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.

The debate cannot be resolved without deciding what to do about previous FAQ answers that got cut from 7th edition.

-Matt

 Crimson wrote:
The old FAQ ruling was bizarre even then and now that is gone I'd expect the nemesis sword to work just like every other weapon in this game: no mixing and matching effects.

I'd agree with you if it were in the Errata or Amendment section, but it is in the FAQ, which means it's a clarification, not a rule change.

The wordings of all relevant rules are exactly the same in 7th as they were in 6th. So why would the meaning of these same words change just because the clarification disappeared when GW threw the baby out with the bathwater (cutting most of the clarifications to clean up the FAQ)?

GW FAQs have changed rules before. It is a vague issue, that they one time chose to rule one (silly) way. They apparently changed their minds. In any case, we cannot base anything on some ancient FAQs; no new player could know such rulings ever existed, and we should forget them too.

 Crimson wrote:
GW FAQs have changed rules before. It is a vague issue, that they one time chose to rule one (silly) way. They apparently changed their minds. In any case, we cannot base anything on some ancient FAQs; no new player could know such rulings ever existed, and we should forget them too.

It's not an ancient FAQ, it's the previous one, and Games Workshop went overboard cleaning house when they cleared out all the FAQs for 7th edition. And people say that rules are changed in the FAQ section, but never give specifics. Anyone got an example?

ForeverARookie wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
GW FAQs have changed rules before. It is a vague issue, that they one time chose to rule one (silly) way. They apparently changed their minds. In any case, we cannot base anything on some ancient FAQs; no new player could know such rulings ever existed, and we should forget them too.

It's not an ancient FAQ, it's the previous one, and Games Workshop went overboard cleaning house when they cleared out all the FAQs for 7th edition. And people say that rules are changed in the FAQ section, but never give specifics. Anyone got an example?

Yes they FAQ'd how Shadows in the warp interacted with psykers in a vehicle (They said in the FAQ that psykers in a vehicle are immune to SitW) in 5th ed, then they FAQ'd it to the complete opposite ruling (They said in the FAQ that psykers in a vehicle are not immune to SitW) a few weeks later, still for 5th ed.

One of them is clearly a change of the rules, and that was all in the FAQ section.

so FAQ'd do change rules.

It is ancient now, it is gone. As for FAQs changing rules, I'm pretty sure some 6th edition BRB FAQ completely changed how wound allocation in shooting works. Cannot check though, as I cleared my FAQ folder when we got the new FAQs, because the old ones were no longer relevant.

 DeathReaper wrote:

ForeverARookie wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
GW FAQs have changed rules before. It is a vague issue, that they one time chose to rule one (silly) way. They apparently changed their minds. In any case, we cannot base anything on some ancient FAQs; no new player could know such rulings ever existed, and we should forget them too.

It's not an ancient FAQ, it's the previous one, and Games Workshop went overboard cleaning house when they cleared out all the FAQs for 7th edition. And people say that rules are changed in the FAQ section, but never give specifics. Anyone got an example?

Yes they FAQ'd how Shadows in the warp interacted with psykers in a vehicle (They said in the FAQ that psykers in a vehicle are immune to SitW) in 5th ed, then they FAQ'd it to the complete opposite ruling (They said in the FAQ that psykers in a vehicle are not immune to SitW) a few weeks later, still for 5th ed.

One of them is clearly a change of the rules, and that was all in the FAQ section.

so FAQ'd do change rules.

I have no way of checking that unless you know of a sight that still hosts the old FAQs. I was hoping for something I could look at for myself to see the wording rather than rely on the assurances of the internet that it is true (no offense meant). Are any of the current FAQs rules changes?

ForeverARookie wrote:

I have no way of checking that unless you know of a sight that still hosts the old FAQs. I was hoping for something I could look at for myself to see the wording rather than rely on the assurances of the internet that it is true (no offense meant).

Thank you for proving my point. This is exactly why it is just better to forget these old FAQs.

honestly given the nemisis DK has hammer hands, I see no reason to insist on STR 10 re-rollable. you have STR 8 re-rollable or S 10. seems pretty solid to me. you have a CHOICE

Is this the correct old FAQ?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7duwm2jg0yslbrl/m2420373a_Grey_Knights_6th_Ed_V1.pdf

I cave. I've spent the better portion of my non-working hours the last couple days pouring through the rules and comparing the current FAQ to the previous one, and it does seem that most of the omissions are in fact because rule changes in the core rulebook have made them obsolete.

In the instance of the Greatsword and other Nemesis weapons, the codex seems to use "bears", "wields", and "with" interchangeably to reference the model having the weapon, and to diferentiate would rob a model with a Nemesis Warding Stave of his 2++ if he threw a grenade instead of whacking the opponent with his stave.

It's just weird that the Nemesis Daemonhammer gets its own profile in the FAQ but the others are left as text descriptions, making them sound more like Wargear than Weapons.

I'm not certain the Nemesis Greatsword is still worth the 25 points. It only improves your chance of wounding up to toughness 4 or 5, and those units aren't a problem anyway.

Against a Wraithknight:
With a Greatsword you have 8/9 chance to hit, and 5/9 chance to wound, for a net chance of just under 1/2 for each dice in the attack.
With a Doomfist you have a 2/3 chance to hit, and a 5/6 chance to wound, for a net chance of just over 1/2 for each dice in the attack.

So why bother with the points when they could be 2 Psycannons and a Nemesis Daemon Hammer for a Purifier Squad?

Anecdotal - around here, we've pretty much thrown our hands up and said that since the greatsword doesn't have a weapon profile, and doesn't say "attacking with" etc etc blah blah we decided it worked all the time regardless.

I might bring up the no combining weapons thing, but most people just feel like it's "old codex, screwy rules, sucks for you" kind of situation.

Rakur wrote:
You guys all bring up great points, but referencing a replaced FAQ is going into the domain of RAI instead of RAW. By definition, those rules no longer exist, so are no longer written anywhere. Here is my thought process. Could you guys point out where I go off track?

1) The doomfist is a weapon, which has an ability to double your strength when used.

2) The nemsis greatsword is a weapon, which has an ability that states while you are in possession of this sword, you get lots of rerolls.

3) You attack with your doomfist and double your strength and get lots of rerolls from your sword. You are now using abilities originating from two different melee weapons.

4) You break the core rule which states that you can not mix and match abilities from different melee weapons.

5) The FAQ that previously existed that allowed this is gone. Intentionally or not, GW removed it.

4) Is actually right, but the whole thing must be amended so:

1) The doomfist is a weapon, which has an ability to double your strength when used.

2) The nemsis greatsword is a weapon, which has an special rule that states while the model is in possession of this sword, you get lots of rerolls.

3) You attack with your doomfist and double your strength and get lots of rerolls from your sword. You are now using one ability and one special rule that the model has.

4) You break the core rule which states that you can not mix and match abilities from different melee weapons.

5) The FAQ that previously existed that allowed this is gone. Intentionally or not, GW removed it.

In the same way that Thunderwolf Cavalry has (had?) Rending. The model has the rule, not the weapon "when used".

I have no problem with it getting the rerolls at str 10. The weapon confers special rules. It is a special case. I personally never use the sword but I can see why people like it.

Given the current balance of the game, and of Monstrous Creatures specifically, The Strength 10 attacks should be rerollable for the 25 point upgrade. I hope the next FAQ or Grey Knights codex changes it to:

"The Dreadknight may take a Nemesis Greatsword...........25 points"

"The Nemesis Greatsword is a piece of Wargear, wielded in a Nemesis Doomfist, and allows the model to re-roll all failed to-hit, to-wound, and armour penetration rolls made with the Nemesis Doomfists."

It makes the sword worth its points, and fixes the wording to remove the contradiction with the core rule regarding mixing weapon abilities by making it just a piece of wargear that doesn't replace a weapon.

The old way is correct. Otherwise, one of my dread knights has a useless points sink of an upgrade.

Quoting the FAQs as religion is impossible now. They are just as bad as the core rules or worse as they lack even the most basic proofreading. They are an after thought.

Or,by all means, please tell me the points costs for Grey Knight vindicators and whirlwinds.

Its funny, if old FAQ should not be used, i will play SM with the current french codex.
All terminators have a 2+ invulnerable save, i love it

Without the FAQ, it is still there

Wait, what's the deal with Space Wolf vindicators and whirlwinds?

sleekid wrote:
Its funny, if old FAQ should not be used, i will play SM with the current french codex.
All terminators have a 2+ invulnerable save, i love it

Without the FAQ, it is still there

What you mean the current FAQ that says it has a 2+ Armour Save and 5+ invulnerable save, that is available with the rest of the French FAQs?

At least the new codex will fix it (Hopefully). The leaks show the Nemesis Greatsword to be available in exchange for a Nemesis Doomfist. If they pulled the same crap they did with Inquisition though I'll be (self-censored) extremely upset.

Warlord Traits and Relics are not a fair balance for the price increase of the book and the unit cuts. The rules need to be clearer, and some major changes need to be made to keep the army viable for competitive play, because even in friendly games, you still want to have the chance to win.

But more on topic, the cost of the Dreadknight with his Personal Teleporter seems to have dropped considerably, meaning they'll be much more viable than 6th, unless GW does something stupid to them.

At the very least, the rules for the various close combat weapons will be cleaner, as CCW all have profiles now.