and the monstrous creature special rule, it can get to a tank-shattering 22 on its armour penetration score

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=15900040a

you forgot daemon weapons.

What about Daemon weapons?

DarkLink

03-27-2011, 05:31 PM

DCCW double the strength of walkers in CC. The Dreadknight is not a walker. This needs to be FAQ'd. Simple as that.

Tynskel

03-27-2011, 05:56 PM

they are daemons

Lemt

03-27-2011, 06:36 PM

Walkers are Daemons?

Gir

03-27-2011, 06:39 PM

DCCW double the strength of walkers in CC. The Dreadknight is not a walker. This needs to be FAQ'd. Simple as that.

Like I said, you're arguing use of language, not rules.

they are daemons

They're a waepon. You don't roll to hit weapons so it's meaningless.

George Labour

04-02-2011, 09:03 AM

the problem with quoting White Dwarf is that its articles are often written before final versions of rules are in play. Or the authors may have gotten something wrong by accident.

An example would be the apocalypse battle report where the tau super heavies managed to repair themselves, AND fire in the same turn. This led to one munchkin trying to do the same with his baneblades becasuse 'it happened in the white dwarf and that overrides the rules in apocalypse'.

So in the WD article the DK is said to carry both two Doomfists, both of which have storm bolters. However in the codex those same bolters are not listed (but are on the dreadnought). furthermore, if the DCCW works as it does on the dreadnought, then why do you need the daemon hammer upgrade?

As such I'm of the mind that the doomfists are just there to give it an extra attack should you choose to try and keep it cheap or equip it as a gun platform. Pretty sure DCCW are like powerfists in regards to getting extra attacks for multiple CCW weapons.

scadugenga

04-03-2011, 12:22 PM

Wargear

+2A total. It’s a pair of CCW that separately grant +1A. There’s no reason to think that the +1A somehow denies the second +1A for having 2CCW.

Think of them as a pair of Lightning Claws except instead of granting rerolls to wounds they grant a second bonus attack.

And, no, Falchions don’t let you reroll anything. They just grant bonus attacks. Some people still seem to think that they're actually lightning claws. That is not in the codex.

This is incorrect, I believe.

The falchions are a singular wargear upgrade, just like the Striking Scorpion exarch wargear chainsabres. You only get the +1 attack, not +2 total.

Else they would have written a la the Eldar Howling Banshee exarch wargear Mirrorblades, which specifically states it provides +2 attacks..

DarkLink

04-03-2011, 02:53 PM

You buy a pair of Falchions. Every time it mentions Falchions, it refers to them as a pair. It does so in the wargear entry, it does so in the fluff, it does so in the unit entries.

A pair refers to two of something. A pair of shoes means two shoes, one for each foot. A pair of close combat weapons means two close combat weapons, and thus a bonus attack.

This is exactly the same as Lightning claws. You get +1A for a pair of lightning claws, and a reroll to wound. You get +1A for a pair of Falchions, and an additional +1A for their special rule (instead of the reroll to wound).

Incidentally, if you try and argue that a single wargear option doesn't grant bonus attacks then most of the Lightning Claw Terminators in the game don't get a bonus attack. Chaos Terminators purchase "a pair of lightning claws". Heck, vanilla Terminators don't even refer to it as a pair. It just says "Lightning Claws" in their wargear entry.

Claiming that a pair of Falchions does not get a bonus attack for a pair of CCW is competely nonsensical.

scadugenga

04-03-2011, 03:21 PM

Incidentally, if you try and argue that a single wargear option doesn't grant bonus attacks then most of the Lightning Claw Terminators in the game don't get a bonus attack. Chaos Terminators purchase "a pair of lightning claws". Heck, vanilla Terminators don't even refer to it as a pair. It just says "Lightning Claws" in their wargear entry.

Claiming that a pair of Falchions does not get a bonus attack for a pair of CCW is competely nonsensical.

Then explain why chainsabres only gives you +1 attack. "Some exarchs train in the use of blades paired with ancient guantlets that house twin-linked shuriken pistols, allowing them to level a storm of attacks at their foes. A model with chainsabres has +1A and can reroll all failed to hit and to wound rolls. page 33 of the Eldar codex. Note the use of the plural of blade in the text. So--paired melee weapons.

Mirrorswords: Two power weapons that per the codex entry "A model with mirrorswords counts as having an extra hand weapon that grants +2 A instead of the usual +1." Page 31 of the eldar codex.

The precedent is there. Two paired weapon entries that specifically document that only +1 attack is given (scorpions) unless written otherwise. (banshees)

Now look at the GK entry. Which of the two eldar weapon entries is close to identical? Not the Mirrorswords, I'll tell you that. :)

Your example of paired lightning claws is slightly misleading. You pay points for both lightning claws. (15 for one, or 30 for the pair.) Falchions (ironically, just like chainsabres) are only a 5 point upgrade.

Unless you believe that a nemesis force sword is only worth 5 points?

I"m not claiming that they don't get the bonus for paired weapons. I'm saying that the +1A in the codex entry is that bonus. You don't get a freebee bonus A because it does not specifically say you do.

And since when has GW cornered the market on sensibility when rules-writing?

Tynskel

04-03-2011, 03:54 PM

a pair of falchions is one weapon. The codex has to write +1 A or you would get no bonus from having a pair of falchions.

hisdudeness

04-03-2011, 04:56 PM

So does that mean you don't get a +1A for lighting claws?

plawolf

04-03-2011, 05:14 PM

I have had a quick flick and found a few questions as well.

On Daemonblades, this might be a bit obvious, but where is the downside to GK daemonblades? In the wargear section, its spends half a page listing all the different powers on daemonblades, which iirc, is different from the rules for daemonweapons in the Chaos book, and at the end, it does not list daemon weapon as a 'common' weapon that use the same rules as the BBB. That would suggest to me that GK daemonweapons are a new kind of beast altogether to what we have been used to.

The important point in this is nowhere in the GK codex does it say that the daemonblade causes a wound on the user for rolling doubles. Is that right?

On the Eversor, his entry says his nero gauntlet counts as a lightening claw, does that mean he cannot have the extra attack for having a pistol as well since only two lightening claws grant +1A?

On the Culexus, in the old book, it clarifies that GK squads count as a single psyker for the Animus Speculum, but there is not such clarification in the new book that I can see. And considering the Brotherhood of psykers rule for GKs, that would suggest every single GK in a squad is a psyker. If that is the case, the Animus Speculum could get an insane shot number.

Sonikgav

04-03-2011, 05:20 PM

DarkLink

04-03-2011, 05:22 PM

There's no real downside to using a Daemonblade. Why would you expect their to be one?

And a unit of Grey Knights is a single psyker. GK units don't actually have the Psyker rule, they have the Brotherhood of Psyker rule, meaning the whole unit is a single psyker.

DarkLink

04-03-2011, 05:37 PM

The codex has to write +1 A or you would get no bonus from having a pair of falchions.

The BRB states that, by default, a pair of CCW gets +1A, regardless of whatever bonuses it has. A codex does not have to state this. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. A codex must contradict this in order to deny the +1A bonus for 2CCW, because that +1A is granted by default by the BRB.

Then explain why chainsabres only gives you +1 attack. "Some exarchs train in the use of blades paired with ancient guantlets that house twin-linked shuriken pistols, allowing them to level a storm of attacks at their foes. A model with chainsabres has +1A and can reroll all failed to hit and to wound rolls. page 33 of the Eldar codex. Note the use of the plural of blade in the text. So--paired melee weapons.

This is actually a good point, but think about why chainsabres only grant +1A. The Eldar codex is from 4th ed, when the rules were a little bit different. The +1A only carried over from the way the rules were written in 4th ed. The GK codex does not suffer from this problem.

In fact, I would argue that because the rules have changed since 4th ed, then chainsabres actually do grant an extra +1A.

Mirrorswords: Two power weapons that per the codex entry "A model with mirrorswords counts as having an extra hand weapon that grants +2 A instead of the usual +1." Page 31 of the eldar codex.

This doesn't contradict any of my argument. Mirrorswords explicitly replace the +1A bonus for 2CCW with a +2A bonus. Because it explicitly does this, it has no relevance to Falchions.

The precedent is there.

Only if you conveniently ignore the example that I've given. And since the several of the Marine codices that back up my point are written for 5th ed, there's stronger precedent on my side:p.

Now look at the GK entry. Which of the two eldar weapon entries is close to identical? Not the Mirrorswords, I'll tell you that. :)

Except Mirrorswords explicitly replace the bonus attack from 2CCW with something else. Chainsabres and Falchions do not do this.

Your example of paired lightning claws is slightly misleading. You pay points for both lightning claws. (15 for one, or 30 for the pair.) Falchions (ironically, just like chainsabres) are only a 5 point upgrade.

Unless you believe that a nemesis force sword is only worth 5 points?

The cost of an upgrade has no bearing whatsoever on what the rules actually say. And as you say below, when has GW cornered the market on sensibility :p.

And remember that Falchions are 10pts on GKSS/Interceptors, and Purifiers get their weapons for absurdly cheap. On the other hand, Terminators lose their invulnerable save bonus or their +2 I or their Thunderhammer in exchange for the extra attacks of a Falchion. When you look at it from that way, it's not just an extra attack for +5pts. You're getting extra attack(s) and you're losing other bonuses simultaneously.

I"m not claiming that they don't get the bonus for paired weapons. I'm saying that the +1A in the codex entry is that bonus. You don't get a freebee bonus A because it does not specifically say you do.

I see no reason why the +1A is the same as the bonus for having 2CCW. Is there a rule that says it is? Because I couldn't find one.

Tynskel

04-03-2011, 07:04 PM

So does that mean you don't get a +1A for lighting claws?

no, because the rulebook explicitly states the bonus for lightning claw pairs.

scadugenga

04-03-2011, 07:53 PM

Dark, you and I are going to disagree categorically on the paired falchions interpretation until GW settles the matter, I think.

Because the rules between 4th and 5th edition only got more restrictive re: the extra attack for having a second weapon, not the reverse. :)

wkz

04-03-2011, 07:58 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but (from memory) didn't the Nemesis force weapon section say something to the effect of "treat all Nemesis force weapons as a single weapon" or something?

Paired falchions = count as a single weapon with the benefit: +1 A.

hisdudeness

04-03-2011, 08:22 PM

no, because the rulebook explicitly states the bonus for lightning claw pairs.

Sooooo Assault Terminators with lighting claws don't get 3 attacks?

wkz

04-03-2011, 08:33 PM

Sooooo Assault Terminators with lighting claws don't get 3 attacks?
Erm, as much as I hate to agree with T outright, the rulebook DID say something about twin lightning claws and something about +1A...

I think what he meant was:
- The +1A was not mentioned inside the codex
- The +1A was mentioned inside the BRB.
- End effect: you get +1A.

Now for the falchions... which leads me back to the question in my post above: Is there or is there not a sentence inside the "Nemesis force weapon" general rules something to the effect of "treat all Nemesis force weapons as a single weapon"??

hisdudeness

04-03-2011, 08:44 PM

No, there is no such line.

The rule book says a second lighting claw grants a +1A.

wkz

04-03-2011, 08:54 PM

No, there is no such line.I assume this is for "treat all Nemesis force weapons as a single weapon" line that I apparently remembered wrongly? Gotcha.

The rule book says a second lighting claw grants a +1A.Erm, that is precisely what I said?

Tynskel

04-03-2011, 09:50 PM

p54 has the line that you are thinking about in the Grey Knight book. The last part of the box talks about Nemesis Force Weapon in the singular, and states that they each have one or more additional abilities.

as for the rulebook, the lightning claw rules specifically mention matched pairs. Then later the two weapon descriptions.

hisdudeness

04-04-2011, 05:30 AM

And because the BRB does not mention pair of nemesis force falchions they don’t get the standard +1A for being matched special weapons. Could the list is not all inclusive and only states (for examples) the common weapons at the time.

How about wolf claws? Do 2 of them not give the attack bonus? They are not listed in the BRB.

lattd

04-04-2011, 06:19 AM

Wolf claws are treated exactly as lightning claws.

Paul

04-04-2011, 12:49 PM

Wolf claws are treated exactly as lightning claws.

According to the space wolf codex.

DarkLink

04-04-2011, 03:40 PM

Are people seriously trying to argue that the codex needs to explicitly state that a weapon gains an additional attack for wielding a pair of special weapons? Really? Did you even bother to read the BRB?

Two normal CCW
These models gain one bonus attack (see pg. 37).

Two of the same special weapon
These models gain one additional attack. All their attacks, including the bonus attack, use the special weapon's bonuses and penalties.

Each engaged model strikes with the number of attacks (A) on its charactersitcs profile, plus the following bonus attacks:

...

+1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/or a pistol in each hand) get an extra +1A...

Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra attacks.

This is not complicated.

Tynskel

04-04-2011, 04:04 PM

no.
What we are saying is that the Falchions are considered ONE weapon that grants +1 attack.

Ex 1:
Mirrorswords: Some Banshee Exarchs have mastered a deadly ambidextrous sword-form that uses paired blades. A model with mirrorswords counts as having an extra hand weapon that grants +2 A instead of the usual +1 A. Mirrorswords ignore armor saves.

Ex 2:
Chainsabres: Some Exarchs train in the use of blades paired with ancient gauntlets that house twin-linked shuriken pistols, allowing them to level a storm of attacks at their foes. A model with chainsabres has +1 Aattack and can re-roll all failed to hit and to wound rolls.

The codex explicitly writes that a single 'paired' weapon grants +2 A, accounting for both the additional for 2 close combat weapons, and 1 for be a bad mofo. Whereas, the chainsabres are one weapon that grants +1 attack. The point is that the codex is explicit when stating you are getting both 2 weapon bonus and an additional bonus.

The Grey Knights Codex does not explicitly state that the two Falchions count as 2 separate close combat weapons. It only lists the weapon coming as a pair. Any time you purchase a weapon that is paired, the codex explicitly states what the bonus is, EXCEPT for the Lightning Claw, which is specifically listed in the Rulebook.

Also note the profile for the Death Cult assassin explicitly states 2 Power Weapons, not 'paired' power weapons.

The Grey Knight Falchions are only one weapon that has a special ability of granting +1 A, Daemonbane, and Force Weapon.

Xas

04-04-2011, 05:38 PM

It seams there are many intelligent people arguing because they didnt bother to carefully read their codex and rulebooks.

I present you some quotes* (with page and paragraph for easy reference) from all the relevant 5th edition codicies (bare the SW one which I do not own) as well as the 5th edition rulebook.

§1) BRB42,
"Two Single Handed Close Combat Weapons" -> 2nd sub-point "Two identical special Close Combat Weapons" <... +1A ...>

§2) BRB42,
"Special Close Combat Weapons" -> 1st sub-point "Power Weapon"

Verdict so far: Two Power Weapons confer the model in question +1A

§3) BRB50,
"Force Weapons", 1st paragraph <...Power Weapons...>

Verdict so far: Two Force Weapons confer the model in question +1A

$4) Codex: Grey Knights (C:GK) 54,
"Nemesis Force Weapons", 1st paragraph "Force Weapons" first sentence: <All Nemesis Force Weapons are Force Weapons, as described ...> the rest of the paragraph explains the special rule "A Brotherhood of Psykers".

"Nemesis Force Weapons", 3st paragraph "Additional Abilities": <Nemesis Forceweapons confer additional abiliities,... in addition to the rules for Force Weapons and Deamonbane.>

Verdict so far: Two Nemesis Force Weapons confer the model in question +1A (and can have additional abilities). So far it is nowhere stated that any type of NFW is anything but a common, one handed force weapon (with the potential of additional abilities).

$5) C:GK54, "Nemesis Falchions", 2nd pragraph: <A pair of Nemesis-Falchions grants +1 Attack>

Here I'll save the verdict for the moment as I'm capable of seeing the concepts behind believing that you dont get +2A total. For a fact we now know that in addition to beeing Force Weapons (and therefore power-weapons and therefore single handed special close combat weapons) "a pair of" falchions grants +1A on top of anything else.

People are questioning if the "pair" of falchions is considered one entity or two (getting another attack from 2 identical cc weapons) in terms of rules mechanics.

For the causa we allready have one interesting fact: The paragraphs name refers to the Falchion in the singular but the rules text requires an actual pair for +1A (so from a rules mechanics POV a single falchion would confer any additional abilities if it were an actual option).

Before I start listing all the paralels from other codicies I want to state and underline that the BRB* never talks about "pairs" of anything. on page 42, Subpoint "One normal and one special Close Combat weapon" it reads that Powerfists, Thunderhammers and Lightning Claws do not get a bonus attack from a normal close combat weapon but instead require a second, identical weapon to get the bonus attack for useing two close combat weapons.

Now off to the codex-comparison:

Space Marines 84 "Fists of Ultramar" <a pair of powerfists>
Space Marines 92 "The Raven's Claws" <a pair of mastercrafted lightnign claws>
Blood Angels 86 "Assoult Terminators" -> Wargear <pair of lightning claws>

Dark Eldar 31 "Demiklaives": <Demiklaives are power weapons that can either be wielded sperately- adding +2 to bearer's Attacks - ...>
Dark Eldar 86 "Incubi" -> "Charackter Options": < The klaivex may replace his klaive with: - Demiklaives >

C:GK 85 "Librarian" -> "Options": <...replace Nemesis-Force-Sword with the following:
- Nemesis Halber or Nemesis Deamonhammer....x points
- Pair of Nemesis Falchions .... y points
...>

The fist batch are examples of GW's use of the word "pair". All of these are used in a way where it is broadly accepted that the literal meaning is also the rules-mechanic meaning of "pair = two".

The Dark Eldar example showcases how GW is able to write clear rules when they mean that something is "one entity". The "Demiklaives" word at one hand indicates by useing a plural form that it is two blades but at same time allways is used as one word when dealing with rules. You replace the (one) klaive a klaivex has with (one) "demiklaives" and not "a pair of demiklaives".

(As a sidenote: The same technique of wording is also used with both Mirrorswords and Chainsabres. The exarchs in question both replace their pistol and ccw with the same gramatical entity as is listed when describing the wargear. Regardless of this a 4th edition codex is 100% irrelecant when discussing 5th edition wording.)

On the other side you have the grey knight codex which refers to "falchions" when listing it as a force weapon and then goes on to allow you to buy "a pair of falchions". if it were intended to be one entity "falchions" there would have been nothing easier as to write "may replace nemesis force sword with nemesis falchions". gw did use the word "pair" and therefore we have two plain power weapons that have the special ability to give another attack in addition to all of their other rules if equipped as a pair (coincidentally resulting in +2A as long as the current rules for close combat weapons are in effect. knowing GW the missing of a reference to the usual +1A from two ccw could indicate a change to rules in E6 or GW simply stepping away from referencing what core rules do in any codex. hell I could even imagine them changing it so that two identical ccw double your profile attack instead of only granting +1!).

Still without a FAQ there will be people that are stubborn and simply not accept the fact that "a pair" is "two" because GW didnt define it. All I can say to those people is: pray you never meet a mathematician that is up to screw you. GW didnt define that we use the decimal system for our army lists, nor the "common" mathematical operators seen for granted as +,-,x,:. Did you know that in hex you can get 19 squads of grey knights with 5 man and 1 psycannon for less than 1500 points? Yeah, thats what happens when you argue that everything has to be "defined" and all it messed with is the numerical base. A "common" person cannot even imagine what you can do with numbers when you start messing with operators as well :)

bottom line:
a Grey Knight Terminator with Falchions has 4 attacks when standing still (5 when charging or passing it's counter-charge test)

*If you find your localiced version to be different please do an exact quote because if it is so we will have stumbled upon another translation error by GW that hasnt surfaced yet.

Tynskel

04-04-2011, 07:15 PM

armbarred

04-04-2011, 08:48 PM

If 40k had the same 'Paired Weapon' clause/classification that WFB has I would believe that there is no extra bonus. But the codex defines the purchase as a pair of falchions, that same wording as a pair of lightning claws... which are special weapons that should have been mentioned under the same clause as Thunderhammers etc, and then I think this wouldn't be an issue at all.

I believe that the +1A mentioned is in addition to the bonus from being two weapons. I can see it both ways though, and hope there is a FAQ soon.

Rapture

04-04-2011, 09:05 PM

Space Marines 84 "Fists of Ultramar" <a pair of powerfists>

bottom line:
a Grey Knight Terminator with Falchions has 4 attacks when standing still (5 when charging or passing it's counter-charge test)

Don't the gauntlets you are referring to also contain a PAIR of bolters? They are only one weapon. Getting hung up on a single word doesn't work. There has to be clear rules, just like the case of Calgar's bolters or the rules regarding a pair of lightning claws.

bottom line:
The rules are unclear regarding how many attacks a Grey Knight Terminator with a pair of Falchions has are unclear

wkz

04-04-2011, 09:48 PM

so,

what about the Eldar Exarch examples? Gunna throw them out?
Note the lightning claws are specifically worded in the Rulebook.

Pair of weapons in every instance states whether the weapon grants +1 or +2 attacks. In this case it grants +1 for the Falchions.

He did mention the Exarch examples. Please read carefully.

Plus, in case you didn't: Paired weapons = +1A. THAT is also inside the BRB, under "Two of the same Special Weapons"...

Don't the gauntlets you are referring to also contain a PAIR of bolters? They are only one weapon. Getting hung up on a single word doesn't work. There has to be clear rules, just like the case of Calgar's bolters or the rules regarding a pair of lightning claws.Yes, Calgar's bolters contain a pair of bolters... which is actually DESCRIBED as something else in the rules. (I think the codex specifically says they count as a twinlinked bolter...)

Paired Lightning claws fall back to the BRB for that +1A however, as with any paired special weapons of the same type.

bottom line:
The rules are unclear regarding how many attacks a Grey Knight Terminator with a pair of Falchions has are unclearI'll agree with this. But I like Xas's explanation the best so far...

Tynskel

04-05-2011, 06:00 AM

yet, the examples he gives, the term paired is either in the rulebook (lightning claws) or is explicitly stated within the codex under the number of bonus attacks (Dark Eldar).

However, if you rule that Paired weapons grant +1 attack for the 2 cc weapons rules, then the Dark Eldar +2 attacks doesn't explicitly state the attacks include the +1 for two weapons, so that weapon actually adds +3 attacks.

The Grey Knights codex doesn't state that the Falchions are actually two separate weapons. They are listed as one weapon that always comes in a pair that adds +1 attack.

scadugenga

04-05-2011, 06:20 AM

He did mention the Exarch examples. Please read carefully.

He mentioned them, but did not examine them carefully, as they completely disagree with his argument.

Chainsabres: multiple weapons (specifically 4, 2 sabres & 2 pistols) that only provide +1 attack. The codex is painfully clear on this point.*

Mirrorswords: Another pair of weapons that specifically mentions getting a second bonus attack on top of the normal +1.

Bring on your mathematician, it doesn't mean he necessarily can interpret the RAW of the game any better than I can. :)

Bottom line, Xas & Darklink want +2 attacks, so they are going to play that way until they are told otherwise by GW.

I've been playing eldar since RT days, and am very familiar with the limits/writing of the current eldar codex, so I will be playing my GK as RAW: Falchions are +1 attack for two weapons, nothing more.

GW will need to faq it to determine who is actually correct.

*sadly, even if they were meant to be +2 attacks, chainsabres are still utter fail. ;)

Tynskel

04-05-2011, 08:05 PM

*sadly, even if they were meant to be +2 attacks, chainsabres are still utter fail. ;)

hahahaha!

Gir

04-05-2011, 09:56 PM

He mentioned them, but did not examine them carefully, as they completely disagree with his argument.

Chainsabres: multiple weapons (specifically 4, 2 sabres & 2 pistols) that only provide +1 attack. The codex is painfully clear on this point.*

Mirrorswords: Another pair of weapons that specifically mentions getting a second bonus attack on top of the normal +1.

Bring on your mathematician, it doesn't mean he necessarily can interpret the RAW of the game any better than I can. :)

Bottom line, Xas & Darklink want +2 attacks, so they are going to play that way until they are told otherwise by GW.

I've been playing eldar since RT days, and am very familiar with the limits/writing of the current eldar codex, so I will be playing my GK as RAW: Falchions are +1 attack for two weapons, nothing more.

GW will need to faq it to determine who is actually correct.

*sadly, even if they were meant to be +2 attacks, chainsabres are still utter fail. ;)

This is a 4th ed vs 5th ed codex comparison, and therefore is meaningless.

At the end of the day, Falchions are 2 identical special close combat weapon, and according to the BRB, this provides +1 attack. The weapons also have a special rule that gives them an additional +1 attack if you take 2. This really isn't that difficult, it's all clearly in the rules.

scadugenga

04-06-2011, 05:20 AM

This is a 4th ed vs 5th ed codex comparison, and therefore is meaningless.

At the end of the day, Falchions are 2 identical special close combat weapon, and according to the BRB, this provides +1 attack. The weapons also have a special rule that gives them an additional +1 attack if you take 2. This really isn't that difficult, it's all clearly in the rules.

You try to make the edition distinction sound as if it means anything in this argument.

Please explain then, how close combat became more restrictive with bonus attacks in 5th edition and why that somehow invalidates 4th edition codices?

Answer? It doesn't.

However, for the sake of redundancy, let's look at a 5th edition codex--the Dark Eldar 'dex.

Hydra Gauntlets: specifically uses the wording "two close combat weapons" in the entry and also clearly states they get +d6 attacks instead of the normal +1.

In fact, every Wych entry for special cc weapons states "counts as two close combat weapons."

A more precise entry would be demi-klaves under the Incubi entry. "these are power weapons that can be wielded separately" (IE 2 close combat weapons) "for +2 attacks"... See--an entry for two weapons that specifically states the bonus is more than just the normal +1.

In every codex entry, it states "counts as two close combat weapons.'

In the eldar codex, it does not state "counts as two close combat weapons" and so specifically states a +1 attack (chainsabres) or +2 attacks (mirrorblades).

Interestingly enough, the GK codex more closely parallels the original eldar codex in wording.

So, your 4th vs 5th argument is null.

And Falchions only give +1 attack, not +2. Because it specifically states +1. It doesn't say "an additional +1," nor does it state anywhere in the codex entry "count as two close combat weapons."

Gir

04-06-2011, 05:34 AM

So 2 Lightning claws don't give +1 attack. Awesome.

Tynskel

04-06-2011, 06:25 AM

So 2 Lightning claws don't give +1 attack. Awesome.

no, because the Rulebook directly addresses Lightning Claws.

plawolf

04-06-2011, 06:35 AM

But Nemesis Falchions did not exist when the BBB was written, thus it is meaningless say argue that it wasn't specifically mentioned in the BBB.

My question for those arguing that 2 falchions do not give +1A for 2 identical CCW is, if that is the case, why bother mentioning the +1A in the rules for it at all?

If the rules for the falchions did not specifically state it gives +1A, and if the arthur simply intended them to only give +1A for 2 identical CCW, would it not have been easier and less confusing to just not mention the +1A at all and simply say they are treated as a pair of nemesis force weapons?

plawolf

04-06-2011, 06:42 AM

Anyways, another question I would like clearing up is on Justicar Thawn.

His rules says he does not give up a kill point so long as he is alive no matter how many times he has been killed.

That is clear enough, but what I am unsure of is how this rule applies to his squad. Specifically, if Thawn was the last man standing from his squad, is killed but subsequently reanimates.

Now, theory one would say his squad has been destroyed and grants a kill point, but when Thawn reanimates, he is in effect a new unit of 1, and would grant an additional kill point if he is subsequently killed again and stays dead.

Theory two states since he is an upgrade character for the squad that bought him, so so long as he is alive, his original squad has not been destroyed and does not grant a kill point.

I am leaning towards theory 1, but I can kinda see how theory 2 would make sense as well.

Gir

04-06-2011, 07:06 AM

no, because the Rulebook directly addresses Lightning Claws.

The big rule book only states that they do not gain the +1a bonus for combining a special weapon and a close combat weapon.

WillyRapier

04-06-2011, 07:40 AM

" nor does it state anywhere in the codex entry "count as two close combat weapons."

It does however state verbatim "invariably weilded as a pair". and WYSISYG, there are two of them.

the argument is moot because there is a definite error in the phrasing. Either they're too vague as to how you should count the weapons, or they got too specific in that they re-stated the +1 rule when there was no need. It will require a FAQ mention (because nobody else can rule on it) but in the meantime...

As written in the codex: "the weilder of a pair of Nemesis falchions has +1 attack" (P54, emphasis mine). As written when only considering the codex, this means that the result is a +1, not +2.

however the BRB, which is neither overriding this rule, nor superceded by it , states in the "Fighting with two single handed weapons" section, when two of the same specal weapon are weilded, "the user gains an additional attack" (P42). As written considering this additional rule, this means that the result is a +2, not +1. +1 from the codex, +1 from the BRB.

As an aside, there is nothing to dictate that two lightning claws doesnt give +1 attacks, for precisely the same reason. They are, again, single-handed weapons, of which your model has two, and therefore the rule comes into effect. The only thing mentioned in the BRB about lightning claws is that you get the ability to reroll wounds. (Before anyone argues that this means you get two re-rolls for two claws, think again. There is a universal rule (a page reference currently escapes me) which says that you can never reroll and reroll. )

ComVlad

04-06-2011, 07:30 PM

Apologies for interrupting the falchion argument but in regards to the crucible of malediction. The book states that the psychic pilot rule is "treated as being a psyker (mastery 1) and ld10 for the purposes of psychic test and psychic hoods" which raises the question of whether the crucible affects it since the RAW doesn't state that the vehicle itself is an actual psyker. I definitely agree that the spirit is that they are in fact psykers and intend to treat them as such(Ii am a GK player myself) however if someone can point me to a good argument on the subject I would greatly appreciate it.

DarkLink

04-06-2011, 08:27 PM

Yeah, it's kinda a tricky issue. And if it does hit vehicles, what happens to the passengers inside?

Wildcard

04-07-2011, 06:07 AM

1) Do Grey Knight models with wristmounted stormbolters get another attack from it in CC (just like you get 1 from the pistol)
-(I can't find yes or no from the codex, yet however i have got this in my head from somewhere, could be rumours, could be BoLS forums, could be something else entirely...)
-- Problem here, if you shoot a stormbolter(assault, not pistol -type) you can't hit with any other nemesis weapon than basic sword(staff, hammer, halberd, double falchions apparently require both hands, atleast on non-terminator models???.)

2) What does "wristmounted" affect, if it affects anything at all?
-I can't find "wristmounted" stated anywhere in the codex, although it is apparent that stormbolters are in reference to every picture and model i've seen so far..

3) Since Paladin apo replaces hes storm bolter with narthecium, does this affect melee attacks in some way?
-(if i remember right, it was in BA codex where it was stated that nartheciums act as a some kind cc-attack, though i can't remember in what manner..)

4) Does Hammerhands +1str get added to the total strenght of the attack before or after the strenght doubling rule of for excample: Nemesis Daemon Hammer?
- So is a GK with base str 4 hitting a target using NDH (after using hammerhand) with str 9 (4x2+1) or 10 ((4+1)*2)?
--This makes me wonder, because it is stated on p.25 that "Hammerhand: ...Note that this Strenght bonus is applied before any other modifiers, such as for Nemesis Daemon Hammers and so forth.." HOWEVER it is stated on core rulebook that all modifiers to strenght are added after the strenght doubling effects (or in some similar manner..)

Is there something that i have just missed or haven't understood? Or are these problems something that require deeper inspection? :)

scadugenga

04-07-2011, 06:23 AM

Wildcard

04-07-2011, 06:48 AM

1) No. GK lost the "True Grit" ability that let them count their storm bolters as an extra CC weapon.

Just to be crystal clear on this, since first game on GK coming on next weekend :)

1) If I shoot with stormbolter, and assault on the following phase, only force weapon that can be used is the nemesis force sword (since others are 2 handed or wielded in pairs)
-This being the case with power armored grey knights

2) Can terminator grey knights use all "2handed" weapons single handedly, thus fire stormbolters (or any weapons they have) and yet use halberds, hammers or pair of falchions in assault phase?

My assumptions are based on the understanding of rules that if a "normal space marine" shoots, say a meltagun (assault 1) and assaults the target afterwards. now, if the marine had a power sword, he could not use it in CC, since he used a weapon that requires two hands to shoot.. So I figured it would work another way around aswell..

Thanks for the reply. Other questions were answered cleared things out :)

bluesickboy

04-07-2011, 07:14 AM

as a side note, the dreadknight does not gain an additional att for two doomfists either.
DCCW entry in the BRB says walkers gain +1 att for each additional DCCW after the first.

I had to call GW because my Sword was molded poorly and their take on the matter was rather confusing, he said the hammer was the only way to get str 10. but then he said that 2 doomfists gave +1 att, so that just goes to show that even GW doesnt know whats going on with these issues.

also, personal teleporters on dreadkight uses the rules from the interseptors. their rules say they become jump inf, obviously dreadknights shouldn't (Nids, Daemon Princes...) But RAW...

WillyRapier

04-07-2011, 07:42 AM

Ok...on the issue of Storm Bolters...

Am i not right in thinking that assault weapons are never used in a close combat phase? An Assault Weapon, such as the Storm Bolter, is not a close combat weapon - only Pistols count as CC weapons (unless otherwise stated), and can be used with another single-handed weapon for +1 attack.

The only thing about an assault weapon is that you can fire it in the shooting phase, and still assault in the assault phase. (P28, BRB)

@ WildCard: If you look to the rules, NF Swords, halberds, hammers etc are all two-handed weapons. only the NF Falchions are single-handed weapons; that's how you can carry two of them...

[Edit] hrrms...Now that i look to the rules myself, i cant find the "NFS are two-handed" rule that i thought i saw before...I'll keep looking, but for the moment...my bad; sorry WildCard :embarassed face:

Tynskel

04-07-2011, 08:15 AM

it is okay.

they don't list the falchion as two separate weapons either, just as a pair.
Up for interpretation!

Wildcard

04-07-2011, 08:51 AM

Hmm.. there must be some fundamental error in understanding of my part.. does it matter if a ranged weapon is "one or two handed"?...

Apparently boltgun is comphrehended as a two handed gun, as is lasgun, but i can't find it stated anywhere that they have to be fired using both hands.. So, how is this really worked out? if i shoot with a weapon, am i free to use whatever closecombat weapons after i have assaulted?

-Hypotethical example: you have a (generally thought) 2handed assault-type weapon (melta, psycannon etc) and a power weapon + pistol.
If i shoot with meltagun, can i use a) meltaguns to hit in cc, b) only powersword, c) powersword and pistol ?
( I only found a statement in rulebook that said that if you use 2handed melee weapon, like a big axe, you cant use any other weapon)

@Willyrapier:
Page 54 GK codex, wargear section: "...Nemesis halberds are two-handed weapons, in addition, the wielder of a nemesis halberd strikes at +x ini..." (last two lines)

Apparently "twohandedness" was just an assumption of mine, since Nemesis Halberds are only weapons said to be two handed..

Even the warding stave doesn't say its 2handed, so i believe it is 1handed aswell..

Rulebook. p.42 Thunderhammer: "...thunderhammer uses the same rules as a powerfist, in addition..." so, this does not say that it is one handed or two handed, only that it acts like a pfist.

One thing that bothers me though still is that can you use only 1 of the falchions (even if you bought 2), if there is a need (for any reason yet to be discovered from the intriqued workings of the new dex :) )

Jwolf

04-07-2011, 09:04 AM

The claim that the obviously going to be FAQed two DCCW on Voltron doesn't result in +1 attack for them, while valid in a pure RAW sense, is clearly not going to be what is FAQed, so why even bother taking that position?

@ Wildcard - The weapon you shoot with in the shooting phase has no impact on what you fight with in assault, unless you fire Rapid Fire or Heavy and are not Relentless or MC(in which case you cannot assault).

Wildcard

04-07-2011, 09:36 AM

@ Wildcard - The weapon you shoot with in the shooting phase has no impact on what you fight with in assault....

JWolf: Is it said so somewhere in the rulebook, or has it FAQ:d or, as a non-native english speaker, has there been just a lack of understanding of wordings on the quotes cursived part? (Cos this will surely come up on our little gaming group :) )

The thing that must have caused this misunderstanding on my part is that we have always played so that "you use the weapon in cc you use to shoot.." so no holstering meltagun after the shot and drawing a sword and pistol before running headalong into the melee :)

Thanks for the replies, this has helped a lot to understand the basic rules, and clarify most of the things i've had in my mind over the new codex!

WillyRapier

04-07-2011, 09:38 AM

the falchions rule has been argued six ways from Sunday, and until GW rule on it, we're stuck with interpretations that can go both ways. I'm not gonna get drawn into it here as well, i tells you ("sticks fingers in his ears and hums*)

effectively, as you run in with your assault weapon, you blaze away on the way in, then holster it/throw it away (because if you win you can go back and get it, if you dont you'll be dead and the fact that you dropped your bigger gun really wont bother you all that much)/have it magically levitate while you *****slap your enemy (these are psykers...think about it ;-)) and draw your combat weapons in order to let pwnage commence.

As JWolf says, what weapon you fire in the shooting phase has no effect on the weapons that you use in the assault phase...they just affect whether you can assault in the assault phase :)

Jwolf

04-07-2011, 10:06 AM

There is nothing in the current edition of the rules that requires you to use the weapon you fired to fight in close combat. So, for instance, Chaos Rapters can fire their Meltaguns then charge into combat with their Bolt Pistols and Close Combat Weapons in hand.

The use of slings and holsters is the #1 reason that Space Marines fall to Chaos or (more often) halfway there and end up Space Wolves.

WereWolf_nr

04-07-2011, 12:59 PM

Tynskel

04-07-2011, 02:55 PM

The use of slings and holsters is the #1 reason that Space Marines fall to Chaos or (more often) halfway there and end up Space Wolves.

Space Marine Honorguards are on the brink of Damnation!

Aegis

04-07-2011, 04:05 PM

Did not see this one fielded, so I figured I would throw it out there...

How does Psybolt Ammo interact wtih stormbolters/hurricane bolters on vehicles? At S4, they are defensive. With the psybolt ammo, they become S5. Would the weapons then lose the defensive tag, or would you still be able to fire them, in addition to a single main weapon upon moving?

I would love the answer to be that they do not lose the defensive weapon tag, but having S5 hurricane bolters being able to fire after a stormraven moves seems a bit over powered...

Gir

04-07-2011, 05:44 PM

was going to disagree, but nevermind....

Yeah, in actual RAW DCCW can only be equipped on Dreadnoughts, making the Dreadknight an illegal unit.

Kawauso

04-07-2011, 06:20 PM

DarkLink

04-07-2011, 07:49 PM

Yeah, in actual RAW DCCW can only be equipped on Dreadnoughts, making the Dreadknight an illegal unit.

Well, not exactly. They just can't benifit from the doubled str, unfortunately, as the rules are worded as if only walkers had them. They still get the power weapon thing, though. Hopefully GW is paying enough attention to fix this.

Aegis

04-07-2011, 08:30 PM

Whether or not a weapon is defensive depends on its strength. 4 and lower is defensive. 5 and above is not.

Psybolt ammo makes weapons that fire 'bolts' S5 instead of S4. They cease being defensive weapons.
That was what I expected. I guess the beardy player in me was hoping the ammo would not count as it was an upgrade... For the best.

Docmani

04-08-2011, 07:39 AM

Well, not exactly. They just can't benifit from the doubled str, unfortunately, as the rules are worded as if only walkers had them. They still get the power weapon thing, though. Hopefully GW is paying enough attention to fix this.

The Dreadknight is a monsterous creature and already ignores armor saves so, as written, doomfists can be activated as a force weapon (and an extra attack if you have two), but confer no extra advantage.

I think the intent was to make doomfists double the strength, but since DCCW rules only refer to walkers it muddies the issue. My guess is, when this gets FAQ'd they will double the strength, but right now its confusing.

Its akin to giving a power weapon to a vehicle without a WS or saying infantry can ignore weapon destroyed results on the vehicle damage chart. The rules don't fit.

Hexx

04-09-2011, 11:30 AM

When do you think the FAQ will be out?

DarkLink

04-09-2011, 02:59 PM

Considering how long ago Bolter and Chainsword put together the list in the OP of this thread, GW could and should have released it directly alongside the codex. It's pathetic.

Kawauso

04-09-2011, 03:07 PM

Considering how long ago Bolter and Chainsword put together the list in the OP of this thread, GW could and should have released it directly alongside the codex. It's pathetic.

It really is.

I mean, I understand how things slip through the cracks in a vast game full of complex rules and combinations, but the GK codex has so many holes in it that it's pretty embarrassing.

There are far, far too many things open to interpretation - even for a game with a rule structure as ridiculously 'flexible' as 40k.

The Mystic

04-09-2011, 05:37 PM

Well, not exactly. They just can't benifit from the doubled str, unfortunately, as the rules are worded as if only walkers had them. They still get the power weapon thing, though. Hopefully GW is paying enough attention to fix this.

You guys are missing the first line in the paragraph stateing what it is.

"The Nemesis Doomfist is a Dreadnought-sized power fist, augmented by Nemesis circuitry."

So it is a power fist that also follows the rules for DCCW's plus the rules for monstrous creatures rolled into the mix aswell!

Very strange rules writeing........:confused:

DarkLink

04-09-2011, 06:41 PM

That's particularly funny, because a DCCW isn't a powerfist. So calling a Doomfist a powerfist and a DCCW is... an odd way of phrasing it. Wow, GW.

thecactusman17

04-09-2011, 07:17 PM

Do powerfists explicitly not work on walkers? Because unless they don't, there is nothing wrong with the ruling that it counts as a powerfist. It would solve any rules interpretations, given that "is a dread sized powerfist" is right there in the description.

DarkLink

04-09-2011, 08:47 PM

No, it's that a DCCW is a power weapon that doubles str to a max of 10 for walkers, not a power fist. Not quite the same thing. So saying that a Doomfist is a DCCW that is a powerfist is very odd.

Incidentally, if it is a power fist and not a DCCW, then you double strength but strike at I 1. Walkers have no rule that causes them to ignore the "strike at I 1" for power fists, because walkers have DCCW and not power fists.

Wildcard

04-11-2011, 05:51 AM

DadExtraordinaire

04-11-2011, 08:39 AM

That's particularly funny, because a DCCW isn't a powerfist. So calling a Doomfist a powerfist and a DCCW is... an odd way of phrasing it. Wow, GW.

I do not find it odd as such but found this is GW's way of bringing in a new weapon. Firstly, the Dreadknight is a Monstrous Creature so gets all the benefits of that troop type. Secondly, the description of Nemisis Doomfists is clear as day it is a Dreadnought sized powerfist weapon, and it then states it follows the rules for dreadnought close combat weapons. Thirdly, it gets the benefits of Nemisis Force weapons, so it gets daemonbane, and force weapon capabilities. Therefore the Dreadknight gets double strength up to max 10 strength (see DCCW rules), daemonbane, force weapon.........pretty neat weapon as I see it although I can see why some people will be asking for clarification on the rules......(GW in their infinite wisdom seemed to have written the rules as if we already know what they were thinking at the time of writing the codex).....not good for tournaments however, when they need absolute cast iron, water tight rules that state it implicitly....

Good topic by the way, informative and interesting to see peoples views on the codex and rules....

somerandomdude

04-11-2011, 08:42 PM

Not that RaI matters a whole lot, but having a Doomfist double the Dreadknight's strength makes the 10 point Daemon Hammer upgrade (and special text regarding the Dreadknight) nearly useless*. This, along with everything presented by Darklink & Co., not only suggests how it works now, but how it will work post-FAQ.

*"Nearly useless" because it does cause additional damage results and drop enemies to I1 if they survive the round.

wkz

04-11-2011, 11:30 PM

How would GK Champions "The Perfect Warrior" work against Mephiston of Blood Angels?

RAW states that Rapier strike must be directed against single Independent Character or Monstrous Creature.
Yet, mephiston is "Infantry" and not "IC".

This would lead into a situation where brotherhood champion was allowed to make only one attack (even though if it charged) from the "Sword Storm"-mode.

What do you think, is this a "flaw in design" or "intended feature"?Mephiston is one of those rare breed in the 5th edition: a single model which is not an IC (there are other examples if you look hard enough... lone wolves come to mind).

Thus, yes to your RAW question: you cannot target Mephiston with that, because he is technically "Infantry".

But lets put it this way: Not having IC status means Mephiston will have trouble staying alive before hitting the GK line anyways...
...
*rereads "Perfect Warrior"*
...
I guess going toe-to-toe with "one model units" such as Mephiston is about the worst tactical choice you can make as a Brotherhood Champion.

Another case, almost a "fun fun fun"-scale case, was when oppoenent granted only 1 attack to the Champion with clever positioning of models during "defenders reaction to assault move"
(This was mostly rant etc, without actual question.. although you may comment this if you like)Perhaps.

Seems like Brotherhood Champions are best used by either attaching him to a very small squad and attacking a much bigger enemy squad, attacking an enemy squad with an IC (and making darn well you put the champ in BtB with said IC), or splitting him off a squad at the last minute and charging an enemy by his lonesome...

3rd thing with the Champion was: after he dies, and he gets to use "Heroic Sacrifice":
1) Does it require psychic test, and does it consume the 1 psychic test for the unit in a turn?
2) And which player desides the model hit by "Heroic Sacrifice"? (and can it be directed towards ic / mc that is part of the cc, given that model was in base contact)?1) I would believe so. Thus if you used up his psychic power for the phase, you cannot cast this power.

Also note that he is an IC, with all that it implies... also note that HammerHand can be cast by the UNIT he is attached to, but he (as an IC) CAN still benefit from it (due to HammerHand description) and still being able to cast one more psychic power...

2) You need to read the "Heroic Sacrifice" rule, all of these are already explained:
- It activates when the dude is "removed as a casualty".
- The target is "one enemy model that was in base contact". Since Models is a catch-all term that refers to just about everything (in the BRB), it means you can go after any grots, infantry, elites, tanks, walkers, IC, MC, Super-heavy, TITANS AND BIO-TITANS, etc... with this power, you might just take out a swarmlord in one hit (without even needing "to wound" or granting any kind of save, normal, cover or invulnerable).

Hell, this guy can take out a IMPERATOR TITAN in one hit. Sorta like Lucas the Trickster, to be honest.

Of course, knowing my luck, I'll either roll either 11 or 12 for psychic test, or flubb the "to hit" roll...

Ghostofman

04-12-2011, 01:30 PM

Quote:
6: Astral Aim allows a Purgation squad to ignore LoS. Can a Purgation Squad embarked on a vehicle use Astral Aim to shoot more wepaons than would be allowed by any Fire Points?

Probably not.

They can't, and here's why:

While Astral aim allows you to ignore LOS, it doesn't allow you to ignore range, and that's where this issue is actually resolved. When measuring range from a unit embarked in a closed topped vehicle you still have to measure range from the fire point. If a vehicle doesn't have fire points, then you have no legal "start" point for your measuring, and by extension no valid range measurment.

Basically, without a fire point, a unit in a closed topped vehicle has a range of NotValid" so even with Astral Aim, you still will always "miss" because you can't get a valid range measurement.

DarkLink

04-12-2011, 04:41 PM

Ghostofman

04-12-2011, 05:09 PM

Close, but not quite.

Units aren't allowed to shoot out of a vehicle with no firepoint. This is not because they can't draw LOS or don't have range. It's because they can't shoot out of a vehicle without a fireport to do so. Literally.

Not having to draw LOS doesn't have anything to do with the issue, really.

I don't have the BRB on me to quote, but if you look in there you should see something to the effect of "units embarked in a transport may not shoot unless they have a fireport". That's obviously paraphrased, and they may use different wording, but I'm pretty sure they don't say "units embarked can't draw LOS, so they can't shoot".

If someone would dig up the relevant quotes, that'd be appreciated.

I'm lookin, believe me I am. 66 says that if you have fire points you can shoot measuring from the point, and 70 says that opened topped allow shooting and measuring from hulls, and 15 says running, grounded and models in close combat can't shoot, but I've yet to find the line that automatically says if you're in a vehicle you can't shoot. I actually suspect they intentionally avoided saying that so they wouldn't accidently make a ported or open topped vehicle that couldn't be shot from due to an editing problem.

I have however, noticed that the "You can't draw LOS without a fire point but you don't need to with Astral Aim" is the primary arguement supporting the rules issue though. That's why I pointed out the range issue, it's a clear RAW situation that the power doesn't override.

Tynskel

04-12-2011, 06:00 PM

I'm lookin, believe me I am. 66 says that if you have fire points you can shoot measuring from the point, and 70 says that opened topped allow shooting and measuring from hulls, and 15 says running, grounded and models in close combat can't shoot, but I've yet to find the line that automatically says if you're in a vehicle you can't shoot. I actually suspect they intentionally avoided saying that so they wouldn't accidently make a ported or open topped vehicle that couldn't be shot from due to an editing problem.

I have however, noticed that the "You can't draw LOS without a fire point but you don't need to with Astral Aim" is the primary arguement supporting the rules issue though. That's why I pointed out the range issue, it's a clear RAW situation that the power doesn't override.

The rulebook does not state that you cannot fire out of a vehicle, directly. However, the wording inherently implies that you cannot fire out of a vehicle, unless you have 1) fire points, or 2) open topped.

The wording, p. 66:
A transport may have a number of fire points defined in its entry. A fire point is a hatch or a gun slit from which one or more passengers inside the vehicle can fire (or use a psychic power).

The language implies that if you do not have a fire point you may not fire. This is not related to LOS, of which the Astral Aim rules refer to.

Gir

04-12-2011, 06:08 PM

16: Polymorphine: If the wounds from Polymorphine wipe out a unit, is the Callidus automatically killed since she cannot be placed within 3" of anyone? Or would she suffer a deep strike mishap, potentially coming back again next round on another unit? What happens if there are no enemy units on the board when she comes out of reserve?

This was explained on the GW website today. You place the assassin within 3" of where the squad was if you level it (the common sense ruling).

wkz

04-12-2011, 06:40 PM

The rulebook does not state that you cannot fire out of a vehicle, directly. However, the wording inherently implies that you cannot fire out of a vehicle, unless you have 1) fire points, or 2) open topped.

The wording, p. 66:
A transport may have a number of fire points defined in its entry. A fire point is a hatch or a gun slit from which one or more passengers inside the vehicle can fire (or use a psychic power).

The language implies that if you do not have a fire point you may not fire. This is not related to LOS, of which the Astral Aim rules refer to.

I'm lookin, believe me I am. 66 says that if you have fire points you can shoot measuring from the point, and 70 says that opened topped allow shooting and measuring from hulls, and 15 says running, grounded and models in close combat can't shoot, but I've yet to find the line that automatically says if you're in a vehicle you can't shoot. I actually suspect they intentionally avoided saying that so they wouldn't accidently make a ported or open topped vehicle that couldn't be shot from due to an editing problem.

I have however, noticed that the "You can't draw LOS without a fire point but you don't need to with Astral Aim" is the primary arguement supporting the rules issue though. That's why I pointed out the range issue, it's a clear RAW situation that the power doesn't override.

Erm... dudes... next paragraph for Mr T, previous sentence for Mr Ghostofman:
"Unless specified differently in the vehicle's entry, a single passenger may fire out of a fire point and the other transported models may not fire"

No port, no firing.

(How in the world is this missed???)

Xeroen

04-13-2011, 03:28 AM

7: Can you Master Craft a Grenade? What about an Orbital Strike Relay? Silly, I know, but it says it's treated as a weapon. And listed with the rest of the Weapons.

I'd say no to grenades as they come under a different heading of the wargear section.

As for the OSR, I'd say yes as it is in the weapons section - useful for if the blast scatters to where it hits nothing.

7: As the Dark Eldar Cruicible of Malediction forces a Leadership test, are Grey Kngiht vechiles effected by this? If they are and they fail, are they removed from play? If the vehicle is also a Transport, what happens to any embarked units? Are they also removed from play?

The psychic pilot special rule states that the vehicle counts as a psyker when it comes to psychic tests and psychic hoods. At the point when Crucible of Malediction is being used, the vehicle is not a psyker and therefore immune to its effects.

Those are my interpretations of the rules at least.

armbarred

04-13-2011, 07:51 PM

Heroic Sacrifice will not work onGargantuan Creatures or Super Heavies... as they are immune to psychic powers that do not have a strength value. Heroic Sacrifice is a psychic power.

wkz

04-13-2011, 08:36 PM

plawolf

04-14-2011, 06:55 AM

I guess going toe-to-toe with "one model units" such as Mephiston is about the worst tactical choice you can make as a Brotherhood Champion.
.

Unless the intention was to suicide the Champ and hope to take old crazy eyes with him. ;) I mean, you wouldn't really expect the champ to actually beat him would you? So that must be the intent all along for the GK player to match the champ against one of the deadliest CC monsters in the game.

It is the BA player who would be making a huge tactical mistake in letting Meph get into CC with a champ to start with.

jorz192

04-14-2011, 04:40 PM

Can Hammer hand be cast more than once on a squad to add +2 S to the unit?

plawolf

04-14-2011, 05:21 PM

Can Hammer hand be cast more than once on a squad to add +2 S to the unit?

No, but Might of Titan specifically states it stacks with hammerhand, so that's how you get S6 termies of old back. (of course, you can now do that with any squad and do not need to restrict yourself to termies).

Of course, if you also take quickening, you have S6 I10 power weapons/force weapons. If you also take an ordo xenos =I= (cheaper but HQ) or techmarine (more expensive but Elite) with rad grenades, you have S6, I10 power weapons against MEQ who suddenly become T3 (also applies to instant death threshold), thus removing the dilemma of deciding to cast hammerhand or activate force weapons against MEQ.

Lerra

04-15-2011, 06:46 AM

Can Hammer hand be cast more than once on a squad to add +2 S to the unit?

They don't stack, but you can cast Hammerhands twice if you want (for example, if you fail the first one).

WillyRapier

04-15-2011, 07:40 AM

Heroic Sacrifice will not work onGargantuan Creatures or Super Heavies... as they are immune to psychic powers that do not have a strength value. Heroic Sacrifice is a psychic power.

As with many things like this, it depends upon whom the psychic power is cast. Which is not clear in the slightest from the way the rule is written. However, since "if the test is passed, the Brotherhood Champion immediately makes a single attack" sounds like the power affects the champion, enabling him to make the attack. In this case, therefore, the "Gargantuan creatures and superheavies are immune to psychic powers" point is technically moot. The attack is not psychic, the ability to make it comes from a psychic power.

Though I would agree that they shouldnt be affected, i havent seen anything written that would make it so...

Loken

04-18-2011, 08:46 AM

2) You need to read the "Heroic Sacrifice" rule, all of these are already explained:
- It activates when the dude is "removed as a casualty".
- The target is "one enemy model that was in base contact". Since Models is a catch-all term that refers to just about everything (in the BRB), it means you can go after any grots, infantry, elites, tanks, walkers, IC, MC, Super-heavy, TITANS AND BIO-TITANS, etc... with this power, you might just take out a swarmlord in one hit (without even needing "to wound" or granting any kind of save, normal, cover or invulnerable).

Hell, this guy can take out a IMPERATOR TITAN in one hit. Sorta like Lucas the Trickster, to be honest.

Of course, knowing my luck, I'll either roll either 11 or 12 for psychic test, or flubb the "to hit" roll...

I can tell you that those of us who play Apocalypse regularly don't allow Lukas or a Brotherhood Champion to affect Titans. Makes no sense. Call it a House Rule.

The Apocalypse 40K Blog (http://apocalypse40k.blogspot.com/)

The Apocalypse 40K forums (http://www.apocalypse40k.com/)

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/Linnear1701/40K/ApocLogo.png (http://www.apocalypse40k.com/)

Paul

04-18-2011, 11:49 AM

I can tell you that those of us who play Apocalypse regularly don't allow Lukas or a Brotherhood Champion to affect Titans. Makes no sense. Call it a House Rule.

The Apocalypse 40K Blog (http://apocalypse40k.blogspot.com/)

The Apocalypse 40K forums (http://www.apocalypse40k.com/)

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/Linnear1701/40K/ApocLogo.png (http://www.apocalypse40k.com/)

Actually, I could see Lukas' ability sticking a Titan's foot in place or something, because the stasis field is so tiny. But it could still act with every other part of its anatomy, lol.

Loken

04-19-2011, 03:07 PM

I read this whole thread and the insane rules lawyering is why I don't play 40K tournaments. The rules for the Nemesis Dreadknight Doomfist are poorly worded, but the intent is blatantly obvious. You treat it like a DCCW.

First you say it is a power weapon, then when someone points out it SAYS Power Fist you say, well it is initiative 1, which is bull****.

It uses the rules for a DCCW. It is S10 and strikes at initiative order, just like any Dreadnought. Don't give me that "It ain't a walker therefore...." crap. When does common sense take over for rules lawyering?

Geez.

somerandomdude

04-19-2011, 03:17 PM

Loken, are you planning on spending the 10 points on the Daemon Hammer? What would be the point? Because that extra Shaken on vehicles means so much?

They went to a lot of effort to put extra text in the Daemon Hammer rules that state the Dreadknight strikes at Initiative. There's nothing to suggest that the DCCW would give him that rule, since he doesn't fall into the category of Walker, which is spelt out clearly in the rulebook. The rules are very, VERY clear that a Dreadknight will not benefit from the double strength OR the initiative order of a DCCW. It is not "crap" to follow the rules.

Common sense is what tells me that the Daemon Hammer is not a useless upgrade. Common sense tells me that the Dreadknight is not a Dreadnought.

DarkLink

04-19-2011, 09:32 PM

DCCWs don't have any effect on initiative order. DCCWs are not powerfists. They are a power weapon that doubles the strength of walkers.

Tynskel

04-19-2011, 10:12 PM

I love the 'common sense' dreadknight is not a Dreadnought. Then why does it have Dreadnought CC Weapons? Seriously- it is a walker with monsterous creature rules--- hellz it is BIGGER than a walker. Do you honestly believe that GW is going to rule that the Doomfist is just a str 6 weapon?

somerandomdude

04-19-2011, 11:45 PM

Do you honestly believe that GW is going to rule that the Doomfist is just a str 6 weapon?

Do you honestly believe that GW didn't know what they were doing when they included the Daemon Hammer as an option?

Do you honestly believe that GW will have rules for one unit type apply to a specific model of a different unit type, just because of its size?

Loken

04-20-2011, 01:02 AM

The rules are very, VERY clear that a Dreadknight will not benefit from the double strength OR the initiative order of a DCCW. It is not "crap" to follow the rules.

The rules SPECIFICALLY state that a Nemesis Doomfist is a Powerfist. P. 54

What part of a POWER FIST do you not understand? A POWER FIST doubles the strength of the wearer. The rules says NOTHING about not benefiting from the double strength as you claim. Where do you come up with that?

The rules SPECIFICALLY state you follow the rules for a DCCW. p. 54

The fact that a DCCW states "Walker" is overruled by the fact that the GK codex specifically refers to THOSE rules for a Dreadknight. WHY would the rule even bother to refer to the rules for DCCWs if not to confer the benefits of that rule? They would not. That makes NO sense.

Seriously, read the rules and use some common sense.

Tynskel

04-20-2011, 05:37 AM

Do you honestly believe that GW didn't know what they were doing when they included the Daemon Hammer as an option?

Do you honestly believe that GW will have rules for one unit type apply to a specific model of a different unit type, just because of its size?

Yeah, the Doomfist is a DCCW, ie, str 10 +1 attack for additional CC weapon. So, you take Daemon Hammer, now you have Str 10+1 attack and stunning. How hard is this?

somerandomdude

04-20-2011, 07:57 AM

The rules SPECIFICALLY state that a Nemesis Doomfist is a Powerfist. P. 54

What part of a POWER FIST do you not understand? A POWER FIST doubles the strength of the wearer. The rules says NOTHING about not benefiting from the double strength as you claim. Where do you come up with that?

The rules SPECIFICALLY state you follow the rules for a DCCW. p. 54

The fact that a DCCW states "Walker" is overruled by the fact that the GK codex specifically refers to THOSE rules for a Dreadknight. WHY would the rule even bother to refer to the rules for DCCWs if not to confer the benefits of that rule? They would not. That makes NO sense.

Seriously, read the rules and use some common sense.

In general, when an entry has two paragraphs, the first paragraph is purely fluff and has no bearing on the rules. So, the entry may mention that it is a powerfist, but the only rules you are supposed to follow are those for a DCCW. The reason they bother to include that? Because. They. Put. Them. On. Dreadnoughts.

If you're going to tell me that it acts as a powerfist (which is suggested by the fluff) then that means you must strike at I1. If that is the case then I can see a benefit from the Daemon Hammer option.

I'm not really sure by your post which you support, powerfist or DCCW?

Yeah, the Doomfist is a DCCW, ie, str 10 +1 attack for additional CC weapon. So, you take Daemon Hammer, now you have Str 10+1 attack and stunning. How hard is this?

You only actually gain additional attacks for having multiple DCCWs, not for having multiple weapons of different types. Both the Thunder Hammer rules AND the DCCW rules say this. So, not only are you paying 10 points for Crew Shaken/Initiative effect, but you're also losing an attack (as the Dreadknight is armed with 2 Doomfists).

DCCWs do not just give out S10 freely. They double a walkers strength. How hard is this?

plawolf

04-20-2011, 08:18 AM

Loken, are you planning on spending the 10 points on the Daemon Hammer? What would be the point? Because that extra Shaken on vehicles means so much?

You forget that a thunderhammer also drops whatever you don't kill outright to I1 so long as you caused at least 1 wound.

Quite useful when fighting the big nasties the Dreadknight is supposed to be primarily designed to fight, especially considering the Dreadknight itself is only I4 to start with.

somerandomdude

04-20-2011, 08:20 AM

I had mentioned it already in the thread actually. However, with a NDH chances are anything you are fighting won't survive anyway without Eternal Warrior, as you are S10 AND you have a Force Weapon.

Tynskel

04-20-2011, 08:21 AM

You only actually gain additional attacks for having multiple DCCWs, not for having multiple weapons of different types. Both the Thunder Hammer rules AND the DCCW rules say this. So, not only are you paying 10 points for Crew Shaken/Initiative effect, but you're also losing an attack (as the Dreadknight is armed with 2 Doomfists).

DCCWs do not just give out S10 freely. They double a walkers strength. How hard is this?

Force Weapons (Furioso Librarian) and Seismic Hammer (Ironclad) are not 'DCCW'.

Also, D-Hammers also shake vehicles. You do not always automatically blow up a vehicle when you are monsterous creature. Sometimes the worst result is immobilized-- predator annihilator getting to fire three lascannons at you dreadknight is a bad thing. The hammer automatically puts shaken in there, and now you don't have to worry completely about not destroying the vehicle.

plawolf

04-20-2011, 08:24 AM

I had mentioned it already in the thread actually. However, with a NDH chances are anything you are fighting won't survive anyway without Eternal Warrior, as you are S10 AND you have a Force Weapon.

IIRC, greater Daemons tend to come with EW. Could it possibly be that Dreadknights might wish to maybe specialize in taking these guys and girls down? ;)

Lucian Kain

04-20-2011, 08:26 AM

You try to make the edition distinction sound as if it means anything in this argument.

Please explain then, how close combat became more restrictive with bonus attacks in 5th edition and why that somehow invalidates 4th edition codices?

Answer? It doesn't.

However, for the sake of redundancy, let's look at a 5th edition codex--the Dark Eldar 'dex.

Hydra Gauntlets: specifically uses the wording "two close combat weapons" in the entry and also clearly states they get +d6 attacks instead of the normal +1.

In fact, every Wych entry for special cc weapons states "counts as two close combat weapons."

A more precise entry would be demi-klaves under the Incubi entry. "these are power weapons that can be wielded separately" (IE 2 close combat weapons) "for +2 attacks"... See--an entry for two weapons that specifically states the bonus is more than just the normal +1.

In every codex entry, it states "counts as two close combat weapons.'

In the eldar codex, it does not state "counts as two close combat weapons" and so specifically states a +1 attack (chainsabres) or +2 attacks (mirrorblades).

Interestingly enough, the GK codex more closely parallels the original eldar codex in wording.

So, your 4th vs 5th argument is null.

And Falchions only give +1 attack, not +2. Because it specifically states +1. It doesn't say "an additional +1," nor does it state anywhere in the codex entry "count as two close combat weapons."

Yea! Felchions only give +1A then you get two of them +1A=2A WOW we just passed Kinderguarden

What...the... ****...what dose any other codex have to do with the GK Codex?

One entry dosen't mean/and is not the same as one item.

It dose not specifically say that the pair of felchions are 1 item only that you can only perchas two or none.

A pair has no numerical difference than two matching items.

Your whole argument is based on "A Pair" not meaning "two" whitch is just retarded.

One entry,two items,one special rule+1A,daemon bane,Force Weapon,Two matching CCweapons+1A.

You have to prove that a pair is not two items to be right without question.So it is impossible for you to argue untill FAQ'd where someone dosen't need to follow RAW and just state RAI whitch can be anything.

Tynskel

04-20-2011, 08:34 AM

The point is that there are multiple instances where one entry pair only counts as one weapon, and when they explicitly state that the one entry item counts as two separate weapons. That's the point. The Grey Knight Codex does not explicitly state that the Falchion is two separate weapons.

The rulebook only mentions one 'matched' pair weapon: the lighting claws.

somerandomdude

04-20-2011, 08:38 AM

Force Weapons (Furioso Librarian) and Seismic Hammer (Ironclad) are not 'DCCW'.

So, you agree? :confused:

Also, D-Hammers also shake vehicles. You do not always automatically blow up a vehicle when you are monsterous creature. Sometimes the worst result is immobilized-- predator annihilator getting to fire three lascannons at you dreadknight is a bad thing. The hammer automatically puts shaken in there, and now you don't have to worry completely about not destroying the vehicle.

I have mentioned the shaking several times now. I know the value it can have. I also know that other armies have a 5 point increase from Powerfist to Thunderhammer. Other books might not really matter, but the fact that you are supposed to spend an additional 5 points for the Thunder effect that the other armies get suggests (to me) that there might be a bit more involved.

Either way, you still have tried to sweep under the rug the fact that the rules for DCCWs only effect walkers, not things that are on large bases and that you think are friggin' huge.

IIRC, greater Daemons tend to come with EW. Could it possibly be that Dreadknights might wish to maybe specialize in taking these guys and girls down? ;)

And Grey Knights come with Preferred Enemy (Daemons) and weapons with Daemonbane. Dreadknights themselves come stock with Dark Excommunication. They're already designed to take out Greater Daemons. Even so, that still doesn't justify the point increase over similar items in other books.

Folks, when a codex is written, wargear is evaluated and given a point cost. The Thunder effect is viewed as being worth 5 points. It suddenly doesn't become more valuable for an army that 1) has tools to ID enemies 2) has a lot of useful abilities to face an army of EW units.

This is also why a Daemon Hammer is only 10 points for a normal squad - you're not getting 30 points worth of benefit out of it with Grey Knights.

EDIT: Tynskel, the Grey Knight codex does not explicitly state that the Dreadknight is a walker.

bluesickboy

04-20-2011, 01:36 PM

Loken

04-20-2011, 01:49 PM

So, you agree? :confused:

Either way, you still have tried to sweep under the rug the fact that the rules for DCCWs only effect walkers, not things that are on large bases and that you think are friggin' huge.

ABSURD. It SPECIFICIALLT STATES in the Grey Knight rule book, that a Dreadknight Doomfist "USES THE RULES FOR A DCCW".

What part of that do you not understand? The CODEX says it uses those rules, so it is irrelevant that the rule refers to walkers. A Dreadknight USES THOSE RULES.

No question, no interpretation...BLACK AND WHITE.

Shakespeare was right, kill all the rules lawyers.

somerandomdude

04-20-2011, 02:17 PM

The CODEX says it uses those rules, so it is irrelevant that the rule refers to walkers.

If you use the rules for DCCW (which is what it says) then wouldn't you use ALL of the rules, including the part that says it gives walkers a benefit?

Please note that I'm not saying the Dreadknight can't use the Doomfist. He can, and it counts as a power weapon, although the fact that it is Nemesis means that it is also a Force Weapon with Daemonbane. Also, as for bonus attacks, the Dreadknight most certainly gets a bonus attack. Not because of the DCCW rules, but because of the bonus weapon rules.

DarkLink

04-20-2011, 03:44 PM

Right. The codex never says "DCCW also double the strength of Dreadknights". It just says that Dreadknights has two DCCW. That does nothing to change what DCCW do or are, though.

Gir

04-20-2011, 06:11 PM

Right. The codex never says "DCCW also double the strength of Dreadknights". It just says that Dreadknights has two DCCW. That does nothing to change what DCCW do or are, though.

But in the rulebook RAW, only walkers can have DCCW. So either Dreadknight can never be fielded because it's illegal, or it doubles it's strength. You can't pick and choose the parts of the rules to follow.

DarkLink

04-20-2011, 06:43 PM

The rules SPECIFICALLY state that a Nemesis Doomfist is a Powerfist. P. 54

What part of a POWER FIST do you not understand? A POWER FIST doubles the strength of the wearer. The rules says NOTHING about not benefiting from the double strength as you claim. Where do you come up with that?

The rules SPECIFICALLY state you follow the rules for a DCCW. p. 54

Being a powerfist and being a DCCW are two different things. DCCW are not power fists. Power fists are not DCCW.

So either you're a DCCW and you don't double strength, or you're a power fist and you strike at I 1. Or you're both, and you double strength and strike at I 1. Either way, the rules don't make sense.

The rules SPECIFICALLY state you follow the rules for a DCCW. p. 54

Yeah, no duh. You are following the rules for DCCWs. DCCWs just don't benefit Dreadknights. Can you take a Brotherhood champion with digital weapons and reroll rerolls to wound? It's a useless upgrade. You want to houserule it that's fine. The rules don't make sense. But your argument, or at least this part of it, is absolutely horrible. You can follow the rules for DCCW all day long, but that doesn't change what DCCW do.

If you want to win this argument, you're going to have to convince everyone that DCCW, in general, double strength, walker or no. You have no grounds on which to stand if you're going to try and push the idea that the GK codex inherently changes how DCCW work just because Dreadknights have them.

I would suggest either running with your point about how it mentions power fists (though then you run into "do you strike at I 1" territory), or by presenting an argument that DCCW double everyone's strength and that the BRB rule is just poorly worded. That's where the grey area is (no pun intended:D).

Seriously, read the rules and use some common sense.

Really? Dude, chill out. This is a game of war barbies.

Is that how you spell barbies? Doesn't look right.

wkz

04-20-2011, 07:36 PM

But in the rulebook RAW, only walkers can have DCCW. So either Dreadknight can never be fielded because it's illegal, or it doubles it's strength. You can't pick and choose the parts of the rules to follow.

Then I would say, if the above is true and by pure RAW, the Dreadknight is an illegal vehicle. *insert screechy voice* "NO DREADKNIGHT FOR YOU!!"

Seriously, getting "Dreadknights are illegal" due to "any non-walkers using DCCW is automatically an illegal unit" over the interpretation of a single "the" in the DCCW ruleset? What other pronoun would you have used? (and no, "A" cannot be used, and I believe I've told you why...)

ABSURD. It SPECIFICIALLT STATES in the Grey Knight rule book, that a Dreadknight Doomfist "USES THE RULES FOR A DCCW".

What part of that do you not understand? The CODEX says it uses those rules, so it is irrelevant that the rule refers to walkers. A Dreadknight USES THOSE RULES.

No question, no interpretation...BLACK AND WHITE.

Shakespeare was right, kill all the rules lawyers.Yes, it uses those rules. So happens those rules say "No, no can do".

Its like Astral aim: it uses the rules for shooting, except the LOS part... guess what, the ruleset of shooting say "you cannot fire if you run". So you can't shoot. If you can't shoot, you can't shoot, so you cannot shoot. Bottom line: you cannot shoot!!

The CODEX says it uses those rules, but the DCCW says "the walker get double strength"! The Dreadknight is not a walker, so double strength don't apply. So double strength don't apply, which means double strength don't apply. Bottom line: the double strength DON'T apply!! BECAUSE you're using those DCCW rules!!

THAT's black and white for you.

Oh, and Shakespeare was right, but you're wrong: he wants us to kill all the MERCHANTS, not lawyers... he even had lawyers as some of the protagonist's supporters.

Hell, one of the lawyers even used RAW against the "evil" Merchant of Venice!! Actual, honest to goodness RAW, in order to save the day!!

This seems correct, and i would love to play it that way but RAI dont overrule RAW. also i happened to talk to GW Order Troll the other day and he said that DoomFists did not double the strength because of DCCW. But in the same breath he said they gain an additional Attack from 2 of 'um. Under the DCCW entry it says only Walkers get the additional Att. So he clarified and muddled the topic for me all at once. Sounds like its something that needs to be discussed w/ opponent befor game, untill FAQ'ed that is.
Here's the reason/argument:

Ultimately, the Dreadknight gets the extra attack because Monstrous Creatures are a modification of the Infantry rules. And in the Infantry rules, if you're wielding 2 special weapons of the same type, you get +1A.

Guess what? The Dreadknight is the only Monstrous creature thus far in GW's history in 5th edition to actually have, as wargear, 2 special weapons of the same type (2 Doomfists). Thus, through usage of the Infantry rules, it too gets +1A for 2 special weapons.

somerandomdude

04-20-2011, 07:59 PM

But in the rulebook RAW, only walkers can have DCCW.

That's not true at all.

"Walkers are often armed with huge close combat weapons... A Dreadnought close combat weapon is a power weapon and doubles the walker's Strength in close combat..."

This doesn't say that only walkers can have them. There is a sentence of fluff that suggests they are commonly seen on walkers, and then there is a sentence that explains what it does, which is:

1) Ignores saves (power weapon).
2) Doubles the strength of a walker.

Those are effects, not requirements. Nothing in the entire box says "Only Walkers can use DCCWs". It is just that of the two benefits, only walkers can get both benefits (where everything else would only get #1).

somerandomdude

04-20-2011, 08:03 PM

Can you take a Brotherhood champion with digital weapons and reroll rerolls to wound? It's a useless upgrade.

Shh... We don't talk about that. :D

Let's just all agree they should have just given the Dreadknight a NFS to start with.

wkz

04-20-2011, 08:20 PM

That's not true at all.

"Walkers are often armed with huge close combat weapons... A Dreadnought close combat weapon is a power weapon and doubles the walker's Strength in close combat..."

This doesn't say that only walkers can have them. There is a sentence of fluff that suggests they are commonly seen on walkers, and then there is a sentence that explains what it does, which is:

1) Ignores saves (power weapon).
2) Doubles the strength of a walker.

Those are effects, not requirements. Nothing in the entire box says "Only Walkers can use DCCWs". It is just that of the two benefits, only walkers can get both benefits (where everything else would only get #1).
His argument, if I remember correctly, uses "THE" (which I've highlighted above). Because THE refers to the owner, and THE refers to only walkers, non-walker units cannot take DCCW. As a non-walker with DCCWs, the Dreadknight thus is an illegal unit.

...
I think its better if Gir explains it. I certainly can't: I look at what I wrote above and see only RAW-lawyering at its worst... :(

DarkLink

04-20-2011, 09:07 PM

wkz

04-20-2011, 09:29 PM

Yeah, the whole set of rules here is a train wreck. Not only does the "The" imply that the Dreadknight is an illegal unit, but the GK codex says that a Doomfist is both a DCCW and a Power Fist, two independant and distinct weapons.

So not only is the Dreadknight maybe or maybe not, but it's weapon that causes the argument does or does not as well. It's like Schrodinger's cat, but stupid.

HAHAHAHAHahahahaha!!

Did you know that Schrodinger came up with his cat analogy PRECISELY to MOCK Quantum Physics? "According to this theorem, a cat is dead and alive at the same time! What a stupid conclusion!"

Yet here we are years later associating that cat with anything "Quantum", and not the stupidity the original statement is supposed to represent...

But DarkLink seems to have some truth in his statement: between "its a powerfist" in the fluff and "its a DCCW" in the rules, and "traditionally a double-strength powerweapon" for historical precedence and "not on a walker thus no double strength" for rules under examination, it is as if GW is trying to troll the community with the biggest RAI-RAW argumentative firestarter ever made...

DarkLink

04-20-2011, 10:28 PM

Well, I guess my point was Schrodinger's mockery was clever. This, though, is just a trainwreck.

Lukaz

04-25-2011, 04:29 AM

Can a brotherhood champion or Crowe re-roll his heroic sacrifice hit if he charged into combat due to titans herald?

Tynskel

04-25-2011, 05:39 AM

I love how you say this is a train wreck. I think you are over estimating the seriousness of this rules 'problem'.

DarkLink

04-25-2011, 09:21 AM

It's not serious. It's just stupid. It's like spending 3 weeks on a report for a class and printing out a spiral bound copy and everything, then realizing you misspelled the title.

Tynskel

04-25-2011, 05:31 PM

but, they didn't. I think the monsterous creature with is using the same weapon system as the dreadnought, is twice the size as the dreadnought, and is also a walker in it own right, can utilize all of the abilities of the doomfists. Technically, the the in the walker rules about DCCW states the walker gains the benefits. The dreadknight is not an illegal unit, therefore it must use some of the walker rules otherwise it wouldn't have walker weapons, weapons that specifically state only walkers can use them. Because the codex does not detail any more about the dreadknight, you cannot add anymore walker rules.

s_harrington

04-26-2011, 07:38 PM

I would find it very interesting to go back 1 year and compile a listing of the people who were among those that argued a Doom of Malan'tai didn't get a 3++ invulnerable save from warpfield due to warpfield saying "Zoanthropes".

Then take that list and compare it's names to those that are currently arguing that a Dreadknight doesn't get the benefit of a DCCW because it says "walkers".

Too bad I'm too lazy to do it myself, but it would be interesting none the less....

bluesickboy

04-27-2011, 09:58 AM

Ran into an interesting thing the other day, how is a nem force weapon affected when it comes to SW runic weapon and a WTT.
To keep the game moving we said one shut-down on a 4+ then another try at 5+ (only once for the squad, not for each Nem wep)
any thoughts would be nice

DarkLink

04-27-2011, 12:17 PM

Yeah, it's not very clear, but technically you don't get Talisman saves against Nemesis force weapons. Normally, fw's are a psychic power you cast on someone you inflict a wound on, and the power inflicts instant death. Because you are targeted, your lord gets the talisman save.

NFWs, however, work a little differently on GK squads. The brotherhood of psyker rule means that the NFW power targets the GK squad, and doesn't directly do anything to the Lord, therefore he gets no save. He just gets hit with a CC attack that causes instant death.

If GW ever bothers to release an FAQ, we'll see how they handle it. I'd say the most fair way of doing it is that you take the Talisman save, and if you make it that model is immune to the ID (but not the rest of the squad, since they're getting hit by other force weapons).

Gir

04-27-2011, 07:44 PM

I would find it very interesting to go back 1 year and compile a listing of the people who were among those that argued a Doom of Malan'tai didn't get a 3++ invulnerable save from warpfield due to warpfield saying "Zoanthropes".

Then take that list and compare it's names to those that are currently arguing that a Dreadknight doesn't get the benefit of a DCCW because it says "walkers".

Yeah, this is literally the same thing. I would be willing to put money on the FAQ giving them double strength.

wkz

04-27-2011, 08:43 PM

I would find it very interesting to go back 1 year and compile a listing of the people who were among those that argued a Doom of Malan'tai didn't get a 3++ invulnerable save from warpfield due to warpfield saying "Zoanthropes"........ Don't have Tyranids, so this is new to me...

Can someone produce the exact wording of (a) What the hell a Doom of Malan'tai is in the context of rules (is it a named character using Zoanthropes as a base, is it a named character without mention of Zoanthropes anywhere, etc?) and (b) the exact wording of the power Warpfield?

This might be a big breakthrough for the rules interpretation for Doomfists, and can settle this argument once and for all. (having a solid rules precedence to back up the argument usually means RAI>RAW. No questions asked)

Gir

04-27-2011, 09:11 PM

... Don't have Tyranids, so this is new to me...

Can someone produce the exact wording of (a) What the hell a Doom of Malan'tai is in the context of rules (is it a named character using Zoanthropes as a base, is it a named character without mention of Zoanthropes anywhere, etc?) and (b) the exact wording of the power Warpfield?

This might be a big breakthrough for the rules interpretation for Doomfists, and can settle this argument once and for all. (having a solid rules precedence to back up the argument usually means RAI>RAW. No questions asked)

The Doom 'techincally' based off a Zoanthrope, but has a very different statline, different abilities and different powers. It only mentions that it is a "Zoanthrope" in it's fluff section. Infact, looking at the pointcost section, it is impossible to tell that the doom is a Zoanthrope (The rules are COMPLETELY different).

The exact wording of Warp Field is: "A Warp field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save"

wkz

04-27-2011, 09:55 PM

The Doom 'techincally' based off a Zoanthrope, but has a very different statline, different abilities and different powers. It only mentions that it is a "Zoanthrope" in it's fluff section. Infact, looking at the pointcost section, it is impossible to tell that the doom is a Zoanthrope (The rules are COMPLETELY different).

The exact wording of Warp Field is: "A Warp field grants a Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save"
...
That's it, I'm going to visit a Tyranid-playing friend asap.

Edit: or not:
Tyranid FAQ page 3:
Q: Tyranid Special Characters: Are Tyranid Special Characters considered to be special versions of the standard creatures of their type for the purposes of using psychic powers, biomorphs and special rules? ... , is the Doom of Malan'tai considered to be a Zoanthrope for the purposes of Warp Field...?
A: Yes in all cases.

So technically, precedence says the chance of having GW say "Sorry dudes, the Dreadknight is considered to be a giant 'modified walker for the purposes of the Doomfists it carries" is higher than GW saying "Sorry dudes, Walkers in DCCW is not a unit restriction. Everyone can use the double strength".
...
...
*sigh* Precedence is making RAI's "double strength" case quite strong ... I wouldn't put money on it, but I can say there's a high chance the GK FAQ will say "Dreadknights can gain double strength from DCCW".

Lets see what GW have to say I guess.

Gir

04-27-2011, 11:52 PM

*sigh* Precedence is making RAI's "double strength" case quite strong ... I wouldn't put money on it, but I can say there's a high chance the GK FAQ will say "Dreadknights can gain double strength from DCCW".

I would put large amounts of money on it. But I've found I tend to by right when it comes to rule questions like this (as they are all common sense).

bfmusashi

04-28-2011, 09:25 AM

If I may, I would point out a problem in this analogy. The Doom of Malantai and Zoanthropes are both infantry. A walker is a type of vehicle (defined in the section on tanks, skimmers, etc.), a monstrous creature is a separate unit type (found in the section on cavalry, beasts, jump infantry, etc.). The precedent does not apply.
The dreadnought close combat weapon line most likely is in reference to the normal and venerable dreadnoughts found in the codex. Why does this line exist? Because GW seems to have realized its players will stop a perfectly good game to bicker whether the my dreadnought's Giant Metal Fist of Doom goes at strength 10 because it wasn't called a dreadnought close combat weapon in the codex. If it was meant to grant strength 10 to everyone it would just say "doubles strength of user, no armor saves allowed."
Besides, playing against a 205pt monstrous jump trooper that tears into vehicles at S10+2D6 for 5 attacks isn't fun for my opponent, and that makes it no fun for me.
One last thing, you pointed out the Doom of Malantai is called a type of zoanthrope in the description on its entry. The dreadknight entry never uses the word walker.

MadCowCrazy

04-28-2011, 05:14 PM

Didn't read through the entire thread but did not see this conundrum.

Culexus gets +1 to his ranged weapon for every psyker within 12"
Grey Knight units only count as 1 psyker
Psyk-out grenades make psykers strike at I1

If I assault another unit of GKs with my own do they all now strike at I1 or does only the Justicar if he is still alive strike at I1? If he is dead I take it you chose a random member in the squad who strikes at I1, how do you chose this unit? Roll a dice for each member and any 6s get rolled of against each other until there is only 1 left?

Since people claim mindstrike missiles only perils the justicar (if alive) and the culexus only gets +1 for each GK unit this would mean that psyk-out grenades only affect the justicar (if alive).....right?

If this has been asked somewhere I dont know, did not see an answer for this but as it's 4am I could have missed it.

wkz

04-28-2011, 08:56 PM

I would put large amounts of money on it. But I've found I tend to by right when it comes to rule questions like this (as they are all common sense).
Its also common sense to follow the rules As Worded. After all, when you get caught in a place with a "Do Not Swim" sign, you got only yourself to blame, no matter how correct your "But I can swim and there's no danger here" common sense arguments you bring to the police officer dude writing you a fine...

Also: Is it common sense to automatically assume GW is a piece of crap writer of rules? Because that is what RAI does: assume the rules are different from what is written, as it is wrongly worded from the actual Intention.

If yes, does it mean we can just simply ignore anything that disagrees with us? Note that, although honorable in its intent, this is a very dangerous road to be walking down... sorta like getting tempted by the forces of Chaos...

...
Did I just compare RAI/RAW to Renegade/Puritan Inquisitors o.0?!??

But know this: My opinion of the RAW saying the double-strength boost only occurs to Walkers still applies... Lets see what the FAQ says about this whole mess.

Didn't read through the entire thread but did not see this conundrum.

Culexus gets +1 to his ranged weapon for every psyker within 12"
Grey Knight units only count as 1 psyker
Psyk-out grenades make psykers strike at I1

If I assault another unit of GKs with my own do they all now strike at I1 or does only the Justicar if he is still alive strike at I1? If he is dead I take it you chose a random member in the squad who strikes at I1, how do you chose this unit? Roll a dice for each member and any 6s get rolled of against each other until there is only 1 left?

Since people claim mindstrike missiles only perils the justicar (if alive) and the culexus only gets +1 for each GK unit this would mean that psyk-out grenades only affect the justicar (if alive).....right?

If this has been asked somewhere I dont know, did not see an answer for this but as it's 4am I could have missed it.
The above is due to the "Brotherhood of Psykers" (BoP) rule... and thus a lot of the stuff that happens depends on how the BoP rule is worded.

Grey Knight units only count as 1 psyker because BoP says so.
Grey Knight units casts powers as 1 psyker because BoP says so.
Perils of the Warp only affects one model in the unit because BoP says so.
Otherwise, all models in the unit has the Psyker rule...
(if I remember correctly, got to re-read this for accuracy later...)

As such, there is no "overrule" ruling in the BoP special codex rule against Psyk-out grenades or similar: As each and every one of them are Psykers, and Psyk-out grenades does not cause Psyker head-counting or Perils of the Warp, all the models in the charged GK unit will be reduced to I1...

This is a case of "We are psykers... ... until something specific occurs (Psyker headcount... or...), and when that happens only our (much hated, apparently) leader is now the only psyker to take the damage. Go daemon, nibble on his brain and leave us alone."

Gir

04-28-2011, 10:14 PM

Also: Is it common sense to automatically assume GW is a piece of crap writer of rules? Because that is what RAI does: assume the rules are different from what is written, as it is wrongly worded from the actual Intention.

If yes, does it mean we can just simply ignore anything that disagrees with us? Note that, although honorable in its intent, this is a very dangerous road to be walking down... sorta like getting tempted by the forces of Chaos..."

Well I'm pretty sure that's what the most important rule actaully says.

wkz

04-28-2011, 10:41 PM

Well I'm pretty sure that's what the most important rule actaully says.

Wrong. That's not what the most important rule says. The most important rule says: If there's disputes and arguments, resolve it in the name of fun.

It does NOT say "RAI gets a free pass on everything because I feel the rules are wrong from GW's actual intent."

Gir

04-29-2011, 02:04 AM

I meant that the most important rule states that they know there is/will be problems with the rules.

wkz

04-29-2011, 02:54 AM

I meant that the most important rule states that they know there is/will be problems with the rules.The most important rule section says something similar to: "due to the complexity of the rules.... interpretation of the rules... there will be conflict... solve THAT in the name of having fun."

There is no single sentence in there that says "... we write crap rules. Have a nice day..."

(And before it begins: "Also: Is it common sense to automatically assume GW is a piece of crap writer of rules? Because that is what RAI does: assume the rules are different from what is written, as it is wrongly worded from the actual Intention... If yes, does it mean we can just simply ignore anything that disagrees with us?" is what I've written.

And that is NOT the most important rule. However, it DOES mean "... the rulebook does not mean what it says!! GW can't even put their idea correctly on paper!!"

Or maybe you might need to highlight what exactly you're aiming at when you are quoting huge chunks from my post?)

bluesickboy

04-29-2011, 03:18 AM

DarkLink

04-29-2011, 09:36 AM

Well, WTT doesn't have anything to do with saving ID. It just stops psychic powers. Since he isn't actually hit with a psychic power because of the brotherhood of psykers modification, WTT doesn't work.

WTT does, however, dispel entire psychic powers. So a WTT would completely stop Doom, for example.

I just think that the most fair way of doing it is letting the WTT save the lord and not the squad. That's absolutely not how the rules work, but the Lord is getting hit with a force weapon which he would normally get to use the WTT against. The rest of the squad is getting hit with different force weapons (even if the rules streamline it to be just one psychic test for the whole squad), so there's no fluffy reason why the Lords WTT would protect the other guys in his squad, just himself.

Playing it that way throws the SW player a bone without completely screwing the GK player.

Tynskel

04-29-2011, 11:39 AM

wkz

04-29-2011, 10:48 PM

however, the counter arguments is that the grey knights chant together, guided by the justicar, activating their powers. In that case, the WTT would interrupt the concentration of the squad, causing a failure of the squad's psychic abilities.

Something to think about.
Hmmm...
How about this interpretation:
The Gray Knights cast a psychic power as if it is a single Psyker
Thus, the Gray Knights up-powers their Force Halbard's ID with a single spell, as a single Psyker.

And now, the million dollar question: Can the WTT stop a single Psyker using force weapons against the owner?

If yes, then the WTT can stop the GK squad... which counts as a single psyker at the point of canting to the Force Halbards.

DarkLink

04-29-2011, 11:44 PM

Right, it's either all or nothing.

Tynskel

04-30-2011, 06:34 AM

Just because Space Wolves cheat, I think WTT should stop the Grey Knights. ;)