Nemesis falchions do not give +2 attacks!

[Gentlemanloser]

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.

 

RAW would actually lean towards +2A.

 

The +1A form the GK dex is a special rule of the weapon. Then, by RAW, you get +1A from the BRB for using two idencal special close combat weapons.

 

That's the RAW. :D

[Spacefrisian]

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.

 

RAW would actually lean towards +2A.

 

The +1A form the GK dex is a special rule of the weapon. Then, by RAW, you get +1A from the BRB for using two idencal special close combat weapons.

 

That's the RAW. :D

 

Using Raw you can also suggest codex overrules. Just to make that note.

[Cpt. Blood Donator]

I see an argument made for them being too expensive, and only glorified bolt pistols. Well, that is not exactly true, is it now? You get to keep the storm bolter, the difference is huge. I'd gladly pay 30 points for a model that has 2 power weapon attacks and storm bolter, and a possible str. 5.

 

For reference, a V.V or Honour Guard costs 35 points with a power weapon and a bolt pistol, they do indeed have 1 more attack, but then again only a bolt pistol. If I'd want a storm bolter and a power weapon, I'd have to go for an honour guard with that, which would be 38 points (granted, he'd then have a lightning claw).

 

With further context, +1a seems like the most reasonable benefit from falchions. They still are dirt cheap, as B.A will have to rely on external factors for F.C, but are stuck with less shooting and costing more. Same goes for all other marine dexes.

[greatcrusade08]

ive already argued this, my belief is its +1A.. if it gets FAqd to be +2 i wont lose sleep and self harm or anything..

however becuase of the ambiguity of the RAW it would be (trying to find the right word) impolite to demand the +2.

if your opponent agrees then go for it, if he doesnt i personally wouldnt do the whole lets roll for it.. just accept that sometimes youll be playing with only +1A.

[Chengar Qordath]

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.

 

RAW would actually lean towards +2A.

 

The +1A form the GK dex is a special rule of the weapon. Then, by RAW, you get +1A from the BRB for using two idencal special close combat weapons.

 

That's the RAW. :)

 

Using Raw you can also suggest codex overrules. Just to make that note.

Nothing in the codex rules states that they don't get the usual BRB 2 ccw benefit.

 

Of course, it's mostly academic for me anyway, since I've got precisely one model equipped with falchions, and that was just for the fun of it. I personally prefer the cheaper and arguably stronger options.

[Prathios]

I will ask my opponent before each match how they feel about it. If they agree with me I'll use the +2 and if they don't I'll just use the +1. It's too ambiguous to be hardline about it. Honestly I don't imagine it will be a big deal for anyone and will likely just require a dice roll. But I think RAW and RAI support a +2, its just not clear without a FAQ that I won't see for another 9 months. Though I only have about 5 models in my army with falchions so it's hardly going to change the outcome of the game anyway.

[Chengar Qordath]

I will ask my opponent before each match how they feel about it. If they agree with me I'll use the +2 and if they don't I'll just use the +1. It's too ambiguous to be hardline about it. Honestly I don't imagine it will be a big deal for anyone and will likely just require a dice roll. But I think RAW and RAI support a +2, its just not clear without a FAQ that I won't see for another 9 months. Though I only have about 5 models in my army with falchions so it's hardly going to change the outcome of the game anyway.

Indeed; in all likelihood, my falchion-equipped model will just stay on the shelf until the FAQ comes out, since it's not worth facing the possibility of a rules discussion at the start of every game.

[Lord_Caerolion]

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.

 

 

Given that the wording is ambiguous, we have no option but to look at other similarly worded wargear. As mentioned, a pair of lightning claws is never said anywhere in its item description to give +1A. The extra attack for using two hand weapons is assumed. We have another weapon which is used in a pair, and as the extra attack given from a pair of weapons is assumed rather than stated in the description, it is more likely to be so with the falchions.

We may not be in a court of law, but when dealing with an uncertain ruling, the first step is to look at how other similar rulings have been dealt with. It's logical. We have other wargear in which the two hand-weapon bonus is assumed, rather than stated, so it's logical to assume that pattern has continued, rather than assuming a change.

[BrotherWasted]

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.

 

RAW would actually lean towards +2A.

 

The +1A form the GK dex is a special rule of the weapon. Then, by RAW, you get +1A from the BRB for using two idencal special close combat weapons.

 

That's the RAW. :)

 

Using Raw you can also suggest codex overrules. Just to make that note.

 

No, you cannot, as there is no rule being broken.

 

Ultimately, if the Falchions are not meant to grant +2A in total, then it should have been written along the lines of "a pair of Falchions counts as having an additional close combat weapon". That would not be giving +1A from a special rule, and would just be relying on the BRB's +1A for having two close combat weapons.

[Brovius]

We may not be in a court of law, but when dealing with an uncertain ruling, the first step is to look at how other similar rulings have been dealt with. It's logical. We have other wargear in which the two hand-weapon bonus is assumed, rather than stated, so it's logical to assume that pattern has continued, rather than assuming a change.

 

Indeed, this is true. IIRC it's known as a principality. you can use the results of a prior ruling, when under the same situation.

[Angelis Mortis]

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.

 

RAW would actually lean towards +2A.

 

The +1A form the GK dex is a special rule of the weapon. Then, by RAW, you get +1A from the BRB for using two idencal special close combat weapons.

 

That's the RAW. :tu:

 

RAW is they are bought as a pair and are therefore considered one weapon. Nowhere other than in fluff can you show otherwise so your RAW argument is invalid.

[Angelis Mortis]

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.

 

When you demonstrate where you can buy a single falchion, you may have argument, otherwise, they are bought as one weapon.

[Wildfire]

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.

 

RAW would actually lean towards +2A.

 

The +1A form the GK dex is a special rule of the weapon. Then, by RAW, you get +1A from the BRB for using two idencal special close combat weapons.

 

That's the RAW. :tu:

 

Point to me where it says they count as two identical special close combat weapons and I'll concede your point. Right now all I see is one entry, which means it counts as one weapon. Or do you argue that "claws and teeth" count as three ccws?

[AngelofSorrow]

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.

 

RAW would actually lean towards +2A.

 

The +1A form the GK dex is a special rule of the weapon. Then, by RAW, you get +1A from the BRB for using two idencal special close combat weapons.

 

That's the RAW. :tu:

 

Point to me where it says they count as two identical special close combat weapons and I'll concede your point. Right now all I see is one entry, which means it counts as one weapon. Or do you argue that "claws and teeth" count as three ccws?

Where it says pair in every entry for the weapons.

[Prathios]

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.

 

When you demonstrate where you can buy a single falchion, you may have argument, otherwise, they are bought as one weapon.

 

He doesn't have to. Permit me to quote page 42 of the rules. "Some models are equipped with two single-handed weapons they can use in close combat." Permit me to go look at the model. Ok looks like it has two NFF working as a pair. "These models gain one additional attack. All attacks, including the bonus attack, use the special weapon's bonuses." Now let me look at page 54 of the codex, "The wielder of a pair of Nemesis falchions has +1 attack." That appears to be the special weapon's bonus. Also, the weapon entry doesn't say "Single Falchion Pair." It uses the plural of Falchions, because there are two!!! Look at the model, they aren't linked by a chain! These are not sword-chucks. They are two CCWs! Sorry about getting worked up, I hate that, "your argument is invalid" stuff. It drives me crazy.

 

Now I'm going to point to the entry for the daemon hammer, as it refers you to the 40k rulebook. "A Nemesis Daemon hammer uses the rules for thunder hammers (see the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook)." This is literally 4 inches from the entry for the falchions, and yet the falchions say nothing about refering to the rulebook in its writeup... because its a special rule. If all it did was grant the rules from the rulebook it would have done like the entry for the hammer and said so.

[Prathios]

Where it says pair in every entry for the weapons.

 

Thanks Angel. I can't believe I'm about to do this but...

 

From Websters"

PAIR

noun \ˈper\

plural pairs or pair

Definition of PAIR

1

a (1) : two corresponding things designed for use together <a pair of shoes> (2) : two corresponding bodily parts or members <a pair of hands> "

 

Well guys, GK have a pair of hands so they can no longer use two handed weapons sense they only have a single pair. Or at least that's the logic I'm now forced to contend with.

[Brother Captain Kezef]

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.

 

RAW would actually lean towards +2A.

 

The +1A form the GK dex is a special rule of the weapon. Then, by RAW, you get +1A from the BRB for using two idencal special close combat weapons.

 

That's the RAW. ;)

 

RAW is they are bought as a pair and are therefore considered one weapon. Nowhere other than in fluff can you show otherwise so your RAW argument is invalid.

 

Lightning claws can be bought as a pair and are not considered one weapon.....

 

If you want to make a sweeping statement try to check out precedents.

[greatcrusade08]

poeple tried to argue the whole one piece of wargear for calgars power fists.. but then people argue that becuase he has a third weapon he doesnt get an attack either..

i dont follow that logic myself, the falchions are brought as a pair much how a pair of claws can be brought together.

 

however my own thoughts on this rule is that the wording of the rule implies you get the bonus becuase they are a pair.. "a pair of falchions get +1A"

since it doesnt give any other 'rules' information other than it being a pair i cant make any other assumptions other than its due to the mutliple ccw rule.

the rulebook clearly states you get +1A for 2 ccws, not 2...

 

People are arguing the wording of the 'pair' part, however given the falchions are brought as a pair alone, stating that a pair gives you x is weird from alanguage perspective.. there is no other way to have them so why bring it up in a rule which gives you an attack bonus..

it doesnt make sense!

 

IMO if it were meant to be a carte blanche +1 special attack for wargear then it wouldnt include the word pair.. something like

"a model armed with falchions gets +1A"

 

becuase it specifically mentions pair, it must be becuase its pertinent

[Brother Captain Kezef]

the bit that adds doubt for me is the DE codex. In the case of hydra knives it makes an exception to the 2 ccw rules and is clearly written.

 

If Falchions where designed to give 2 attacks instead of one wouldn't it of been betterto state along the lines of "Flachions give +2 attacks instead of the normal +1 for two CCW"

 

The wording can be legitimately interpreted in two radicly differnet directions

[AngelofSorrow]

the bit that adds doubt for me is the DE codex. In the case of hydra knives it makes an exception to the 2 ccw rules and is clearly written.

 

If Falchions where designed to give 2 attacks instead of one wouldn't it of been betterto state along the lines of "Flachions give +2 attacks instead of the normal +1 for two CCW"

 

The wording can be legitimately interpreted in two radicly differnet directions

The problem here is that Phil Kelly includes reminders of the basic rules more than Matt ward does. This is unnecessary IMO.

(Ref. Banshee mirror swords codex: eldar)

One question I have in the 4ed rulebook was there mention Of how two special CCWs worked together? I need a page reference if so. Also were the rules for lightning claws included in the 4th Ed rulebook?

[gil galed]

While I appreciate that everyone gets a bit annoyed reading posts like this (i'm getting pretty mad) can I suggest we perhaps all just agree to disagree when it comes to exactly what the rules mean? Everyone can continue playing how you and your opponent want and, if you disagree, roll a dice to decide which rule you will be playing with (or alternatively as has been suggested swap to having your models count as halberds).

 

I'm not even going to give my opinion because both sides have clearly been rehashed over and over again so there is absolutely no point. But, if you're going to argue about it please at least do it logically. Sweeping statements and saying things like "my argument is RAW your argument is RAI" even though your opponents are saying the same thing really achieves nothing and especially posts which are basically "you're an idiot". I mean, geez, generally the community of B&C is mature and pretty good, clearly not here though :(.

 

~Gil :huh:

[Spacefrisian]

Yes we all know that Phil is a better codex writer than Matt.

[Angelis Mortis]

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.

 

RAW would actually lean towards +2A.

 

The +1A form the GK dex is a special rule of the weapon. Then, by RAW, you get +1A from the BRB for using two idencal special close combat weapons.

 

That's the RAW. :huh:

 

RAW is they are bought as a pair and are therefore considered one weapon. Nowhere other than in fluff can you show otherwise so your RAW argument is invalid.

 

Lightning claws can be bought as a pair and are not considered one weapon.....

 

If you want to make a sweeping statement try to check out precedents.

 

Lightning claws only provide +1 A WHEN BOUGHT AS A PAIR.

[Angelis Mortis]

I just look at it this way. Its going to be FAQed, when it is, we ALL know its going to be FAQed as +1 attack and not +2. So the fact that its even being argued is due to some people just enjoying being argumentative. And for those of you who doubt me on this, think how your going to feel when I'm right.

[Brother-Chaplain Kage]

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.

 

You did see where I used the word 'maybe'? Thank you so much for proving to me just how blind some people can be to something plainly obvious.