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.

At least two models are faqed to be able to combine two weapons rules, the nemesis dreadknight and the defiler. This is normally against the rules, but since it was an FAQ and not an errata, I would assume that there is something in the codexes letting these models do this.

Questions

-Could someone please enlighten me as to what in the rules is being clarified to allow this? (Hoping for a better understanding than "because they said we can" gets me)

-Are there other models that can do this? (Looking at the CD codex and all the "bearer gets" weapon entries as opposed to "this weapon")

The newer Codexes won't allow it unless the wording is very specific, because the rules are tied to the weapon profile. For instance, a model with a Power Fist doesn't suffer from Unwieldy if it doesn't use it.
For the older Codexes, it comes down to how the rule is applied. In the case of the Dreadknight and the Defiler, while the rule applies to owning the weapon, the rule itself is still found under the bestiary entry for the unit, and there's nothing stating the weapon must actually be used.

Are there other examples? Probably... not that I can think of any off the top of my head. Everything I *CAN* think of uses wording similar to "a model using", "a model wielding" or "attacks made with this weapon".

 Super Ready wrote:
The newer Codexes won't allow it unless the wording is very specific, because the rules are tied to the weapon profile. For instance, a model with a Power Fist doesn't suffer from Unwieldy if it doesn't use it.
For the older Codexes, it comes down to how the rule is applied. In the case of the Dreadknight and the Defiler, while the rule applies to owning the weapon, the rule itself is still found under the bestiary entry for the unit, and there's nothing stating the weapon must actually be used.

Are there other examples? Probably... not that I can think of any off the top of my head. Everything I *CAN* think of uses wording similar to "a model using", "a model wielding" or "attacks made with this weapon".

I might be misreading what you meant, but:
-Defilers are in a newer codex
-Unwieldy, and how two different weapons are NORMALLY used together is not in question at all.
-the special abilities that the two units are combining are found under the weapons entrees not the unit's entrees.

Those two weapons both use the wording of "a model with"

The chaos deamons codex, which doesnt have much of a faq yet, has the following:

Blade of blood: the bearer of the blade of blood has rampage

Mutating warpblade: If the bearer slays x, do special stuff (never mentions that the slaying must be done with this weapon like most of the weapons in this very same codex do)

So looking at how every other weapon in the same codex specifies that it must be that weapon doing it, do those two weapons grant thier ability even if a differnt weapon does the killing. IE herald with axe of khorne and blade of blood getting rampage and decapitating blows, or a tzeentch herald with mutating warpblade and eatherblade getting ap2 and mutating characters it slays.

the reason the Greatsword "works" with the DCCWs is because its abilities are passive. They are worded such that they work even when the weapon isn't being used, other CCWs have wording requiring them to be in active use to work.

It's not that consistent. A lot of weapons have their rules phrased similarly, that "the bearer" gets a benefit, etc. Sadly I think the Dreadknight can't be used as a clean precedent. It's got to be treated as an unusual exception, IMO.