Nemesis falchions do not give +2 attacks!

[Abaddonshand]

Trolling topic trolls successfully. This has been debated to death, there is no consensus, and the OP added nothing to the debate. Mods, can this be locked and allowed to die?

[Souba]

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

and still allow you to reroll failed wounds in adition to that +1 attack.

[greatcrusade08]

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

and still allow you to reroll failed wounds in adition to that +1 attack.

 

that has no bearing on this topic.. one lightening claw allows re-rolls

one NFW is a force weapon, a pair of falchions are force weapons.. lets push this argument to one side with all the costing arguments... they have no bearing

[Brother-Chaplain Kage]

But NFF can only be bought as a pair, so your lightning claw argument has no bearing. 2 melee weapons of the same type give +1 attack, regardless of how they are purchased. In addition, they offer one more by their rules. 1 and 1 is 2.

 

But I6 is still better than +2 attacks. Whole thing is kinda moot anyway in that light, but I'm astounded that there can be any other way of seeing this.

[AngelofSorrow]

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

and still allow you to reroll failed wounds in adition to that +1 attack.

 

that has no bearing on this topic.. one lightening claw allows re-rolls

one NFW is a force weapon, a pair of falchions are force weapons.. lets push this argument to one side with all the costing arguments... they have no bearing

They have every bearing. The use of the word pair is also used in codex: chaos space marines when used to describe lightning claws. Pair is the key word here.

Also the high cost goes to show intent. As does the fluff. Also i find it odd that if it is +1A it would be the only nemesis weapon with no additional benefits. Sword +1 inv in CC, halberd I6, and daemonhammer striking at Base I against daemons. There is no other conclusion in my mind that it is +2A and will be FAQd as such. Unlike a previous poster I do not want you to feel bad when it is FAQd this way nor will I feel bad if in the highly unlikely event it FAQd to only +1.

With that I will retire from this thread.

[number6]

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?

Wait a minute. Weren't you the one that said that "Precedent means squat in 40k"? :huh: No breaking your own debate rules. <_<

 

In any case, your "precedent-setting" example with the Tyranids is irrelevant, as the Tyranids codex itself specifies exactly what multiple weapons biomorphs do, and specifically how they do not follow the basic rules in the BRB. (See p. 81 of the codex.)

 

Furthermore, RAW is not always as clear-cut as you are making it out to be. And honestly, your point about "court of law" (from your post I linked to above) is actually a relevant example. What do you think courts and lawyers do? They interpret the law and then attempt to apply it based on their interpretations. And the same laws often get reinterpreted to mean different things depending on who is sitting on the court at the time and the context of the era in which they are interpreted. Here in the US, there was a recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Constitution's 2nd amendment that actually changed a centuries-long tradition of interpreting it differently. Same exact text, radically different interpretations. Just one example of many that could be brought forth.

 

All of which is to say: if laws aren't always as clearly cut and dried as you appear to think -- if different people at different times can reach different conclusions despite reading the exact same text -- why would it be surprising that it's possible to read GW's game rules in different ways?

 

I think both sides of this debate have merit to their arguments. I find myself swayed equally to both interpretations. All I can say is that I hope GW clarifies the rules to mean that a pair of falchions gives you a total of +2 attacks -- +1 for having a pair of (the same special) close combat weapon, and another +1 for a special rules bonus. Otherwise, I can see no justification for ever taking them. Ever. And that would be sad for the game and for the models.

[greatcrusade08]

im gunna go out on a limb here despite being a big detractor to the +2A arguments...

ive come to know GKs pretty well recently in an attempt to counter them for an upcoming event.. if your not using halberds i feel they would 'need' the extra attacks in order to make them more viable in combat.. I4 and S4 means alot of those attacks arent causing deaths..

the fact that i took out 5 strike GK with hammer and 4 halberds with 5 ccw scouts shows me they need extra attacks to be worth thier points in assault.

 

i still beleive its only +1A and not +2A, and i still beleive ten points is too cheap for 2 extra force weapon attacks.. but these attacks are needed.

If it gets FAQ'd to +2 i would be pleased for the GK, i just dont see it personally

[Whitefireinferno]

I'm still with GC08 on the issue at hand.

 

A pair of falchions gives plus one attack as per rules People keep bringing up that its the same as a pair of lightning claws But in my eyes they are not. Lightning claws are paired weapons meaning they only ever get their extra attacks if paired with a second one the falchions are a pair togeather not 2 different weapons or else it would be Half their cost per one thus making them a paired weapon like the Lightning claw If this was the case I would not argue the +2 attacks as one for the wargear rules and the one for a pair of the same weapons.

[Brother-Chaplain Kage]

What other blatantly obvious things can be unseen? I'd love to know how this trick works.

[greatcrusade08]

What other blatantly obvious things can be unseen?

 

politeness perhaps?

even on the internet..

 

look i get the issue here.. when it first started being argued i was vehemently arguing against +2A, whilst thats still my position id be remiss in any assertion that this argument is clear cut or 'obvious'.

my position is that becuase its unclear it wouldnt be prudent to just assume you get +2A, nor would it be respectful to your opponent who may disagree.. speak to them before the game, if they agree with +2 go with it.. if not trade them for halberds or something

[Lord_Caerolion]

I'm still with GC08 on the issue at hand.

 

A pair of falchions gives plus one attack as per rules People keep bringing up that its the same as a pair of lightning claws But in my eyes they are not. Lightning claws are paired weapons meaning they only ever get their extra attacks if paired with a second one the falchions are a pair togeather not 2 different weapons or else it would be Half their cost per one thus making them a paired weapon like the Lightning claw If this was the case I would not argue the +2 attacks as one for the wargear rules and the one for a pair of the same weapons.

 

So they're a pair, except they're not a pair, because they're only a pair when they're a pair? You're buying a pair, two weapons, plain and simple. The rulebook does not differentiate between weapons that are bought as two seperate weapons, or weapons that are intrinsically bought together. The difference you claim doesn't exist in the rules. Two lightning claws aren't two different weapons either, they're a set of lightning claws bought as a pair, and aren't double the cost of a single one, ruining your price argument.

 

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.

Wow. Way to raise the maturity level in the thread, buddy! "I'm right, because everyone agrees with me, and everyone arguing actually only wants to be argumentative"? That's a great argument there in your favour.

We, on the other hand, have quotes from the core rulebook, and rules precedents that back up our side. Personally, I don't play Grey Knights, so I don't really care how it resolves, but as it stands, they are a pair of weapons (which intrinsically grant an extra attack, as per the core rulebook) that have a special rule in which the bearer has another, second, bonus attack granted by the weapons which he is using as a pair. To argue otherwise is to say a pair of lightning claws gives no extra attack, as they too are bought as a pair, and their special rules don't state they give a bonus attack. Nemesis Falchions only differ in that you can't buy them singly. In all other respects, bar none, they operate the same within the rules as a pair of lightning claws.

[TyrionTheImp]

So they're a pair, except they're not a pair, because they're only a pair when they're a pair? You're buying a pair, two weapons, plain and simple. The rulebook does not differentiate between weapons that are bought as two seperate weapons, or weapons that are intrinsically bought together. The difference you claim doesn't exist in the rules. Two lightning claws aren't two different weapons either, they're a set of lightning claws bought as a pair, and aren't double the cost of a single one, ruining your price argument.

 

Pairs of pants are a single item even though we call them "pairs". :)

[greatcrusade08]

the crux of the argument is that if the codex is giving the falchions the attack for being a pair then they couldnt then garner another bonus from the rulebook.

The rulebook says they get +1A for two ccws, so if they are getting +2 for 2 ccw that wouldnt be fitting with the rules..

 

the wording seems to imply that the falchions are getting the attack for being a pair.. its a viable argument..

 

the reverse could also be true, but its making the assumption that the attack bonus is for a reason other than dual ccw.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

+2A would be awesome but I sure wouldnt count on it.

 

G :)

[number6]

Everybody who is digging their heels in and declaring their interpretation the One Truly Obvious Interpretation You Idiots need to

 

1. Calm the :) down. I have my melta armed and ready. There's already been one pointed personal attack (early, fortunately), and I see tempers rising again. I will happily nuke this topic. To be perfectly honest, I'm tired of it. I don't need much incentive to shut it -- and any other similar topics -- down for now and for forever.

 

and

 

2. Read, reread, and then reread again greatcrusade08's last two posts. Please take heed: that's the kind of discussion we need more of. In particular, I'd like to highlight this little gem.

 

whilst thats still my position id be remiss in any assertion that this argument is clear cut or 'obvious'

[Spacefrisian]

If we go into stacking please note that gw has said stack with 2 weapons dont work eg 2 Frostblades wont add +2 Strength. (dont say it isnt valid as lightningclaws have been used as arguments as well.)

[Brother-Chaplain Kage]

This is not difficult.

 

+1 for 2 ccws in main rulebook.

 

Fancy fluff description of them being super fast. Rule in the codex says +1 attack, not "reference rule in main rulebook concerning 2 CCWs".

 

All Nemesis weapons have some benefit ASIDE from being force weapons.

 

Which, for Falchions, is an extra attack.

 

I don't know how much clearer this could be. I know the OP is a troll, but if I didn't know better, I'd swear the +1 side are all joking.

[Brother-Chaplain Kage]

If we go into stacking please note that gw has said stack with 2 weapons dont work eg 2 Frostblades wont add +2 Strength. (dont say it isnt valid as lightningclaws have been used as arguments as well.)

 

No, it's not valid at all. 2 lightning claws don't give the ability to re-roll a re-roll. The benefit of LCs is not doubled when you have 2, you just get the base +1 attack from 2 CCWs, as per the normal rule combat rule set.

[number6]

Right. Thank you for ignoring my clear and public warning, Brother Chaplain Kage. And so soon, too! :)

 

This topic is now closed. I may, after a period of cooling down and discussion with the Moderator team, allow it to be reopened. But for now, it's closed.

 

For the time being, I will also nuke any other topic that gets opened to discuss this rules issue.