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.

Gwar: Thanks!! That what I kind of figured and that's how my friends and I play. that makes alot more sense to me I know people play the way they want, but to me it's got to be some what logical. Thanks Gwar.

Don't play like that at a tournament. The laughing will be intense.

We tried.

yeah,
I'd have to agree that a DeffDread should have 3 attacks basic +1 for having two close combat weapons.

Same as a CSM aspiring champion is listed as 2 attacks basic +1 for having two close combat weapons.
Why would I assume they included his extra attack in his profile?

Panic...

Frazzled wrote: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.

So... Mods are allowed to ignore the Posting rules here on Dakka? Rudeness, personal attacks and doubleposting. Always good to know. And FWI, I've played 40k from a very young age, while I grew up with 3rd, the firsts books I read were the 2nd edition ones, back at the tail end of 1997.

And That quote is just a house rule they use. What does the codex+Errata say? Ignore the House rules these people have put up as "official". What do the actual codex and Errata to said codex say?

They say the Deff Dread has 3 Basic attacks. It gets +1 for having 2 DCCW, so the minimum a Deff Dread can have is 4, and the Max it can have is 6 (3 +3 for having 4 CCW).

I dont know what codex you guys are using to take this account...
but havent any of you read the codex??

it clearly (clearly clearly) states:

Wargear:

-two dreadnaught close combat weapons (each additional (ADDITIONAL, AS IN ON TOP OF THE REGULAR TWO) dreadnaught close combat weapon adds +1 to the dreads attacks)

I dont know but that sounds pretty self explanatory to me....

it gets 3 attack, thats it, just 3 (unless you however give it extra ccw's)

I will have to take Gwar side on this as we have left the highway to answering the question of the OP... I summed up the answer cleanly with Gwar's response... If we are going to ramble on about the difference between FAQS and Errata please tell me now so I can unsubscribe this thread.... otherwise what are we arguing about... really?

oblivion8 wrote:I dont know what codex you guys are using to take this account...
but havent any of you read the codex??

it clearly (clearly clearly) states:

Wargear:

-two dreadnaught close combat weapons (each additional (ADDITIONAL, AS IN ON TOP OF THE REGULAR TWO) dreadnaught close combat weapon adds +1 to the dreads attacks)

I dont know but that sounds pretty self explanatory to me....

it gets 3 attack, thats it, just 3 (unless you however give it extra ccw's)

No, each "additional" is just there to remind you that each one does give the dread +1 attacks. That doesn't stop the dread getting +1 attacks for having 2 DCCW in the first place.

More importantly, can we just get this thread locked before Gwar manages to goad the MOD's into a flame war over whether or not the FAQ's have the same language as page two of the rules?

oblivion8 wrote:I dont know what codex you guys are using to take this account...
but havent any of you read the codex??

it clearly (clearly clearly) states:

Wargear:

-two dreadnaught close combat weapons (each additional (ADDITIONAL, AS IN ON TOP OF THE REGULAR TWO) dreadnaught close combat weapon adds +1 to the dreads attacks)

I dont know but that sounds pretty self explanatory to me....

it gets 3 attack, thats it, just 3 (unless you however give it extra ccw's)

This is directly from the codex? I don't understand how this couldn't be clearly interpreted. That's pretty cool about the one additional, instead of having to have 2 to get the extra attack (i.e. power fists, etc.). I still think Crushing claws for carnifex's and rending claws for warriors should confer an extra attack and be a little more expensive.

oblivion8 wrote:I disagree, its stating that in simple terms:
The dreadnaught has two draednaught close combat weapons, additional CCW's bought will increase the deff dreads attacks by 1, for each CCW purchased.

And does that in any way shape or form prevent the deff dread from getting a bonus attacks for having 2 DCCW as per the rulebook?

The answer is No btw

Gwar!, you ask if that overrules the rulebook?
well here are some exerpts form the FAQ and Erratas that clearly state how wrong you are (and the rulebook now that I think about it):

In relation to blacktemplars dedicated transport rules:

"No, if a Codex clearly says (and btw has not been errated...)' that dedicated
transports can only be used during the game by
the unit that bought them,that overrules the
general rule in the rulebook, as normal.
Obviously some armies are stricter than others
about transport regulation"

In relation to WH's special hit and run:

"Seraphim and Saint Celestine have their own
version of the Hit and Run special rule."

Lots of exerpts read: "unless specified by the codex"

In relation to smoke launchers:

"It is worth pointing out that some armies might
use different versions of smoke launchers, which
have slightly different rules. As normal, the rules in
the Codex take precedence."

universal special rules:

"As this is just a summary, if any of the Codexes include
one of these special rules and the rule is different, the
one in the Codex takes precedence (representing how
the general special rule applies to that specific race)."

Last but not least:

"Within these final pages you will find statistics for every troop type for
each of the armies in Warhammer 40,000. Although the entries in this
section are correct at the time of printing, the Warhammer 40,000
game system is constantly growing and developing. As such, in the
event of any contradiction between this section and any of the
individual codexes, the codexes always take precedence."

do I need to say more? The codex's overrule the rulebook (unless of course its errated, or in most cases I assume FAQ'd )
So does the deff dread have 4 attacks?
the answers no btw (srry i couldnt help it )

Ps: the rule was FaQ'd to, and although I do agree that FAQ's that blatently disregard the rules should be questioned, this rule is defined in the codex, which takes precedence over the rulebook (unless like said before: errated ect...)

Thank you for the long, meaningless post/nice way to try and distract people.

The rule in the Codex is (quoted verbatim):
Two dreadnought close combat weapons (each additional dreadnought close combat weapon adds +1 to the Dread's attacks)

Nowhere does it say the Attacks on its profile includes the +1 for having 2 DCCW as per Page 73 of the Rulebook, nor does anything say it doesnt get the +1 attack for having more than 1 DCCW in the first place.

And just so you know, removing the line breaks and not making it unreadable Italic works too,

why are we going on about this meaningless debate about FAQ when the OP was answered and a nice formula to answer any question of how many attacks a Deff Dread has based on his amount of Arms...

Man...how did I miss this thread?

@Gwar! : RAW you are absolutely correct.

@oblivion8: ....what?

On the issue of GW FAQs v. Erratas:
As has already been pointed out and quoted ad nauseum earlier in the thread, GW states that the FAQs are "Studio House Rules" and that you may choose to completely ignore them if you wish.

Simply put: they do not carry the same weight as rules as written.

Granted, the writers of the GW FAQs (as they are released by GW after all) do usually benefit from superior insight on rules as intended. But one has to wonder: if they did intend for a rule to do a certain thing why not change it through an errata rather than suggest that you play it differently than prescribed by the rules as written?

As far as tourneys go: yes, the judges at most events will probably make rulings in accordance with the official FAQs, but does that mean that I have to play it that way when I'm playing in the basement of my house or at the FLGS? Absolutely not.

Really though, Warhammer 40k is a game. You can play it however you want to - the only thing that matters is your opponent's willingness to go along with your personal interpretation of the rules. There are no GW rules police patrolling your FLGS making sure you are playing the game the way that Jervis and Alessio wanted it to be played. (At least as far as I know....)

DebonaireToast wrote:@Gwar! : RAW you are absolutely correct.

Yay! (^^,)

DebonaireToast wrote:@oblivion8: ....what?

Pretty Much what I thought too.

DebonaireToast wrote: There are no GW rules police patrolling your FLGS making sure you are playing the game the way that Jervis and Alessio wanted it to be played. (At least as far as I know....)

That's only because they leave no survivors. Dead Men tell no tales.

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote: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.

So... Mods are allowed to ignore the Posting rules here on Dakka? Rudeness, personal attacks and doubleposting. Always good to know. And FWI, I've played 40k from a very young age, while I grew up with 3rd, the firsts books I read were the 2nd edition ones, back at the tail end of 1997.

And That quote is just a house rule they use. What does the codex+Errata say? Ignore the House rules these people have put up as "official". What do the actual codex and Errata to said codex say?

They say the Deff Dread has 3 Basic attacks. It gets +1 for having 2 DCCW, so the minimum a Deff Dread can have is 4, and the Max it can have is 6 (3 +3 for having 4 CCW).

Evidently, you lack understanding of what rude attacks are, as evidenced by your rude posts on multiple threads. As this thread has been reported, this may be an interesting follow on read.

DebonaireToast wrote:Man...how did I miss this thread?

@Gwar! : RAW you are absolutely correct.

@oblivion8: ....what?

On the issue of GW FAQs v. Erratas:
As has already been pointed out and quoted ad nauseum earlier in the thread, GW states that the FAQs are "Studio House Rules" and that you may choose to completely ignore them if you wish.

Simply put: they do not carry the same weight as rules as written.

Granted, the writers of the GW FAQs (as they are released by GW after all) do usually benefit from superior insight on rules as intended. But one has to wonder: if they did intend for a rule to do a certain thing why not change it through an errata rather than suggest that you play it differently than prescribed by the rules as written?

As far as tourneys go: yes, the judges at most events will probably make rulings in accordance with the official FAQs, but does that mean that I have to play it that way when I'm playing in the basement of my house or at the FLGS? Absolutely not.

Really though, Warhammer 40k is a game. You can play it however you want to - the only thing that matters is your opponent's willingness to go along with your personal interpretation of the rules. There are no GW rules police patrolling your FLGS making sure you are playing the game the way that Jervis and Alessio wanted it to be played. (At least as far as I know....)

Thats generally true, but the same can be said about each and every statement by GW. What you do in your own home is your own deal and you can change what rules you want. If you want to play the game outside - aka portability-you have to follow the rules and strictures as laid down.

yeah,

ORk codex DeffDread Wargear wrote:
Two dreadnought close combat weapons (each additional Dreadnought close combat weapon adds +1 to the dreads Attacks)

These rules give the DeffDread more base attacks on its profile for having 3 or 4 DCCWs... or else there would be no point taking them!
This works out well when arms are lost in combat because the cumlative effect of having the arms removed via the damage chart will bring the attacks down again.

DeffDread Number of attacks

0 arms = 3 basic (at strength 5 because it has No DCCW) = 3attacks attacks in combat

1 arm = 3 basic (no bonus attacks, as per page 73 that bonus is lost) = 3 attacks attacks in combat

2 arms = 3 basic +1 (for having 2 CCW in combat, as per page 73) = 4 attacks in combat

3 arms = 4 basic +1 (for having 3 CCW in combat, as per page 73) = 5 attacks in combat

4 arms = 5 basic +1 (for having 4 CCW in combat, as per page 73) = 6 attacks in combat

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is also confirmed the rules on page 73 of the main rule book.

Page 73 BRB wrote:
Dreadnought Close combat weapons.
...a deadnought closecombat weapon is a power weapon and doubles the walkers strength in close combat...
if the walker suffers a weapon destroyed result, and the player chooses the CCW, the dreadnought loses the bonus confered by the DCCW...
If a walker is armed with Two or more CCW, It gains one bonus attack for each additional weapon over the first. if one of its additional weapons is destroyed one bonus attack is lost)

Without this, a DeffDread with 4 DCCW arms would by RAW still have 3 attacks basic +1 bonus for having more that 1 CCW.
With that Text and using RAW and common sense having more than one CCW in combat gives you a bonus +1 attack for each extra arm.

DeffDread Number of attacks

0 arms = 3 basic (at strength 5 because it has No DCCW) = 3attacks attacks in combat

1 arm = 3 basic (no bonus attacks, as per page 73 that bonus is lost) = 3 attacks attacks in combat

2 arms = 3 basic +1 bonus (for having 2 CCW in combat, as per page 73) = 4 attacks in combat

3 arms = 3 basic +2 bonus (for having 3 CCW in combat, as per page 73) = 5 attacks in combat

4 arms = 3 basic +3 bonus (for having 4 CCW in combat, as per page 73) = 6 attacks in combat

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is also confirmed via the FAQ assuming you get a bonus attack in combat for having multiple CCW as indicated in page 73.

FAQ wrote:
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.

this is still correct...

FAQ DeffDread Number of attacks

3 arms = 4 basic +1 bonus (for having more than 1 CCW in combat) = 5 attacks in combat

4 arms = 5 basic +1 bonus (for having more than 1 CCW in combat) = 6 attacks in combat

+1 bonus as per page 73 of the main rule book.

Do we all agree?

the only Sticking point is if you tried to combine the FAQ/Ork codex with the Rule book in which case by RAW:

3 arms = 4 basic +2 bonus (for having 3 CCW in combat, as per page 73) = 7 attacks in combat

4 arms = 5 basic +3 bonus (for having 4 CCW in combat, as per page 73) = 8 attacks in combat

Whic I don't think any of us are arguing... but is the most correct via RAW!

PAnic...

oblivion8 wrote:
"As such, in the
event of any contradiction between this section and any of the
individual codexes, the codexes always take precedence.[/u]"

The +1A for additional DCCW from codex doesn't contradict the +1A from having 2 CCW from the BRB

*sigh*

at this pint I dont honestly care about the rule...

the point I was making, is that considering the english language, the way its worded, makes it have 3 not 4 (not taking into account the RB apparently).
This weapon section therefore must be extremly poorly written.
second of all, my big long speel wasnt to start an argument, it was to prove that not every thing in the 40k rulebook is 100%
'you have to use these rules' text when taking into account the presedence of codex's that havnt been errata'd.
I honestly dont care I just added 1 and 1 together.

on a second note Gwar!, wtf dude?, how do italics and underlining make it hard to read
just wondering because that wasnt my intention at all...

This has already been FAQ'd and should come to a close.

1. If you ignore the FAQ, you ignore all FAQs. You **can not** pick and choose what you like and expect your opponent to just nod his head and go along with it, especially in a tournament!

2. By ignoring this FAQ, and at this point your opponent is obliged enough not to pack up an leave to play someone else, guess what...you just gave your opponent every permission to ignore all the FAQs as well, and If I were the FAQ ignore'ers, then be prepared for units deepstriking using your teleport homers, Eldar Farseers claiming mind war is not a shooting attack (because only the FAQ says' mind war is a shooting attack so we can ignore this too), and every other shenanigans that the FAQs are **designed** to help smooth away to create a fun and friendly game.

Some people...

EDIT: BTW, I am in the camp that believes the rules are clear and that the Deff Dread has 3 'base' attacks and +1 for an extra CCWs, and an additional +1 for each additional. Why? Because there is no caveat stating that the bonus is included in its profile, and the *entire* ork codex None of the units represented have any additional attacks from extra CCWs included in their profile, and the Deff Dread is no different.

I only stated the above original post to show that it would be very very wise to observe and follow the FAQs, and at any point you decide not too, then you should have expressed permission from your opponent to do so, because I am sure he reads the FAQs too and *is* expecting you to follow them as you are expecting him to follow his.

Thanks for the clarification Gwar. I see the issue, its called SPAM, you've posted nearly 1000posts in 40 days?! I thought you actually had something solid and just couldn't explain it very well. Which I thought was weird cause you love typing so much. Sounds like you have a good grasp of the rules, however, that nature of your replies leaves a lot to be desired, and the way you doggedly pursue RAW is reminiscent of Col. Mustard's last stand.

Sir I find that Accusation offensive and just plain wrong.
It's not spam, its called frequent posting.
As I have said in another thread where someone also brought that up, I am currently Unemployed, and have nothing else to do but Post on Dakkadakka and play 40k.

And Yes, I do have a good grasp of the rules, and I enjoy Playing by them. It's GW who cannot be bothered to issue correcting errata for us, but rather offer us wishywashy house rules that have no weight.

@padixon: people are well within their rights to Ignore any part of the FAQ's they wish. I use the FAQ's, as do most people, as a Basis for their OWN house rules. But that is all they are, House Rules. A Rules Debate forum is for the Debating of Rules, not whatever house rules you may or may not use. GW's FAQ on Deff Dreads doesn't clarify a poorly written or ambiguous rule, it downright alters it. Alterations of rules should be confined to official errata.

Sazzlefrats wrote:...and the way you doggedly pursue RAW is reminiscent of Col. Mustard's last stand.

Hehe... I had to laugh out loud at that one...I think you meant Col. Custard, not Col. Mustard

You rang?

Methinks someone has been playing Cluedo a bit too much

Alerian wrote:

Sazzlefrats wrote:...and the way you doggedly pursue RAW is reminiscent of Col. Mustard's last stand.

Hehe... I had to laugh out loud at that one...I think you meant Col. Custard, not Col. Mustard

Opps yeah, I guess I don't have a "clue" haha.


Sorry GWAR, I should have used the more politically correct term. For now on I'll say frequent posting instead of SPAM :-)


GW FAQ's/Errata, have weight, you might not like everything in them, but its their game and we need a common consensus to play the game without an inordinate amount of argumentation. I think Eldritch Storm should be allowed to be cast through a wave serpent , GW says otherwise, its their faqs, its their game.




I've been "Clued" by GWAR! Nice!

How is me posting a lot spam? Im not posting random gibberish nor am I trying to make your manhood bigger.
In short, What I post isnt Spam, This is Spam:


And Sazzlefrats, by GW's own admission (as I must have pointed out at least 3 or 4 times in this thread alone) the FAQ's do NOT have any weight, they are to be used only as a basis for your own house rules and you can ignore any part of any FAQ them, up to and including ignoring the whole lot or just ignoring 1 part.

Errata DO have weight as they are edits to the printed book. A rules debate forum is for debating the actual rules, not debating house rules. The fact is, by the RULES a Deff Dread will have 6 Attacks with 4 DCCW. If you wanna use the GW house rule and make it 5, that's all well and good. If GW wanted it to be 5 under any circumstances, they would have changed the Deff Dreads attacks to 2+1 in the errata section.