Nemesis Falchions +2 Attacks?

[Rurik the blessed]

Greetings.

 

I been reading the 7th rulebook and Grey Knights FAQ.

 

I have this little question.

 

Specialist weapons rule says that it grants +1A if the model wields another weapon of the same type.

So, this in conjuntion with Nemesis Falchions rule, that gives +1A to the wielder... means that a model with nemesis Falchion gets +2 A?

 

 

 

 

 

[Quozzo]

That is generally how people perceived it back in 5th/6th, but GW later released an FAQ to clear it up, which is no longer present in the current FAQ so by RAW it gives +2A until proven otherwise.

[thade]

Noooo we don't get to just eschew a previously accepted clarification simply because it hasn't been updated. (It's not cool. Don't do that. <3) It's safer to assume Less Power than to assume Moar Power! and that's definitely what I recommend here.

 

Clear it with your opponents, either way; but, were it me, I'd openly assume +1A like it was before unless my opponent said "Go for +2A!"

[Gentlemanloser]

Precedence would be to continue to count them as +1A.

 

But as said in the other thread, as +1A they were useless, not worth their cost and no one used them.

 

Perhaps this is a little nod to letting them be used more, by giving them +2A until we get our new Dex.

 

Who knows.

[Quozzo]

Yes the previous FAQ stated they were only +1A which is omitted from the updated FAQ while other rules have not. The wielder of a pair of falchions gets +1A and they are two falchions (2 CCW) giving +1A so logically its +2A.

[Captain Coolpants]

I believe it to be rather idiotic for GW to not include the previous (but still relevant) faqs into the new one. Because this means that everything that was previously not allowed /allowed from the old faq is now reversed. People are gonna start mastercrafting orbital relays and so forth all over again...

[Grand Master Caloth]

I have only ever thought of them as +1A

[lt051]

The tyranid dex had several examples where a single weapon option has two weapons on the physical model, but doesn't give the extra +1, I would assume falcions follows this standard, especially considering it was faqed previously.

[Sigvard]

I would say that assuming GW has made a mistake by leaving it out of the FAQ is not neccesarily a good idea. Any mistakes that they have made with FAQs have been retconned within the first couple of days of being released. Space Wolves Runic Weapons and Blood Angels Fast Vehicles are the main examples of this. Just because it was present in the previous FAQ for a previous rule set does not make it relevant in a new edition. There is no need to assume because at the minute they grant +2 Attacks in the same way that in 7th Abaddon can turn into a Daemon Prince/Spawn

[Reclusiarch Darius]

The next FAQ will nerf falchions, I'd put money on it. Until then, feel free to waste points on meh melee upgrades :)

[Rurik the blessed]

Indeed, maybe GW will FAQ this... but, i don't think this need to be asumed on a previous FAQ. Thinking on new players that not necesarily knows the existence of a previous FAQ.

I think the new 7th ed codex suppost to cover all this issues. So in this whay a +2A bonus is correct.

[boreas]

I think Falchions going to +2 attacks when no relevant rules have changed is wishful thinking. We're a pretty casual and friendly gaming group, but my opponents would ask me to demonstrate what now allows the +2 attacks. I certainly hope a 7th ed codex will clarify (although I wouldn't bet on GW actually doing it).

[Quozzo]

I think Falchions going to +2 attacks when no relevant rules have changed is wishful thinking. We're a pretty casual and friendly gaming group, but my opponents would ask me to demonstrate what now allows the +2 attacks. I certainly hope a 7th ed codex will clarify (although I wouldn't bet on GW actually doing it).

he falchions special rule clarifies it. A pair of falchions give +1A. You can only buy them in a pair so they confer +1A for 2 CCW and their special ruel for having two falchions.

[boreas]

But in the exact same situation, rule-wise, with, I repeat no change to any relevant rules, they gave only +1 attack in 6th ed. Being 7th ed doesn't magically change that! The codex didn't clarify it before and it still doesn't.

[Quozzo]

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.

 

It was the FAQ that gave them 1 attack, that rule is no more. As someone mentioned Helldrakes can't shoot out their ass now.

[jeffersonian000]

But in the exact same situation, rule-wise, with, I repeat no change to any relevant rules, they gave only +1 attack in 6th ed. Being 7th ed doesn't magically change that! The codex didn't clarify it before and it still doesn't.

Incorrect. The 6th Ed FAQ was a change to the rules. Rules tell us Falchions grant +2 Attacks. The 7th Ed FAQ does not change the rules, therefore Falchions follow the rules by granting +2 Attacks. There is no argument to revert back to +1 Attack only beyond "I want it that way because it was that way when I learned it!"

 

SJ

[DinoDoc]

 

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.

 

It was the FAQ that gave them 1 attack, that rule is no more. As someone mentioned Helldrakes can't shoot out their ass now.

 

Did someone forget to feed them Mexican food?

[boreas]

Well, Jeff, I guess we'll just have to keep disgreeing on this until we get a new FAQ.

[Gentlemanloser]

Apologies if this should be merged into an existing topic.

 

A discussion on the OR foum spurred a line of thinking in my about our Nemesis Weapons, and the recent return to the number of attacks Falchions give.

 

Basically (bad pun inc!) the rule that gives +1A for using two Close Combat Weapons is a Basic rule (or Advanced, can't remember the new layout yet, and away from book at work).

 

While on the other hand, our Unusual Force Weapons all have thier own, Codex specific, Special Rules.

 

The rule in our Codex giving a Pair of Falchions +1A is a Codex based Special Rule.

 

Which is seperate to the BRB Basic rule of using two Close Combat Weapons.

 

As two different types of rules, Basic and Special, they must stack.

 

;)

[Teetengee]

Not necessarily, special rules either augment or replace basic rules. Two nemesis falchions may give only give +1 attack as the brb and the codex agree (or alternatively the codex supplants the brb), both saying you only get +1 attack. Although the ruling really needs to come from gw (and they should have explicitly seen this coming and written the rule better.).

[Valkyrion]

The thing with Nemesis Falchions is that they cannot be chosen on their own, they can only be bought as a pair. Does anyone have the 5th ed* rulebook to hand? I don't, but check the entry to Lightning Claws and I'm fairly sure it says you only get the bonus attack for having a pair of lightning claws. 

Falchions work the same, IMO, except the caveat for requiring two is redundant because you can only buy two, so it didn't need to be included in the rule.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 

Not necessarily, special rules either augment or replace basic rules.

 

But there is zero need, or function for a Codex Special rule that grants +1A for using two CCW, if it's only there to replace the BRB basic rule that grants +1A for using 2 CCW.

 

How do we tell if a Codex Special rule replaces a Basic rule, if it doesn't state it does?

[boreas]

But that was the exact same thing in 6th ed, and yet GW ruled that they didn't give +2 attacks. I won't keep whipping that horse (not even with a red whippy stick!), but my bet is that once GW (finally) gets around to completing the FAQs, they'll bring back the +1 attack only ruling.

[Teetengee]

Maybe they just wanted to make clear that the falchions did in fact count as two weapons and not a single weapon even though they are bought as one upgrade?

[Slipp01]

I feel that the price justifies the extra attack. You need to look at the balance. You pay x amount for a grey knight with a force sword that gives you a 6+ stackable invul in combat. When you spend 10 points to upgrade that weapon, you gain one attack, and lose the invul. I believe the invul is equally useful as the extra attack. But for the price of a master craft i6 weapon, you only get to one more attack at i4. Therefore if you balance the effect over other potential upgrades, it is feasible that the intent was to take you into a realm of high quantity low quality attacks. I don't have a stake in this cause I only use gk as allies, and only for the Libby. So really I'm just looking at basic strikes for supplement.

 

However the idea of interceptors with falcions and incinerators (assuming 3 attacks base), seems indeed quite epic.