Dreadknight Doomfists

[doogansquest]

I didn't take much time to search the forum for this topic, so I figured I would post it here anyway and let the mods merge it, if necessary.

In Codex: Grey Knights, under the Nemesis Dreadknight rules entry, the book states that it comes standard with "WARGEAR: Two Nemesis Doomfists."

Proceed to the Wargear section and read about the Nemesis Doomfist, particularly the rules entry:


....A Nemesis doomfist follows the rules for Dreadnought close combat weapons.

That line is important, and thus I direct you to the specific rule in the rulebook regarding Dreadnought close combat weapons:


DREADNOUGHT CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS
...A Dreadnought close combat weapon is a power weapon and doubles the walker's Strength in close combat (up to a maximum of 10).

Since a Nemesis doomfist "follows the rules for," and doesn't just "count as," or "functions in the same way as," that means it's iron-clad.

My point? A Nemesis Dreadknight is not a Walker. It never functions as a Walker under any circumstances. It is a Monstrous Creature. The rules for Dreadnought close combat weapons state specifically that it "doubles the WALKER'S Strength in close combat..."

If we are to take this as-written, the Dreadknight is Strength 6 with the benefits of a Nemesis Force Weapon (ie: Force Weapon and Daemonbane), and the bonus attack for 2 CCW, but does not gain the benefit of double-strength. The weapon states that it defers to the BRB ruling on Dreadnought close combat weapons, which only doubles the strength of a Walker.

While some would argue that this makes the Nemesis doomfist a wasted Codex entry, that's just not true, as the Dreadnoughts and the Venerable Dreadnoughts come standard with them. As they are Walkers, they would gain the benefits of the double-strength rule.

I'm not here to be a turd about anything, but I found this whole thing rather awkward...

Thoughts?

[Dalleron]

It's like the old wraithlord. It had what the book called dreadnaught CCW's, more specifically 2 of them, so gained an extra attack.

I fail to see any confusion in the Dreadknight. Has two doomfists. So right there, it's got an extra attack, and it being a MC ignores armour. The walker bit in the DCCW reference means nothing, in my eyes. The DK is S10. Plus, it's cheaper that way, and with such a point heavy unit, seems good to me.

This leads to the old debate of RAW vs RAI. People are going to pick their side of the fence and not let you tell them otherwise.

[brazzangel]

Great, except there's nothing in the rules that allows it to be S10. Nothing. So it's not S10 until FAQ'd otherwise.

This isn't RAW vs. RAI. This is written plain as day.

A mistake by GW? Probably, they've been known to make a few. But it's not S10 as it currently stands, and there's nothing in it's profile, in it's rules description, or in the Wargear section of either the Codex or the BRB that changes that.

[brazzangel]

But he's not S10. The DCCW reference isn't just a reference. The entry specifically states that it follows the rules of a DCCW. By those rules, Walkers receive the strength bonus.

It's not about RAW vs. RAI. The whole thing states, plain as day, that the Dreadknight is a Monstrous Creature, and the Strength benefit is conferred to Walkers. Period.

It is not a S10 Monstrous Creature. That's all there is to it. Opinions to the contrary are just foolish looking and wrong.

Is this a mistake by GW? Absolutely. They've made these types of boo-boo's before. As it currently stands, however, the Dreadknight is S6.

[blackarmchair]

They are going to do a MASSIVE FAQ with this book. I noticed this too when reading through it, usually I'm a sticker for RAW (because we all need to be playing the same game to foster a truly fair competitive environment) but in some cases the intention of the ruling is so obvious we just have to let common sense dictate for us.

If the author did not intend the doomfist to double the Dreadknight's strength and give him all the normal benefits of a walker they wouldn't have written doomfist. As you said the MC already ignores armour in close-combat so the author didn't write it in to give the DK a power weapon thus we can only assume that either the author is not rational and simply haphazardly writes things - OR that he meant to give the DK all the abilities inherit to the doomfist.

RAW, you are absolutely right; the doomfists count as a pair of cc weapons and nothing more. But I think we all know what the intention was...

[SonicPara]

If the Dreadknight is S10 via the Doomfists then why is there the option for a Daemonhammer?

[Denzark]

Daemonhammer does different things against daemons? I1 after a successful wound? Something like that?

[Tynskel]

daemon hammers also have thunder hammer rules. You would still get the +1 attack, because the doomfist rules give +1 attack for each additional CC weapon.

There are plenty of things in the game that have eternal warrior and are NOT daemons. Knocking them to Initiative 1 can make all the difference.

Also automatically causing crew shaken is useful. Sometimes the Dice Gods hate you, and will not destroy the tank, but immobilize it, allowing the tank to still blast stuff.

[AngelsofDeath]

I didn't take much time to search the forum for this topic, so I figured I would post it here anyway and let the mods merge it, if necessary.

In Codex: Grey Knights, under the Nemesis Dreadknight rules entry, the book states that it comes standard with "WARGEAR: Two Nemesis Doomfists."

Proceed to the Wargear section and read about the Nemesis Doomfist, particularly the rules entry:



That line is important, and thus I direct you to the specific rule in the rulebook regarding Dreadnought close combat weapons:



Since a Nemesis doomfist "follows the rules for," and doesn't just "count as," or "functions in the same way as," that means it's iron-clad.

My point? A Nemesis Dreadknight is not a Walker. It never functions as a Walker under any circumstances. It is a Monstrous Creature. The rules for Dreadnought close combat weapons state specifically that it "doubles the WALKER'S Strength in close combat..."

If we are to take this as-written, the Dreadknight is Strength 6 with the benefits of a Nemesis Force Weapon (ie: Force Weapon and Daemonbane), and the bonus attack for 2 CCW, but does not gain the benefit of double-strength. The weapon states that it defers to the BRB ruling on Dreadnought close combat weapons, which only doubles the strength of a Walker.

While some would argue that this makes the Nemesis doomfist a wasted Codex entry, that's just not true, as the Dreadnoughts and the Venerable Dreadnoughts come standard with them. As they are Walkers, they would gain the benefits of the double-strength rule.

I'm not here to be a turd about anything, but I found this whole thing rather awkward...

Thoughts?

WHAT? Ok...:confused: So you posted this information and was expecting what in response? A Dreadknight is a Monstrous Creature and the Nemesis doomfist acts like a Dreadnought close combat weapon.....OK???

I just do not see what you are trying to point out here. Or what type of response you are fishing for.

[DarkLink]

Point is, Dreadknights don't benefit from the doubled strength as the rules are written. Dreadknights are not Str 10, because GW sucks at finding errors in their rules.


It's like the old wraithlord. It had what the book called dreadnaught CCW's, more specifically 2 of them, so gained an extra attack.

I fail to see any confusion in the Dreadknight. Has two doomfists. So right there, it's got an extra attack, and it being a MC ignores armour. The walker bit in the DCCW reference means nothing, in my eyes. The DK is S10. Plus, it's cheaper that way, and with such a point heavy unit, seems good to me.

This leads to the old debate of RAW vs RAI. People are going to pick their side of the fence and not let you tell them otherwise.

Irrelevant rules are irrelevant.

Wanna houserule it to follow old rules, or to modify the current rules to make it work? That's what most people will do, and what GW will do. But if you're playing by the rules, this argument doesn't work. Your choice, you just need to differentiate between "GW says Dreadknights are str 10" and "I say they are".

[thecactusman17]

It also says "A Nemesis Doomfist is a dreadnought-sized powerfist"

Bam. Double strength.

[blackarmchair]

It also says "A Nemesis Doomfist is a dreadnought-sized powerfist"

Bam. Double strength.

People need to learn the difference between the fluff and the rules. For your education, here is how GW writes rules in its codecies:

Name of Rule:
Blah Blah Blah Fluff stuff Blah Blah Blah things that have no in-game effect Blah Blah Blah

(Notice the line break?) Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules

Anything in that first part is a fluff description and often doesn't have anything to do with the game. RAW the DK doesn't get the benefits of a doomfist, there really isn't much to discuss here.

[Suttobs]

They put Nemesis Doomfist for a reason.

I don't think it was for STR10.

There are two options , STR 10 or STR 6.

If it is STR 10, why does it have hammerhand? Just on the chance you take the Greatsword? And if you happen not to be playing Daemons I guess you have those 2 psychic powers just to say you do.

The gave it a NEMESIS doom fist, specifically so it was a nemesis weapon. Why not the other Nemesis weapons?

A sword would have made its invul 4+ in CC.
Halbred +2 Init. etc.

YMMV.

[DarkLink]

And that's why you can't use RAI to justify your argument. Some people say "well, obviously they meant for it to be str 10", while other people say what Suttobs just said. Who's right? RAI does not, and cannot, answer that question. Skip RAI and just houserule it, or wait for an FAQ.



BTW, cactusman, if the Doomfist is a power fist, then Dreadknights strike at I 1.

[AngelsofDeath]

I never thought there was a question regarding the Doomfist. It says its a Dreadnought close combat weapon (Pg 73 40K rules) which doubles its strength to 10. The only point I would think should be looked at is the fact that the Dreadknight is a "Monstrous Creature" (Pg 51 40K rules), and in being so rolls an extra D6 for armour penetration. As well as having universal rules Move Through Cover and Relentless.

[bonedale]

Why would GW reference the DCCW if it wasn't to double S? What other qualities does the DCCW have? I think hammerhand is only for the sword, and the hammer is only for the initiative reducing qualities.

I think trying to be literal about WALKER, is the same BS are pulling with the teleport changing the DK into a jump troop or whatever. I think that is what started all of this. GW won't waste time with an FAQ. The reason it says walker is in reference to the walker it is describing. Thank god GW didn't say the vehicle warp field uses the teleport pack rules from the interceptors. Because then everyone would say their land raiders become "jump infantry" and will put them into storm ravens, with a DK inside the land raider. A 40k turducken of doom. That is until you shoot it, and it will magically turn back into a vehicle so it has an armor value.

Anyone's guess, but the above to me is sensible.

[wkz]

To be honest, The Dreadknight-Doomfist rules seems to be GW's biggest Troll-job ever against the community and its big RAI-RAW debate :\

- Walker weapons on a Monster!
Precedence: DCCW always had double strength! RAI says they should have that!
Precedence breaker: It is the first time a DCCW is on a monster! RAW says they shouldn't have that! (and yes, both meanings. I'm looking HARD at you-know-who...)

- Monster having 2 weapons!
Precedence: Monsters never had 2 weapons in the past (in 4th or 5th edition)!! RAI says they should (a) either be like a Dreadnought (2 weapons for +1 attack, and thus supporting the "Dreadknight double strength" above), or (b) NOT have that +1A!
Precedence breaker: 2 weapons, fer goodness sake!! RAW says 2 weapons gets +1A due to infantry weapon-wielding rules (of which a Monsterous creature is a sub-set of) !

And my absolute Favorite:
- Doomfist description!!
Fluff: Its a Powerfist in the fluff description!! RAI says its a powerfist!!
Rules: Its a DCCW in the rules description!! RAW says its a DCCW!!

[AngelsofDeath]

I really still do not see what everyone is QQ about with the Dreadknight-Doomfist combo. Considering the rest of the codex and the high points cost, I do not see or fear anything having to do with the Dreadknight.
I do not see people taking 3 of these, at least not in a competative army list. They can be brought down pretty easy by middle of the range shooting firepower. They are monstrous and cant hide from you. And you just have to pick and choose when and if to assault them.

[Bean]

OP is right, Doomfists don't double the Dreadknight's strength. End of story.

The only gripe I have is with the OP: "x counts as y," "x is is treated as y," and "x follows the same rules as y" are three different ways of saying exactly the same thing. There is no functional distinction between those three wordings.

[Dalleron]

I fail to see how you say that doomfists don't make the DK strength 10.

A doomfist is a DCCW, which does what it says in the big rulebook. It's just rules lawyering to make it read anything else to be what you want it to be.

[wkz]

OP is right, Doomfists don't double the Dreadknight's strength. End of story.

The only gripe I have is with the OP: "x counts as y," "x is is treated as y," and "x follows the same rules as y" are three different ways of saying exactly the same thing. There is no functional distinction between those three wordings.
... there are differences:

A Blood Angel Vanguard Marine counts as Jump Infantry.
Meaning: exactly what it says: Vanguard Marines follow ALL the rules for Jump Infantry and all the rules apply always, because that's what they ARE. No questions asked.

A Librarian who successfully cast this power is treated as Jump Infantry.
Meaning: Slightly different from "Counts as": the target in question are usually something else (Most Librarians are usually Infantry) but something causes them to be different. They are now using a bunch of rules entirely different from their "norm".

A Gray Knight Dreadknight with Teleporters follows the same rules as Jump Infantry (for movement).
Meaning: Slightly different from "Counts as" and "Treated as": the target in question ONLY uses the rules for something (using the rules for Jump Infantry) but otherwise having most of their original rules intact (Dreadknights are still Monsterous Creatures).



I fail to see how you say that doomfists don't make the DK strength 10.

A doomfist is a DCCW, which does what it says in the big rulebook. It's just rules lawyering to make it read anything else to be what you want it to be.... I think you've seen the argument about the word "Walkers" inside the DCCW rules, haven't you?

I guess you don't agree with that statement/argument then? I guess you're saying "DCCW has the precedent of granting double strength all the time, so it should grant it in this case"? Welcome to the world of RAI, the world of second-guessing what GW actually intended with the rules... It tends to clash with RAW (which is the world of strict wording interpretation).

And as I've said, GW seem to be doing a wonderful job making sure RAI and RAW are at loggerheads over the Dreadknight...


PS: a word of advice, don't use the word "rules lawyering" in an argument of this nature... as "forcing the rules to say what you want to say" applies both ways: via strict wording, Dreadknights does not have double strength with Doomfists. Saying otherwise technically equals you being the rules lawyering person here...

[Dalleron]

I have seen the argument regarding Doomfists, Dreadknights, and DCCW. I just think it is dumb that this is actually being argued about, over what, 2 words in a 300 page rulebook? Does this make me dumb for even taking part in it, sure why not.

Why is it such a crazy notion that this one unit breaks one rules, in a codex that already has broken rules of the game.

I am familiear with the RAI vs RAW. It is a silly idea which GW will probably never take a stand on.

Whatever the case, I will stand in the corner of the S10 dreadknight, going with the RAI camp.

I wonder though, if you put it to the forum via a poll of sorts, what the majority would be?

[wkz]

I have seen the argument regarding Doomfists, Dreadknights, and DCCW. I just think it is dumb that this is actually being argued about, over what, 2 words in a 300 page rulebook? Does this make me dumb for even taking part in it, sure why not.All the rules are active, all the time. That makes every single word in the rulebook important.

"Make a Difficult Terrain Test" 5 words that are important in Movement

"Move the closest model into base to base with the CLOSEST ENEMY MODEL" 3 words in a sentence that is absolutely vital to starting close combat.

"Remove" This single word all over the rulebook describes death, and without it the game is unplayable.

"Embark" and "Disembark", without which our transports will stop working

etc...

2 words in a 300 page rulebook is important when all 300 pages of it is important. And you think a single word in a rule that disagrees with you should be ignored? Seriously?



Why is it such a crazy notion that this one unit breaks one rules, in a codex that already has broken rules of the game.Thing is, the unit in question USES rules, not break them.

Remember (and this is something formulated thanks to someone else), Codex > Rulebook, but when the Codex asks the Rulebook to explain things for it, the Rulebook takes precedence.

The Dreadknight's Doomfists uses the DCCW rules, and says nothing more, no added rules, no exceptions (well, other than the fact Doomfists has Nemesis and DaemonBane rules). Thus the wording in the DCCW section is particularly important, and in there we see this single word "Walker" when it explains double-strength...

... Thus, in this case, even if the rulebook is blindsided by the fact some idiot put a DCCW on anything other than a walker, the rules are pretty clear: No double strength.

Of course, just as stupid laws of the country are explained once the flaw of that law is found, so will this be clarified in the FAQ/Errata. 'tis curious how GW would rule it.


I am familiear with the RAI vs RAW. It is a silly idea which GW will probably never take a stand on. GW wouldn't, because to admit to RAI automatically admit means GW admits to its rulesets having holes... holes which require the community to patch. This is to admit to a design flaw (one which is purposely put in to some degree, but one which plays havok on GW's "competitive game" plan).

This I am in agreement with you.


Whatever the case, I will stand in the corner of the S10 dreadknight, going with the RAI camp.

I wonder though, if you put it to the forum via a poll of sorts, what the majority would be?
And I in mine. Have fun.

As you are, I am also curious what a simple poll will reveal...

[Charistoph]

- Walker weapons on a Monster!
Precedence: DCCW always had double strength! RAI says they should have that!
Precedence breaker: It is the first time a DCCW is on a monster! RAW says they shouldn't have that! (and yes, both meanings. I'm looking HARD at you-know-who...)

Not the first time. As mentioned earlier, the Eldar used to have it as a default on their Wraithlord. True, it's not used in a current codex, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened before.


- Monster having 2 weapons!
Precedence: Monsters never had 2 weapons in the past (in 4th or 5th edition)!! RAI says they should (a) either be like a Dreadnought (2 weapons for +1 attack, and thus supporting the "Dreadknight double strength" above), or (b) NOT have that +1A!
Precedence breaker: 2 weapons, fer goodness sake!! RAW says 2 weapons gets +1A due to infantry weapon-wielding rules (of which a Monsterous creature is a sub-set of) !

Again, not the first time, otherwise both Eldar and Tyranid players would have room to complain. If you have 2 of the same melee weapon, you get +1 Attack (agreed), but trade that Doomfist out, and no +1 Attack for you!


And my absolute Favorite:
- Doomfist description!!
Fluff: Its a Powerfist in the fluff description!! RAI says its a powerfist!!
Rules: Its a DCCW in the rules description!! RAW says its a DCCW!!

It's a DCCW.

This is also hardly the first time that GW has done something like this. The Orks have an HQ Infantry model that has access to an Ordnance weapon. The Ordnance weapons state that it is a vehicle weapon. So either the Ork player pays for a weapon that does NOTHING, or the the weapon follows the rest of the rules ignoring the part that mentions vehicles.

Another point, in the Battle Mission, Kill Team, you can assign USRs to a model. Turboboost is a USR, but it only specifically mentions bikes and jet bikes using it. It does not EXCLUDE any other unit from using that rule, it just doesn't include it as standard fare.

[Skragger]

Just to chime in here, I don't play GK, I haven't read much on them besides here on BoLS, but I gotta say.. they have to be the campiest army in the history of camp.

Nemisis Doomfist? Does no one realise just how horrifyingly stupid that sounds? Stormhammer = cool and god like, Manticore = mythical beast of great power, Rhino = sturdy and stable wrinkly beast, Nemisis Doomhammer = failed 80s hair metal band.

I can see "Doomhammer" being a toy the Orks get to play with, like a suped up Rokkit-Hammer. But everything about the GK I've read so far (admittedly, not much) seems to follow the "we don't know what we're doing anymore" trail. I think you're right, a FAQ at least half the size of the codex is on the way.

Banding was easier to figure out than half the rules for this thing (anyone? anyone? Please tell me SOMEONE gets that joke).

I can see them causing a lot of headaches for GMs and Tournament judges thats for sure.

Gah! :mad:

[wkz]

Not the first time. As mentioned earlier, the Eldar used to have it as a default on their Wraithlord. True, it's not used in a current codex, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened before. They had it, but that was waaaaaaaaay back in 2nd edition, and is too long ago to effectively use as a reference for RAI.




Again, not the first time, otherwise both Eldar and Tyranid players would have room to complain. If you have 2 of the same melee weapon, you get +1 Attack (agreed), but trade that Doomfist out, and no +1 Attack for you!Note that 4th and 5th edition 'nids have the "despite all the stuff you put on the bug, it will only have the number of attacks listed in the profile" rule. Thus, the 'nids cannot be reasonably used as reference for RAI. As for the Eldar... well, see above.




It's a DCCW.I am in agreement. BUT the fluff section is causing merry havok with the RAI guys...


This is also hardly the first time that GW has done something like this. The Orks have an HQ Infantry model that has access to an Ordnance weapon. The Ordnance weapons state that it is a vehicle weapon. So either the Ork player pays for a weapon that does NOTHING, or the the weapon follows the rest of the rules ignoring the part that mentions vehicles..... I actually forgot about the Shokk attack gun.
...
...
Wait a... ... ... wow, this is interesting... time to create a new thread?


Another point, in the Battle Mission, Kill Team, you can assign USRs to a model. Turboboost is a USR, but it only specifically mentions bikes and jet bikes using it. It does not EXCLUDE any other unit from using that rule, it just doesn't include it as standard fare.Yup, that's similar to the "walker weapon" ruling at work here, in another context...





<snip>
Welcome to the forums. And thanks for thinking another army is campier than the Blood-everything Angels...

[Charistoph]

They had it, but that was waaaaaaaaay back in 2nd edition, and is too long ago to effectively use as a reference for RAI.

Hunh, then the 3rd Edition one I have has a misprint.


Note that 4th and 5th edition 'nids have the "despite all the stuff you put on the bug, it will only have the number of attacks listed in the profile" rule. Thus, the 'nids cannot be reasonably used as reference for RAI. As for the Eldar... well, see above.

Nope, I remember both the 3rd and 4th Edition versions having ways to +1 attack (true, it wasn't by taking the same weapon twice, but a specific weapon), but it was there.


As to the rule in question:
I'll put it this way, the BRB rules are setup for the standard things. The codex armories are for where those standard things apply, such as a non vehicle having a weapon type that is normally only on a vehicle.

[wkz]

Hunh, then the 3rd Edition one I have has a misprint.Perhaps I remembered wrongly. But that is still 2 editions old, and frankly cannot be applied to the RAI of today.




Nope, I remember both the 3rd and 4th Edition versions having ways to +1 attack (true, it wasn't by taking the same weapon twice, but a specific weapon), but it was there.But what about +1 attack from 2 weapons, because THAT is what we need here...



As to the rule in question:
I'll put it this way, the BRB rules are setup for the standard things. The codex armories are for where those standard things apply, such as a non vehicle having a weapon type that is normally only on a vehicle.

The BRB is for standard things, yes. The codex (and its armories) are for non-standard things, and quite frankly Codex > BRB. BUT, and here's the interesting point, when the Codex asks the Rulebook to explain things for it, the Rulebook takes precedence. And the rulebook Does say "walker gets double strength" in there.

Its like this:
When you try to stick Turboboost to a non-bike model, it fails, because the unit-type does not match as said by the BRB.
When you try to stick Mastercrafted to a model who already had re-rolls, the mastercrafting fails, because the BRB says you cannot re-roll a re-roll.
When you have a weapon Counts As a special weapon, all the rules of that special weapon applies, because the BRB describes what happens if you wield that weapon.

And when you have a DCCW, it counts as a Power Weapon with walkers getting double strength. Quite straightforward, this...


And lastly, I checked: Ordnance weapons may be listed in the vehicles section, BUT nothing in the rules for it says it is an exclusive vehicle-only weapon. Hell, I seem to recall somewhere in the Ork Codex (or is it FAQ?) even says "treat it as a Heavy weapon when firing".

[Tynskel]

Can't apply 3rd edition today? Say that to the Sisters of Battle and the Necrons.

[Hive Mind]

The very simple method of divining whether the doomfist doubles the strength is to ask whether whatever it is mounted upon is a walker.

The answer to that question is also the answer to whether it doubles the strength.

[Gir]

The very simple method of divining whether the doomfist doubles the strength is to ask whether whatever it is mounted upon is a walker.

The answer to that question is also the answer to whether it doubles the strength.

It's not, and therefore doubles it's strength, because the very act of having it on a MC is overriding the rule book saying only walkers can have them.

[Hive Mind]

It's not, and therefore doubles it's strength, because the very act of having it on a MC is overriding the rule book saying only walkers can have them.

A Dreadknight can have a DDCW, per the Codex. A DDCW doubles a walkers strength, per the Rulebook rules we are directed to use by the Codex. A Dreadknight is not a walker. The Dreadknight's strength is not doubled.

Is this what was intended? Probably not. Is this what is written? Absolutely, yes.

What you're doing is following the part of the rules you like and arbitrarily dismissing the bit you don't. Which isn't how it works.

[Bean]

It's not, and therefore doubles it's strength, because the very act of having it on a MC is overriding the rule book saying only walkers can have them.

There is no rule that says that only walkers can have them. The actual rules for them have two parts: the first part states that they act as power weapons. The second part states that they double the walker's strength. The first part applies to everything with a DCCW. The second part only applies to walkers, since it specifies walkers.

It's that simple.

Your argument is based on a rule that you just made up.

[Charistoph]

Perhaps I remembered wrongly. But that is still 2 editions old, and frankly cannot be applied to the RAI of today.

Try 1 Edition, the current Eldar codex is 4th Edition. True, there was a sub-codex in between called Craftworld Eldar, but that wasn't the main Eldar codex.


In the end, run it by your LGS and see how they want to treat it, since they're the ones you play with and have to face.

[Tynskel]

There is no rule that says that only walkers can have them. The actual rules for them have two parts: the first part states that they act as power weapons. The second part states that they double the walker's strength. The first part applies to everything with a DCCW. The second part only applies to walkers, since it specifies walkers.

It's that simple.

Your argument is based on a rule that you just made up.

no. You are interpreting the rulebook to say one thing. Someone else was interpreting the rule to mean that only walkers can have DCCW, and for a limited extension, the Dreadknight counts as a walker, because it has a walker weapon. These are BOTH RAW.

There is nothing wrong with this interpretation. They both are following the same rules. It would be impossible to refute this, because there are MANY rules for 'counts as' something else, and only apply some of the rules.

[Hive Mind]

A Doomfist doesn't "count as" a DDCW, it "follows the rules for" DDCWs IIRC.

[Tynskel]

A Doomfist doesn't "count as" a DDCW, it "follows the rules for" DDCWs IIRC.

I didn't say the doomfist 'counts as' as a DCCW, what I am saying is that the rules for DCCW refer to the walker that is using the weapon--- making the Dreadknight 'count as' a walker, because it has a DCCW and only walkers have DCCW. But, as with many instances with 'counts as', the Dreadknight is listed as a Monsterous Creature and the DCCW is the only aspect of 'Walker' the Dreadknight has.

[Hive Mind]

I didn't say the doomfist 'counts as' as a DCCW, what I am saying is that the rules for DCCW refer to the walker that is using the weapon--- making the Dreadknight 'count as' a walker, because it has a DCCW and only walkers have DCCW. But, as with many instances with 'counts as', the Dreadknight is listed as a Monsterous Creature and the DCCW is the only aspect of 'Walker' the Dreadknight has.

That is probably what was intended. Sadly, that is not what is written.

[Tynskel]

That is probably what was intended. Sadly, that is not what is written.

ah, but that is what is written, the DCCW rules refer to 'the' walker. Depending on your version of RAW, 'the' could mean any walker, or it could be referring to the handler of the weapon. If you choose handler of the weapon, the Dreadknight is a walker for the purposes of the DCCW.

RAW, in either case.

[Xas]

The one thing I do not understand up to this point is what kinda drug the author was on when he classified the doomfist as a DCCW.

If he wanted it to be s10 why not just classify it as a nemesisweapon that also is a powerfist which strikes at normal initiative (copy&paste the hammer entry).

If he wanted it to be normal strenght it could just have been classified as a normal forceweapon (sword without +1 to inv).



The only semi-reasonable thing I can come up with is that this codex is written for 6th Edition and that there will be something about DCCW changed (like maybe allow them to grab enemies like warjacks in WM?)...

[Hive Mind]

ah, but that is what is written, the DCCW rules refer to 'the' walker. Depending on your version of RAW, 'the' could mean any walker, or it could be referring to the handler of the weapon.

Even though I write as someone who has spent the last four years of my life learning to stretch what is written in order to support my case I find that a stretch too far.

The DDCW rules (which we are referred to by the Codex rules for the doomfist) refer to "the walker". At no point does RAW say to change "the walker" to anything else. There is no way an RAW argument can support the rules for DDCWs doubling the strength of a Monstrous Creature.

Your argument, IMO of course, makes about as much sense as the infamous Chewbacca Defence.

[Tynskel]

Even though I write as someone who has spent the last four years of my life learning to stretch what is written in order to support my case I find that a stretch too far.

The DDCW rules (which we are referred to by the Codex rules for the doomfist) refer to "the walker". At no point does RAW say to change "the walker" to anything else. There is no way an RAW argument can support the rules for DDCWs doubling the strength of a Monstrous Creature.

Your argument, IMO of course, makes about as much sense as the infamous Chewbacca Defence.

you are right, the DCCW does not change the walker, what it says is that the carrier of the weapon is a walker. There is a difference.

[Bean]

you are right, the DCCW does not change the walker, what it says is that the carrier of the weapon is a walker. There is a difference.

No, Tynskel, it doesn't say that. It doesn't say anything like that. This isn't an interpretation--it's an outright fabrication with no basis in fact whatsoever.

[Gir]

No, Tynskel, it doesn't say that. It doesn't say anything like that. This isn't an interpretation--it's an outright fabrication with no basis in fact whatsoever.

You're wrong, that is EXACTALLY what it says. This whole argument seems to come out of a lack of understanding for a more esoteric rule of English.

I have explained it few times, but I will explain it again in a hope to end this arugment.

In the sentance: "A Dreadnought Close Combat weapon is a power weapon that also doubles the walkers strength", the sentance is one part, and refers to a single entity. This is shown by the use of "the". People seem to be breaking the sentance into two parts, and applying each part to a seperate entity. In order for this way to be correct, the "the" has to be an "a" instead.

So, by the rules of English, only a walker can have a DCCW. The rules of codex over BRB mean that the Dreadknight is an exception, and therefore gets both effects of the weapon (Double strength and power weapon).

I understand how people can think it's only walkers that get double strength, but that interrpritation is really poor English,

[Bean]

You're wrong, that is EXACTALLY what it says. This whole argument seems to come out of a lack of understanding for a more esoteric rule of English.

I have explained it few times, but I will explain it again in a hope to end this arugment.

In the sentance: "A Dreadnought Close Combat weapon is a power weapon that also doubles the walkers strength", the sentance is one part, and refers to a single entity. This is shown by the use of "the". People seem to be breaking the sentance into two parts, and applying each part to a seperate entity. In order for this way to be correct, the "the" has to be an "a" instead.

So, by the rules of English, only a walker can have a DCCW. The rules of codex over BRB mean that the Dreadknight is an exception, and therefore gets both effects of the weapon (Double strength and power weapon).

I understand how people can think it's only walkers that get double strength, but that interrpritation is really poor English,

This is simply not true. English is my field of study, and I am more than well enough versed in it to know that the use of a definite article does not magically turn this into a proscription against non-walkers bearing dccws. What this rule is is poorly written; it shouldn't use the definite article. The way it's actually worded, article taken literally, it's entirely non-functional, leading us not to any conclusions, but merely the question, "what walker?" which is left tragically unanswered.

It is not a rule against putting dccws on non-walkers in any literate interpretation.

[Gir]

This is simply not true. English is my field of study, and I am more than well enough versed in it to know that the use of a definite article does not magically turn this into a proscription against non-walkers bearing dccws. What this rule is is poorly written; it shouldn't use the definite article. The way it's actually worded, article taken literally, it's entirely non-functional, leading us not to any conclusions, but merely the question, "what walker?" which is left tragically unanswered.

But by that definition, wouldn't you use the "Codex > BRB" rule? Basically meaning that to follow the rule, you need to create an exception that proves it, which the Codex > BRB rule does.

[wkz]

But by that definition, wouldn't you use the "Codex > BRB" rule? Basically meaning that to follow the rule, you need to create an exception that proves it, which the Codex > BRB rule does.

Codex>BRB, but when the codex asks the BRB to explain what something means, the BRB's ruling is superior and upheld.

C:GK says a Doomfist is a DCCW (with additional rules). What exactly is a DCCW? There is no mention of DCCW rules anywhere inside C:GK. Thus, we go to the BRB, and inside the BRB we get that power weapon double-walker-strength thingy.

Its similar to the codex saying something is a Get Hot weapon (what, I got to take a wound just because some stinkin' BRB says so??), an Ordnance weapon (What?!? I got STOP firing all my other weapons just because that stupid BRB says so??), eats wounds because the codex classified some models as Jump infantry (WHAT?!!!? We take wounds just because we walked onto this paper with the words "Difficult Terrain" written on it, Just because the BRB says so?? What is this bull****!!), etc, etc...

Only when specifically overruled is a BRB rule overruled. (I'm Leman Russ, the ultimate tank. My Ordnance cannon is far superior, because MY CODEX SAYS SO!! So there!!) C:GK did not overrule the "walker" thingy, and thus here we are having this conversation...


Edit:

ah, but that is what is written, the DCCW rules refer to 'the' walker. Depending on your version of RAW, 'the' could mean any walker, or it could be referring to the handler of the weapon. If you choose handler of the weapon, the Dreadknight is a walker for the purposes of the DCCW.

RAW, in either case.Hmmm...

"... and doubles the walker's strength in close combat"
< add a new rule> <modifier= double> <refers to target Subject>
<Subject=walker?
Meanings:
MUST be walker or illegal?
MUST be walker or subject is invalid, thus rule is invalid?
Or is it Subject noun (used wrongly in this case)>
<Subject's affected statistics> <situational addum> <Situation = close combat>

... the bolded part is what we've been arguing all this while.
(and yes, if I feed the above into a computer program, it'd return with an exception error... but we humans are supposedly much smarter than that?)

[Gir]

Codex>BRB, but when the codex asks the BRB to explain what something means, the BRB's ruling is superior and upheld.

C:GK says a Doomfist is a DCCW (with additional rules). What exactly is a DCCW? There is no mention of DCCW rules anywhere inside C:GK. Thus, we go to the BRB, and inside the BRB we get that power weapon double-walker-strength thingy.

Its similar to the codex saying something is a Get Hot weapon (what, I got to take a wound just because some stinkin' BRB says so??), an Ordnance weapon (What?!? I got STOP firing all my other weapons just because that stupid BRB says so??), eats wounds because the codex classified some models as Jump infantry (WHAT?!!!? We take wounds just because we walked onto this paper with the words "Difficult Terrain" written on it, Just because the BRB says so?? What is this bull****!!), etc, etc...


You completely missed my point. The exception generated by the codex is purely based around a non-walker having a DCCW, which is not allowed accordiing to the BRB.

[wkz]

You completely missed my point. The exception generated by the codex is purely based around a non-walker having a DCCW, which is not allowed accordiing to the BRB.Via your interpretation of the English language. Then again, the English language is the source of all the meaning we're discussing right now.

Well, the solution is simple: *soup nzi voice* "NO DREADKNIGHT FOR YOU!!"

Seriously, check the 2nd half of my post: thanks to its status as "the epic mish mash of several languages", the English language have quite a lot of wriggling room, and your interpretation is ONLY ONE OF MANY...

[Bean]

But by that definition, wouldn't you use the "Codex > BRB" rule? Basically meaning that to follow the rule, you need to create an exception that proves it, which the Codex > BRB rule does.

That wasn't a definition, you don't need to create an exception to prove the rule, and nothing in the C:GK overrides anything in the BRB for this particular issue. The C:GK says that the DK has DCCWs, but fails to tell you anything about what a DCCW actually does. The BRB is fine with the DK having DCCWs, and it tells you what they do--but part of what they do is specific to walkers. That's really all there is to it.

[isotope99]

The one thing I do not understand up to this point is what kinda drug the author was on when he classified the doomfist as a DCCW.



Lazium, all the cool kids are taking it... ...when they can be bothered. :cool:

A quick spell in the FAQ rehab clinic should help with the problem.

Seriously, I think this wins the prize for biggest rules blunder in the codex.

[Tynskel]

No, Tynskel, it doesn't say that. It doesn't say anything like that. This isn't an interpretation--it's an outright fabrication with no basis in fact whatsoever.

Yes it is an interpretation that falls under RAW.

[Gir]

Lazium, all the cool kids are taking it... ...when they can be bothered. :cool:

A quick spell in the FAQ rehab clinic should help with the problem.

Seriously, I think this wins the prize for biggest rules blunder in the codex.

I see it as only being a blunder because no one caught it in play-testing. It was pretty damn obvious to the play testers that it should double strength, hence the lack of clarification.

It's a case of the people of the internet loosing thier common sense.

[Tynskel]

No, not losing common sense--- the internet is full of WAAC.

Remember, everyone on the internet is trying to avoid 'Epic Fail', and ending up on Youtube being interrupted by Piano Cat or being Rick Roll'd.

[Charistoph]

Lazium, all the cool kids are taking it... ...when they can be bothered. :cool:

A quick spell in the FAQ rehab clinic should help with the problem.

Seriously, I think this wins the prize for biggest rules blunder in the codex.

I don't know, I thought that referring to a character by his first name in a FOC Special Rule, when the character is only listed in the army list by his last name was quite funny.

[Hive Mind]

Or maybe it was obvious to playtesters that since the rule for DDCWs refers to walkers and the Dreadknight is not a walker a DDCW doesn't double the strength of a Dreadknight.

[Skragger]

Is it just me or is the GK codex the Vista of codexes? So full of promises, but there's all the little finicky bugs that make it very difficult to work with?

[bfmusashi]

You're wrong, that is EXACTALLY what it says. This whole argument seems to come out of a lack of understanding for a more esoteric rule of English.

I have explained it few times, but I will explain it again in a hope to end this arugment.

In the sentance: "A Dreadnought Close Combat weapon is a power weapon that also doubles the walkers strength", the sentance is one part, and refers to a single entity. This is shown by the use of "the". People seem to be breaking the sentance into two parts, and applying each part to a seperate entity. In order for this way to be correct, the "the" has to be an "a" instead.

So, by the rules of English, only a walker can have a DCCW. The rules of codex over BRB mean that the Dreadknight is an exception, and therefore gets both effects of the weapon (Double strength and power weapon).

I understand how people can think it's only walkers that get double strength, but that interrpritation is really poor English,

I love this, as it assumes the rules of English apply to Warhammer. So, I've got to know, how many dice to you reroll when you reroll the scatter dice?
Let's say you're right and the DCCW makes the dreadknight a walker and doubles his strength in CC. How do we allocate weapon destroyed results to a monstrous creature? As I'm certain you did not simply grab on to one sentence in an entry a mere five in length to make your argument, I hope you will share your answer. I am also curious how we get the weapon destroyed result as monstrous creatures are not vehicles like walkers. do the first two wounds destroy weapons, the third immobilize and the fourth wreck? Does my dreadknight explode? Can my techmarine repair my dreadknight, repairing a wound a turn?
These are all consequences of putting to much weight in one sentence in a short section of a rulebook sidebar. In order for your interpretation through the power of English to be correct you have to change walker to bearer or you have to deal with the complications of the rest of that entry. Common sense should have told you that.

[Gir]

I love this, as it assumes the rules of English apply to Warhammer. So, I've got to know, how many dice to you reroll when you reroll the scatter dice?

All dice involved in the scatter (This was FAQ'd)


Let's say you're right and the DCCW makes the dreadknight a walker and doubles his strength in CC. How do we allocate weapon destroyed results to a monstrous creature? As I'm certain you did not simply grab on to one sentence in an entry a mere five in length to make your argument, I hope you will share your answer. I am also curious how we get the weapon destroyed result as monstrous creatures are not vehicles like walkers. do the first two wounds destroy weapons, the third immobilize and the fourth wreck? Does my dreadknight explode? Can my techmarine repair my dreadknight, repairing a wound a turn?

This is a really really poor way to prove your point. You don't ignore the rest of the rules in the sidebar when applying them to a walker, they are just never used because the situtation is impossible to reach. Also note the word "if" in the statement, meaning it in game terms, the rules never have to be forefilled, they are just there incase they are.


In order for your interpretation through the power of English to be correct you have to change walker to bearer or you have to deal with the complications of the rest of that entry. Common sense should have told you that.

I agree that it should "model" instead of "walker", but the first part of the rule has no bearing on the rest, as they are conditional statements.

Also note that the last one specifically uses "a" over "the", meaning that only a walker benefits from having more then 2 dccw.

[bfmusashi]

I am a simple caveman lawyer and your modern world frightens and confuses me. As such, I can not do line quotes. Please make due.

Do you happen to know which FAQ the scatter dice ruling is in? I couldn't find it in the Rulebook or Imperial Guard FAQ's and would love to be able to point at the reference. So many unlucky Storm Troopers....

In pointing out what was wrong with my point you've restated my chief problem with the original statement. No one sentence in that section is more valid than any other. All the others have to do with walkers, the vehicle type, as does the initial sentence. At no point does it allow for a non-vehicle to use those rules. If the other rules can not be applied, how can the strength multiplication?

The entire sidebar is a conditional statement. Walkers get DCCW. Not a walker? Then this doesn't concern you.

[Gir]

The entire sidebar is a conditional statement. Walkers get DCCW. Not a walker? Then this doesn't concern you.

So what happens when non-walkers get a DCCW? Do they not do anything?

[wkz]

So what happens when non-walkers get a DCCW? Do they not do anything?

Well, all rules apply, all the time. Just that when you're not the target of the rule in question, the rules of that section does not apply to you. (unless there's an errata/exception written somewhere of course)

Examples:
- Turbo-boosters USR granted onto a non-bike or skimmer unit means that the entire body of the rule (refers to bikes and jetbikes) is wasted.

- You're a vehicle, which automatically exempts you from the Fall back rule.

- A Monstrous Creature does not take Weapons Destroyed or Immobilized results.

- If you're not a tank, the Tank shock and Ramming sections are irrelevant to you.

Etc... this are entire CHUNKS of the rulebook removed from use by units because they do not fit the unit type in question.



... so yes, DCCW on a Dreadknight can be interpreted as doing nothing: technically, a DCCW on a Dreadknight (Monsterous Creature) automatically does not use all of the rules for DCCW using the above reasoning: Because DCCW is a walker weapon as described in the Walker section, and Dreadknights are not Walkers.

Thus, using this newest interpretation of the Dreadknight-Doomfist rules conundrum : the Dreadknight CC attacks are Str 6 (not walker), +1A (Infantry "two weapons of the same type" rules), Ignores Armor saves (Monstrous Creature rules), and have double-dice penetration rolls (Monstrous Creature rules)

...
And yes, this time I'm technically using RAI this time (the RAI being: DCCW belongs only to walkers, so all the rules for DCCW shuts down if it is equipped by non-walkers... such as "Monstrous Creatures").

[bfmusashi]

Aye, on a dreadknight the doomfists are 'just' a pair of force weapons with daemonbane. Page 73 kicks in on the Venerable Dreadnought and standard Dreadnought. That's how the rules look to me.

[Gir]

Aye, on a dreadknight the doomfists are 'just' a pair of force weapons with daemonbane. Page 73 kicks in on the Venerable Dreadnought and standard Dreadnought. That's how the rules look to me.

But you're ignoring the rule where it says to treat it as a DCCW.

[wkz]

But you're ignoring the rule where it says to treat it as a DCCW.

Good job! Between this statement and the last one you gave us, you've just solved this inexplicable rules conundrum! I'd hire you if I am the boss of my own company!! Hey Caroline, do we have enough money to hire her?? No?? Hell, just test a few less bums would'ya, that'll give us all the money we need. This guy's a genius, and we need him!
*cough*sarcasm*cough*

Simple version: Treat it as a DCCW. A DCCW on a Monsterous Creature is illegal. Thus switch off the rules for the DCCW itself.

You end up with 2 weapons without DCCW properties (but with Nemisis and Daemonbane properties). Problem solved.

[Gir]

Good job! Between this statement and the last one you gave us, you've just solved this inexplicable rules conundrum! I'd hire you if I am the boss of my own company!! Hey Caroline, do we have enough money to hire her?? No?? Hell, just test a few less bums would'ya, that'll give us all the money we need. This guy's a genius, and we need him!
*cough*sarcasm*cough*

Simple version: Treat it as a DCCW. A DCCW on a Monsterous Creature is illegal. Thus switch off the rules for the DCCW itself.

You end up with 2 weapons without DCCW properties (but with Nemisis and Daemonbane properties). Problem solved.

You REALLY suck at getting the point. This also really has nothing to do with you, or how you see the rule. It's purely about bfmusashi interpritation.

[Tynskel]

actually, the simple version is to treat the Dreadknight as a walker for the purposes of DCCW, since the Dreadknight is equipped with DCCW.

[Archon Charybdis]

actually, the simple version is to treat the Dreadknight as a walker for the purposes of DCCW, since the Dreadknight is equipped with DCCW.

And as of yet, I haven't seen any compelling explanation as to why they would reference the DCCW rules, if they didn't intend to actually use them. The only benefit of a DCCW that's relevant to a monstrous creature is the fact that it doubles S. It seems to me that if they didn't intend it to double S, they would have just defined the Doomfist as a close combat weapon, or force weapon if they felt like being a little more redundant.

Given the choice between GW writing the rules to reference a completely irrelevant/inapplicable part of the main rulebook, or GW just assuming that people wouldn't sweat the word "walker", and use the DCCW rules as normal, the latter seems much more likely.

[Tynskel]

we are saying the same thing: treating the monsterous creature as a walker for the purpose of using the DCCW.

[Archon Charybdis]

Yeah, I wasn't trying to argue, just expand on your statement. For people to suggest that they specifically referenced the DCCW rules, and didn't intend for any of their effects to apply, is just absurd. If they wanted it to effectively have just a pair of close combat weapons, they would have said "A Nemesis Doomfist is a close combat weapon."

[wkz]

You REALLY suck at getting the point. This also really has nothing to do with you, or how you see the rule. It's purely about bfmusashi interpritation.
Oh?

Your only point thus far is "DCCW wording means DCCW on a Dreadknight is ILLEGAL", isn't it? Well, I've said this a few times already: *soup nzi voice: "NO DREADKNIGHT FOR YOU!!"

But of course, English is every bit as shaky as GW rules, and one single sentence CAN have multiple meanings... or didn't you catch that point I'm trying to put across??



Oh, and if you really must:

Aye, on a dreadknight the doomfists are 'just' a pair of force weapons with daemonbane. Page 73 kicks in on the Venerable Dreadnought and standard Dreadnought. That's how the rules look to me.
There. bfmusashi's point.

[Tynskel]

it makes no sense--- why would you give someone a weapon that cannot use half of the abilities.

As of now, I cannot recall ANY other thing that only gets to use half of the abilities. The dreadknight is a walker for the purposes of using a DCCW--- the interpretation of the DCCW actually allows this.

[bfmusashi]

it makes no sense--- why would you give someone a weapon that cannot use half of the abilities.

As of now, I cannot recall ANY other thing that only gets to use half of the abilities. The dreadknight is a walker for the purposes of using a DCCW--- the interpretation of the DCCW actually allows this.

I too can not recall ANY other thing that only gets to use half of the abilities listed. Much cleaner to give it NONE. Since the entry on the DCCW is only 5 sentences long, 4 of which are rules, your argument would make a model where only a quarter of the rules apply.

[Tynskel]

What precedent is there to give anything none of the abilities? Nothing.

No, the precedent is that the unit uses all the abilities listed.

[Arien]

Okay, so lets clarify the whole picture, so that everyone can understand why certain subjects are referenced.

Under the Nemesis Force Weapons entry it states that all Nemesis weapons are force weapons as detailed in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. It also states that they also have Daemonbane. And third it states that The various types of Nemesis force weapon have one or more OTHER abilities, as listed blah blah (Emphasis Mine)

So we move onto the Nemesis Doomfist:

"A Nemesis Doomfist follows the rules for Dreadnought close combat weapons."

Now we take a look at where the Nemesis Doomfist is equipped within the Codex.

Under Elites, we have the Venerable Dreadnought (A Walker, how handy)
Under Heavy Support, we have the Dreadnought (Again, a Walker)
Under Heavy Support, we have the Dreadknight (A Monstrous Creature)

All these units have less than Str 10 as standard, this is useful to note.

So now we move onto the Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons rules.

"A Dreadnought close combat weapon is a power weapon and doubles the WALKERS Strength in close combat (up to a maximum of 10)" (Emphasis mine)

When we take all these rules as RAW, you have two units (Ven Dread and Dread) that benefit from all the Nemesis Doomfist rules, and one unit (Dreadknight) that benefits from the Nemesis Doomfist rules as far as owning a force weapon and having Daemonbane.

Since the Dreadknight is not considered a Walker, it doesn't get double strength, as the DCCW doubles the walkers Strength, but it gets everything else.

So to summarise:
Dreadnoughts get Str 10 Power weapon Force weapon Daemonbane attacks.
Dreadknights get Power weapon Force weapon Daemonbane attacks (and maybe +1 attack for wielding two of them)

If anyone has struggled to follow this post, please feel free to PM me and I will happily clarify to the best of my ability.

[Sonikgav]

Im currently perfectly happy to accept they are only S6 with Doomfists. Otherwise The Hammer loses value and Hammerhand is redundant on all Sreadknights that dont take the Sword upgrade.

Mine are built to go after Infantry anyway. 5 (yes, he carries a pair) attacks on the charge at S6/7 isnt bad. Against infantry your still killing most things on 2's regardless, the S10 only comes in against vehicles and thats not what mine will be hunting.

[Sonikgav]

it makes no sense--- why would you give someone a weapon that cannot use half of the abilities.

As of now, I cannot recall ANY other thing that only gets to use half of the abilities. The dreadknight is a walker for the purposes of using a DCCW--- the interpretation of the DCCW actually allows this.

Um....Nemesis Force Swords? Only units with Invulnerable saves get the full Benefit of those.

I think its just to keep the Codex clean and to get the Daemonbane and Nemesis Forceweapon rules on the Dreadknight. At no point can you assume that the Dreadknight magically becomes a Walker and nowhere does it say that DCCW's can ONLY be given to Walkers, just that it effects walkers differently.

Its interesting to note that noone in this argument has brought up the part on the Doomfist that says its a Power Weapon. Monstrous Creatures already ignore armour so if it has this rule then surely it must not be intended to be a Monstrous creature after all?

Unless you can somehow pull out an Armour Value for a Dreadknight the Fists will never double his strength because Walkers are vehicles and magically changing its type to anything but a walker gives you the same problem.

[bfmusashi]

What precedent is there to give anything none of the abilities? Nothing.

No, the precedent is that the unit uses all the abilities listed.

Then I repeat a previous statement, do you blow up the arms when you take wounds? Can a techmarinet restore the wounds? If you're going to ignore that it's a MC so it can be a walker you have to address all the abilities. Oh wait, that's not how monstrous creatures work, well crap, clearly the section on Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons does not apply.

[Tynskel]

Um....Nemesis Force Swords? Only units with Invulnerable saves get the full Benefit of those.



That is included specifically in the rules that when the rules do not apply.

[Tynskel]

Then I repeat a previous statement, do you blow up the arms when you take wounds? Can a techmarinet restore the wounds? If you're going to ignore that it's a MC so it can be a walker you have to address all the abilities. Oh wait, that's not how monstrous creatures work, well crap, clearly the section on Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons does not apply.

When a devastator takes a Hv Bolter, does the weapon get destroyed when you take damage–The weapon gets destroyed when it is on a predator.

No. The Monsterous Creature does not have an armor value. So, no, you do not blow up weapons because you do not roll on the vehicle weapon chart. However, there is no reason why the Dreadknight would not use all the rules for the DCCW. The 'rule' that people are referring to is referring to who is holding the weapon, and it is the Dreadknight, which therefore counts as a walker for the purposes of the DCCW.

[bfmusashi]

By the crux of your argument a Space Marine should be able to move 6" and shoot a Heavy Bolter because a Predator can.
That stated, let's review the rules for DCCW.
1. A DCCW doubles a walker's strength to a maximum of 10
2. If the walker suffers a weapon destroyed result and the player chooses the DCCW any other weapons on that arm are lost along with any bonuses.
3. If a walker has two or more DCCW it gains one bonus attack for each additional weapon over the first.
4. If one of these is destroyed the walker loses a bonus attack.
Being a walker is a prerequisite for the entire entry. It is claimed the Dreadknight gains access to number 1 even though it is not a walker. 2&4 are ignored because it's impossible to apply them to a Monstrous Creature even when you ignore the word walker. As it can not "follow the rules of Dreadnought close combat weapons" the conclusion is clear, stop telling your opponent it's strength 10. If you want a strength 10 doomfist, get a dreadnought.
At most, and I'm being generous here, you could argue that a Dreadknight can follow 1&3 by virtue of ignoring the word walker. You could also argue power armor is a type of vehicle and Space Marines are too awesome for Gets Hot and silly movement limitations. Both are horrible things to subject your opponent to.

[Tynskel]

No, the weapon is a DCCW. You count as a walker for the purposes of using a DCCW. You gain Str 10 +1 attack. If you exchange for a Sword or Thunder hammer, you still have +1 attack according to the DCCW, just like the Ironclad or Furioso Librarian.

[Hive Mind]

You're just making **** up Tynskel. The Codex specifically says to use the rules for a DDCW and utterly fails to mention anything about the Dreadknight counting as a walker.

There is absolutely zero basis in the rules to a claim that a doomfist doubles the strength of the Dreadknight. None whatsoever.

And yeah, if a Marine with a Heavy Bolter takes an unsaved wound, the weapon is destroyed in game terms. It doesn't fire anymore, does it?

[Tynskel]

but the rules for DCCW states 'the walker' ie the model carrying the weapon gains certain bonuses.

Since the Dreadknight gains these bonuses, the rules for a DCCW + a second (or more) CC weapon apply.

So an obliterator with a hv flamer takes a wound can no longer fire a hv flamer? The weapon destroyed results do not apply to the Dreadknight because the dreadknight rolls to wound not armor value.

[Hive Mind]

An Obliterator formed no part of your earlier example. You can't just change what you were saying when it's shown to be rubbish.

You're so close to the truth but you just don't want to see it. The rules say 'the walker' gets a strength bonus. A Dreadknight is not a walker and there is nothing anywhere to say that it is a walker, counts as a walker or is treated like a walker.

That's all there is to it.

[Tynskel]

An Obliterator formed no part of your earlier example. You can't just change what you were saying when it's shown to be rubbish.

You're so close to the truth but you just don't want to see it. The rules say 'the walker' gets a strength bonus. A Dreadknight is not a walker and there is nothing anywhere to say that it is a walker, counts as a walker or is treated like a walker.

That's all there is to it.

it is a multi-wound model with a weapon that vehicles carry?
What's wrong with using a better example?

No, the RAW states 'the walker' with the unit carrying the weapon. The Dreadknight carries the DCCW counting as a Walker for the purposes of the weapon.


We are arguing semantics. This means it comes down to simply how you define RAW to take form, which is purely subjective.

[Uncle Nutsy]

if it says it functions like a dreadnought close combat weapon, it FUNCTIONS like a DREADNOUGHT CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON.

Saying it doesn't work the way it says in the dex because the type is different is simply semantics.

debate over.

[bfmusashi]

it is a multi-wound model with a weapon that vehicles carry?
What's wrong with using a better example?

No, the RAW states 'the walker' with the unit carrying the weapon. The Dreadknight carries the DCCW counting as a Walker for the purposes of the weapon.


We are arguing semantics. This means it comes down to simply how you define RAW to take form, which is purely subjective.
As your argument relies on ignoring unit type I'm going to borrow your obliterator for a moment. Obliterator's can fire a plasma cannon, which suffers from Gets Hot. A plasma cannon on a vehicle does not suffer Gets Hot You are performing the equivalent of arguing an obliterator does not suffer from Gets Hot by ignoring its unit type. This is a jerk move.

[bfmusashi]

if it says it functions like a dreadnought close combat weapon, it FUNCTIONS like a DREADNOUGHT CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON.

Saying it doesn't work the way it says in the dex because the type is different is simply semantics.

debate over.
Defend your statement sir. Open the codex and the rulebook and make your point.

[Hive Mind]

Not by a long shot Tynskel. It isn't an RAW issue at all, you are simply fabricating a rule that says treat the Dreadknight as a walker.

That isn't RAW vs RAI, that is cheating.

[Tynskel]

As your argument relies on ignoring unit type I'm going to borrow your obliterator for a moment. Obliterator's can fire a plasma cannon, which suffers from Gets Hot. A plasma cannon on a vehicle does not suffer Gets Hot You are performing the equivalent of arguing an obliterator does not suffer from Gets Hot by ignoring its unit type. This is a jerk move.

I was pointing out what was wrong with your analogy.

[Tynskel]

Not by a long shot Tynskel. It isn't an RAW issue at all, you are simply fabricating a rule that says treat the Dreadknight as a walker.

That isn't RAW vs RAI, that is cheating.

No, this is simply your refusal to recognize that RAW has multiple interpretations. The rules refer to the carrier of the weapon, eg walker, and the Dreadknight is a considered a walker for the purposes of using a DCCW, otherwise, how could it have a DCCW? Because it couldn't.


The Dreadknight is a walker for the purposes of using the Doomfist.

This is simply the internet attempting to nerf the cool new unit because they don't like how it looks.

[Hive Mind]

The Dreadknight can have a doomfist because the Codex says it can. That's how it works. I can't believe you have the nerve to try and pass off the **** you're selling as RAW.

The Codex says a Monstrous Creature can have a DDCW. Stupid, but ok. Which rules do we use for the DDCW? Oh right, the Codex says to use Rulebook rules. Gotcha. What does the Rulebook say about DDCWs? Well looky-there, it says it doubles the walker's strength. That's cool! I'll just check then that the Codex says that the Dreadknight is a walker... Oh, it doesn't say that, it in fact makes no mention at all of the Dreadknight being anything other than a Monstrous Creature. Well **** it, I'll just insist that it doubles the strength anyway despite there being no indication of anything of the sort in the Codex or the Rulebook.

[Sonikgav]

No, this is simply your refusal to recognize that RAW has multiple interpretations. The rules refer to the carrier of the weapon, eg walker, and the Dreadknight is a considered a walker for the purposes of using a DCCW, otherwise, how could it have a DCCW? Because it couldn't.


The Dreadknight is a walker for the purposes of using the Doomfist.

This is simply the internet attempting to nerf the cool new unit because they don't like how it looks.

Tynksel, im using a Dreadknight with Double Doomfists and im happy to accept that its only S6. Its nothing to do with others trying to nerf its down to others like yourself trying to interpret the rules in a way for you to squeeze as much out of the unit as you can.

[Tynskel]

Tynksel, im using a Dreadknight with Double Doomfists and im happy to accept that its only S6. Its nothing to do with others trying to nerf its down to others like yourself trying to interpret the rules in a way for you to squeeze as much out of the unit as you can.

hah! I don't play Grey Knights. The thing uses DCCW, so it is Str 10 with 2 cc weapons, at all times.

[Tynskel]

The Dreadknight can have a doomfist because the Codex says it can. That's how it works. I can't believe you have the nerve to try and pass off the **** you're selling as RAW.

The Codex says a Monstrous Creature can have a DDCW. Stupid, but ok. Which rules do we use for the DDCW? Oh right, the Codex says to use Rulebook rules. Gotcha. What does the Rulebook say about DDCWs? Well looky-there, it says it doubles the walker's strength. That's cool! I'll just check then that the Codex says that the Dreadknight is a walker... Oh, it doesn't say that, it in fact makes no mention at all of the Dreadknight being anything other than a Monstrous Creature. Well **** it, I'll just insist that it doubles the strength anyway despite there being no indication of anything of the sort in the Codex or the Rulebook.

the rules state 'the walker'--- only walkers carry it, therefore, the Dreadknight counts as a walker for the purposes of the DCCW.

[Sonikgav]

the rules state 'the walker'--- only walkers carry it, therefore, the Dreadknight counts as a walker for the purposes of the DCCW.

This makes as much sense as saying 'Well its a Dreadnaughts Combat Weapon so only Dreadnaughts can use them anyway'. So much for Defilers/Wraithlords etc

[Hive Mind]

the rules state 'the walker'--- only walkers carry it, therefore, the Dreadknight counts as a walker for the purposes of the DCCW.

Repeating a fabrication ad nauseum does not elevate it to a truth, sadly.

[Tynskel]

Repeating a fabrication ad nauseum does not elevate it to a truth, sadly.

hey, you do the same thing, too.

[Tynskel]

This makes as much sense as saying 'Well its a Dreadnaughts Combat Weapon so only Dreadnaughts can use them anyway'. So much for Defilers/Wraithlords etc

It makes sense--- Defilers are walkers. And IF wraithlords used DCCW, like they did in the past, they would be Str 10 too.

What I find interesting that the thought has occurred to people that even though the DCCW has ALWAYS been str 10 for the past 3 editions, that all of the sudden, the DCCW is NOT str 10, even though it states that it is.

[Hive Mind]

hey, you do the same thing, too.

LMAO. Sure thing champ. I mean, the rules are the same thing as your fabrication aren't they?

Doesn't the fact that you have to put words into the mouth of the rules writers while my 'interpretation' is simply repeating the rules as written tell you that you're wrong?

How about the fact that S10 is the maximum strength of anything in the game, while a Dreadknight, using your fabricated rules, would hit at S12, possibly S14. That doesn't factor in for you? How about the wording on p.6 of the Rulebook? The bit that says "no modifier may raise any characteristic above 10".

It is abundantly clear that a DDCW does not double the strength of a Monstrous Creature. Deal with it, move on.

[Tynskel]

LMAO. Sure thing champ. I mean, the rules are the same thing as your fabrication aren't they?

Doesn't the fact that you have to put words into the mouth of the rules writers while my 'interpretation' is simply repeating the rules as written tell you that you're wrong?

How about the fact that S10 is the maximum strength of anything in the game, while a Dreadknight, using your fabricated rules, would hit at S12, possibly S14. That doesn't factor in for you? How about the wording on p.6 of the Rulebook? The bit that says "no modifier may raise any characteristic above 10".

It is abundantly clear that a DDCW does not double the strength of a Monstrous Creature. Deal with it, move on.

I do not know where you come up with Str 12. Because Dreadnoughts are also Str 6. The DCCW doubles str, to a max of 10. Never did I ever say that the Dreadknight is str 12.

I suggest catching up on page 6.

No, it is abundantly clear that the Dreadknight is Str 10 with the DCCW, Str 6 with the Greatsword, Str 7 with Hammerhand and Greatsword.

[Hive Mind]

I do not know where you come up with Str 12. Because Dreadnoughts are also Str 6. The DCCW doubles str, to a max of 10. Never did I ever say that the Dreadknight is str 12.

I suggest catching up on page 6.

No, it is abundantly clear that the Dreadknight is Str 10 with the DCCW, Str 6 with the Greatsword, Str 7 with Hammerhand and Greatsword.

I did not suggest that you did say S12. I am asking if that factors into your, ahem, 'reasoning'.

I'd be right there with you, except that the rules say it doubles a walker's strength and at no point mention making the Dreadknight a walker. Until they do, what you are saying will remain a flight of fancy; a total and utter fabrication.

[bfmusashi]

Guys, I think this is devolving to the point of name calling, which resolves nothing. I would like to point out that the absurdity of my point on blowing the arms off a dreadknight was acknowledged but the underlying point ignored. It is absurd to treat a monstrous creature as a walker. If it was supposed to grant a dreadknight S10, it would say it, like every other exception to the rulebook does. It took me a while to come up with one, but behold, the Shokk Attack Gun. A weapon of unmitigated horror in 2nd ed, I was pleased to find it in the new Ork codex. Why is it important?
It's infantry mounted ordnance, something not allowed for in the rulebook. Because it was intended to be odd and an exception it has an asterisk on how it works in-game (in this case it's a heavy weapon for movement and assault). There is no asterisk for the doomfist.
The lack of an asterisk makes the doomfist entry bound by the rulebook. The rulebook binds Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons to Walkers, a type of vehicle. The rulebook does not allow for them on monstrous creatures.
Gir made a good point, if you remove the first sentence from context it can support the S10 Dreadknight. However, in context the dreadknight can not follow the rules of the DCCW, because it is not a walker.

If anyone can come up with another weapon/unit combination not allowed for in the rulebook please bring it up as I am curious.

[bfmusashi]

Also, the dreadknight is a wicked fun unit at S6 and while I don't see using them in my army (I really don't think they offer enough to ignore the reinforced aegis of the dreadnought) they really don't need S10.

[Tynskel]

I did not suggest that you did say S12. I am asking if that factors into your, ahem, 'reasoning'.

I'd be right there with you, except that the rules say it doubles a walker's strength and at no point mention making the Dreadknight a walker. Until they do, what you are saying will remain a flight of fancy; a total and utter fabrication.

no, not 'a walker' -- 'the walker' there's a difference, and that is where my interpretation stems from.

[Tynskel]

there are multiple infantry units that use Ordnance weapons now. Regimental Advisors, Chapter Masters, ect.

Considering p. 29 of the rulebooks states that infantry cannot mount them, the cannot possibly work with the rules

Right?

No.

This is why this argument is completely stupid. The argument that the Dreadknight does not get to use the DCCW rules should be consistently applied to Ordnance Weapons too.

[bfmusashi]

there are multiple infantry units that use Ordnance weapons now. Regimental Advisors, Chapter Masters, ect.

Considering p. 29 of the rulebooks states that infantry cannot mount them, the cannot possibly work with the rules

Right?

No.

This is why this argument is completely stupid. The argument that the Dreadknight does not get to use the DCCW rules should be consistently applied to Ordnance Weapons too.

It's a hell of a thing to call another's argument stupid when you can't make a case for your own, but I'll rise to this as I have access to the codexes in question.
In Codex Space Marines there's a lengthy description as to how Orbital Bombardment works. As Codex trumps Rulebook this is fine.
In Codex Imperial Guard the same rings true for the Master of Ordnance.
In Codex Grey Knights there is again a lengthy description of how Orbital Strike Relay works as an infantry activated ordnance attack.
All of these give descriptions and rules independent of the rulebook (like the shokk attack gun).
The doomfist simply refers to the rulebook, your point is moot unless you can find another item that refers only to an entry in the rulebook and then ignores it in execution. Find this and I'll totally agree that Dreadknights are S10 in close combat. Otherwise you are stuck trying to make one sentence (maybe two) out of four work on the model.

[Gir]

Well then I guess Imperial Guard Frag Grenades don't work :(

[bfmusashi]

You mean the Frag Grenades that work exactly like they do in the rulebook and follow all the rules of their entry?

[Gir]

You mean the Frag Grenades that work exactly like they do in the rulebook and follow all the rules of their entry?

There's no entry for Frag Grenades in the BRB, just Assault Grenades.

[Hive Mind]

"Assault grenades (eg; frag grenades...)" on p.36?

My god that's a poor attempt.

[Gir]

But examples aren't part of the rules.

My point is, for imperial guard frag grenades to work, you have to make a logical conclusion because of badly worded rules. The Doomfist on Dreadknights is EXACTLY the same thing.

Not to mention the Doom of Malantai warp field only effecting Zoanthropes being precedent for this kind of thing.

[Hive Mind]

Yes it makes total sense now. For frag grenades to work you have to look at the rule that mentions frag grenades so that means that when the DDCW rules say "the walker" they actually mean "whatever the **** you've slapped it on".

It's precedent by the way and the Doom of Malan'tai IS a Zoanthrope and so doesn't set any kind of precedent for this.

[bfmusashi]

on p. 36 mine says "Assault Grenades (e.g. frag grenades, plasma grenades, and so on)" making frag grenades mentioned by name. Nothing in the entry would conflict their use on an Imperial Guard unit. It helps that it uses the term model, which makes it universal.
E.g. is an abbreviation of the Latin exempli gratia or, in a real language, 'for example.' It's pretty straight, and at no point involves rules that just do not work on a unit.

[bfmusashi]

It looks like a lot of posts happened while I was feeding the baby. The assault grenades entry is not badly worded, nor all the other sections that give lists as to what counts as blank. If the doomfist gets FAQ'd and the Dreadknight is S10 in combat then the GK codex has a problem and the Dreadknight is the most undercosted DOOM BEAST EVAH! And I will buy three.

[Gir]

the Doom of Malan'tai IS a Zoanthrope and so doesn't set any kind of precedent for this.

It was FAQ'd to be a Zoanthrope. The only thing that comes close to making it a Zoanthrope in the nid codex is a single mention of it in the fluff section, and fluff =/= rules.

Notice how these two common sense solutions to rule problems both point to Dreadknight getting double strength for Doomfists?

[Hive Mind]

Is it late in Australia?

I agree, it is basic common sense that the Doom of Malan'tai is a Zoanthrope. I do not agree that you can then take that and use it to make the huge two-footed leap that a Monstrous Creature has its strength doubled by a rule that is specifically only effective on walkers.

The DoM is easily distinguishable from this example.

Do you guys really not see how tenuous your position is? Do you actually think you're making a strong case for this?

[Gir]

Is it late in Australia?

I agree, it is basic common sense that the Doom of Malan'tai is a Zoanthrope. I do not agree that you can then take that and use it to make the huge two-footed leap that a Monstrous Creature has its strength doubled by a rule that is specifically only effective on walkers.

The DoM is easily distinguishable from this example.

Do you guys really not see how tenuous your position is? Do you actually think you're making a strong case for this?

What's New on the GW website said they got double strength, so I'm happy with my position.

And at the end of the day, you are making assumptions based on the rules with frag grenades and the Doom (pre-FAQ) as much as I am with the double strength Dreadknight.

[Hive Mind]

So I guess you do feel like you're making a strong case.

Mind-boggling really. The DoM entry mentions it being a Zoanthrope. The assault grenade entry mentions frag grenades. You can say that they're not rules but they do at least mention them, lending some support to 'common sense' in those scenarios.

What you're saying however is that the doomfist operates differently to the Rulebook because... well that's the issue isn't it? There's absolutely nothing to support it.

"What's New?" also said that The Goodies were actually funny so anything they say has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Gir]

The DoM entry mentions it being a Zoanthrope..

Where? I couldn't find it in the rules anywhere (we are talking about RULES here, not FLUFF).

[Hive Mind]

Where? I couldn't find it in the rules anywhere (we are talking about RULES here, not FLUFF).

Are we? We seem to be flitting between the rules, fluff and random musings on the GW site depending on how they support your case or not.

Is it a stretch to assume that a unit which is talked about using the word 'Zoanthrope' is a Zoanthrope? No. Is it a stretch that frag grenades being mentioned in the entry for assault grenades classifies them as such? No.

Is it a stretch to completely disregard the Rulebook based on nothing more than it being an unfavourable ruling? Hell yes it is.

That's the difference. You talk of common sense but you want to over-rule the Rulebook on no authority whatsoever.

[Gir]

Are we? We seem to be flitting between the rules, fluff and random musings on the GW site depending on how they support your case or not.

Is it a stretch to assume that a unit which is talked about using the word 'Zoanthrope' is a Zoanthrope? No. Is it a stretch that frag grenades being mentioned in the entry for assault grenades classifies them as such? No.

Is it a stretch to completely disregard the Rulebook based on nothing more than it being an unfavourable ruling? Hell yes it is.

That's the difference. You talk of common sense but you want to over-rule the Rulebook on no authority whatsoever.

I guess this is the difference with common sense between people. I see it that double str is common sense, as do all the people I play with ( I didn't give them any background, didn't tell them what I thought, just showed them both rules and asked the str of the Dreadknight, they ALL said 10 without hesitation).

[Hive Mind]

Again with the common sense. Who really cares about common sense? What does common sense have to do with 40k?

If you're in a Guard squad and you're holding a melta-gun when you get charged by a Defiler what would you do? I'd shoot the ****er. The rules however say that I would ignore the gun I'm holding that was specifically designed to take down enemy armour and would beat on it with my tiny man-fists instead.

Where's the common sense in that? There is none. Does that mean I can shoot the Defiler as it charges? No. Why not? Because of the rules.

You need a basis to over-rule the Rulebook. 'Common sense' is not a basis.

[Gir]

You need a basis to over-rule the Rulebook. 'Common sense' is not a basis.

I've explained this so many times before. The rulebook is being over-ruled on the basis that rule doesn't make sense in the context. Only walkers can have DCCW, a MC has a DCCW, rulebook is over-ruled, MC gets all the benefits.

[Hive Mind]

Except that isn't an explanation at all. The Codex tells you to use the Rulebook rules for DDCWs. It doesn't tell you to disregard any part of them.

Again, you have no authority for stating that a MC is treated as or counts as a walker when it has a DDCW.

[Arien]

No, this is simply your refusal to recognize that RAW has multiple interpretations. The rules refer to the carrier of the weapon, eg walker, and the Dreadknight is a considered a walker for the purposes of using a DCCW, otherwise, how could it have a DCCW? Because it couldn't.


The Dreadknight is a walker for the purposes of using the Doomfist.

This is simply the internet attempting to nerf the cool new unit because they don't like how it looks.

I feel from reading this post that we need to clarify what RAW and RAI actually mean for interpretation of game rules. Forgive me any typos, I'm doing this on my phone from work.

We'll start be defining RAW: Read As Written.
A RAW interpretation of a set of rules is achieved by reading each word from the rule as it is written on the page, without substituting in any other words in an attempt to make the rule any more clear cut or possibly change the meaning. Example from this thread being "doubles the walkers strength" here we have a simple phrase that as written can only have a single meaning, if it is a walker, double strength. As written, there is no way this could mean "treat the equipped model as a walker."
RAW is used to interpret rules by many so as to create an equal competitive playing field where we all have the same set of rules and can therefore build armies accordingly.

And so we move onto RAI: Rules As Intended.
An RAI interpretation of the rules is an attempt to define what the writer may have meant, since the rule isn't completely clear or well defined, an RAI interpretation tends to be backed up by not only rules but also fluff, and logical reasoning on how things "should" work, most of these interpretations form house rules within gaming groups.

Tynskel is within reason when suggesting the dreadknight could but considered str10, but only within the confines of RAI, since following STRICT RAW, only one conclusion can be drawn.

I hope this clears things up for you guys.

[Gir]

We'll start be defining RAW: Read As Written.
A RAW interpretation of a set of rules is achieved by reading each word from the rule as it is written on the page, without substituting in any other words in an attempt to make the rule any more clear cut or possibly change the meaning. Example from this thread being "doubles the walkers strength" here we have a simple phrase that as written can only have a single meaning, if it is a walker, double strength. As written, there is no way this could mean "treat the equipped model as a walker."
RAW is used to interpret rules by many so as to create an equal competitive playing field where we all have the same set of rules and can therefore build armies accordingly.

Try using the whole sentance. But even with the part of the sentance, it only allows for Walkers to have dreadnought close combat weapons. Seriously, this is like year 2 english people.

[plawolf]

Again with the common sense. Who really cares about common sense? What does common sense have to do with 40k?

If you're in a Guard squad and you're holding a melta-gun when you get charged by a Defiler what would you do? I'd shoot the ****er. The rules however say that I would ignore the gun I'm holding that was specifically designed to take down enemy armour and would beat on it with my tiny man-fists instead.

Where's the common sense in that? There is none. Does that mean I can shoot the Defiler as it charges? No. Why not? Because of the rules.

You need a basis to over-rule the Rulebook. 'Common sense' is not a basis.

If you fired any anti-tank weapon at point blank range, the blowback from the detonation/thermal feedback from a melta would blow you to bits or BBQ your butt.

Your would have made more sense asking why the guard general would need to wait for the defiler to kill all the grunts at all when any sensible man would have simply ordered his tanks and anti-tank teams to blast the lot of them.

Or decrying the ridiculousness of flak armored guardsmen potentially being able to stop railguns from killing the tank they are standing in front of with their bodies and not take a single casualty as a result. This then raises the further question of why the IoM does not build tanks out of guardsmen?

I seriously cannot believe you guys are still at it. How many times you can repeat the same old lines over and over again?

[Arien]

In response, gir, please show me the RAW rules in the codex or brb that specifically states "a monstrous creature can never be equipped with a dreadnaught close combat weapon." I cannot find this line anywhere. I just spent all that time on my phone defining RAW for you and you go and COMPLETELY miss the point AND prove such with your statement that the dreadknight cannot have a DCCW, even though codex overrules brb and it is the dreadknights standard loadout. Well done for having such a good grasp on English by the way.

[lantzkev]

The Dreadknight can cause some serious damage against vehicles, 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 - a full eight higher than the best armour value around. The only thing that really slowed the Dreadknight were the Tyranid monstrous creatures, and even then they had to gang up on it.


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

Forget who posted a link to this earlier.

I would err on the side that says the hammer acts like the thunder hammer though. and the fists act like str 10. Which really does make the hammer a bit odd.

What I'm curious about is that if you had the sword and hammer replacing the fists, would you have 5 attacks, strength 10 and reroll everything?

[Tynskel]

you forgot that in the past, monsterous creatures have been armed with DCCW.

Actually that's incorrect, your interpretation of RAW still allows for 'the walker' to be the model carrying the weapon, because of the way the sentence is constructed.

[bluesickboy]

this is getting old,

if you want str 10 just get the 10pt hammer.

Done

[bfmusashi]

As one tiny disposable, but charming, robot avatar to another I am greatly enjoying the dance you're performing Gir.
Frag grenades aren't Assault Grenades even though it's listed as an example of an assault grenade. It literally follows e.g.
Meanwhile, if we focus on one sentence, in which the object is the word walker we can double the MC's strength. It is horribly inconvenient to acknowledge little things, like the definition of the word walker on the previous page (p.72).
It seems much of common sense is ignoring inconveniences while narrowing one's focus to a single sentence. This is not common sense, it's obstinance.

The best argument you can make for the dreadknight doubling strength is it could (if we ignore that it isn't a walker) double strength and gain an additional attack for the extra DCCW. These would fill the requirement entry "The Nemesis doomfist follows the rules for Dreadnought close combat weapons."
If it's FAQ'd let us all reflect on a 205pt S10 monstrous creature that moves like jump infantry and has a single 30" trick move that can potentially be scoring.

[Tynskel]

As one tiny disposable, but charming, robot avatar to another I am greatly enjoying the dance you're performing Gir.
Frag grenades aren't Assault Grenades even though it's listed as an example of an assault grenade. It literally follows e.g.
Meanwhile, if we focus on one sentence, in which the object is the word walker we can double the MC's strength. It is horribly inconvenient to acknowledge little things, like the definition of the word walker on the previous page (p.72).
It seems much of common sense is ignoring inconveniences while narrowing one's focus to a single sentence. This is not common sense, it's obstinance.

The best argument you can make for the dreadknight doubling strength is it could (if we ignore that it isn't a walker) double strength and gain an additional attack for the extra DCCW. These would fill the requirement entry "The Nemesis doomfist follows the rules for Dreadnought close combat weapons."
If it's FAQ'd let us all reflect on a 205pt S10 monstrous creature that moves like jump infantry and has a single 30" trick move that can potentially be scoring.

You bring up an excellent point.

However, this causes problems with interpretation of other rules. If you rule this way, then the 'initiative test' that Acid Blood in the tyranid codex applies to every model in the unit, not to one model. There are other rules that get thrown out of wack.

The point is that you cannot consistently apply RAW across the entire rulebook. You have to modify RAW to the align with current context that you are working with.


Even larger picture: The game changes between each time you play, unless you play the same opponent, and both of you consistently apply the rules the same way each time.

Ex: Terrain is defined differently almost every single game I have played with different opponents. However, the thing that we always do consistently is define the terrain before we put any models onto the board to avoid (one type of) shennanigans mid-game.

[Uncle Nutsy]

Defend your statement sir. Open the codex and the rulebook and make your point.

I don't do semantics. Unless an errata says otherwise, I go by what's written in the book.

[bfmusashi]

Yeah, that's what I said you should do. I'm curious how you can go with what's written and claim double strength on a monstrous creature since the words aren't there.

[Arien]

Since we seem to have lots of people in this thread that prefer to rule on the "possible" interpretations of the rules and "common sense" instead of actual rules, how about we just say, without a personal teleported this model must walk, and therefor could be the subject of "doubles the walkers strength" but if it has a personal teleporter, then it won't be walking, and doesn't get double strength.

Or we could rule as the rules state, a doomfist on a dreadknight is str 6, otherwise since you NEVER replace both doomfists the model would ALWAYS be str 10, negation the hammerhand entry entirely.

Enjoy.

[Gir]

Or we could rule as the rules state, a doomfist on a dreadknight is str 6, otherwise since you NEVER replace both doomfists the model would ALWAYS be str 10, negation the hammerhand entry entirely.

Enjoy.

Except if you use the Sword.

[Paul]

This is hilarious.

In this thread I have seen people simultaneously claim that RAI is wrong but that RAW has to be bent a teensy bit...

I've ALWAYS been told (universally) that when in doubt, RAW is right and EVERY OTHER INTERPRETATION IS WRONG. Having to bend RAW to make it fit a situation makes no sense at all, and I have been told the logic on this time and again.

RAW is infallible if it is at all discernible, or so the Internet (and many people in this thread) have told me. The RAW is quite clear:

Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons double the Walker's strength. There are 2 checks in the sentence.
1) Does the model have a dreadnought close combat weapon?
Yes
2) Is the dreadnought a walker?
No
Therefore, the strength is not doubled.

Cut and dry.

[blackarmchair]

Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons double the Walker's strength. There are 2 checks in the sentence.
1) Does the model have a dreadnought close combat weapon?
Yes
2) Is the dreadnought a walker?
No
Therefore, the strength is not doubled.

Cut and dry.

Preach it brother!

[SeattleDV8]

RAW is infallible if it is at all discernible, or so the Internet (and many people in this thread) have told me. The RAW is quite clear:

Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons double the Walker's strength. There are 2 checks in the sentence.
1) Does the model have a dreadnought close combat weapon?
Yes
2) Is the dreadnought a walker?
No
Therefore, the strength is not doubled.

As things stand yes this is RAW.
Will it be RAW after the FAQ.... not a chance.
By my opinion of course, therefore I will allow it in my games against GK's.
I wouldn't push the RAW too hard lest you get labeled as 'That Guy'.

[Arien]

RAW is infallible if it is at all discernible, or so the Internet (and many people in this thread) have told me. The RAW is quite clear:

Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons double the Walker's strength. There are 2 checks in the sentence.
1) Does the model have a dreadnought close combat weapon?
Yes
2) Is the dreadnought a walker?
No
Therefore, the strength is not doubled.

Cut and dry.


There really is no other way that this can be interpreted by RAW, This IS RAW! 100% As Written, no caveats, no 'but maybes'. This is infallable. Thanks Paul :)

[Gir]

There really is no other way that this can be interpreted by RAW, This IS RAW! 100% As Written, no caveats, no 'but maybes'. This is infallable. Thanks Paul :)

Yep, by how you interprate the wording. Unfortunatly, things can be interprated very differently by different people. For example:

I will bring my bike tomorrow if it looks nice in the morning.

By how I read the interprate the sentance, the Dreadknight gets double strength, and this a RAW interpratation.

Not that it matters, soon we'll have an FAQ giving them double strength.

[wkz]

...

Not that it matters, soon we'll have an FAQ giving them double strength.

You have a confirmed source on that? Or are you so confident on your "common sense" that you'd be correct?

As my friend says: " 'tis still up in the air on how GW will rule these things... They'll pick the most popular RAI on the internet and FAQ it completely opposite..."
(He's still bitter about one of the FAQ answers...)


Also:


As things stand yes this is RAW.
Will it be RAW after the FAQ.... not a chance.
By my opinion of course, therefore I will allow it in my games against GK's.
I wouldn't push the RAW too hard lest you get labeled as 'That Guy'.

Note that if you try to push your RAI too hard you get to be labeled as 'That Guy' TOO.

Its not RAI or RAW that's wrong, both are doing noble things to the game. What's truly wrong is the attitude of some players (and how they treat the people who interpret the rules otherwise)...

[SeattleDV8]

Note that if you try to push your RAI too hard you get to be labeled as 'That Guy' TOO.

Its not RAI or RAW that's wrong, both are doing noble things to the game. What's truly wrong is the attitude of some players (and how they treat the people who interpret the rules otherwise)...

You did notice that GK is not my army.
Hard to be 'that guy' when I'm giving my opponent the benefit of of doubt.

This could go either way, in my opinion (not RAW) the Dread Knight DCCW will be treated the same as a walker.

[Gir]

I think they're more likely to Erreta the Rulebook to say "Model" instead of "Walker".

[wkz]

I think they're more likely to Erreta the Rulebook to say "Model" instead of "Walker".And I think they'd not make the Thunderhammer option invalid by saying the DCCW rules stops working.

There, 2 votes cancelling each other out.

[Gir]

And I think they'd not make the Thunderhammer option invalid by saying the DCCW rules stops working.

There, 2 votes cancelling each other out.

Nemisis Doomhammer still does something, it's just poorly costed. This is not a new thing for 40k.

[Wildcard]

Do you guys happen to remember what is the average time it takes for a faq to be released for a new codex?
Has it been a month, 1Q of a year?

I am torn by the waiting, 'cos i am waiting a few clarifications about the weapons before i build my models (depending how they rule some argued issues)

[Morgan Darkstar]

I will bring my bike tomorrow if it looks nice in the morning.

Well obviously this means that as long as the bike looks nice in the morning he will bring it. that is RAW! so it must be! :D

seriously hasn't this argument gone on long enough?

[Tynskel]

Well obviously this means that as long as the bike looks nice in the morning he will bring it. that is RAW! so it must be! :D

seriously hasn't this argument gone on long enough?

Nope.

'the walker' is the model carrying the weapon. This is just as RAW as your interpretation. In this case, the Thunder Hammer replacement would still grant +1 attack, because DCCW combine with any CC weapon for +1 attack, just like the Ironclad and Furioso Librarian.

[Arien]

Tynskel, theoretical situation here, we're setting up a game and my models are in a cabinet near you, a single dreadknight and a single dreadnaught included. I ask you to pass me the walker, assuming you're not an *** and would actually pass me a model, which one would it be?

[Tynskel]

Tynskel, theoretical situation here, we're setting up a game and my models are in a cabinet near you, a single dreadknight and a single dreadnaught included. I ask you to pass me the walker, assuming you're not an *** and would actually pass me a model, which one would it be?

And I would reply: Which One?

This is in all seriousness--- they both look like walkers.

at that point, you would probably reply with: the Dreadknight or Dreadnought.


It is similar to this one: There is a Dreadnought and a squad of Marines. Please pass the infantry unit--- they are both infantry for the purposes of movement.

What is the point of this theoretical discussion? That yes, the defined terms that GW gives are loose, and that your personal definition of RAW is dependent on the tolerances you set up between rules?

[wkz]

Nemisis Doomhammer still does something, it's just poorly costed. This is not a new thing for 40k.And it is properly costed if the model comes default Str6 (aka: no DCCW double strength). There's even precedence for it...


And I would reply: Which One?

This is in all seriousness--- they both look like walkers.

at that point, you would probably reply with: the Dreadknight or Dreadnought.That's true for people who are seeing the model for the first time, and does not know the army... but...



It is similar to this one: There is a Dreadnought and a squad of Marines. Please pass the infantry unit--- they are both infantry for the purposes of movement. Now you're just being anal. Shall we order "Meat" in a Restaurant? And shall you provide directions by saying "walk along Planet Earth"? And should you be considered a "collection of molecules"?

Arien has a point you're entirely sidestepping: at the end of the day, The Dreadnights overall and "highest level" interpretation is a Monstrous Creature (just as Humans are one of the "monkey" lines, as opposed to Panther's "feline" or Kingfisher's "Avian"). It may use some rules for infantry, but ultimately it is still classed as a Monstrous creature. A Monstrous Creature is a Monstrous Creature, is a Monstrous Creature. It is not a Walker. It has never been a Walker. It will never be a Walker.

And thus your "Dreadknight is a Walker because it holds a DCCW" falls flat: DCCW has a "Walker" as a target, and should/would/must never grant walker stuff to a Monstrous Creature. Not the double strength, nor the "auto +1 no matter what your other weapon is".

And until GW errata/faq it otherwise, a Dreadknight is still a Monstrous creature, from the DCCW's perspective.


What is the point of this theoretical discussion? That yes, the defined terms that GW gives are loose, and that your personal definition of RAW is dependent on the tolerances you set up between rules?
Be careful what you say: that's actually RAI. Being bloody strict with the rules and only the rules is RAW, monkeying with tolerances between rules is RAI's sled.

[Gir]

And it is properly costed if the model comes default Str6 (aka: no DCCW double strength). There's even precedence for it...

Now that I think about it, it's properly costed whatever way the rule falls.

If it gets double str, then it keeps the +1 attack for 2 ccw (as per DCCW).

If it doesn't get double str, it doesn't get +1 attack for 2 dccw anyway (The bonus attack only applies to walkers).

[wkz]

Now that I think about it, it's properly costed whatever way the rule falls.

If it gets double str, then it keeps the +1 attack for 2 ccw (as per DCCW).

If it doesn't get double str, it doesn't get +1 attack for 2 dccw anyway (The bonus attack only applies to walkers).
...
I think I've said this several times before already: If it doesn't get double str, it doesn't get +1 attack for 2 dccw... BUT it does get +1 attack for "infantry wielding 2 of the same weapons". The end result is still +1 attack with 2 Doomfists.

...
...
...

Unless you're talking about a Dreadknight with a Doomfist-Thunderhammer combo... then yes, I agree with the statements above as applied to a Dreadknight with a Thunderhammer upgrade.

So currently, we have:
non-DCCW ruling
Str6 +1A
Str 10, "stun to Init 1", base-A for 10 pts
Str6, reroll attacks, base-A for 25 pts

DCCW ruling
Str10 +1A
Str 10, "stun to Init 1", +1A for 10 pts
Str6, reroll attacks, +1A OR Str10, +1A (reroll attacks?) for 25 pts

[Gir]

...
I think I've said this several times before already: If it doesn't get double str, it doesn't get +1 attack for 2 dccw... BUT it does get +1 attack for "infantry wielding 2 of the same weapons". The end result is still +1 attack with 2 Doomfists.

I don'thave the rulebook in front of me (currently at work), but I'm sure that in the DCCW rules it says that only walkers get +1A for wielding 2 dreadnought close combat weapons.

[wkz]

I don'thave the rulebook in front of me (currently at work), but I'm sure that in the DCCW rules it says that only walkers get +1A for wielding 2 dreadnought close combat weapons.And the DCCW rule only affects walkers didn't it? Without the "walker-affecting" rules, all the Dreadknight have is 2 weapons, and 2 weapons fall under the "Infantry wielding 2 weapons" rule.

Hell, the part that grants walkers that +1A specifically mentioned "Close Combat Weapons" as opposed to "Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons" too... but it also specifically mentions "Walker", so normal infantry can't use that.

Of course, if it is a Doomfist-Thunderhammer combo, the "2 weapons" for infantry cannot apply: it is clearly 2 special weapons of some kind, not to mention Thunderhammers are very specifically having the "only +1A for paired Thunderhammers" rule attached to it.


(And note: I've edited the post you quoted after you've replied...)

[Gir]

Having looked at the way you put in your edit, I would say it's costed about right with both interpretations. It seems like this argument is really going nowhere, and we'll have to wait for an FAQ. I still stand behind the double str interpretation though.

[Tynskel]

Be careful what you say: that's actually RAI. Being bloody strict with the rules and only the rules is RAW, monkeying with tolerances between rules is RAI's sled.

Actually, no. You are interpreting the RAW to mean this.

In this statement:
The statement about 'the walker' is about the model carrying the DCCW. This is a RAW interpretation. The tolerances for the rules may not be as tight as your tolerances, but this is still RAW.


A RAI interpretation would be that Dreadknights use them as powerfists, which is in the description, not rules, of the Doomfists.

[wkz]

....
....
....
....
Get your RAW and RAI definition correct, Mr T.

There is a reason why it is called Rules as WRITTEN. The statement about 'the walker' is about the model carrying the DCCW, and that is as WRITTEN. Because it is WRITTEN black and white as "walker", thus the Dreadknight cannot use DCCWs. Because it is WRITTEN in black and white somewhere in the game.

There is no tolerances to monkey around when you're talking about RAW. If it is WRITTEN, you follow. If it is not WRITTEN you don't. There is no "shift off to the left of the rules a bit..." in RAW. We follow what is written to the absolute letter if we're following that, no more, no less...


... Which is sometimes stupid, which is why Rules as INTENDED is sometimes used. Rules as INTENDED is the version which will strain against the rules on paper. It will use past Codex/Rulebook rules and trends, fluff articles and online discussions, and adapt rules to fit that in the current day. It will even break the rules outright in certain areas if it is necessary to conform to the INTENTION of the rules.

Rhinos not having doors? Add that bit in. Doom 'o M not a Zonetrope? Allow Warpfield on him too. The absolute rule as written not working as (perceived) INTENTION? Then use RAI to fix it by monkeying with the absolute limits of the rules to fix it: DCCW on a monster? Well, make it a walker with regards to the DCCW.

RAW player: Oh ma ma mia!! That's not Rules as WRITTEN!! Its completely wrong!!
RAI player: But I think it is Rules as INTENDED, thus I shift the rules a bit to make the units work.
Ye' average friendly player (whether competitive or otherwise): Ok, it seems alright. Lets agree to that and play.

[Gir]

Wkz, I think you're completely missing that point that one sentence can easily have 2 very different meaning. This is where the play in RAW is.

[wkz]

Wkz, I think you're completely missing that point that one sentence can easily have 2 very different meaning. This is where the play in RAW is.

...
True, dat.
Note that I said what I did because "monkeying with tolerances" can imply "making the rules say what they (almost) do not say", instead of "here's 2 choices of interpretation from one sentence as written. Choose".

[Tynskel]

...
True, dat.
Note that I said what I did because "monkeying with tolerances" can imply "making the rules say what they (almost) do not say", instead of "here's 2 choices of interpretation from one sentence as written. Choose".

Hah, so you were interpreting what I was saying differently than how I interpret what I said.

[wkz]

Hah, so you were interpreting what I was saying differently than how I interpret what I said.True, but then again you did the classic GW mistake: not realizing what you wrote can be having 2 or more different interpretations

[Tynskel]

True, but then again you did the classic GW mistake: not realizing what you wrote can be having 2 or more different interpretations

No, I knew it had multiple meanings.
But you'll find almost everything has multiple meanings, all dependent on the scope of the reference frame.