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.

Yes, and that FAQ was itself a rules change, as the Rulebook did (and still does) explicitly prohibit mixing and matching weapon abilities. Not to mention that they had previously been ruling analogous weapons (such as the Scorpion Chainsword) exactly as you'd expect according to the rules at the time.

Its your opinion that it's a rules change. The rule as written only requires that the model have the greatsword to gain its benefits. It does not require that he use it.

 Ghaz wrote:
Its your opinion that it's a rules change. The rule as written only requires that the model have the greatsword to gain its benefits. It does not require that he use it.

The rules as written explicitly prohibit mixing the abilities of multiple weapons and the Grey Knight codex explicitly calls out the Great-swords rules as one of it's abilities. How is it anything but a rules change to allow the Dreadknight to mix the abilities of the Greatsword with those of the Doomfist?

And again, you're not 'mixing' the abilities. You are not using two weapons at the same time. You get the benefits of the greatsword by merely having it.

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, you're not 'mixing' the abilities. You are not using two weapons at the same time. You get the benefits of the greatsword by merely having it.

You are using the ability of the Greatsword (re-rolls) and the abilities of a Doomfist (Sx2, AP2). How is this not mixing abilities? You're either arguing that the Strength and AP of a weapon aren't "abilities" or that somehow the re-rolls aren't despite the Grey Knight codex specifically calling it an ability.

EDIT: In short, it doesn't matter that the Greatsword doesn't say you have to be using the Greatsword to benefit because the main rulebook says you can't benefit from it if you're using something else. If the codex meant for you to be able to benefit from it without using it in spite of the main rulebook they should have said so instead of changing the rules in an FAQ.

 Paradigm wrote:
Is this a case of the FAQ being actually changed, or simply omitted? Because as it was simply a clarification, not an Errata, I'd argue it always 'worked' that way, the FAQ just proved it.

So as far as I'm concerned, it still works at S10.

 DogOfWar wrote:
Relevant rules for a more accurate discussion:

GK codex

Nemesis Force Weapons (p.54)
All Nemesis weapons are force weapons, as detailed in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.
...
Further Abilities: The various types of Nemesis force weapon have one or more other abilities, as listed on this page. These always apply in addition to the Force Weapon and Daemonbane abilities given above.

Nemesis Doomfist (p.54)
A Nemesis Doomfist follows the rules for Dreadnought close combat weapons

Nemesis Greatsword (p.54)
A model with a Nemesis Greatsword re-rolls failed To Hit, To Wound, and armour penetration rolls in close combat. (I checked that this is word for word. It only says "with" not "attacks with" or "bearing" etc.)

7th Edition Rulebook

Walkers and Assaults (p.91)
If a Walker is armed with two or more Melee weapons, it gains +1 bonus Attack for each additional weapon after the first. Unlike other models, this is not limited to a single bonus attack.

Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons (p.178)
Range -, Sx2, AP2, Melee

The interaction between all of these rules leads me to believe that the Dreadknight does indeed get 4 attacks (3 base +1 for having an additional melee weapon), at S10 (swinging with the Doomfist) and all attacks benefit from the Nemesis Greatsword special ability.

Do people interpret it differently?

DoW

I think the same, since FAQ just proves it. Lots of the erratas had the FAQ part flat out say: none. Or left some old faq's questions omitted. Just looks like they are cleaning the FAQ portion up so it doesn't get to be 10 pages long.

Chrysis wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Its your opinion that it's a rules change. The rule as written only requires that the model have the greatsword to gain its benefits. It does not require that he use it.

The rules as written explicitly prohibit mixing the abilities of multiple weapons and the Grey Knight codex explicitly calls out the Great-swords rules as one of it's abilities. How is it anything but a rules change to allow the Dreadknight to mix the abilities of the Greatsword with those of the Doomfist?

However unclearly it's worded, it does seem to be the case that the Greatsword's rule overrides the normal restriction on mixing special rules.
But it is pretty sketchy, since it's the ONLY thing in the game that works that way.
...unless folks know of other examples?

Daemons have a sword (Blade of Blood) that confers 'Rampage' to the 'bearer'.

Heaven forbid a unique unit should have unique rules, but sure I'll bite. Check out the tyranid codex, lash whip and bonesword. There are both individual entries for lash whips (s user, ap-, +3 to Initiative) and for boneswords (s user, ap3, any roll to wound of 6 is instant death). And then there is the option to take both, which gives you s user ap3 +3 initiative and the instant death on a six rule. They quite clearly mixed the two weapon profiles together to give the benefits of both.

If it helps you to conceptualize the reasoning, the same fist that can tear through a tank with ease is now holding the sword (a paid upgrade, and more importantly a literal force multiplier from a physics standpoint). Why would a blow from that great sword be any less devastating than a blow from the fist that holds it?

 Fachxphyre wrote:
Heaven forbid a unique unit should have unique rules, but sure I'll bite. Check out the tyranid codex, lash whip and bonesword. There are both individual entries for lash whips (s user, ap-, +3 to Initiative) and for boneswords (s user, ap3, any roll to wound of 6 is instant death). And then there is the option to take both, which gives you s user ap3 +3 initiative and the instant death on a six rule. They quite clearly mixed the two weapon profiles together to give the benefits of both.

With explicit permission to gain the benefits of both. Not comparable.

Does the swarmlords weapons still give him the invun save in combat as that is an example of a weapon just giving the bearer an ability without using them. Maybe wrong on this and might just be a rule near the weapon ha don't have the book to hand.

But anyway: Nemesis Greatsword (p.54)
A model with a Nemesis Greatsword re-rolls failed To Hit, To Wound, and armour penetration rolls in close combat.

it says a model with not a model using so that means while yes it is an ability granted by the weapon it is an ability that is always on because of the wording. its much the same as other weapons like the one that grants you rampage you just get the power on you.

It sucks im not saying it doesn't but they have to pay for it and I can still dakka the things to death

katana100 wrote:
Does the swarmlords weapons still give him the invun save in combat as that is an example of a weapon just giving the bearer an ability without using them. Maybe wrong on this and might just be a rule near the weapon ha don't have the book to hand.

Since The Swarmlord has no other weapons (and can't)...

the greatsword grants the model an ability,without being used, thats why we can use the MODELS ability (rerolls ect) with the doomfist weapons abilities (x2str)


its very simple, and has been a question that GW have already answered...

FAQs are not rule changes, they are rule clarifications.

A(n) FAQ is to clarify something that (ideally) was clear in the rules but was somehow misconstrued by players, not modify the rules. As others have mentioned, that's what an errata is for. The fact that it was clarified in the FAQ in 6th (whether that clarification was removed or not) is evidence enough to prove that the original rules were designed to be read as such.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

On a somewhat related note, do people say "Fack" or "Eff-ay-cue" when pronouncing 'FAQ' out loud? Just curious.

DoW

Though GW has used FAQs to change rules. Though this isn't one of those cases.

@DogOfWar My group and I say "Fack[s]"

I generally go with 'Eff-Aye-Cue' when stating it out loud. It is an acronym though so I can easily see how it goes either way.

As for the people still arguing that it doesn't actually say that it works regardless of wether or not the sword is used in combat: Did you literally just skip the past 2 editions and/or have never played against a Grey Knight player before?

How on earth can something that has been 'clarified' (note: explicitly not errated, which any rule change would be) several times in the past still be causing people such hardship? I'm beginning to think that people simply do not 'like' that the Dreadknight is a special snowflake unit, with a special snowflake sword, which in turn has special snowflake rules; and would prefer to ignore the written word of the greatsword and the incredibly obvious (and repeatedly expressed) intent of the authors in favour of their own interpretation.

It works as it always has, and we have ample prior indication of 'exactly' what that is.

I say "Just the 'FACKS', Ma'am". Though I'm used to pronouncing acronyms given the work I do.

And this is awesome. I knew this bullcrap would come back because Games Workshop was overly lazy with the copy pasta when it came to giving us vindicators, but not lazy enough to go the full distance.

So now we get to have these arguments come back.

I'm playing it like the 6E FAQ said until I eventually run into that guy or we get a new codex.

 Neorealist wrote:
I generally go with 'Eff-Aye-Cue' when stating it out loud. It is an acronym though so I can easily see how it goes either way.

As for the people still arguing that it doesn't actually say that it works regardless of wether or not the sword is used in combat: Did you literally just skip the past 2 editions and/or have never played against a Grey Knight player before?

How on earth can something that has been 'clarified' (note: explicitly not errated, which any rule change would be) several times in the past still be causing people such hardship? I'm beginning to think that people simply do not 'like' that the Dreadknight is a special snowflake unit, with a special snowflake sword, which in turn has special snowflake rules; and would prefer to ignore the written word of the greatsword and the incredibly obvious (and repeatedly expressed) intent of the authors in favour of their own interpretation.

It works as it always has, and we have ample prior indication of 'exactly' what that is.

Because it's been clarified both ways in the past, iirc. For a time it was "No" and then (I believe in the 6th edition FAQ splat) it was changed to "Yes".
And saying that FAQs never change rules is at best delusional.

rigeld2 wrote:

And saying that FAQs never change rules is at best delusional.

Not a big fan of being called delusional, especially for something I did not even say. (Of course FAQs contain rules changes, they have an errata section specifically for that.) Perhaps you may want to amend your posted thoughts to be less insulting?

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And saying that FAQs never change rules is at best delusional.

Not a big fan of being called delusional, especially for something I did not even say. (Of course FAQs contain rules changes, they have an errata section specifically for that.) Perhaps you may want to amend your posted thoughts to be less insulting?

No, I mean the actual question and answer section actually contains rules changes.
And thinking otherwise is at best delusional.

Or does the 6th edition BRB somehow contain the same wording as the FAQ regarding shooting and I'm somehow blind? Or did the Tyranid SiTW FAQ that changed during 5th edition somehow not change a rule?

I'm sorry you're not a big fan of it, but it's a fact. Despite evidence to the contrary, you believe that they don't change rules.

edit: And you did say it.

How on earth can something that has been 'clarified' (note: explicitly not errated, which any rule change would be)

You said that a rule change would be done with errata. That's demonstrably - with evidence to the contrary - false.

As above. SitW changed from no to yes, one of which must have been a rules change

Fair point on the rules changes in FAQs. However, that makes the name of the product extremely misleading (a 'Frequently Asked Questions' product in any other situation is specifically designed for clarification and amplification, not contradiction).

Either way, I'm sticking to my guns (er, swords) regarding the associated rules and their interactions in 7th. I'll grant that the FAQ has removed their specific question that solidly supports the S10 4 Attacks camp, but I don't think that's a valid reason to completely discount all of the other supporting evidence.

I'll admit I play GK and I do like my DK to be as mean as possible (it bloody well should be for 230 points), but I genuinely believe this is how these rules interact. At least until GW 'clarifies' the ruling in the opposite direction.

DoW

Indeed, they have modified rules via amendment rather than explicitly via errata. I took issue with being called delusional, not with your point.

rigeld2 wrote:
Because it's been clarified both ways in the past, iirc. For a time it was "No" and then (I believe in the 6th edition FAQ splat) it was changed to "Yes".

You're missing a major component though: Rules for both Dreadnought CCW's and special close combat weapons changed from 5th to 6th. Having FAQ entry for a question change after rules have changed should not be surprising in the slightest.

In 5e, DCCW's only doubled S for Walkers and you needed to have two of same special weapon to gain +1 A. So the FAQ entry was basically stating that because DK is a MC, not a Walker, DCCW didn't double S and that Fist and Sword are different weapons. Purely a clarification.

In 6e, DCCW's doubled S for all users and you gained attack if either both or neither of the weapons had Specialist USR. So the 6e FAQ just clarified that there was no need to attack with the Greatsword to gain its benefits. Note that this was not a rule change.

rigeld2 wrote:
And saying that FAQs never change rules is at best delusional.

Absolutely true. This has been seen both in 5e and 6e, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen in 7e too.

Neorealist wrote:ndeed, they have modified rules via amendment rather than explicitly via errata. I took issue with being called delusional, not with your point.

They have changed them multiple times in plain FAQ entries too:
From the top of my head, in 6e at least following rules were changed by FAQ (non-Errata/amendment) entries:
* Helldrake turret + base ruling
* Swooping FMC skyfire
* Battlements not being buildings
* Wounds not being allocated to out of range models.

So yes, claiming GW doesn't change rules in normal non-errata/amendment entries is delusional.

Neorealist wrote:Indeed, they have modified rules via amendment rather than explicitly via errata. I took issue with being called delusional, not with your point.

If you agree with my point, you're not delusional. Not because I'm cool and you should agree with me, but because you don't hold a belief in spite of evidence.

Luide wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because it's been clarified both ways in the past, iirc. For a time it was "No" and then (I believe in the 6th edition FAQ splat) it was changed to "Yes".

You're missing a major component though: Rules for both Dreadnought CCW's and special close combat weapons changed from 5th to 6th. Having FAQ entry for a question change after rules have changed should not be surprising in the slightest.

I'm aware of the rules changes involved. He was surprised people keep questioning it, I'm pointing out one reason why.