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.

p.102 in C:Orks says that a Deff Dread has "Two close combat weapons (each additional dreadnought close combat weapon adds +1 to the Dread's attacks)". Its profile says it has 3 attacks.
Is the "each additional blah blah blah" text there just as a reminder, or does it mean "each dreadnought close combat weapon in addition to these two adds +1 to the Dread's attacks"?
I would think the former, giving a fully-armed (no pun intended) Dread 6 attacks (3, plus 3 arms beyond the first), but GW isn't always the clearest of writers.

If you don't follow the FAQ's then the former interpretation is correct.

However, in the Ork FAQ, GW said that a Deff Dread with 3 arms gets 4 attacks and 5 attacks with 4 arms.

Not claiming either is wrong/right. I personally use the FAQ's just because every tourny I've gone to uses them.

Oh. Duh. I have the FAQ printed out and with this book. Skimmed over it to look for the answer, and just missed it.

Thanks!

The FAQ ignores RaW, just to let you know.

Where I play, we tend to follow the rules.

So Gwar! how do you play it? That a fully-equipped Deff Dread has how many attacks? 6 right? So you take one DCCW as, if you will, the 'base', then any on top of that give an extra attack, including the extra arm already included in its profile, plus the option of two more for two more attacks, yeah? Not being sarky, just a little confused lol...
If it is that way, then i can see where the OP can get confused, though i think, PERSONALLY, I would go along with the FAQ, not for the simple fact that it's a 'GW' FAQ, but that it says 'Additional' arms. That to me means any additional arms, ON TOP OF what you already have.

Sandyman11 wrote:So Gwar! how do you play it? That a fully-equipped Deff Dread has how many attacks? 6 right? So you take one DCCW as, if you will, the 'base', then any on top of that give an extra attack, including the extra arm already included in its profile, plus the option of two more for two more attacks, yeah? Not being sarky, just a little confused lol...

I play it by the RaW.

No DCCW means base attacks at normal Strength.
1 DCCW means Base Attacks at enhanced Strength.
2 DCCW means Base Attacks +1 at enhanced Strength.
3 DCCW means Base Attacks +2 at enhanced Strength.
4 DCCW means Base Attacks +3 at enhanced Strength.

Fair enough. I see how that works, from RAW as per the rulebook. I am just saying that from the codeci's (codex's?) entry, it can be a little confusing, hence the thread, simply because some of us don't know whether or not to take 'additional' to mean 'on top of what you already have', which would be specific, or 'additional' as in 'per the general rules in the BRB'

Sandyman11 wrote:Fair enough. I see how that works, from RAW as per the rulebook. I am just saying that from the codeci's (codex's?) entry, it can be a little confusing, hence the thread, simply because some of us don't know whether or not to take 'additional' to mean 'on top of what you already have', which would be specific, or 'additional' as in 'per the general rules in the BRB'

Well, think about it.

Does an Ork Boy have his bonus attack in his statline? No, he doesn't. Why would anything else in the codex? Had the attacks been listed as "x(x+1)", then I would say that the bonus attack is included (like how it is written for a Furioso Deadnought AND EVERY OTHER MODEL WHO HAS BONUS ATTACKS INCLUDED IN THEIR STATLINE).

As it is however, it isn't, so the attack isn't included. A Model with 2 Attacks and 2 DCCW has 3 Attacks (again, see the Furioso Dreadnought AND EVERY OTHER MODEL WHO HAS BONUS ATTACKS INCLUDED IN THEIR STATLINE. There is even an example in the WH codex ffs, so you can't even claim "Old Codex Syndrome"). Therefore, a model with 3 Attacks and 2 DCCW has 4 Attacks, and a Model with 3 Attacks and 4 DCCW has 6 Attacks.

And it's not like the Ork codex doesn't already have extensive Errata, because it does. One more adding "(x+1) to the Deff Dreads statline won't make any difference to the document length. It would, actually, make it shorter.

If you want to play by some house rule, then fine. I will stick to playing by the rules.

It's not like the FAQ are even written by the Authors of the codexes any more anyway.

Ahh, sorry, i forgot about those others... very good sir, RAW it is then.

I agree with Gwar 100% and I would have no problem with the ork player getting hsi extra attack as thats RAW
Also Gwar makes a good point about GW not writing their own FAQs

Gwar! wrote:[
...AND EVERY OTHER MODEL WHO HAS BONUS ATTACKS INCLUDED IN THEIR STATLINE).

Except Daemonettes and other Daemon models with a pair of Rending Claws which already have the bonus included in their statline, but do not have () around it.

calypso2ts wrote:Except Daemonettes and other Daemon models with a pair of Rending Claws which already have the bonus included in their statline, but do not have () around it.

Because it doesn't need to, because, as you said, it makes it clear.

And to be fair, using the Dæmons codex is not really all that convincing, since it is an "illegitimate son" codex that wasn't really written properly in order to sell fantasy models...

Its not like they hijacked the same named characters, units, rules and statlines (basically) from the Fantasy Codex...oh wait...

And that my friends, is why I personally HATE demons in 40k. Oh gak our sales on demons are slipping.....uh QUICK! STICK A 40K INSIGNIA ON THE CODEX!

What are you talking about? The Fantasy and 40k Daemon codex was released on the same day.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:What are you talking about? The Fantasy and 40k Daemon codex was released on the same day.

Yes, but there was no reason to make a 40k Dæmons codex other than "Oh, snap, we need to sell moar modelz, lets just copypaste over the fantasy codex then ignore it for close to two years before we give it an errata/FAQ."

Fantasy could say the same thing? One of the three kits released was even 40k only.

Daemons split off Chaos Warriors and Chaos Marines for the same reasons - probably about 50% theme and 50% selling more models.

I agree with Gwar

The other thing to consider is what if someone blows off one of the two base DCCWs. Do you minus one attack from the models base attacks? Does nothing happen at all? It is pretty silly if their faq suggests that the extra weapon is built into the base attacks of the mode.

Git