Nemesis falchions do not give +2 attacks!

[AngelofSorrow]

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

Problem with this argument is everywhere it mentions flachions as a Pair that's the crux Of the +2 argument.

[Brother Captain Kezef]

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

Problem with this argument is everywhere it mentions flachions as a Pair that's the crux Of the +2 argument.

 

Exactly and the lightning claws for vanilla termies set a precedent with the wording.

[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).

 

 

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.

 

The problem is, you don't have 2 CCW, you have a pair of Falchions. Its bought as one item. Your lightning claws example is a bad example too, as you only get +1 attack for a pair of those as well. Falchions follow the same standard as you do if they were chainswords, the only difference being they are always bought as a pair. Here is an example.

 

base attacks 1

add 1 chainswords = 1 attack

add 1 more chainswords= 2 attacks

 

 

base attacks 1

add 1 falchion = 1 attack

add 1 more falchion = 2 attacks

 

Its the same mechanic. Like others said, +2 attacks is nothing but wishful thinking from rules lawyers trying to squeeze one more last drop of blood out of the codex.

[Joasht]

I'll support all those who said "I don't get why this is a problem".

 

Its super, rediculously clear in the codex that "Nemesis Force Falchions" (note plural, throughout the equipment entry) grants +1A. Thats it. +1A. There is no contention or confusion in my head about the clarity of the ruling.

[Chengar Qordath]

As others have stated, the RAW is ambiguous; two of the same close combat weapon always grants an additional attack, so there would be no need to state such in the codex rules. The problem is, usually that kind of thing is spelled out one way or the other; a codex entry either says "The wielder gains an additional attack for having two close combat weapons" or "this bonus attack is in addition to the bonus for wielding two close combat weapons" instead of just flatly stating that there is an additional attack. I personally lean towards the +2 attack interpretation, since if the only bonus attack was for wielding two weapon there would be no need to mention it in the codex at all, since that's a well-established mechanic in the BRB. However, I'll freely admit that the rules are ambiguous; unlike similar weapons like Eldar Mirrorswords or Dark Eldar Hydra Gauntlets, the rules do not mention the bonus 2 CCW attacks one way or the other.

 

Also, it would really be nice if people could cut out the personal attacks on everyone who disagrees with them. Calling someone who disagrees with you a whiny powergaming rules lawyer doesn't make your argument any stronger or contribute anything meaningful to the conversation.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I firmly believe it's just +1A for the reasons already given. +2A is just wishful thinking trying to rules lawyer the codex in my humble opinion.

 

G :confused:

[grimz]

I'm at work, but has someone done a points efficiency-type calculation using +1 and +2 attack profile?

 

I've been reading mixed reports that they are under/over costed, and I'd like to see some hard numbers (if anyone has 'em)

[TyrionTheImp]

I lean towards the +1 attack side, but I do see the arguments of saying they get +2 attacks. Until then though I'd avoid using Falchions until it's FAQ'd.

 

Either way I don't see myself using them, I6 can partially make up for lack of invulnerable saves on some units by removing the number of attacks your opponent has, and I never want to kill a unit on my charge turn so more attacks doesn't help there.

[Wildfire]

Just to add my own $0.02 in, I think RAW-wise there's no real way of playing other than a simple +1 attack. Given the wording of Falchions and Master-crafting, as well as the lack of a bonus to the wielder's ++ in combat, I wouldn't be surprised if the FAQ corrects it to +2.

[Lord_Caerolion]

The problem is, you don't have 2 CCW, you have a pair of Falchions. Its bought as one item. Your lightning claws example is a bad example too, as you only get +1 attack for a pair of those as well. Falchions follow the same standard as you do if they were chainswords, the only difference being they are always bought as a pair. Here is an example.

 

base attacks 1

add 1 chainswords = 1 attack

add 1 more chainswords= 2 attacks

 

 

base attacks 1

add 1 falchion = 1 attack

add 1 more falchion = 2 attacks

 

Its the same mechanic. Like others said, +2 attacks is nothing but wishful thinking from rules lawyers trying to squeeze one more last drop of blood out of the codex.

 

Lightning Claws set a precedent where one wargear entry is a pair of weapons, that gives an extra attack in addition to its stated rules. Similarly, Nemesis Force Falchions are a single wargear entry that is bought as a pair. Using the precedent of Lightning Claws, its special rule is to grant an extra attack, and it is also two hand weapons, granting an additional attack. Either buying a pair of weapons gives an inherent bonus attack or it doesn't.

[Lord Ragnarok]

Thanks for the elaboration. Seems like it could go either way. Sounds like a dice off at the beginning of the game.

[grimz]

The problem is, you don't have 2 CCW, you have a pair of Falchions. Its bought as one item. Your lightning claws example is a bad example too, as you only get +1 attack for a pair of those as well. Falchions follow the same standard as you do if they were chainswords, the only difference being they are always bought as a pair. Here is an example.

 

base attacks 1

add 1 chainswords = 1 attack

add 1 more chainswords= 2 attacks

 

 

base attacks 1

add 1 falchion = 1 attack

add 1 more falchion = 2 attacks

 

Its the same mechanic. Like others said, +2 attacks is nothing but wishful thinking from rules lawyers trying to squeeze one more last drop of blood out of the codex.

 

So by this logic, when buying a pair of Lightning Claws, you don't get an extra attack, because its special rules don't say it does, only that it's a power weapon that re-rolls to wound?

 

Lightning Claws set a precedent where one wargear entry is a pair of weapons, that gives an extra attack in addition to its stated rules. Similarly, Nemesis Force Falchions are a single wargear entry that is bought as a pair. Using the precedent of Lightning Claws, its special rule is to grant an extra attack, and it is also two hand weapons, granting an additional attack. Either buying a pair of weapons gives an inherent bonus attack or it doesn't.

 

 

While I'm sitting on the fence, and can see both sides... this is more of the type of thinking and analysis that needs to be applied in this discussion

[Doomaflatchi]

Just like many previous posters, I think that both sides of the argument have merit. I also feel that any attempt to say that one side is "just" powergaming/nerfing/stupid/simple is demeaning to the scope of this argument, and not helpful.

 

I play them as +2, but I wouldn't throw a fit if my opponent had a major problem with that; I'd simply proxy my falchion models as halberd models and move on.

 

As far as the balance issue goes, I have a difficult time stomaching the idea that the most expensive weapon upgrade in our Codex is merely the mechanical equivalent of a Bolt Pistol. I mean, most Marines get that choice for free, but we have to pay more for it than for a Thunderhammer? Color me unconvinced. Still, in either case, without a firm FAQ this simply isn't a "hill to die on" issue. Come to some gentleman's agreement at your local shop, make sure everyone's playing by the same interpretation, and go have fun. No need to get all bent out of shape just because someone is wrong on the internet (gasp!). :D

[thecapn226]

I'll cast a vote for the +2 based on cost. People say that are over priced, but remember that we get thunderhammer force weapons for 10 pts on our normal guys where as most pay 30 for basic hammers, if they can even take them at all. So is 10 pts really much different for 3 attacks at normal str?

[Brother Valerius]

I also feel that any attempt to say that one side is "just" powergaming/nerfing/stupid/simple is demeaning to the scope of this argument, and not helpful.

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this. It's a very muddy issue, people need to take a deep breath and have a respectful debate without resorting to personal attacks against those with whom they disagree.

[Chengar Qordath]

As far as the balance issue goes, I have a difficult time stomaching the idea that the most expensive weapon upgrade in our Codex is merely the mechanical equivalent of a Bolt Pistol. I mean, most Marines get that choice for free, but we have to pay more for it than for a Thunderhammer? Color me unconvinced. Still, in either case, without a firm FAQ this simply isn't a "hill to die on" issue. Come to some gentleman's agreement at your local shop, make sure everyone's playing by the same interpretation, and go have fun. No need to get all bent out of shape just because someone is wrong on the internet (gasp!). :tu:

Pretty much sums up my opinion as well.

 

Balance-wise, paying a large point premium for a single extra attack is fairly weak compared to the other options that cost fewer points. 3-4 attacks at I 4 is not that great compared to having access to 2-3 Halberd attacks at I 6 or or 2-3 Thunderhammer hits that are S10 with Hammerhand, both of which are also cheaper than the falchions.

 

Also, it would be odd if the falchions had no distinguishing features, when every other nemesis weapon had something that makes it unique. Swords, halberds, hammers, and staves all have unique bonuses and rules, while falchions would have no unique rule, just the fact that they come in pairs instead of being single weapons.

[Brother-Chaplain Kage]

"By triggering the monfilament circuitry within his Nemesis falchions, a Grey Knight can wield these blades with incredible speed, striking several blows in the time it would normally take for one to fall.

 

The wielder of a pair of Nemesis falchions has +1 attack."

 

Seems cut and dry to me at +2 attacks total. 'Cause why would you need a bunch of fancy monofilament circuity to augment your already superhuman agility to strike SEVERAL BLOWS IN THE THE TIME IT WOULD NORMALLY TAKE FOR ONE TO FALL, if you only got +1 attack, total. And at a stupid point cost.

 

I really, truly, have no idea how anyone can see this any other way. Maybe Ward trusted us enough to use our brains, and not need everything spelled out. Perhaps he was aiming too high.

[Prathios]

"By triggering the monfilament circuitry within his Nemesis falchions, a Grey Knight can wield these blades with incredible speed, striking several blows in the time it would normally take for one to fall.

 

The wielder of a pair of Nemesis falchions has +1 attack."

 

Seems cut and dry to me at +2 attacks total. 'Cause why would you need a bunch of fancy monofilament circuity to augment your already superhuman agility to strike SEVERAL BLOWS IN THE THE TIME IT WOULD NORMALLY TAKE FOR ONE TO FALL, if you only got +1 attack, total. And at a stupid point cost.

 

I really, truly, have no idea how anyone can see this any other way. Maybe Ward trusted us enough to use our brains, and not need everything spelled out. Perhaps he was aiming too high.

 

This was exactly my thinking. I don't understand why folks are so hard pressed that it is somehow power gaming to read it this way. I have never been a power gamer, or a rules lawyer. It doesn't make sense to me that I would pay an incredibly high price to upgrade my model to the number of attacks an orc gets for free. We get 1 freakin attack at base and pay at least 25 points per troop, so how is it that anyone thinks +2 attacks breaks the game bank?

 

Having 2 CCW's has always for any character given +1 attack, so why would it mention giving +1 at all if the rule was already in the rule book???

 

If it was +1 attack it would simply have said, "Nemesis force falchions allow the wielder the benefits of a set of like weapons as stated in the fifth edition rule book." End of story. But it doesn't it provides a special rule that the weapons grant an extra attack. If this does not stack I don't understand why it's not a free upgrade. As if it does not stack that would mean falchions have no special rules, as opposed to the free sword everyone starts with.

 

I've always played fluffy lists, I have no tolerance for people who abuse rules to win games and I'm incredibly insulted that I'm getting called a rules lawyer for reading it this way. I have a frakin ethics link posted in my signature... but oh well. I will grant that its an ambiguous point though, I just feel I'm incredibly justified for reading it this way.

[imperious]

Me and my group fall on the +2 attacks side of the argument. I mean, it's not like +2 attacks is all that game breaking. A terminator with a pair of lighting claws causes 1.5 wounds on the charge to an meq model. A grey knight terminator with a pair of falchions, which is 5 points more per model, causes 1.5 wounds on the charge to an meq model.

[Sabadin]

Me and my group fall on the +2 attacks side of the argument. I mean, it's not like +2 attacks is all that game breaking. A terminator with a pair of lighting claws causes 1.5 wounds on the charge to an meq model. A grey knight terminator with a pair of falchions, which is 5 points more per model, causes 1.5 wounds on the charge to an meq model.

 

The key difference is, the vanilla terminator isn't also causing ID with those wounds. And for everyone one comparing wording for vanilla termies, keep in mind that in game terms a "pair of lightning claws" is still actually a model equiped with "a lightning claw" and "a lightning claw", it just prevents shenanigans like a termie with 1 claw and a storm shield. Where a GK with a "Pair of falchions" is just equipped with 1x "falchions".

[Lord_Caerolion]

The other key difference is that a Grey Knight has to pass a psychic test to cause ID with those wounds, and is priced accordingly. He's also equipped with a pair of nemesis falchions, which by definition and models means he has two. Vanilla terminators don't come into the discussion, ruleswise. It's in the rulebook that a model with two similar hand weapons gains an extra attack, and there's a precedent that "pair" refers to two seperate weapons. You can't argue that one model with a "pair" has "one and one" but another with a "pair" just has "one". We then have the precedent that a model can be armed with two weapons, which are simply listed as one wargear entry (a pair of X) and the extra attack to be inherent to the "pair" part, rather than requiring to be stated outright. If this weren't the case, and Nemesis Falchions don't have a special ability, then there'd be no point in stating that they give an extra attack, as it is inherently the case in the rules, as Falchions are bought as a pair, and thus give the bonus attack for two hand weapons.

 

Once again, until you argue that a pair of lightning claws don't give a bonus attack, falchions give +2, due to the inherent bonus granted by the core rules, rather than the weapon rules themselves. After all, nothing in the Lightning Claws entry states "and they get an extra attack for a pair". In the core rulebook, yes, in a generic rule. In the lightning claw entry itself, no.

[Spacefrisian]

Not going to debate if its +1 or +2 but this is something i learned when i was learning for car theorie.

 

If it aint in the picture it isnt there.

 

Applying this to 40k would be:

 

If it aint in the rules its not possible or an option.

[Wildfire]

Lightning Claws set a precedent where one wargear entry is a pair of weapons, that gives an extra attack in addition to its stated rules. Similarly, Nemesis Force Falchions are a single wargear entry that is bought as a pair. Using the precedent of Lightning Claws, its special rule is to grant an extra attack, and it is also two hand weapons, granting an additional attack. Either buying a pair of weapons gives an inherent bonus attack or it doesn't.

 

Unfortunately, we're not in a court of law. Precedent means squat in 40k.

 

As far as the balance issue goes, I have a difficult time stomaching the idea that the most expensive weapon upgrade in our Codex is merely the mechanical equivalent of a Bolt Pistol. I mean, most Marines get that choice for free, but we have to pay more for it than for a Thunderhammer? Color me unconvinced.

 

I'll cast a vote for the +2 based on cost. People say that are over priced, but remember that we get thunderhammer force weapons for 10 pts on our normal guys where as most pay 30 for basic hammers, if they can even take them at all. So is 10 pts really much different for 3 attacks at normal str?

 

Balance-wise, paying a large point premium for a single extra attack is fairly weak compared to the other options that cost fewer points. 3-4 attacks at I 4 is not that great compared to having access to 2-3 Halberd attacks at I 6 or or 2-3 Thunderhammer hits that are S10 with Hammerhand, both of which are also cheaper than the falchions.

 

Also, it would be odd if the falchions had no distinguishing features, when every other nemesis weapon had something that makes it unique. Swords, halberds, hammers, and staves all have unique bonuses and rules, while falchions would have no unique rule, just the fact that they come in pairs instead of being single weapons.

 

"By triggering the monfilament circuitry within his Nemesis falchions, a Grey Knight can wield these blades with incredible speed, striking several blows in the time it would normally take for one to fall.

 

The wielder of a pair of Nemesis falchions has +1 attack."

 

Seems cut and dry to me at +2 attacks total. 'Cause why would you need a bunch of fancy monofilament circuity to augment your already superhuman agility to strike SEVERAL BLOWS IN THE THE TIME IT WOULD NORMALLY TAKE FOR ONE TO FALL, if you only got +1 attack, total. And at a stupid point cost.

 

All of this (and more that I haven't bothered to quote) are RAI arguments. RAI is fine, as long as both you and your opponent agree. But it's not RAW.

 

I really, truly, have no idea how anyone can see this any other way. Maybe Ward trusted us enough to use our brains, and not need everything spelled out. Perhaps he was aiming too high.

 

Oh really? You've spoken to Matt Ward? He told you that?

 

If your answer is no, then you have no idea what he wants. All you have is guesses. And that's the whole point of RAW.

 

I have no problem with people playing RAI. I do myself on some things. Go to town, play however your and your friends agree. But until a FAQ says otherwise (or someone points out something I've missed), RAW is that Falchions give only +1 attack.

[Chengar Qordath]

But until a FAQ says otherwise (or someone points out something I've missed), RAW is that Falchions give only +1 attack.

No, the RAW is extremely ambiguous, because Ward did not include any clarification one way or the other about how Falchions relate to the bonus attack from 2 close combat weapons (every other similar weapon states one way or the other how any bonus attacks relate to the 2 ccw rule). If the RAW were clear, this discussion wouldn't be happening.

[Xelloss]

My opinion : GK codex is horriblybadly written. As the recent 5th edition trend of taking a full page to explain a 3-lines worth rule, instead of saying "you can have a pair of Falchion, a Thunderhammer, a dreadnought PF, etc... with the Force weapon rules", they put a fancy name, a useless fluff description and a redundant rule effect. So the rule say "+1 attack" because it just repeat the standard 2 weapon rule.