Compiled GK Rules Questions

[George Labour]

the problem with quoting White Dwarf is that its articles are often written before final versions of rules are in play. Or the authors may have gotten something wrong by accident.

An example would be the apocalypse battle report where the tau super heavies managed to repair themselves, AND fire in the same turn. This led to one munchkin trying to do the same with his baneblades becasuse 'it happened in the white dwarf and that overrides the rules in apocalypse'.

So in the WD article the DK is said to carry both two Doomfists, both of which have storm bolters. However in the codex those same bolters are not listed (but are on the dreadnought). furthermore, if the DCCW works as it does on the dreadnought, then why do you need the daemon hammer upgrade?

As such I'm of the mind that the doomfists are just there to give it an extra attack should you choose to try and keep it cheap or equip it as a gun platform. Pretty sure DCCW are like powerfists in regards to getting extra attacks for multiple CCW weapons.

[scadugenga]

Wargear



+2A total. It’s a pair of CCW that separately grant +1A. There’s no reason to think that the +1A somehow denies the second +1A for having 2CCW.

Think of them as a pair of Lightning Claws except instead of granting rerolls to wounds they grant a second bonus attack.

And, no, Falchions don’t let you reroll anything. They just grant bonus attacks. Some people still seem to think that they're actually lightning claws. That is not in the codex.

This is incorrect, I believe.

The falchions are a singular wargear upgrade, just like the Striking Scorpion exarch wargear chainsabres. You only get the +1 attack, not +2 total.

Else they would have written a la the Eldar Howling Banshee exarch wargear Mirrorblades, which specifically states it provides +2 attacks..

[DarkLink]

You buy a pair of Falchions. Every time it mentions Falchions, it refers to them as a pair. It does so in the wargear entry, it does so in the fluff, it does so in the unit entries.

A pair refers to two of something. A pair of shoes means two shoes, one for each foot. A pair of close combat weapons means two close combat weapons, and thus a bonus attack.


This is exactly the same as Lightning claws. You get +1A for a pair of lightning claws, and a reroll to wound. You get +1A for a pair of Falchions, and an additional +1A for their special rule (instead of the reroll to wound).




Incidentally, if you try and argue that a single wargear option doesn't grant bonus attacks then most of the Lightning Claw Terminators in the game don't get a bonus attack. Chaos Terminators purchase "a pair of lightning claws". Heck, vanilla Terminators don't even refer to it as a pair. It just says "Lightning Claws" in their wargear entry.

Claiming that a pair of Falchions does not get a bonus attack for a pair of CCW is competely nonsensical.

[scadugenga]

Incidentally, if you try and argue that a single wargear option doesn't grant bonus attacks then most of the Lightning Claw Terminators in the game don't get a bonus attack. Chaos Terminators purchase "a pair of lightning claws". Heck, vanilla Terminators don't even refer to it as a pair. It just says "Lightning Claws" in their wargear entry.

Claiming that a pair of Falchions does not get a bonus attack for a pair of CCW is competely nonsensical.

Then explain why chainsabres only gives you +1 attack. "Some exarchs train in the use of blades paired with ancient guantlets that house twin-linked shuriken pistols, allowing them to level a storm of attacks at their foes. A model with chainsabres has +1A and can reroll all failed to hit and to wound rolls. page 33 of the Eldar codex. Note the use of the plural of blade in the text. So--paired melee weapons.


Mirrorswords: Two power weapons that per the codex entry "A model with mirrorswords counts as having an extra hand weapon that grants +2 A instead of the usual +1." Page 31 of the eldar codex.

The precedent is there. Two paired weapon entries that specifically document that only +1 attack is given (scorpions) unless written otherwise. (banshees)

Now look at the GK entry. Which of the two eldar weapon entries is close to identical? Not the Mirrorswords, I'll tell you that.

Your example of paired lightning claws is slightly misleading. You pay points for both lightning claws. (15 for one, or 30 for the pair.) Falchions (ironically, just like chainsabres) are only a 5 point upgrade.

Unless you believe that a nemesis force sword is only worth 5 points?

I"m not claiming that they don't get the bonus for paired weapons. I'm saying that the +1A in the codex entry is that bonus. You don't get a freebee bonus A because it does not specifically say you do.

And since when has GW cornered the market on sensibility when rules-writing?

[Tynskel]

a pair of falchions is one weapon. The codex has to write +1 A or you would get no bonus from having a pair of falchions.

[hisdudeness]

So does that mean you don't get a +1A for lighting claws?

[plawolf]

I have had a quick flick and found a few questions as well.

On Daemonblades, this might be a bit obvious, but where is the downside to GK daemonblades? In the wargear section, its spends half a page listing all the different powers on daemonblades, which iirc, is different from the rules for daemonweapons in the Chaos book, and at the end, it does not list daemon weapon as a 'common' weapon that use the same rules as the BBB. That would suggest to me that GK daemonweapons are a new kind of beast altogether to what we have been used to.

The important point in this is nowhere in the GK codex does it say that the daemonblade causes a wound on the user for rolling doubles. Is that right?



On the Eversor, his entry says his nero gauntlet counts as a lightening claw, does that mean he cannot have the extra attack for having a pistol as well since only two lightening claws grant +1A?


On the Culexus, in the old book, it clarifies that GK squads count as a single psyker for the Animus Speculum, but there is not such clarification in the new book that I can see. And considering the Brotherhood of psykers rule for GKs, that would suggest every single GK in a squad is a psyker. If that is the case, the Animus Speculum could get an insane shot number.

[Sonikgav]

I have had a quick flick and found a few questions as well.

On Daemonblades, this might be a bit obvious, but where is the downside to GK daemonblades? In the wargear section, its spends half a page listing all the different powers on daemonblades, which iirc, is different from the rules for daemonweapons in the Chaos book, and at the end, it does not list daemon weapon as a 'common' weapon that use the same rules as the BBB. That would suggest to me that GK daemonweapons are a new kind of beast altogether to what we have been used to.

The important point in this is nowhere in the GK codex does it say that the daemonblade causes a wound on the user for rolling doubles. Is that right?



On the Eversor, his entry says his nero gauntlet counts as a lightening claw, does that mean he cannot have the extra attack for having a pistol as well since only two lightening claws grant +1A?


On the Culexus, in the old book, it clarifies that GK squads count as a single psyker for the Animus Speculum, but there is not such clarification in the new book that I can see. And considering the Brotherhood of psykers rule for GKs, that would suggest every single GK in a squad is a psyker. If that is the case, the Animus Speculum could get an insane shot number.

1. GK Daemonblade is a new item. Dont confuse it with the Chaos ones. Its just a sword with 2 random effects. You dont roll 2d6 for extra attacks or anything etc.

2. Correct

3. Brotherhood of Psykers means 1 Unit = 1 Psyker. Deliberatly to stop the speculum being silly. Even the henchmen Psykers have a section that says they count as 1 psyker for tests and effects etc.

[DarkLink]

There's no real downside to using a Daemonblade. Why would you expect their to be one?

And a unit of Grey Knights is a single psyker. GK units don't actually have the Psyker rule, they have the Brotherhood of Psyker rule, meaning the whole unit is a single psyker.

[DarkLink]

The codex has to write +1 A or you would get no bonus from having a pair of falchions.

The BRB states that, by default, a pair of CCW gets +1A, regardless of whatever bonuses it has. A codex does not have to state this. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. A codex must contradict this in order to deny the +1A bonus for 2CCW, because that +1A is granted by default by the BRB.

Then explain why chainsabres only gives you +1 attack. "Some exarchs train in the use of blades paired with ancient guantlets that house twin-linked shuriken pistols, allowing them to level a storm of attacks at their foes. A model with chainsabres has +1A and can reroll all failed to hit and to wound rolls. page 33 of the Eldar codex. Note the use of the plural of blade in the text. So--paired melee weapons.

This is actually a good point, but think about why chainsabres only grant +1A. The Eldar codex is from 4th ed, when the rules were a little bit different. The +1A only carried over from the way the rules were written in 4th ed. The GK codex does not suffer from this problem.

In fact, I would argue that because the rules have changed since 4th ed, then chainsabres actually do grant an extra +1A.

Mirrorswords: Two power weapons that per the codex entry "A model with mirrorswords counts as having an extra hand weapon that grants +2 A instead of the usual +1." Page 31 of the eldar codex.

This doesn't contradict any of my argument. Mirrorswords explicitly replace the +1A bonus for 2CCW with a +2A bonus. Because it explicitly does this, it has no relevance to Falchions.

The precedent is there.

Only if you conveniently ignore the example that I've given. And since the several of the Marine codices that back up my point are written for 5th ed, there's stronger precedent on my side.

Now look at the GK entry. Which of the two eldar weapon entries is close to identical? Not the Mirrorswords, I'll tell you that.

Except Mirrorswords explicitly replace the bonus attack from 2CCW with something else. Chainsabres and Falchions do not do this.

Your example of paired lightning claws is slightly misleading. You pay points for both lightning claws. (15 for one, or 30 for the pair.) Falchions (ironically, just like chainsabres) are only a 5 point upgrade.

Unless you believe that a nemesis force sword is only worth 5 points?

The cost of an upgrade has no bearing whatsoever on what the rules actually say. And as you say below, when has GW cornered the market on sensibility .

And remember that Falchions are 10pts on GKSS/Interceptors, and Purifiers get their weapons for absurdly cheap. On the other hand, Terminators lose their invulnerable save bonus or their +2 I or their Thunderhammer in exchange for the extra attacks of a Falchion. When you look at it from that way, it's not just an extra attack for +5pts. You're getting extra attack(s) and you're losing other bonuses simultaneously.

I"m not claiming that they don't get the bonus for paired weapons. I'm saying that the +1A in the codex entry is that bonus. You don't get a freebee bonus A because it does not specifically say you do.

I see no reason why the +1A is the same as the bonus for having 2CCW. Is there a rule that says it is? Because I couldn't find one.