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.

Use the scissor hands poison 3+ with the instant death of the Flesh Gauntlet?

Use Shred from a Lightning claw with the Double Strength of a Power fist?


The Nemesis Dreadknight ruling for the rerolls from the sword, and added strength from the doomfist seems to indicate I can, but I would like confirmation.

No. See the More Than One Weapon section of the rulebook.


As for the GK thing, i believe they have a FAQ for them so that would the exception.

No and No.
See page 51.

The Scissor hand is "Arcane Wargear" that is also a weapon. Would it still grant it's bonus attack? It's rules allow for being combined with another weapon to make it +2 attacks rather than +1 for two weapons. Even if I choose to use the Flesh Gauntlet in this round of combat?

You cannot combine the effects of two seperate CCWs unless the rulebook (and/or FAQ as the case may be) explicitly states you can. Nor may you get the additional attack for having 2 or more of them twice; again, unless the rulebook states you can.

So to answer your questions? no, you may not combine the effects of either of those.

 Neorealist wrote:
You cannot combine the effects of two seperate CCWs unless the rulebook (and/or FAQ as the case may be) explicitly states you can. Nor may you get the additional attack for having 2 or more of them twice; again, unless the rulebook states you can.

So to answer your questions? no, you may not combine the effects of either of those.

Well hold on...

You can get the bonus attacks with them...


Thunder Hammer and a Power fist gives +1 attack for having 2 Specilist Weapon does it not?

Thats different, 2 of the Same weapon. same with lightning claws. for different weapons only Tyranids can combine effects,

@ Backlash - Was you reffering to my post?

or the OP?


@OP - You can only use the effects of one weapon.

The reason for the Dreadknight's sword ruling is because the wording on the sword is different to any other weapon. It says the "bearer of the sword gets XYZ", meaning you don't have to actually be using it to gain the benifit. Unlike every other CCW which says the wielder gets XYZ. meaning you have to be using it to gain the benifit, and you can only use the benifits of one CCW at a time.

Bloodhorror wrote:Well hold on...

You can get the bonus attacks with them...


Thunder Hammer and a Power fist gives +1 attack for having 2 Specilist Weapon does it not?

Yeah, you do get that one +1 attack for having two specialist weapons. What i was saying is there is no way to benefit from that rule twice (ie: get 2 or more extra attacks from having 2+ weapons) unless a specific codex states such.

And if you have 2 non-specialist weapons you can get the +1A for having 2 CCWs, even if they have different rules.

So a Marine sergeant with a Power Axe and a Power Sword will get the +1A for having 2 CCWs regardless of which one he uses that assault phase.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The reason for the Dreadknight's sword ruling is because the wording on the sword is different to any other weapon. It says the "bearer of the sword gets XYZ", meaning you don't have to actually be using it to gain the benifit. Unlike every other CCW which says the wielder gets XYZ. meaning you have to be using it to gain the benifit, and you can only use the benifits of one CCW at a time.

The Scissor hand is a poisoned weapon 3+ that grants +1 attack, and may be combined with another CCW for a total of +2 attacks. It doesn't use wielder of, it just says grants +1 attack, as one of this piece of war gears effects. The Flesh Gauntlet does say unsaved wounds by the Flesh Gauntlet. The Animus Vitae is the only weapon that states "the Bearer" Every other weapons says the weapon, or the wielder.

If it says "the weapon" then you'd need to actually use the weapon to gain the effects.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The reason for the Dreadknight's sword ruling is because the wording on the sword is different to any other weapon. It says the "bearer of the sword gets XYZ", meaning you don't have to actually be using it to gain the benifit. Unlike every other CCW which says the wielder gets XYZ. meaning you have to be using it to gain the benifit, and you can only use the benifits of one CCW at a time.

The Scissor hand is a poisoned weapon 3+ that grants +1 attack, and may be combined with another CCW for a total of +2 attacks. It doesn't use wielder of, it just says grants +1 attack, as one of this piece of war gears effects. The Flesh Gauntlet does say unsaved wounds by the Flesh Gauntlet. The Animus Vitae is the only weapon that states "the Bearer" Every other weapons says the weapon, or the wielder.

The Djinn Blade also says the Bearer:

"Furthermore, the bearer makes two bonus attacks every round of combat..."

Does this mean players would accept the Animus Vitae and Djinn Blade functioning when not being actively used?

 Drunkspleen wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The reason for the Dreadknight's sword ruling is because the wording on the sword is different to any other weapon. It says the "bearer of the sword gets XYZ", meaning you don't have to actually be using it to gain the benifit. Unlike every other CCW which says the wielder gets XYZ. meaning you have to be using it to gain the benifit, and you can only use the benifits of one CCW at a time.

The Scissor hand is a poisoned weapon 3+ that grants +1 attack, and may be combined with another CCW for a total of +2 attacks. It doesn't use wielder of, it just says grants +1 attack, as one of this piece of war gears effects. The Flesh Gauntlet does say unsaved wounds by the Flesh Gauntlet. The Animus Vitae is the only weapon that states "the Bearer" Every other weapons says the weapon, or the wielder.

The Djinn Blade also says the Bearer:

"Furthermore, the bearer makes two bonus attacks every round of combat..."

Does this mean players would accept the Animus Vitae and Djinn Blade functioning when not being actively used?

Apparently not:

Q: If a model is armed with a Djin blade and another special close
combat weapon, such as an agoniser, and he chooses not to attack with
the Djin blade, does he still get the two bonus Attacks? (p56)
A: No.


Apparently only Grey Knights are allowed to combine the effects, as they are super special and need more ways to be broken.

megatrons2nd wrote:Apparently only Grey Knights are allowed to combine the effects, as they are super special and need more ways to be broken.

That is some bias there eh?

To be clear the greatsword doesn't say 'the bearer' . Here is the difference, as indicated by the relevent rules text for the greatsword and the djin blade:

Greatsword:
"...a model with a Nemesis Greatsword re-rolls... "

Djinblade:
"...Further, the bearer makes two bonus attacks..."

Apparently GW has decided that a model must be 'wielding' something to be considered it's 'bearer'. This has nothing to do with the grey knights' codex, and everything to do with the dark eldar one.

Being someone with, and being the bearer of is the same thing. It sucks that somebody who rights an FAQ entry can't collate the two different ways of saying something. The ring bearer is carrying a ring, not using/wearing that ring. So yes, it is specifically chosen that Grey Knights get to use an ability for a weapon they are not using that others do not.

How would you use a sword if you are not wielding it?

That's the rules. They don't always make sense and arn't always fair. But thats how it is.

megatrons wrote:How would you use a sword if you are not wielding it?

Magic? (or sufficently advanced science?)

For whatever reason the greatsword grants it's bonus to anyone who has one in their possession; even if they aren't using it (as that is how it is worded and there is no FAQ entry to the contrary). GW has made the call on the other hand that the dark eldar toys must invariably be used in combat in order to utilize their effects. Why? I have no idea, the intent behind the difference of wording and subsequent different FAQ entries in this case is beyond me.

Maybe it links to your mind and speeds up your reactions, thus making time move slower to your eyes.

Permitting you to reroll a ton of gak.

 Neorealist wrote:
Magic? (or sufficently advanced science?)

For whatever reason the greatsword grants it's bonus to anyone who has one in their possession; even if they aren't using it (as that is how it is worded and there is no FAQ entry to the contrary). GW has made the call on the other hand that the dark eldar toys must invariably be used in combat in order to utilize their effects. Why? I have no idea, the intent behind the difference of wording and subsequent different FAQ entries in this case is beyond me.

And swords that attack of their own will is any less of a leap of logic?

It's kind of like playing a game of "I win!!" as the rules are simply no mater what happens I win.


This is why I prefer other games over GW stuff. At least you have to work to try to find loopholes in many other companies rules, GW just hands them out to wily nilly to whomever they decide, and with little regard to how they write their own rules/FAQ's. Not to mention the lack of consistency in their FAQ rulings.

That is not entirely true, they do tend to be (mostly) consistent within their rules. I think you'll find that any other ruling that refers to 'the bearer' of a given weapon also states that the model has to use it in combat to benefit from it's effects too.

Fortunately for grey knight players, they wrote the rules-text for the Greatsword a little differently; enough so that there is a very different FAQ entry describing it's effects from those found in the Dark Eldar codex and FAQ.

The logic behind the answer is flawed. You have a sentient weapon that does not work with other weapons, and you have a giant sword that does. You logically have to be using both to have their effect, or both should simply just work, not this one does that one doesn't. It shouldn't matter if it is "with", "the bearer of", "possesses" or "has equipped". They all are the same thing. The model is in possession of an item that does something. The little "with" and they decide it is different is monkeying with a phrase to grant an ability that it shouldn't have. AKA just because some guy says so. Sadly that "some guy" is in charge of an official FAQ.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
The logic behind the answer is flawed. You have a sentient weapon that does not work with other weapons, and you have a giant sword that does. You logically have to be using both to have their effect, or both should simply just work, not this one does that one doesn't. It shouldn't matter if it is "with", "the bearer of", "possesses" or "has equipped". They all are the same thing. The model is in possession of an item that does something. The little "with" and they decide it is different is monkeying with a phrase to grant an ability that it shouldn't have. AKA just because some guy says so. Sadly that "some guy" is in charge of an official FAQ.

It's not flawed, it's just how it's worded. Sorry GK got a minor buff and no one else did ...

Go email GW and try to get them to change/add something in a FAQ as it is right now.

Theirs works, yours doesn't

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
The logic behind the answer is flawed. You have a sentient weapon that does not work with other weapons, and you have a giant sword that does. You logically have to be using both to have their effect, or both should simply just work, not this one does that one doesn't. It shouldn't matter if it is "with", "the bearer of", "possesses" or "has equipped". They all are the same thing. The model is in possession of an item that does something. The little "with" and they decide it is different is monkeying with a phrase to grant an ability that it shouldn't have. AKA just because some guy says so. Sadly that "some guy" is in charge of an official FAQ.

It's not flawed, it's just how it's worded. Sorry GK got a minor buff and no one else did ...

Go email GW and try to get them to change/add something in a FAQ as it is right now.

Theirs works, yours doesn't

The wording, using the English language, means the same thing. The bearer of something is carrying it. The Paul Bearers carry a casket, a ring bearer carries a ring, the standard bearer is carrying a standard. They have those items with (oh look there is that "with") them, but are not actively using them. So yeah, as I said it is flawed, just the guy who wrote the FAQ, for no good reason, decided that "with" is different than bearer of. As to talking to GW, they don't listen to customers for anything, and they are about as consistent with their rulings as a dizzy blind man shooting a .45 caliber pistol at a target 500m away. What politician was it that said "that it depends on what your definition of "is" is"?

The answer I keep seeing is "because they said so". Just because some one "says so" does not automatically mean they are right.


P.S. I did ask in an email(that will likely go unanswered just like my other 5 questions) asking about it.

You are arguing logic in preference to the precidents set by GW for their game.

To them 'with' is not the same thing as 'the bearer of' as within the context of 40k they do very different things.

I agree with you that 'the bearer of' can be easily read as functioning identically, however for the purposes of a rules discussion this is simply not the case for this game.

 Neorealist wrote:
You are arguing logic in preference to the precidents set by GW for their game.

To them 'with' is not the same thing as 'the bearer of' as within the context of 40k they do very different things.

I agree with you that 'the bearer of' can be easily read as functioning identically, however for the purposes of a rules discussion this is simply not the case for this game.

Please explain how they are functionally different? The function of being the bearer of is the same as the function of having it with them. What other item says "with" and gives a further special rule, that is also a weapon? This, as far as I've been able to find, is the only precedent. It also, again as far as I've found, is the only ruling in an FAQ that allows a model to ignore the rule so wonderfully pointed out for me earlier in this thread. I wouldn't have asked if I didn't see the FAQ ruling for the Dreadknight. There is no precedent prior to this, as far as I've been able to find, that would make "with" any different than possessing, or bearing.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
You are arguing logic in preference to the precidents set by GW for their game.

To them 'with' is not the same thing as 'the bearer of' as within the context of 40k they do very different things.

I agree with you that 'the bearer of' can be easily read as functioning identically, however for the purposes of a rules discussion this is simply not the case for this game.

Please explain how they are functionally different? The function of being the bearer of is the same as the function of having it with them. What other item says "with" and gives a further special rule, that is also a weapon? This, as far as I've been able to find, is the only precedent. It also, again as far as I've found, is the only ruling in an FAQ that allows a model to ignore the rule so wonderfully pointed out for me earlier in this thread. I wouldn't have asked if I didn't see the FAQ ruling for the Dreadknight. There is no precedent prior to this, as far as I've been able to find, that would make "with" any different than possessing, or bearing.

Because in GW's Ruleset, the GW FaQ's have said they are different.

So, it is another "because they said so" response. Not good enough.

Thats how this game works. Its GW's game. They are free to make it as they see fit.

They have spoken, it is how it is.