Nemesis Falchions +2 Attacks?

[boreas]

. especially when the rules have always been clear.

 

On this, you're right. For most of the 6th ed, it has been clear, very clear, very very clear, that it was +1 attack.... ON the other hand, there's never, ever been any confirmation of the +2.... Hummmmm. Combine with all the or upgrades bought in pair giving +1 attack? Well, yep, getting clearer and clearer!

[SCOTT_FRANCIS]

Thade, I agree 100% about the game being more fun when every one agree's on a set of rules, having not built, let alone played GK, I am here to learn and play catch up.

I have found this debate really useful and can agree with both sides. Although not seeing the old FAQ, I am leaning towards what I see now. But then I have no experience in GK.

Plus, as I mentioned earlier, Matt Ward? is known to make a few howlers. This is obviously an issue that needs sorting, if only to allow the GK to be united in their purpose and stop anyone denying an attack that may have been ours from the start. It may also have been a mistaken omission from the new FAQ. I don't have the answers. Sorry.

I will put a pair of Falchions on one or two of my Terminators and give my opponent the option, use them as Falchions with the extra Attack, use them as a sword and get a 4+ inv sv or use them as a Halberd and get +2 Initiative.

I will explain the options and let them decide. After all, Alls fair in love and war.

[hisdudeness]

So Boreas, you don't play by the stated rules?

 

1) weapon is bought as a pair...thus two CCW weapons.

 

2) weapon has the special ability of +1A.

 

3) two CCW give a bonus of +1 CCW attack.

 

You will now need to refute the above rules with actual rules to be correct. Do so now.

[boreas]

Well, since GW refuted their own rules for most (all?) of 6th ed. yeah, I feel okay with the concept...

[hisdudeness]

Funny...it's their ruleset they can refute it all they want. We on the other hand have to support our assertions on this forum. I've stated the simple rules at support +2A...show me yours.

[jeffersonian000]

I have been arguing for 2 years that Hammerhand, as presented in our codex, did not stack. While debate was fairly civil on BnC, it was a volatile subject on Dakka-Dakka that covered 7 threads that each ended locked by page 16 due to the belligerent comments of the posters. One side firmly believed Hammerhand was cumulative was each casting, despite the only ruling that allowed any powers to stack was a 5th Ed FAQ. The other side of the argument firmly believed that the rules did not support any powers being cumulative without specific permission. 100+ pages of flame, 7 threads of verbal war, 2 sides righteous in their interpretation of the Rules as Written. Look it up, I'm a major poster on those threads.

 

I mention this because what we have here is the same issue: RAW supports +2 Attacks, old FAQ set a precedence for +1 Attack. Both sides are righteous.

 

No one is arguing that Hammerhand stacks since 7th, because it was re-written and now conforms to RAW. Nemesis Falchions might just see a re-writing in our upcoming 7th Ed codex. How do we play it while we wait?

 

I suggest we play it by RAW, +1 Attack for bring 2 CCWs, +1 Attack for the special rule listed on pg. 54. My reasoning? Because that is what the rules say, that is what a new player will read, and that is what is currently supported by the 7th Ed FAQ. The +1 Attack Only stance relies on a precedence set in a prior edition that is currently not found in the new edition, new players do not have access to the older ruling from the previous edition, and until we see a new FAQ or a 7th Ed Codex, this subject isn't worth the ire of fighting for 1 less Attack on a rarely used option. Let's all step back, wait for the update, and let the knives strike twice until informed otherwise.

 

SJ

[boreas]

You seem to be missing the point. I don't actually care about the number of attacks. My point is all over this thread: the rule is not clear. Now, to you, it seems clear. Fine, have fun. But the facts that:

 

1) there are other pairs of CC weapons that give only +1 attack

2) GW has stated that falchions are only +1 attack in the past.

 

make the issue unclear. And because it's unclear, I'll keep playing like GW has recommended I do for the last few years because that past FAQ did't magically disappear from my knowledge AND GW has an history of awful/late FAQing.

[hisdudeness]

Boreas, what you seem to be missing is that as stated before, 1) those weapons you are referring to have either a specific exception stated countering the bonus attack or a general rule that exempts them from the bonus attack.  Go ahead and look them up.  And 2) we CANNOT us invalidated sources as a precedent. This opens the door to some hefty shenanigans.  As I said before, I have some old FAQs and codexes that would make great precedent for many a rules debate.

 

I listed the three rules that apply and see no conflict or rules countering them.  I have also not seen anyone list a counter to any of them.  Do I have to screen cap or type word for word the rules in question?  As Jeffersonian000 stated, a brand new shiny player walking in to a GW store today and picking up the C:GK will not have this prior knowledge as for all intents and purposes it no longer exists. If he follows the rules as they are written correctly, he will give those units +2A. 

 

As far as your last comment...I believe GW will cap the warp dice pool to 12 in some future awful/late FAQ...so that's how we should all play it.

[Teetengee]

all similar sets of weapons that do stack with the ccw rule also have a typed exception

afaik the falchions are the only weapons that do not specify in either direction, that alone means that raw itself is unclear.

[jeffersonian000]

You seem to be missing the point. I don't actually care about the number of attacks. My point is all over this thread: the rule is not clear. Now, to you, it seems clear. Fine, have fun. But the facts that:

 

1) there are other pairs of CC weapons that give only +1 attack

2) GW has stated that falchions are only +1 attack in the past.

 

make the issue unclear. And because it's unclear, I'll keep playing like GW has recommended I do for the last few years because that past FAQ did't magically disappear from my knowledge AND GW has an history of awful/late FAQing.

Read pg. 54 of the GK Codex. Note that all Nemesis Force weapons are Special Force weapons, have Daemonbane, and have their own unique rules. Note that Nemesis Swords increase an existing Invul save by 1. Note that Nemesis Halberds grant a +2 bonus to Initiative. Note that Nemesis Daemonhammers are Thunderhammers. Note the Nemesis Doom Fists are Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons. Note that Nemesis Great Swords allow the model to re-roll Hits, Wounds, and armor pen. Note that Nemesis Falchions grant +1 Attack.

 

Prove to me that the special rule granted by a pair of Nemesis Falchions is either not a special rule like all other Nemesis Force weapon have, or that the special rule is not cumulative with being 2 CCWs per the 7th edition rules set.

 

Here is a hint at the designer's intent, as written on pg. 54:

"By triggering the monofilament circuitry within his Nemesis Falchions, a Grey Knight can wield these blades with increased speed, striking several blows in the time it would normally take for one to fall."

 

Intent seems pretty clear to me.

 

SJ

[boreas]

Jeff: All you're writing makes perfect sense. It would also make perfect sense if this were still 6th ed. Yet, GW specifically denied it in 6th ed. Fluff is also just fluff. Lots of fluff blurbs here and there would make/break rules. Fluff should be ignored when trying to find how rules should be interpreted...

 

I could tell you this: falchions are not 2 CCW. They are a single weapon to be wielded as a pair. Like all those other paired weapons mentionned elsewhere.

 

As for the Warp pool capping, dude, show me a precedent or any other intent in 40k? Nowhere is that unclear, debated or even hinted at...

[SCOTT_FRANCIS]

Gentlemen, I believe in a persons right to believe and portray their own choice in a rule that WAS not fully explained at the time, that WAS decided by GW and changed, in an OLD FAQ, so I have to offer this answer....

Model what you wish, discuss it with your opponent, have a fun game, win or lose, I never saw winning as a must have, when I started playing, 20 years ago and I still don't today.

I see, in this thread alone, an amazing amount of passion for a game system that brings together people from all back grounds and financial ability, in an environment that allows for a huge amount of fun. The fact that there are points and idea's that make us discuss the errors or abilities within the game system, may or may not be the greatest thing GW have given us. The ability to build a community of players that want to interact with each other, no matter where, how old, when or how and still have a good game.

The answer, as always, is....... if you don't want to play against the rule freak, the deathstar, the money, you can say no. And play some one else.

That's why, after 20+ years, I still came back to 40K, with all its problems and costs and errors and slights and crazy Fluff killing, money driven, corporate, business, profit making rubbish, to enjoy a few hours with like minded people, playing a game. That's right guys, it's a game, an enjoyable, fun, tactical, game.

Its chess with more rules.

AND I LOVE IT.

[thade]

Here's my favorite bit of RAW:

 

 

 

"Your responsibility isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in the spirit that the rules have been written."

 

So, if nothing else, if it turns out I am wrong and it's +2A, or if you really just want +2A even if it turns out to be +1A...just go with whatever minimizes the sadness points around your gaming table. <3

 

@jeffersonian: Are attacks cumulative in that way? Or do you only take the highest of them? (You might be right, i.e. +N Attacks would accumulate with others; they would in the past, as I recall.)

[hisdudeness]

Jeff: All you're writing makes perfect sense. It would also make perfect sense if this were still 6th ed. Yet, GW specifically denied it in 6th ed. Fluff is also just fluff. Lots of fluff blurbs here and there would make/break rules. Fluff should be ignored when trying to find how rules should be interpreted...

 

I could tell you this: falchions are not 2 CCW. They are a single weapon to be wielded as a pair. Like all those other paired weapons mentionned elsewhere.

 

 

First, that was 6th...many things changed in 7th, to include the FAQ.  Do I get to use other old FAQs?

 

Second, I guess a pair of Lightning Claws/Blood Claws/etc do not gain the bonus for two CCW...

[boreas]

Well, first, those are different because you can buy a single claw. Not so with falchions. But hey, they're also the same! When you buy a pair of lightning claws for a MEq, he gains one attack only! Probably what happens when you buy a pair of falchions, a bit like was confirmed in the 6th ed FAQ!

[hisdudeness]

So where is the rule that states how you buy a piece of wargear changes what rules are applied to it? Specifically, where is the rule stating that a CCW bought singally gains the bonus but ones bought as a pair doesn't?

 

The 6th FAQ means nothing...stop bringing it up.

[jeffersonian000]

Jeff: All you're writing makes perfect sense. It would also make perfect sense if this were still 6th ed. Yet, GW specifically denied it in 6th ed. Fluff is also just fluff. Lots of fluff blurbs here and there would make/break rules. Fluff should be ignored when trying to find how rules should be interpreted...

 

I could tell you this: falchions are not 2 CCW. They are a single weapon to be wielded as a pair. Like all those other paired weapons mentionned elsewhere.

 

As for the Warp pool capping, dude, show me a precedent or any other intent in 40k? Nowhere is that unclear, debated or even hinted at...

Can you please cite the 7th Ed rule that states that weapons bought as a pair do not grant a +1 Attack for being 2 CCWs?

 

Also, I never mentioned Warp Pool caps. Personally, I find the new Psychic phase too limiting to require anything so ridiculous as a cap on Warp Charges. Not sure why you think I posted anything about Warp Pool capping.

 

SJ

[jeffersonian000]

@jeffersonian: Are attacks cumulative in that way? Or do you only take the highest of them? (You might be right, i.e. +N Attacks would accumulate with others; they would in the past, as I recall.)

Please cite a 7th Ed rule that states that bonuses to Attacks are not cumulative.

 

SJ

[Adeptus]

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."

 

To be honest, I think you're projecting a bit there. If the Falchions had no additional rules (just the standard Force, AP3, Daemon Bane etc) then you would still get +1 attack, since they are  a pair of weapons. Just like if you buy two Lightning claws you get an extra attack.

 

Then the rules for the falchions also give them an attack. It's not an interpretation of widgy and poorly worded rules, it's the ONLY POSSIBLE interpretation of those rules. I'm not trying to gain an advantage, it's just the ways the rules are.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Ok guys I think things have run their course here.

RAW Falchions grant +2A

RAI Falchions grant +1A

GW will release an updated FAQ sometime in the future to deal with this issue. Until that time, rule it either way.

Orbital lock achieved. We consign this thread to the Emperor's Judgement.