Deff Dread number of attacks

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Alerian**

Ok, I have recently converted a Deff Dread for my Deffskullz army and I am a little confused about it's number of attacks. It's stat line lists 3, but does not state that it is because of having 2 Dreadnought CCs; so, because the BGB says that walkers get +1A for each Dreadnought CC over the first, does a Deffdread have 3 or 4 base attacks?

Also, along the same line, if it has 3 base attacks, does it lose one attack for losing one of it's original arms? It seems confusing, because the Ork dex never lists the 3 base attacks coming from 2 dead CCWs, but it seems to imply it.

Thanks

**Gwar!**

It has 3 Base attacks, +1 for having 2 DCCW for a total of 4. If it loses a DCCW, it goes down to 3 + 0 Attacks If it loses the second DCCW, it stays at 3 Attacks but loses the benefits of a DCCW.
If it has the max of 4 DCCW it has a Base of 3 + 3 for Extra DCCW for a total of 6.

Its the same as SM Sargent having 1 Attack base, but having +1 for BP + CCW.

**da gob smaka**

all the bonuses are included, this has been FAQ'd a deff dread has a base of 3 this includes the 2 cc weapons if you buy 2 more cc weapons the deff has 5 attacks 6 on the charge.

Q. How many Attacks does a Deff Dread armed
with three or four close combat weapons have?
A. A Deff Dread with three close combat weapons
had 4 Attacks, whilst a Deff Dread with four of
them has 5 Attacks.

**Gwar!**

FAQ != Errata.

Until they Errata it, then the FAQ means nothing. That's nothing but a GW house rule.

RaW the Deffdread has 6 Attacks with 4 DCCW.
RaI may be 5, but that's beside the point.

**Sazzlefrats**

GW house rule? I don't think so, its a direct copy n paste from the GW FAQ page.

Maybe you can clarify your position?

**Janthkin**

Sazzlefrats wrote:GW house rule? I don't think so, its a direct copy n paste from the GW FAQ page.

Maybe you can clarify your position?

Gwar is fighting a lonely battle to have everyone completely ignore the GW FAQs, as they are prefaced by a disclaimer saying essentially "If you don't want to play this way, you don't have to."

Of course, the rulebook includes essentially the same disclaimer.

**Gwar!**

Sazzlefrats wrote:GW house rule? I don't think so, its a direct copy n paste from the GW FAQ page.

Maybe you can clarify your position?

Ok then, I shall:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=cat410004&categoryId=1000018&aId=3400019 wrote:
What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

Clarified enough for you? Until GW put into the errata part that a Deff Dread is 2+1 attacks, RaW a Deff Dread has 3 Base and 6 When equipped with 4 DCCW, no matter what the FAQ says.

Janthkin wrote:
Sazzlefrats wrote:GW house rule? I don't think so, its a direct copy n paste from the GW FAQ page.

Maybe you can clarify your position?

Gwar is fighting a lonely battle to have everyone completely ignore the GW FAQs, as they are prefaced by a disclaimer saying essentially "If you don't want to play this way, you don't have to."

Of course, the rulebook includes essentially the same disclaimer.

No, I am asking people to actually play by the rules, which consists of the Rulebooks and Official Errata, and to not use house rules as a basis for what the rules tell us to do.

**Lorek**

You can ask, but you will have a very difficult time finding people to play that way.

**QuietOrkmi**

so let me get this straight...

# of arms
Attacks

1

{insert number here}

2

{insert number here}

3

{insert number here}

4

{insert number here}

**Gwar!**

The Number of bonus attacks a walker receives is equal to the number of Close Combat Weapons (not necessarily DCCW but any CCW of any kind) minus 1.

So 1 CCW = Base Attacks
2 CCW = Base attacks + 1
3 CCW = Base Attacks +2
etc etc

**Drunkspleen**

Gwar! wrote:FAQ != Errata.

Until they Errata it, then the FAQ means nothing. That's nothing but a GW house rule.

RaW the Deffdread has 6 Attacks with 4 DCCW.
RaI may be 5, but that's beside the point.

Gwar! wrote:Link
Well if you're gonna ignore the official faq then that's your problem I guess but you will find 99.9997% of people tend to use them

Interesting...

**Gwar!**

Yes your point?

There is a big difference between using an FAQ that is clearly incorrect and using one that allows an outdated codex to be playable.

Also, are you so sad and pathetic you have nothing better to do? Especially since you have put the second quote utterly out of context.

**Eight Ball**

Gwar:I think the point he was making is this (note I don't mean to get argumentative): Either accept ALL of the FAQs, or don't accept ANY...you yourself said they are GW 'house rules' (so it says on the site as well) so it's pretty unfair for you to just pick and choose which ones you want to use...

Off-Topic:
Gwar: I was gonna say this 2 days ago, but I forgot...okay, you've officially been on dakkadakka for 34 days, and have 877 posts at this time of writing, meaning an average of 25.79 posts per day! I had to LOL at that...

Back to the topic at hand:
I think that the best way to do it is just go by the GW FAQ, as most of their rulings seem to make sense, and hey, so many people use the faqs anyways your better off going with it.

**Gwar!**

Eight Ball wrote:Gwar:I think the point he was making is this (note I don't mean to get argumentative): Either accept ALL of the FAQs, or don't accept ANY...you yourself said they are GW 'house rules' (so it says on the site as well) so it's pretty unfair for you to just pick and choose which ones you want to use...

No you seem to have misunderstood my actuall position on FAQ's. I use them, everyone uses them. I don't however use FAQ's when the directly contradict what the rules actually say in an unintuitive way. If they Wanted the Deff Dreads attacks to be 5 with 4 DCCW, they would have listed the attacks as 2+1. I mean, the Ork Codex has a huge amount of Errata as it is, a single extra line wouldn't hurt.

Eight Ball wrote:Off-Topic:
Gwar: I was gonna say this 2 days ago, but I forgot...okay, you've officially been on dakkadakka for 34 days, and have 877 posts at this time of writing, meaning an average of 25.79 posts per day! I had to LOL at that...

Ya its because I got laid off. Recession and all that. I haven't got anything else to do on the weekdays so I spend my time looking on-line for work (and being in non-Dublin Ireland means there isn't any), playing DoW2 and Posting on Dakkadakka.

Back to the topic at hand:
I think that the best way to do it is just go by the GW FAQ, as most of their rulings seem to make sense, and hey, so many people use the faqs anyway your better off going with it.

The thing is, the Situation was pretty clear to begin with, and the FAQ is what is causing all the argument. It's doubly silly when you realise a single god damn line of errata would fix it but GW refuse to do so.

**Eight Ball**

Well of course, in this particular situation it seems odd for them to change something so obviously visible (unlike some faqs that actually help with obscure things), but, and note I have never played orks, could it possibly be for a bit of balance? Does it seem any worse off, or does it just seem like on of those "Well, GW just decided to some wierd crap for no reason" kinda things?

EDIT: Sorry about the layoff thing...this economy is

now...

**Gwar!**

Eight Ball wrote:Well of course, in this particular situation it seems odd for them to change something so obviously visible (unlike some faqs that actually help with obscure things), but, and note I have never played orks, could it possibly be for a bit of balance? Does it seem any worse off, or does it just seem like on of those "Well, GW just decided to some wierd crap for no reason" kinda things?

That is exactly my point. Because of Games Workshops utter apathy for their veteran fan base (as shown by having codex's go 10+years without an update, and refusing to give us online stopgap codex's to update 3rd and 4th edtion codex's for 5th, which resembles 3rd insofar that they both came in books) some codex NEED to have this stuff clarified in order to simply work. This "clarification" about the number of Attacks the deff dread has is unwarrented and not needed. You do have to admit that, RaW, a Deff Dread has 6 Attacks with 4 DCCW, regardless of how they house rule it. Now if they had gone and made the Dreads attacks 2+1, then yeah that would be fair enough.

Eight Ball wrote:EDIT: Sorry about the layoff thing...this economy is now...

That it is.

**QuietOrkmi**

Gwar! wrote:The Number of bonus attacks a walker receives is equal to the number of Close Combat Weapons (not necessarily DCCW but any CCW of any kind) minus 1.

So 1 CCW = Base Attacks
2 CCW = Base attacks + 1
3 CCW = Base Attacks +2
etc etc

wow that makes things clear... thanks

**Gwar!**

QuietOrkmi wrote:
Gwar! wrote:The Number of bonus attacks a walker receives is equal to the number of Close Combat Weapons (not necessarily DCCW but any CCW of any kind) minus 1.

So 1 CCW = Base Attacks
2 CCW = Base attacks + 1
3 CCW = Base Attacks +2
etc etc

wow that makes things clear... thanks

And Just to point out something I just noticed (before I get people going "Hurrr U iz stoopidz!") a Walker that has had all of its CCW Destroyed gets to still make its base Number of attacks, but does so with their augmented Strength

**Frazzled**

Gwar! wrote:FAQ != Errata.

Until they Errata it, then the FAQ means nothing. That's nothing but a GW house rule.

RaW the Deffdread has 6 Attacks with 4 DCCW.
RaI may be 5, but that's beside the point.

Thats not a cogent statement. An official GW FAQ is just that-official.

**Steelmage99**

Frazzled, you are being willfully obtuse.

Gwar! makes the distinction between the Errata part and the FAQ part of the official GW FAQ.
Not that I agree with him. I just choose to ignore the text describing how to use the GW FAQ and treat it all as Errata.

**Gwar!**

Frazzled wrote:
Gwar! wrote:FAQ != Errata.

Until they Errata it, then the FAQ means nothing. That's nothing but a GW house rule.

RaW the Deffdread has 6 Attacks with 4 DCCW.
RaI may be 5, but that's beside the point.

Thats not a cogent statement. An official GW FAQ is just that-official.

Yes, however by GW's own admission (as I so gracefully pointed out above) the FAQ portion is nothing but a bunch of house rules and no more "official" than you or me. The errata however are official revisions to the printed material.

**Frazzled**

You'll have to show me where they say that.

The Company publishes rules. It publishes the FAQ for those rules. By its nature these can't be "house rules." After all, under this rubrice codexes are just house rules. Its not an effective argument.

As has been noted, arguments for ignoring the prescriptions of the FAQ will in turn be ignored by pretty much everyone as the argument lacks support.

**Gwar!**

"The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'."

I already quoted the entire part of GW's FAQ section earlier in the thread.

**Frazzled**

That in no way infers that they are somehow not official. Respectfully Gwar, your argument does not have support by, well anyone.

**Gwar!**

Frazzled wrote:That in no way infers that they are somehow not official. Respectfully Gwar, your argument does not have support by, well anyone.

Yes yes it does.

To take from the page Here, which i have quoted at least 3 times by now:

"The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules"

So far so good, I don't think anyone can argue with the Errata

Then:

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material ... they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. ... In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether

So it seems GW supports my argument.

Your move.

**Frazzled**

1. 'Studio House Rules' that everyone has to live with.

2. I don't care I just would like to see you try this argument, well, anywhere besides the intranets.

**Greenlight1107**

On the subject of Deff Dread number of attacks I don't know who is right and who is wrong. This is a good topic can some one give a finale position on this topic.

I have always thought that the base attacks for the Deff Dread is 3 and +1 for having a CCW. Now if the Deff Dread has two extra arms totaling of four (4) arms are you guy's saying that it is +1 for each additional arm after the first (2) two so example (3) three base attack +1 for CCW and + (2) two for two extra arms giving the Deff Dread (6) six attacks?

**Gwar!**

Did you even bother to read the bit where GW explicitly states "In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether"?

So no, we do not have to live with it.

And FYI, I run my Local Club (I live in the middle of nowhere so I admit its a small club) and we use the Errata, and the FAQ's when they actually are needed. The DeffDread FAQ is confusing and incorrect. If they wanted deff dreads to actually have 5 attacks, they should have put it as an errata. As it is, all the FAQ means is "oh I just like to play it like this"

I await your response.

Greenlight1107 wrote:On the subject of Deff Dread number of attacks I don't know who is right and who is wrong. This is a good topic can some one give a finale position on this topic.

I have always thought that the base attacks for the Deff Dread is 3 and +1 for having a CCW. Now if the Deff Dread has two extra arms totaling of four (4) arms are you guy's saying that it is +1 for each additional arm after the first (2) two so example (3) three base attack +1 for CCW and + (2) two for two extra arms giving the Deff Dread (6) six attacks?

Yup thats correct. Its +1 for having 2 CCW. then +2 for having 3 CCW and +3 for having 4 CCW.

**Frazzled**

This:

Q. How many Attacks does a Deff Dread armed
with three or four close combat weapons have?
A. A Deff Dread with three close combat weapons
had 4 Attacks, whilst a Deff Dread with four of
them has 5 Attacks.

Trying Gwar's method that the FAQ aren't really FAQ will result in 'disappointing' results.

**Frazzled**

Gwar! wrote:Did you even bother to read the bit where GW explicitly states "In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether"?

So no, we do not have to live with it.

And FYI, I run my Local Club (I live in the middle of nowhere so I admit its a small club) and we use the Errata, and the FAQ's when they actually are needed. The DeffDread FAQ is confusing and incorrect. If they wanted deff dreads to actually have 5 attacks, they should have put it as an errata. As it is, all the FAQ means is "oh I just like to play it like this"

I await your response.

Did you bother to read further? It states that you can change it for your own house rules. Therefore the FAQ is the default. Adding language that you can play your own house rules is an irrelevant addition as that could occur anyway.

Seriously, this argument is not cogent. Since 2nd edition - probably before you were born - FAQs have been viewed as binding. Have you tried it in the real world? I'll need independent verification that someone bought off on this.