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.

Was looking at my SW codex and was thinking of having a Wolf lord with a thunderwolf mount and all the relics i could take, then i was trying to decide between the fangsword and the black death and though why not both. My question is because of the wording of the Grey knights greatsword and the black death would i get the +3 attacks if i swung with the fangsword?

whirlwind of death: The bearer of the black death gets +3 attacks for the duration of any fight sub phase in which he is locked in a combat with more enemy models than friendly models. (emphasis added)

If that wording is accurate, then I'd say yes, you get +3 attacks whether you use the weapon or not.

For what it's worth in the 6th edition FAQs the 'bearer' of a weapon did not get the bonuses of that weapon unless they were wielding it in combat. (the write up on the dark elder Djin Blades for example was explicit about this). The greatsword does not refer to the bearer at all, it is worded differently.

Sadly however all such rulings were removed (or at least haven't shown up yet) from the 7th edition versions of same. As such you will not have a specific RAW point to indicate you should follow anything other than the standard rules for such, so there will likely be much debate.

As a Grey Knight player, I'd say no, you can't mix the profiles of the two weapons. The core rules are very explicit on the matter, so unless the weapons explicitly state that the extra 3 attacks apply regardless of what weapon is used, it doesn't overwrite the basic rules.

The Confusion for the Nemesis Greatsword was the 6th edition FAQ saying you could mix the abilities, and the Codex wording the ability like Wargear, when it is conferred by the weapon.

I have my own thread where we debated the topic, and I was forced to choose between "rule lawyering" the difference between "with" and "wields" in a context that seems to use these words interchangeably, and changing my position.

Seperate question - if the bearer dedicates 1 attack from the fangsword then they are using the fangsword, can they then dedicate the rest are of the attacks to the black death and still get their +3a on the black death seeing as they have used the fangsword to 'activate' its rule?

Poly ranger,
The More then One Weapon Rule prevents just that.

You are totally correct. Forgot about that as it never comes up. You either want to use one or the other, as one will always be superior over the other against what you are facing.

Can't get two relics on the same model anyway, since doing so would be changing both of its weapons for relics instead of one relic for one weapon

If you change one relic for one weapon then you have one more weapon to trade for one relic as the codex states only one of each and not one in total.

*and so it begins again*

Nope. Make a new thread if you want to discuss that, this one is about the 'one weapon' rule and wether or not a given weapons' wording bypasses it.

yukondal wrote:
If you change one relic for one weapon then you have one more weapon to trade for one relic as the codex states only one of each and not one in total.

*and so it begins again*

That logic is like when a parent says you can have one Cookie, and you take one, then another one, then another...

The rules are clear in regards to when "any weapon may be exchanged for one of the following" or some similar wording which would allow what you're proposing. Exchanging "one" weapon for "one" relic is about as precise as you can get to mean you cannot get more than one relic on any given unit.

There's a similar phrasing for Blade Of Blood in the Daemons codex.

I have played it, and every opponent has agreed, that it is sufficient to have it equipped, especially when other weapons in the same section specifically mention the "wielder" rather than the "bearer."

yukondal wrote: If you change one relic for one weapon then you have one more weapon to trade for one relic as the codex states only one of each and not one in total.

*and so it begins again*

That logic is like when a parent says you can have one Cookie, and you take one, then another one, then another...

No, in my situation I already have 2 cookies and my mom says I can trade one of my cookies for one smoothie.

She won't let me trade one cookie for two smoothies. She's kind of a stickler that way.

I want 2 strawberry smoothies but my mom will only let me have one of each flavor.

yukondal wrote:

yukondal wrote: If you change one relic for one weapon then you have one more weapon to trade for one relic as the codex states only one of each and not one in total.

*and so it begins again*

That logic is like when a parent says you can have one Cookie, and you take one, then another one, then another...

No, in my situation I already have 2 cookies and my mom says I can trade one of my cookies for one smoothie.

She won't let me trade one cookie for two smoothies. She's kind of a stickler that way.

I want 2 strawberry smoothies but my mom will only let me have one of each flavor.

I don't claim to know what your mom is like, but that's not how language works, especially in this context.

The wording we have here is that the model "may exchange one weapon with one Relic". That caps it. Only one weapon may be exchanged in this manner.

The Character is created at once, you can't stagger the creation between phases to cheat the system. If you exchange a second weapon for a Relic, you have exchange 2 weapons for 2 Relics, which is explicitly against the rules.

By your logic if a unit has a rule that if it numbers 10 models, one model may exchange its weapon for a heavy weapon, you would let every model in the unit exchange their weapons, because it's one, then another one, then another one...

yukondal wrote: By your logic if a unit has a rule that if it numbers 10 models, one model may exchange its weapon for a heavy weapon, you would let every model in the unit exchange their weapons, because it's one, then another one, then another one...

No by his logic if a unit has a rule that if it numbers 10 models, one model my exchange its weapon for a heavy weapon, he would let the one model exchange his bolt gun for a lascannon, his chainsword for a plasma cannon, and bolt pistol for a heavy bolter.

At the risk of sounding redundant, we already have a thread to argue wether or not multiple relics can be taken by one model. Perhaps you'll want to focus on the actual topic of this one?

yukondal wrote: By your logic if aunit has a rule that if it numbers 10 models, one model may exchange its weapon for aheavy weapon, you would let every model in the unit exchange their weapons, because it's one, then another one, then another one...

No by his logic if a unit has a rule that if it numbers 10 models, one model my exchange its weapon for a heavy weapon, he would let the one model exchange his bolt gun for a lascannon, his chainsword for a plasma cannon, and bolt pistol for a heavy bolter.

Am I the only one who.plays like this? They are space marines after all. I don't think a rocket lascannon guy is so bad.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

yukondal wrote: By your logic if a unit has a rule that if it numbers 10 models, one model may exchange its weapon for a heavy weapon, you would let every model in the unit exchange their weapons, because it's one, then another one, then another one...

No by his logic if a unit has a rule that if it numbers 10 models, one model my exchange its weapon for a heavy weapon, he would let the one model exchange his bolt gun for a lascannon, his chainsword for a plasma cannon, and bolt pistol for a heavy bolter.

I stand behind my example: The Veteran Squad in Astra Militarum permits one Veteran to exchange his Lasgun for a Vox-caster. It then states that "One other Veteran may exchange his Lasgun with a Heavy Flamer..." The limiting factor is the word "one" in both cases. The scale reference to "one weapon on a model" is "one model in a unit". If you hold that a character "may exchange one weapon with one relic" to let him exchange multiple weapons weapons for multiple relics, then by simple logic you also have to let all of the non-Vox-caster Veterans take a Heavy Flamer because each of them is "one other Veteran". If you don't then you are being internally inconsistent and are creating more problems than already exist in the text.

Whatever example you use, that interpretation violates the rules. You can't exchange one, then another one, because the simple math is 1+1=2, and Two weapons being exchanged is more than one (the expressed limit in the rules).

I'm confused to what exactly is being determined here, but let me pose an alternate question.

Genestealer gets Rending Claws which grants the "Rending" special ability and has "3" attacks (I actually don't recall how many attacks it has off the top of my head).

For 4 points, I can "add" Scything Talons. Not "replace existing weapon" but "add".

Scything Talons give me +1 attack, but Scything Talons are not "Rending".

Does the "Rending" special ability apply to all 4 attacks? and why?

Lynkon_Lawg wrote:
I'm confused to what exactly is being determined here, but let me pose an alternate question.

Genestealer gets Rending Claws which grants the "Rending" special ability and has "3" attacks (I actually don't recall how many attacks it has off the top of my head).

For 4 points, I can "add" Scything Talons. Not "replace existing weapon" but "add".

Scything Talons give me +1 attack, but Scything Talons are not "Rending".

Does the "Rending" special ability apply to all 4 attacks? and why?

The reason Scything Talons give +1 attack is because you get +1 attack for having two weapons.

You chose which weapon to attack with if you have more than one, so you could choose the rending claws, and get a bonus attack because you are wielding two weapons and use the abilities of the rending claws.

Same applies to a Space Marine Sergeant with 2 base attacks, a Power sword and a bolt pistol. He gets 3 attacks if he chooses the power sword to attack with and all of those attacks will be Str user AP3 because he is using the Power Sword.

edit: simultaneous post but he said it better. Is there a way to delete this posts?

Similarly, if you swing with fangsword you do not benefit from the blackdeath's profile, just the fangswords. However if either weapon had a special rule that said 'a model with x has y' (to paraphrase the greatswords rules) then the model would benefit from the special rule even if the weapon was not used in combat.

I'm fairly sure that the Nemesis Greatsword is the only weapon that has been ever written with the latter style; every other one states something like 'the bearer' or 'the wielder' or 'when used in combat' or some such similar verbiage.