Nemesis Falchions +2 Attacks?

[hisdudeness]

Yea, I'm confused as to why people still email them thinking this is a valid rule answer. I'm all for emailing...it will help somethings to get a FAQ answer, but in a rules discussion the email means nothing and I end up just ignoring anyone that bases their point on it.

 

As far as the question asked, as worded it is +2A. Two weapons= +1A, special ability of weapon= +1A. So 1+1=2.

 

The only counter argument I've seen that come close to swaying me is the point that the special ability is a replacement effect.

[lt051]

Another point would be since they can't be taken individually, if they don't count as a single weapon selection. I think this is one of those arguments that really just needs to wait to be addressed by a FAQ or new dex, too many different valid view points

[hisdudeness]

I've never seen that as a valid point. I've never seen an explanation as to why the way something is bought chances what rules are applied. Plainly stating something is a pair kinda points directly to the multiple CC weapon rule kicking in. Other wise there is no benefit to taking a expensive option.

[Teetengee]

In other codices there are many weapons which are bought as pairs which do not count as two cc weapons. They are also bought only in pairs, which I believe is the point.

[lt051]

It tends to be organic based options. Old tyranid scything talons were bought in pairs and only conferred +1, even though that was what their special rule said they gave. To be fair, I can't think of a single power armor example, but that was true about monstrous creature issues until the NDK. Like i said, looking at past examples in other books, it's kinda a mixed bad of rulings, so who knows. Raw I'm leaning towards +2, but I can't imagine that was Rai

[hisdudeness]

But that is my point...is there a rule some place that states weapons bought in pairs do not allow for the multiple CCW rule? I believe all the bio weapons stated specifically that they DO NOT gain the +1.

[SCOTT_FRANCIS]

Tyranid bio weapons do not get extra attacks from extra bio weapons. They do how ever get to use all their special rules on all their attacks.

 

I can also find no reference at all to a pair of Falchions not getting the extra attack.

 

The Falchion rule states, "The wielder of a pair of Nemesis Falchions has +1 attack." It does not mention when or where. Which, in my mind, adds it to the base stat. e.g. A paladin with 2 attacks, pays 5 points for a pair of Falchions and gets +1 attack, taking him to 3.

 

The rule book states a model gets +1 attack for charging and +1 attack in the assault phase if it has 2 x close combat weapons. A pair of Falchions is 2 close combat weapons.

 

I can't see an issue, the logic is sound. The only issue is when people refer to an ammendment in an old FAQ for an old rule book.

 

We now have a new rulebook and a new FAQ and if rumours are true, we will also get a new Codex in the not too dim and distant future. 

 

I did not read the old FAQ, has any one got the actual wording of the problem from the old FAQ?

[Rurik the blessed]

You've forgott that Nemesis Falchions are specialist weapons...

so.. read the specialist weapon rules, it says it gets +1A only if both weapons are the same type... in this case, both falchions are the same type...

this is the point of discussion

[lt051]

Well ya but the argument would be the same if neither were specialist weapons, not sure that's really the issue

[Rurik the blessed]

Well ya but the argument would be the same if neither were specialist weapons, not sure that's really the issue

 

I think this is the difference from all other weaponse mentioned before.

[SCOTT_FRANCIS]

Having just re read the 6th Ed rule book, I can't see why there was an issue in the first place!!!!!!

 

Page 24 stated +1 A charge bonus (unless dis ordered), +1 A for two single handed weapons (no extra attacks even if you have 4 arms and 4 weapons) and Other bonuses - models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra attacks.

 

I think the Grey Knights got stuffed by a GK hating heretic when the old GK FAQ came out.

 

The rules are sound, you got shafted.

[Valerian]

 

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.

 

 

Yeah, so, to be clear the GW folks don't answer rules issues directly anymore (they finally learned their lesson there), but all submissions are sent to the Rules Team.  For those questions and issues that are worthwhile, they'll eventually, at their own pace, put out an updated Errata/FAQ document that might resolve the issue or answer the question.  That's why we need to keep pushing this to the email address I provided earlier - we want this issue to get addresses and closed for good with an official response either way.

 

 

 

[lt051]

It was kinda assumed +2 until the FAQ dropped initially, the only debate was if the listed bonus was due to having two weapons or a separate bonus that stacked with multiple weapon bonus. So it's pretty much come full circle

[hisdudeness]

That has always been the issue with this debate. The rules have always been sound for +2A. The counters were always some sort of stretch of a precedent or vaguely comparable rule.

 

The FAQ answer was never a clarification, but a direct counter to the rules (which isn't the first time GW has done that).

[SCOTT_FRANCIS]

Heretics, I tell you, witches, get the Inquisition involved, their most powerful weapon has been shackled by an Emperor hating heretic at GW for years.

I will be magnetising my Terminators, possibly my PAGK. I will be arguing for all the extra attacks I can get. The logic is sound.

Unless there is something I have missed in 7th Ed about combat bonuses.

[boreas]

lt051: those weapons were reference earlier in this thread:

 

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

 

And are not bio weapons. So there are precedents for pair of "hand held" weapons giving only +1

[hisdudeness]

And yet there is nothing staying they do not gain the bonus attack for two CCW...

[Rurik the blessed]

lt051: those weapons were reference earlier in this thread:

 

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

 

And are not bio weapons. So there are precedents for pair of "hand held" weapons giving only +1

 

Has those weapons the specialist type?

[lt051]

Specialist doesn't make a difference. That would only matter if it were a power fist paired with a chainsword. That was simply added so that you can't grab an extra attack on a powerful weapon by adding a much weaker weapons. Extra attack for normal and specialist weapons work in the exact same way, no one is disputing that concept

[boreas]

And yet there is nothing staying they do not gain the bonus attack for two CCW...

 

Any of them FAQed? Can't access FAQs from work

[hisdudeness]

That's the issue. 6th FAQ set it at only +1A. That specific question was left out of the 7th FAQ.

[boreas]

I know it was for the Falchions. But how about those other weapons. Did they have 6th ed FAQs? Do they have 7th ed FAQs?

[SCOTT_FRANCIS]

And yet there is nothing staying they do not gain the bonus attack for two CCW...

Is it not 2 single handed weapons? Because some weapons are two handed. If you have a 2 handed weapon and a pistol, you don't gain the extra attack. I know its not really relevant here but its a point of fact and that is what the argument is about. Fact.

 

It is point of fact that according to C:GK there is a bonus Attack for using a pair of Nemesis Falchions.

It is point of fact that according to the Rulebook there is a bonus Attack for using 2 single handed weapons.

 

Arguments and personal thought aside, there is, at this moment in time, nothing to counter these facts.

[hisdudeness]

There has never been a clear counter to those two points. The same counters presented here were presented a few years ago. It has always been a stretch of a 'precedent' that people hung on to.

[lt051]

At this point the only real issue is if this was a careless FAQ, of gw actually trying to subtly adjust the ruling on these. Unfortunately, we won't know till a future faq, if ever. I think for the point costs, +2 makes way more sense, but like has been previously stated, arguing for more power after it was previously +1, with no clear statement of change, can come off like hard rule lawyering. Besides, if I'm not mistaken our justicars aren't characters anymore per raw, so it's not like the released faqs are fool-proof