Dreadknight Doomfists

[wkz]

OP is right, Doomfists don't double the Dreadknight's strength. End of story.

The only gripe I have is with the OP: "x counts as y," "x is is treated as y," and "x follows the same rules as y" are three different ways of saying exactly the same thing. There is no functional distinction between those three wordings.

... there are differences:

A Blood Angel Vanguard Marine counts as Jump Infantry.
Meaning: exactly what it says: Vanguard Marines follow ALL the rules for Jump Infantry and all the rules apply always, because that's what they ARE. No questions asked.

A Librarian who successfully cast this power is treated as Jump Infantry.
Meaning: Slightly different from "Counts as": the target in question are usually something else (Most Librarians are usually Infantry) but something causes them to be different. They are now using a bunch of rules entirely different from their "norm".

A Gray Knight Dreadknight with Teleporters follows the same rules as Jump Infantry (for movement).
Meaning: Slightly different from "Counts as" and "Treated as": the target in question ONLY uses the rules for something (using the rules for Jump Infantry) but otherwise having most of their original rules intact (Dreadknights are still Monsterous Creatures).

I fail to see how you say that doomfists don't make the DK strength 10.

A doomfist is a DCCW, which does what it says in the big rulebook. It's just rules lawyering to make it read anything else to be what you want it to be.

... I think you've seen the argument about the word "Walkers" inside the DCCW rules, haven't you?

I guess you don't agree with that statement/argument then? I guess you're saying "DCCW has the precedent of granting double strength all the time, so it should grant it in this case"? Welcome to the world of RAI, the world of second-guessing what GW actually intended with the rules... It tends to clash with RAW (which is the world of strict wording interpretation).

And as I've said, GW seem to be doing a wonderful job making sure RAI and RAW are at loggerheads over the Dreadknight...


PS: a word of advice, don't use the word "rules lawyering" in an argument of this nature... as "forcing the rules to say what you want to say" applies both ways: via strict wording, Dreadknights does not have double strength with Doomfists. Saying otherwise technically equals you being the rules lawyering person here...

[Dalleron]

I have seen the argument regarding Doomfists, Dreadknights, and DCCW. I just think it is dumb that this is actually being argued about, over what, 2 words in a 300 page rulebook? Does this make me dumb for even taking part in it, sure why not.

Why is it such a crazy notion that this one unit breaks one rules, in a codex that already has broken rules of the game.

I am familiear with the RAI vs RAW. It is a silly idea which GW will probably never take a stand on.

Whatever the case, I will stand in the corner of the S10 dreadknight, going with the RAI camp.

I wonder though, if you put it to the forum via a poll of sorts, what the majority would be?

[wkz]

I have seen the argument regarding Doomfists, Dreadknights, and DCCW. I just think it is dumb that this is actually being argued about, over what, 2 words in a 300 page rulebook? Does this make me dumb for even taking part in it, sure why not.

All the rules are active, all the time. That makes every single word in the rulebook important.

"Make a Difficult Terrain Test" 5 words that are important in Movement

"Move the closest model into base to base with the CLOSEST ENEMY MODEL" 3 words in a sentence that is absolutely vital to starting close combat.

"Remove" This single word all over the rulebook describes death, and without it the game is unplayable.

"Embark" and "Disembark", without which our transports will stop working

etc...

2 words in a 300 page rulebook is important when all 300 pages of it is important. And you think a single word in a rule that disagrees with you should be ignored? Seriously?

Why is it such a crazy notion that this one unit breaks one rules, in a codex that already has broken rules of the game.

Thing is, the unit in question USES rules, not break them.

Remember (and this is something formulated thanks to someone else), Codex > Rulebook, but when the Codex asks the Rulebook to explain things for it, the Rulebook takes precedence.

The Dreadknight's Doomfists uses the DCCW rules, and says nothing more, no added rules, no exceptions (well, other than the fact Doomfists has Nemesis and DaemonBane rules). Thus the wording in the DCCW section is particularly important, and in there we see this single word "Walker" when it explains double-strength...

... Thus, in this case, even if the rulebook is blindsided by the fact some idiot put a DCCW on anything other than a walker, the rules are pretty clear: No double strength.

Of course, just as stupid laws of the country are explained once the flaw of that law is found, so will this be clarified in the FAQ/Errata. 'tis curious how GW would rule it.

I am familiear with the RAI vs RAW. It is a silly idea which GW will probably never take a stand on.

GW wouldn't, because to admit to RAI automatically admit means GW admits to its rulesets having holes... holes which require the community to patch. This is to admit to a design flaw (one which is purposely put in to some degree, but one which plays havok on GW's "competitive game" plan).

This I am in agreement with you.

Whatever the case, I will stand in the corner of the S10 dreadknight, going with the RAI camp.

I wonder though, if you put it to the forum via a poll of sorts, what the majority would be?

And I in mine. Have fun.

As you are, I am also curious what a simple poll will reveal...

[Charistoph]

- Walker weapons on a Monster!
Precedence: DCCW always had double strength! RAI says they should have that!
Precedence breaker: It is the first time a DCCW is on a monster! RAW says they shouldn't have that! (and yes, both meanings. I'm looking HARD at you-know-who...)

Not the first time. As mentioned earlier, the Eldar used to have it as a default on their Wraithlord. True, it's not used in a current codex, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened before.

- Monster having 2 weapons!
Precedence: Monsters never had 2 weapons in the past (in 4th or 5th edition)!! RAI says they should (a) either be like a Dreadnought (2 weapons for +1 attack, and thus supporting the "Dreadknight double strength" above), or (b) NOT have that +1A!
Precedence breaker: 2 weapons, fer goodness sake!! RAW says 2 weapons gets +1A due to infantry weapon-wielding rules (of which a Monsterous creature is a sub-set of) !

Again, not the first time, otherwise both Eldar and Tyranid players would have room to complain. If you have 2 of the same melee weapon, you get +1 Attack (agreed), but trade that Doomfist out, and no +1 Attack for you!

And my absolute Favorite:
- Doomfist description!!
Fluff: Its a Powerfist in the fluff description!! RAI says its a powerfist!!
Rules: Its a DCCW in the rules description!! RAW says its a DCCW!!

It's a DCCW.

This is also hardly the first time that GW has done something like this. The Orks have an HQ Infantry model that has access to an Ordnance weapon. The Ordnance weapons state that it is a vehicle weapon. So either the Ork player pays for a weapon that does NOTHING, or the the weapon follows the rest of the rules ignoring the part that mentions vehicles.

Another point, in the Battle Mission, Kill Team, you can assign USRs to a model. Turboboost is a USR, but it only specifically mentions bikes and jet bikes using it. It does not EXCLUDE any other unit from using that rule, it just doesn't include it as standard fare.

[Skragger]

Just to chime in here, I don't play GK, I haven't read much on them besides here on BoLS, but I gotta say.. they have to be the campiest army in the history of camp.

Nemisis Doomfist? Does no one realise just how horrifyingly stupid that sounds? Stormhammer = cool and god like, Manticore = mythical beast of great power, Rhino = sturdy and stable wrinkly beast, Nemisis Doomhammer = failed 80s hair metal band.

I can see "Doomhammer" being a toy the Orks get to play with, like a suped up Rokkit-Hammer. But everything about the GK I've read so far (admittedly, not much) seems to follow the "we don't know what we're doing anymore" trail. I think you're right, a FAQ at least half the size of the codex is on the way.

Banding was easier to figure out than half the rules for this thing (anyone? anyone? Please tell me SOMEONE gets that joke).

I can see them causing a lot of headaches for GMs and Tournament judges thats for sure.

Gah!

[wkz]

Not the first time. As mentioned earlier, the Eldar used to have it as a default on their Wraithlord. True, it's not used in a current codex, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened before.

They had it, but that was waaaaaaaaay back in 2nd edition, and is too long ago to effectively use as a reference for RAI.

Again, not the first time, otherwise both Eldar and Tyranid players would have room to complain. If you have 2 of the same melee weapon, you get +1 Attack (agreed), but trade that Doomfist out, and no +1 Attack for you!

Note that 4th and 5th edition 'nids have the "despite all the stuff you put on the bug, it will only have the number of attacks listed in the profile" rule. Thus, the 'nids cannot be reasonably used as reference for RAI. As for the Eldar... well, see above.

It's a DCCW.

I am in agreement. BUT the fluff section is causing merry havok with the RAI guys...

This is also hardly the first time that GW has done something like this. The Orks have an HQ Infantry model that has access to an Ordnance weapon. The Ordnance weapons state that it is a vehicle weapon. So either the Ork player pays for a weapon that does NOTHING, or the the weapon follows the rest of the rules ignoring the part that mentions vehicles.

.... I actually forgot about the Shokk attack gun.
...
...
Wait a... ... ... wow, this is interesting... time to create a new thread?

Another point, in the Battle Mission, Kill Team, you can assign USRs to a model. Turboboost is a USR, but it only specifically mentions bikes and jet bikes using it. It does not EXCLUDE any other unit from using that rule, it just doesn't include it as standard fare.

Yup, that's similar to the "walker weapon" ruling at work here, in another context...

<snip>

Welcome to the forums. And thanks for thinking another army is campier than the Blood-everything Angels...

[Charistoph]

They had it, but that was waaaaaaaaay back in 2nd edition, and is too long ago to effectively use as a reference for RAI.

Hunh, then the 3rd Edition one I have has a misprint.

Note that 4th and 5th edition 'nids have the "despite all the stuff you put on the bug, it will only have the number of attacks listed in the profile" rule. Thus, the 'nids cannot be reasonably used as reference for RAI. As for the Eldar... well, see above.

Nope, I remember both the 3rd and 4th Edition versions having ways to +1 attack (true, it wasn't by taking the same weapon twice, but a specific weapon), but it was there.


As to the rule in question:
I'll put it this way, the BRB rules are setup for the standard things. The codex armories are for where those standard things apply, such as a non vehicle having a weapon type that is normally only on a vehicle.

[wkz]

Hunh, then the 3rd Edition one I have has a misprint.

Perhaps I remembered wrongly. But that is still 2 editions old, and frankly cannot be applied to the RAI of today.

Nope, I remember both the 3rd and 4th Edition versions having ways to +1 attack (true, it wasn't by taking the same weapon twice, but a specific weapon), but it was there.

But what about +1 attack from 2 weapons, because THAT is what we need here...

As to the rule in question:
I'll put it this way, the BRB rules are setup for the standard things. The codex armories are for where those standard things apply, such as a non vehicle having a weapon type that is normally only on a vehicle.

The BRB is for standard things, yes. The codex (and its armories) are for non-standard things, and quite frankly Codex > BRB. BUT, and here's the interesting point, when the Codex asks the Rulebook to explain things for it, the Rulebook takes precedence. And the rulebook Does say "walker gets double strength" in there.

Its like this:
When you try to stick Turboboost to a non-bike model, it fails, because the unit-type does not match as said by the BRB.
When you try to stick Mastercrafted to a model who already had re-rolls, the mastercrafting fails, because the BRB says you cannot re-roll a re-roll.
When you have a weapon Counts As a special weapon, all the rules of that special weapon applies, because the BRB describes what happens if you wield that weapon.

And when you have a DCCW, it counts as a Power Weapon with walkers getting double strength. Quite straightforward, this...


And lastly, I checked: Ordnance weapons may be listed in the vehicles section, BUT nothing in the rules for it says it is an exclusive vehicle-only weapon. Hell, I seem to recall somewhere in the Ork Codex (or is it FAQ?) even says "treat it as a Heavy weapon when firing".

[Tynskel]

Can't apply 3rd edition today? Say that to the Sisters of Battle and the Necrons.

[Hive Mind]

The very simple method of divining whether the doomfist doubles the strength is to ask whether whatever it is mounted upon is a walker.

The answer to that question is also the answer to whether it doubles the strength.