Dreadknight Doomfists

[Morgan Darkstar]

I will bring my bike tomorrow if it looks nice in the morning.

Well obviously this means that as long as the bike looks nice in the morning he will bring it. that is RAW! so it must be!

seriously hasn't this argument gone on long enough?

[Tynskel]

Well obviously this means that as long as the bike looks nice in the morning he will bring it. that is RAW! so it must be!

seriously hasn't this argument gone on long enough?

Nope.

'the walker' is the model carrying the weapon. This is just as RAW as your interpretation. In this case, the Thunder Hammer replacement would still grant +1 attack, because DCCW combine with any CC weapon for +1 attack, just like the Ironclad and Furioso Librarian.

[Arien]

Tynskel, theoretical situation here, we're setting up a game and my models are in a cabinet near you, a single dreadknight and a single dreadnaught included. I ask you to pass me the walker, assuming you're not an *** and would actually pass me a model, which one would it be?

[Tynskel]

Tynskel, theoretical situation here, we're setting up a game and my models are in a cabinet near you, a single dreadknight and a single dreadnaught included. I ask you to pass me the walker, assuming you're not an *** and would actually pass me a model, which one would it be?

And I would reply: Which One?

This is in all seriousness--- they both look like walkers.

at that point, you would probably reply with: the Dreadknight or Dreadnought.


It is similar to this one: There is a Dreadnought and a squad of Marines. Please pass the infantry unit--- they are both infantry for the purposes of movement.

What is the point of this theoretical discussion? That yes, the defined terms that GW gives are loose, and that your personal definition of RAW is dependent on the tolerances you set up between rules?

[wkz]

Nemisis Doomhammer still does something, it's just poorly costed. This is not a new thing for 40k.

And it is properly costed if the model comes default Str6 (aka: no DCCW double strength). There's even precedence for it...

And I would reply: Which One?

This is in all seriousness--- they both look like walkers.

at that point, you would probably reply with: the Dreadknight or Dreadnought.

That's true for people who are seeing the model for the first time, and does not know the army... but...

It is similar to this one: There is a Dreadnought and a squad of Marines. Please pass the infantry unit--- they are both infantry for the purposes of movement.

Now you're just being anal. Shall we order "Meat" in a Restaurant? And shall you provide directions by saying "walk along Planet Earth"? And should you be considered a "collection of molecules"?

Arien has a point you're entirely sidestepping: at the end of the day, The Dreadnights overall and "highest level" interpretation is a Monstrous Creature (just as Humans are one of the "monkey" lines, as opposed to Panther's "feline" or Kingfisher's "Avian"). It may use some rules for infantry, but ultimately it is still classed as a Monstrous creature. A Monstrous Creature is a Monstrous Creature, is a Monstrous Creature. It is not a Walker. It has never been a Walker. It will never be a Walker.

And thus your "Dreadknight is a Walker because it holds a DCCW" falls flat: DCCW has a "Walker" as a target, and should/would/must never grant walker stuff to a Monstrous Creature. Not the double strength, nor the "auto +1 no matter what your other weapon is".

And until GW errata/faq it otherwise, a Dreadknight is still a Monstrous creature, from the DCCW's perspective.

What is the point of this theoretical discussion? That yes, the defined terms that GW gives are loose, and that your personal definition of RAW is dependent on the tolerances you set up between rules?

Be careful what you say: that's actually RAI. Being bloody strict with the rules and only the rules is RAW, monkeying with tolerances between rules is RAI's sled.

[Gir]

And it is properly costed if the model comes default Str6 (aka: no DCCW double strength). There's even precedence for it...

Now that I think about it, it's properly costed whatever way the rule falls.

If it gets double str, then it keeps the +1 attack for 2 ccw (as per DCCW).

If it doesn't get double str, it doesn't get +1 attack for 2 dccw anyway (The bonus attack only applies to walkers).

[wkz]

Now that I think about it, it's properly costed whatever way the rule falls.

If it gets double str, then it keeps the +1 attack for 2 ccw (as per DCCW).

If it doesn't get double str, it doesn't get +1 attack for 2 dccw anyway (The bonus attack only applies to walkers).

...
I think I've said this several times before already: If it doesn't get double str, it doesn't get +1 attack for 2 dccw... BUT it does get +1 attack for "infantry wielding 2 of the same weapons". The end result is still +1 attack with 2 Doomfists.

...
...
...

Unless you're talking about a Dreadknight with a Doomfist-Thunderhammer combo... then yes, I agree with the statements above as applied to a Dreadknight with a Thunderhammer upgrade.

So currently, we have:
non-DCCW ruling
Str6 +1A
Str 10, "stun to Init 1", base-A for 10 pts
Str6, reroll attacks, base-A for 25 pts

DCCW ruling
Str10 +1A
Str 10, "stun to Init 1", +1A for 10 pts
Str6, reroll attacks, +1A OR Str10, +1A (reroll attacks?) for 25 pts

[Gir]

...
I think I've said this several times before already: If it doesn't get double str, it doesn't get +1 attack for 2 dccw... BUT it does get +1 attack for "infantry wielding 2 of the same weapons". The end result is still +1 attack with 2 Doomfists.

I don'thave the rulebook in front of me (currently at work), but I'm sure that in the DCCW rules it says that only walkers get +1A for wielding 2 dreadnought close combat weapons.

[wkz]

I don'thave the rulebook in front of me (currently at work), but I'm sure that in the DCCW rules it says that only walkers get +1A for wielding 2 dreadnought close combat weapons.

And the DCCW rule only affects walkers didn't it? Without the "walker-affecting" rules, all the Dreadknight have is 2 weapons, and 2 weapons fall under the "Infantry wielding 2 weapons" rule.

Hell, the part that grants walkers that +1A specifically mentioned "Close Combat Weapons" as opposed to "Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons" too... but it also specifically mentions "Walker", so normal infantry can't use that.

Of course, if it is a Doomfist-Thunderhammer combo, the "2 weapons" for infantry cannot apply: it is clearly 2 special weapons of some kind, not to mention Thunderhammers are very specifically having the "only +1A for paired Thunderhammers" rule attached to it.


(And note: I've edited the post you quoted after you've replied...)

[Gir]

Having looked at the way you put in your edit, I would say it's costed about right with both interpretations. It seems like this argument is really going nowhere, and we'll have to wait for an FAQ. I still stand behind the double str interpretation though.