Most Powerful GK Build

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

I'm considering doing a mostly terminator list (powerful but not too competitive) and I'm a little retarded on some probably basic rules:

 

The terminator / paladin entries do not list deep strike as an option. Is this because everyone know Terminators can deep strike, or is this because they cannot deep strike? Same question but for ICs in Termie armor.

[Ashe Darke]

I'm considering doing a mostly terminator list (powerful but not too competitive) and I'm a little retarded on some probably basic rules:

 

The terminator / paladin entries do not list deep strike as an option. Is this because everyone know Terminators can deep strike, or is this because they cannot deep strike? Same question but for ICs in Termie armor.

Deep Striking is part of their Terminator armour rules.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

Thanks. Damn Space Wolves confusing me for being different from everyone else rules-wise.

[Vindicatus]

A dread has S6, rules for the DCCW state the the users S is doubled to a max of S10.

It effectively has the same description as a PF, except that it doesn't reduce to I1.

 

Nothing in the description of the DCCW defines it as only available to dreads.

 

Except that the rules state "walker" not 'user'.

Rulebook page 93: "a dreadnought close combat weapon is a power weapon and doubles the walkers strength in close combat" emphasis mine. So assuming that a monstrous creature gets the same benefit from a walkers weapons is a stretch. Its the same as thinking sammael or a regular land speeder can tank shock just like the eldar, however only the eldars skimmers are actually classified as 'tank'.

Play it as you will but I wouldnt be surprised if it gets faq'd up.

 

Edit: fyi eldar wraithlord is S10 naturally.

 

 

Except for the part in the Codex where it states in the wargear section :

 

"Nemesis Doomfists follow the rules for Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons"

 

 

Ergo, NDF hits at strength-10.

 

Codex trumps rulebook.

[BrotherWasted]

However, as they are a Nemesis-class weapon, they are also a Force Weapon, in addition to following the DCCW rules. just to avoid any confusion.

[Valerian]

Vindicatus,

 

Correct, Nemesis Doomfists count as Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons. Both the Dreadnought and the Dreadknight get them as standard. Now look at the rules for DCCWs (which the N Doomfists count as, as you pointed out); the rules state that they double the Strength for Walkers. The Dreadknight isn't a Walker, so although it has a NDF, it doesn't double the strength for them, by RAW. This isn't an issue of "codex trumps rulebook", as there is nothing in the codex that counters the rulebook standard.

 

Valerian

[DinoDoc]

Either they operate as DCCW as the codex specifically says or they don't.

[ValourousHeart]

Yeah so that just brings us back to my point about the falcions.

It is two force swords with a special rule that grants +1 attack.

The BRB says that models armed with 2 special weapons gain a special attack if both weapons are the same.

 

So falcions for a mere 10 pts grant +2A to the profile which now brings it up significantly in power level and makes it a real choice between the other options.

Do I attack faster, hit harder, or attack more often... giving GK lots of flexibility vs all types of opponents (eldar, armor/MC and Hoards).

 

This is no different than a model armed with 2 lighting claws.

They get a bonus attack cause they have 2 of them.

Then you also apply the weapon special rule... in the case of the LC it is re-roll to wound.

 

And in the case of the falcion... it is +1A... for a total of +2 to the profile.

[Brother Valerius]

Vindicatus,

 

Correct, Nemesis Doomfists count as Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons. Both the Dreadnought and the Dreadknight get them as standard. Now look at the rules for DCCWs (which the N Doomfists count as, as you pointed out); the rules state that they double the Strength for Walkers. The Dreadknight isn't a Walker, so although it has a NDF, it doesn't double the strength for them, by RAW. This isn't an issue of "codex trumps rulebook", as there is nothing in the codex that counters the rulebook standard.

 

Valerian

 

I agree that, strictly RAW, that is the correct answer. However, it would take a lot of convincing to convince me that the intent was not for the DCCW to double the Dreadknight's strength, because if it was not, the writers wouldn't have bothered to mention that it is a DCCW. Anyone who argues with a GK player that his dreadknight's DCCW doesn't double strength (due to a minor issue which will no doubt be covered in a FAQ shortly) is being quite unsportsmanlike, imo.

[Marmande]

They just add +1. You're literally just using two Nemesis Force Swords.

[BrotherWasted]

Yeah so that just brings us back to my point about the falcions.

It is two force swords with a special rule that grants +1 attack.

The BRB says that models armed with 2 special weapons gain a special attack if both weapons are the same.

 

So falcions for a mere 10 pts grant +2A to the profile which now brings it up significantly in power level and makes it a real choice between the other options.

Do I attack faster, hit harder, or attack more often... giving GK lots of flexibility vs all types of opponents (eldar, armor/MC and Hoards).

 

This is no different than a model armed with 2 lighting claws.

They get a bonus attack cause they have 2 of them.

Then you also apply the weapon special rule... in the case of the LC it is re-roll to wound.

 

And in the case of the falcion... it is +1A... for a total of +2 to the profile.

 

No, this is not correct. You are replacing one weapon with a pair. The Codex does not say "a model armed with a Nemesis Falchion gains +1A", the Codex states "a model armed with Nemesis Falchions gains +1A". They are one combined weapon, not two separate pieces of wargear.

 

You remove one Nemesis sword (removing your close combat weapon and thus the base), and replace it with two Falchions. The net gain in weapons is one, therefore you recieve one extra attack.

[Ashe Darke]

They just add +1. You're literally just using two Nemesis Force Swords.

As in, 'this is the only way you will get 2 CCWs, and they're called falchions'?

 

If you did wield 2 NFSs you would get +1 attack and +1 to your invun which is bit mental when on termies.

[SamaNagol]

Nemesis Falchions dont count as 2 weapons.

[Vindicatus]

Valerian, in the same light, we wouldn't be able to use multiple psychic powers per turn either.

 

Effectively, the NDF, for all intents and purposes explained via the codex, counts as a DCCW.

 

The codex allows us to do so, because it specifically states it.

[SamaNagol]

Whats the numbers on a TL Autocannon vs an Assault Cannon? Given the Dread can take either and both benefit from Psybolts. I'm pretty sure the Assault Cannon would come out on top.

[The Rose Princes]

I agree that, strictly RAW, that is the correct answer. However, it would take a lot of convincing to convince me that the intent was not for the DCCW to double the Dreadknight's strength, because if it was not, the writers wouldn't have bothered to mention that it is a DCCW. Anyone who argues with a GK player that his dreadknight's DCCW doesn't double strength (due to a minor issue which will no doubt be covered in a FAQ shortly) is being quite unsportsmanlike, imo.

"We armed these exo-suits with the latest in Dreadnought close combat weapons!"

 

"Great, what do they do?"

 

"Nothing... but they're the best!"

 

"....Huh?"

 

"And its got two of them!"

 

Later

"....and that's why I burned the Jokaero, Inquisitor. He was obviously touched by Chaos."

[HERO]

Whats the numbers on a TL Autocannon vs an Assault Cannon? Given the Dread can take either and both benefit from Psybolts. I'm pretty sure the Assault Cannon would come out on top.

 

24" vs. 48"

 

Rifleman Dreads are the only reliable long-range AT.

[grimz]

"We armed these exo-suits with the latest in Dreadnought close combat weapons!"

 

"Great, what do they do?"

 

"Nothing... but they're the best!"

 

"....Huh?"

 

"And its got two of them!"

 

Later

"....and that's why I burned the Jokaero, Inquisitor. He was obviously touched by Chaos."

 

LOL

[SamaNagol]

Does this army need long range AT?

[BrotherWasted]

Yes and no. On one hand you have very nice AT from 24" with Heavy 4 Psycannons, on the other hand you have almost nothing at 36" or more outside of dreads/Razorback/Land Raider Lascannons, or Vindicare Assassins.

 

I guess it could be argued that long range AT is not that necessary, due to the significant volume of firepower GKs can put out at 24" - outside the effective range of many weapons available to the rest of the 40K armies. GKs put out about twice the firepower of a squad of MEQ, all while staying out of rapid fire range of any rapid fire weapon in the game, AND still able to score penetrating hits on a land raider thanks to Rending Psycannons.

[Valerian]

Vindicatus,

 

Correct, Nemesis Doomfists count as Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons. Both the Dreadnought and the Dreadknight get them as standard. Now look at the rules for DCCWs (which the N Doomfists count as, as you pointed out); the rules state that they double the Strength for Walkers. The Dreadknight isn't a Walker, so although it has a NDF, it doesn't double the strength for them, by RAW. This isn't an issue of "codex trumps rulebook", as there is nothing in the codex that counters the rulebook standard.

 

Valerian

 

I agree that, strictly RAW, that is the correct answer. However, it would take a lot of convincing to convince me that the intent was not for the DCCW to double the Dreadknight's strength, because if it was not, the writers wouldn't have bothered to mention that it is a DCCW.

 

Well, they had to mention that they count as DCCWs, because they come standard on GK Dreadnoughts, and if the designers didn't say they count as DCCWs, they wouldn't double strength for them either.

 

The issue is purely that DCCWs do something special (double Strength), but only for Walkers (basic rulebook). There is nothing in the new codex that says that NDFs/DCCWs have the same benefits for Monstrous Creatures, and we can't assume it does, just because we think that it should.

 

Now, that being said, I'm sure this isnt what was intended. Codex designers are notoriously sloppy and mistakes/oversights like this are a given. If they are on top of things, this will get errata/FAQed right away. However, until then, a Walker with NDF strikes at Strength 10, while a Dreadknight ( Montrous Creature ) with NDF strikes at Strength 6.

 

V

[BrotherWasted]

yet, walk into a GW store with a black box and they will tell you they rule that Doomfists do in fact double the strength of a Dreadknight.

 

Up to your judge, I suppose, but agreed, horrible wording in the BRB. This is not a codex issue, it is an issue with the rulebook itself - a Codex should not have to explicitly override the rulebook in such detail.

 

All the rulebook needs to state is that a DCCW "doubles the bearer's strength", rather than "the walker's strength".

[Valerian]

Valerian, in the same light, we wouldn't be able to use multiple psychic powers per turn either.

 

How so? The codex specifically states that models can cast as many powers per turn as their Mastery Level.

 

Effectively, the NDF, for all intents and purposes explained via the codex, counts as a DCCW.

 

I agree absolutely, without reservation that the NDF counts as a DCCW. This means you now need to go read the rules for a DCCW and read what it says it does. When you read it, you will not find anything that says that a Monstrous Creature gets to double it's Strength. Additionally, nothing in our codex says that it does either. So why do you think that it does.

 

Math formula to help maybe?

 

NDF = DCCW

DCCW = x2 Strength for Walkers

DCCWs =/= x2 Strength for Monstrous Creatures

NDF =/= x2 Strength for Monstrous Creatures

 

That's the best I can explain it.

 

Best regards,

 

V

[Valerian]

yet, walk into a GW store with a black box and they will tell you they rule that Doomfists do in fact double the strength of a Dreadknight.

 

Up to your judge, I suppose, but agreed, horrible wording in the BRB. This is not a codex issue, it is an issue with the rulebook itself - a Codex should not have to explicitly override the rulebook in such detail.

 

All the rulebook needs to state is that a DCCW "doubles the bearer's strength", rather than "the walker's strength".

 

True, but back when the rulebook was written it probably was a valid assumption that a Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon would only ever be available on a Dreadnought. All Dreadnoughts are Walkers. Why say bearer, when Walker would probably always be good enough?

[grimz]

What's the deal with Venerable dreads as riflemen? Worth it?