Nemesis Force Weapons

[gmsniper]

Ok, so this is probably going to sound really dumb and has most likely been answered before somewhere but I will mention it anyway.

 

I keep reading that NFW ignore Eternal Warrior. I know that the rules for Force Weapons was changed in the 5th ed Rule Book, but does the NFW still use the old rules?

I'm assuming that it must be mentioned in the DH Codex (I don't have it in front of me) but as the best I can recall the rules read something like they are used like normal force weapons. So if worded like that wouldn't it go to the new rules of causing Instant Death and not reducing wounds?

 

Thanks- Greg

[gil galed]

NFW count as force weapons

 

In the C:DH Force weapons are described as killing enemies outright, Eternal Warrior states that it makes them immune from "Instant Death", as DH FW don't cause "Instant Death" but instead kill outright it bypasses EW so yes it kills um.. some people argue against it but unless they give you rending assault cannons and 3+ saves on your SS tell um to jog on.

[Twin .44]

Codex rules over-ride the rulebook unless described in errata (like fearless) so since there is not mention of "Instant Death" then the force weapon does not cause "Instant Death" instead it "Slays Outright."

 

-Edit-

Damnit Gil Galed!!!! Beat me to it!

[gmsniper]

Well that just made my day. Even though it hurts my head having to think this much about Warhammer rules.

 

Now I have a use for all those GK I own (well at least 4).

 

On another rules note, what is the ruling on IC joing squads from another allied army? For whatever reason the thought of puttung Azrael with a GKPA squad to give a 4+ invul save amused me.

Is something like that even legal?

[number6]

Now I have a use for all those GK I own (well at least 4).

You realize only a GK Hero or BC Stern's NFW counts as a DH "force weapon", don't you?

On another rules note, what is the ruling on IC joing squads from another allied army? For whatever reason the thought of puttung Azrael with a GKPA squad to give a 4+ invul save amused me.

Is something like that even legal?

In general, an IC is free to join most any friendly infantry unit. Sometimes doing so wouldn't make any practical sense, like joining Azrael to a unit of assault marines (the assault marines would not be able to use their jump packs with Azrael dragging them down), but there are otherwise few real restrictions.

[gil galed]

Now I have a use for all those GK I own (well at least 4).

You realize only a GK Hero or BC Stern's NFW counts as a DH "force weapon", don't you?

On another rules note, what is the ruling on IC joing squads from another allied army? For whatever reason the thought of puttung Azrael with a GKPA squad to give a 4+ invul save amused me.

Is something like that even legal?

In general, an IC is free to join most any friendly infantry unit. Sometimes doing so wouldn't make any practical sense, like joining Azrael to a unit of assault marines (the assault marines would not be able to use their jump packs with Azrael dragging them down), but there are otherwise few real restrictions.

 

this, though +2 str from general NFW are good

[gmsniper]

Yea I know only the GM or Stern have force weapons.

 

But I still find having str 6 weapons of any nature pretty good.

 

In my mind I see a ten man GKPA squad with Azrael everything having 4+ invl and everything str 6 a not to shabby assualt unit. Granted there are only 2 power weapons in it. But that is like 7 attacks combined with those PW and at WS 5. Does not seem bad in my mind, but I tend to be crazy sometimes,

[Templar97]

This may sound silly, but does this mean that force weapons on the DH inquisitors also ignore eternal warrior.

[Eddie Orlock]

This may sound silly, but does this mean that force weapons on the DH inquisitors also ignore eternal warrior.

Given that the interpretation of NFW's ignoring Eternal Warrior relies on the description of the inquisitors force weapon ignoring that same rule in the same wargear section by its own explicit description...

 

... I'll let you draw your own conclusions here.

[Chengar Qordath]

Of course, I can't think of many reasons to pay 40 points for S3 Force Weapon on an Inquisitor when the GKGM comes with an S6 Force Weapon as part of his default wargear.

[gil galed]

This may sound silly, but does this mean that force weapons on the DH inquisitors also ignore eternal warrior.

Given that the interpretation of NFW's ignoring Eternal Warrior relies on the description of the inquisitors force weapon ignoring that same rule in the same wargear section by its own explicit description...

 

... I'll let you draw your own conclusions here.

 

 

I have no idea what eddie just said but to some up the rules

 

Force Weapons in rule book cause: Instant Death

Eternal Warrior allows you to ignore: Instant Death

Force Weapons in C:DH cause you to: Slay Outright

 

 

Therefore as we use our own force weapon rules (codex>rulebook) EW provides for a protection against something our force weapons do not inflict and as such is of no use and our force weapons still kill eternal warriors outright

[Thaelion Hexis]

Force Weapons in rule book cause: Instant Death

Eternal Warrior allows you to ignore: Instant Death

Force Weapons in C:DH cause you to: Slay Outright

 

Actually, one could argue that whilst the NFW does say that it counts as a force weapon in the hands of a GM, it does not specifically point to the force weapon entry in the codex. Thus a NFW could quite easily count as a generic force weapon, following the rules from the BRB, whilst the weapon in the armoury would be the only one ignoring Eternal Warrior. Just to be picky... :devil:

[Vassakov]

Force Weapons in rule book cause: Instant Death

Eternal Warrior allows you to ignore: Instant Death

Force Weapons in C:DH cause you to: Slay Outright

 

Actually, one could argue that whilst the NFW does say that it counts as a force weapon in the hands of a GM, it does not specifically point to the force weapon entry in the codex. Thus a NFW could quite easily count as a generic force weapon, following the rules from the BRB, whilst the weapon in the armoury would be the only one ignoring Eternal Warrior. Just to be picky... :yes:

 

I'm afraid technically this is correct. Where a weapon is defined as something, you check the BRB first and then defer to the Codex for standard wargear (Poisoned, Power and Force Weapons are all covered.)

[number6]

I'm afraid technically this is correct. Where a weapon is defined as something, you check the BRB first and then defer to the Codex for standard wargear (Poisoned, Power and Force Weapons are all covered.)

:huh: It's exactly the opposite! Codex is always checked first. Always. The BRB explicitly says that whenever a rule in an army codex conflicts with a rule in the BRB, the codex rule takes precedence. (In the BRB, smoke launchers are even mentioned as an explicit example of this.)

 

Weapon descriptions in the armoury are rules. Therefor they supercede any similar rules in the BRB.

[Apogee]

Of course, I can't think of many reasons to pay 40 points for S3 Force Weapon on an Inquisitor when the GKGM comes with an S6 Force Weapon as part of his default wargear.

 

I dunno... at WS5, I5, you think the Inquisitor *might* be able to land a wound on some big bad-guy before getting smushed. Maybe. All he needs is one...

[Vassakov]

I'm afraid technically this is correct. Where a weapon is defined as something, you check the BRB first and then defer to the Codex for standard wargear (Poisoned, Power and Force Weapons are all covered.)

:) It's exactly the opposite! Codex is always checked first. Always. The BRB explicitly says that whenever a rule in an army codex conflicts with a rule in the BRB, the codex rule takes precedence. (In the BRB, smoke launchers are even mentioned as an explicit example of this.)

 

Weapon descriptions in the armoury are rules. Therefor they supercede any similar rules in the BRB.

 

Yes, but a Nemesis Force Weapon is described as counting as a force weapon, and the definition of a force weapon is in the BRB. Thus for the NFW it's not a work round, for the Force Weapon it is. No, this doesn't make any sense at all, but that's how its written.

[revnow]

The definition for a force weapon used by the Daemonhunters Codex is contained within the Codex under "Force Weapon" in the wargear section. Codex is checked first.

[Grand Master Tyrak]

Yes, but a Nemesis Force Weapon is described as counting as a force weapon, and the definition of a force weapon is in the BRB.

 

By that logic, the GKGM would never recieve the +2 Str bonus for his NFW because the armoury entry would defer to the BBB entry on force weapons.

[glsn]

Except for the chart which has all the grey knights various models on it checking off +2 Str, Power Weapon, and Force Weapon for the GM's NFW. It's on the summary page, I believe.

[Grand Master Tyrak]

glsn Posted Yesterday, 11:08 PM

Except for the chart which has all the grey knights various models on it checking off +2 Str, Power Weapon, and Force Weapon for the GM's NFW. It's on the summary page, I believe.

 

I know. Except if you put the BBB above the codex, the GKGM's Nemesis Force Weapon rules in the codex are superseded by the Force Weapon rules in the BBB. ;)

 

The issue hasn't ever arisen before purely because the codex supersedes the rulebook.

[Chengar Qordath]

Of course, I can't think of many reasons to pay 40 points for S3 Force Weapon on an Inquisitor when the GKGM comes with an S6 Force Weapon as part of his default wargear.

 

I dunno... at WS5, I5, you think the Inquisitor *might* be able to land a wound on some big bad-guy before getting smushed. Maybe. All he needs is one...

True, but the Grey Knights Grandmaster has WS 5 and I 5 on top of an S 6 Force Weapon and more attacks. It's not that an Inquisitor Force weapon is useuless, it's just that the GKGMs is so much better.

[Thaelion Hexis]

I like that I started a whole new thing there... :)

 

What I mean is that if you buy a Force Weapon from the DH armoury, it follows the rules in it's entry. Whereas the NFW, counting as a Force Weapon, is not directed to the DH armoury, thus may potentially be classed as a generic force weapon, plus the strength bonus from the codex.

 

It is a whole new can of worms, though all arguements hold merit, depending on how you look at it and, if you are like me, you are prone to overthinking things :)

[glsn]

Grand Master Tyrak, you misunderstand me. I argue that because it is checked off on the summary chart in the daemon hunter codex that it is a force weapon using the rules from the daemon hammer codex.

 

-EDIT- Stupid spelling error.

[Thaelion Hexis]

Grand Master Tyrak, you misunderstand me. I argue that because it is checked off on the summary chart in the daemon hunter codex that it is a force weapon using the rules from the daemon hammer codex.

 

-EDIT- Stupid spelling error.

 

It just says, Force Weapon---------Yes. By that right, with no reference to the DH armoury, it could be tagged as a generic force weapon. To most people this will be overlooked. Then again it is the intention that all force weapons work in the same manner. Sometimes you just have to love how things are written and/or interpreted...

[revnow]

It cannot be referred back to the main rulebook because it does not specifically instruct the player to check the main rulebook for the rules like all the other codexes do. Unless specified, rules are self contained within codexes; meaning that the checked box in the Daemonhunters codex by default requires the player to check the Codex Armoury first and then the main rulebook both by RAW and RAI. RAW requires the codex to be referenced first and RAI is that the author's intent was to include the definition in the codex because the definition didn't exist in the main rulebook at the time of the codex's writing.