Nemesis Falchions and number of attacks

[Grey Mage]

Its a built in weakness- quality of attack vs number of attacks.

 

In any case, the whys dont matter- we are here to discuss whats.

 

And that White Dwarf strongly points towards a particular what.

[Chengar Qordath]

Its a built in weakness- quality of attack vs number of attacks.

 

In any case, the whys dont matter- we are here to discuss whats.

 

And that White Dwarf strongly points towards a particular what.

I'll happily take falchions that give +1A and 2+ invulnerable save, if we're now taking that White Dwarf as RAW.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Grey Mage, all it says is what it says in C:GK.

 

It doesn't really offer any clarification, other than saying what was unclear, again.

 

+++

 

Chengdar, you'll only muddy the waters with a post like that - don't be naughty! :devil:

[greatcrusade08]

I honestly feel people are putting too much stock in the 'pricing' argument.

its all about the quality of the attacks they already have, they are WS5 force weapons IIRC, additional attacks should be more costly to offset how deadly those attacks are.

figure it like a second ligthening claw, the first gives you the effect, the second only adds the additional attack, but for what it does its very expensive... for the same reason as the falchions.

a tac marine is 17 points, but a strike GK is 20 with storm bolter and force weapon... thier only real weakness is lack of attacks which makes them reasonably ok to charge, but give them falchions and that weakness is offset.. it should cost more to offset a major weaness IMO..

[Legatus]

I have briefly checked the army list in the Codex Grey Knights. Somehow I cannot imagine that GW intended the Grey Knight Elite choices, which are all already either power armoured Marines or Terminators with power weapons, to be bumped from 2 attacks to 4 (!) attacks per model for a mere 5 points.

 

Example: Purifier squads. SM Veteran stats (MEQ with 2 A and Ld 9) with storm bolter and power weapon for 24 points. For an additional 5 points you can give them falchions. This either increases their attacks to 3, or, depending on your interpretation, to 4.

 

And it should not be dismissed that all of these units seem to have a psychic power that increases their strength in close combat to 5. Making all those attacks potentially all the more potent.

[Brother Valerius]

Its a built in weakness- quality of attack vs number of attacks.

 

In any case, the whys dont matter- we are here to discuss whats.

 

And that White Dwarf strongly points towards a particular what.

 

The White Dwarf also cannot be trusted, as evidenced by the 2++ falchion bit. The "obvious typo" argument doesn't really move me, considering that if a typo that alarming made it in (and it surely is a typo), a typo for the number of attacks could have made it in just as easily. The article cannot be a reasonable basis for any rulings, due to the obvious lack of editing so we don't know if anything is true except what we already agree on.

 

GC08: Grey Knights (the rank and file, at least) are WS4. I also think you're overrating the deadliness of NFW (especially compared to your example, lightning claws). Yes, they're power weapons, and yes that's great. But paying 5 points more for 1 attack, when you could be striking at I+2, is insanity. You could argue that this only means halberds are undercosted, which is a fair argument. But until halberds cost more than falchions, falchions are a useless choice if they provide only 1 attack. For that reason alone I think the FAQ should be +2A. A weapon option which is useless is a bad thing.

[thade]

I'll happily take falchions that give +1A and 2+ invulnerable save, if we're now taking that White Dwarf as RAW.

I do agree with this sentiment; WD is a really, really leaky boat to put your argument in. It's almost sure proof to me that it is +2A cumulative.

[thade]

I honestly feel people are putting too much stock in the 'pricing' argument....

I honestly can't dispute this; all evidence does point to the RAW interpretation (+1A is the weapon power, +1A for an offhand) but I dunno. It's just my hunch.

 

I probably shouldn't maintain a hunch so overtly, but it's nagging my brainz.

[greatcrusade08]

GC08: Grey Knights (the rank and file, at least) are WS4. I also think you're overrating the deadliness of NFW (especially compared to your example, lightning claws). Yes, they're power weapons, and yes that's great. But paying 5 points more for 1 attack, when you could be striking at I+2, is insanity. You could argue that this only means halberds are undercosted, which is a fair argument. But until halberds cost more than falchions, falchions are a useless choice if they provide only 1 attack. For that reason alone I think the FAQ should be +2A. A weapon option which is useless is a bad thing.

 

can we overstate the effectiveness of force weapons?, weapons that can ID multi toughness units and ICs by passing a Ld test.. even against line troops they can bolster thier strength to 5 and kill on an average 3+

people see I6 as being superior to I4 and more than often thats correct, in some cases lower initiative opponents would fear the falchions more.

 

what i know is that as an enemy of GK players id rather face a strike squad with halberds than one with falchions.. at least with a single attack each they will fail to cause alot of wounds, with falchions thier damage output goes up a notch.. usually i can make sure only one or two strike GKs can hit an Ic, this normally means i can avoid ID, but with double the attacks this becomes problematic.

With a base of I4 anyway the falchions are a very good option and not useless as many people say.. against non assault speciialists youd charge in at 3 power weapon attacks per model (assuming strike marines) with a possible strenght 5.. how is that useless?

[Grey Mage]

Its a built in weakness- quality of attack vs number of attacks.

 

In any case, the whys dont matter- we are here to discuss whats.

 

And that White Dwarf strongly points towards a particular what.

I'll happily take falchions that give +1A and 2+ invulnerable save, if we're now taking that White Dwarf as RAW.

I didnt say it was definitive, I said it points strongly in that direction.

 

Still waiting on the FAQ.... *twiddles thumbs*.

[Race Bannon]

That's a work-around to justify +2 attacks. The bottom line, right out of the GK Codex is that some people think for around 5 points, +2 attacks is the benefit? With Nemesis weapons? That's doubling attack output with a better-than-normal *force* weapon ... on regular troops.

 

So, if cheap costs are being 'thrown around" then it's for good reason: because it's true. :( Maybe I should clarify, "cheap" relative to other upgrades and the bonus the upgrade provides.

 

I'll also admit that - in my mind - players tend to favor one attribute above all others: attacks. This is the basis for a lot of discussions on assault-based armies (i.e. using BA or SW Codex to represent an otherwise "Codex" army). Then look at so-called "band-wagoners" to the GK Codex: regardless of personal convictions, the power of the GK Codex *is* alluring. Why? Several reasons and one of them is their close-combat ability.

 

I'm not trying to have the last word here, but each one of us can really come up with reasons that can go either way, and the single reason that cannot be defeated is 'belief'. So, I'll leave the rest up to you. Ultimately, only GW will settle this and I'll be more than happy to admit I was wrong ... if I am :)

[thade]

Ultimately, only GW will settle this and I'll be more than happy to admit I was wrong ... if I am :)

The last time this happened, I was no longer able to fire my holy Land Raider's weaponry through it's sacred smoke screen. :(

 

Yep. Need an FAQ. Well, this thread has served it's function. If I get these guys on the table before the FAQ hits, falchions are +1A, period. Seems the polite thing to do, at least. ;)

[DarkGuard]

I'll happily take falchions that give +1A and 2+ invulnerable save, if we're now taking that White Dwarf as RAW.

I do agree with this sentiment; WD is a really, really leaky boat to put your argument in. It's almost sure proof to me that it is +2A cumulative.

 

That was just in the first print. It was an honest typo, and the page that Seahawk presents (thanks for that Seahawk) has the 2++ correctly as the warding stave. Given that the 2++ falchions was definitely a typo and later corrected, and that the article was written by Matt Ward, I'd say is strongly indicates that it will be +1A. That being said, as others have said unless it's like the old BA Codex, what White Dwarf says about the rules doesn't hold much sway over RAW arguments, but in this case it's a good indicator of what the FAQ may well be.

[Chengar Qordath]

Ultimately, only GW will settle this and I'll be more than happy to admit I was wrong ... if I am ;)

The last time this happened, I was no longer able to fire my holy Land Raider's weaponry through it's sacred smoke screen. :lol:

 

Yep. Need an FAQ. Well, this thread has served it's function. If I get these guys on the table before the FAQ hits, falchions are +1A, period. Seems the polite thing to do, at least. ;)

Agreed; FAQ is the only way to resolve this. I really wish Ward or one of the editors noticed that the rule needed another clause for clarification, along the lines of "Gains +1 attacks due to having two close combat weapons" or "Gains +1 attacks, in addition to the normal benefit for wielding two close combat weapons."

 

Personally, I'm not even using falchions in most of my lists, partly due to this issue.

[Seahawk]

That was just in the first print. It was an honest typo, and the page that Seahawk presents (thanks for that Seahawk) has the 2++ correctly as the warding stave. Given that the 2++ falchions was definitely a typo and later corrected, and that the article was written by Matt Ward, I'd say is strongly indicates that it will be +1A.

You're welcome!

 

Despite what we feel and know, who's to say the second run isn't the typo, and the first one was correct? Without a clarifying box that states earlier prints were typos, either are technically acceptable. But then, that'd be GW admitting they made a mistake...an impossibility!

[timmytool]

now I dont fully agree with this email "from GW AU" but it does say +2attacks as well as other things from C:GK.

 

I think most of us can agree that C:GK is a leaky FAQ boat

 

that being said the NFW page says ALL NFW have at least ONE special ability above the force and deamonbane abilities, for the falchions it is +1attack which is separate from the rule for more then one special weapon which is not an ability but a rule for wargear interaction(as they are bought as a PAIR).

 

to further prove it is a pair in the same codex the daemonhost has "fearsome claws &runic chains (single close combat weapon)" where their was a single weapon line that could have been interpreted as more then one weapon and they/he did not want that and said so at each mention of the weapon (p 49 & 90)

[Legatus]

The FaQ is in.

 

Q: Do Nemesis falchions count as 2 close combat

weapons and thus give +2 Attacks in close combat (+1

for their special rule and +1 for wielding 2 close

combat weapons)? (p54)

A: No, they just give +1 Attack.

[thade]

The FaQ is in.

 

Q: Do Nemesis falchions count as 2 close combat

weapons and thus give +2 Attacks in close combat (+1

for their special rule and +1 for wielding 2 close

combat weapons)? (p54)

A: No, they just give +1 Attack.

There we are.

 

I thought about this over the weekend (on a camping trip) and it occurred to me that the +1A made sense as purely a clarification (and not an "addtional power"). Nemesis Force Weapons aren't covered in the BRB; specifically they are not mentioned in the very short list of melee weapons which do NOT require an additional weapon which is *identical* in order to receive a bonus off-hand attack (i.e. the "wielding multiple special weapons" rule). So, a model would have to wield two nemesis force swords, for instance, to gain an offhand attack with them. Nemesis Falcions are 'matched pairs', i.e. the model has two identical special weapons.

 

All musings now though; the FAQ rules the day.

[DarkGuard]

Yup, seems to have been a clarification all along. I can't complain, would have been nice to be +2 attacks, but in the end its only +1A, and it can still have its uses. Unfortunately I can only see them being used now for wound allocation purposes on Paladins, they're just to expensive on everything else.

[thade]

Yup, seems to have been a clarification all along. I can't complain, would have been nice to be +2 attacks, but in the end its only +1A, and it can still have its uses. Unfortunately I can only see them being used now for wound allocation purposes on Paladins, they're just to expensive on everything else.

I thought they were pretty cheap, relatively. I can see myself throwing a few of these into units; Purifiers for instance. It's an interesting way to mass Str 4 attacks (Str 5 or even 6 with a few applications of Hammerhand). Also, modelling diversity. =D

 

A conversation for TA though. :yes:

[Isiah]

The FaQ is in.

 

Q: Do Nemesis falchions count as 2 close combat

weapons and thus give +2 Attacks in close combat (+1

for their special rule and +1 for wielding 2 close

combat weapons)? (p54)

A: No, they just give +1 Attack.

 

<_< What a shame!

[Chapter Master Ignis Domus]

Excellent, I enjoy being right. Now, to the ego-booster!

[thade]

The FaQ is in.

 

Q: Do Nemesis falchions count as 2 close combat

weapons and thus give +2 Attacks in close combat (+1

for their special rule and +1 for wielding 2 close

combat weapons)? (p54)

A: No, they just give +1 Attack.

 

;) What a shame!

I know. ^_^ I know.