Nemesis falchions do not give +2 attacks!

[hattusa]

The book says +1 attack, but some players say it adds two attacks. The +1 for pair of weapons is the bonus you get you dont get a double bonus. I hope that clears this up.

[Gentlemanloser]

Thanks for your opinion. :devil:

 

I've given my reasons for why they do give +2A in a fe wother threads, no need to repost them here.

 

Let's hope we get a FAQ some time soon!

[AngelofSorrow]

I thought maybe you had evidence or an argument someone hasn't heard before. It's a pair of the same special weapon that has a special rule that gives +1a. So until an FAQ (which I believe will be faqd to +2) I Play +2.

[Mykra]

The book says +1 attack, but some players say it adds two attacks. The +1 for pair of weapons is the bonus you get you dont get a double bonus. I hope that clears this up.

 

Well, when you put it so eloquently...

 

Seriously, this is going to come down to a shop by shop, and tourney by tourney, decision. We play them as only +1 A since the book only says +1 A, but I can see how people can read it and say they should get +2 A. Until the F.A.Q. (2012?), I don't think there is enough clarity for either side to truly make an argument ending point.

[Angelis Mortis]

I really am puzzled as to why this is an issue. The reason the Falchions give +1 attack is because YOU HAVE TWO OF THEM. Its not because they are NFW or they are special or anything. Thats it. You get +1 because there are two. Nothing fancy. So those claiming they get +2 attacks are trying to claim +1 for having two weapons twice. Its very simple, it doesn't need a FAQ, its only difficult because your making it difficult, and I bet this isn't the only thing you make difficult (just saying, but I bet I'm right).

[AngelofSorrow]

I really am puzzled as to why this is an issue. The reason the Falchions give +1 attack is because YOU HAVE TWO OF THEM. Its not because they are NFW or they are special or anything. Thats it. You get +1 because there are two. Nothing fancy. So those claiming they get +2 attacks are trying to claim +1 for having two weapons twice. Its very simple, it doesn't need a FAQ, its only difficult because your making it difficult, and I bet this isn't the only thing you make difficult (just saying, but I bet I'm right).

Wow an insult. Great way to get your point across. :)

 

This topic has been beat to death in other threads leti t die till the FAQ please.

[ToI]

I really am puzzled as to why this is an issue. The reason the Falchions give +1 attack is because YOU HAVE TWO OF THEM. Its not because they are NFW or they are special or anything. Thats it. You get +1 because there are two. Nothing fancy. So those claiming they get +2 attacks are trying to claim +1 for having two weapons twice. Its very simple, it doesn't need a FAQ, its only difficult because your making it difficult, and I bet this isn't the only thing you make difficult (just saying, but I bet I'm right).

 

 

The wording says "a model wielding a pair of nemesis falchions gains +1 attack" my thinking here. anytime you are able to purchase two identical weapons (lightning claws for example) it doesn't spell out the 2 CCW rule for +1 attack in the entry, falchions are unique in that they spell out a rule that they gain +1A. I see that as a special rule of the weapon and then the +1A for 2CCW adds on top of that. I don't think that's terribly unreasonable and pretty well costed, but utter garbage if it gets FAQ'd the other way.

[bl00d bath76]

don't you discount the +1 A as you are still wearing a storm bolter?

[Lord Ragnarok]

I do not understand the confusion on this. It clearly says a pair give you +1 attacks. Please illuminate me.

[Hfran Morkai]

I do not understand the confusion on this. It clearly says a pair give you +1 attacks. Please illuminate me.

 

People aren't sure whether that +1 Attack is the one for being equipped with two Close Combat Weapons or whether its in addition to that.

[ToI]

don't you discount the +1 A as you are still wearing a storm bolter?

 

stormbolters don't discount an extra attack for the extra CCW, they simply don't count as a pistol for giving you the extra attack in CC

[Validar]

I do not understand the confusion on this. It clearly says a pair give you +1 attacks. Please illuminate me.

 

The special rule of this weapon is +1 attack

 

The rulebook says that you get an additional attack for having two close combat weapons (also known as a "pair" of close combat weapons)

 

IE

 

2 close combat weapons (because it is a pair, which is 2) = +1 attack

the weapon's special rule = +1 attack

 

 

Thus some people argue that it is +1 attack (only the weapon's special rule) and others argue that it is +2 attacks (the weapons special rule + additional for two close combat weapons)

 

Me myself can't really see any justification in the rules for ignoring the 2 CC weapons rule... Thus a pure RAW would be +2 attacks. This may not have been the intention (though I personally think the price indicate this), but as pure RAW it would be +2 attacks.

[DarkGuard]

I can see the reasoning behind both. At the moment it's being played as +1A where I play, and most people are content with it. However, for some reason I'm hoping that it'll be FAQed as +2A. Probably because it would certainly make them very useful, and will make people think about choosing between them for upwards of 3 attacks a model, or halberd for the I6. That being said, the fact that Purifiers or Terminators, who get them cheap, being able to dish out 5 attacks on the charge is nasty, so perhaps it would be for the best if they're only +1. Could you imagine a unit of Purifiers with +2A falchions, a Brotherhood Banner and of course their Cleansing Flame ability charging horde? 6 attacks from nearly every model plus the Cleansing Flame would be horrible.

[Gentlemanloser]

Purifiers can't take a Banner.

[Logan230]

I agree with Lord Rags, my belief in it is that all those special CCW can be bought in singles: you can buy a single TH, PF, or Lightning Claw. And then get two attacks with a pair. But you cannot buy a single Falchion, and as such you cannot have a moment where you have one weapon and have no bonus.

 

Now if you could buy one and you got the +1, then I could buy the +2 attack argument, but as it is, the rules state +1 attack and thats how it will be run at my LGS' tournaments, and thats how we see it.

[Gentlemanloser]

Doesn't matter.

 

The rule in the GK Dex could only apply to them being used as a pair. In fact it probably only does.

 

It's still in additon to the Main rule book rule that paired Special CCWs get +1A.

[DarkGuard]

Purifiers can't take a Banner.

 

So they can't, my bad. Terminators then, or Paladins :rolleyes:.

[Brother Valerius]

I can see the reasoning behind both.

 

Me as well. I think that both sides have a very fair argument, and wish that those in the +1A camp who all but accuse their opponents of cheating would stop. It's not cut-and-dried, and such talk isn't productive anyway.

 

I personally hope that they get a FAQ of +2A, because they're pretty much worthless at +1A (since halberds are better for the same cost). For now, because I don't want to be seen as a WAAC freak by anyone who thinks it's +1A, I don't want to take them and then insist that they are +2A... and I'm not going to pay the points for a mere +1A, so right now I feel I can't use them. I hope we get a FAQ for this codex soon, even if it is an unofficial one like the INAT FAQ.

[AngelofSorrow]

Purifiers can't take a Banner.

 

So they can't, my bad. Terminators then, or Paladins <_<.

 

Exactly. at the current points cost it's like putting lightning claws On VVs or having assault termies. Except instead of re-rolling to wound ( which is amazing) it's an extra attack. ( on top of having two weapons)

I don't include the fact you can ID or hammerhand because a) those are already inherent abilities of grey knights. And :D unless taking a brotherhood banner for the passed morale check for activation those two abilities are not always active.

Also c) on terminators you lose out on 4+ inv in combat. If it's +1A only the weapons will never be worth it.

[Perry]

I see it as very wishful thinking

 

you only have the force Falchion entry as its fancier then saying +x points for an extra force weapon

 

Its this type of thinking, of trying to get something that clearly the rules wernt written for and then arguing about it that gets some pople so annoyed with 40K and its players

[Chengar Qordath]

Exactly. at the current points cost it's like putting lightning claws On VVs or having assault termies. Except instead of re-rolling to wound ( which is amazing) it's an extra attack. ( on top of having two weapons)

I don't include the fact you can ID or hammerhand because a) those are already inherent abilities of grey knights. And B) unless taking a brotherhood banner for the passed morale check for activation those two abilities are not always active.

Also c) on terminators you lose out on 4+ inv in combat. If it's +1A only the weapons will never be worth it.

That's always been what inclines me towards thinking that the intention was +2 attacks; while the RAW is ambiguous, Falchions that only give +1 attack would pretty indisputably be overpriced and underpowered, and while he's bad at murdering fluff, Ward's rules are usually pretty well-balanced.

[Eddie Orlock]

Golly, and here I was going to suggest the swiss cheese like interpretation that granting +1 attack might be a quality inherent in each Nemisis Falchion, and that a model with two might try to claim +3 attacks, one for two weapons and one more for each instance of the plus one attack rule.

 

Seriously though, I'm suprised that people are trying to argue that a pair of these doesn't grant +2 attacks. Like weilding a pair of lightning claws gives a model a bonus attack and re-rolls to wound, a pair of these gives a bonus attack and an extra bonus attack for their hyper attack rate.

[Freman Bloodglaive]

Once upon a time you paid 15 points to get +1 attack (terminator honours)

 

To get an extra lightning claw attack, you pay a minimum of 15 points. (in 5th edition codices) which is why, if you're equipping a squad, you put single lightning claws on two guys rather than two on one.

 

To get an extra power fist attack you pay 25 points.

 

Falchions may be overpriced, but they're in line with other duplicate weapons. There are very few weapons that actually give +2 attacks (Valeria's dagger of midnight is one, and she sucks) and it's specifically noted in their rules. If they had wanted to do the same for falchions they would have had something like (for a total of +2 attacks) in the weapon description.

 

In order to balance assault GW started making it a lot harder to get massive numbers of attacks in 5th (along with nerfing sweeping advance). We all remember fondly the twin-claw, terminator honoured, jump pack Marine Captain and his ability to decimate units in 3rd and 4th. I have a friend who gave his Grand Master a power weapon instead of his storm bolter to squeeze in another attack. By requiring duplicates of power fists and the like GW made it more expensive to dish out a lot of face wrecking attacks and made assault slightly safer for non assault specialists. Of course we now calibrate assault so it lasts two player turns and leaves us free to assault again in our turn.

 

An FAQ would be good.

[Brother Valerius]

Its this type of thinking, of trying to get something that clearly the rules wernt written for and then arguing about it that gets some pople so annoyed with 40K and its players

 

That's the point. It isn't clear. It's not clear in either direction, because the weapon entry is mum as to whether the falchion bonus is simply the 2 CCW bonus or not. There are a lot of rules where the intent is really clear even though the RAW says otherwise, but in this case the intent is not clear, and neither is RAW.

[Brother Captain Kezef]

I'm torn on this one. In vanilla marine codex you take Terminators with the wording "pair of lightning claws". there is no extra wording such as "for a total of 3 attacks. The wording in the fluff section of the falchions indicate that they enable a Grey Knight to strike more swiftly.

 

Now nobody argues that a Terminator wielding a pair of claws does not get the two atatcks for two CCW. The problem with falchions is they don't seem ti be balanced either way, they are too cheap for 2 attacks but too expensive for one attack. The model clearly has two close combat weapons so gets at least one extra attack.

 

The wording is unclear and causing acrimony, I just wish GW would realise this and make a statement either way.