Nemesis Falchions +2 Attacks?

[thade]

*SNIP* I removed my comment here about "There may be a merge" since that happened. <3

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?

Anything they want to "make clear" they put into unambiguous language in their rule set. (Insert obvious joke about just how rare that is here.)
 
I know that people didn't like that Falchions became strictly less awesome by being reduced from implicit +2A down to explicit +1A...and now with a new ruleset there's all sorts of interest and excitement around finding the new way to rules-lawyer our Knights to be stronger...but that's:

• working against precedent (last edition's  FAQ established it was only +1A as a correction)
• and also makes the mistake of assuming more power instead of assuming less power.

When in the absence of clarity we assume More Power, we expose ourselves to pretty harsh character judgement: there's a reason that "rules lawyering" carries a pejorative flavor to it; not to mention that, if it can be perceived that we win matches due to our More Power assumption, it (and we) will be subject to far more scrutiny and, ultimately, find it harder to get friendly matches.

Nobody's going to call you a "rules lawyer" for assuming Less Power, and if you win with Less Power, it's actually to your benefit to steer the conversation away from "winning with ankle weights" as it gets you into the more interesting discussions surrounding 40k matches: tactical decisions and whether they worked and why or why not.

 

Notice how I didn't mention fairness or accurate RAW here.

 

If we're going to reach consensus in the total absence of clear rules (i.e. when there's just no way to make a salient and firm argument to finalize things one way or another) then we will ultimately just need to reach an agreement somehow (at the game or group or tournament level) and try it out. If we're going to playtest to see just how good or bad something is, it's a better idea to approach it from weaker to stronger, purely for the reasons I spell out above. <3

[Rurik the blessed]

I insist in the fact that new players does'nt know the existence of an older FAQ from a previuos version of rules, and, reading all the rules from the actual super duper new rules book it is clear that falchions would get +2A.

[Grand Master Caloth]

Except while the cost "justifies" the extra attack, can you in good conscience say 10 points is fair for +2A force weapon? Thade says it best, better to assume less over more

[thade]

I insist in the fact that new players does'nt know the existence of an older FAQ from a previuos version of rules, and, reading all the rules from the actual super duper new rules book it is clear that falchions would get +2A.

Younger/newer players look to *us* for guidance. We can either guide them to assume Less Power or More Power when we can't find a clear ruling or middle ground.

 

Also, it's not anymore clear *now* than it was back in 6th whether the Falchions are "one or two weapons" so we're in no less need of an FAQ here. (If it were clear, this conversation wouldn't be popping up in half a dozen threads.)

 

Assume Less Power. It's an easier case to make and sets the stage for compromise, which is foundational in sportsmanship. If your opponent insists that you use +2A, go for it and let us know whether it feels broken to either of you or not. Don't *force* it on an opponent. <3 That's all I ask.

[Teetengee]

Is there a way to like Thade's comment harder?

[SCOTT_FRANCIS]

As a "New Player" I admit to reading the Falchion answer as +2 attacks with both rules valid. 

Plus 1 for 2 CCW and Plus 1 for Falchions.

 

My question is "Has any one contacted GW or BL for an answer?"

[thade]

I merged these topics because they're precisely the same content; no need to bounce between them. Please take a moment to brush up on arguments above. You'll find it quick (there are more than a few repeats <3).

[thade]

As a "New Player" I admit to reading the Falchion answer as +2 attacks with both rules valid. 

Plus 1 for 2 CCW and Plus 1 for Falchions.

 

My question is "Has any one contacted GW or BL for an answer?"

 

Precedent is clearly +1A: that was a clarification on ambiguity. We've lost that clarification, but we don't get to just "forget it". Nor can we pretend it doesn't exist being "new players" because here are some vets to share with you all that the precedent existed. <3

 

We had precisely these arguments before i.e. "two weapons or one?" and assumed points-to-power value ratios (with, respectfully, no basis in maths or reality)  which were cleared up with an FAQ. That's why we got an FAQ in 6th. True it's gone with 7th but inferring that they meant to make us more powerful is falling down to the Assume More Power problem which I discuss above.

 

Have you reached out to GW for an answer? I haven't; maybe others have and maybe one or more of then will get answers. Maaaybe they'll even match (though, in the past, they haven't). We may see this in an FAQ. Until then, when we're met with ambiguity, talk it out with your opponent(s) and if still in doubt, Assume Less Power, not more.

[Valerian]

Here is the email address to the Errata/FAQ team:  Gamefaqs@gwplc.com

 

I encourage everyone to write in with your questions; particularly ones like this one that get asked all of the time and generate multiple threads covering the same topic.

 

V

 

EDIT: This is what I sent in:

 

"Dear sir or madam,

 

I've another question for you:

 

Nemesis Force Falchions from the Grey Knights codex have a special rule in which they grant an extra Attack in close combat (+1 A); however, when a model wields two close combat weapons (or pistols) they also gain an additional Attack in close combat. Does a model that upgrades to a pair of Nemesis Force Falchions gain a total of 2 additional Attacks (+1 for wielding a pair of close combat weapons, and +1 for the Falchions additional special rule)? Or, do a pair of Nemesis Force Falchions only provide a total of +1 additonal Attacks, in which case the Falchions' special rule doesn't actually do anything (they simply grant the extra Attack that any pair of weapons would grant)?

 

Best regards,"

[Quozzo]

 

As a "New Player" I admit to reading the Falchion answer as +2 attacks with both rules valid. 

Plus 1 for 2 CCW and Plus 1 for Falchions.

 

My question is "Has any one contacted GW or BL for an answer?"

 

Precedent is clearly +1A: that was a clarification on ambiguity. We've lost that clarification, but we don't get to just "forget it". Nor can we pretend it doesn't exist being "new players" because here are some vets to share with you all that the precedent existed. <3

 

We had precisely these arguments before i.e. "two weapons or one?" and assumed points-to-power value ratios (with, respectfully, no basis in maths or reality)  which were cleared up with an FAQ. That's why we got an FAQ in 6th. True it's gone with 7th but inferring that they meant to make us more powerful is falling down to the Assume More Power problem which I discuss above.

 

Have you reached out to GW for an answer? I haven't; maybe others have and maybe one or more of then will get answers. Maaaybe they'll even match (though, in the past, they haven't). We may see this in an FAQ. Until then, when we're met with ambiguity, talk it out with your opponent(s) and if still in doubt, Assume Less Power, not more.

 

The precedent is no more. It got deleted. It doesn't exist. If that's not the precedent that they are no longer explicitly +1A then I don't know what is. It's like you're looking for confirmation that it does exactly what it says. The daemon hammer amendment remains, the servo arm amendment remains, the halberd FAQ remains but the falchions' FAQ... Nope.

[Slipp01]

Except while the cost "justifies" the extra attack, can you in good conscience say 10 points is fair for +2A force weapon? Thade says it best, better to assume less over more

It's is hard to justify anything. I used to pay 16 pts per model with my bt, and they didn't even get grenades! So when I look at a cost of plus 10 pts for an extra attack, I do believe it is justified. If I were to buy a "second" lightning claw for the extra attack, it would only cost 15 pts and it comes with rerolling failed to wounds.

 

Sorry for bringing the lc's back into this, but I feel in this case it is relevant for points cost. Please remember just cause it's built in doesn't mean the FNW cost is not applied. So you need to take the cost for a stat line of marines, add/subtract value for special rules, then add value for wargear. If you change out existing warhead, you should get a credit for that value. Space wolves wolflords only pay 10pts for a power fist, if he trades his power sword.

[Valerian]

One might also point out that it is only 25 points to get +10 extra Attacks in a Grey Knight Terminator squad, a la the Brotherhood Banner, so it isn't so far-fetched now is it? Just playing Devil's Advocate here. I didn't bother to model a single Falchion in my entire army so...

 

V

[hisdudeness]

Quozzo nailed it.  We start down a bad train of thought if we start using FAQs that don't exist any longer.  I still have some old 3-4th ed. FAQs saved...can I use those, because they are precedent also by this line of thinking.

[Grand Master Caloth]

Not exactly, V. It only gains 9 NFW attacks and takes away the bearer's NFW.

 

Like everyone else, I'm going for a FAQ fix soon... cross your fingers, ladies and gents.

[Valerian]

Not exactly, V. It only gains 9 NFW attacks and takes away the bearer's NFW.

 

It does replace the bearer's NFW, but he can still attack, and still gets the extra attack granted by the Banner, so yes, it's +10 extra Attacks for a 25 point investment.

 

EDIT:

So, the comparison is total of 30 NFW Attacks on the charge to a new total of 36 NFW Attacks plus 4 "basic" Attacks when using the Banner.

[SCOTT_FRANCIS]

I have e-mailed GW on the above address. Here is the e-mail, I will copy the reply here if I get one.

 

Good morning, 

 

Following the move to 7th Edition, I, like a lot of other players, am rushing to bolster my Black Templars with some Grey Knights.

Before diving in, I found a few Grey Knight Forums and started reading all I could about the mysterious 666 Chapter. 

Convinced I would prefer Grey Knights over Astra Militarum, I bought the Codex and a 5 man Power Armour squad. So, I am in. I just need a few more Power Armour squads, a couple of Terminator squads, a Dread Knight etc. 

 

My question comes from an ambiguity that now exists because a previous answer to this question has not been included in the 7th Edition F.A.Q. and it concerns Nemesis Falchions. The special rule for the weapon states "The wielder of a pair of Nemesis Falchions has +1 Attack." The rules for the Assault Phase state that a model with two close combat weapons has +1 Attack. 

 

Does a Grey Knight have +1 Attack with Nemesis Falchion, as was previously stated in the 6th Edition F.A.Q, or as it has been removed from the 7th Edition F.A.Q. does the Emperor's finest now get the benefit of both rules and gain +2 Attacks for carrying a pair of Nemesis Falchions?

 

Regards

 

Scott Francis

[SCOTT_FRANCIS]

The answer I received follows.

 

You’ve reached the rules mailbox for Games Workshop - thanks for your email!

 

We’re not able to respond to each email individually, but we read every one and feed all comments back into making Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 even better.

[lt051]

Issue solved lol thanks gw

[Valkyrion]

Chainsabres - a set of chainsabres comprises two weapons granting +1 attack.

Mirrorswords - a set of mirrorswords comprises two weapons granting +1 attack.

Power Blades - as above

Nemesis Falchions - a pair of nemesis falchions grants +1 attack.

 

All of these weapons cost exactly the same (except power blades, but they don't replace a weapon)

 

It's fairly clear cut guys, IMO. +1A and that's your lot. Poorly worded, but the precedence is elsewhere. None of the above grant more than one additional attack.

 

Also, it's the only way for GK in Power or TDA to gain an extra attack due to weapon combinations - I think it's fairly clear that you choose between +1 inv, +2 I, +1A or a thunder hammer.

[jeffersonian000]

We shall see what the new GK codex brings to this issue, probably won't resolve it, but we shall see. As it stands at the moment, though, 7th is looking like it'll be 3 Hammers, 2 Halberds per 5, with no room for Falchions even with a +2 Attack.

 

SJ

[Ozshock]

im with the ruling for +1 attack...rules as stated says that model bearing a pair of nemesis falchions gain +1 attack...nowhere does it say they get +2 attacks...you could argue that the +1 attack is already the bonus for DW said weapon...but as it doesnt say i would put it down to a dice roll if someone is being a douche about it...1,2,3 im right...4,5,6 ur right

[thade]

Reaching out directly to GW has, in the past, not been as fruitful as one would hope, I'm sad to say. We've seen contradicting responses come back from that "help line"...at times it seems from the same GW employee. :\ Less than stellar.

I haven't had a chance to look into my GK Codex yet since this discussion started (I'm getting married in a month which is alarmingly good at eating every waking second leading up to it) but I had thought the whole conflict was that the Codex entry stated "Falchions grant +1A" (emphasis on the 's' making the word falchion plural) but the BRB said matching CCWs grant +1A each. If it's as I remember it, then the 6th Ed FAQ was not a rules change...it was in fact a clarification that previous FAQ. The loss of that FAQ returns us to a confusing place

If I misremember (entirely possible) then you're still going to run aground at times where people are going to be super frustrated with the Assume More Power issue. If nothing else, keep that in mind when working out conflicts like this with people you otherwise enjoy gaming with week after week.

[boreas]

Well, GW employees don't answer rules questions anymore anymore, I think. All my latest questions got a similar answer:

 

Hello,

Many thanks you for your email. Please note that we do not answer any rules queries by email or phone, however, you can email your questions or suggestions for future FAQs & Errata's to the email address below.

gamefaqs@gwplc.com

I hope that this is of help.

Regards

Tracey

 

 

By the way, congrats on the wedding! If you're as nice in real life as you are on this board (and I have have no reason to think otherwise!!!), she's a lucky girl!

 

[thade]

 

By the way, congrats on the wedding! If you're as nice in real life as you are on this board (and I have have no reason to think otherwise!!!), she's a lucky girl!

haha That's very kind of you, boreas. Thank you.

[Gentlemanloser]

Congrats! I hope you both have a great day!

You did let her make all the decisions, right?

Edit: Over a decade ago now, I got htiched in Vegas! No Elvis, I swear! It was far cheaper doing that (and having a honneymoon in SF) than getting married over here...

They also had this novel idea where the wedding was streamed live over the internet! :) It let my Uni mates (who couldn't come) watch the wedding. :)