Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
So a friend and i argued a bit over this.
According to the GK codex a dreadknight has two N doomfist which follows the rules for dreadnought closecombat weapon. He argues this grants str. 10.
Now if you look up in the general rulebook on dreadnought close combat weapon it say that "the walker gets str 10". Now my point is that a dreadknight is not a walker which means it does not get str. 10.
The following points for str 10:
- the designer didnt think of how the rules was formulated and meant that it follows the rules even though the dreadknight is not a walker.
- the fact that is says the walker and therefore refers to the models holding the weapon and not ONLY walkers
The following points for not str 10:
- the rules refers to walkers...
- the daemon hammer upgrade makes no sense unless it actually is an upgrade in str. Some might argue it give the ini 1 rules from hammer, but counter to this is that fact that the dreadknight loses an A due to not having two of the same weapon if you upgrade.
- the psychich power hammerhand makes no sense since you would never ever use it if you had str. 10 with a doomfist...
- it must be considered that the designer KNEW the general rule when he wrote the codex and that a codex is written to the rules and if this is not the case then the weapon rules should have been written in the codex.
- the rule refers to the general rule, therefore this should be followed, if on the other hand they had written the specific rule for doomfist in the codex and not refered the rule that refers to walkers, then it would grant str 10 to a dreadknight as well due to codex > rulebook. Eg. "the models is granted str 10 and ignores armoursaves..."
- GW has seen MC with dreadnought ccw before (wraithlord 3rd ed codex, 4th ed 40k) and changed it to lose the ccw due to it not having 2d6 armour pen in 4th ed. so this problem is not unfamiliar for them...
that's it. so far people have been inclined to give the str. 10 from a why would he give the dreadknight the rule if it couldnt use it. the counter to this is, why give it hamemrhand if it allways has str. 10?
let me hear what you think
Don't assume competence from GW and it's affiliates. Consider that through the many many years the old dex was around GW never managed to get their act together long enough to copy/paste the same update for assassins into both the WH and DH codex, and the only update so far (the forgeworld pdf) suggests that they haven't even made the connection between psybolt assault cannons and psycannons.it must be considered that the designer KNEW the general rule when he wrote the codex
I think for the mean time it's better to assume that the dreadnought close combat weapons just work for the dreadknight and that the designer was careless. It could be FAQed either way, depending on how GW are feeling at the time and how the sales of the dreadknight are looking.
don't think it is an excuse or an argument that GW has ****ed up before
furthermore, RAW reading of the greatsword means it can reroll to hit, to wound and armour pen, doesnt say the dreadknight needs to use it attacking, rules just states it gets the rerolls, therefore if doomfist gives str 10, the dreadknight has str 10 AND rerolls at the cost of a single attack and 25 points! meaning hammerhand is completly useless.
and you don't counter any of the later arguments nor the primary...
I agree with AT on both counts.
What would the point of making it a dreadnought close combat weapon be if it didn't double the strength? Then it would just be a force weapon (well, a Nemesis Force Weapon).
Also the Hammer also has the "stun" rules of a Thunder Hammer as mentioned - though I agree it is a pointless upgrade really.
If it got FAQed to S6 that would be ridiculous, to be honest.
no you couldnt just give it a nemesis force weapon cause all the other weapons give and additional bonus, there is no such thing as a basic nemesis forceweapon, swords, halberds etc would be insane on it, so my point is that matt ward ensures it gets the nemesis and daemon bane rules by giving it the doomfist and letting it share the entry with dreadnoughts...
i can counter your: it makes no sense with a it makes no sense that you cannot use hammerhand and a it makes no sense that the daemon hammer is there for 10 points...
a "it makes no sense" argument i a RAI discussion and i must say i find RAI quite useless as you start to second guess the designer. it might work for friendly games, not competitive...
when that is said and done i understand your points. what i want with this discussion is for people to consider the above, instead of blankly accepting the dreadknight having a str. 10 meaningless ccw when the rules are written otherwise...
Well according to the way you describe the use of the Greatsword in conjuction with the Doomfist I could have a Space marine captain with a Lightning claw and a power fist, then I could re-roll to wound with Str 8.
But that is against the rules, I quote the following:And since a DCCW is a power weapon which increases it's wielders str to 10, it is subjected to this rule with the use of the greatsword.Originally Posted by Rulebook pg.42
Last edited by Doomlord; April 12th, 2011 at 11:29.
The rules are written muddily. I think you are giving the author far too much credit by saying he was doing it intentionally - if nothing else, I think it would specifically mention that NDKs DON'T get the S bonus, if they don't, as that is more the avenue GW tend to go down for such rules conflicts.
If you want to look at "what makes sense" (which isn't generall a good idea where Ward is concerned), why would a weapon which loses you an attack and adds re-rolls cost 15 pts more than one which vastly increases the (alleged) "normal" strength to 10?
What you have to remember here is that we are talking about something called a Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon - clearly the rules were laid down when only walkers had them, and the NDK is an exception to that.
To be honest I think it's quite silly that people are using the fact that the rules entry states that it doubles "the walker's" Strength in close combat as the whole crux of the argument. It doesn't even say "a walker's", it's "the", suggesting an example case rather than a definition.
The listing in the GK Codex even states that the Doomfist is a dreadnought-sized power fist - a power fist that apparently DOESN'T double the strength of the wielder? Sounds unlikely.
As Doomlord has rightly pointed out, for the Greatsword allowing you to re-roll Doomfist rolls, I quote from Pg 42 of the rulebook:
"Two different special weapons: When it is their turn to attack, these models must choose which weapon to use that turn, but they never get the bonus attack for using two weapons (such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons!)."
It has also been covered seperately with regards to trying to claim re-rolls for master-crafted weapons on other weapons before, I'm sure.
On another note, personally I think a giant Nemesis Force Halberd would be an awesome thing for NDKs to have, shame they left that out.
fair enough, problem is i wrote that answer without the rule book but as a follow up after a discussion, thought the text on the greatsword was worded differently than the other special weapons...
would point out though that people are looking a single of the abnove arguments and point out one thing... none have argued against every single one of them. haven't seen a convincing reply yet. While i ackowledge that this can be seen two ways i get the feeling that people are pretty much set in their understanding from the start instead of actually looking at the arguments running counter to simple and not very creative: "Matt ward made a mistake"
should we start to second guess every rule then? should we not follow the rules as written and then correct after a potential faq... even though GW makes mistakes (often) you can't really start to second guess their mistakes since there would be no end to the troublesome rules discussion and situations like: "maybe the designer meant may and not must... I'll just understand this as a mistake from the designer." you can't really do that...
I'll gladly accept POV from both sides of the argument but i think it is silly to just say: "it doesnt make sense to follow the rules this way" when i've laid out how it can be seen from another point. Especially since my argument follow the rules as written and the counter argument is rules as intended...
*edit... was writing while chrisp was answering...*
first of all rerolls are expensive.
second, you can't use fluff in a rules discussion
third i admitted the mistake concerning the dual weapons, had it told over the phone so my bad for not having my rule book in my hand... couldnt make sense of it either, just my friend who said the local GW said so (i know this is a really bad argument)
fourth: the "the walker's strength" is no such indication of an example.
fifth: you can't say, the rules were laid down when there were no MC with DCCW... the designer will have to write the rule to the rule in the rulebook when he REFERS to it... if not he should rewrite it for that codex so codex > rulebook can be applied... as i argued above...
Last edited by Sirholy; April 12th, 2011 at 11:48.
GW Website, Dreadknight Royal Rumble Article:
"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..."