Nemesis Falchions +2 Attacks?

[SCOTT_FRANCIS]

So the argument at the moment is as follows?

 

The rules in the CURRENT C:GK were countered in the 6TH ED FAQ's (was it GK FAQ or 6th ED FAQ?) and now people are saying that because the counter statement no longer exists, we should still be ignoring the rules in the CURRENT C:GK with a specific 7th EDITION rule set C:GK FAQ?

 

I can understand people not wanting to hack up their beloved Grey Knights on the off chance that it is a mistake to not add the counter statement in the 7th ed FAQ, I do, but as far as I can see, in all FAQ's, GK and 7th ED, there is no argument. Both bonus attacks stand as fact in the ruleset.

 

Having just read an 8 page argument on the difference between RAW and RAI, I still believe the +2 attacks stand, because I believe, in this instance, the RAW (rules as written) are the same as the RAI (rules as intended).

 

RAW, +1 A for Falchions, +1 Attack for 2 CCW

 

RAI, pay a points value to gain a bonus attack via a weapons choice, +1 Attack for 2 CCW

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

I have just read the perfect counter to my argument.

 

The (insert name, expletive, etc here) that wrote our Codex, has been known to make rather terrible mistakes. Therefore it is more than possible that, he wrote the "gain an attack rule" to simply imply that the GK in question was using 2 CCW. This was then countered by GW FAQ to state, yes he got it wrong and the 5 points simply gave the 2 CCW to activate the extra attack, not give an extra bonus attack. RAW v RAI. 

 

In this case RAI would be - pay 5 points to gain 2 CCW. Considering all the confusion, the FAQ was bad, the wording IS still bad and I would still like to read the original counter to the RAW.

[thade]

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.

Let's reword this so you can maybe all see what I saw when Teetengee et all mentioned this.

 

[some CCW upgrades from other codecies which are represented as a pair of weapons instead of one] do not get extra attacks from [their being two CCWs on the model]. They do how ever get to use all their special rules on all their attacks.

Which is precisely true of falcions, right? I.E. they're an upgrade purchased as one, represented on the model as two identical CCWs, and they get "all the special rules", i.e. they're AP3 Force Weapons with DaemonMurderBoom on them.

 

From the perspective of their being "upgrades" they're analagous to "bio weapons" in ever respect. The "bio" thing isn't really a meaningful distinction; it's not a game mechanic in the core rules. It's just flavor.

[thade]

RAW, +1 A for Falchions, +1 Attack for 2 CCW

Right. +1A for falchion***S*** ...not sure I can emphasize that 's' anymore there. +1A for plural falchions; +1A for the pair. That makes sense to me. It's weird that they're maybe an exception to 2CCW rule but let's be real. The rules are RIFE with exceptions.

If we wish to go down the "RAW vs RAI" route, Assume Less Power, not more. <3

[lt051]

As far as I know the original counter to the raw was simply people suspecting that the +1 attack our codex mentions was infact the same one the brb gives for 2 weapons. Maybe I'm wrong on this but it came down to vague wording more than contradictory rules

[hisdudeness]

1) in general, if grammar has to be pulled in to make a a point...the point is a stretch.

 

2) there are no rules countering the multiple CCW rule. When someone finds one let me know so we can end this.

 

3) those exceptions are clearly spelt out with rules...refer to point 2.

[SCOTT_FRANCIS]

Wow, I see that until the big corporation gets involved, this issue is not going away.

 

Live and live, I will argue to play for 2 attacks, others will not fit Falchions on their GK.

 

Well done GW for creating a issue that will keep your gamers talking until you bring out the new codex at £40 GBP, more money in the bank for GW. Clever, very clever.

[Gentlemanloser]

Back in the day, I created a thread on issues with the GK Codex, before it was even officially released.

 

We discussed this (and many others!) in depth back then.

 

Most of them were never addressed. ;)

[Quozzo]

I don't have my BA codex on me, but do the rules for two blood talons specifically state they get +1A, otherwise I've been playing them wrong too.

[SCOTT_FRANCIS]

Blood Talons follow the rules for Lightning Claws, so for a pair, you get the extra attack, then you get all the extra rules as well.

It was the Blood Fist and Force weapon combo that was different, the rules state you get the extra attack, but must choose which weapon you are using for each round of combat.

I used to field a few Death Company Dreadnoughts with Blood Talons, they could chew up infantry units with ease.

[thade]

To be clear, Blood Talons and Power Claws don't specify +1A or +2A. You just get two weapons. (Correct me if I'm mistaken?)

 

In the case of the falchions, the +1A is stated. (As if it's an exception. You know, like they thought it needed to be made clear since they were different than the normal cases. Weird, right?)

 

I'm not saying you all don't have a good case for +2A. I am saying that it's an imperfect case with room for reasonable doubt (hence the division here) and that the only way to resolve that is with compromise. Compromise with your opponent(s), your gaming group, or in the way of a ratified FAQ/Errata for your tournament or events.

 

The real issue I (continue to) see here is that there's a "Assume More Power" approach; i.e. each time somebody says "I have a reasonable case that I have moar powah, thus I will argue for it for my games" what I see you saying is "I think my interpretation of the widgy and poorly worded ruleset is correct and it just so happens that I benefit from that interpretation!" or, put another way, "I'm more invested in my winning than both players having a good time."

 

I've already made the case on the boards that "balancing 40k is likely reducible to the class of NP-Hard problems" and thus any anger with GW for the imbalance of the wordset inherent in its ruling is 1. silly and 2. unfair. That's why we have the Golden Rule and the Spirit of the Game Rule. Use them. :) Compromise.

 

If you're going to compromise, I recommend you open up with an "Assume Less Power for yourself" position and, if it turns out to seem underpowered, motion to try it out with More Power. That's my advice, in a nutshell.
 

The game will be super fun whether the falchions (which people keep saying nobody will take regardless, haha) are +1A or +2A; so, for the sake of your opponent, try out the weaker form first. If for nothing else, it's easier to make a case for more power if your falchion-equipped units keep losing fights everybody expects they'd win.

[treadhead]

My most recent opponent let me use the falchions as +2 A in a few friendlies

even on strikes they were nasty (his words lol)

[hisdudeness]

The "assume less" is no more valid then "assume more". Everything you said in your post can just as easily be used to counter to your view, it is not exclusive to the only +1A view. And frankly, the "less" crowd is crying OP when it's not. You are not gaining anything that normal assault and vanguard squads don't gain. Yes...they are force weapons...so what, ID affects so few things it's not even worth mentioning. Yes, they are power weapons...so what, vanguard can carry them also and do gain the extra attacks.

 

As written there is no vagueness. If you take in account intent then I can see there being a question. Too bad we don't play by intent.

[Gentlemanloser]

Thade, would you apply the same argument to a Chaos player who laid down his Helldrakes and tried to shoot 360 degrees with them?

 

Should he, now the FAQ has disappeared, automatically go for less power, and lose the all round arc the Baleflamer had for the majority of 6th?

 

Edit: Or for another GK example, the now none Character status of Justicars.

 

Should we all be playing as our Justicars not being Characters, because that's the lesser power option?

 

 

 

which people keep saying nobody will take regardless, haha

 

I'd take them, or even consider taking them if they gave +2A.

 

At +1A, I wouldn't even consider it.  It's a no.  Always.

 

That's how bad the item/rule is.

[Teetengee]

We don't need to, the baleflamer was explicitly faqed to now shoot only 45 degrees front...

 

Also yes, assume less power as it is up to you to take the unit. If I lose due to assuming less power (even if later faq turns to more power) then I still have myself to blame because that was the assumption when I took the unit. If someone loses to my more power assumption which is later invalidated by the faq, they will be justifiably upset.

[SCOTT_FRANCIS]

I agree with virtually all of the points here, from old and new players alike.

But IMHO, paying 5 points and losing an extra point on my inv save, is a fair price to pay for the extra attack.

And I can not see the reasonable doubt. But then I have not read the 6th Edition GK FAQ.

Yes it would be nice if C:GK actually stated " A model with a pair of Falchions gains +1 Attack, as well as gaining the extra attack in the Assault Phase as the model now has 2 one handed close combat weapons." but it does not.

Was it Mr Ward that wrote our Codex? Ask him what he was after, A D-B is here somewhere, ask him if he knows the guy.

Fight for your right to be awsome. Your units are expensive, they need to be awsome.

[thade]

The "assume less" is no more valid then "assume more". ... If you take in account intent then I can see there being a question. Too bad we don't play by intent.

Mechanically speaking, of course you're correct; but validity isn't the question I'm addressing in my post there. I'm addressing good sport, which is 100% about intent of the player(s)...in this case, the clear intent to ensure both players have a good time, which is something both players have a vested interest in.

(If you're using "intent" as if I'm trying to "read the minds of the GW rules-writers and what they intend" you are mistaken; re-read my post. <3 )

Thade, would you apply the same argument to a Chaos player who laid down his Helldrakes and tried to shoot 360 degrees with them?

Let me be clear.

Our goal in playing 40k is for both players to have a good time: a game they both feel that it was totally worth dragging in their 20 lbs worth of plastic and foam for.

Sometimes ambiguity in the ruleset threatens this goal: the answer to this is compromise. The approach to compromise is always easiest if the player that stands to benefit from a rules interpretation assumes the null-hypothesis, using an interpretation that they do NOT benefit from; i.e. Assume Less Power for yourself when you wish to amend ambiguity in the rules.

I would apply this argument to everything in the game which is ambiguous.

Fight for your right to be awsome. Your units are expensive, they need to be awsome.

Respectfully, this is precisely the thing I am cautioning against. Our units aren't made awesome by perceived power-to-point ratios. Our units are intrinsically awesome, because the game is intrinsically fun.

You might notice that there are many players (even power gamers) who are put-off when their opponent argues for More Power in the face of ambiguous rules. Assume Less Power, then - when it's obviously not strong enough - you have live playtest data to support testing More Power.

[hisdudeness]

I see two issues. The first is that the idea that +2A is vague is categorically false. And the second is implying that "assume less" makes for a much more rewarding game for both players is just silly.

 

There is not rule brought forward that states a weapon bought as a pair is exempt from the multiple CCW rule...stop acting like there is. there is a list of what exempts two CCW from giving the added attack...bought as a pair is not listed. we might as well just say that a weapons bought as a pair also doesn't gain the extra attack on the charge...it's just a valid an interpretation as being bought as a pair not gaining the +1 for two CCW...because neither is supported by a rule. Why would you stop at just one made up rule? it is pretty simple...two CCW +1, special ability of weapons used +1...1+1 still equals 2.

 

If we are going for a good time and assuming less there are a few other things I would like to nerf just for funnsies. I believe everyone playing would have a much better time if we made riptides 0-1. Or limited warp dice to 12. Making arbitrary rule changes for the entire community for "fun" is absurd. You have no more of a valid view as to what is fun as I do.

[Teetengee]

.... So Nemesis Force Falchions are selected as one option possibly one ccw modeled as two, or possibly the +1 attack given in the codex is the same as the +1 attack given for two ccw (as they wanted to let people know that even though it was one weapon upgrade it counted as two weapons), so we are back to square one. Since clearly there is in fact a disagreement on the rules interpretation (unlike with warp charges or riptides which are clearly not limited as you suggested) some decision on interpretation must be reached by the players rather than read from the rules. The only rule based way to do it  would be to roll off in any game where the players disagree. Games played against players who are looking for every small advantage are often not as fun as games played where players all willing to agree to a lower powered interpretation for the sake of fairness.

 

Additionally, if you do want to go with a high powered interpretation, make sure you clear it with your opponent beforehand so they know what to expect. No enemy will ever be upset that you surprised them with less dice than they expected but many will understandably be upset if they get hit with more. There is no need to clear the minimal use interpretation as all interpretations agree that it is allowed (or worse than what is allowed) and therefore will not unduly give favor to the player using the model.

[hisdudeness]

The "fact of disagreement" means nothing. I disagreed Turkeys had 360 firing...doesn't do much when rules/FAQ say otherwise. That "assume less" is basis of the counter claim is silly. Do two lightning claws bought as a pair (quite a few units can do this the the same wording) mean they don't get the +1 for two CCW? I sure don't hear anyone asserting this notion, nor do I know of anyone playing them this way. So why are people asserting that another set of weapons bought the exact same way are treated different? And don't say, "because you can't buy the seperate" like it means something...until someone shows us that that is a valid qualifier to deny the bonus attack for two CCW.

 

As far as the comments on "assume more/less", letting someone play a a rule incorrectly (because that is what you are doing by assuming less in this situation) and it benefiting you is not very good sportsmanship. Especially in a friendly game.

[boreas]

The first is that the idea that +2A is vague is categorically false

 

Well, this whole thread, plus the previous ones, plus the ones when the codex came out, plus the ruling GW gave on the previous ruleset, plus yaddi yadda tell me your statement is categorically false.

 

You know what, I'm tired of this dead horse being flogged.

 

Personally, I'll keep waiting for the FAQ to be updated and play it like Thade.

 

 

edit: removed some comments

[Teetengee]

Before Faqs on the heldrake I would have played it can target what it can see (i.e. not 360). I will continue to suggest that we wait for a GW faq on this issue. Also you cannot discount the fact of disagreement for the same reason that I could discount the 360 firing under the old faq. Until GW gives a ruling that both players see as being interpreted in only a single way some other method of solution must be found. I argue for assume less power for the reasons already provided. Also many weapon examples have been given that are bought as a pair and have a line saying +1 attack that do not stack with the ccw rule (as they are just restating it).

[hisdudeness]

And every single one of the those previous threads argued the same thing...intent. Not once did an actual rule be brought up that supported only a +1. The fact that you attack me personally shows that you have none either. It is perfectly fine for you to play it any way you want...but on rules forums like this we can't use intent or how I would play it. especially when the rules have always been clear. And Boreas...there is a FAQ...it's not in there anymore, I won't hold your breathe for a new one anytime soon.

[thade]

*snip* implying that "assume less" makes for a much more rewarding game for both players is just silly. You have no more of a valid view as to what is fun as I do.

There's really no reason to become hostile here, so let's take it down a notch.

 

"Assume Less" does tend to make for a more friendly atmosphere than "Assume More". If a player is confronted with an ambiguous rule with a binary interpretation, where one interpretation serves to benefit that player clearly more than the other, a player making a strong case that benefits that player is likely to not be received well. Why not?

 

Think about it: how often do you see a player pushing for a rules-interpretation that benefits them and what's the pushback against that approach like? How often do you see a player pushing for the reverse? I.E. pushing a rules-interpretation that actually serves as a detriment to their own chances to win? How does that go over? How do other players respond to that?

 

This really is an interpersonal relations thing: if you're arguing over something that - let's be honest - can be nitpicky and arbitrary in the other player's eyes, and your overt goal is to benefit from your "compromise"...that's not a compromise from the other player's perspective. There's a reason that the term "rules lawyering" has a negative connotation to it; rules lawyering is seldom done to seek balance; it's usually done to secure More Power for the player that's doing the lawyering.

 

That is why Assume Less can engender a better atmosphere; arguing only to gain a benefit can too easily turn toxic. Assuming Less can instead set the stage where you give yourself (not your opponent) the appearance of ankle weights. Then if you win, nobody can blame your rules lawyering for your victory.

 

If inspite of my views here one or more of you really want to still push for +2A, may I recommend a more diplomatic approach than "That's RAW so shut up." Here are some things to try:

• Try to build a clear model and metric for points-to-power ratios so you can show how a unit spending points on an upgrade always suffers needlessly when taking falchions versus any other upgrades. (If you manage to do this, contact me immediately, as it means we can finally publish a paper on "WH40k is not NP-Complete.")
• Allow your opponent to Assume More with one of their own ambiguous rule issues, or at least express a willingness to; really compromise.
• Try to accept that the rules for 40k are flat out bonk and arguing over a bare handful more dice (for what amounts to maybe three turns in a game for a unit that's better at shooting anyway) is actually rather silly.

[Teetengee]

RAW: description of falchions as a set of cc weapons...otherstuff... they grant +1 attack.

 

(Just like every other set of cc weapons.)

 

The codex rule special rule supplants the brb/mimics the brb.

 

(for the record it is also possible that the rule sums with the brb, but in all such summative cases on other weapons it is specifically mentioned. Here it is not. So rules up in air without an faq).

[hisdudeness]

Teetengee, the problem is that those weapons you are referring to either have an explicit statement that they are exempt from the rule or there is another rule that exempts them. That is not the case here. So by assuming less you are willfully nerfing a weapon.

 

I do not believe anyone have said/implied "it's RAW so shut up.". I know I have repeatedly asked for some sort of rule support for the counter and only receive statements of possible intent, that's the way it was last edition, it's to OP to give these units this bounus...even though there are a other units in other codexes that can do almost the same tung and still receive the bonus, or some other invalid counter.